Book Review: Strangers In Their Own Land

What do I know about life on the bayou besides the jazziness of New Orleans' restaurant life next to mystical swamp traditions as depicted in the animated Disney movie featuring my namesake, Tiana---"Princess and the Frog"? A few days ago, I finished "Strangers In Their Own Land" by Arlie Russell Hochschild for the Coolidge book club. It's been a long time since I've read any nonfiction, and certainly for some parts, I felt as if I were reading fantasy. The descriptions of the environmental destruction and disasters caused by these mining companies make Louisiana seem like a surreal landscape. However, Hochschild acclimates readers to the Louisiana lifestyle quickly. My impression was a land of contrasts: damaging forces of industrialization at work in stunning natural reserves, and the people themselves mostly possessing a vigorous appreciation for both. Hochschild was mainly concerned with capturing the feelings of those in Tea Party right, to see if their unique living situation makes it understandable that they would support politicians who go against their self-interest. For the most part, Hochschild succeeds in this goal. Her extended analogy with the "deep story" of the white American Southerner evokes sympathy from the reader. Her explanation for the ascension of Donald Trump, too, cannot be faulted. Her goal was to open minds, not change them---so this insight into the lives of Tea Party Louisianans is valuable for readers who wish to understand the big picture of American politics: often, feelings, especially alongside long-held traditions and history, dictate political direction more than facts. 

What are the implications of understanding a white Southerner's feelings of becoming a "stranger in their own land"? Hochschild hopes it might foster more caring and communication, perhaps lead to more friendship and cooperation. In fact, I found a lot of common ground with Louisianans: I, too, value my faith and my community, and know the importance of retaining the honor of self-sufficiency. However, what little Hochschild spoke on actual steps for change---for more regulations on large companies crowding out smaller ones, for more accessible and responsible politicians, for more accountable corporations---did not seem encouraging. The politics and the economics seem to be at an impasse or a continuous feedback loop into spiraling more into debt and dependence on the federal government, more defiance and distrust of the government, more allowances to companies that don't seem to be doing much good. How much good is understanding when people don't take action to right Louisiana's wrongs?

The two articles below are conflicting book reviews on the subject. The New York Times writer loved it for the understanding and compassion it showed. The Washington Post writer thought that attitude was condescending---sure, she's proved that Louisianans' mindsets are reasonable given their cultural situation, but if they would just change their minds---Louisiana could be improved. Their mindsets are the obstacle to improving their own state, and that is condescending.

Personally, I don't think Hochschild approached it with an attitude of condescension. I believe her when she wrote that she genuinely wanted to reach over the empathy wall. My problem with the book was that it seemed incomplete. In all the bleak statistics and accounts of chemical accidents and reports of mismanagement, one statement rang out to me, and it was this quote from sociologist Richard Florida (a name I am just now realizing I recognize from my research project last year on conglomeration and business diversification in the postindustrial Midwest---but that's another story): "Blue state knowledge economies run on red state energy. Red state energy economies, in their turn, depend on dense coastal cities and metro areas, not just as markets and sources of migrants, but for the technology and talent they supply." Evidently, Louisiana's environmental and social struggles are not wholly self-inflicted. Rather, as part of a large national and global trade system, it seems awfully like they are not getting a fair trade. Louisiana sells energy to metro areas, but with falling fossil fuel prices, the state's not getting much of a profit. And rather than being a source of migrants, metro areas are a draw for emigrants from Louisiana, slowly draining it of labor. As for the technology and talent that spreads from metro areas to Louisianans---much of that technology is being used to replace a worker with a machine, and the talent isn't being passed to native Louisianans in the form of education and job training. In my opinion, it seems to me that many more complex market forces stand in the way of Louisiana's success than simply changing mindsets to elect more environmentally aware and frugal politicians, developing more trust in government, and having more understanding between the liberal and conservative points of view. So why doesn't the book address that? It left the problem in the open, but where's the solution?

I rate this book an 8/10 for clearly and powerfully describing the deep story of the South and promoting greater communication and cultural understanding between Americans---no easy task, and admirable. I take away 2 points for leaving a problem in the open without proposing any solutions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/books/review/strangers-in-their-own-land-arlie-russell-hochschild.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/09/01/a-berkeley-sociologist-made-some-tea-party-friends-and-wrote-a-condescending-book-about-them/

Book Review: The Hunchback of Notre-Dame

The Hunchback of Notre-Dame by Victor Hugo

Translated from the French by Frederic Shoberl‎
1833
940 pages

I finished "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" by Victor Hugo. Overall I enjoyed the book very much; I thought it was completely worth it. Very characteristically French, I think, with lots of drama and human passion in it, a lot less realistic than later British novels, but it was a delightful and captivating read. Hugo certainly has a flair for the dramatic. Descriptions of architecture interested me little, I don't have too much interest in what a balustrade was or any Romanesque vs. Gothic features. If I had visited Notre-Dame myself, I may have felt differently. Still, I could feel Hugo's deep regard and affection for the venerable building.

(*Spoilers ahead*)

What really impressed me, however, was the depth of the characters (or in some cases, lack thereof.) There is not one sensible person, I think, in the entire book... which makes it all the more appealing, once you consider that sensible people in the world at large are rare indeed (I know enough to say I'm not one of them, at least.) The character of Claude Frollo was a particular disappointment to me. I related to him on rather an intimate level, being a compassionate sort of creature myself, a protective older sibling, loyal to my religion, and intellectually curious. His descend into lustful passion and immorality was particularly vexing. At every point in the book I expected him to make the right decision and turn back from his evil ways, but from his lips issue forth even more profound absurdities. His death was in equal measures gratifying and regrettable. He most certainly deserved it, and it was wholly his own fault, but he was such an eloquent person I felt it was a shame. Another death I feel strongly about was that of his brother, Jehan. He was such a vivacious youth, and provided most of the comic relief to Claude's character, and he didn't quite know better, and the death was of his brother's account. He was purely a victim, I think. He was also most cruelly cut out of the Disney movie version, which itself glossed over other important details. Quasimodo's character was not so human as the Disney movie made him out to be. In the book he was more beast than man. The book itself is ill-named after him, because it was mostly about the escapades of Esmeralda. The original title, "Notre-Dame du Paris," would have encompassed the novel's symbolic cornerstone much better, but it is just like the English to disregard meaning like that and simply pick the most fanciful detail (that of a disfigured hunchback) and make that the title of the book... Now, Esmeralda herself I thought was a silly, simple girl, like her mother but without the long years of suffering to temper it. Captain Phoebus was probably the villain of the whole piece, as he does not have a charitable bone in his body, but somehow Disney fixed all the blame on Claude and did not once mention his honorable qualities. It was disagreeable to me that Phoebus lives in the end when all the other worthy people have died, but that is life I suppose. I like Pierre Gringore and the goat, the pair was very funny.

(*End of spoilers*)

I rate this book 8/10. I took off one point for lack of realism and another for sheer frustrating stupidity of all the main characters. I'm probably going to write a full book review on my blog and not brain dump everything here.

Why Trump Cannot Win the Trade War

What’s going on in the news right now? The world is watching an expensive dispute play out between two of its most powerful countries. In 2017, the US imported $506 billion worth of goods from China, while China imported only $130 billion from us-- there is a $375 billion trade deficit. President Trump wants to close the deficit and bring more jobs back to American manufacturers by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods, raising the price of Chinese goods sold in America. However, a glance at the statistics tells us this strategy will not work. Everyone’s paying attention to the business side of it-- the energy sector, the automobile sector. That’s fine, but what also needs to be addressed here isn’t China’s retaliatory tariffs, but the simple currency phenomenon already brewing in the Chinese government. Here’s how the numbers play out, and how you might be affected by this clash of political titans.

Inflation means good news to Chinese businesses

How do Chinese manufacturers make money in the US market? First, they buy raw materials from Chinese suppliers using the Chinese currency, yuan or CNY (¥). Then they sell the finished product to American consumers, who pay them in American currency, dollars or USD ($). The Chinese government has foreign exchange control laws in place that changes all dollars into yuan according to the exchange rate. That works if the value of the currencies compared to each other were stable, but it is not.

Link to larger image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kbdH6ht9t-2ip0RAiRr3D7TKHjJvFdE1/view

This chart shows how much yuan can be exchanged for dollars, over time. You can see that it’s going up, so the value of the Chinese yuan in relation to the US dollar has been decreasing since the start of the trade war in April-- meaning, Chinese currency is being inflated. That’s good for the Chinese companies that export to the United States. Why?

Say you are a Chinese manufacturer who sells pens and other writing utensils to Americans for $1 each. Say that $1 equals ¥6. Say that you buy raw materials (metal, plastic) from domestic Chinese suppliers for ¥5 each pen, so you make a profit of ¥1 or $0.17 for each pen you sell. But then say the exchange rate goes up 10% (or the value of CNY falls 9.1%, whichever you prefer), making $1 equivalent to ¥6.60. You still sell your pen for $1, but the Chinese government exchanges that $1 with ¥6.60 instead of the usual ¥6.

Your supplier is still supplying raw material at ¥5, so you make a good profit of ¥1.60 or $0.24, meaning you made 7 cents more profit. 7 cents per pen may not sound like much, but considering your previous profit was $0.17, that extra 7 cents of profit means the profitability of your business increased 41%! And for doing what, exactly? Simply by having the government exchange dollars into yuan while the exchange rate increases.

Look again at the chart. 3 months ago we exchanged $1 for ¥6.29. Now, we can get ¥6.81 for $1. The exchange rate has increased by 8.3% (meaning the real value of Chinese money has fallen or deprecated 7.8%). This does not seem to be stopping anytime soon (this is July 27th, 2018 data, which will get old very quickly.) In fact, let’s try to predict the pattern of the graph by looking at its historical behavior.

The tariff will not be enough to raise prices of Chinese goods

Larger image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PUjTcTQ8lZx4J3SN06Z3evkrm88JHbU8/view

Here’s the data again, zoomed out to cover 5 years. Exchange rate variations, like stock prices, tend to come in waves. You can see the previous wave of increased exchange rates during 2014-2017. From around ¥6.04 per $1 in 2014 to ¥6.94 in 2017, the exchange rate grew around 15% (CNY deprecated 13%) over these 3 years.

This second wave, starting with the trade war in April, has an even steeper slope than the first wave-- experts predict that in 3 years, the exchange rate may climb to ¥8.50 to ¥9.00 for every dollar. This means an exchange rate increase of 26-33% (value of CNY deprecates 20-25%). In our hypothetical situation above, a simple exchange rate increase of 10% could increase the profitability of a Chinese company by 41%-- imagine, then, how much the actual level of Chinese currency inflation could benefit these Chinese businesses.

Here’s the punchline of this sad joke-- those foreign exchange control laws that China has? We don’t have them. Meaning, Chinese businesses are always going to be exchanging their dollars for yuan and their yuan for dollars-- it’s the law. American exporters, like the farmers who raise pork or soybeans to sell to Chinese consumers, don’t get paid in yuan. They get paid in dollars, converted right from the Chinese government with the increased exchange rate. We are not benefiting from the variations in exchange rate.

Now, Trump has threatened to impose a 10% tariff on another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. The goal here is to raise the price of those goods by 10% so less Americans would buy them, theoretically narrowing the trade gap and bringing demand back to American businesses. Well, it’s not going to work. Heck, even if the president manages to hit all $506 billion worth of Chinese goods with a 10% tariff, nothing’s going to happen. Why?

Recall our previous example of the Chinese pen company. You sell your pens for $1 each in America, with the exchange rate of ¥6 for $1. Trump imposes a 10% tax on you, raising the price of your pen to $1.10 and lowering your sales, letting your American competitors cut into your market. Not for long!
The benevolent Chinese government exchanges your USD into CNY at the exchange rate that has now increased by 10% (¥6.6 for $1). To fight the tariff, you can now comfortably lower the price of your pen to $0.90 per pen without tax-- (with Trump’s 10% tariff your consumers will pay $0.99). At ¥6.6 for $1, you make ¥5.94 for the 90 cents you take home, and remember that raw material costs ¥5 per pen. You are still making ¥0.94 or $0.14 worth of profit per pen. That’s a little less ludicrous than the previous $0.17 you made before Trump imposed the tax, but not by much.

Also, remember that the price of your pen is now at $0.99 instead of $1? The lower price is actually going to increase sales, meaning more profit-- and for doing absolutely nothing. Obviously, a 10% tariff is not going to be enough with the way foreign exchange rates are climbing now. Chinese businesses can simply lower prices without risk.

What this means for us

With this rate of Chinese currency inflation, Chinese businesses exporting goods to the United States could earn a profit of 50-60% more. To increase sales even further, businesses would even cut prices lower. This means ordinary Americans like you and me can buy even more cheap Chinese stuff. On the macro level, the $375 billion trade deficit would stay the same. It would probably even increase.
Also remember that this trade war is reciprocal, so the price of American goods in China are rising. Chinese people will buy less of our stuff, so American businesses cannot sell as much of what they produce. They’ll be forced to lower prices, cutting into their profit. As a consumer, this is good news-- for you, everything will probably be cheaper. For people working for the companies, not so much.
No matter how much President Trump tries, economically this is not going to play out. Chinese inflation is much too rampant for that-- the authoritarian Chinese government could inflate their currency as much as it wants to without citizens raising their voices in protest. The government certainly has plenty of incentive to do so, at any rate. Look at that scary graph again, and see the steep slope of the line, continually shooting upward for the last 3 months... No, Trump cannot win the trade war.

Book Review: Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics

Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics by Richard Thaler

Published by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
500 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10110
2015
415 pages

Dr. Richard Thaler was recently awarded the 2017 Nobel Prize for Economics. A resident of Chicago and the popular coauthor of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness with Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, Thaler’s most recent book published in 2015 entitled Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics offers more insight into his personal experiences and writing style.

Misbehaving is structured in roughly chronological order, following the Thaler’s career path and his gradual findings as a pioneer in the field of behavioral economics, from when ideas were first conceived as a fringe movement, to scientific analysis and research, to the expansion of its exercise in the real world as a recognized field of study today. The central idea of behavioral economics is that standard economic models for predicting human behavior, based on assumptions that everybody makes rational decisions in their own self-interest for monetary profit-- are wrong, and in fact humans make decisions based on their biases, emotions, and situations. The foundation behind these economic theories is the field of psychology. As a result, as the book progresses, we observe findings from the economic community used less and less, and psychological studies applied more and more to economic decisions. Indeed, Thaler was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2017 for his contributions which have “built a bridge between the economic and psychological analyses of individual decision-making.”

The story’s major conflict is the prevalent struggle against classical economics purists from Thaler and his colleagues, an enterprising group of renegade academics defying the norm. Misbehaving as a whole is riddled with humorous anecdotes and interesting footnotes. Thaler’s writing style is affable and self-deprecating. He has a natural dry wit, freely admitting throughout his book to cutesy vices, like how he couldn’t resist a bowl of cashew nuts, is supposedly bad at math, and that his “single best quality” is laziness. At first glance, concepts are scattered and disjointed, but they come together into a coherent, solid argument, much like the field of behavioral economics itself. In this way, Thaler’s writing is refreshingly (sometimes confusingly) coherent, relating back to ideas presented from the beginning so a slow reader with a tendency to forget things far in the past will sometimes need to flip back to the page where it was first introduced. Happily, there’s also an extensive index for hapless Humans. It’s clear Misbehaving is intended for the general population, like its predecessor Nudge. However, after reading Nudge myself, more mathematical economic concepts are brought to the table in Misbehaving than its more well-received counterpart, and the pace at which they are introduced is also faster. Furthermore, Nudge aimed to provide a plethora of practical applications for behavioral economics, while Misbehaving did not necessarily need to give that many examples. Some basic financial concepts went over my head, such as some sections about taxes and mortgage, which I presume is common knowledge for normal adults. For the practical thinker, I advise reading Nudge first to get a more complete understanding of the scope of applications, but for the more analytical person, Misbehaving’s a good place to start for an in-depth study into the field.

The beginning of the book struck a similar note as Nudge, introducing many of the same anecdotes. In those early days, young Dr. Thaler put together a List of behavioral anomalies unexplainable by classical economics. These observed phenomena make up the beginning, accompanied by many graphs. One visual which stood out to me was the s-shaped curve illustrating the diminishing marginal utility of wealth, which is a fancy way of saying a rich person would value getting $5,000 a lot less than a poor person, and the difference between losing $1,000,000 and $1,005,000 somehow seems less than the difference between losing $0 and losing $5,000. This really got me thinking about how I, and other people, didn’t actually think as rationally about economic choices as economists say we do.
Throughout the book, counterarguments from economists who supported using the classical models are laid out and addressed, mostly that Professor Thaler’s findings all seemed to be interesting but unconnected examples. The first application of behavioral economics described was when Thaler was hired to give economic advice to a small New York ski resort, Greek Peak. Along with giving advice to General Motors, his experience at these places show that companies could use Thaler’s behavioral advice to generate profit. The ticket packages he came up with at Greek Peak, plus GM’s loan deal for unsold cars, on average had customers pay more without thinking it’s unfair-- both showing how behavioral economics can be applied. A psychological phenomenon, loss aversion, was illustrated with 23 managers each working in separate divisions in one big company. When asked if they would take on a project with a 50% chance of a $2 million profit, and a 50% risk of losing $1 million, even though the mathematical expected payoff is half a million dollars, most managers would not take the project, because if the project fails, there was a chance they would lose their jobs. However, when the company’s CEO was asked how many of the 23 projects he would like to take, he said all of them-- because the company expects to make $11.5 million from the 23 projects, when half fail and half succeed. This shows there’s a big lack of communication between principals and agents, or leaders and the people below them. It may be why companies don’t take enough risk-- probably one of Thaler’s most important concepts.

Another practical use of behavioral economics is the “Save More Tomorrow” plan, developed by Thaler for employers to combat the problem that some employees do not save enough for retirement. Thaler calls the idea that governments and corporations could somehow influence people’s choices using behavioral science “libertarian paternalism,” which he admits has suspicious connotations while also sounding oxymoronic-- but simply put, libertarian paternalism is voluntary-- meaning people could drop out of it any time, and it doesn’t restrict their choices, but it sets a default best option. People could be mentally “nudged” to make better choices for themselves-- that was the point where Thaler and Cass Sunstein decided to write Nudge. Thaler concludes that an effective solution to simple problems constitutes removing any barriers to make a choice easier-- the Save More Tomorrow Plan is set as the default for all employees, so nothing is required to join--- and one-time solutions, meaning no further action is needed to keep it going. Here, Thaler admits behavioral economics uses a lot less economics and a lot more psychology. Classical economic principles have been gradually dropped from the book as behavioral economic history takes a new turn to practical applications. It shows how all social sciences are connected, with each supporting the other.

One other thing addressed here is Thaler’s phrase, “nudge for good.” Nudges could influence people to make good decisions, but swindlers could also use behavioral science to rip people off. In fact, the examples I found within the book were the Greek Peak and GM corporations, where the goal was to make profits from ski tickets or cars. Although libertarian paternalism implies making a voluntary choice, some people would likely think it’s unfair if they take GM’s 2.9% interest loan deal on unsold cars, then find out later the rebate option (getting some amount back after the purchase) saved them more money. It’s why Thaler also argues for transparency in nudging-- if people understood clearly what they’re paying for, they would end up making the best choices after all. Thaler acknowledges ethical questions do come up. He redirects the reader to Sunstein’s 2014 article, “The Ethics of Nudging.”

Thaler concludes his book with a wishlist for behavioral economics going forward. What pleasantly surprised me was his hope for behavioral economics to be utilized in the field of macroeconomics. It’s satisfying that he recognized macroeconomics is an area behavioral economics largely fails to touch on because there’s so many ambiguities in the field, making it difficult to conduct scientific research. Since I’m uninitiated in economic academia, this book taught me scientific experimentation is more important to social studies than I realized. Scientific thinking was prominent throughout the book, and used to refute arguments from all sides. Thaler emphasizes the need for new data to fuel new theories. Further, he returns to his early anecdote about the risk-taking CEO and his 23 risk-averse managers, encouraging the rest of us to better communicate with our superiors and each other, and in collaboration avoid disasters and contribute to the flow of new ideas.

At the end, I was left with positive feelings. Behavioral economics will definitely help make our government and our businesses more streamlined, letting them do their job more effectively. I’m doubtful it will cause a huge change in the way we run things, cure cancer, or eliminate poverty-- but Misbehaving does not purport to such massive, ongoing endeavors. Instead, society’s improved one step at a time.

How Do You Score a Full 800 on the SAT US History Subject Test?

Congratulations for being ambitious enough to go beyond taking extra AP classes as a GPA boost, and decide to take the SAT US History Subject Test! Most Ivy League universities require that the applicant take at least 2 SAT Subject Tests, and all colleges appreciate test results as an indicator of the student's interest and proficiency in a particular subject of their choice. Thus, Subject Test scores are especially scrutinized by admissions boards, and it's best to obtain the highest score possible. A perfect score in US History would definitely increase your level of confidence in college or scholarship applications, especially if you're inclined towards the liberal arts like me. I was one who did get the 800 for perfect score, as well as a 5 from the AP US History exam (the highest possible score), so I would like to give some practical advice and personal experience.

Here are the scoring basics. The test is all multiple choice. There are 90 questions, with 60 minutes to complete them, meaning around 45 seconds for each question. A quarter of a point is subtracted for wrong answers, and no points are gained for answers left blank. The SAT Subject Test general score chart can be found here. Usually, a raw score of around 80 out of 90 would mean a scaled score of perfect 800, meaning getting 80 questions right and skipping 10; or getting 8 questions wrong, 82 questions right; or getting 4 questions wrong, 81 questions right, skipping 5 questions; or any combination thereof according to the rule that wrong answers have a -0.25-point penalty.

First and foremost: Take an AP US History course. It really matters whether it's honors, regular, or AP. The classmates who surround you and the level of work required from you will not be the same, and will affect your score. In regard to my personal experience, I would say if you didn't get an A in the AP class, this article would be of no help to you-- better to find some other, more rigorous study method if you wish to score an 800. The standard AP textbook for the course is The American Pageant by Thomas A. Bailey.

Second, take the AP US History exam first. You focus on historical knowledge in a macro kind of framework-- understanding facts, broad historical questions, and opposing viewpoints in the bigger picture of continuity and change over time. The hardest parts of the test are the long essay and document-based questions, requiring you to connect the dots using argumentation. In this way, you'd have a strong foundation for your SAT study, because the impression I got from the Subject Test was that it focused on all the nitty-gritty details of knowing chronology, names, and presidential administrations. You need lots of reference materials and a solid memory.

Here's what happened on my end.

On May 8, I registered for the SAT Subject Test, so the information from my AP exam study would be fresh and I would not need to do too much review. The test would be on June 3. I had one month to prepare.

I spent the first week of that month in post-traumatic relief after the AP US History exam 3 days before.

The second week of that month, I glanced through a couple of online articles to get info on the upcoming test. The all say that the test would be much easier than the AP US History exam-- I won't say they lied, but if you're like me and you actually enjoy thinking from a larger standpoint in history, and facts just don't stick in your head, you're in for it on the SAT. But I didn't know that until much later, so heartened by the news, I just reviewed a bit of my notes from AP US History.

Third week, I continued that review.  My notes were very extensive, and I had no framework of study besides slogging through summaries and fact-checking in chronological order. In hindsight, the lack of organization at this point would have deeply affected my ability to retain the information. I started my first online practice test, found at this link. There is a collection of 10 complete practice tests, not officially sanctioned by the College Board but that I found useful for beginning, low-budget purposes. I opted to ignore the short tests for each period. The online practice tests were exceedingly difficult for me, and I found that the SAT US History test really was different from the AP US History exam-- I had to completely shift my perspective of history.

I had only one and a half weeks left before the test, and they were the most desperate times I could attest to. I tried a variety of tactics to retain all the detail, including making a Quizlet-- basically an online flashcards generator-- from my notes for the Subject Test. It's a good example of what a test-taker might need to know. As a resource, my attempt can be found here. The way I got the information was going through the rest of the online practice exams, writing down the explanation of questions I got incorrect the best I could. My study method was to learn from mistakes, over and over again. I developed a healthy fear and appreciation for the amount of detail in America's 250-year history (not counting the 20,000 years of Native American history). I could not afford to fact-check, review my AP notes, or continue making my Quizlet.

My mother, who had been quietly panicking on her own, purchased the newest digital (Kindle) version of Barron's SAT Subject Test US History, 3rd edition by Kenneth R. Senter on Amazon, for $10.00. It included 4 full-length practice tests with explanations. My school librarian was also giving out old editions of prep books. Libraries have them all the time, and my librarian's eagerness at being rid of some of these was greatly shocking to me. I took two. Both made 11 more full-length practice tests that were slightly outdated, but together with the up-to-date Kindle, along with the fact that history doesn't change as time passes, I had more than enough practice tests. I didn't have enough time, and never finished all of them-- but I did complete all 4 from the Kindle version. My highest practice score was around 750, I remember, and my lowest a 610. My average must have been a 680. I had filled up around 15 pages of notes.

For me, learning from mistakes is the best and most permanent way to learn. It was important to go over all practice answers for mistakes and explanations, and to write the explanations down. In the beginning, I tried to look at the context of the explanation, and Google it, perhaps find an interesting anecdote or two to help me remember the fact. But this cut my efficiency-- so my only resource was the prep book answer explanations. I did not even look at the information presented in chronological paragraphs. I only wish that I had not wasted that first week and spent the second week reviewing my AP notes-- they were not helpful for this exam. I could have used that time to do practice tests, and work on timing. Under the circumstances, there was little else I could do.

The thing about incessant practice is, once you'd gotten a fact wrong once or twice, the next time you remember it. And my erratic practice test scores leveled out near the end to above 700. The practice tests, as is common for all practice tests, turned out to be harder than the real thing. This is deliberate, so that students would study more rigorously for it. On the test, I skipped one question. They don't tell you how many you got wrong. The issue you need to address is-- how will you remember all you need to know about factual US History in preparation for the test? My answer is a strong starting base in maintaining an A in AP US History, finishing your AP exam, all the practice tests you can find for the SAT, and one more thing...

On July 12, I received my score of 800. Allow me to conclude with this: It's difficult to tell whether something good that happens to you is a miracle or not. Was it the work of your own hand, or the work of God? I had been praying the entire previous week that whatever comes, God will direct me to the path he saw fit-- and I take the 800 in US History to be a sign to encourage me to keep going in liberal arts instead of the sciences. If it were anything less, I would be doubting my own direction. Praise the Lord! Let everything proceed according to His will.

All Things, Lost

Why is the title of this blog All Things, Lost?

It corresponds to my favorite chapter in the Bible: Philippians 3. Verses 3 to 9 says:

(3) For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— (4) though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: (5) circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; (6) as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

(7) But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. (8) What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ (9) and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

It reminded me of myself. There are times when I feel so confident, because of my many accomplishments. I feel unstoppable. I was the top student in every class, and the leader in all the group projects, and doing so many enviable extracurriculars that sometimes I think-- I was the best person in all the world.

When I read this verse, I felt so... humbled. Why would Paul deny all that, all the good parts of himself, to follow Christ? This man was so incredible that he would just give it up, and "consider them garbage"! Truly, Jesus did say that it was harder for a rich man to reach heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

Being that allegorical rich man, I felt hopeless. Jesus once told another rich man to give up everything he had and follow him. Needless to say, the guy didn't. So how could I? How could I give up all my talents and abilities and skills, pursuing that one thing-- "forgetting what is behind and reaching forward to what is ahead"-- Christ Jesus?

Here, is the root of my conundrum. That question-- how could I-- or rather, "WHY?" is a central point of the Bible, and through my journey, I have held that question and answered it to myself. So, All Things, Lost is precisely that-- all things lost for Christ, replaced by Christ. It's part of what I want to cover in this blog.