mangacaps;mine

The Problem with "Pretty Notes"

i was scrolling down the #studyblr tag and saw about 3 people posted that they had to redo their notes so many times just to get it perfect and:

- notes aren’t supposes to be perfect

- they’re supposed to help you

- the least of your worries is to make them “pretty”

- make notes concise, not paragraphs & paragraphs & paragraphs long

- stop redoing your notes, you’re wasting time

- notes are supposed to help you review the chapter, not rewrite the chapter

- simply copying notes from your textbook (word for word) is passive learning. reconstruct sentences.

- buy white-out materials instead of ripping pages {save the trees}

- colorcode, but don’t get overboard. when I colorcode, I only use 3 colors because more than that can cause confusion. + when you write, you have to constantly think “okay blue is for vocab words, red is for important, green is for memorize, purple is for dates, burnt sienna is for key terms, cerulean is for synonynms” we aint got time for that

- try to finish taking notes on a chapter after 1 hr and 30 mins. this is always my time frame for taking notes

i’m not trying to hate on pretty notes!! In fact, I love pretty notes & organized notebooks. I just think that the want of achieving pretty notes shouldn’t go as far as becoming unproductive & passive. We’re students!! We have to use our time wisely & efficiently :) 1hr 30 mins of notes with 1hr 30 mins revision is much more productive than spending 3 hours on notetaking alone.

keep smiling & study hard! xx

formerlyaurelya asked:

(1/2) So I saw your post about referring to autistic people as such, and I was just wondering about that because currently I am in an Education program to become certified in ESE and they taught us to use "person first language" that is say "child with autism". The idea isn't to talk about autism like it is a disease, but I believe the idea is to put the person first and not dehumanize them with labels.

(2/2) So do you feel more comfortable if it is a phrase like “with autism” oppose to “have autism” or do you still feel like that is labeling it as a disease. And I guess my question is what is your view on “person first” language in general? Thank you for your time. I truly want to do my best to serve the children and their families in my future classrooms.

The idea that calling us “autistic people” is dehumanizing has been pushed a lot by groups of non-autistics, like Autism $peaks, who have to separate us from our autism in order to see us as human.

There’s actually a vibrant autistic culture where we see “autistic” as just another descriptor of who we are. I’m a tall person, I’m a feminist person, and I’m an autistic person. The fact that only one of these adjectives is seen as dehumanizing is a result of ableist ideas about what it means to be autistic.

Person-first language is very uncomfortable for a lot of autistic people because its advocates are usually the same (usually allistic) people who advocate for “curing” our autism and who frequently imply that we won’t be whole people until we’re not autistic.

Autism $peaks and its ilk will talk about how a child is “missing” because she “has autism” and can’t be “found” until she behaves like a non-autistic child. They’re not just trying to separate people like me from our autism linguistically: they literally say outright that they must separate us from our autism to find the lovable neurotypical person underneath.

This line of thinking has resulted in abusive training for many autistic children, with the idea that we must be forced to stop showing any autistic traits to be part of society. It’s also resulted in a lot of sympathy for parents who murder their autistic children, because “people with autism” are actually barely people at all, since our autism has made us “lost” etc. - so murdering us doesn’t count, especially since our autism is such a burden on our families.

This context is important. Autistic people face higher rates of abuse than non-disabled neurotypical people because of ableist thinking like this. This history - and current situation - is why most autistic self-advocacy groups reject person-first language. That language is a direct and immediate reference to the idea that we are basically neurotypical people who suffer from The Autism, and must be saved from it if possible.

Autistic people like myself find our autism an integrated part of our selves - autism colours our experiences and drives our passions. It’s a different model of brain, not something foreign imposed on a “normal” brain, and while we may need to learn in different ways to allistic people or need more support to function in an allistic world, we can’t ever not be autistic. Getting people to acknowledge this is, in my opinion, one step in achieving freedom from ableist abuse.

If you plan to work with autistic children at all in the future,  I encourage you to seek out resources written by autistic adults. Much of the available material on autism is dominated by non-autistic people who feel simply knowing an autistic person makes them an expert on autism, and this can cause distortions and inaccuracies.

Here are some more perspectives on identity-first language and person-first language for you to explore.