Victoria, I also admire your hero. When people are looked upon as heroes for aiding things such as trafficking t gives me hope for the world, that we can make something better for ourselves. Selfless individuals like Koirala inspire others to do the same and devote our time and energy to those who need us. With the opportunities we are given, it is our responsibility to share our blessings and help others. It takes a lot for a single person to stand against those who do wrong to either them or others, especially in an act such as this where dominance plays a large role. Trafficking is a wide-spread horror that is not commonly recognized, for reasons beyond my comprehension. Somebody like Koirala, stepping up even though she was victimized, is beautiful in itself. She suffered and wants to ease others from that. She has firsthand experience which is only a plus in her fight.

Rachel I completely agree with your logic, and you make a great point in telling that more financially savvy people can work to prevent something such as a Great Depression. You also mention that even though students may not be independent in their lives yet, they can be teaching their parents something. That is another great point because sometimes it seems that kids are teaching their parents a lot. In my blog I also talked about why a personal finance course would be beneficial, but I also talked about why it should not be required. So many students choose classes in their junior and senior year based on their interests and what they want to go into in the future, and something they do not have enough room in their schedule for these classes. That applied to me this year, and if their was a required personal finance course, I would loose out on another class. By the way, great quote.

Corey, your opinion on the article is extremely well thought out and agreeable. For a large portion of teenagers reading this, ignorance would kick in and they would agree with Doyle completely. You see why we cannot take Doyle's plan of action and you explain your reasoning for it. Your argument applies to many others, the money and the drastic change will just mess up the balance of what already is. For example, changing the drinking age. When it was 18, some believe it should have stayed at that age. Regardless, the age limit was raised. Lowering that now would cause more chaos and it puts off the balance of what already is. The money required is more than what would be made, because so many people are going to have to pay more in the long run. Why? Because they will need more schooling to be better qualified. Like you said, certain levels will have to be harder to earn.

Aubrey, you have a very strong introduction and I wholeheartedly agree. Students to need to adapt to teachers and keep and open-mind, just like teachers have to. A positive atmosphere is such a cliche example but it's one of the best, because it really does make a huge difference, and both students and teachers need to work towards providing that. It makes being there more enjoyable and bearable, so students are more alert and willing to learn. Because pressure is such a large part of student's lives, any relief is appreciated and better for the students' well being. It also allows for students to become more comfortable with their teachers. The more comfortable a student is with a teacher, the more comfortable they are learning. This also keeps students from being shy and not asking questions - this way, students want to ask questions and seek for extra guidance. I also completely with your last statement, about negative teacher traits. I know from personal experience that when a teacher is unfair or rude in any way, a student is not willing to learn. A student will sit in the class with a pout on their face the entire time, and they will not learn anything. This attitude will reflect an entire classroom, and that is completely the opposite of effective teaching and learning.

Alex, the beginning of your response begins like most, about life necessities that should be addressed, and how your own knowledge exemplifies that. Unlike other responses I have read, though, you talk about how life lessons can't be taught in a class, which I agree with. In my own response I mentioned how people need to learn to be themselves, but you go beyond that with learning from mistakes. You know that you need to make your own mistakes and you want to, no matter how appealing it is to skip that hardships. I respect that and completely understand and agree.

Corey, the best point you bring up is when you mention that you use proper English with people you don't know. That is completely true. Not only does that just apply to texting, but also to conversations at school, the work place, etc. You would be much more formal in an interview than when talking to your friend, and social networking reflects that. It is almost a subconscious habit that social networking is just encouraging, which is not a bad thing at all. With that said, I agree with about 95% of what you said. The one thing I have to disagree with is how efficiently people learn to type. Though that is completely true, auto-correct cannot be responsible for every mistake. Just because the work is getting done faster does not mean it is as good as it can be. The popular saying goes, "it's not about the quantity, but the quality". Also, what if students are assigned something written? Just because the majority of assignments are to be typed, does not mean that is always the case. I actually think that more written work should be assigned to that students learn to properly write, rather than relying on technology to fix their mistakes. These people will keep making these mistakes rather than learning how to correct it. Better to correct the problem, not just the product.

Melissa, as everyone else has said, you make valid points, back them up and I guess I can see what you are trying to get at. The first thing that I would like to bring up though, is individuality. You say that the U.S. should coincide the drinking age with other countries, but why? You've been to other countries but not everybody has, or will; so to them that factor wouldn't matter. The U.S. shouldn't change the drinking age just because it is 18 for every other country. The U.S. is being an individual, enforcing a law that is believed to be the safest for the particular country. Other countries may or may not be able to handle it, but that is up to them and their culture. The U.S. is different in so many ways, so the drinking age is based on its own different aspects. Now in college; students under 21 aren't allowed to drink, but they do. In high school, students aren't necessarily allowed to drink, but they do. That's not to say everyone should be allowed to drink because people will do it anyway. And the last thing I would like to bring up is the fighting over sees, beer in your own home. If you want a beer, in your own home, it is up to your parents or guardian to tell you if you can or can't have one. But that is completely separate from a change in the drinking age. If it is changed, who is to say people will have just 1 beer in their home, like many adults? Who's to say they won't take advantage of that, and have 5 beers?