Discussion Questions #3

1) How does the definition of "Hard work" vary from one culture to the other?

It seems that the definition of "hard work" is contested from one culture to the next. In PNG, Orokaiva regard hard work as what they see as physical labor. You can tell when someone has worked hard as a result of their callused hands and feet, but also by how much produce and taro one has managed to amass. Would we, as Westerners, consider this hard work? I would think so. we tend to think of hard work as something that constitutes time and effort. But would you guys agree that we tend to think of hard work as other efforts? For example, effecting change in society? Working on campaigns, raising awareness? Drafting and changing legislation? Or is hard work solely physical labor? We can all remember teaches in school telling us that even if we did not manage to get that gold star or that A+, as long as we worked hard, our efforts were justified. Does hard work always have to attain something?

2) How does the school you went to afect others' perceptions of your merit?

Hartigan talked about merit in our society and how when considering merit and school, our merits are often based on test scores. we can all agree that there are school systems with better education curriculums than others. But how does the school you went to affect others' perception of your merit? I look back on my high school experience. I completed ninth and tenth grade in a public school in Nashville, TN, where whites were a minority of my school. Most of the people there scored between 19 and 26 on their ACT test. After moving to Iowa I was enrolled in another public school. This secluded, small town consisted of mostly whites and the high school I attended had only a handful of minority students. The ACT score range, in general, was between 25 and 36. There were actually people in the school that managed to score a 36 on the ACT. What was the difference? The difference was not in the racial composition of the high schools. Actually, from my personal experience, my high school in Nashville failed to provide students with adequate teachers who in turn failed to stimulate thinking. There was no structured curriculum and often times, teachers didn't follow up with assignments and tests. Most of the teachers were young college graduates that failed to stay longer than 2 or 3 years at the school. In contrast, most of the teachers in my Iowa high school had been faculty for at least 6 years and some had even taught for more than 30. Having this consistency, in my opinion, fostered a more structured curriculum that challanged students.
But when people ask me about where I went to high school, I always tell them I went to two. I have received some similar responses when mentioning I went to high school in Nashville. Many assume that public schools in the South are not adequate in preparing students for the future. Are people judging?