JAYBOMB's ZONE

Since my hometown is located near to the industrial valley, the overall education level of the parents were very high. Almost everyone had studied for academic degrees, so as their parents, the children's eager towards learning were very intense too. Some newspaper even called our town as "Daechi dong of Daejeon". (Daechi dong is a town in seoul infamous for its superfluous aspiration to education) And this eager of us could be solidly supported by our parents' relatively stable income. Almost everyone of my friends attended to additional private academy after the school, spending tons of money there. We considered our daily life as a very normal, ordinary, and universal life circle of our peers in Korea. However, this thought was totally smashed ever since my mother was appointed to the new school, Jungni middle school. My mother is a teacher in a middle school. She teaches music, and she seems to enjoy it. Actually, it is after the appointment to the middle school

Vassar college considers students from the lower class and prioritizes offering more opportunities to those students rather than pursuing their own interests. They offer somewhat poor cafeteria foods and dormitories in order to invest more money in FA programs to provide widen opportunities to unprivileged class. On the other hand, Bowdoin college explicitly reflects their pursuit of profit upon their policies. They provide superfluously luxurious dormitory and extravagant food in cafeteria. And between these two colleges, Gladwell strongly oppose to the latter ’ s policy and revers the former blindly. He alleges, “ never apply to Bowdoin ” . And his firm oppose and hatred raised doubt. Can we say that Vassar college ’ s policy is absolutely just and that of Bowdoin is unjust? Before answering the question, I thought about the essence of this controversy. The very fundamental problem which lies beneath this controversy in Gladwell ’ s podcast is, obviously, the problem of “ inequal

Moral licensing brings more serious consequences by rendering people inactive and refuse to change in the scope of societal level. In this vicious cycle, no progress can occur in the society and only resist to change remains. We can roughly argue that the victory of Donald Trump in 2016 presidential election represents the Americans’ general will against further progress. But still, I believe there’s a chance left for us. As Gladwell cited at the last of his podcast, the difference between the case of Gillard and that of Tomson is that Gillard could express “her” voice towards prevailing male powers. The point is “chances of speech”. Developments of communication technologies such as SNS enabled us to articulate our own voice out in live, anywhere. We should note that genuine changes and progresses occur when public themselves realize the urgency of issues keenly. Continued reminder in the network will keep alerting people unconsciously about the profundity of crisis, which will hold