At the end of her first chapter, Price notes that her book includes “abundant examples of what can happen when, against the odds, those with mental disabilities find ways to speak, write, dance, and otherwise communicate against the grain of able-mindedness” (57). While reading her introduction and first chapter, I kept thinking about the use of Adderall as a “study aid” by students who have not been prescribed the drug or diagnosed with ADHD, a practice that I perceive to be is relatively common at Haverford (though not talked about openly). I’m not quite sure how this fits into the dichotomy Price has set up between mental disability and able-mindedness, but I’m curious to hear others’ thoughts about non-prescription Adderall and Ritalin use and abuse, especially as it relates to the concept of able-mindedness (when “able minds” are not “able” enough!) and to the Honor Code.

I think education, as it is right now, does not level the playing field. In my latest paper, I talked about how access to education is distinctly different because of the stereotypes that are perpetuated by society about various people from different backgrounds. At the same time, I argued that education may be the very tool that can change this issue of stereotypes in society. However, when talking about education as the tool to do such a thing, I feel that I was referring to a more dynamic type of learning, based on Freirian's theory of problem-posing education. The back and forth relationship between teacher and student that Freire suggests, brings the possibility of an always changing education, with many perspectives being included. The fact that many students and even many teachers bring different perspectives into their daily dialogue and interaction allows for so much growth in the education system, also proposing a way in which the stereotypes and assumptions made of people from different backgrounds can be changed and actually allow for the barrier of access to education to be broken.

I've been thinking, and talking, about our class discussion on Utopia.  My thoughts are scattered right now, and this may be a rather dull post, but I have a question I want to ask, dull or not.  Is imagining a utopia (and eventually realizing it is impossible) a useful exercise?  In one way, maybe.  It helps us understand our place in the world to some extent--we have to learn that nothing is perfect and nothing ever will be.  After all, what is perfection without imperfection?  In another way, the exercise seemed pointless and upsetting to me.  How will thinking about utopia--and ultimately giving up (which is how I felt after class)--lead to a better world, or a better understanding among peoples?  It seems futile.

I'm reminded of an essay I read in high school, by Tolstoy.  He basically says that every person who is well-off (financially) is directly responsible for one person living in poverty.  I don't know how this relates to utopia, or to building a utopia, but I keep thinking about it in relation to utopia, probably because of the title of the essay: What Then Must We Do?

Has anyone ever heard the song Frontier Psychiatrist by the Avalanches? (Here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8BWBn26bX0). Now, I'm not going to pretend to understand this song or video, but It played while I was listening to my Ratatat station on Pandora, and the opening bit seemed to connect with what I was reading in Price's "Mad at School." It goes,

"Is Dexter ill today, Mr Kirk, Dexter's in school
I'm afraid he's not, Miss Fishpaw
Dexter's truancy problem is way out of hand
The Baltimore County school board have decided to expel
Dexter from the entire public school system
Oh Mr Kirk, I'm as upset as you to learn of Dexter's truancy
But surely, expulsion is not the answer!
I'm afraid expulsion is the only answer
It's the opinion of the entire staff that Dexter is criminally insane
That boy needs therapy, psychosomatic"

This touches on the systematic connection between a child (for whatever reason) not working well within institutionalized education, and mental disease.  If one is true, then the other must be also.

Price states that "atypical minds are entering academe in unprecedented numbers...or simply being noticed more often" (7). She spins this as a positive turn, an upswing. But I'm not sure it's so unambiguously good. Isn't the reason more students are open about depression and attention deficit disorder because more students are being treated for these "diseases." Is over prescribing and medicating the way to embrace these atypical minds?

I find it hard to answer the question because I am not quite sure about the term ”level the playing field.” I tend to split it into two parts so the question can be easier to answer. For individuals, education doesn’t level or limit the development of one person. Even though some students came from lower class or have limited access to some educational resources, they would succeed as long as they have the ambition and passion to achieve the goal. Even though in the worst public schools, a small part of students would study and have the chance to go to college. Therefore, from the perspective of individual, education is not able to literally level the playing field. However, for the majority, education levels the playing field because of its ability to label and categorize students to some extent. More students go to college in private schools when compared with those in some urban public schools. A school usually has a tradition or a trend, in which their students would act or behave in a stereotype or affected by the atmosphere in the school. After students graduate from high schools, they usually go to a corresponding destination, thus different kinds of colleges or becoming a college dropout.

Education is what you make it. Maybe it levels the playing field, maybe its a waste of time. In class we see the different experiences that people have from whatever education they have recieved. All of our experiences are different and in all of them we have taken things and left things behind. Therefore, my opinion is split down the middle, is education a leveling playing field- sure, for some. Is education a waste of time, it probably is for some people. Personally, I feel that we cannot put a blanket label on education.-- its a living, breathing entity that constantly changes. Yet, I feel due to peoples assumptions about education (as in people think education is a great equalizer and when its not, education is the one that is wrong, not the presumptious person) it fails in being a leveler because it didnt work for everyone. In other words, because it didnt work for everyone, its a failure to everyone. If it cant help one, then it probably cant help any of us. Of course this is a misconception that feel arises when people talk about the role of education in our society.

When I was a kid, my father and teachers always told me the same thing "Schooling is the only way to succeed". "Succeed" means wealth, high social status and public recognition. Newspapers were filled successful stories of people who raised themselves from poverty to opulence by studying hard, being determined and gaining advanced degrees. I believe many people in the US have the same expectation that education may help the poor overcome their situations. That's why their policies favor the diversity and finacial aids occupies a large part of the college's budget. Yes, it's true that a person, with a decent degree, can get a high-paid job and be in middle class.

However, just to some very determined and very talented people, education can level the playing field. In most cases, it can. Rich people always have better access to schooling than the rest of the community. Some educational systems favor the rich by high tuition fees. In some private schools, poor kids are somehow marginalized and forced to lose their identity (It was described by Bell Hooks). High socioeconomic status allows the rich to go to college and succeed. The successful kids can continue to maintain their social standing. Their children continue to receive the benefits of education. It can happen as a cycle. Education in this case is the tool to maintain the unfair social order.

By the way, within this response when I refer to ‘education’, I’m referring to education that one receives within school and the classroom.

In Margaret Price's Mad At School, Price brings up some interesting points regarding labeling and boxing people - especially students in academic settings- with mental disabilities. She talks about wanting to fix or cure these problems rather than working with them or embracing the idea of mental difference. I think that she makes some good points, and I started thinking further about the portrayal of this kind of different (yet brilliant) mind in movies and on TV. Temple Grandin is a recent example that Price also talked about, but I could't help relating this back to Eli Clare's "super crip" category. The movie about Temple Grandin touched millions of people and suddenly autism and aspergers became the disability du jour. Temple Grandin was celebrated (and rightfully so) for being an extraordinary person with autism. This also relates back to the ideas of visibility in media and society. In these movies about disabled minds, very well-known, attractive Hollywood stars represent these afflicted people. (Russell Crow in A Beautiful Mind and Clare Danes in Temple Grandin). It is an interesting way to look at mainstream acceptance of disabilities and their portrayal.