DIALOGUES@RU EDITORIAL BOARD SPRING 2015 FALL 2015 Alaa Al-Shujairi Kimberly Bosco John Alesi Courtney Garcia Lisa Avichal Lillie Mae Guarano Christi Capazzo Olivia Kalinowski Christina Colon Sarah Lee MarieClaire Graham Megan Murray Kenneth Hansen Sarah Ong Katherine Hoyt Nandini Patel Samantha Karas Dylan Vetter John Kwiatkowski Filomena Martini EDITOR Tanisha McKinnon Lynda Dexheimer Tiffany Morris Nandini Patel COVER DESIGN & Jacqueline Pelliccio TYPESETTING Anna Trobovic Mike Barbetta Janine Warner EDITORIAL ASSISTANTS Diana Heisroth Eunice Lim © 2016 by Dialogues@RU All rights reserved Printed in U.S.A. ii. CONTENTS Foreword • v Julian Barata, High-Stakes Testing: Monitoring and Improving Education or Making it Worse? • 1 Allison Bautista, Ta-“Boo”: The Stigmatization of the Paranormal • 11 Karl Capili, Insider Trading: The Importance of Market Surveillance • 24 Jose Colon, Chimpanzees in Invasive Experimentation • 36 Sara Davatelis, Damseled and Distressed: The Prevalence of Sexism in Video Games • 49 Kelly Hannavi, Postmodern Aesthetics and Female Gaze in Feminist Film • 63 Chelsea Huesing, Eating Disorders: An Exploration of the Transgressive Ideology of Beauty • 74 Bridget Rose Ismaelito, The Transformation of America through Images of Suffering on September 11th • 84 Yukyung Jung , Solution for a Shortage: Providing Financial Incentives for Kidney Donations in the U.S. • 99 Caitlyn Lagrada, Photography of the Violence of the Mexican Drug War • 110 Joanna Lampa, An Examination of Punk Fashion Through a Feminist Lens • 124 Kevin Lu, Why Isn’t My Joke Funny Everywhere? How Humor Crosses Cultural Lines • 137 iii. Matthew McLaughlin, How Does It Feel To Be One Of The Beautiful People? : Marilyn Manson’s War on Conservative American Culture • 147 Paula A. Medina, Bridging the Gap between Disorder and Illness in Treatments for Cerebral Palsy • 157 Marion Miller, Love, Sex, Drugs… And Neurochemical Therapy? • 167 Anna Nemeckova-Gulack, Should We Broaden the Grounds for Civil Commitment? • 179 Anchi Numfor, To Fit In or To Stand Out: The Female Athlete’s Conundrum of Looking Feminine or Athletic • 193 Aladeyemi Osho, Great Eggspectations • 204 Umang Parikh, The Constraints of Reality in Dreams and Simulations • 218 Rita Portenti, Real Life Horror: Exploring Parents’ Resilience after Their Child Has Been Murdered. • 229 Shannon Ray, What Makes a Leader? Consequentialism, Character, and The Ethical Leader in A Song of Ice and Fire • 244 Kelly Rogers, Dying with Dignity: Physician-Assisted Suicide Through a Kantian Lens • 258 Juan Sacasa, Surpassing the Text • 271 Sadia Salman, Paradoxes in New Opportunities: The True Impacts of Globalization on Women in South Asia • 282 Yeon Hoo Seong, Buying Life: Implications of Gene Therapy on Health Care Costs • 294 Marissa Trinidad, Psychological and Social Aspects of the Anti-Vaccine Movement • 304 Amara Qureshi, Top Predators: The Cheetah: Acinonyx Jubatus • 315 iv. Victoria Wanagosit, Development and Rehabilitation of the Modern Day Feral Child • 329 Philip Wythe, The Double-Edge: Public Accommodation and Transgender Identification • 345 Dalton Zogleman, A Constant Evolution: Redefining Dance in the Broadway Musical • 360 v. FOREWORD I could not begin to choose a favorite from among the papers pub- lished in Volume 11 of Dialogues@RU, which showcases the work of undergraduate students in the Rutgers Writing Program. The papers engage a wide array of topics, but share in common the advancement of an important conversation from an original point of view. The writers have read scholarly texts, thought critically about them, and developed a written argument based on conceptually rich analysis. You will be impressed with the accomplishments of these Rutgers students whose papers were selected from more than 250 manuscripts submitted for consideration. Their work engages with the ethics of chimpanzee experimentation, explores the history of the musical as a quintessentially American art form, and argues for institutional change to allow transgender people to express their identity in public spaces. They analyze structures of surveillance to prevent insider trading, cri- tique sexism in video games, and shine light on the lack of care given to the social and emotional needs of people with cerebral palsy. Two pa- pers analyze the role visual images of atrocity play in forming people’s understanding of terrible events. Other papers look at contemporary medical issues like the anti-vaccine movement and the kidney donor shortage. The list of fascinating topics goes on, and I invite you to ex- plore for yourself the students’ fine work. I hope you will also be impressed by the fact that the selection and editing of this journal is done by undergraduate students who partici-pate in an Editing Internship offered by the Rutgers Writing Program. The intern team devotes long hours to reading and issuing reader re-ports on submissions after which they engage in a rigorous process of substantive and technical editing in partnership with the writers. This journal reflects their hard work and the editorial skills they developed over the course of the internship. Great thanks go to my colleagues in the Writing Program who volunteered their time to help read submissions to Dialogues@RU, and who gave wonderful feedback on the papers they read. Thank you to the Department of English at Rutgers University for continued support vi. of this project. Thanks also to Diana Heisroth and Eunice Lim who provided endless support to the intern team and me. Congratulations to all our talented writers and to those who sub- mitted wonderful papers that were not selected for this volume. I am always so impressed by the skillful and thoughtful accomplishments of our students here at Rutgers University. Lynda Dexheimer Editor, Dialogues@RU Assistant Director, Rutgers Writing Program vii. High-Stakes Testing: Monitoring and Improving Education or Making it Worse? JULIAN BARATA Professor Lynda Dexheimer Abstract: High-stakes testing refers to the use of standardized tests in grades K-12 for student assessment, teacher and school evaluation, and budget allocation. The use of an accountability and incentive system, which uses test scores to punish schools with low scores and reward those with high scores, seeks to encourage effective teaching practices and punish ineffective teaching practices. It also mea- sures the quality of schools based on students’ performances on standardized tests. However, what this system has actually done is drive teachers away from schools in need, restrict teacher autonomy, and emphasize test prep over content curricu- lum. Ultimately, the adverse effects of the high-stakes testing system on the quality of education that students receive far outweigh, and even counteract, the intended positive effects. INTRODUCTION High-Stakes standardized testing has been used as a means of comparing schools and students in K-12 in hopes of developing an objective mea- sure that could indicate when schools are not providing quality educa- tion for their students. This could then be used to identify those schools and take action in improving the education provided for students. However, critics maintain that test scores are not very reliable measures and that the emphasis on the test leads to actions that adversely affect the quality of education. Supporters of high-stakes testing argue that these tests are need- ed in order to provide information about the quality of schools and to hold students and teachers accountable (Jones et al., 2003). Supporters further argue that test scores measure school quality so that schools can be ranked, and low-performing schools can be identified. This provides parents with an idea of which schools are best for their children based on the quality of education at each respective school. Moreover, the high-stakes testing system provides a means of rewarding high-perform- ing schools and punishing low-performing schools. This, supporters argue, not only encourages teachers to do a great job, but also allows 1 the state to identify those schools that need to be monitored so that the quality of education at these schools can be improved. I draw on the arguments in The Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing (Jones, Jones & Hargrove, 2003) to frame ideas about the drawbacks of high-stakes. First, I consider the effect that high-stakes testing has on teaching, and therefore the education provided to stu- dents. Next, to detail the influence of accountability on the use of test prep, I analyze the arguments in support of and against test prep as an approach to improving scores with an emphasis on how this affects mi- nority students. Based on this analysis, I argue that the adverse effects of high-stakes testing on the quality of education students in K-12 receive far outweigh the intended beneficial effects. ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE IMPACT ON TEACHERS There are many arguments offered by critics of high-stakes testing, but some of the most powerful detail the way it affects teachers and the education they can provide for students (Hout & Elliot, 2011; Jones and Egley, 2007; Lomax, West, Harmon, Viator, & Madaus, 1995). Jones et al. (2003) argue that “the negative consequences of high-stakes testing programs… out-weigh the positive intended consequences” (p. 172). They further assert that the most impactful negative consequences are a decrease in teacher autonomy/creativity, increase in teachers leaving lower-performing schools, also asserted by Danielson (1999); decrease in instruction