Now I sort of understand what the speaker means about making connections and he seems to have a good strategy for it. By putting class material closer together, that would otherwise be more spread out, you can literally connect concepts, information, and ideas. Maybe you could connect them with a pencil line. But this makes me think about how I tend to think of class material as all separated and think in a way that is test to test. If that makes any sense. I basically try to remember information that I only need for a given moment.

This sentence was caught my attention because it is extremely relatable to me. I am a very study heavier. Sometimes before a test I will study for four to five hours and do lighter studying the day before that. Even for simpler quizzes, I force myself to spend at least and hour or two studying. After reading this sentence, it made me realize that what I mostly do when studying is memorize. I write and rewrite notes so that the material is planted into my mind. I don't often think about connecting ideas between each other and I hardly even know what the writer means by this.

This seemed like a good idea and strategy to me. If staff and students are able to write their feelings and opinions anonymously that the university could get reliable information about the vibes, safety, or intellectual safety on campus. Then, they can enact policies or create more programs to address any issues.

I definitely believe that sfsu has a huge commitment to social justice. They were even the first college in the country to have their own ethnic studies program. Also I know that there is a large variety of social justice classes that students have the opportunity to take here. Do other universities have this big of a commitment to social justice?

I think that sentence shows some of the independence that you gain in college. Grades become something that you have to watch our for on your own and your parents can't monitor them anymore. It also seems like at this point the speaker is starting to learn from others what it is like to be a college student and what it is like to be independent from your family.

This seems a bit outrageous to me. I feel like colleges should always provide extra aid to students who don't have knowledge about what college is like. Granted it is 1999, but were things really that different back then. I feel like nowadays colleges are a lot better at helping first generation students.

I really like how much her mom was willing to help her. She even tried to figure out a problem with her over the phone. I feel like this further shows how close the speaker is with her family.

I think this is a smart piece of advice. For many kids who don't qualify for the strict definition of what a first generation college student is should be encouraged to still inform colleges of their backgrounds which might have been disadvantaged. This way, they can still get benefits and more consideration because of their more difficult past.

I think this an interesting sentence because it shows how important and prominent the "first gen" label has become in the college application process. It is so important that many students are researching to see if they can qualify as one. This must mean it has a big difference in your admittance to college or maybe financial aid too. I think for some kids this is good, if they are first generation and also disadvantaged. But what if some kids who have a privileged upbringing are just using the term to try and get more acceptances. I also had the thought that there could be some kids who had less privileged their lives but had parents who didn't go to college, but they don't have the option to call themselves "first gen" and possibly get more advantages.

This is interesting to me because I think it shows that first generation college students are not always disadvantaged. It also shows that this label has its own stereotype and many kids are able to use it to their advantage. Although I do feel like most kids who are first generation college students are not as privileged in college preparation. Either way, I think colleges should still look at other facts about students upbringings, such as their income and family life, and evaluate them from there. Another thing though, it was stated earlier that University of Wisconsin was giving free tuition to first gen transfer students, but what if some of the students were like this particular girl and actually didn't need the free tuition. This reminds me of one of my friends who gets free healthcare because she is Native-American but she only has a very small portion of the genetics.

I liked this quote because it makes sense to me. If more money is put into public education, then many people of lower-income would probably be more likely to attend college and graduate as well. Then, they could find jobs and start boosting the economy. I think that more jobs helps the economy at least. More money given to public education probably means more financial aid to students too which would boost there chances of success after college, since they have less student debt.

I believe what this is saying is that kids with wealthier families will go to more expensive colleges who have the means to provide a better college experience for the students. This would then result in the students being more likely to graduate. This claim is sad to me because it means that lower-income students who don't go to a more expensive school have a disadvantage. Earlier in the reading John Friedman even noted that students from more modest backgrounds are less likely to be on elite college campuses. All students supposedly have an equal opportunity to go to college and graduate with a degree. But in this case the opportunity between high and lower income students would not be equal if lower income students are less likely to graduate.

This is an interesting claim to me because if it is in fact true, then why would people ever promote going to more elite schools over working-class ones. I feel like an idea is instilled in many kids minds that it is better to try to go to a more elite school because they will probably fare better after college, but if working-class colleges can do help you the same or even better, should going to a more reputable school even matter? Also, is it worth spending more money on college in this case too. it reminds me of how my mom would try to steer me away from going to city college in high school because she thought that going to a university would be better for me. But would she have thought differently if she saw this claim?

I liked this quote because I could imagine why applying all tasks with one learning style would be difficult and unhelpful. If you saw yourself as a aural learner and thought that you could learn only by listening, you would probably reduce the amount of information that you retain. Maybe instead you should listen and take notes too in order to remember information better. This ties into the idea stated in the next paragraph that accommodating to only one learning style is unhelpful. Instead maybe having a blend of learning styles would help an individual more.

I think this statement is very interesting because it emphasizes that learning about yourself doesn't always make you smarter. I believe that when you learn something about yourself, you shouldn't necessarily give that thing more attention. For example, if you learned that you really liked playing a certain sport you probably wouldn't devote all your time to it because it could get in the way of school. I think it is same with learning styles. If you learn that you are better at one style or like one better and then spend all of your time using that style, then you will miss out on getting better at other styles. I'm personally better at learning visually and I mostly study by taking notes or reading notes. But it would be beneficial if I learned how to learn aurally better especially for situations like listening to lectures or hearing advice from others.

This is interesting to me because it supports the statement earlier in the article that says teaching one style of learning is detrimental to the learner. I believe the example of the French accent needed to be learned aurally makes it very clear as well. It made me think that it would make sense for many abilities in this world to require specific learning strategies. Such as, reading and speaking. Reading requires you to look at words and visually understand them, but, when speaking, you have to hear words to know what they sound like. So, I'd say it is silly to assume that all people should be taught in a certain learning style because it seems crucial to have more than just one. My best teachers in high school always utilized more than one form of learning to teach us. For example my government teacher last year would have us do visual activities and games that involved writing and reading and she would also lecture us in class where we were expected to listen.