Declaration Defense

I hope everyone enjoyed playing Thomas Jefferson because I definitely felt relieved when we finished. We were divided into groups and tasked to make our own paper consisting of what we want to change/add to in MIT. I was group with Renzo, Monica, and John. From day one there were already problems. Renzo and I were actually the only members who actually brainstormed and thought of ideas while the other half of the group did nothing. This went on for about two days.

 When Ms. Mae started calling groups, I realized that we were not going to get squat. We were basically a two man team. What could possibly go wrong?

A lot, actually. However, I will get to that. Right now I will talk about the group of Tim and friends, (or whatever they are). They advocated for the free usage of the printers so long as there is a valid reason to do so. One other issue they raised was the high prices in the cafetria. I had more or less mixed feelings about their argument. I can't say I agree with the  free printer usage, but I can totally support the cafetria issue.

Then there are some individuals who just love to contradict. Even though somtimes, the argument goes in circles and the points contradicted by said person, would not be practically speaking, good for the school. However, freedom of speech is still valid in this universe, so a person can be as annoying as they want...... and more.

I will skip to our turn. Our "demand" was, contrary to Tim's group where they had a passionate and misleading introduction, more of a proposal. Instead of blaming the school for not "doing their job", like all the other groups did, we respectfully showed the benefits of a modified approach to learning.

Of course, that was very unclear to everyone, including certain individuals who once again due to Freedom of Speech, will contradict completely invalid points.

Example 1: I already said twice, that we were only PROPOSING. Then certain individuals, will ask the same questions in different forms. All with the same "why should the school do this or the school wouldnt implement that.".

This was completely irrelevant. Why? Because to be able to know what the school decides, they have to be in the administration doing what they do everyday. What sets my group apart is that we, or at least I, understand that to assume that you know what the school should do you have to be in there everyday. That is why our introduction is not as forceful as the others. Because we would not like to look like complete idiots if the admin asks as, "Hey, do you think you could do our job or make the hrad day to day descicions everyday?". Our group will not be asked that because we are only proposing.

Ms Mae, you asked us not to refer to you in the third person in our blogs so I will ask you directly. Please think about what I said and about who you should give the highest grade to. And since I am the only one who has said that we could not possibly know what Dr. Santos, Mr. Kwon, or you have to do in the school. In effect, with the respectfull introduction of our declaration, I believe the highestgrade should go to the one who learned the most important lesson. So what I learned is that you cannot possibly make a  forcing statement, like what others did, that the school SHOULD do, unless you know how to run a school.

BTW ( I didn't learn this because I made the mistake of a forcing introduction, in fact my)introduction, never forced any change, merely suggest. :) )