I Want Candy

So, I know I'm a little late, but I'm hooked to Candy Crush. I love the pure and simple joy of completing a level in Candy Crush. The shiny candies and chocolate bon bons entrance me every time I play. I have often found that once I begin to play, it is often a challenge for me to put it down.

After seeing myself and many other friends get hooked to Candy Crush, I wondered what is the cause of the obsession. Since the app's release in November of 2012, it has gained popularity "Worldwide... Candy Crush Saga is estimated to make £610,000 ($1,000,000) per day from its users, according to Appdata" (BBC). One of the reasons for the game's tremendous financial success is because of the way the app lures the user into paying for extra lives, add-ons which allow you to progress to higher levels, and access to higher levels. Some have questioned King's (the British-based company which developed Candy Crush) push to encourage gamers to buy add-ons because they believe it is unfair that money can be used win a game. On the other hand, the majority of the people playing Candy Crush do not pay money for the extra help (only about 25% of players have spent money on Candy Crush). Personally, I think that it is within King's right to have users pay for extras because all they are trying to do is make a profit. Though Candy Crush is not the first app to give gamers the option to buy extras within the app, Candy Crush has by far been the most successful in getting users to buy game advantages.

Another statistic that BBC pointed out which I thought was very interesting is that "The advent of smartphones and tablets has changed gaming - so much so that the typical Candy Crush Saga player is a woman aged 25-45." 

Why is it ethical/unethical for Candy Crush and other gaming apps to sell advantages? Why do you think the average gamer is a middle-aged woman?

More Money=Better ACT Score?

Recently, I have been thinking a lot about the dreaded ACT. For me and some of my friends, the doomed date of the next test is this upcoming Saturday!

As many of my American Studies classmates have noted, there is a great divide between low-income and higher-income opportunities when it comes to standardized testing like the ACT/SAT. More people in higher-income areas are able to pay for expensive private tutoring or have access to a test prep class, which can give an advantage to higher-income students and well-funded school. For me, and most New Trier students, it would be ridiculous to go into an ACT unprepared because of the opportunities we are given. 

So, if money can buy extra test prep, can it also buy extra time on the test to create yet another advantage for higher-income students?

The fact that many more students in well-off areas like the New Trier Township are receiving extra test time may seem odd. One might initially think that there are no more students with learning disabilities in  the New Trier district than any other district, so there would be an equal number of students with extra time on the ACT: "The natural proportion of learning disabilities should be somewhere around 2 percent, the College Board said, but at some elite schools, up to 46 percent of students receive special accommodations to take the tests, including extra time" (Tapper, ABC News). 

I would not say that people at higher-income schools who have extra time accommodations are not deserving it. There are many people that do need extra time on tests because of learning disabilities. But, why would the numbers be so disproportionate with many fewer people from lower-income areas receiving extra test time? I believe the answer lies in a flaw in the system: "Whatever the exam, applicants need to demonstrate that their disability substantially limits their daily functioning and their ability to take the test. So legal experts say the best investment is a comprehensive private evaluation, which can cost $1,000 to $5,000" (NY Times, Moore). In order to receive extra time accommodations, a parent or guardian usually must take their child to various physicians for a proper diagnosis of their learning disability. As you might imagine, this cost might not be available to families with low-income and therefore they cannot have the extra time they need. Besides money, the parents/guardian of the low-income students probably has a manual labor job(s) and they are tired and busy much of the time. Therefore, they are more unlikely to advocate for their child and spend a lot of time submitting forms and doctor recommendations for extra time.

In what other ways do you think the standardized testing system favors wealthier people? Why do you think this is a problem? 

Also, please feel free to comment on the photo--I chose that one for a reason.

I'm A Unitedstatesian

In Spanish class last year, my teacher would often go off on the same tangent about the fact that people who live in the United States are narcissistic to call themselves "Americans." She argued that the term, American is a selfish because it forgets that there are all the other countries in Central and South America too. My teacher would often say that the English language should adopt the word Unitedstatesian like the Spanish word, estadounidense, which describes someone from the United States because that would be more accurate than, "American."

In a way, I agree with my teacher. I wondered why the Spanish language would have a word to describe people from the United States and not the English language. I think that the connotation of the word, American, is that we could care less about the other nations that are in the Americas. Of course, it is not fair to say that everyone who lives in the U.S. thinks that they are better than people from other nations when they call themselves American. But, the word might have a totally different meaning to someone who lives in Panama, for example. A Panamanian might feel like people from the United States are narcissistic because they think they are the only Americans.

Americans' narcism may also be a proximate cause for the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC). The PIC often discriminates against people of color and immigrants. I think it is a major problem because it is increasing the class boundaries because people who have money are investing in prisons and are taking advantage of felons who are mostly non-whites. For example, because of laws preventing ex-felons from voting, many people of color are unable to vote. As a result, people of color are often stuck in the 'revolving door' of the Prison Industrial Complex: "This model understands incarceration, directly profitable or not, as part of a larger circuitry of social control in which the poor are blamed for their own plight..." (Coulter 3). It is a common trend, the wealthy and powerful ignore the people who are below them. Some people who live in the U.S. might think themselves above all other nations.

How do you feel about the word American being used to describe a person who lives in the United States?