"keeping close to home"

In the essay “keeping close to home: class and education”, bell hooks opens her story with the fact that her parents did not want her to go away for college. As stated in the title of her essay and in her remarks, her parents did not want her to go off due to an “ignorance” marked by her family’s economic status. In presenting these contrasting ideas, bell hooks states that her parents, “like many working-class folks, they feared what college education might do to their children’s minds” (153). Undoubtedly this referring to the fact that receiving a higher education is viewed as climbing up to a new social standing. As believed by the majority of main stream America, it is quite normal to see kids in a family go off at the age of eighteen or nineteen to college and separate themselves for ever from their families. Most of these college students never live under their parents’ roofs again; it is almost unseen that students live at home during their college experience and beyond.

Unlike the American ideal of breaking away from home and growing as a person in college, the general Mexican culture believes that it is better for a person to live with their family until they are truly independent; that is, they leave home until they have a job or sometimes until they are married. When reading bell hooks’ essay, it was quite normal to see her parents’ hesitation, but the difference here was in their economic status. In most Mexican families, wealthy, middle-class or lower, the kids often stay as close to home as possible because it is in the mainstream culture that our families are the center of it all. In being so, newly bound college students tend to find a university in their city if there is one, or a college where they know they will have family close by. Unlike bell hooks, my quest in finding a college was more similar to that of other Mexican students. Although I had lived in the U.S. for the past five years, my parents still believed that it was necessary for me to stay as close to home, or at least Dallas which was more familiar. I have also come to see that there is more hesitation in leaving home by Mexican girls than boys. In the majority of cases, it is the daughters that often decide to stay home during their college experience, although there are always exceptions. It could be sad for some to see that I fit just that stereotypical mold that I have come to build of the majority of Mexican students, but I am just that. Being brought up in such a thigh-knit family environment, I saw it important for me to keep as close to home as possible while still having the opportunity to expand my knowledge and make connections at school.

Although I am not being bias in seeing these two different lifestyles, I find it interesting how the cultures of two neighboring countries see college in different lights. For Americans, college is a time to become complete independent from ones family and grow in their own way. For Mexicans, college is a time for students to maintain close contact with their families and continue to grow with the help of the people that care for them the most. Not taking into account the differences, it is good to notice that education above all, in both societies, is seen as the main ingredient for a person to succeed.

Are you the middle or younger child?

I was a bit bored last week and decided to go online and read random news articles that might not be shown on TV. The first I came across was "Does birth order matter?" on CNN.com. Being the youngest of three, immediately my instinct was to read on.

This article stated that Norwegian scientists discovered this summer that the order in which children are born in has an affect on their IQ and their overall achievement in life. Although there are many marginal errors in their analysis, they say that there are many reasons for why this is true.

The first child comes into a world were the parents are inexperienced, so they have their undivided attention. Later when sibling come into the mix, they have to be the responsible ones and show their younger siblings that they are role models. The scientists also believed that older children can relate more to adults since they spent more time alone with their parents.

The middle children are the laid-back relaxed ones that can sometimes seem to be "unnoticed". It is said that because they are left in the middle, they often tend to be rebellious and very competitive.

And then there's the last one. Coming into this world with more than experienced parents but can often receive less of their attention. In trying to win as much attention as possible, it is said that the youngest children can be perceived as the "spoiled" ones.

Although I found this article more that interesting, I must say that it really did not apply to my family. I do agree to some extent that my older sister tends to be the most responsible one, and my brother, the "middle" child, is the most care-free, but I don't think that our IQ or achievement levels are different. All three of us have been more than highly competitive in school, and for my older siblings work, and all of us have very high standards and goals for ourselves. I did find this article informative, but I think that it maybe wrong to make false assumptions about siblings, even when given scientific proof. Maybe my family does not exactly fill the cookie cutter mold.

Does your family?

All For the Gold

Olympic athletes have always been icons and legends in all human eyes. They exceed an average person's strength, ability, speed, and endurance. Some might say that being an Olympic athlete means you are close to physical perfection. But, is there was an easier way to reach this "perfection", more of a "short-cut", would you take it?

This past Friday, Marion Jones, one of the U.S.' leading track and field athletes admitted, after years and years of denial, that she had be using performance steroids. Immediately, millions and millions of fans felt the strong betrayal of trust. With great guilt, she admitted to using these steroids since before the 2000 Olympic Games in Australia. According to Jones, her coach at the time in 1999 first gave her the steroid often called "The Clear", and did not quit using it until 2001. Now at 31, she has decided to come out with the truth and retire from the sport.

However, is apologizing enough? Sure, there is not much she can do now, but what about the millions of boys and girls that looked up to her? And not only her, but hundreds of other athletes that also use steroids, admitted or not? Just confessing their past actions will not cover for the millions of dollars they might have wrongfully won and the people they deceived. If our goal as humans is to ultimately improve our lives and do anything to reach it, is cheating in such a way wrong or right?

The truth is that there will always continue to be steroid use among athletes whether we like it or not. As new drugs and supplements are invented that can improve athletic performance more and more will begin to use them. The problem will only be greater in deciding if an athlete wins by their own work and sweat, or if they took a short-cut.