Actual insider tips for College

            I've been lounging around, waiting for Institute for Teach For America and happened to pop on the TV to find Rachel Cruze spouting out nonsense concerning college. She's encouraging students to go to state schools that are far cheaper than their Elite peers and makes the argument that this will put these students at little to no disadvantage. That's a huge lie. I wish it weren't a huge lie, but it is. There are advantages and disadvantages to going to an Elite institution. Going to local state schools also has its own advantages as well. Here are a few actual tips to save money for college, that are doable by almost anyone.

1. Check out the Honors program of your State school- 

 Unless your State school is a UVA or UNC, then your state school is probably average in terms of rankings. Yet you hear of so many people getting amazing jobs after college. That my friends is a result of what some people call "Ivy patches". Honor Programs or Colleges within State institutions tend to provide elite level education regardless of the ranking of the school. These degrees are typically respected locally, so don't try to push your luck too much. Furthermore, these programs tend to have amazing networks all around the world, developed by alumni of the program. Needless to say, these students are the ones getting the best job offers from their career centers, while other students are expected to fumble through the job seeking process. 

2. Ranking isn't everything, but it is something-

 There are advantages for going to an elite institution. The first being name recognition. As I went on interviews for Teaching positions, just the mention of University of Michigan had Principals singing my accolades for academic achievement. Am I deserving of this kind of preferential treatment? Probably not. Did it land me jobs? I doubt it, hard work and dedication is still necessary. But it can be the little bit that puts you over an equally qualified candidate. Furthermore, these degrees have a further geographical reach than your local state school. This reach allows you to easily move throughout the country, while having employers respect your degree. Now if you're set on staying in your geographical region, then honestly you should go to the cheapest state school out there. People have an affinity for local universities and will typically put them on par with elite institutions that are out of state. If your university commands respect in the place where you want to work, then that's the only validation you need. 

3. Elite schools have Elite Networks- 

     Elite schools have a plethora of successful alumni, allowing the opportunities offered through the career center to sometimes be life savers and well worth the high tuition. Now that doesn't mean all people who go to Elite Universities are entitled to these offers. Elite institutions have honors programs, just as other institutions do. Furthermore, the bigger your school, the more competition you're going to have to face. So don't think because you went to an "Elite" institution that a job is going to fall right into your lap. You need to work for it. 

4. There is a debt limit that's hard to predict- 

    If you're planning to go into a field like Economics or Business and you are certain you will be pursuing these things for a career, then definitely go to an elite institution. Getting a BBA from the Ross School of Business in comparison to another Business school could be the difference between Wall Street and unemployment. The issue is many elite institutions are expensive and require you to go into a lot of debt. Some will say screw the debt, you'll be making a lot as an investment banker. Yes, that's true, if you become an investment banker. There needs to be a cap on what students take out in loans and I personally think parents need to take a more proactive role in tempering their kid's aspirations. A parent needs to ask themselves, "how determined is my child to go into finance or economics." If you think your child without a doubt is going to do it, then you should encourage them to take the debt out for a school that can give them the connections they need to get the job they want. If you aren't so sure, then maybe you should encourage your child to go to a cheaper University. Lower rankings do not mean there is any difference in the quality of the education. 

5. You go to college for peers, not Professors- 

   If you're serious about school and have worked hard to attend a great University, then your entitlement isn't to an elite institution, it's to an exceptional cadre of colleagues. That's sometimes the issue with lower ranking schools. The education is great and the opportunities are great, but the student body ends up lacking because the standards to be admitted are far lower than that of a higher ranking school. While making friends may not be your top priority, it can be integral to having a good college experience. Keep this in mind

6. I'm serious about going into (blank), should I go to Harvard? 

This is usually the misconception I see many high school students making. They want to go into a specialized field and assume that an elite institution is the best way to get there. This may not be true. It's important that if you are set on a specialized field, then you check which school has the leading experts in that field. You may be surprised. Elite Institutions do not specialize in everything and lower ranking institutions have far better experts in many topics. If your topic is covered by your local institution, then I think you should go to your local institution. I would only be wary of a few things. First, know what topics are actually germane to your field. Many people might think that English departments might have professors who focus  on early adult fiction or mystery novels and so on. However, the vast majority of English Professors focus on time periods and theories. If you love Early modern poetry written by women in the 17th century, then there's a place for your somewhere. If you want to an expert on Harry Potter, then I think you'll be having a tough time searching for a University that would let you pursue that. Furthermore, choosing a school for their specialization is risky because if you decide you don't want to do that particular topic (as many college students do), you might find yourself stuck in a place that doesn't have the expert you're looking for. 

7. How much money should I take out in loans? 

    If you're thinking about going to college the answer would be as little as possible

    If you're in college, you need to be thinking job, job, job, job, I NEED A JOB (unless you're planning to stay in academia, then your job is school)

Using myself as an example, I worked for the working family party my freshman year summer and wasn't thrilled about the work. Then I worked in Housing and while I enjoyed it, I didn't really want to make it a career. Then I tutored and I knew for a fact I liked teaching. I kept working until I found what I liked to do and that needs to be your mentality when you're in college. You need to find what you like to do and somehow make that thing pay your loans off. The average college student is going into loans of 30,000 plus. That is partially a failure of the government and institutions, but I also think this is also because of the inclination of many parents not to pay. 

Note for parents: If you can't afford college for your child, that is completely understandable. Financial aid should be able to help students who have parents who can't pay tuition. However, if you can afford to give money for your child's education, then shame on you if you withhold that money. I personally think if you're making a salary of 60k or above, and your child asks you to chip in 7 to 9k a year for tuition, then you should do it. That's a reasonable price for any parent. If your child flunks out or is not taking education seriously, then

Social Justice isn't Passive Aggressive, Racism and Sexism are

                   A fellow Wolverine posted on a status I had about a Twitter war between Azealia Banks and Iggy. Naturally Banks went in on Iggy's sudden silence in the wake of the Brown and Garner decisions, leaving twitter gems such as "makes me wanna throw a jar of piss at her." Now just to be clear I loved Banks' comments as they were a raw and candid display of frustration with someone who has appropriated black and hip-hop culture without even attending the cultural tenets both cultures hold dear.
            The Wolverine was displeased with what he perceived as a race to the bottom discussion about contentious political issues about race. He specifically pointed out the twitter battles that force people to take sides. His comment got me thinking about what "twitter battles" actually amount to. Twitter battles really only serve as passive aggressive mud slinging. Neither side will admit they are dismissing the other, but we can all read between the two lines of the pound symbol to see the incendiary subtext being made. And at that moment I took a step back and evaluated what I consider to be "my side."
         While I have been critical of the social justice community as of late, I am still a strong advocate for Social Justice and its beliefs. Could it be that "my side" is equally guilty of fueling this passive aggressive propaganda fest, thus inhibiting any meaningful dialogue and progress from being made? And then I thought of the recent "twitter wars" and realized my answer is resounding no. I believe if we examine the Twitter sphere we will find that many "Twitter Wars" are actually digital social justice movements that are direct and candid which are then met with a slew of passive aggressive counter culture responses (i.e. oppressive, typically white,male,hetero dominated point of view).
                 Let's start with the #blacklivesmatter movement. It started in response to actual events that transpired (i.e. the killing of Garner and Brown). There was no underhanded or indirect acknowledgement of the events. In fact the movement adopted the language associated with the two murders. Many tweets had some derivative of "hands up, don't shoot" and "I can't breathe", tying the movement to the specific incidents and to a larger conversation surrounding police and race relations.
             Now let's compare that with #alllivesmatter. #allivesmatter would not in the least bit be racist if it did not have such reactionary inertia behind it. It was created in response to #blacklivesmatter, but instead of being candid of its critical tone, it instead hides behind a facade of universal justice. Most tweets coming from #allivesmatter find an underhanded way to discredit the #blacklivesmatter movement. Even this seemingly harmless tweet which reads "People who can't understand the importance of human rights and justice need to educate themselves instead of run on emotions," is indirectly criticizing the emotional response by many blacks as an irrational response that borders on close minded. Instead of being candid of her criticism of the #blacklivesmatter movement the twitterer decided to shield herself with a blanket statement. #allivesmatter is ironically hyper conscious of #blacklivesmatter, while #blacklivesmatter is mostly focused on current events that are transpiring in the United States.
         We can see the same trend in #allwomen vs the #notallmen tweets. The #notallmen tweets in this case were in the beginning and in response to the horrible Elliot Roger shooting. But did the tweets actually engage with the feminist conversation surrounding the shooting? No, in fact the whole purpose of the hashtag was to distance men from the reality. In both cases the two hashtags move away from the actual events that transpired and instead shield themselves with comments that undercut what actually happened. #allwomen is simply based on actual experiences. Reading the #allwomen tweets immediately make the experiences of women clear. @allwomen isn't undercutting #notallmen or trying to create a subtext for the #notallment tweets. Instead it provides real life testimony of the egregious sexist acts men do towards women.
    So I'm basically done with this two sides nonsense. There aren't two sides to these stories. These stories are multi-faceted issues, but when your values systems differs in a fundamental way it's because you have become deaf to the experiences of the oppressed. The oppressed only speak with tongue in cheek when they must fake smiles to their oppressors. Twitter is a place for open discourse and naturally the oppressed are candid and direct (e.g. throwing a jar of piss on someone). The only people who are not direct are those who are oppressing and are in self denial. So please take your neutrality somewhere else. You're not neutral, you're petty and passive aggressive and I honestly can't deal with that shit.

AAVE Ebonics and the way I speak

I didn't hear of Ebonics or AAVE till I reached college. My black friends from NYC also didn't hear of Ebonics or AAVE till they reached college. I mean we all knew and used the dialect they were referring to. But the actual designation was never necessary. And clearly we used it to different degrees. Furthermore, Spanglish is another dialect that mixed with my vernancular. The point is that my linguistic journey has been a complicated conglomerate. So when I see people policing language as appropriative claiming "if you're not black, you cannot use that language" I eyebrow raise and get frustrated. I did not have a choice in whether I spoke in ebonics. My Mom, Dad, friends and many people around me spoke in it, so I grew up speaking in it. I learned code switching early as my parents always emphasized the proper language for the proper time. And yes there was a stigma around the language as improper, but I still used it because it was natural for me. I never used it in a sarcastic manner, it was just the way I spoke. That's the issue with ebonics and AAVE being enforced as a language only blacks can use. I don't become upset with my black (non-latino) friends who grew up saying chancla because I know it was forced upon them. I grew up in a diverse neighborhood so I've picked up the slang and vernancular of several cultures. Some of that happens to be black. Now of course certain words are clearly "off limits" and there's a clear tone that makes you an appropriating asshole. but before you call someone out who is using ebonics and isn't black, perhaps you should check yourself. I'm not ignorant to the roots of my language. I know the words that came from my Puerto Rican roots. I know the words that I picked up from my black friends growing up. I know the etymology (not perfectly of course, but I have an idea of where what came from).

Is the stigma still there? Yes. It's a stigma not only placed on blacks, but basically all lower class inner city kids ( so basically predominantly black and latino populations, but not only them). My students in class speak to me in ebonics regularly. I always correct them (code switching is an unfortunate reality we live with and it'd be irresponsible of me not to get them prepared for the scrutiny they will face in traditional academia). If you ask me to stop speaking ebonics because I am not black, my answer is simple: no. That's because it's my language. It's what I grew up speaking. I did not choose to speak it, it was forced on me. When ever I strayed from it, I frequently was told I was "talking white." As a writer I'm constantly confused as to how to speak. Do I maintain clean and crisp prose or do I slip into my New York vernancular where I slip into a smattering of ebonics, slang and odd pronunciation of er endings. Point is before you call someone out be sure it's for good reason. 

You want to save all kids, but you can't and you can

                 One thing I've learned as a teacher that runs counter intuitive to what has been taught to me as a TFA member is to reject the notion that all kids can be saved. I am not advocating for someone to give up on students. I am merely suggesting that when you have a classroom plagued with classroom management issues, targeting the students whose behavior can change should be your first priority and you should not feel guilty for doing so. This will mean that for some period of time you let that one student who is a serious behavior issue sleep in class. Or you consistently send that kid out of the room in order to prevent him (it could be a her as well) from setting off your entire class.
             But Raymond, how could you, doesn't that kid deserve an education too? Yes, he does and currently in your dysfunctional classroom he isn't receiving one. Any attempt you make on changing his behavior isn't going to work because students with his behavior issues cannot correct behavior through normal means. If they see other students then they will react and escalate the situation. That's why sometimes you need to let them flounder a bit while you set the classroom culture. Make it so that the students you can control are consistently following your directions and then slowly but surely those students with serious behavior issues will feel the pressure to conform. Also, when you're spending less time dealing with small behavior issues, then you have time to work and negotiate the difficult behavior coming from that student. Eventually that student will be put back on the list of things to do, but don't feel ashamed if you're overwhelmed and you want to change your classroom culture in a practical way.

As a new teacher I know very little, so naturally I just copy what veteran teachers have taught. Here are some good pragmatic management tips

1. The power of ignore- you will have students who crave attention. Don't punish those students, they want the punishment, punish the students that react to them. Eventually that student will stop because their classmates will ignore them completely.

2. Middle school students are self conscious- addressing a kid in front of the class is powerful because it sends a message to the entire class, if you do this I will call you out and you make look like a complete fool. Of course be selective when you do this, but making an example can sometimes be the best thing you could ever do

3. Transitions!- make transitions as short as possible. It's simple.

4. Don't play on a student's terms. Students want to rile you up. They want you to yell. Just don't do it/ Just give them the consequence and move on. 

10 ways you know you attended the University of Michigan and are a true Wolverine! Go blue forever and ever!

1. You attended University of Michigan
2. You paid tuition to the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
3. You took classes at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
4. You lived in the residence halls during the regular school year at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
5. You earned credits at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
6. You received an acceptance letter to attend the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
7. You put a deposit down on the tuition to confirm your attendance at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
8. You hate Sparty! Just kidding, generalizing people from Michigan like that makes no sense. What I meant to say is you have gone to classes that were held on the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus
9. You owe loans to the University of Michigan Ann Arbor for tuition
10. You have a diploma from the University of Michigan Ann Arbor

I'll put the blame on me

               I have been considering how to write a post about my recent experiences as a teacher in the Bronx. I didn't want to claim any authority as a teacher because I'm still new and I'm still figuring out how things work and how to teach. I feel comfortable in the classroom, but I never feel perfect. Who knows if I'll ever feel perfect. So I can't speak as a teacher, but I can speak as a person watching the difficulties of education from the inside. Too often there are articles and studies published describing inner city schools as "failing" and "dysfunctional". They call them dropout factories and begin the blame game. Blame the teachers first because clearly they did not do their jobs. Blame the principal for not firing them. Blame the unions who prevented the teachers from being fired. Blame the parents who didn't raise their kids properly. And the most sickening blame I see: blame the students for being lazy ingrates who did not take advantage of the social mobility put in front of them. Those casting blame often have very little experience with these areas or have only seen these areas through a 25 cent binocular stand visit. They saw one fight or one disrespectful exchange between a student and teacher and felt content with labeling all the students as failures.
            I was ready for that reality when I walked in. What I didn't expect to find was the reality painted by the media being a farce. Schools aren't always at the verge of failing. Administrations are not always lazy. Teachers are not always ineffective. Parents are excellent caregivers and role models. And my kids are spectacular. Yet some of them will still struggle and possibly fail school. But why Raymond, if everything going so splendidly what is the issue that needs to be fixed! But that's the thing, it's so complicated that I can't give you the golden formula that explains what makes good schools. The narratives I'm about to paint aren't from any specific students of mine, but what one could expect to see in an inner city classroom as an educator.
          You receive a class of 35 students, immediately over the threshold recommended for your classroom. The irony of being a school that's respected in an inner city neighborhood is it often leads to your school becoming overcrowded since every parent wants their kid there. Your students are excellent. They want to please you and will do work in the hopes to succeed and gain your praise. One student in particular has been struggling in your class. You do everything in your power to help them. Extra homework, lunchtime tutoring, positive rewards for good behavior. The only issue is the student came to 6th grade lacking basic multiplication skills. You can't teach multiplication skills in two weeks. They fail their first exam and feel betrayed by you preaching hard work and determination. They don't come to you for extra help anymore. But you have 34 other students to worry about, so as long as that student isn't a behavior issue in the classroom (which they often do become because they feel disengaged by the material), then you can focus your efforts on other students. You have a student who doesn't show up until 2 weeks later. They are doing math at a 3rd grade level and are now 2 weeks behind. They also misbehave in the classroom constantly. You find it easier to send them out of the classroom than to actually teach them. Every time you tell them to leave you feel a bit defeated. A student in your class has family issues at home as a result of lack of income. They may lose their apartment. Unsurprisingly this student has started to act up in your classroom. You're a no nonsense teacher though so you tell the student you're sorry about their situation but that behavior is not acceptable in the classroom. It doesn't work. That student who used to be an A student has now become satisfied with Cs. They also will give you attitude in the class. This is the unfortunate reality. You have a student who has a learning disability. You try to differentiate materials for them, but with so many students it's difficult to do this for every lesson. The student is still struggling and you want to offer them more support, but it does not exist at your school. The student grows more frustrated as success feels more unlikely. They begin to check out in your classes, which they cannot afford to do since their learning disability makes it incredibly difficult to catch up. You have a model student who is going to take the specialized high school exam. They could not afford a prep class and their parents would not buy them a prep book. You want to buy one for them, but your paycheck can barely afford the rent and food. The student fails to gain admittance to any specialized high school. Why didn't they go to the library? The library is too far from their house and they can't stay out late because it's dangerous. You are a teacher. Your kids aren't doing well. Whose fault is it? I guess I'll put the blame on me.
      Rewrite the narrative. Great educators exist everywhere and aren't only teachers. You have a student who struggles and seeks extra help. You do everything in your power: extra homework, lunchtime tutoring, positive rewards. You notice they struggle with multiplication and get your school to purchase an online game that teaches kids multiplication. The student scores a respectable 75 on their exam. They are determined to get an 80 on the next one. You have a student who comes to school two weeks late, who is working on a 3rd grade math level. They misbehave constantly and you find it easier to send them out of the room. But in your first day of teaching you told them you won't be sent out this classroom. You keep to your promise and the kid eventually stops trying to get thrown out. They begin the road of improving in math, but still struggle. You have a student who is starting to act up  because their family may be evicted. You bring this issue to a social worker who finds access to emergency funds that helps struggling families stay in apartments. The student recognizes your role in that process and is now grateful. They become a positive role model in the classroom. You have a student who has a learning disability. You try to differentiate materials, but they still struggle. Your school can't offer you more resources. So you give up lunches and sometime after school to keep this kid on track. They score a 70 on their exam. They appreciate your extra help and are more motivated to work in your classroom. You still can't purchase that specialized high school prep book, but that pushes you to start a specialized high school prep course in your school. The student immediately signs up and gets admitted to Brooklyn Technical High School. But you have other students who you will fail. Students you can't find a fix for. You will eventually be spent and be unable to help your students.
     The story of educating isn't a hopeless one, just a difficult one. Sometimes the resources exist to patchwork success. Other times you watch as a student fails and you can do very little to help. You keep trying. You do what ever works. And when it doesn't work you try something else. Grad school doesn't teach you how to be a teacher. It shows you how not to be one. I have only worked with my kids for two months. I work with real professionals  who have taught their kids for years. Your school is your neighborhood. Your neighborhood is a part of your school. Embrace it. Your school is not an island or an ivory tower. The best schools I find are fixtures that reflect the neighborhood they serve. This post has been a ramble about what I've seen. Of course I didn't use any of my own students experiences because I respect their privacy far too much. So the next time you want to declare outright condemnation of the education system, stop and listen to the teachers, principals, families, students, social workers, bodega owners, para professionals. They hold stories of what is both great and horrible in our schools. Some will tell tales of doom and gloom. Others will speak of immense success happening in our "failing" school system. 

The ward against White Insecurity: why millennial minorities will no longer beg

"I believe that white racial anxiety, not immigration, will be the most significant and potentially dangerous socio-demographic trend of the coming decade...." Los Angeles Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez

        This quote rings true 4 years later. Policies and attitudes concerning diversity in this country have taken a turn from general acceptance to a rapid redefining of what "good" diversity entails and what is now referred to as (fictitious) "reverse racism". Mr. Rodriguez would go on to suggest that institutions of learning abandon programs such as affirmative action in an effort to abate a white backlash. The issue with affirmative action is that institutions of whiteness are inherently threatened by the success of minorities. Whites in power have no intention of ending the oppression of minorities. 
       Now to be perfectly clear I do not believe there is a secret group of white straight men, smoking cigars as they think about how they will maintain this hierarchical racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. system. I think that there is a plethora of white straight men, smoking cigars as they think about how they will maintain their own success. This maintenance requires that policies are written to support them and their endeavors, which only serves to help their high end workers, who tend to be white straight male as well. Certainly they'll have a minority or two in the mix, but there is no way one could claim there is a rainbow ribbon that exists in the upper echelons of power in this country. This isn't conscious racism (most of the time, some of it is), but a society where minorities are consistently exploited. Even rich minorities exist to be tolkenized and held up as an icon of shame for their people, rather than be role models. The point is that privilege exists and the reason it's affecting white people is because they tend to be the ones with the power. Why do they have power? Colonialism, slavery, Jim Crow, we live in the legacy of horrible injustices. 
    If you disagree with the previous paragraph, then I suggest you read some history books and then interrogate the paragraph again. I'd suggest Howard Zinn as a good starting point. If you continue to disagree, then stop reading. You and I won't see eye to eye. In fact,  you are actively my oppressor and I'm through with tolerance for your intolerance. You and I can talk more on the political battlefield. And it is a battlefield. Minorities are wising up to the nonsense we've had perpetrated against us. The generation of minorities that came before us have been largely docile in the sense that they knew progress can only be made in baby steps. Even Martin Luther King, a radical in many of his writings and speeches, understood the rhetorical importance of making his speeches hospitable for the curious appropriating white reader (they were called communist back then). Do you honestly think MLK would sit idly by in a restaurant when he could garner enough votes in an election to win districts in his home state? The time has come for us to take back Malcom X's call for treating the ballot as a bullet. The only difference is the White backlash has begun. The hobbling of the VRA was the first mortal blow done to minority suffrage. The after effect of the Supreme Court's decision essentially resulted in a slew of needless voter id laws (check the percentage of voter fraud in this country) conveniently popping up in the absolved counties from the decision. 
     But it's too late. Too many of us are graduating and we know what's up. Millennial Minorities will no longer be complicit with our own subordination. We will be successful and have money and be well versed so that when Whites do try to bar us from the vote, we will fight politically and legally. Furthermore, when I say whites I think it's understood by all allies that I'm not referring to you. White allies will stand with us, expecting nothing in return. Minorities have no incentive to vote with each other, but we always have an incentive to not vote against each other. The oppression of one of us always results in further oppression for all of us. We end the cycle now. No longer do we bargain for our freedom and success. We will take it.