The Grapes of Wrath Socratic Seminar Final Reflection

The Grapes of Wrath Socratic Seminar Final Reflection

     The Grapes of Wrath seminar influenced my thinking on how the American Dream is different today than it was during the times of the Dust Bowl.  Throughout the conversation, I realized that the ideal life today is extremely different from the one most often sought back then.  While people during the Dust Bowl wanted to live as a family, work on farms, and have a nice house, the American Dream today is much more individualized and modernized.  One thing said which I hadn’t thought of so much in depth was how Rose of Sharon’s act at the end of the book could symbolize new life in times of hardship.  I had always regarded this part of the book as a little weird, and had never before thought that it could stand for something greater.

     The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the most is that Rose of Sharon’s baby provided juxtaposition against the unfertile land that the Joads were escaping.  I has thought of this too, and thought that it could maybe symbolize hope in an oppressing environment.  The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the least is that Ma’s role in the family was not very tough.  I disagreed with this statement because I thought Ma was the character that always pushed the family to find work and to stay together.  If I had the opportunity to respond to anything in the seminar, I would have talked more about the symbolism of the turtle crossing the highway.  Although we touched on it in the conversation, we never really talked about it in-depth.

     Something that worked really well for the seminar was asking questions and participation.  This was a first because asking questions is usually our weak point in seminars.  I think that with our own questions, we were eager to ask them since they were topics that we liked, instead of assigned questions that may not have interested us.  Another thing that worked well in the seminar was participation.  Everybody excluding maybe two people participated and provided interesting statements that we could talk about as a group.  I thought that this seminar may not have been the best in terms of grades, but it was definitely the most interesting.

     Something that needed improvement in the seminar was use evidence from the text.  This was surprising to me because our discussions do not usually lack evidence to support the arguments made.  I think the reason people did not use as much evidence was because nobody knew what the questions were going to be, and so nobody could really prepare textual evidence to answer each question.  The textual evidence that was provided was most likely thought up on the spot, or was said by someone who had a similar question.  Although our seminar did have this one flaw, I think that its powerful arguments and nice flow made it my favorite one so far.

PIA #2 Socratic Seminar Final Reflection

PIA #2 Socratic Seminar Final Reflection

          The seminar we held in class on Friday made me think differently about certain questions and answers on PIA #2.  I found that with the feedback of several different people, the questions in the PIA could be interpreted in various ways.  Many of my classmates also made valid points on how answer choices different from the ones I chose could be supported by the text.  For example, for the Jane Eyre story, some students argued that “justice is blind” was a good theme for the story because there was no justice to Jane’s situation.  One thing said during the seminar which I hadn’t thought of was how poor nutrition could be a social problem.  I argued that the social problem highlighted in the Jane Eyre excerpt was poor parenting, but a point was made that poor nutrition could possibly work, since nutrition of kids today interferes so much with the government.  I felt that the seminar made we see certain parts of the PIA in a different light.

          The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the most was that the MLK and FDR speeches both talked about the supervision of certain aspects of government.  I thought this was the correct answer because the MLK speech talked about how certain individuals are usually the ones who cause trouble while groups can be trusted.  The FDR speech talked about how certain people in government have been selfish wrongdoers and have proposed the lending of more money in their favor.  Therefore, both talked about how certain people in government must be supervised.  The statement made by my peers that I agree with the least was that the best Jane Eyre story summary was one that included her losing her temper and fighting John.  I disagreed with this statement because although she does lose her temper, Jane never tries to physically fight John.  She is the one who is bullied throughout the story.  If I had the opportunity to add something to the seminar, I would have mentioned that I did not understand one park of an excerpt from the MLK speech.  I did not have time to say this because we moved quickly along the MLK questions to get to the Jane Eyre questions.

          Something that worked really well for the seminar was participation and use of evidence from the text.  In some seminars, there can be awkward pauses in the conversation, but I thought that the seminar on Friday flowed very smoothly, despite the fact that we basically only talked about the Jane Eyre questions.  Except for maybe one or two students, everybody participated in the seminar and contributed their answers.  Another positive factor in the seminar was the use of evidence from the text.  Almost every person who participated included either direct or indirect quotes to support why they chose a certain answer.  I thought that overall, this seminar was the best one yet.

          Since the seminar went very well, there were few things that needed improvement.  I thought the biggest problem, as usual, was the lack of asking questions.  Although asking a question to the group was one of the requirements to get full points, only three of four people in the seminar did it.  Another problem was lack of preparation, although this problem was very minor.  During the seminar, I observed some students who had not written evidence next to their answers or had not completed the assignment at all.  However, this seminar was surprisingly the most entertaining and insightful one I participated in all year.

Chapters 23-27: Family Discussion Reflection

Research

Fast-Food Workers Strike, Protest for Higher Pay talked about protests in cities such as Washington D.C., New York City, and Detroit.  Most protesters are targeting fast-food restaurants like McDonald's for their implausibly low wages of around $7 an hour.  Several different advocacy groups are hoping to build public support for raising the federal minimum wages to $15 an hour with their common battle cry "Fight for 15”.  Fast-food unionizers have been supported by Obama, who has expressed support for a Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.  This article relates to The Grapes of Wrath because just as fast-food workers are forming unions to defend their rights, the Joads and other migrant workers in California thought about doing the same.

Bacon, John. "Fast-Food Workers Strike, Protest for Higher Pay." Usatoday.com. USA Today, 5 Dec.

     2013. Web. 12 Jan. 2014. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/12/05/fast-food-            strike-wages/3877023/>.

Philosophical Questions

      1.       Is it society’s duty or the employer’s duty to provide for those who do not earn much?

      2.       What would the world be like if minimum wage were raised to $15?

      3.       Do you think some places in the U.S. or in the world are at more of an advantage to solve the low-wage problem?

Reflection

The most memorable part of my conversation with my dad was when he talked about how the U.S. puts the poor at a disadvantage because they accept a large income gap between rich and poor.  He mentioned how other countries such as France have more of an advantage to deal with the problem because there is not as big of a social gap.  Something that surprised me in our conversation was when he said that some income inequality can be good to incentivize people to be successful, but when it goes too far it leaves out the poorest and becomes a liability.  As an example he said that many of the poorest in the U.S. end up breaking the law and going to jail, which is probably more expensive for the government than giving higher wages.  He said that the U.S. has 10 times more prisoners than France, mostly due to this reason.  One way I could improve my questions would be to base them on facts instead of coming up with hypothetical possibilities.