Multiple Choice Bogus

Ok, so I don’t know about other people in my class, but I find the AP multiple choice tests to be the single hardest assignments in our class. At the beginning of the year, I was not getting good scores on the AP multiple choice questions, or the AP essay prompts. As the year has continued, I’ve gotten better at the essays, not the multiple choice tests.

For the essays, I’ve gone from getting constant fives and sixes, to getting constant sevens and eights. I’m proud of my improvements. I feel like essay writing is something that people can improve in, grow and learn in. Vocabulary increases, sentence structure improves, students learn how to make their essays flow. Writing a good essay is a full contact sport, requiring your focus and attention. I know that some people struggle with writing essays, but it’s not impossible to improve in.

As for the multiple choice tests, I don’t even know what’s going on. Personally, I struggle to decipher the correct tone of the passages given on the test, and I miss many of the questions because of it. So my problem is, I’M READING IT WRONG. Before this class, I didn’t even think that could HAPPEN. Reading it wrong… Come on, there are words on a page in sentences and they say stuff. The words have definitions. If the sentence is “The blue dog ran” it means that there is dog that is blue and it ran. You can’t “read it wrong.” If somebody believed that it meant that there was a fat red dog that limped somewhere, that person would be wrong. Wrong or right, black or white, yes or no. No “interpretation” required.

I guess that’s why I prefer math. It’s a solid answer. With these multiple choice tests I can easily get the wrong tone of the passage and think something entirely different. So, when the AP people make the test and decide that such and such a passage should be interpreted in only one way, nine times out of ten, I’m going to interpret the passage wrong.

Another thing that bothers me is when the AP people put distracter questions with the rest of the choices. Ok, not ALL distracter questions are bad. It’s just when they make distractor questions that are TECHNICALLY right, but there’s another choice that’s “BETTER.” If you’re going to make a multiple choice question, DON’T PUT TWO CORRECT ANSWERS. I swear there’s somebody who makes these questions who thinks to themselves while writing them, “Boy, this one will throw those kids for a loop! Muahahahahaa!!” Lightning cracks behind them, and it’s a sunny day.

Like I said, I can do the essays, but it’s those essays that throw my grade under. I write the essays thinking, “Man, I hope I score high enough to balance this out with my terrible multiple choice test grade!” My point is, some of the things required on those tests are a little bit stupid. I think they need to rethink their testing method and test us on something less non-objective than interpretation, because it’s killing me inside, and my grade.

Debates

With the recent debates we just had in class this week, I thought for my blog post it would be appropriate to summarize and talk about my favorite parts of each debate.

 

About two weeks ago we started the debate unit in class. After the topics had been chosen I was pretty excited to argue my stance and also watch others argue their sides. Out of the three debates we have already heard in class, I was impressed with how well they went and also how much each side attempted to pick each other apart. I did take a few notes in class during the debates, and with the use of those notes and my memory (which is fading as the morning gets nearer..) I am able to summarize and discuss my opinions below.

 

The first debate that we listened to was over the use of drones. As soon as this topic was chosen I could envision what some of the main arguments on both sides are. Even though this was the first debate, it went very well. The affirmative team stood up and gave a valid speech as to why drone use for killing needs to be stopped. As the debate went on, I felt like the Negative team started to get more nervous and make sure to cover all of their bases. There were very intelligent comments made in regards to how drones should be used, and with regards to the morals of our country. I enjoyed the cross examination where Brachston answered a question with another question, which was very appropriate.The winner turned out to be the affirmative team which I personally would agree with. They had a more solid argument and sealed it off nicely when the question about morals was mentioned in the end of their rebuttal speech.

 

The next argument that took place was the argument for a lowered drinking age. I personally have not done very much research on the topic, but coming out of a German house I do know about drinking laws in Europe. I believe that the affirmative team had a significantly easier job winning this argument than the negative team. The negative team had facts that logically would lead many people into believing the drinking age should be lowered. As the argument progressed this became more and more obvious. I started to feel like Colin and Jeremy were trying to bring out specific points and build them up which in turn would help them with the argument. However, the opposing team had more evidence in their favor which lead them to the victory. One thing that I disliked about the cross examinations in this debate is when a side would ask which numbers are false, or which information the team supports when the facts obviously do not contradict themselves. The speakers in this debate also made some very minor mistakes which made me and others laugh. For example, Colin was giving his closing speech and accidentally said 18 instead of 21. In general, this debate was well organized and also well argued.

 

The final debate we heard this week was about changing the school week to four days. As agreed upon in class, this debate was the best in multiple aspects, including formatting and also arguing. One personal issue I had with this topic is how little information is available to either side of the argument; never the less, the groups still did an outstanding job. From what I wrote down and remember, the people in the debate liked to point out logical fallacies very quickly. Also, the affirmative team was very keen to pointing out that the change of a four day week would only affect the Fishers High School, and not the whole HSE district. Overall, this debate was very interesting to hear both sides for.

 

With my debate just around the corner, I am glad my group and I were able to witness three other debates beforehand. This allows us to get an idea for what works and which ways to argue. However, because we are the last debate, we had the most time to prepare and also the most experience from listening to other debates. Therefore, I’m assuming that the class expects this debate to be very strong in multiple aspects.

The Debates

            Even though there have only been three groups to debate so far, I believe that the debates are going quite well, considering this is the first time for some of the students to do a full formal debate (including myself). However, while there were many things that were done well, several things could have been improved upon. Some of the things that were accomplished well were the organizations of the speeches (not necessarily the whole argument), the ability of the students to consider and formulate responses to the other positions cross-examination questions, the use of evidence, and the speaking ability of the students, such as the tone, speed, and word choice. The parts that could be improved were a greater use of appeals in the argument, using fewer fallacies, looking up at the audience more for the students that read from a piece of paper, and, going along with that, connecting with the audience better.

           

            Many of the speeches that we have heard so far have been successful; the student gets the point across in a mostly organized manner, aside from a couple comments that occur when the speaker gets sidetracked or loses their train of thought. But while those speeches were good, they sometimes didn’t connect well with the other speech for their position. The arguments that were the best had speeches that followed the same order and complemented each other. However, I felt like in many of the debates, the same points were brought up over and over again, which just left the audience feeling bored.

           

            Another point to be made with the speeches was the presentation. Several students did a good job speaking, but could have made it better if they looked up at the audience more, which helps the speaker connect with the audience. Connecting with the audience is a huge part of a debate, as the audience typically decides the winner. It also shows more confidence when the speaker looks at their audience.

 

            I was amazed at the cross-examinations. The way that the students formulated these questions on the go and came up with sophisticated answers was very cool. Some of the questions could have been answered a little bit better, but they were still quite good for not having any time to really prepare the answers since they didn’t know what the question was going to be. I thought that the cross-examinations showed the audience the most on how much the speaker and their group truly knew about their topic compared to the constructive speech and the rebuttal speech.

 

            What I thought needed the most work was the use of appeals. Specifically, the pathos. In most groups, there was plenty of cited evidence to give the speaker logos. In some cases, however, that almost detracted away from the debate, as in all the math done and explained in the debate about  the four day school week (it was much harder to have clash when it was all logic, there was no moral debate in it). Going back to how the speeches were presented, most of the speakers created ethos by the tone and level of their voice, as well as their body posture. They spoke with confidence, which made the audience want to believe and support their side. The pathos could have been incorporated more. The only time that I saw a significant amount of pathos was in the morals of the drone debate regarding how one person’s life had more value that someone else’s. If the groups had more pathos, they would have been able to connect on a deeper level with the audience, which would help further their case with them.

           

            Overall, from the debates that have happened so far, I believe they have been a success. I think that the groups put a lot of time and work into it, and they have done a wonderful job with them.

Speaking

Speeches and debates are two of the most applicable things that we learn in APLAC. I like to learn about them and to give them because, the more things that I do in my life and the more experiences that I have, the more that I realize how often I use my speaking skills. I have recently applied for a staff position for one thing that I do and I had to use some of the things that we have learned, like how to spot a logical fallacy and such, to debate some of the other applicants and the material that we have covered in class really helped me accomplish this. It is my opinion that we should spend much more of the year going over speaking skills than we do.
While I do realize that we are in a composition class I am unsure as to exactly how much we will actually use these skills. I think that we would learn so much more of the material if we began with actually using it to speak and then move on to writing. One of the things that leads me to believe in this is that it is natural for people to speak yet writing requires specific instruction. That is why you know how to speak (for the most part) by the time that you are two years old, but it isn’t until a few years later that most children learn to read and write. I think it would be much easier for every unit if we began by talking through it and each of us giving examples of the material in like short speeches, because it is the natural way for things to begin. After we do this it would be so much easier for us to move on to writing using these techniques as our brains have already had the foundation laid and we can expand upon it. I also believe that it is more useful to have speaking skills for almost every single occupation than to not have them. This is true whether you want to be a writer a singer or an engineer or anything in between and that is because if you want the job, then you more than likely have to have an interview to get the job. And if you bomb the interview then you wouldn’t become a writer whether or not you are the best writer in the world.
Even though speaking skills are important writing can be equally important. I honestly realize that not everything revolves around being able to speak well and you have to write well too. Writing can give you time to think about what you say and to formulate your words to perfectly match what you are thinking. It can be equally important especially in the first few years out of high school. I say this because most of us won’t become writers or anything near it but we all will have to write something for scholarships and during college. But that is why I find speaking a beautiful thing. What I mean by that is speaking allows you to develop all of the skills that you would use when you’re writing an essay but at the same time you are not able to take huge amounts of time to think about what you are going to say before you say it. This is very useful for things like final exam essays because you are forced to quickly come up with exactly what you are going to say and the essays are normally given in a small amount of time, therefore in that scenario you do not have time to just sit around and think about what you are going to write without just jumping in and getting it done.
In my personal experience and opinion I have found that for the most part speaking is used to a greater extent than writing is, and that is why I believe that we should do more speaking in every English class including APLAC. I am not sure exactly who would all agree with me on this or if anyone even think that it is relevant but I just wanted to share what my thoughts are on speeches and debates in APLAC.

What are debates really about?

Are debates really about arguing with each other trying to prove ones point and seem smarter then the other team? Are debates really about having a winner and a loser? Are debates really about shutting down the opposing sides arguments and crushing them into dust so they can never be used again? Or are debates about compromise? Are they about the coming together or ides so that a new, unified idea can be created in which everyone “wins”? Is that what they’re really about? I think so. Debates should result in a winner or a loser. Debates are about what was mentioned previously, the coming together of ideas to create newer, stronger ideas that give everyone what they want.

We all know how debates work. Two sides clash over an issue they both have a special interest in. One side is declared a winner. And boom, done. Debate over. But is that really how it should work? Or should it be: Two sides clash over an issue they both have a special interest in. Both sides then come to the conclusion that their must be some sort of compromise. A compromise is made. And boom (to quote Michael Scott from the Office) “this is a win-win-win situation”, everyone wins. Not just the parties involved.

However a few things must be kept in mind when implementing this plan. The first being that debates can get very heated and result in simply the basking of the opponents arguments or a slew of Ad-homenim arguments. To avoid this both sides must be made aware of the ultimate goal of the debate. To create a compromise. And both sides should be encouraged to use strong evidence to support their side, and disprove their opponent. neither side should resort to making up arguments about how the other person’s character.

The other thing we have to keep in mind when we attempt to structure debates in this manner are the characteristics of a compromise. A compromise does not  necessarily entail both sides coming to an agreement in the middle. While this is a common form of compromise it is not the only kind (again to quote the same episode of the Office). “There is Win-Lose, Lose-Lose, Win-Win, and Win-Win-Win”, all of these are acceptable forms of compromise. Therefore if someones argument in the debate is weak the resulting compromise would probably be win-lose. The person who developed the stronger argument would get their way, especially if the creator of the weak argument agreed. However if both sides had weak arguments a lose-lose situation may be necessary. This would mean that neither side’s proposition would go into direct effect and neither proposition would be included in the resulting compromise. By keeping in mind the different forms of compromise, debates would flow much better and have much better results as both sides would come to an agreement on the subject. This would also eliminate the need for an explicit winner or loser. While if the situation was win-lose, one side would be the implicit winner, their would be no need for excessive declaration of the fact.

By keeping in mind these two simple propositions debates could easily be changed for the better. Keeping both sides in the loop about what the ultimate end result will be is vital, as well as remembering the differing forms of compromises. Now i suppose if someone wanted to debate me on this i would be happy to. But no arguments attacking my character. and based on my awesome debate skills i predict it would turn out to be a win-lose. But i guess we’d just have to see wouldn’t we.

Debates… How are they relevant?

What is the purpose of the debate? Does it help us learn ethos? Pathos? Logos? Identify a fallacy?  Source Citation? Create a counterargument? Defend our position? Or is it completely irrelevant?

The debate project is anything, but irrelevant. This debate project will deepen our understanding of constructing a well-defended argument. It teaches us about effectively using the techniques Mr. Kennedy has taught us in class to create an argument. Through the debates we can witness what makes a good argument and what makes a mediocre or poor argument. Although the debate causes more of a reactive speeches, the time put in to prepare greatly influences whether you win or lose the debate. But what makes a debate standout as good or influential? It is the same information that will make your argument essay strong.

Being able to prove your credibility, entertain the audience and follow a specific train of thought will all improve your argument. This means going back to the basics of pathos, logos, and ethos. The ability to execute these three devices with ease in your argument will make your essay or speech more entertaining. Pathos is the device that will allow your audience to connect to the issue on an emotional level. Knowing your audience is key to applying the correct types of pathos. When connecting to an older generation they might not understand references to “Keeping up with the Kardashians” or memes. The same applies to other audiences. You must cater your diction and use of pathos to appeal to your audience. Ethos gives you the credibility to make your audience take the proposed action. By building up your argument with facts from reputable organizations you sound like you did your research and have passion for you topic. Building up you ethos will encourage people to agree with your side of the debate. Logos is extremely important. When debating an issue, your train of thought needs to be easy to follow. If your audience or even your opponent can not follow your argument you have lost. Lay out your basic argument, then go into more detail so that your audience can keep up with you.

An argument is more than just logos, ethos, and pathos. To make a complete argument you must be able to identify fallacies in the opponent’s argument along with your own. Finding the flaws in your argument will enable you to complete more research to defend your position. By knowing your own flaws, you will be able to prepare a counterargument because you can anticipate your opponent’s arguments against you. Basically, knowing your flaws will allow you to refute your opponent’s logic. Anticipating your opponents flaws will allow you to address them with your solutions. By acknowledging their issues before they even defended it will give you the upper hand in the debate or argument essay. Preparing a counterargument will keep you prepared during the debate, so that instead of being reactive your argument can be informed and accurate.

In class we talked about the importance of citing sources during the debates. Simply saying “According to …” without giving background information on the organization is weak. You may have given credit to the source, but why should we believe them? How recent was this fact recorded? How is this relevant to the topic at hand? When citing a source during our presentations it is best to prove the credibility of your source. It not only explains the relevance to your opponent and audience, but increases your appeal to ethos. More important than giving background on your source is to actually acknowledge the source. You need to prove that your numbers and opinions are backed up by research. The appeal to ethos through good source citations will make a strong argument stronger.

So what makes a debate influential?

It is a debate that gets students talking not only during class, but outside of it as well. To strengthen the impact of your argument on the class your use the three appeals and proof. This will make your debate stand above the rest. These same techniques can be applied to the argument essay. Creating a strong supported argument is the key to both the debate and the essay. So are the debates relevant to improving our APLAC knowledge? Yes.

Drinking Age

This week in class we had a debate over the minimal drinking age. The affirmative team on this debate was for lowering the legal drinking age. The debate really got me thinking about the drinking age and how the United States is one of the lone countries that have a drinking age at 21. If you were to go abroad to Spain or France, the legal drinking age is set to 18. I personally agree with the age set to 18.

I side with the drinking age at 18 because by that age, you are now considered an adult with full responsibilities. 18 is a big milestone in everyone’s life. From that point on, you may buy lottery tickets, gamble in some casinos, and buy tobacco products. Why are you able to purchase cancer sticks at the age of 18 in the United States but not alcohol, which does nothing close to the damage of cigarettes? Medical research has proven that alcohol kills brain cells, which are not replaceable. At the age of 21, the brain is more developed but, if a person was to drink regardless, his brain cells are going to be killed. So why would we make them wait longer even though we know that they will be drinking.

Most people like to argue that allowing teenagers to drink at 18 would only cause more issues. One of the common issues brought up is drunk driving accidents by teenagers. Well if the legal drinking age was 18, we would most likely see drastic drops in the accidents. The reason for that is because usually drunk driving accidents occur because of under aged college students drinking. Since it is illegal for them to drink, they don’t want to admit it to their parents and give them a call for them to pick them up. Rather than calling, they attempt to drive home to not get in trouble. A few weeks back, the junior class speaker was put into this very same situation that ruined her athletic career and had her arm amputated. She was scared of the consequences because of under aged drinking. That wouldn’t have occurred if the drinking age were at 18. Therefore she could have called her mother with no hesitation since she was doing something legal. Lowering the age, would should decrease drunk driving accidents since teenagers can now call for a pick up with no consequences.

Also, by lowering the drinking age to 18, the anticipation of being able to drink isn’t as big as it would be at 21. Right now at 21, many people drink until they blackout on their 21^st birthday because of the long wait. At 18, the wait would be much more bearable and teens could possibly ease in the fact that they can legally drink and wont consume much at a time. To prevent drinking wildly, parents should allow their children to flavor alcohol from younger ages. I am not saying that the kids should get a sip right away. Maybe from the age of 7, they should be allowed a finger dip to try the taste of beer or wine. From there you can increase the amount of drink and what type. By doing that, by the time the child reaches either 18 or 21(depending on the drinking age) they wont feel the need of drinking a whole bunch because they have been exposed and don’t see the greatness that everyone has been hyping it up to be.

The drinking age at 18 can reduce drunk driving accidents from teenagers and a simple solution of decreasing the anticipation of alcohol in teenagers is to let them have a bit as they get older.

The Debate on Lowering the Drinking Age

In class on Wednesday, we had a debate that argued whether or not the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen years. Both teams argued well and they introduced me to new ideas about the topic. I did, though, want to point out some specific points that both sides brought up that I found either interesting or wanted to chime in on.

One of the points that the affirmative side brought up was the argument about brain development regarding the current legal drinking age. I have been taught for several years that the reason the drinking age is twenty-one is because there is a certain part of your brain that does not fully develop until the age of twenty-one. This specific part is what controls judgment and decision making in humans. The affirmative team refuted this. I guess more studies have been done that lead scientists to believe that this part of the brain does not actually develop until the age of twenty-five. They used this information to assert that if brain development is being taken into consideration for the legal drinking age, it is no longer relevant. I believe that this was a very good point to make, especially since most people are not aware of this. I do think, thought, that the point would have made a stronger argument for the negative side. If the negative side had brought this up, it would have made a stronger case that lowering the drinking age is actually the exact opposite of beneficial.

The negative team also brought up a good point of how there was a steady decrease in automobile accidents after the Prohibition Act in the 1920’s. I’ll get back to how that was a good point, but I’d like to ponder for a moment on the almost explicit logical fallacy that was also committed by this point. The negative team failed to mention the results of the Prohibition Act. People rebelled almost immediately. When alcohol became illegal, it became all the more tempting. Underground bars, speakeasies, were created and alcohol became wildly abused. In this aspect, the mentions of prohibition were a huge failure. More shocking, though, might be the affirmative side’s neglect to point out the fallacy. This being said, I do still think that the negative team was right for mentioning that after the act, there was a decrease in fatalities on the road. The affirmative team did quickly and impressively refute this observation by suggesting that innovations in technology and transportation safety likely played a larger role in this decrease.

I can think of one more point that the affirmative team should have brought up to strengthen their argument. Countries around the world, particularly in Europe, either do not have a drinking age or it is placed at eighteen years. Using these other countries as examples and maybe bringing up statistics on their alcoholism rates, deaths by drunk driving, etc. would have made it easier for their team to show that their stance was the correct one.

There is still one thing that irks me about the discussion of drinking in general; the assumption that all teens do it. The affirmative team argued that if the legal age were lowered, there would be less temptation for teenagers. They emphasized the mentality that people have where if they can’t touch something, they just want it more. While this is true of some things and of some people, it is a huge generalization to make this point. When people make the point, they paint a picture in people’s minds that all teenagers do is run around and get drunk at parties every weekend. This is not true. This is the exception to the rule, as most teenagers actually don’t drink. I wish this point would stop being so central in arguments such as this one.

The Morality of Drones over the Battlefield

                During the debate about on the proposition, “the U.S. government should stop using drones,” both teams seemed  focused on noncombatant/civilian casualties and the morality surrounding this. Much of the debate surrounded arguing over the numbers and validity of this data, or comparing it the results of drones in killing legitimate targets. The negative team also mentioned the deaths of soldiers and the potential lives that are saved by using unmanned drones. However, there is a much larger part of this debate that I feel was missed. Currently, technology is reaching the point where we can remove our human lives from the battlefield and engage enemies without having to deal with the morality of actually “killing” an enemy person. We are pushing buttons on keyboards and watching pixels on monitors from a continent far away. This is completely different from the realities that a soldier would face when having to actually eliminate another human life. I really wish the negative team focused on this issue more, because there is a wider moral and philosophical question surrounding it that I find much more interesting.

                There is a sort of balance with the way the world’s nations decide to go to war. In order to take the life of someone on one “side”, you have to be willing to risk your own life. If you want to eliminate a large group of enemy forces, you have to be willing to deal with the consequences on your side. Nations still win and lose, but it is done so in a way that puts both sides on the same level. That is, both sides must be willing to take moral risks. Drones and autonomous robots especially, change this dynamic entirely. No longer do we have to risk the lives of our own when attacking an enemy. We do not have to face the consequences that might unfold when attacking an enemy camp deep in the desert or high in the mountains. We simply fly the drone over, and attack. Without warning. Without U.S. casualties. This threatens to break the morality of war.

                This would be a completely different question if our enemies had drones too. But we are not talking robot versus robot here. This is a large, explosive missile firing down from the sky, and landing on a group of people without them knowing what hit them. They had no time to react or respond. This type of fighting assumes that the side with drones is in the right, and does not have to abide by the rules of war. A society with this technology does not have to face moral consequences. I have no problem with the use of robotic equipment for the purposes of military surveillance or even directly assisting human solders. Air Force fighter planes practically fly themselves now anyways. The difference is humans are still on the front lines and both sides have to face the reality of risking their men.

Perhaps in the future, wars will be fought without human lives being risked at all. Where countries fight it out on the robotic or even virtual battlefield. This, however, is not the reality. The reality is, our nation is bypassing the rules of war using our own technology to gain a morally unfair advantage. This is not an argument against an analogous form of guerrilla warfare. Autonomous robots and military drones completely remove the human dynamic to war. Unmanned technology is getting better and more accurate, but this will only increase the use of drones on the battlefield. The numbers are not favorable, but the morality of the issue is worse. We cannot assume that we have the right to no casualty, zero-risk warfare just because we have the advanced technology. The U.S. government should stop using drones regularly over the battlefield. This is not a debate about the American cause, it is debate our integrity and responsibility as a national militaristic superpower.

Why we should add days, not take them away

After hearing the debate on whether we should switch to a four day school week in HSE counties, I am convinced we should not. The logistics of such a drastic switch are still not fully understood, and there isn’t anything wrong with our system how it is. People think that they want a four day school week, but really they just want something new and interesting. School is boring, we’ll all admit that, but by changing it up they hope they’ll find a new spark of motivation. Knowing high school kids, and I know quite a few, we would be just as disgruntled at the 8 and a half hour school day as we are with a 5 day school week. No one is going to be happy with school, so we need to stop trying to make them be happy.

A lot of comparisons were made between the United States and the rest of the world. It is an unfortunate truth that we are falling behind other countries in terms of our education, and we are falling fast. So instead of dancing around in circles, trying to equalize our hours of school each year, I say we need to go to school more. I heard the sigh of discontent when you read that line, and I know that a veritable flood of whining and complaining will follow this post. But I would like to know that I am having the best education possible, not shoddy process that barely helps me make it through college. The week is 7 days, cutting it down to 4 is only a little more than half of the week. Instead of looking to shorten days, weasel our way out of learning and in general decrease the overall ability of our education system to inform us at a high degree, we should look to improve upon it. We should add hours to each school day, and even go to school for longer hours.

There is a veritable plethora of time available to high school students after school. Depending on what time you go to bed each night, if you even go to bed, you have 6-8 hours available for use each day. I understand that school sports and activities may dig into this time, but only a small portion. I’m sure that if you actually spent time doing your homework, instead of slacking off reading opinionated blogs online, you would be surprised at how quickly you got done. If we had a substantially increased amount of time each school year, I believe we could get much more accomplished, all while having a more laid back school day. Instead of cramming in information to the point of headaches each day, we could actually have fun classes due to increased time.

More time spent in school means less time out of it. We all know what teenagers do out of school, and it isn’t particularly good. Not only will increased school times help out our education, it will help us make better choices as well. Parents will not have to worry about their child having too much free time at home. They won’t have to worry about their child’s education either, because they will know that they are getting the best education in the world. Depending on how you do the math, adding hours and days will either save 300 gallons of bus fuel a day, cost the school an additional $13,000, or even add to the number of two headed frogs in Australia. The point is; no one can put an exact numerical value on the impact of adding hours to our school year. There is only one number I care about, what my nation’s education is ranked on a global scale. That’s exactly what we’ll get if you follow my plan, the best education in the world.