Recently my classmate, Caitlin, published a blog post entitled Stressed and Standardized to her blog Ideas are Bulletproof. Her premise was that standardized tests have become a definite issue in public schools. Beginning with her own experience, she recalled “I don’t remember other kids being stressed out by the test.” Then she explained how, through her work as a nanny, she has become aware of the stress and worry the kids she knows are going through because of the upcoming STARR tests. In conclusion, my classmate argued that the tests aren't helping children perform better in school. She stated that standardized testing is “just not a fair assessment of what they are capable of.” Finally, she ended by suggesting that the government institute a pre-test and a post-test for students in order to gain the most accurate and fair picture of their progress.

     Let me just say how much I appreciate this post. For many years people have debated the effectiveness of standardized testing, but from an academic perspective. My classmate has managed to present a personal experience that sheds light on a real problem. Unfortunately she does not include any outside references or statistics, which hurts her credibility some. Also by admitting that her own experience with standardized tests wasn't stressful she undermined her main point a little bit. However, through logical, personal, and professional examples she explained her argument effectively. 

     In the end then, my classmate’s post was very pointed and well-reasoned. She drew attention to an issue that indirectly affects her and directly affects people that she cares about. While she didn't include research and outside perspectives, she still presented a valid argument. And at the end, rather than merely listing a bunch of negatives, she offered a solution for positive action that might fix the problem. Thank you Caitlin, for bringing some personal vision to the discussion of standardized testing. 

     Standing out from the rest of the U.S. presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is unique for many reasons. Not only is she the only Democrat running, but she’s also the only woman running so far. In addition, she’s the candidate surrounded by the most drama. Is the public’s suspicion well-founded? That depends upon the truth, which may never be revealed. More importantly though, in light of the scandal, is she trustworthy enough to be our president? 

     The first challenge Clinton needs to overcome in this presidential race is the shadow of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Naturally, she is not responsible for any of the mistakes or accomplishments of her husband while he was in office, but association is a powerful factor. Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post puts it this way, “The single biggest threat to Hillary Clinton’s chances of being elected president next November… is a sense among the electorate that the bad of putting another Clinton in office outweighs the good.” Immaterial suspicion is never a good start to an election.

     Next there is the email controversy of the past few weeks. While working for the State Department, Clinton used her personal email for official purposes. Naturally, when asked to turn over all of her private emails to the State department, she declined to release any that did not directly relate to government business. That refusal has sparked a never-ending controversy. What is she hiding? For more information on this, visit my classmate’s blog: America, the Great Place.

     Finally, Clinton must disprove the allegations surrounding her family’s financial actions. Many people are outraged over rumors that the Clinton Foundation accepted large foreign donations while Hillary Clinton was working at the State Department. The issue involves Canadian miners and Russian nuclear energy and is rather complex. In the editorial Candidate Clinton and the Foundation , the New York Times editorial board outlines the controversy. They sum up Clinton’s problem by saying, “There is no indication that Mrs. Clinton played a role in the uranium deal’s eventual approval by a cabinet-level committee. But the foundation’s role in the lives of the Clinton’s is inevitably becoming a subject of political concern.” I believe this “political concern” is just the beginning of a much broader mess.

     Sorting through all the accusations and evidence is not easy. Personally, I’m inclined to believe the rumors, at least to a certain extent. This wouldn't be the first time a politician made numerous mistakes between campaigns and it probably won’t be the last. Nick Gass of Politico  describes the whole issue, “The Clinton campaign’s strategy to date has failed to stem the flood of negative media coverage.” So what does this mean for Hillary Clinton? Unless she successfully clears up these rumors, she will lose countless valuable votes in the 2016 election.