Preparing the Future Professoriate
This is a test to ensure this blog works for PFP Spring 2019.
Excited for the upcoming semester!
IK
Excited for the upcoming semester!
IK
Author: Ishi Keenum
Critical Pedagogy
As I read this week I was struck by some of the reflections on what education means. I had honestly never thought of why I am educated. I didn't really think about what point of view I was getting in school as I was growing up. Now, reflecting I see that I never honestly learned about any female scientists and, growing up in the southeast, I'm fairly sure my teachings of major historical events was dramatically tinted by the environment I was being taught.
I can pretty easily see that engineering and in fact almost all of my education thus far has been in the banking model Friere describes. The idea that "the interests of oppression lie in "changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which presses them"" resonates with me and the idea that "that's just the way it is" is really the idea that someone else is driving your life. I found myself throughly engaging with the ideals Friere and Hooks propose. The idea of creating a learning community in a class that is truly engaging is an ideal I can only hope to aspire to and would be very far from the norm in my field. I honestly don't think I ever learned everyone's name in my small 30 person class major in my undergrad major and honestly that is pretty sad.
The ideals that hook and Friere propose don't seem that radical, but as a teacher they do seem difficult to implement. My whole educational career has been data dump driven and I feel like in grad school I am finally reaching the point of knowing enough to have more wholistic conversations. But grad school is too late for most people. Learning to engage with and challenge your reality must be ignited at a much younger age than grad school.
I hope that I can at least approach teaching my classroom as a learning community. Trying to engage students on the topics of water quality and resources shouldn't be that hard to motivate but I do feel that at some point, there does need to be some mechanistic understanding of the chemistry and processes out there.
This week leaves me with a lot to ponder and I am excited to see the blog post the class comes up with.
I can pretty easily see that engineering and in fact almost all of my education thus far has been in the banking model Friere describes. The idea that "the interests of oppression lie in "changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which presses them"" resonates with me and the idea that "that's just the way it is" is really the idea that someone else is driving your life. I found myself throughly engaging with the ideals Friere and Hooks propose. The idea of creating a learning community in a class that is truly engaging is an ideal I can only hope to aspire to and would be very far from the norm in my field. I honestly don't think I ever learned everyone's name in my small 30 person class major in my undergrad major and honestly that is pretty sad.
The ideals that hook and Friere propose don't seem that radical, but as a teacher they do seem difficult to implement. My whole educational career has been data dump driven and I feel like in grad school I am finally reaching the point of knowing enough to have more wholistic conversations. But grad school is too late for most people. Learning to engage with and challenge your reality must be ignited at a much younger age than grad school.
I hope that I can at least approach teaching my classroom as a learning community. Trying to engage students on the topics of water quality and resources shouldn't be that hard to motivate but I do feel that at some point, there does need to be some mechanistic understanding of the chemistry and processes out there.
This week leaves me with a lot to ponder and I am excited to see the blog post the class comes up with.
Finally!
Reading "Finding my Teaching Voice" was my favorite of the class thus far. It took the intangibles that I really struggle with and voiced them in a meaningful way. The idea of last minute extensions which only benefit those who wait rung very true for myself as a student and I am glad we are addressing the aspect that I fear the most in teaching.
I want students to respect me and value what I'm teaching but there are so many effective ways to do this and I don't even know which one is me. I think I try to be funny to be engaging but honestly with blank stares coming back at you - you soon realize you might not be funny. I think I bring to the table enthusiasm and openness. I know I always hated power point slides in class - I think they make everyone less engaged (students and teachers alike) but I also know that writing everything out can be pretty slow - which is not always great for an objectives oriented class. I like the idea of projects and working together because that is very much how my field functions in the "real world".
Experience, practice and iteration seem to be the keys to achieving one's authentic teaching self. Coming to the course with an explanation of why you do what you do and allowing students to express their feedback has always been productive for me but I also worry about students for whom school is not their highest priority. I have been extremely privileged to be able to work only part time through school and to not feel significant financial stress because of my chosen educational path - but that isn't true for everyone. I really appreciated that idea of one on one meetings with students to build a relationship with them but I also am afraid of getting roped in to too many things. (I've heard from numerous young female faculty that they are often times much more likely to be requested to help with student orgs and events and its very hard to say no ( and I'm bad at it to begin with)).
Finding my true teaching self was something I was hoping from this class. I wasn't sure what to expect and didn't really expect this class to have so many students but I am glad we are addressing it and I hope I can use some of this advice to help me going forward.
I want students to respect me and value what I'm teaching but there are so many effective ways to do this and I don't even know which one is me. I think I try to be funny to be engaging but honestly with blank stares coming back at you - you soon realize you might not be funny. I think I bring to the table enthusiasm and openness. I know I always hated power point slides in class - I think they make everyone less engaged (students and teachers alike) but I also know that writing everything out can be pretty slow - which is not always great for an objectives oriented class. I like the idea of projects and working together because that is very much how my field functions in the "real world".
Experience, practice and iteration seem to be the keys to achieving one's authentic teaching self. Coming to the course with an explanation of why you do what you do and allowing students to express their feedback has always been productive for me but I also worry about students for whom school is not their highest priority. I have been extremely privileged to be able to work only part time through school and to not feel significant financial stress because of my chosen educational path - but that isn't true for everyone. I really appreciated that idea of one on one meetings with students to build a relationship with them but I also am afraid of getting roped in to too many things. (I've heard from numerous young female faculty that they are often times much more likely to be requested to help with student orgs and events and its very hard to say no ( and I'm bad at it to begin with)).
Finding my true teaching self was something I was hoping from this class. I wasn't sure what to expect and didn't really expect this class to have so many students but I am glad we are addressing it and I hope I can use some of this advice to help me going forward.
Start motivated, Get worn down.
Environmental engineers tend to be the idealist, almost 50% female subgroup of the engineering discipline. We get students who want to change the world, help improve access to water and really want their work to be meaningful. Somewhere between the 4 semesters of calculus, 2 semesters of chemistry, 2 semesters of physics and one semester of biology though, you end up with a group who, sure, started because those were there motivations but really they just want a job.. And thats before the environmental engineering classes have even started.
My undergraduate institution tried and I give them credit for that. But the engineering curriculum is intrinsically designed to beat a lot of your interest in problem solving out of you before you even get started. We traditionally have undergrads front load their studies so they get the general elements out of the way. I really don't think this makes sense.
Freshman in college are some of the most idealistic people in the world. They want to be the change and they do it whole heatedly. Seniors on the other hand, have seen things, and are basically worn down by the time they get out, if they get out. I think the drive that freshman have comes from the excitement of getting to choose what you learn. For the first time! You want to help drill wells to bring water to remote populations? You're finally in the space where you can learn how to do that!
I think engineers strive in project motivated environments. That's why we became engineers. Too many of my courses were designed to teach fundamentals with little context and I'm beginning to see the value in designing a course where, yes you will need to learn how to treat water, but maybe because you have chosen a community or an issue that appeals to you.
I'm not sure I can get rid of grades but I can get rid of the idea of rigorous testing to prove a point. In today's world, engineers need to know how to find, apply and understand when equations are valuable. They don't really need to memorize the equations themselves because there is simply and I hope truly no environment in the real world where they would find themselves designing a plant or a project all on their own. I appreciate that extrinsic motivators don't work, because honestly you can cheat, and the consequences can be disastrous.
Most of us come to college with some intrinsic motivation and I think its our job as educators to make sure we foster it rather than go out of our way to squash it.
Do I want a digital classroom?
Initially when I heard of the digital classroom, I'll admit, I thought ughhhh. Another way we can enable ourselves to quit interacting with each other in person. As a college student I grew increasingly annoyed? or at least frustrated with the idea that everything can be digital and that there is really no reason to sit in a room with someone and talk when you could just do it over (insert video conferencing platform here).
However, I found this week's material exceptionally interesting. The New Learners of the 21st Century Video showed ways that classrooms and teachers are engaging with students through video games. I thought of people I know who had really struggled in the traditional classroom growing up, not because they weren't "smart" but because they felt that the way we approached class through worksheets and route memorization, wasn't interesting or worth investing in. I liked the idea of "leveling up" as one does in games as compared to how we proceed in a steady, unyielding march through K-12 and I can remember instances in school where this would have been very helpful. For example, Math and Science was always my strong suit so I could have gone farther in those topics whereas English and writing was something I always struggled with and am self conscious of still today.
I was interested in the ways the concept of gaming and modern technology could apply to the collegiate classroom. By the times students have gotten to college I hope they are capable of some level of problem solving, which was lauded as one of the great benefits of the gaming classroom but I do think there are a lot of ways in which it would help convey ideas, especially in Civil engineering, where we often don't get a lot of experience with design or construction of our end products before one starts a career. I like the idea of approaching the class room as totally different from a lecture and with a freeform aspect, maybe of projects that allows students to harness whatever medium they choose. I do know from my own experience though that when a power point was an option, most would take it because it was the easiest. I'm struggling with the idea of the collegiate classroom being as energetic as some of the projects and teams I've been apart of and I think a lot of it comes from framing.
When I approached a student design team, it was always because I wanted to be there because I wanted to get involved and I signed up for responsibilities I thought I could handle. In a class, though, sometimes I was there because of the requirement and less because of my intrinsic desire. I think something that could be interesting to play with is the idea that students come with their own project and apply concepts to their project. In my example, it may be that when learning about dynamics, you apply it to analyzing how the car you designed and built throughout the previous year, still found a way to flip over in your final race. I'm appreciating the thought that this class is allowing me and look forward to our next blog.
I never really got to addressing my thoughts on the digital classroom and to be honest. I don't think I care how students take notes. I have noticed that when online lecture recordings are allowed, a lot less students show up to classes and I would be hesitant about providing recordings to the entire audience and perhaps would give them out on a case by case basis. If students want to be on their phone throughout the class, I don't think its my right to restrict what they can do. I feel like there is a level of providing the resources and things I think will work and seeing if it engages students rather than enforcing an artificial authority that I don't think I have.
However, I found this week's material exceptionally interesting. The New Learners of the 21st Century Video showed ways that classrooms and teachers are engaging with students through video games. I thought of people I know who had really struggled in the traditional classroom growing up, not because they weren't "smart" but because they felt that the way we approached class through worksheets and route memorization, wasn't interesting or worth investing in. I liked the idea of "leveling up" as one does in games as compared to how we proceed in a steady, unyielding march through K-12 and I can remember instances in school where this would have been very helpful. For example, Math and Science was always my strong suit so I could have gone farther in those topics whereas English and writing was something I always struggled with and am self conscious of still today.
I was interested in the ways the concept of gaming and modern technology could apply to the collegiate classroom. By the times students have gotten to college I hope they are capable of some level of problem solving, which was lauded as one of the great benefits of the gaming classroom but I do think there are a lot of ways in which it would help convey ideas, especially in Civil engineering, where we often don't get a lot of experience with design or construction of our end products before one starts a career. I like the idea of approaching the class room as totally different from a lecture and with a freeform aspect, maybe of projects that allows students to harness whatever medium they choose. I do know from my own experience though that when a power point was an option, most would take it because it was the easiest. I'm struggling with the idea of the collegiate classroom being as energetic as some of the projects and teams I've been apart of and I think a lot of it comes from framing.
When I approached a student design team, it was always because I wanted to be there because I wanted to get involved and I signed up for responsibilities I thought I could handle. In a class, though, sometimes I was there because of the requirement and less because of my intrinsic desire. I think something that could be interesting to play with is the idea that students come with their own project and apply concepts to their project. In my example, it may be that when learning about dynamics, you apply it to analyzing how the car you designed and built throughout the previous year, still found a way to flip over in your final race. I'm appreciating the thought that this class is allowing me and look forward to our next blog.
I never really got to addressing my thoughts on the digital classroom and to be honest. I don't think I care how students take notes. I have noticed that when online lecture recordings are allowed, a lot less students show up to classes and I would be hesitant about providing recordings to the entire audience and perhaps would give them out on a case by case basis. If students want to be on their phone throughout the class, I don't think its my right to restrict what they can do. I feel like there is a level of providing the resources and things I think will work and seeing if it engages students rather than enforcing an artificial authority that I don't think I have.
Engineering and Networked Learning
For this first post I wanted to start with a brief background of myself for anyone reading. I'm an Environmental Engineering grad student at Virginia Tech with an undergraduate degree in Environmental Engineering from the University of Michigan. I've taken one English class since high school and I can say that course was the most connected to the concept of networked learning and online engagement of any of the math or engineering courses I've taken. I think coming from a very technical background I have had countless "traditionally" taught lectured - at courses and while I don't think they are the best idea, I haven't quite understood a better one.
A key topic of this week's readings was the idea of incorporating the internet and computer literacy into the classroom and I will admit, as an engineer, I am a bit confused. I found it very hard to understand quite what the writers and members of videos were saying meaning when they used this term and the vagueness of using the "network" made it hard for me to visualize what this might look like practically in a classroom.
I think I probably come from one of the least connected fields both in industry and in the classroom. Sure we've tried having online quizzes, homework that you upload and the occasional youtube video shown to impress on us the importance of taking your job seriously, but I wouldn't say I understand the idea of "networked learning". I agree with Gardner Campbell’s article on Networked Learning as Experiential Learning in that I believe computer literacy and understanding basic elements of coding are vital to surviving in this day and age and that I honestly don't think I was ever taught these elements. This may be predominantly a factor of my age and the fact that I learned with the world on how social media develops and basic web etiquette. But I don't necessarily disagree with my field and the luddite approach I've been predominantly taught with thus far. I feel strongly you must understand a lot of key concepts, equations and applications to be educated in becoming an engineer, which is essentially a vocation and I'm not sure would even qualify as "true learning" even though I can design my way around a water treatment plant.
My current understanding of teaching and I suppose learning is, I believe, very traditional. Most of my classes have assigned weekly problem sets with varying degrees of graded weight and then we were tested on the topics presented. I can count on one hand the number of classes that have deferred from this model but I can't say I think its entirely bad. I never had the opportunity to participate in the "flipped classroom" but all I've heard about is that students were completely lost throughout and there was little guidance. I know that for me, the most meaningful instructors have been readily accessible and excited when I came to them with questions. They kept their doors open at all hours and would thoroughly try to answer questions or would point you to someone who could. The engaged professor has been the most helpful to me but I don't think it actually helped me learn the material. I think the goal of teaching course with the idea of imparting knowledge drastically changes depending on the type of course you are responsible for.
When thinking of the kind of instructor I hope to be, I struggle with wanted to be innovative but also effective. I think being accessible to students is vital but I struggle with the idea of how to engage struggling students. I'm excited for what this semester has to bring in terms of thinking on these ideas and I hope there is some time spent not only on contemporary pedagogy and how to connect the internet into the classroom but also just on pedagogy because a lot of professors can get to the classroom without ever having been taught about teaching.
Hello World!
Hello World!
The line
Something I have been struggling with this semester is the idea of the "imaginary line" that was discussed in Sedlak's ES&T Op Ed. I agree with the idea that science cannot be biased (though I would argue that the system we currently have with funding agencies, does bias us somewhat) and that scientists need to be constantly vigilant in how they conduct research so as to not produce biased results. This makes sense to me because if there is no integrity in science and discoveries are not genuine, then we should not fund them. I think most scientists and individuals understand this, though they might not understand the nuance that comes in data analysis.
I believe that most people do not want to be lied to. We want to be told the truth because when something unexplained is happening, we need to know what is going on. Being fed lies, especially in a public health context, really means that eventually the truth will come out and that many many people cannot protect themselves.
I don't understand why we don't allow scientists to be citizens or people. We expect doctors to stand up and help if theres an emergency on a plane because while they bill x dollars an hour at work, they also are people who can help in an emergency. We expect them to be people with a set of skills before money craving professionals. Scientists are a group of people who have undergone an extensive educational process so that they can effectively analyze a situation and determine what's happening so that we can come to the truth. I don't understand how we are expected to stand by if someone calls out for help. In Flint, before Virginia Tech got involved, I strongly believe that samples were analyzed with the hope that nothing was actually wrong and that the state of Michigan was telling the truth. But once the problem was confirmed, I feel that there is a responsibility to speak out.
I understand the world is complicated and that people have agendas. In academia, funding is key, and in one way, that makes sense. We need to research what is important and we need to understand that those who have money, decide what is important. Be it funding organizations (EPA,NSF,CDC) or individuals (Bill and Melinda Gates). I know that people make up data so that they can get results but I have to believe that is not the majority.
To me, the imaginary line comes into play when you sacrifice a personal code for a professional agenda and not in the reverse. When you are willing to make up data to create an emergency, we have a problem. When you have the data and it can be verified (and probably should be before you speak out) you have a personal obligation to speak up. If you are willing to sacrifice your professional career for a personal belief, then I believe you are just to do so, but this does come at a cost and we need to acknowledge that.
If every or even just a lot, of scientists decided to take on their own cause and they are wrong, the field will suffer. Scientists will become people who cannot be trusted and we would reach a point where it wouldn't make sense to fund them because they aren't believed anyway.
There is an imaginary line here but I can't figure out where it is. It seems like its a nuanced, wavy line that may have some holes in it. To me though, its a line of personal and professional ethics that should sometimes be crossed and when it is, we need to carefully examine how it went and if it should be crossed in that way again. Though to me it's not a line between "science" and "citizens" because we are all citizens with jobs and responsibilities to our fields. It's a line of trust between the public and the science they fund.
I believe that most people do not want to be lied to. We want to be told the truth because when something unexplained is happening, we need to know what is going on. Being fed lies, especially in a public health context, really means that eventually the truth will come out and that many many people cannot protect themselves.
I don't understand why we don't allow scientists to be citizens or people. We expect doctors to stand up and help if theres an emergency on a plane because while they bill x dollars an hour at work, they also are people who can help in an emergency. We expect them to be people with a set of skills before money craving professionals. Scientists are a group of people who have undergone an extensive educational process so that they can effectively analyze a situation and determine what's happening so that we can come to the truth. I don't understand how we are expected to stand by if someone calls out for help. In Flint, before Virginia Tech got involved, I strongly believe that samples were analyzed with the hope that nothing was actually wrong and that the state of Michigan was telling the truth. But once the problem was confirmed, I feel that there is a responsibility to speak out.
I understand the world is complicated and that people have agendas. In academia, funding is key, and in one way, that makes sense. We need to research what is important and we need to understand that those who have money, decide what is important. Be it funding organizations (EPA,NSF,CDC) or individuals (Bill and Melinda Gates). I know that people make up data so that they can get results but I have to believe that is not the majority.
To me, the imaginary line comes into play when you sacrifice a personal code for a professional agenda and not in the reverse. When you are willing to make up data to create an emergency, we have a problem. When you have the data and it can be verified (and probably should be before you speak out) you have a personal obligation to speak up. If you are willing to sacrifice your professional career for a personal belief, then I believe you are just to do so, but this does come at a cost and we need to acknowledge that.
If every or even just a lot, of scientists decided to take on their own cause and they are wrong, the field will suffer. Scientists will become people who cannot be trusted and we would reach a point where it wouldn't make sense to fund them because they aren't believed anyway.
There is an imaginary line here but I can't figure out where it is. It seems like its a nuanced, wavy line that may have some holes in it. To me though, its a line of personal and professional ethics that should sometimes be crossed and when it is, we need to carefully examine how it went and if it should be crossed in that way again. Though to me it's not a line between "science" and "citizens" because we are all citizens with jobs and responsibilities to our fields. It's a line of trust between the public and the science they fund.
How much money should Grad Students pay in taxes?
For those not up to date with the news : The House passed their version of the Republican Tax Plan.
Normally I never really worried about these because honestly I don't make that much money and I'm ok with that. But this Tax Plan will affect us. Something I don't think most graduate students think about is that we technically pay tuition on top of our modest graduate stipends. Up until now that was a figure we didn't have to worry about because, the University takes care of it.
In my graduate stipend the University pays for around 14,000 dollars in tuition and up until now I really didn't worry about that. I don't plan on dropping out or anything so I wasn't worried. I don't have to pay taxes on that money and it didn't matter.
The new tax plan changes all that. Instead of just being taxed on your graduate stipend, we'll be taxed on the stipend + tuition. This means that my "income" will increase by roughly 44% and my monthly taxes would double and I'm fortunate. Virginia Tech has relatively low tuition but private schools like Harvard anticipates their graduate students would see a 400% tax increase.
All is not lost though and this is where my knowledge of American government is seriously lacking. The clause of interest is not present in the Senate Tax plan but I personally do not understand which voted on plan takes precedence or how that works.
Now to the ethics part of my post. This is about taxes and what purpose they have in a society. Taxes, to me, serve to pay for communal goods and services that we value. That's usually elements at a state and federal level so: infrastructure, the military, NSF, oversight bodies such as EPA and CDC, and a host of other things. I guess it makes sense to me that those who make more should pay more and that is what we do. I don't think someone making very little should pay the same as someone who makes millions. This is partly because if we decide the annual minimum cost of living in the US is around 16,000 for a single person with healthcare, it doesn't seem ethical to me to tax so that their take home income is below that. It does make sense to tax someone making a million dollars, more, because they aren't worried about covering basic needs.
A key element of this is what we define as "income" and that's why the tax plan is so nuanced. I don't think that money I don't see seems much like income to me. But I do understand the argument. Technically that money is being given and paid for my benefit and while I never see it, I understand that someone else could use that money. The issue I don't agree with, and I think many STEM graduate students will agree with me, is that my annual salary is worth the value of my stipend. I don't make what I would in the field with an undergraduate degree in Environmental Engineering. In grad school I take the financial hit because I'm investing in my own future and am not going into further debt to do so.
This tax plan (if it's passed) changes that equation. It creates a hierarchy where people who have money to pay excessive taxes, can go to private universities and the rest of us can't. This plan affects professors,grad students and Universities and I am interested to see how they will react if it passes.
Normally I never really worried about these because honestly I don't make that much money and I'm ok with that. But this Tax Plan will affect us. Something I don't think most graduate students think about is that we technically pay tuition on top of our modest graduate stipends. Up until now that was a figure we didn't have to worry about because, the University takes care of it.
In my graduate stipend the University pays for around 14,000 dollars in tuition and up until now I really didn't worry about that. I don't plan on dropping out or anything so I wasn't worried. I don't have to pay taxes on that money and it didn't matter.
The new tax plan changes all that. Instead of just being taxed on your graduate stipend, we'll be taxed on the stipend + tuition. This means that my "income" will increase by roughly 44% and my monthly taxes would double and I'm fortunate. Virginia Tech has relatively low tuition but private schools like Harvard anticipates their graduate students would see a 400% tax increase.
All is not lost though and this is where my knowledge of American government is seriously lacking. The clause of interest is not present in the Senate Tax plan but I personally do not understand which voted on plan takes precedence or how that works.
Now to the ethics part of my post. This is about taxes and what purpose they have in a society. Taxes, to me, serve to pay for communal goods and services that we value. That's usually elements at a state and federal level so: infrastructure, the military, NSF, oversight bodies such as EPA and CDC, and a host of other things. I guess it makes sense to me that those who make more should pay more and that is what we do. I don't think someone making very little should pay the same as someone who makes millions. This is partly because if we decide the annual minimum cost of living in the US is around 16,000 for a single person with healthcare, it doesn't seem ethical to me to tax so that their take home income is below that. It does make sense to tax someone making a million dollars, more, because they aren't worried about covering basic needs.
A key element of this is what we define as "income" and that's why the tax plan is so nuanced. I don't think that money I don't see seems much like income to me. But I do understand the argument. Technically that money is being given and paid for my benefit and while I never see it, I understand that someone else could use that money. The issue I don't agree with, and I think many STEM graduate students will agree with me, is that my annual salary is worth the value of my stipend. I don't make what I would in the field with an undergraduate degree in Environmental Engineering. In grad school I take the financial hit because I'm investing in my own future and am not going into further debt to do so.
This tax plan (if it's passed) changes that equation. It creates a hierarchy where people who have money to pay excessive taxes, can go to private universities and the rest of us can't. This plan affects professors,grad students and Universities and I am interested to see how they will react if it passes.
What do you think about mandatory voting?
ITS ELECTION DAY! Everyone get out to the polls and please make your voice heard. Regardless of who you vote for, I view voting as an obligation of the citizen. 60 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2016 presidential election and only 40% of 18-29 year olds votes. WHY?
Voting is a free way to give your opinion on your government and the state of affairs. The numbers only get worse for off years (like this one). The voter turn out for 2015 was only 40%. White americans are the demographic most likely to get out to the polls, followed by Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. Individuals with Post-Grad degrees are most likely to vote so hopefully all of you keep this up.
I wanted to look at how other countries encourage democracy (or voter turnout to elections) and a few really stand out. The first idea is making the first Tuesday in November a federal holiday. "Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, India, New Zealand, and a number of other countries, for example, facilitate voting with an extremely simple, low-cost innovation: They hold elections on either weekends or holidays." This is not a unique idea and I feel it would fundamentally encourage voters if that was your one responsibility for the day.
Other countries such as Australia, have compulsory voting. This means that on election day, you must vote or you face a 20 dollar fine if you don't have a legitimate excuse. While this approach seems a bit aggressive, we already force men over 18 to sign up for the draft and to serve if called upon. Now I know thats not a regular occurrence but we also have mandatory jury duty. Mandatory elections I do not think would place undue burden on the citizen and the benefits of a more representative government can't be understated.
The United States is 139 of 172 when it comes to voter turnout. For a country that spread freedom and democracy like no one's business, this is a sad statistic. Sweden, one of the best voting countries in the world with 96% voter turnout, doesn't have secondary registration ( which makes a lot of sense to me), instead they have a national database that uses public records to send out voter's appropriate polling stations before each election.
Why don't Americans vote? I'm not sure, but there's definitely room for improvement.
Voting is a free way to give your opinion on your government and the state of affairs. The numbers only get worse for off years (like this one). The voter turn out for 2015 was only 40%. White americans are the demographic most likely to get out to the polls, followed by Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. Individuals with Post-Grad degrees are most likely to vote so hopefully all of you keep this up.
I wanted to look at how other countries encourage democracy (or voter turnout to elections) and a few really stand out. The first idea is making the first Tuesday in November a federal holiday. "Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, India, New Zealand, and a number of other countries, for example, facilitate voting with an extremely simple, low-cost innovation: They hold elections on either weekends or holidays." This is not a unique idea and I feel it would fundamentally encourage voters if that was your one responsibility for the day.
Other countries such as Australia, have compulsory voting. This means that on election day, you must vote or you face a 20 dollar fine if you don't have a legitimate excuse. While this approach seems a bit aggressive, we already force men over 18 to sign up for the draft and to serve if called upon. Now I know thats not a regular occurrence but we also have mandatory jury duty. Mandatory elections I do not think would place undue burden on the citizen and the benefits of a more representative government can't be understated.
The United States is 139 of 172 when it comes to voter turnout. For a country that spread freedom and democracy like no one's business, this is a sad statistic. Sweden, one of the best voting countries in the world with 96% voter turnout, doesn't have secondary registration ( which makes a lot of sense to me), instead they have a national database that uses public records to send out voter's appropriate polling stations before each election.
Why don't Americans vote? I'm not sure, but there's definitely room for improvement.
