Congrats, You're A Grad! (Of 8th Grade...)

As many people know, this time of the year is graduation season. Whether it be college or high school, there is always another graduation party happening. However, in the North Shore, I realized that people take graduation way more serious than in other places. The first time I noticed this was when I was driving through Kenilworth and saw huge, 8-10 feet banners in the yards of people, saying "Congratulations graduate!" I thought to myself 'okay, that is a really big banner, but I guess high school graduation is a big day'. However, after looking closer at the fine print at the bottom of the sign, I realized it was for their 8th graders, and they were congratulating them on graduating junior high. I don't think many people would even consider celebrating junior high graduation, but on the North Shore it is a big deal.

As we have been talking about in class throughout these past few weeks, there are many different factors and indicators of class. I think that these graduation signs are a clear indicator of the class of people living in the North Shore. I was talking to a friend, and she had said that her mom grew up in a small town in Michigan, and when she graduated 8th grade there was no party, no ceremony, basically they just expected you to go to high school. No questions asked, no congrats given. It wasn't a big deal. When comparing the North Shore to small towns around the country, like the Michigan example given, there is clearly a big difference between the two places and their cultures.

These graduation posters and parades are just one class marker, and there are tons of others littered all around the North Shore, things we do that don't seem to be a trend in other towns. But, after all the discussions we have had in class about social class, when I saw this trend I immediately made the connection. It connected our discussions perfectly to the reality of our surroundings, and I couldn't help but blog about it.

Coping With Death

Note: This is in some ways a follow-up to my previous blog post, False Portrayals, and it might be helpful to read it, although it is not necessary.

This week on The Bachelorette the producers were faced with a really tough decision. One of the contestants, Eric Hill, died earlier this year in a freak para-gliding accident. He had already been kicked off the show, but he did go far into the show, thus they have a lot of footage of him on the dates. According to him his occupation was an explorer, and his goal was to go to every single country in 1200 days.

Although this is such a sad story and the way he died was very tragic, the producers have to deal with this in a different way. Do they show the footage of him, even though everyone knows that the person they are watching on TV is actually dead, or do they completely cut him from the show? I don't know what I would do in this situation. On the one hand, they can't completely cut him from the show because that could be viewed as rude, since he was a part of the show and it would feel incomplete without him. However, on the other hand, if they show his scenes in their entirety it could be viewed as insensitive, because all his friends and family have to cope with his death again and it would almost feel like his is living.


When he died, many people expressed their sadness, but there was an overwhelming amount of people who first thought, What are they going to do on the show? I think that this whole story is a good example of how jobs or other things, including media, can consume people's lives. There were so many people that didn't even think about how sad the situation once, but rather they thought about how it would affect their viewing experience. People in America go-go-go, and often their lives revolve around their work, while they don't stop and take moments to appreciate life and grieve when sad things happen. They have too much on their mind and are often concerned about the wrong things.

False Portrayals

Last Monday, I, along with many other excited viewers tuned into the season premiere of the Bachelorette. I am a sucker for reality television, so obviously I watch the Bachelor/Bachelorette. I don't believe it really works, and don't take it seriously whatsoever, but I still love to watch it. All the made-up drama can be really amusing. And clearly a lot of other people find it amusing as well. 7.17 million people watched the premiere this week.

Many people are completely against all reality television, saying it is trash and not at all real. I definitely agree that it isn't real and can see where they are coming from. It is not normal at all for people to fall in love in two months, while there are cameras filming their every move and every word. In no way is that like real life. Reality TV has become more and more prominent in our society in recent years, with shows ranging from The Kardashians to The Real Housewives, to name a few.

I think with these shows becoming more and more popular it shows a common theme. In all these shows the producers are using the people/families for entertainment. It is so often that these producers create fake drama within the show to generate viewers and to make their show interesting, which also gives people a wrong idea of what the person is like in real life. America often portrays these celebrities (if we can call them that, considering they often have no talent) as completely different people on reality shows, giving a false impression of them to the fans. This then makes the viewers believe that life is completely different than it actually is. It is next to impossible to fall in love in two months, ON TV. People shouldn't believe that it is.

Finishing What You Start

Last week the annual NFL Draft occurred. Every year football players enter the draft, hoping a professional team will decide to draft them. It is the way into the National Football League for all these athletes. My family was watching it on ESPN and I was struck by the age of some of the people drafted. Many of them had opted out of finishing their college careers. This is not just for the NFL though. Many baseball players as well as basketball players leave college early or skip college altogether in order to enter the pros. For example, basketball star Lebron James skipped college and was drafted right out of high school.

I find this very interesting. I mean, these kids are getting a college education (a lot of time for free), and will get a diploma which can help them out a lot later on in life. However, by leaving college you won't get a diploma. According to an article, there are many reasons for leaving early. Some of those include entering the pros before you get injured, almost as a security blanket. That way you will know you made it and won't have to worry about getting hurt.

However, this article also says that one of the reasons student-athletes should stay in college is because it "teaches maturity". I could not believe this to be more true. I think oftentimes in many realms, not just sports, Americans look ahead to the next thing and the greater thing, often without finishing what they started. This is just one example of that. These student-athletes are looking to the future (and there is nothing wrong with that), but oftentimes they jump ahead without finishing what they started, meaning school. People need to learn to reach the end or reach their primary goals, but often this does not happen.

Sleepless Nights

Junior theme: check. I have turned in my essay and I can already feel a huge weight lifted off me. My stress level has seriously declined, considering I lived and breathed that essay for the past couple of weeks. However, I know soon my stress will increase as I will have more projects or tests in other classes. This whole ordeal has got me thinking about stress levels, especially in teenagers, and the effects of stress.

I did some research, and according to a survey done, teenagers have stress levels during the school year that compare of equal that of adults. Adults have responsibilities such as providing for their families, working, and other things, while teenagers have school. If you think about it, teenagers are put under so much stress by the amount of homework they have, all the tests and essays, while at the same time being encouraged to join clubs or sports. It is almost too much for a 16 year old to handle. According to WebMD, "[teenagers] don't sleep as well, which feeds back into increasing their stress". Speaking from experience, as I am a teenager, I can verify this information. Personally I get probably an average of 6-7 hours of sleep a night, and am up very late doing work because I had obligations after school, such as sports. 

I think sleep is a big contributor to stress. I would be much more attentive and alert throughout the day, and I would be able to pay attention to what I was learning, instead of feeling like I am sleep-walking through the day. I think this whole idea of working as many hours a day as you can is a common American theme. It is a common belief that in order to get ahead you have to put in more work. This is true, but oftentimes people seem to take that idea to an extreme and work late into the night while thinking sleep is unnecessary. This then stresses them out more and tires them, which could ultimately lead to a weaker performance. I think the idea of constantly working and constantly moving is extremely prevalent in society today, but it definitely has its consequences, including a huge rise in stress levels. 

Women In The Work Force

While doing my junior theme research, I came across a statistic that really shocked me. Part of my research is the number of women working in the athletic departments of schools versus the number of men doing the same thing. I came across an article from the National Association of Collegiate Women Athletics Administration (NACWAA). In this article they say that "women occupy five of 120 athletic-director positions in Division I-A".

This seems absurd to me. From what I calculated based on the above statistic, 4% of the athletic directors in Division I-A are women, while the remaining 96% are men. That is so uneven. It is not even close. This proves that athletics are a department almost completely dominated by men. Men clearly run the show when it comes to collegiate athletics, which is possibly one of the reasons that colleges fund men's sports much more than they fund women's sports. The money goes man to man, and women are put at a disadvantage.

This is something that is prevalent in all aspects of society today, not just sports. There are much fewer women CEO's in the work force than their are men. Men still statistically make more money than women, with women making 77 cents to every dollar a man makes (Time). It seems to be a common theme, which leads me to believe that although the feminist movement has come very far in the past decades, there is still much more work to be done to gain equality between the genders in the work force.

The Research Process: A Warning

As I continue my junior theme, I have come to the realization that many aspects of the research process are very challenging. Also, I have come to find that although the internet is a huge blessing, as it gives us immediate access to endless amounts of information, it can also be a curse. Teachers have always told me that the internet can be a big black hole, and can suck you into it to the point where you are no longer looking at valid information, however I never really realized how accurate they were until this point in my research process.

When researching my why question, Why do men's sports get significantly more funding than women's sports?, I came across many different articles and statistics, many of which directly contradicted each other. I really had to pay attention to what sites I was getting my information for, as I realized it was often hard to judge whether or not information I found was valid.

One tip I found for research through this process: always go through a database or somewhere you know will link you to valid articles, do NOT just type in a few words into google. Google does not sort it's results by validity, so the first hit could be a totally random website. Always, always, always start from a place that you know will give you valid results. Oftentimes schools have links to valid starting points, just like the New Trier Library does.

So, I guess this blog is less of an informational piece of writing, and serves more as a warning. From my experiences in the past few weeks, what I cover in this blog is probably the best piece of advice I can offer anybody doing research on something.

Athletic Equality or Lack Thereof?

Just like all of my classmates, I have embarked on the major project that is "Junior Theme". While investigating every possible topic I was interested in, I came across the topic of women in sports (which ended up being my topic). I was reading further on the topic, when I came across an astonishing statistic about the coverage of women's sports on sports news. According to a study done by USC and Purdue University in 2009, men took 96% of sports news. And as an extension of that, according to this study, on ESPN (the biggest sports network that exists in America today), of the flashing news alerts constantly displayed on the bottom of the screen, 96.4% of the information is devoted to men's sports.

I found this statistic, for lack of a better word, crazy. Considering this study was done in 2009, only 4 years ago, it seems like the television and media end of athletic equality is really lagging behind. Title IX, a law passed to create equality between men's and women's sports, was passed in 1972. That is 35 years before this study was done. That is a very long time, and there has been so much progress made. There are so many more opportunities for women at the college level (although not equal with men in some instances), the growth of opportunities is clearly evident. Because of Title IX, many schools and universities added many women's teams to their varsity rosters.


Considering the history and the progress women's sports have made since the 20th century, I am utterly confused as to why that statistic exists. It seems to me that women's sports are only displayed on TV in rare instances, and more frequently if it is a women's sport that has a larger following than the men's version (perhaps gymnastics, or figure skating). Now, I know there are many sides to this argument. Some say that it is completely unfair, while others say that men's sports are simply more exciting to watch on television, so the networks should air men more often. I side with the group that argues that it is not fair. I believe that women should get much more air time on television, considering they are also athletes at the professional level (or at least at the collegiate level). They are competitive people, who deserve recognition for their talent. I understand that there is no way for the above statistic to dramatically increase to 40% or more anytime soon, because that is not the way society functions. However, I do hope that in the near future that percent is raised by any amount, even a small amount, because that would be a step in the right direction.

Do you think women's sports should get more air-time on national television? 

Wake Up & Pay Attention

Right before I left for school this morning, I glanced at the Chicago Tribune. I saw an article that talked about a recent incident at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago. At around 2:40 am on Monday morning, a blue line train derailed in the underground station at the airport and drove up one of the escalators, before it came to a halt. There were more than 30 people injured, but none of the injuries were considered life threatening. According to officials, had the accident occurred at any other time of day aside from just past midnight, that would have been a different story.

The headline I read was talking about the possible causes of the accident. One of the reasons they were investigating was whether or not the driver of the train fell asleep while it was running. This happened very early in the morning, so it is definitely a possibility - I mean, who isn't tired at 2 am? But, this got me thinking about the amount of sleep people get, especially teenagers. Even though a teenager was not driving the train, I saw a clear connection between this incident and the amount of sleep recommended for certain ages.

According to sleepfoundation.org, "Teens need about 9 1/4 hours of sleep each night to function best", but the article also says that "only 15% [of students] reported sleeping 8 1/2 hours on school nights". Now, speaking from experience, I can safely say that I do not get 9 hours of sleep - no where close to it. Usually I get around 7, because I have activities and sports after school, but I also have hours of homework to do. In fact, almost every high school student I know will not get the necessary 9 hours. Teachers try to engrain this idea in your head that sleep is most important, especially in grade school. But once you grow up, at least for me, I quickly realized that the likelihood of me getting enough sleep was slim.

So, without any research to back it up, I am going to guess that this lack of sleep transfers into adulthood as well, and adults need more sleep than they get. Because of this, things like the derail of this train will happen, which is very dangerous. And not only for trains, but things like this could happen while people are behind the wheel of a car as well. I have no proposed solution to this problem of lack of sleep, but do any of you? Also, I know there are many factors contributing to this problem, but what do you think is the biggest or most important?

Erased Completely

If you have been watching the news at all lately, you have most likely heard about the missing Malaysian plane. It has been on every channel, in every newspaper, online, pretty much everywhere. In case you have no idea what I am talking about, over a week ago, an international flight on its way to Malaysia went missing. It lost connection with all control centers and disappeared from the radar. Since it lost connection, no one knows where it is or how it lost connection. There are many different theories floating around – some believe that it was taken over by passengers and the connection was lost deliberately, and others believe that the plane plummeted to the bottom of the Indian Ocean, and that is where it lies now. But, no one knows for sure. All we know is it is out there somewhere, and no one has any idea of where to look.

I think it is such an awful event. I mean, it is so sad for the families’ of the passengers on the flight, because they do not know if their relative is dead or alive. And until they find the aircraft, there is always a tiny bit of hope. Living with no clue as to where your friend or family member is must be an awful way to live.

However, I also find it very odd. I found a CNN article summarizing pretty much everything we have found out about the plane, and in this article they say that there are “26 nations help[ing] try to find the missing plane” and that “the search has expanded to cover large swaths of land and sea, including 11 countries and deep oceans”. Although that is such a large mass of land/sea to cover, considering all the modern day technology, and with the help of 26 countries, how has someone not found the plane yet? Modern day technology is so advanced that it makes me wonder how it is possible for a plane to just disappear, and remain invisible or hidden for this long.

I also think that this could have the same effect on modern day airplanes that 9-11 had. After 9-11 security for airplanes and in airports increased dramatically, and although not with security, I think this could have the same impact. I wonder if they will change the science on the aircrafts to make sure that this never happens again – try to find a way to make it impossible for a plane to lose contact completely. I do not know if that is possible, but I think this event could seriously influence the making of future aircrafts. 

"Based" On A True Story

As many people know, The Academy Awards were last weekend. Usually I try to watch all the movies that are in the running before the show, but this year the only one I got around to watching was Captain Phillips, a movie about a Somali pirate attack on a cargo ship a few years ago. This movie was "based on a true story". Whenever I see those words at the beginning/end of a film, it makes me wonder. How real is this? Is this an accurate depiction of what really happens? And the biggest question of all, how much did they 'Hollywood-ify" it?

Tom Hanks (left) and Phillips (right), who Hanks plays in the film

Ok, I made up the world "hollywood-ify", but I think it is a very common thing. Movies often times exaggerate the plot to draw people in so they can sell tickets. In the film, the crew was depicted as a unit that felt of Phillips as a leader, and a hero. I found an article that says pretty much the exact opposite. In this article, members of the crew are quoted saying that the movie was a lie, and they were the farthest thing from supportive of Captain Phillips. They say that Phillips was "known as a sullen and self-righteous captain". Apparently Phillips was warned multiple times that there were pirates in the water where there ship was sailing, and he was told to go farther off the coast to avoid potential attacks, but he refused to oblige. He ignored all the warnings, against the opinions of the crew. There is much more in the article in which the crew depicts Phillips as the farthest thing from a leader.
change or exaggerate the plot of movies that are based on real events to make the film more dramatic and exciting. So, I decided to look up the story of Captain Phillips and see how accurate the movie really is. I came across something that I found really odd. I found an

But, not going that much more into it, I find it very interesting how the directors and everyone who made the movie kind of molded the story to dramatize it and change the story they were trying to tell. And for people that don't know the story, if they just see the movie, that is what they will believe. They will believe that he was a hero, even though people who were there argue that he was not. I think this is a common theme in Hollywood - when movies are made, they always exaggerate events and/or change the story a tiny bit to make it more appealing to their projected audience, so they can sell more tickets. I see it so often in American-made films, which is very interesting. After reading this article, I can't help but wonder, how many other films have they exaggerated? Are there any films that stay true to the story completely?

The Refreshing Part of Honesty

Note: You might consider glancing at my previous blog post, Put Into The Spotlight, because this is an extension of that blog post.

I was scrolling through my twitter feed once again earlier today, and I saw another tweet about the "relationship" between the paparazzi and the children of celebrities. In a previous blog post (link above), I had said that a law that celebrities had wanted to pass preventing the paparazzi from taking pictures of their children was a completely fair law for the government to pass. Well, it seems like recently this topic is getting a lot more attention.

People Magazine, a magazine that reports on stories about celebrities, published an open letter to the public on their website. In this open letter, the editorial director of the magazine directly addresses the this issue. She says that People Magazine does not in any way support the paparazzi taking pictures of celebrities' children, and they will not publish any pictures of children without their parents consent. Most of the article I think is perfect. It is great for them, one of the biggest tabloids there is, is supportive and understanding of this subject.

The only part that stuck out at me is when she says, "Of course, there may be rare exceptions based on the newsworthiness of photos." Although I do not think that these photos should be published at all, regardless of the "newsworthiness" of them, I think it is a very honest thing to say. Honesty in the tabloid business seems to be a very hard thing to come by - you never know what stories to believe. However, props to them for being honest. Hopefully they will never post pictures without consent because it is a breaking news story, but we will never know until that moment comes. But for now, I think it is very refreshing to see a magazine so popular stand up for beliefs and be honest about their intentions. It sure is catching the attention of the celebrities.

The Opportunity of a Lifetime

With the Olympics coming to a close soon, it only felt right to blog about them. I am a huge fan of the Olympics, and every time they come around find myself watching them nonstop - even if I don't like the event I am watching. For some reason I just can't help myself. Something about the Olympics is so great - perhaps it is how there is healthy competition between countries, but they still appreciate every athlete they compete against and the great sportsmanship involved.

Now, as much as I love the Olympics, I have somewhat of a grudge against them. I play softball, and in the Summer Olympics I always loved watching baseball and softball. However, after the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing, the Olympic Committee decided to take out both baseball and softball from the Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) gave a few reasons for taking the sports out, one of them being that since Major League Baseball wouldn't let their players play, and the IOC was unhappy with that. But, another reason that has kind of been floating around, and I've heard people say but have never read an article that explicity says it is that, mostly for softball, the US was having too much success. There was not a lot of competition between the other countries, the US just blew them out of the water. I don't know if that is an official reason, but that is what I have heard.

This prompted me look more into the success of USA in the past Olympics. The USA has won more gold and overall medals in the Summer Olympics than any other countries, winning a total of about 2,400 medals. They also have won the second most gold and overall medals in the Winter Games. I think these statistics show the competitive spirit in the athletes from the US. These athletes have a drive and a desire for success more than anyone else. They will do whatever it takes to achieve their dream - represent their country in the Olympics. I think this is amazing, and such a great experience for whoever gets the chance. So, why would they take out sports that give that opportunity to people? Two sports that are loved worldwide. Regardless of who goes home with the gold, I think that the athletes from baseball and softball should get that opportunity.

Put Into The Spotlight

As I was scrolling through my twitter feed the other day, I saw a tweet from a celebrity that I was following that really jumped out at me. She had tweeted about how awful it was for the paparazzi to take pictures of the children of celebrities. She had said that a site called RadarOnline had taken pictures of the kids of Phillip Seymour Hoffman (who recently died) on their way to his funeral. Many other celebrities then proceeded to respond to the tweet. I personally thought that this was just crazy. So, I dug a little deeper.

I was doing some research about it when I came across a bill that had been recently passed in the State of California that put much stricter consequences for paparazzi harassing and taking multiple pictures of children, mostly the children of celebrities. There were many celebrities that were a part of the Bill, including Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry (both movie stars). Halle Berry was quoted in saying that the paparazzi are "overly aggressive" and "cause so much trauma and emotional distress". Some of the stricter consequences violators could face because of this bill is up to a year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

To me this is a completely fair law. I think it is totally wrong for photographers to go up to take pictures of children, children that wouldn't know who they were. Especially because of how aggressive photographers can be. America has always paid too much attention to celebrities - there are tons of magazines devoted to celebrities lives, and so many people decide to weigh in on every moment in their life. Myself included, almost everyone looks at photos of celebrities online, and I think we don't realize that these people have to deal with paparazzi harassing them to get the pictures we are looking at. I don't necessarily know the solution to this problem, but I do think that passing this bill could be a wake up call to the paparazzi that are harassing celebrities just for a picture.

Do People Still Watch TV on their TV?

         As I'm sure many people know, the Superbowl was last Sunday, February 2nd. I come from a big sports family, so I always watch the Superbowl with friends and family. This year was no different. I was talking to my dad before the game started, and he was talking to me about the advertisements and companies' thinking behind buying ads. He works for Pepsi, so he knows all about the ads they bought for Doritos and other stuff. He was telling me that companies pay up to $4 million just for a 30 second ad slot during the Superbowl. I thought that that was insane, I had no idea that it was that much money for only 30 seconds. So, I decided to do some digging.

The Superbowl has always been one of the most watched programs in television. In 2012, it raked in 111 million viewers. So, advertisers and companies clearly see this as one of the best opportunities to promote their products. According to this article, FOX was asking for the $3-4 million range for 30 second slots. To me, this is crazy. Just the fact that people are willing to spend this much money for a time period of 30 seconds is insane. Does it really do that much to boost a companies sales by a lot? How affective are Superbowl ads?
Well, the article says that the cost is so high because the amount of people that watch live TV has been decreasing in the past years. Ever since Netflix came out, as well as people have gained the ability to watch almost all TV online, people do not watch live TV as often. Therefore, people don't see the ads that companies are airing on TV. I think this is completely true. It is interesting to hear about the evolution of technology, especially TV. TV became super popular over the years, but I kind of feel like it hit its prime. Now, at least for me, a lot of times I wait for a show to be online the next day and watch it online because I don't have time to watch it when it airs, or for whatever other reason. I find myself watching less and less TV when it first airs, and always watch stuff online. Also it has become so much easier for people to upload or find TV illegally on the internet to watch, that you don't even need to own a TV.
Do you agree that people do not watch TV as much anymore, and if so do you think that it will stay this way?

American Awards - Voted by Foreigners

Usually movie and television awards (Emmys, Oscars, etc.) are talked about crazily in the days leading up to the day of. Who will win, what dress each actress will be wearing, things like that seem to consume people's minds. I want to focus on the first part of that, the winners/nominations, in this blog. As a lot of people know, the Golden Globes air tonight. The Golden Globes is an event where both television and film are honored together. I had always wondered how and who chooses the actors to nominate, and who decides the winners of award ceremonies such as the Golden Globes.

The Golden Globes are produced by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), which is a nonprofit organization with "about 90 members". On the website, it tells you each of the members names and which country they are from. None of them are from the United States. I know it is the "Foreign Press", so that makes sense. But, the job of people in the association is to spread information about movies and television to the world through various mediums of publication. I thought it was interesting that a "foreign press" are the judges, for lack of a better word, for a United States event. All of the films being honored were made with American actors, and most likely American producers/directors. The Golden Globes is also being hosted by Americans. If there are people that are supposed to decide nominees and winners, why aren't there foreign films featured? Occasionally there might be, but for the most part it is a completely American show.

I think this alone shows how America is often seen as the "center" of the world. As a country, we often times think we are better than others. People often times think of themselves as "always right', and that they know the answer or solution to everything. Although this is not always the case, I think the fact that foreigners are the ones voting on who wins awards for American film and television, shows that America is often the country that everybody looks at as the best. The best movies, the best TV, etc.