Portfolio

I spent the past semester becoming acquainted with the presence and function of "rhetoric" in civic life.  Through LA 101H, I've learned that rhetoric, "the art of language used persuasively," is the driving force between every choice we make and every attitude we adopt.    As a psychology major, I am particularly interested in the ways rhetoric functions in the social world as a medium of communication.  This portfolio compiles some of my works from this past semester that demonstrate the ways rhetoric can be used to convince, to argue, to solve problems, to prompt thought, to evoke emotions, and to motivate.  As my college career progresses, I will update my portfolio with further compositions.  

A link to my E-portfolio...

http://catherinebrettportfolio.weebly.com

Social Media vs Face-to-Face Interaction

Blog groupies - I know this is the 2nd time you've heard me rant about this.  Hang with me. :)

Technological advancements are constantly giving us new ways to "socialize." I remember in elementary school when I had to call my friends on a landline when I wanted to say, "What's up?"  Gee, have times changed!  Now, if I care to say hello to somebody, they’re simply a text away.  Don’t have their number?  No problem!  Facebook/Twitter apps make it possible to send a message straight to nearly any person’s iPhone.  For convenience’s sake, social media is a godsend.  I mean, does anyone really like to make phone calls?  One might even say that technology has allowed us to become more active in our social world, and in many ways it has.  Through Facebook alone, I’m able to keep up with the personal lives of over 500 people, many of whom I would never have the chance to interact with otherwise.  But it’s impossible not to wonder how much social media affects our ability and opportunity to socialize with others in person, face-to-face. 

The advancement of social media makes it incredible easy to avoid face-to-face contact, and it some ways, this is quite unfortunate.  Gone are the days when friends got together to tell stories or share pictures of vacations and events.  Conversations to get to know someone are a thing of the past--now it’s as simple as pursuing their “About Me” section on Facebook.  Showing a friend support or encouragement is no longer making a phone call, sending a card, or paying a visit; it’s a click of the “Like” button.  As Facebook and Twitter become omnipresent in society, more and more social “interactions” take place through a computer screen in solitude. 

I wouldn’t go as far as to say that social media affects our ability to interact with others (it very well could, but I think further time/research is needed to prove this hypothesis), but it definitely diminishes the amount of time we spend communicating with others face-to-face.  I think many people would agree that this is unfortunate, but the numerous benefits of social media make change unlikely.  I think it’s important, however, to make a conscious effort to meet people and converse in person, to call loved ones to hear their voices, and to get together with friends and acquaintances often.  If genuine interactions are prioritized, then (hopefully) we can reap social media’s merits with no serious consequences.

Equal Rights?

You know what really annoys me?  Feminism.

Young, opinionated females really love to make their voices heard about this issue.  They want the same employment opportunities and salaries as their male coworkers.  They want to see women in government offices.  They want their husbands/boyfriends to split the household chores.  They want to be able to play on male sports teams if they so desire.   They want men to stop objectifying them.  Basically, the want equality. 

This argument doesn’t quite make sense to me.  I mean, it’s 2012 now, ladies.  They let us out of the kitchen decades ago!  As far as I’m concerned, I’m not lacking in my “women’s rights.”  A feminist will correct me.  The problem isn’t solved yet, they will say.  Yes, we’ve come a long way, but we won’t stop until men and women are equal.  Completely and totally equal.

I don’t think a lot of feminists realize what they’re asking for.  100% equality with men would mean that women should be required to register for the draft and be expected to contribute to half of the dinner bill.  In a equal world, we should hold doors open for guys and let them go first.  We should ask them out and even propose to them.  It should be acceptable for them to hit us… I  mean, they hit each other, and we want to be just like them, right? Now I don’t know about you, but that’s not the kind of world I want to live in.  I like it when a guy offers to carry something heavy for me or walks me home when it’s dark out just because he’s a guy.  Women have exponentially more opportunity now than they did in the past, and I’m so glad that we do.  But we cannot whine for equal rights only when it suits us and then reclaim our subordinance when it doesn’t.  We cannot have our cake and eat it too.  

When feminists argue for women’s rights, they are debating an issue that really isn’t much of an issue anymore, at least not in today’s American society.  Men, at least the good ones, actually do respect women.  No, things aren’t perfect.  But in 2012, we don’t need women to tell the world that they can do what men do--We need them to do what men do.  And if we’re going to complain about equal rights instead of just taking the responsibility and initiative to accomplish whatever we want in life like men have been doing all along, then maybe we really are the lesser sex.

Rhetoric in Popular Music

Music is intertwined with culture and daily life all over the world.  As our most beloved art form, music has many functions beyond simple entertainment.  Music rekindles memories.  It pumps us up and it soothes.  Music inspires us to feel a certain way or to take some sort of action, and can be at times almost more persuasive than any other form of rhetoric.  The 1960's and 70's were marked by an explosion of music with political meaning, sometimes masked under seemingly meaningless lyrics and other times much more salient to the listener.  Although much of our music today has reverted back to predictable songs about love or sorrow or having a good time, the existence of rhetoric in popular music in still undeniable.

Consider these well-known tunes and the meanings behind them:  "I Kissed a Girl" by Katy Perry. "Big Yellow Taxi" by Counting Crows.  "Waiting on the World to Change" by John Mayer.  "You are Beautiful" by Christina Aguilara.  "Born this Way" by Lady Gaga.  Whether endorsing a positive view of homosexuality or environmental awareness, inspiring change or promoting self-acceptance, the persuasive purpose in each of these titles is explicit.  I would imagine that implied rhetoric can be interpreted in nearly every song we know.

Music can be incredibly powerful as a rhetorical device for many reasons.  Songs tend to have simple themes embedded in lyrics written at an elementary level.  Being influenced by their verses is as effortless as turning on the radio.  Music is also readily accessible (and increasingly so.)  We involuntarily listen music in the car, at the gym, at the supermarket--nearly everywhere we go, and our favorite songs can be attained on Youtube or iTunes with the click of a mouse.  Perhaps music's greatest rhetorical strength is its ability to take root within us--there is just something about adding melodies and rhythms to a message that evokes intense emotion when heard.  Add that to a refrain's infectious tune, and suddenly that message is playing over and over in our heads, planting itself into our subconscious.  A belief presented in a song has a different effect than an idea conveyed through a speech, essay, or advertisement.  Music is immensely pleasurable and sinks into a deeper realm of our being, making it incredibly persuasive.

Don't Abuse Your Right to Vote

I hadn't even made it to my first class of the day when one of them caught me:  as I walked into Thomas Building, an aggressively enthusiastic girl in a bright orange shirt stopped me at the door.  "Have you voted yet?!"  "It's 9am... I haven't even showered yet," I wanted to tell her.  Instead, I shook my head politely and took the slip of paper she handed me, pretending to listen to her instructions about how to vote online for the next University Park Undergraduate Association President.  The slip, also bright orange, read only a candidate's name and the web address to the voting site.  I received a duplicate of the piece of paper from the same girl on my way out of Thomas.  All day long, this happened.  Every building I entered, every street corner I passed, another one stopped me in my tracks.  "Have you voted yet?!"  By lunchtime, I learned to avoid the HUB completely; it was absolutely covered with those orange shirts.  "Have you voted yet?!"  Finally, around dinner time, I was headed towards Pollock Commons and noticed two of them guarding both ends of the sidewalk:  it was literally impossible to pass through unnoticed.  I proceeded, and when the guy popped the question I had already heard 12 times that day, "Have you voted yet?!," I had finally had enough.  "Yeah, I did!" I responded.  He gave me a high-five and let me go.  I didn't care that I had lied and I hadn't actually voted... I was just relieved to have made it through without having another dreaded slip of paper forced into my hand.

Yes, I know that the United States was created for the sake of democracy so that every citizen can have a say in government.  Yes, I know that, as a female, there was an entire women's rights movement in which thousands of people fought for my right to vote.  Yes, I know that my failure to vote was disrespectful to everyone who worked so hard to make voting a possibility and to everyone under other governments who desperately wants to and cannot vote.  (I'm talking national elections now, but you get the point.)  Wouldn't it have been more disrespectful had I voted without following the campaign, without knowing what each candidate stood for?  Each and every vote influences an election (no matter how small that influence may be.)  For me to sway the poll with a random vote for the sake of voting would be unfair to those who did their research and casted informed ballots.

I wonder how many of the students who voted yesterday chose a candidate because they actually understood and agreed with that person's beliefs and intentions.  How many casted their ballots haphazardly because some overly peppy orange shirt handed them a slip of paper with a candidate's name?  Would the results of the election be different if every voter had made an informed decision?  If ignorant voters found out what their chosen candidate stood for, would they wish they had made a different choice?

It is every citizen's (student's in the case of university elections) duty to utilize their right to vote.  However, if a voter is uniformed, I believe it is their responsibility to decline that right.  I wish that I had followed the elections so that I could have helped to choose a leader for my university, and I hope that I can be a better citizen come the Presidential elections in November.  However, I do not regret my choice to abstain from voting, because my uninformed choice may have been a regrettable one.

Do not listen to those orange shirts.  Vote because their is a certain candidate you want to be represented by, not because you were handed a slip of paper with a certain candidate's name.  Please do not abuse you're right to vote.

The New Face of Education

Our generation is unique—we have been given the opportunity to watch society change before our eyes as more and more aspects of daily life are being welcomed into the world of technology.  I remember when I was in 3^rd or 4^th grade and my elementary school got its first computers—one bulky Macintosh desktop for each classroom.  Each student had a specified “computer time,” a certain hour of the day on a certain day of the week when it was our turn to use the computer, usually to play “Oregon Trail” or “Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?”  In 2012, the image of technology in education is completely different.  At Penn State, the routines of students and professors would cease to function without lecture powerpoints, iClicker attendance checks, online quizzes and exams, email correspondence, and MacBook apps for taking class notes.  Today, it is even becoming common to receive an education entirely online without ever setting foot in a classroom.  While online education is arguably convenient and may open the door for a larger number of Americans to earn degrees, I’m not so sure it’s a wise choice for students in any level of schooling.

Online degree programs are highly advertised today – we hear tons of supposed “success” stories where mothers or full-time workers earn degrees at home in their spare time online.  Many conventional university students also supplement their educations with web-based classes, such as those offered by Penn State’s World Campus.  It is also becoming popular for high school dropouts to enroll in online GED programs.  However, many people today are questioning the value of these programs.  I recently read an article on MSNBC.com. revealing that many online GED programs are not actually credible and are not accepted by employers or universities.  Similarly, many graduate institutions and medical/law schools regard online classes as less rigorous and less beneficial to students.  It makes sense:  I took two online classes through a community college in high school, and they were definitely less valuable to me then the conventional college classes I’m taking now.  Communication with professors was limited to brief emails, class discussions were non-existent, and quizzes and tests were taken with an open textbook on the desk beside me.  I just didn’t learn as much because my educational experience was not as rich, and I think the same thing could be said of most online degree programs.

What really concerns me is the increasing prevalence of cyber schooling for elementary and high school students.  More and more students who struggle in a classroom setting are being pulled out of public schools and enrolled in online programs that in my opinion are absolutely incomparable to traditional classroom exposure.  Cyber schools follow state standardized curricula, so they supposedly provide students with the same knowledge bases as conventional schools.  However, cyber school students lack some of the very critical lessons of the classroom such as the ability to interact with peers and adult, the discipline of sitting still and remaining quiet for long periods of time, and the etiquette of appropriate social behavior. If a child is having problems in the classroom, there are underlying social issues that need to be addressed.  Pulling the child out on an environment where he can practice his personal conduct and communication skills with others will only deepen the problem.

Being the first generation of students with the opportunity to receive educations online, we really don’t know yet how this alternative form of schooling will affect us in our later lives and careers.  Personally, I’m worried about the children and adults who no longer attend formal classes.  There’s just something missing when school is not a dynamic social environment but instead the inside of a computer screen. Only time will tell how successful such an education can be.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=cyber+school&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1440&bih=838&tbm=isch&tbnid=cuxPVhrR1efzjM:&imgrefurl=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ff%3D/c/a/2003/08/31/MN150541.DTL%26ao%3Dall&docid=xviVrfgwXUf3IM&imgurl=http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2003/08/31/mn_cyberschool046lh.jpg&w=580&h=400&ei=pF1rT9WWDorV0QG404XWBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1146&vpy=50&dur=1115&hovh=186&hovw=270&tx=150&ty=103&sig=109290321251259403933&page=1&tbnh=157&tbnw=210&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:0

A Statement from the Board of Trustees... Again.

Marriage counselors always emphasize the importance of “fighting fairly.”  Once an issue is discussed and settled, couples are encouraged to “forgive and forget,” agreeing not to bring the matter back up in future arguments.  It’s a pretty wise idea if you ask me; reiterating one’s past mistakes may feel extra good when we want to be spiteful, but it tends only to further complicate, making it harder and harder to regain peace in a relationship.

Apparently, Penn State’s Board of Trustees missed out on this little lesson in effective communication.

Four months after the Penn State scandal broke out and almost two months since Joe Paterno’s unfortunate passing, life was returning to normal on campus.  While many refused to agree with the decision to fire Coach Paterno, most of us had at least accepted the events of last November and were beginning to adapt to the “new” Penn State, exactly what we need to do to move forward as a university.  This is why I was so perplexed when the Board of Trustees sent an unexpected email to the students to “clear up” their reasoning for firing JoePa.  Anticipating some new information about the scandal, I read on, only to be told that our legendary coach was released due to “failure of leadership” because he did not take sufficient action regarding his knowledge of the alleged sexual abuse.

Thanks, Board of Trustees.  Real shocker there!  This is exactly what we were told last November.  Regardless of whether or not Joe Paterno’s so-called “failure of leadership” constituted an abrupt end to his passionate career, old wounds are re-opened every time the matter is brought back up. It’s like they’re saying, “Hey, remember that time we really pissed you guys off?! Well, we’re going to do it again!”  The BOT isn’t “fighting fairly,” and they aren’t allowing the student body to heal, prolonging the recovery of peace of campus.  I don’t see how the Board “put[s] interests of the university first” (as the email claims they do) by repeatedly telling us why they rashly fired and hurt a man we as a student body love, especially after students reacted so intensely (i.e. – flipping over news vans) when we were told before.

 

If you have to justify something you’ve done in the past more than once or twice, you might want to re-evaluate and determine if you are actually in the one in the wrong.  The fact that the BOT finds it necessary to explain their actions over and over again makes me wonder how the Board members really feel about what they’ve done.  Surely some of them must experience guilt for what they’ve robbed from a hard-working, spirited man and the university that remains loyal to him.  If the Board of Trustees can’t move forward from the scandal, how is the student body supposed to?