After reading the first chapter of Freakonomics, written by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, I realized not only what similarities sumo wrestlers and teachers have in common, but also to what lengths they will go to receive an incentive and/or achieve their goals. It details how some teachers and sumo wrestlers cheat for their advantages. In the beginning of the chapter the authors describe the concept of incentives, initially when I began reading I thought to my self “isn’t this chapter about sumo wrestlers and teachers?” Even though it is, the authors decided to take explain some terms and back-story before diving into what they wanted to get across, which in my opinion was executed beautifully.
In 1996 high-stakes testing was implemented in schools
…show more content…
They also shed some light onto how the sumo community operates, explaining how the top sixty-six wrestlers are considered the sumo elite. For example the book states, “Any wrestler in the top forty earns at least $170,000 a year. The seventieth ranked wrestler in Japan, meanwhile, earns only $15,000 a year.” With each wrestler’s rank changing with every elite tournament, about every two months, cheating can help a lot of wrestlers get the eighth win they need to advance in the rankings. Obviously every time their ranking increases, so does their paycheck. So if you were a wrestler who already has eight wins and your opponent needs another win to reach eight also why not throw the match, your opponent will most likely throw the bout next time you face each other. What makes this kind of cheating even worse is the way cheating allegations are handled in the sumo community. According to the book there has never been “no formal disciplinary action has ever been taken against a Japanese sumo wrestler for match rigging,” making this type of cheating inevitable and thus making the sport of sumo wrestling an honor-less
To begin with, Kang inserts a patho appeal by narrating, “And yet, thanks to some creative accounting that showed a few teams operating at a loss, the players had to limit what they could earn to ensure the financial health of their billionaire owners.” The quote above is a very powerful emotional appeal to the readers illustrating the unfair treatment between the athletes and the owners which further persuade the readers that increasing the athlete's salary is a great idea. Correspondingly, Kang adds, “The league promotes this rabid attention as proof of its strenthen, but the players’ strengthen is mighty, too.”” Notably, the quote above is very impactful to the readers since the author emphasized teamwork as the root of strength and they should get paid accordingly. Likewise, pathos appeal are effective because the appeal assist Kang in persuading the readers’ emotions to lean for increasing the athlete's income.
“Perfect Parenting, Part II; Or: Would a Roshanda by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet” is the sixth chapter of Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. This chapter leads off tells a story of four different people with names that are not typical. One child, named Temptress, was charged in family court. One named Loser who became a success in every sense of the word. A man, named Winner, has a criminal record longer than this paper I am writing.
As such, while many traditional sports fans and experts may view this as a negative development, it is simply a reflection of the changing landscape of sports and entertainment. The author's conclusion is also tempered by a recognition of the valid criticisms of Paul's approach, particularly his cherry-picking of opponents and lack of professional behavior outside of the ring. These concerns raise important questions about the integrity and
Think like a Freak by Steven D Levitt and Stephen J Dubner is about changing one’s perspective and they way they think, taking chances, and how incentives play a large role in society. Levitt and Dubner’s book is composed of nine chapters where each chapter gradually builds up each point. The first chapter examines the complexity of problems and the routes one takes when it comes to decision making. One of the examples given was the was imagining what a soccer players point of view is when they are about to make a single penalty kick that determines the world cup championship.
Whether male, female, married, single, conservative or liberal all people have a moral compass. The moral compass in Freakonimics does not point in one direction creating a new approach to economics. Authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephan J. Dubner suggest viewpoints on crime, abortion, and education from an economic prospective while ignoring the right or left minded political viewpoints. Chapter 4 of Freakonimics answers the very question it proposes: “Where have all the criminals gone?” To begin answering the question Levitt and Dubner argue against the causes the press proposed regarding the 1990 crime drop.
Freakonomics Essay Freakonomics is a mind bending, engaging and controversial look into a never before talked about side of economics. From relating the Ku Klux Klan to real estate agents and to why drug dealers are living with their moms Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner turn conventional wisdom on its head. As a whole I enjoyed the book, but there were some things that annoyed me and that I didn’t like and/or confused me. Freakonomics makes you think differently about topics you thought you already knew the answer to. To most with little knowledge of writing techniques they would not have noticed/comprehended the authors uses of rhetoric and tone but luckily from these past few years of English classes I was able to pick up and see
Freakonomics is somewhat random grab bag of topics. The unifying theme of this book for me was finding ways to ask questions so that one's available statistics and data can provide an answer, time after time they used available statistics to provide some time of reasoning or answers to the question being asked. Some of these efforts were more successful than others. Some of the questions Levitt and Dubner study felt unnecessary, that no one really cares about. But there are also some good subjects.
The book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner talks about many different things, including cheating teachers and sumo wrestlers, how abortion lowered crime rates, how a street crack gang works, and whether the way parents raise their children even matter. These topics seem to have nothing in common, but all of these topics were identified in the same way: an economist (Levitt) looked at school test scores, crime data, and all sorts of other information, looking at them in unconventional ways. Because of that, he has come to many interesting and unique conclusions that make complete sense. These findings were based on some simple ideas: the power of incentives, conventional wisdom is not always right, things may not have obvious causes, and experts often serve their own interests instead of the interests of others. Perhaps the most important idea in the book is, as Levitt and Dubner state, “Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world much less so” (14).
After the fine is introduced, the number of late pick-ups rises. Researchers concluded that the $3 fine was a poor incentive for parents to pick their children up on time because the fine was too low. They then turn to discuss cheating and how some incentives can encourage dishonesty, comparing school teachers to sumo wrestlers. Using the Chicago Public School System they discuss the connection between incentives and cheating. In 1996, the school system began to give small bonuses to the teachers whose students had a rise in standardized test scores.
In the third chapter of Freakonomics, the question that is asked is “Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?” The first phrase that is brought up in this chapter is “conventional wisdom,” and economist named John Kenneth Galbraith goes into detail and describes this phrase as a type of information, this type of information reinforces one person’s type of interest and well-being. Conventional wisdom is described at convenient and comforting, but it does not always have to be that. It takes a lot for people to even begin to doubt that conventional wisdom is not true. In the rest of the chapter Levitt tries to dispute the different points of conventional wisdom.
In chapter four of Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner discuss the criminal activity occurring in the United states and what the possible causes are for the decrease of crime rate in the 1990’s. The authors bring up several theories as to why the crime rates have decreased such as policemen, stricter gun laws, drug market changes and even abortion laws. Levitt and Dubner do a really good job in explaining the different theories in the decrease of crimes. The authors also provide very interesting points that might make you think differently about something. Some factors may seem hard to believe but it can cause a great impact in society like abortion.
Discussion Post- Chapter 7- High stakes testing Claim: High stakes testing is an extremely problematic political issue within the education system because it holds all students to the same standards regardless of disabilities or disadvantages , it encourages educators to teach strictly on information that relates to the tests, and it can have major consequences for schools across the country that are unable to make Adequete Yearly Progress (AYP). Evidence: The Learning to Teach Edition Nine textbook outlines key disadvantages to high stakes testing. Although the textbook does consider some of the advantages, which include a focus of attention on the achievement of students and providing information on areas where students may need to improve,
Amateurism in college athletics is an exploitation of the athletes who participate in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sports. The amount of work that is done by these athletes to help their respective institutions generate millions of dollars in revenue, goes seemingly unnoticed when identifying the substantial amount of money flow in NCAA sports and the amount of people, from stakeholders to alumni, that benefit from this source. Amateurism, the foundation of NCAA sports, has been in place for over a century of time dating back to the early 1900s. Any athlete who is making money for work they’ve done outside of their institution is not being exploited, however, an athlete can easily be placed on the other end of the spectrum when he or she is withheld from recognizing the true monetary value of their talents and likeness that are being used for the profit of the school or others. The NCAA is understandably satisfied with the continuous growth of its’ revenue each year, yet the problem they face of having people accept that “student-athletes” are just amateurs is growing as well.
The state tried to force this child, Ethan, to take this test. In the meantime while Andrea was fighting the school system, Ethan Rediske passed away. It doesn’t have to be this way. Our children aren’t all dying of terrible diseases, but these standardized testing is killing our brothers and sisters creativity and passion for school instead. Standardized tests do not accurately measure what students know and what they can do, nor are they accurate predictors of future success
In “children Need to Play, Not compete.” Jessica Statsky brings out the emerging trend of the harmful competitive sports among the young children under the age of fourteen. The drawbacks of introducing such sport at a young age result in mental and physical problems along with losing of potential player dues to the selection method. She talks about the psychological pressure the children face to meet the standard set by their parents and coaches. Jessica goes on further, explaining and supporting her point of view regarding these competitive sports with different sources.