There’s a new category on the side bar!!!
That’s right!!! I’m taking a short, very short, few days off to collect books and resources, and celebrate Thanksgiving, then it’s back to studying. 🙂
I have Macroeconomics on the calendar for December 14th. Join me as we study for this test!
I took and passed Natural Science today! I passed with a 50… just squeezing in and managing to keep my “no fail” record. I know they failing test is out there, somewhere!
This exam contained a lot more information on cells than I was prepared for, and a ton on evolution. I was not prepared for the evolution section at all. Most of the terminology and history was unfamiliar to a Creationist student.
How sad that a CollegeLevel test is not testing a science, but a religoun. Do you know what would happen if Christians tried to force Biblical questions into a standardized test?
Natural Science is still going well. I’m flying through biology and getting stuck on chemistry. Am I the only one? Why is chemistry SO hard? Took a practice test and scored a 58, but it was from a “less than trustworthy” source… so I don’t know how reliable that is. Gearing up for November 16th!
We’re celebrating my sisters’ birthdays this weekend.
As we face the election here’s an article from StraighterLine about the presidential candidates and their logic. Enjoy!
Once upon a time, college students studied topics like logic and elocution. Armed with what they learned, they joined their college debating teams and went out to do battle against teams from other schools.
Sounds kind of quaint, right? But the purpose of it all was to teach students to argue compellingly and attack flaws and intentional deceptions in their opponents’ arguments.
How well did the two presidential candidates do in this area in the recent debates? Were they using arguments that were flawed or intentionally deceptive? To find out, let’s consider these classical forms of deceptive or flawed arguing . . .
Allusion to authority. To use this tactic, debaters try to win support by referring to vague “authorities” or “experts” who agree with their arguments. In the recent debates, both candidates were guilty of it. Both referred to “experts” and “studies” that support their opinions, without naming those authorities. (Those studies and authorities probably exist, but the candidates did not name them.) So both candidates were a bit guilty of this deception.
Ad hominem attacks. “Ad hominem” means “to the man.” It means launching a personal attack on an opponent’s honesty, character, intelligence or some other critical trait. (Of course, women can use this debating tactic too.) Neither candidate went overboard with this tactic in the recent debates. Apparently, they are both reserving it for all the attack ads they are running on television.
Quibbling. This happens when debaters argue about a term without ever defining it precisely. Both candidates talked about “a stronger economy.” To their credit, they both tried to define that term. For Senator Romney, it would be “12 million new jobs.” For president Obama, it would be “building the economy from the middle class out” and continuing to build on the improving employment numbers that have been reported during his term. So in their own ways, both candidates were trying to define their terms – some of the time, anyhow – and to avoid illogical quibbling.
Somewhere on the road to the English degree, I stopped a gas station. While waiting for a refill I began reading the tourist handouts. My destination sounded good. But it no longer sounded as great as it had when I set out. The road to English was speckled with potholes and construction zones. When you are excited about your destination very little will deter you from getting there. Roadblocks will almost energize you. How to overcome them excites and inspires you. Not with English.
I entered the gas station to retrieve a bottled water and picked up some tourist info on some alternate stops. I wanted something that involved no backtracking. All the effort I had already spent to get here needed to be worth it. I wasn’t turning around and driving back. Even for only a mile. I was going forward. Not looking back. Finally one caught my eye. Organizational Leadership. As I read the local attractions and sightseeing opportunities I was inspired. It involved straight driving from here on out. I am now driving down the road happy as a clam. There are some roadblocks, but they are energizing.
When you are excited about your destination very little will deter you from getting there.
Roadblocks will almost energize you.
Most of you are probably reading that and thinking, “Why is she not getting an English degree? Anyone who wants to turn a degree change into a story needs to be writing”! But that’s just it. The more I looked at English and what I would be studying and what I would be reading, the less excited I was about it. A degree in English was not what I wanted to do.
I was typing an email the other day and looked at my signature. My signature is a rotation of early American quotations that my sister keeps me stocked with. This particular one was from John Adams and read, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” And I realized, that is what I love.
I am a leader. And being a leader is what I love doing. It inspires me and energizes me. Maybe it’s being the oldest in a large family. Maybe my leadership skills are well honed. Whatever it is, I want to be a leader. Leadership courses, books, and webinars are some of my favorite things. And I’m excited about where I’m going!