Creative Title

Just so y'all know, there's one minor cuss word in here. Just in case anyone cares.

We left off with what happens after one makes a friend. This is the part on which I seem to be a tad rusty, but the following is my basic understanding thus far.

Normally, our two example people continue to hang out and find the various interests that they have in common. Not only that, but they may also pick up the interests of one another. For example, I thought of anime as more or less just shows such as Pokemon (keep in mind, I didn't have cable until around that exact time) until I had begun integration into the group of everyone else in Japanese class.

If that doesn't happen--which seems to be a rather rare occurence--the relationship doesn't strengthen. If the two people in question continue to have mutual friends and exist in a situation in which they must be around each other a lot, they manage to carry on a conversation within that particular group when need be, but neither really makes an effort at spending time together. If they are not more or less forced to see each other, the friendship simply weakens, and they may become casual acquaintances or naught but a fleeting memory to one another.

Of course, there's always the possibility of a big, dramatic break-up within a friendship, which often causes a split throughout the entire group. Whether it's simply a huge disagreement amongst members or one or two people simply don't like the rest of the members and choose to leave and join a different group (*achem*). My guess would be that this happens mostly with people who have dramatic personalities to begin with. That doesn't make the milder people immune to this sort of situation, but still less likely to be the cause. Truth be told, I have little knowledge as to the exact "mechanics" of this, as I have little experience being anywhere near the middle of it, but it's not usually a very enjoyable situation for anyone involved. Not only is there the split itself and the emotional baggage that goes with it, but even afterwards, everyone still has to deal with one another. Oftentimes, if there is one large group of friends, they see each other on a regular basis, as that is more or less the fuel for any of these. If that group breaks up, both subsections are likely to have to continue occupying the similar space at the same time on a daily basis. I'm not entirely certain of the effects this will cause, but most likely one will move to be as far away from the other as possible at a given time (Yay, territoriality! Yeah, I don't know if that's actually a word), since I don't know of any cases of groups reuniting after such an event (though it could certainly happen if neither side is too stubborn).

Yet even if two people make the closest of friends, and have a deep connection, their relationship can still easily fall apart. Obviously, I know of this very well from a great deal of experience. The thing is, neither person is necessarily at fault. Not that a decision one made couldn't have caused the split, but neither person wants it to happen. The most common circumstance under which this happens is physical separation. One person moves away or goes to a different school or workplace. Something of that sort happens, and the two people no longer see each other (and thereby think of each other) every day. Without the constant stimulation of the other person, each one turns to other friends more often and consequently forms stronger relationships with them. Since these relationships are now stronger, the person begins to spend more time with those people and ends up having less time with which to pay attention to the friend who is no longer around. Thus, the two people slowly begin to forget about one another. Again, neither means for it to happen, and it's not that they stop liking each other or don't miss each other, but it's one of those things that are (is?) just a part of life. It doesn't really cause problems or disrupt anyone's emotions unless only one of the people has another source for friends, but we'll get to that later.

Why do people need such daily social stimulation? Why do the large majority of humans make friends so easily and place such importance on forming and maintaining those connections? The simple answer pretty much anyone will give you (the reason behind which can be debated) is, "humans are social animals." This is such a basic, duh concept, I've actually come to despise the phrase with every fabric of my being. Why are humans so social, then? Well, it's probably the fault of that damn evolution again. The humans (or animals from which humans evolved) who didn't latch onto a large enough group of other humans couldn't survive as easily. A single person can't kill a buffalo or a mammoth with just a spear, and would be far more easily attacked and killed by a pack of wolves (or something of the sort). Basically, groups provide protection along with a far easier lifestyle. It's much more difficult for there to be a clan with a few hunters, a healer of some sort, gatherers, and of course people (primarily women, of course) to raise children and take care of the babies. People needed the resources that they could only get through staying close to other people to divide labor and, again, provide extra protection.

Or something like that.

Therefore, humans gradually grew to possess an absolute need for groups. It's such a strong need, that being without constant social stimulation from a group (note: group here means several people. Even one or two people are not enough.) causes a great deal of emotional distress in a person. Granted, the amount of necessary contact varies greatly from one person to another, but the feeling of being isolated, upset, and uncared for is still the same. When someone lacks normal human interaction, the person in question would probably try to form new relationships through whatever means available. In my case, I started leaving comments on a blog and going over to my sister's place each weekend. This still isn't nearly as much as before, but it was enough to sustain me through the rest of high school. Another thing that happens, or at least happened in my particular case, is that a person finds new forms of entertainment with which to occupy their mind. I've noticed a great decrease in the frequency of my own boredom since I went through this phase. I began pursuing my interests in many subject such as politics and history, and also practiced various activities such as archery, mechanics, and woodworking (I made a pretty awesome bookshelf last summer. It's really great.). However, I've also noticed that I show a great deal less interest in other people, since I'm always working on or researching something whenever they make an attempt at conversation. Therein lies a new problem. I no longer feel such a necessity for daily human interaction, but those with whom I do interact still do. Thus, people try to show interest, but I usually seem cold and aloof, as I'm not feeling the same need for it and have so many things other than humans to occupy my time. Thus, it becomes harder to form new friendships than even before when I was really painfully, painfully shy. Certainly not impossible, but much harder than if I were to give the impression that I wanted or needed company like people expect.

Perhaps that's just me, though. I am naturally not very aggressive in pursuing friendships, and seem to have a lower level of necessary interaction than many others. I honestly can't say for sure what would happen to a more social person put in the same situation. Perhaps they would be more forceful in maintaining their current relationships once the first twinge of loneliness began. They might also go out and find new activities through which they can meet new friends such as a sport or a job of some sort (I actually did this to some extent by taking Tang Soo Do, but it's not really a team effort of any sort, and I'm actually only just making friends with anyone there). I'm not sure, but that is the best guess I can make, as I haven't even met anyone in a remotely similar situation. I can't know what I haven't studied.

So there it is, my overview of what I've learned about human interaction and socialization through a lack thereof. Perhaps there is an inherent flaw in this form of study, but I have yet to view any further examples (especially since starting college--an incredubly social-centric environment) that disprove my hypotheses on the matter. We'll eventually see what Social Psychology officially says when I get around to taking that class--next semester's Psychology class is Abnormal Psychology. Awfully interesting subject matter in there!

Well, it's now 9:15, and I began this a little after 6. Y'all best appreciate my efforts, and I do hope you'll understand if I don't read back through all this to search for typos. Now the thousand-dollar question is... did changing the timestamp (which I think I did) help? Tschuß!

It's a funny concept, but I believe that I found out more about the way friendships work during my years of low social interaction. Before that time, I was relatively normal, whatever that may mean. I had my high school friends and acquaintances, the friends I'd made in middle school (and I had also been introduced to the friends they'd made in high school), and hung out with them all whist maintaining strictly family-like relationships with members of my family. I never really thought much about friendships in those years.

However, I began to lose this structure when I started homeschooling, obviously. It's funny; it's not until something's gone that you begin to ponder how and why you got it in the first place. I soon began to ask myself questions about this. How are these relationships formed in the first place? What makes them strong? What keeps some from strengthening? Why do they become so weak so quickly? What factors make them fall apart so much? Why do humans need them so badly? Why do they (we?) need so many? What happens without them? These started to sprout in my mind along with other questions concerning the nature of the various pieces of the universe, as I came to have far more time to do naught but philosophize than ever before.

Thus, I got to think on the subject a great deal, and I'll see when I take a Social Psychology class how accurate my assessment turns out to be. My conclusions come only from my personal experiences and what I happened to observe of others, as I really can't do any extensive experiments on the topic. No money, and no time due to both school and my current search for something to get me some money.

Since the best place to begin is normally at the beginning, this is where we will start. How do people make friends? I found three primary circumstances under which this will happen. The first is rarest, and can be described as purely out of necessity. A person comes to a new place (example: high school), where he* doesn't know anyone. The situation can be complicated by the fact that everyone else there seems to have already formed relationships previous to our person's entrance. There are two ways to work with this: either go up to someone and say, "hi," or just wait for someone to come talk to you. Naturally, the former is the most surefire way, though it can certainly be difficult for one to do (yet even I managed it on the first day of high school. Shy as I am, I have very occasional bursts of extreme confidence).

The second way is actually the most common, which is through simple daily interaction. People make the closest friends with those who are around them all the time, the most notable places being work and school. Rarely is a long-lasting relationship formed with the person they saw once whilst on vacation. No, they come into being through being around one another for hours each day, and especially if the two people exist in a common situation. Students talk with each other before, after, and (yeah) during class, usually starting with the course material and expanding from there. They're not likely to create that kind of relationship with the teacher because they begin with less in common than the teacher.

That brings up another point I've been meaning to make, which is on the topic of alleged "racism" and "lack of diversity" and the like. There are those who spout that America is racist or something because whites have more white friends, blacks congregate around blacks, etc. However, people naturally drift towards those with whom they feel they might have things in common. Unless one meets others exclusively over the internet, the only thing on which he will be able to judge similarities is appearance. Unfortunately for those of us who have to listen to idiots, race is a part of a person's appearance. Wow, what an amazing revelation! A good example of this is that Why Asian Guys Can't Get White Girls video. No, not the topic of the video itself. It's the fact that three out of twelve or so people featured in it are not Asian. Perhaps that group of people happened to live in an area highly populated by Asians, but I'm slightly skeptical that that's the only reason, even if it happens to be the case. I'm not saying they're racist, but they sure seem to be doing the exact same thing everyone else in the world does.

The third way to make friends is a little stranger, and happens fairly often, though probably not quite as much as the last one. It does have one very important precondition, which is that one must have friends in the first place. Yes, this third way is making friends through a mutual acquaintance. I actually tried to explain this to my NJ friend when he asked me how to make friends (Step one: leave your parents' basement), to which he replied, "So you mean it's easier when you're forced," completely forgetting that he and I made friends through my mom. Yeah, so, that wasn't what I meant. In fact, it takes some of the forcing off. When people meet in a group situation and end up making friends with each other through that, it's a lot less stressful than sitting at a table having only two minds to come up with something to talk about (about which to talk... yeah, screw participles for now. Let them hang!). I think I eventually got through, or at least won the conversation. But I digress. Again, I believe this to be a somewhat common means by which to make friends. Many people, through participation in various activities, have multiple groups to which they belong, and most would usually wish to bring at least a couple members of each together. If successful, members of each party become friends, and either add a new group to their own friendship pool (probably more likely), or the two groups unite and become one.

Of course, that is assuming that there are two entire groups both relating to the one person. Sometimes, however, it can be one group, and one person without any (or any in that particular situation) friends besides the mutual acquaintance. However, in that instance, it actually becomes much easier, since the single person begins to meld into the group at a pace that is determined by their similarities to the rest of the members. This is a very good tactic for the very shy people of the world, which does happen to be something I've learned through experience. It happened in middle school when I made one friend, who brought us somewhat outcasts into a small group of our own (she left in the third quarter, but the rest of the group remained very close until high school when I went to a different school and ruined the whole thing). This also happened in high school. I made my friend using the "just say hi" method, and she introduced me to the rest of everyone, and I thus became a regular staple of the group (until I left for homeschool. I really don't think I try to sabotage these friendships). This hasn't yet started to a great extent in college, but you'll find out why way later on.

Now we have begun. Friendships have been formed, but what happens from here on out? Good question, imaginary person wishing to know more! You'll find out in part two, which will either be tomorrow or the next day or so. Note: this does not mean that every-day posting is coming back, but tomorrow happens to be when I'll have the time to write my incredibly time-consuming casual essays after changing the oil in my car. Yeah, that's always a fun activity (and that is actually not completely sarcasm... though I was really supposed to do it a couple months ago. But I don't really drive much, so it shouldn't be too terrible, right?).


*Again, I use "he" as a neutral pronoun, the way in which it's really allowed to be used. I hate feminazis and their he/she nonsense.

Hippies, peacenicks, and other idiots, ye be warned.

I know that I may sometimes seem a bit obsessed with guns and gun rights. I'm not. Firearms just happen to be the most effective way for one to defend oneself, therefore I focus more on it than I might on other means. I will admit that I am obsessed with self-defense, and the general idea of not dying just because some jerk (I really try my best to avoid profanity when speaking of violent criminals) thinks that I should. That being said, firearms will not be the central topic of this post, and I'll try to avoid the subject in general. Just for a change of pace.

Most people nowadays--especially young people--trap themselves in the "it won't happen to me" mindset. "Oh, there were two robberies on campus in one day? Ah, but I rarely visit those exact spots, so I'm safe." Stuff like that. People don't wish to acknowledge the fact that they are fragile beings, who are not going to suddenly be able to fight off a gang of men intent on causing them great harm, and/or possibly ending their fleeting life. Hey, I don't blame them in the least; that's an extremely unpleasant thought. I don't enjoy it in the least, and wouldn't even consider it were it not thoroughly pounded into my mind by my two self-defense instructors (shooting and tang soo do) and my parents over the past four years. The last one was particularly intense for some reason. Nevertheless, I no longer live under the illusion that it's not possible, especially given my general appearance of being small and meek.

Let's say now that one does realize that he/she (I'm usually adamantly against this phrase, but I feel that women, being more at risk to attack, need to be included with this topic) is living in reality where people can actually be attacked. What is one to do then? Well, the most obvious option is to take some form of martial arts and read up on the rape-prevention advice that you see everywhere, which sometimes doesn't even include tips on fending off an attacker. Even the ones that do rarely go beyond telling you to do the obvious "resist and scream... he won't be expecting it!" tactic. Also (and I'm a very small tiny bit proud of these ones) some actually go on to explain that you should be yelling, "Fire!" and cussing the bastard out. But what if the guy's 100 pounds heavier than his victim? What if he has a bunch of his buddies and/or a weapon with him? Will he run off just because the person is wiggling? I doubt it.

The point to which I'm getting at this particular spot is that potential victims need something to stop potential attackers before the situation gets to a point where they would have nothing to do but struggle. There are two parts here: weapons, and what some may describe as paranoia. First, weaponry--the more easily-explained and rational approach. Sigmund Freud once said, "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Well, I don't like Freud, but that's just a fun quote to stick in here. What I mean to say is that many people now have taken to the thought that them carrying a weapon will somehow make it an unfair fight (bear with me) by giving them the advantage. And, after all, if they have such an advantage, are they "really any better" than the criminal? I wish I could remember the names of all the movies I've seen with that line so that I could list them to prove that that assumption is not unfounded. While the answer to that should be a resounding, "Hell yes," I doubt there are many who would echo it. This, however, depends on the assumption that an attacker will be the exact height, weight, gender, demeanor, etc. as the attackee (that's not a word, is it?). Chances in real life, however, is that any attacker will bring as many advantages as he can get his hands on. If the person being attacked is carrying a knife, pepper spray, gun, tazer, etc., it puts them on much fairer ground. Not only that, but the person being attacked should have as much of an edge over the attacker as he/she can possibly get. I know all the blather about who really has the moral authority and all that, but the person who is not attacking someone obviously far weaker than he for the sole purpose of causing him/her harm is clearly the better person.*

Of course, there's always the fact that we've all been conditioned to believe that weapons are dangerous, and that simply having them around will cause innocent people to die needlessly. Obviously, they are dangerous, but that's why people who keep them around follow strict safety rules, and most importantly teach those around them about the risks and guidelines, so that accidents will be avoided. Yet most people don't know this, since no one has told them so.

Now the tricky part--let's call it security. One need not actually believe that everyone he/she meets is actually trying to hurt him/her (man, that double-gender thing is annoying), but perhaps being slow to trust people could be a reasonable precaution. Locking one's door is fairly necessary, though perhaps not always possible. Example: I try to keep my door locked, especially seeing as I live in a dorm, but when my roommate's around, she's always coming and going, and so she leaves the door unlocked, and sometimes even pretty much completely open. This is somewhat bothersome to me, but it's something I can stand for the time being. As for the hesitancy to trust people, it is very easy for one to put on a mask so that one may decieve another later on in the relationship. After all, weren't most women who have been victims of rape attacked by someone they knew? Men who have suffered the same fate, well, that issue involves race, which is a topic that I try to avoid when speaking with people outside of my family. So it is, perhaps, reasonable to be somewhat cautious of those whom(?) one does not know too well. Heh, I once told a guy (whom I'd met only thrice before) that if he broke into my house and snuck into my room at night that I'd shoot him. He seemed surprised, despite the fact that the hypothetical situation involved him breaking into my house and sneaking into my room. Uninvited. Without warning. Not letting me know it was him. What else would I do? Also, how could that have possibly failed to chase him away?

Back to principles of self-defense. If someone is attacking you, do you care about the well-being of the attacker? You shouldn't, but some might at least try to. Our culture of moral ambivalence and negotiation has forced too many good minds into believing this pascifistic fantasy of there being good in everyone, if only you speak reason to them. Yet the people who are the ones attacking others already believe their own philosophy, most likely that the world owes them something for some misfortune or another. You can talk of different points of view and the person in question's past or present living or mental conditions all you want, but it is wrong for anyone to believe that they have a right to take what you own from you. Be it money, posessions, body, life, etc., it should not be taken by anyone but the person to whom it belongs. But what does one do when someone tries this (I think I did a very good job of not mentioning government in this part. It was trying.)?

Well, one does whatever one can to stop the person who is trying to take it. My tang soo do instructor once said, "If I break someone's knee, I'll be able to just walk away [with a clear conscience]. Because if I break someone's knee, I know that they were doing something to deserve it." Although he (naturally) yells at everyone in class a whole lot, that is probably the most caring and moral person I know. He follows and teaches us many life principles, such as respect, manners, honor, discipline, leadership, and humility; and he makes sure that everyone in the school knows the exact definition and meaning of the word, inside and out. He makes sure that we're good people so that we become extremely productive members of society, and thus so that we avoid conflict when we can. That, all while teaching us what to do if simply being a good person should fail to prevent an attack. The quote above, and many, many others like it from him, try to teach us that since we are these good people (bad people are less likely to stick with a strict martial art... or any martial art), anyone who attacks one of us is, by definition, a bad person. Therefore, there should be no shame or hesitancy in badly injuring (<=at the very least) anyone who attacks us.

This extends to absolutely anyone who isn't a violent criminal. If you believe that you are not evil, don't kill/rape/rob people, and trust your decision-making, then the world is far better off with you than anyone who attacks you. I think that was where I was going with this.

Alright, it's the point at night where I can't think anymore (12:30), so good night, and I hope that was long and thought-provoking enough for you. I apologize for not having posts like this more often, but between school, legal free internet TV, forced WoW-leveling, not being at a computer on weekends, and a "secret activity" that I'd rather not mention due to the fact that it would give away my true identity once the group gets around to updating that section of their website, I've been a little busy lately. I hope that the occasional 5-hour effort will suffice.

*You may have noticed by now my use of only "he" for the attackers. That's because these are not the people I'm trying to convice, so I revert back to "he" for the neutral meaning. Plus, attackers are far more likely to be men than women.

Socialists be very, very warned.

It's no secret that I have a very low opinion of the public school system. There are several reasons for this, most, if not all, of which I didn't even begin to think about until I was around fifteen. My decision to homeschool came quite soon afterwards. Obviously, it was an incredibly difficult choice to make. Just a year and a half earlier, I'd made a very similar decision when finding a high school in the first place. My base school was very near to my house, and all of my friends were going to go there. At first, my mom wanted me to go to the school where my sister was (ironically, where I ended up going), but I'd refused because I wanted to stay with my friends. However, I kept thinking about it all, and figured out that I really wanted to learn Japanese, which was offered at the school where my sister went, but not my base school. I'm not sure whether that was the sole reason for my decision at that point, or whether other factors eventually came into play, but it's the only one I can coherently recall.

So I ended up going to a rather inner-city school where I began with exactly zero friends. Looking back, I wasn't very wise--even just four years ago. However, I quickly made friends with many of the other people who were taking Japanese. Some may consider them to be of the goth/punk/emo variety, but they were really rather fun and energetic--perhaps more accurately described as the anime type (if there even is a particular "anime type"). For my entire freshman year and half of my sophmore year, I grew closer to this very large group of people at my school and got to know many of the members (which, for someone as relatively anti-social as I, is a fairly large feat). Thus, one might understand that I was really freaking upset when I left.

Nevertheless, I still believe that I made the correct decision for my education--partly because I truly feel justified in that, and partly probably simply because I sort of have to so that I didn't leave all my friends (twice) for nothing. Most predominant is probably the fact that public education sucks. Nothing against the teachers, or even most of the administrators and students, but more the entire concept. And even that statement covers a lot of ground.

To begin, I despise the curricula (heck, maybe even the idea of a curriculum). Children and teenagers are far too impressionable for what they learn to ever be decided by the government. Granted, many parents manage to teach their children basic intelligence outside the system, but still far too many neglect this duty, such that they grow up learning only what the state wants them to learn. I really shouldn't need to explain how or why this is an absolutely terrible situation, but just in case, here's what Hitler had to say on the subject: "When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'" And Lenin stated, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." And hey, let's throw in a little Stalin for good measure: "Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Evil or not (and they were) those guys did tell the truth about a good many things, present topic most assuredly included. Education is an extremely powerful tool that shapes the minds of every single person for the rest of their lives, and it is my opinion that any one body should ever be responsible for all of them. If that happens, the governing body will quickly figure out how easily they can engrain into young minds the idea that they (the people) need the aforementioned body to have more power.

...And that's only problem number one.

Second, the teachers and administrators get what I like to call "DMV syndrome," which has more to do with economics than anything else. Granted, that's not to say that they don't care about their students' education--far from it, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten into teaching in the first place. They simply don't work as hard as they might if, say, they wouldn't have the unions raising hell over a firing for anything short of molestation. Heck, we even just learned about this in psychology class on monday! Perhaps not this specific example, but the general theme. Simply put, they're getting paid to teach, so they teach--positive reinforcement--but they lack the negtive reinforcement of "If these kids come out of this class completely ignorant of ___subject___, you'll be fired so we can hire someone who knows what they're doing." Therefore, the teachers eventually become apathetic towards their students' individual success in the class. Thomas Sowell taught me well in my first semester at home. This is probably the biggest factor in my homeschooling, even though I didn't know it at the time. As I put it, I was "sick of not learning." Recently, however, I've realized that my style of learning is somewhat more autodidactic than most (and infinitely more so than all the "teamwork" scheiß they were trying to shove down my throat) to begin with, so it's not entirely the school system's fault in that case.

Then, of course, there was the constant barrage of feel-good talking points about diversity and achievement and all that (Yeah, the link is just a little comic relief). No, that wasn't even really the problem. It's more like they're trying to force everyone to shove themselves into the academic world, and completely forgo any other possible profession--especially since we aren't "allowed" to drop out of school before the age of 16, and even then can't get a driver's license until 18 if we do so. I suppose it's not that surprising, though, considering how absolutely cheap everything is now here. We get all our trade from China and hard work from illegals, and all (or at least the very large majority) of our products are made from oil (plastic, yadda, yadda, yadda...), so we don't really have as much of a need for all the trade/merchant/artisan jobs that were so necessary in the past. Carpenters, blacksmiths, glassmakers, masons, farm hands, mechanics, etc. Those careers are all but obsolete save for making souvenirs from small towns. This leaves a terrible predicament for young people who aren't naturally inclined to be good at math or science or humanities. I have a friend who is living with this exact problem and now works part-time at a pretzel place and spends the rest of his time playing World of Warcraft in his parents' basement. His parents won't pay for him to go to college, but from what I've heard, he doesn't seem to like the idea of more school very much. He has no direction in his life, and claimed to not enjoy anything but WoW and hanging out with friends. I knew that he really enjoys working on cars, so I suggested that he be a mechanic. This was met with a "yeah, maybe." The problem is that this is becoming increasingly common nowadays. This generation has taken on the mindset that if we don't go to college, we can't make anything of our lives. A century ago (and beyond), my friend would likely have been sent to be an apprentice at a young age, so that he could learn a trade that would be useful to society and earn him a good income for the rest of his life. But no... no college, no future: that's what we're taught.

I believe those are the three most important issues in the public school system that concern me. This took five hours to write; you can't say that I don't have a lot of thoughts.

UPDATE: Blast! I forgot to include the whole "dragging the better students down so the others' feelings aren't hurt" thing. Here's an example, though: There are sometimes three levels of each course for high school. In order from hardest to easiest, they are: AP (advanced placement), Honors, and Academic (regular...ish). My sister was once put in an AP course for one of these, and the school decided to mix the academic level and AP level classes together, supposedly to help push the academic students harder and to make them do better. Obviously, this didn't work one bit. The AP students were all doing horribly and got PO'd because it was now moving far too slow for them to actually be able to get anything done. That's fair, for you.