If you could have one superpower, what would it be?

The first reaction to this question is often: "How cliche." It is a question that was made popular by young children for whom the answer would be vital for their games of make-believe and it is a question that I have been asked repeatedly over the years. Because of its constant presence, however, I have had a lot of time to think about how I would answer this. Each year I seem to have a new answer depending on what has happened recently in my life.

As a third grader, I most likely would have said that I would like to fly. Just about all the super heroes could do it and having dreamed about it and thought about how cool it would make me, it was a clear decision. I could travel faster, have a spectacular view, and quickly escape from anyone or anything that might be chasing me (not that I was frequently attacked, or in fact, ever needed to escape from anything but in my dreams).

When I got a little older I got a little more creative. I might have contemplated the idea of being able to hold my breath underwater for great periods of time, or simply having the ability to swim like a fish and fly like a bird. The options seemed to grow quite a bit over the years. Especially after seeing the movie "The Incredibles" it became a lot harder to choose just one superpower. Becoming invisible would be handy for surprises and when I need some time to myself and being able to freeze anything would give me my own ice skating pond whenever I wanted one! But the power that I would probably appreciate most would be Dash's power of speed.

Today, although it would still take some serious consideration, I think that I would like to be able to accomplish everything with phenomenal speed. Either that or to have the power to apparate, but I may be mixing magic with superpower with that one.If traveling any distance within moments was an option, I would certainly choose that; I could go home any weekend I choose and it wouldn't cost me a penny! But assuming that that lies purely in the realm of Harry Potter, I will stick with the power of speed. Unlimited speed like Dash, where I can run for miles and miles without getting too tired.

I am not sure how others would be impacted by my power of unlimited speed but I would find it to be useful skill when it comes to getting my work done on time, getting to class, or even getting home. If I were able to turn my speed on and off, in a sense, I could create so much free time for myself! I'm not sure if this speed would be just in the sense of exercise (running, walking, swimming...) or if I could accomplish anything with great speed. Say I have an essay to write... I'll write it up in a few minutes and not have to worry about it for the rest of the week. Or maybe I left my favorite shirt at home... I'll just run home and get it in an hour or so. Such incredible speed would allow for a sort of control over time. I'm sure I would be able to have those extra hours of the day that always seem to be needed.

I don't think I would object to any superpower really, but this is one that would be on my list of favorites.

Should fast food franchises be on college campuses?

Fast food is often a hit or miss for people. Some people are regular customers at the local Burger King because they like the speed of the meal offered by drive-thru's (a sign that makes things even faster by omitting three letters), the cheaper costs, or the greasy tastes. On the other side of the spectrum are the people who are somewhat disgusted by the idea of fast food and avoid the seemingly unhealthy lifestyle all together. And of course there are those in the middle who use the advantages of fast food in a pinch when there is very little time or when preparing your own meal is out of the question. If this overview has not been too biased, I will state that I am a twice-a-year kind of person; rarely ever buying from fast food restaurants.

Although I will admit that they have their benefits, and I certainly can't deny that they are successful, fast food franchises should not be offered on college campuses. Even though they may have salads on the menu, it is pretty well understood that fast food is typically far from a healthy meal...just watch the movie Super-Size Me. Having fast food franchises on campus would in no way aid students in the struggle against the "freshman 15." For although one could argue that students have the choice to eat healthier, the option for fast, satisfying (due largely to fat content) could be extremely tempting and as we know, fast and easy.

Fast food was also designed, in part, to provide fast, on-the-go services. This is useful for people traveling to work or taking a day trip to visit another state but for students living on a college campus, the amount of distance they need to travel is limited and for the most part, can be accomplished on foot. Besides, on a college campus what food isn't fast? The dining halls are usually located in central parts of the campus and there are cafes and snack shops in various other buildings all of which are easily accessible and conveniently located. It is almost guaranteed that there is be somewhere on campus to get food at all hours of the day and for a great portion of the night. Therefore, fast food franchises would not be any more beneficial in the aspects of saving time or availability.

Eliminating the "fast" feature, McDonald's wouldn't have much left besides the popularity of their food which often has a fat content over 60% daily value in each burger! (The Fast Food Explorer website) I do not have enough information to compare the health factor of fast food to the food provided by the campus dining services, but I would imagine that not having fast food franchises on campus would be a healthier decision. So Ithaca College does alright; I do not think that they are in any need of a acquiring a fast food franchise on campus.

How would my life be different without Facebook?

It is interesting that this question should be brought up in class today because I am currently, in a sense, experimenting or experiencing life without Facebook.

In the Catholic religion, we are in the season of Lent. Lent is (approximately) the 40 days of preparation for Easter and it is custom to "give up" something or to make some sort of sacrifice that will ultimately help you to focus on your faith and reflect on what this time means to you. In the past, my sister and I have given up sweets or chocolate or desserts, the usual things, things that we are relatively addicted to. But this year I decided to try something a little different. This year I have "given up" Facebook.

I have only had a Facebook account since I have come to college. Not having great internet access at my house, it was more trouble than it was worth to have it during high school. But once I got into it...I was hooked. I became a Facebook fiend in very little time; constantly wanting to see who posted what on my wall or chat with someone (someone who I could have just called on the phone). Soon enough I made it easier for myself and put the site on my favorites bar on my computer so that I needed only to click the button rather than click into the search bar and type "f" to have it come up first in my drop-down list. Things were faster and more efficient with that step eliminated. The scary thing was, I knew that I spent too much time getting lost in the world of status updates and "likes" but I didn't really change my habits; I merely admitted guiltily that I wasted too much of my time. So it was not difficult to recognize what would be one of the bigger sacrifices for me this year.

In making my decision, I knew that not having Facebook for the season of Lent would help me in more ways than one. Besides the religious aspect of it all, my hope was that I would spend more time on my academic studies and that I would be able to pay more attention to my classes. Not only that but without Facebook, I could try to bring back the sense of real person-to-person interaction; something that has been dulled and faded since the outbreak of Facebook. In order to get in touch with someone, it is now necessary for me to either meet them in person, text them (though not a great alternative), call them, or talk to them via Skype. For the most part these forms of communication are a lot more personal than chatting on the internet and, therefore, a positive outcome of my lack of Facebook.

It has been three weeks since I have been without Facebook, by no means a truly significant achievement but certainly a start. Though I will admit that I went through a slight withdrawal during the first week or so, I am now very pleased with my modified lifestyle. I honestly feel as though I am not missing anything important, in fact, I no longer really struggle with the desire to break my Lenten promise. I have been getting more sleep and have been (I think) accomplishing more work, two changes that I assume happened because I am not constantly part of that social network.

I don't deny that Facebook is, at times, a very useful tool. It can help people stay connected from great distances,  help people find old acquaintances, and provide a certain level of entertainment and fast communication. In this generation, however, people have overused this form of social networking to the point of abuse. Many people (young people especially) are too dependent on Facebook, and I will be the first to say that I was one in that crowd. But I think that my life without Facebook has gone through more improvements than drawbacks. Perhaps because it is a conscious effort, I have been far more productive in doing things that I never thought to do, reading the books I've been meaning to read, and spending that extra 15 minutes studying. Above all, I think that life without Facebook has made me realize just how much time I waste when I could be doing all kinds of more significant things!

Although I am pretty sure that I will go back to using Facebook after Easter...okay let's be realistic, the day of Easter...I will hopefully not use it as frequently or as mindlessly as I did before.

Why do teachers assign work over spring break when it never gets done?

Many a spring break I have sat at my kitchen table and asked myself this question. Is it the cruelty of the teachers and their desire to ruin the few days that we students have to forget about everything we have worked on in school? Or are they hopeful that they will not be forgotten; that their influence in a student's life will not go unrecognized though the students are not in the academic setting? Perhaps they view work over break as a favor in that it allows the students to work in the comfort of their own homes and in the company they choose rather than in the occasionally oppressive classroom with a predetermined selection of students. As a final contemplation, I thought that perhaps the teachers are using their positive judgment and trusting the responsibility of the students to get their work done in the free time that they have been given. These may all be possibilities, but I think it seems most fair to look at the latter situation in favor of the teachers.

As much as I don't like to admit it, homework is often an essential way of ensuring the progression of the class. The students are required to apply what they learned within the classroom to their everyday lives outside of the classroom setting so that they can continue learning at a fairly steady pace. With this in mind, it makes sense (to some degree) to give students work over break. Putting the typical procrastination of the students aside, the idea behind the assignment is that there will be continued learning throughout the break session so that students will return to class prepared and ready to continue with the lesson rather than have to spend the first few days back having to backtrack and revisit the progress that was made prior to break. Whether or not this plan gets carried out is purely up to the students.

Now that I have expressed a reasonable explanation in support of the teachers, I must also examine the other side of the argument. Clearly, students are much more fond of the idea of no work whatsoever. We figure that no work leads to happiness all around: the students can fully enjoy their time off without having to worry about work piling up and teachers can appreciate the true essence of a "break" without having to think about the overwhelming stack of work they will have to grade upon their return to school.

From a student's perspective, even I cannot fully explain the teachers who assign a mountainous pile of work that must be crammed in alongside extra sleep, social lives, relaxation, fun activities, and whatever other homework that has been assigned by every other teacher. For example, an intensive project is not a logical assignment to give students who are not looking to engage in activities that requires any amount of brain power. An assignment that asks the students to start preparing for a project that will be picked up once school resumes would be a much more friendly task. Of course I suppose that the less important the assignment is, the more likely that it is not going to get done...

Its a fine line when it comes to deciding how much work is reasonable to assign kids over spring break. There is not really a clear solution, no win-win situation as you can see from my somewhat contradictory arguments. Personally I think that spring break would be best used as a time to catch up on work, to revise work, and  to recollect your thoughts which have likely been spread far too thin. Try as they might, teachers cannot avoid the fact that students are almost guaranteed to procrastinate and save the majority of their work until Sunday...afternoon...after dinner. Its no secret that students wait until the last minute so maybe the better way of deciding how much homework to assign is to consider how much can get done in, say, 5 hours. Or maybe I'll just have to stop complaining.

My Name

Hannah Jones Julian. It is the name – my name – that I was given and have grown into for nineteen years. I wonder how long it took my parents to come up with my name. That has to be a pretty tough decision! One name for the rest of your life... well that's the idea anyway. I suppose people go ahead and change their names all the time these days. But that seems like a desperate search for a new identity to me. At any rate, I'll be sticking with my name. I think my parents did a pretty good job when they name me. I love my name. Although you can find at least 36 Hannah Julian’s on Facebook and quite a few images of Hannah Jones on Google, there are not so many people, if any, named Hannah Jones Julian.

I never really had a problem with my first name, Hannah, except that you can’t shorten it to make a cute nickname. There’s only Hannahbanana, which, as fun as it is to say, is just too cliché. Many friends have tried to think of a nickname for me, but with nothing but “Hans” or “Hanny” I consider them very unsuccessful. But other than that minor detail, I only have positive things to say about the name Hannah.

For me personally, Hannah is a family name; my mother’s great great grandmother’s name or something (I can’t remember exactly how far back it goes). But Hannah is also a biblical name; she was a woman known for her strong faith and powerful prayer.

If you were to look up the name Hannah, you would discover that it means something along the lines of  “grace of God,” “favor,” or “good listener,” depending on the interpretation. I find these to be beautiful interpretations of the name, in fact I often brag about them, especially to my sister Holly. In our little book of names at home, Holly means “bush.” But overall, I find these meanings to be relatively accurate. In a conversation I once had with a friend of mine, she told me that she had never met a Hannah who didn’t have pleasant personality…and I have to agree. It may be coincidental but I can’t think of one person named Hannah whom I didn’t like. (Keep in mind this thought is purely concerning the name Hannah in general. I am in no way idolizing my own personality; it was merely an interesting and complimentary conversation.)

The final and most fun fact about the name Hannah is its appealing quality as a palindrome (which is why I believe you must spell it with an “h” at the end.)

I was not so fond of my middle name when I was younger. For a long time I did not share my middle name with other people. Not that I tried to keep it a secret, but I found it rather uninteresting and not very pretty and so I rarely brought it into conversation. I used to wish I had a more “normal” middle name. So many people I know share more common middle names such as Marie or Elizabeth. These names are pretty, but I imagine it loses a little of its luster when you have seven friends with the same name. I have yet to personally meet someone with my middle name.

My sister and I both have unusual middle names. Mine – Jones – I thought sounded like an old lady name and my sister’s – Andrews – sounded like the name of a boy. And the truth of it is my name is an old name; once again, it’s a family name. It’s a name that I have come to appreciate for its uniqueness.  The name Jones brings out my mother’s English heritage and contrasts it with my last name, a representation of my father’s Italian heritage, heritages I am very proud of. And so I have made the transformation from not caring for my middle name to embracing it.

And my last name just seals the deal; Julian, or Juliano as it was originally. I remember being a sophomore in high school and one of my peers, someone I had never really talked to, informed me that "Hannah Julian is a perfect name, it has a nice ring to it." Needless to say I was flattered and slightly embarrassed.

It can be fun to play the name game with friends and try to figure out what name they "look like." But in the end, I think that my name fits me just right. :)

Is it a good idea for parents to send their children to pre-k and kindergarten?

I, personally, never went to preschool. I attended kindergarten when I was 5 years old...and I loved it. I have a picture that my parents took of me and my younger sister on my first day of school. In my flowered dress and my green-and-purple backpack, I am ecstatically hugging my sister who is very upset to see me leave. I point this out so that people might know that when I discuss whether or not parents should send their children to pre-k and/or kindergarten, I may be slightly biased, having been to kindergarten but never having experienced preschool.

From what I understand, preschool is attended by children who are 3 and 4 years old. I remember hearing about my younger cousin, barely 3 years old, going to "school." Granted I am not really sure of what the children learn in preschool besides how to get along with others and maybe to communicate with and listen to others, I imagine that much of the time spent at preschool is very much like a group babysitting session. This, I suppose, is just fine if parents have busy work schedules. As far as education is concerned, however, I feel as though at the age of 2, 3, or 4 years, children should still be under the tutelage of their parents, or at least not mostly dependent on the teachers at preschool to teach them the alphabet or numbers.

From a student's perspective, it seems that parents should take into account that their child will potentially be in school for the next 17 years as they work their way through grade school and college. Once school begins, much of the learning experience happens away from home. They should take advantage of the short amount of time that they have their child fully under their influence and direction. My family-oriented personality may be showing a little here, but I believe that a child's parents should be one of the largest influences in that child's life and there is very little time to lay that groundwork.

Once a child reaches kindergarten, I would expect them to have a basic concept of letters and numbers, an introductory understanding of the importance of respect, and a general awareness of what goes on around them. In short, they have had the time to acquire a base knowledge from their parents. Kindergarten is a big step as students are no longer constantly under their parents supervision and hopefully they have developed enough of a desire to learn academically and socially. I don't think that this process should happen too early, before a child has the opportunity to better appreciate the nature of the world of education. Not to say that any child fully understands this at the age of 5 but I assume that conscious decision to attend school might be more prevalent in a 5-year-old than in a 3-year-old.

I have reached the point in my schooling where I must form my own education around what I plan to do in the future. It just so happens that I am eagerly hoping to have a career in elementary education. Currently, I am most interested in teaching the kindergarten-second grade age level. I have not yet learned about the benefits and drawbacks of education at such a young age; whether or not there is a mental or psychological difference between starting schooling with preschool or with kindergarten or whether or not either is really necessary. I am going purely off personal opinion, an opinion that has most likely been influenced by my parents and other people I know in the education field. I would assume that once I am an elementary school teacher, my answer to this question may vary significantly. But for know I believe that these first years of schooling, particularly kindergarten, are the most important in a child's development.

The perfect weather conditions

It's hard to pinpoint exactly the best weather conditions simply because my preference depends of a wide range of variables such as my mood, what I'm doing, or what I would like to do. In a world of my own construction, where school or work or undesirable situations don't intrude on a person's well being, I would say that the temperature would be somewhere between 65 and 70 degrees Fahrenheit. This is an ideal temperature for being outdoors, comfortable in a T-shirt and shorts, and yet not too cold for swimming. The sky would be a light shade of blue, the color of a deep and refreshing sigh, and it would be highlighted with the golden beams of the sun. The sun would dominate the sky, white-hot and penetrating every crevice it can reach. Fluffy white clouds, the kind that make parades of lazy shapes for picnickers, would appear intermittently in the sky to provide brief relief for sunbathers. I imagine that there would be a slight breeze swooshing through the trees every now and then. It would be a breeze that is just as warm as the air that it pleasantly circulates without whipping sand or flipping towels. The wind would carry the smell of fresh grass or beach salt, take your pick.

Of course, one must consider this situation to take place somewhere very green or wonderfully tropical. This would not be a pleasant day in a desert landscape and it would be terrible news in a typically frigid land such as Antarctica. This is a day that could potentially occur right here in Ithaca, or Florida...or the Bahamas...am I a dreamer or what! What has shaped my idea of the perfect day is probably the reflection of days that I have enjoyed the most; days of warm vacations on sunny beaches, summer fun with friends, and the last day of school to name a few.

Although this is my favorite kind of day, I think that the day that I have described here has been largely influenced by the wet snow and chilly weather that I have experienced over the past three months. I have a pretty good tolerance for heat so it's saying something when I start thinking 35 is warm! This is a day that I would like to have if I could have it all to myself, with no homework, no chores, nothing particularly strenuous to do...

And now let's jump back to reality.

Are professional athletes overpaid?

Yesterday an extremely large number of Americans watched the biggest football event of the year: the Super Bowl XLV. This annual game gets a great many people involved in various ways. Whether a person watches as an active participant - yelling, cheering, commenting to the athletes through the television screen - or merely put up with the game in between the stream of million-dollar commercials, the evening of the Super Bowl is typically a night to eat food and gather with friends with the television blaring.

As big of an event as it is however, is it really logical that each player gets paid a million dollars (or some such amount) to play? For me personally, I know that I chose to participate in sports in high school either because I enjoyed the results of physical activity or simply because I liked the feeling of being a part of a team. In short, there was something fun about running or skiing or whatever it may be, which drew me to participating in the sport. Now I know that things are a little different on a professional level. However, I would assume that the majority of the players who have made a career of being a professional athlete got to that point because, as a child, they enjoyed the sport to which they have now dedicated their lives. So is it unreasonable of me to have the opinion that professional athletes (like football stars in this case) are being paid an incredible salary to have fun playing a game that they love?

Forgive me if my outlook is naive, I will readily admit that I know very little about football. I understand that training and living a football lifestyle may be a taxing job, albeit a very different and specific line of work. And since football is the player's life, it most certainly deserves to be a paid position - even a well-paid position! It just seems a bit unfair to have the role of quarterback be a million-dollar position when people who have jobs that require more knowledge and a wider range of skill are paid significantly less.

Granted, many people are sports fanatics and know every score of every game their particular team has played, I would not list professional athlete as a particularly useful occupation. It certainly provides some level of entertainment...at least for as long as the season lasts, but a game does not typically work to better the community of help advance and change the world in which we live. I would say that a doctor or teacher would have a more personal and lasting effect on the lives with which they interact and work to change for the better.

I have one final thought to support  my opinion. As a dancer and member of a family that shows a relatively low interest in professional sports (with the slight exception of horse racing), I have grown up with the concept that "if dance were any easier, it would be football." And since dance rarely gets as much attention as an event such as the Super Bowl, I conclude that professional athletes, specifically football players, are indeed overpaid.

Hannah, winner of this honorary award in 2011, is a freshman at Ithaca College. She is currently studying to be an English Education major with the high hopes of one day becoming an elementary school teacher. Her on-campus hobbies include tap dancing, acting and singing as a member of Standing Room Only Performing Arts Company, actively participating in the Protestant and Catholic communities, and learning the art of performing sign language. When she is not running around between classes during the day and extracurricular activities in the evening, you are likely to find Hannah running red faced on the treadmill or dancing in her dorm by the light of the disco ball given to her for her birthday.

Hannah comes from a tiny town in New Hampshire, indeed she lives very nearly in the middle of nowhere on a farm with a variety of misfit, though dearly loved animals. Her parents are both veterinarians, an occupation that Hannah has pretty firmly decided is not for her. She shall be leaving that line of work leaving her younger sister, her best friend in the whole world, to take over the practice in the future.
She attended school in the next town over due to the simple fact that there are no schools within her own town. She feels that despite the drawbacks of living in a rural environment, she has benefited greatly from growing up in a close-knit community. The close friends and intimate family relationships have really shaped Hannah's friendly and faith-based personality.

Should you have the privilege of knowing Hannah personally, it is needless to say that she is a family-orientated person. As she will readily admit, leaving home to go to college was a bit of a struggle for her. Although she is proud to say that she adjusted quite well to the college living environment she still, on occasion, has a difficult time being seven hours away from home. But overall, Hannah has enjoyed this new and challenging experience.