Overall I think that the seminar we had today was good. What it lacked was the amount of preparation leading up to the seminar. As a result of many people annotating last minute the conversation got off to a rocky start. As the conversation got going more people got passionately involved in the heated conversation which led to a great learning experience. As a group I think we should have controlled the conversation better in order to give others a chance to speak and stop one person from dominating.
I think that the text was sort of bias since it empowers sixteen year olds and lists off all the rights the should have. I think that some of the ideas proposed in this text were very good but definitely had some flaws. For example it talked about how a teens should vote by passing a civics test. As a seminar we explored this idea and realized that it wasn't the best idea. I think the text really helped us argue and explore the whole concept of voting at sixteen.
I think a lot of my fellow students said something crucial during the discussion. Zac Wendroff mentioned how the civics test would be unfair if it was only given to sixteen year olds and would only work if given to everyone who wants to vote. It is this phrase that made me think of another viewpoint to this crucial issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment