The Education System from a Student's Perspective

So many things bother me about the Education System in America. I could write pages and pages about how much I wish we could change, but I really don't want to bore anyone or waste anyone's time, considering experts on education are saying similar things, and the system remains unchanged. For the time being, I'm going to keep this topic general and bring many broad ideas to light.
To start, I think we are wasting a lot of time on pointless subjects. Now, depending on what kind of career you want to go into, your viewpoint on "pointless" can change. For example, if someone wanted to be an artist, taking physics probably wouldn't help progress his or her artistic talents. However, if that person wanted to be an engineer, taking French history would probably get him or her nowhere. The saddest part about this is students need to take these "pointless subjects" to progress their careers. The art student may need physics to boost his or her GPA in high school to get into a better college because physics is an honors course. The physics student may need the French history course as an elective in college. My point is; why are we having students who know what they want to do take classes that they won't benefit from? Why are they wasting time and money (I'm not even going to get started on how ridiculous a good eduction costs) by learning things they will forget in a year or two? Now if someone is undecided by all means they should explore every option, but if someone knows what they want to do, why are they taking something that will be useless? There needs to be a system set up for those students who know exactly what they want to do that allows them to focus only on the courses that will be necessary for their job.
This system could start at a high school freshman level. Of course, it is very unreasonable to have a 15 year old decide on their future, much less an 18 year old, but we need a system where those who know what they want to do can pick. The ones who are unsure could stay on the same course, choosing courses that dabble in every aspect of modern education until they decide what they want to do.
On a different note, I think the grading system discourages more students rather than motive them. The only things grades prove is who is willing to sacrifice more time and memorize more information. I feel like students would actually want to learn more if there weren't grades because without the fear of failing or looking stupid, they can focus on absorbing information and learning the material that interests them. Now, obviously there needs to be a system where we can evaluate the students' growth over the learning period, but grading on tedious homework and tests every chapter is not the way to do it, which brings me to my next topic.
Testing is flawed because, as I mentioned earlier, students don't really learn the material for a test. They spend more time memorizing the material for the chapter and then forgetting it to learn the next one. Perhaps there could be a progressive check over the materials being taught in the class, and the student was required to know that material before that individual moved on. However, that would require time and people to monitor the student's growth, and because time is money, that idea would never get off the ground. Facts are facts though, and the facts are showing that our country is slipping in education. We aren't the dominant country right now in reading, science or math. In fact, according to http://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-rankings-2013-12 the US ranks below the OECD (the Organization for Education Co-Operation and Development) average on all three categories. Kids are more worried about passing their grades and getting into good colleges than actually learning the material. This is wrong.
I'm not an expert on this topic (is it obvious by now?) but there are definitely problems with the system. My ideas don't have a ton of support, but ideas can spark change. Sometimes, all you need is a spark to start the fire. Considering the state of the education system, unwillingness to change, and the people running the system, it may take a flamethrower to start this fire.

Don't Judge the Rap Book by Its Cover

They say not to judge a book by its cover, and, along with that, don't categorize a genre of music due to the stupidity of a rare few. In Brent Staples' article on Hip-Hop music, he talks about how Hip-Hop is growing increasingly dangerous and some of the rappers are promoting violence and drug use. However, I don't think you can correctly stereotype and entire genre of music just off of the actions a few artists or companies have condoned.
Brent Staples has a doctorate in psychology from the University of Chicago. He specializes in politics and culture and writes editorials for the New York Times. The article "How Hip-Hop Music Lost Its Way and Betrayed Its Fans" appeared on nytimes.com on May 12, 2005.
The article talks mainly about how rappers in the 1990's were turning the rap industry into a crime scene. The author gives specific examples of Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. being shot to death by rival gangs. Later in the article, he speaks about, more recently, 50 Cent flaunting his run-ins with gun violence and even making it a point to make his CD, The Massacre, a violence based CD with a suggestive cover. However, what the author failed to address is the positive messages some of the rappers.
Although not entirely targeting the ghetto/inner city, Christian Rap was beginning to become popular during 1990's as well. However, this style of rap may not appeal to the inner city like Tupac and Biggie could. While some rappers may rap about violence and drug use, a lot of times it relates to their life and how they grew up. Kids in the inner city could relate to this, and, unfortunately, think that the way rappers behave/grew up is the way they need to grow up. The kids are the ones who chose to listen to their music because they can relate. There are also more rappers that inner city kids can relate to the rough lifestyle the city brings. Scott Mescudi, otherwise know Kid Cudi, is not as mainstream as a lot of the rappers out there (like 50 Cent or Eminem who was also mentioned in the article), but he promotes finding peace within yourself. In many of his songs, he talks about the negativity he has experienced in his life. Some of his songs are about how he went through hardcore drug problems. However, almost all of his songs revolve around being happy and living your life in positive ways.
The author really didn't seem to view the other side of the rap. While he detailed the actions of a few rappers, many who are in the industry don't rap about violence. Rap is often given a bad name because of the violence and drug use the rappers speak about. However, many of them don't intend for kids to follow in their footsteps. Just because they talk about their rough lives growing up doesn't mean they want others to be like them in that sense. Even Eminem, who the article portrays as a violence-promoting rapper, has made many songs about his lifestyle while telling kids not to follow him.
Overall, the author did a great job revealing the dark side of Hip-Hop/Rap but did not even scratch the surface of the positive side. In many ways, rap has positively inspired many to lead better lives. Don't give a genre of music a bad "rap" just because some of them can send the wrong message.

Justin Bieber: Above Everyone and Still Supported

Justin Bieber has the second most followers on twitter with millions of loyal fans. His name is known around the world and is one of the worlds biggest superstars. However, sometimes living the high life can lead to dangerous lifestyles and habits. When you have millions of followers, millions of dollars, and no one to really tell you no, your life can change dramatically if you aren't careful. Justin Bieber has proved that.
Almost everyone knows that Justin has one of the biggest fan bases in the world. What started out as a great story, a kid playing guitar discovered on youtube, is turning into a story of a misguided young adult who got lost in the fame and fortune. Justin's fan base, or "Beliebers", stand behind him in almost any situation. There was even a trend on twitter, #cutsforbeiber, where supposed Beliebers cut themselves in support of Justin smoking pot. While this idea is ridiculous, to cause self harm in defense of someone smoking pot, it was also ridiculous of the people to make fun of his fans. However, his fans still supported him.
Even with all of his fans' support, Bieber has humiliated them, and himself, time and time again. Justin has spit on his fans, encouraged them to commit piracy, and kicked paparazzi. Recently he has gotten in trouble with drug use, reckless driving, and he has even received a DUI. His public actions have been embarrassing and disgraceful but people still support him. Why? Is it fair that just because he is a celebrity that he gets special treatment? It doesn't matter that he has money to waste on the citations he receives for breaking the law. What matters is that he is a person who is breaking the law.  He is living life dangerously and putting others at risk. If this was a normal person doing these deeds, he would be an outcast and hated by the community. This speaks a lot about our society and how we hold people in higher regards than others. Just because a person can sing and girls find him attractive doesn't mean he can put others lives at risk with minimal consequences. He has broken the law numerous times and has shown a complete disregard for the wellbeing of others. And yet, millions of people still love him.

People Lack Creativeness, Not PowerPoint

I recently read the article, "PowerPoint: Killer App?" from Ruth Marcus and the article bothered me more than I originally thought it would. In the article, Ruth talks about how PowerPoint is incredibly boring and ridiculously overused. I get that PowerPoint can be boring and I understand that a lot of corporates may use it in meetings, which could get old after a while. However, claiming that PowerPoint was responsible for the Columbia disaster is trying to put the blame on something other than the people in charge. Also, towards the end of the article, she goes on to compare PowerPoint being used in schools to drugs and sex. Are you kidding me? PowerPoint, a program used to make presentations simpler and easier to read, is being compared to the use of drugs and sexual intercourse? That thought is incredibly appalling. PowerPoint isn't the problem at all! The real problem is the lack in creativity in people. PowerPoint is only as exciting as people make it and if you make the slides simple and boring, it should reflect on the personality of the person and not the program. That would be the equivalent to someone writing a terrible book and the critics blaming it on the computer. Why should PowerPoint be blamed for the lack of imagination and creativity of people? I feel like this argument can reflect upon the mindset of our country and age we live in. People are lazy and irresponsible. If an opportunity presents itself, people will divert the blame of a situation on anything they can. So overall I found this article to lack substance and offers little to solve the problem, other than banning PowerPoint. PowerPoint isn't the problem in this article; it is the people running it. As usual.