To those of you who think that being creative comes naturally, don't. It takes a lot of work to be creative. You can't just be creative by pooping out ideas that just all come and rush towards you at the speed of light. You have to have a sufficient amount of evidence that can support each of of your ideas. So, if you're planning on making a project about a cell, and you're using a chocolate bar as a model, then you'd better have a good explanation, or else I'm just gonna take that bar from you, and eat it.
As much as I love chocolate, that isn't necessarily what I want to talk about. Earlier today, in my Botany class, we were spread out for group discussions over what project we're planning to accomplish for our final project of the semester. Obviously, we went for an easy topic, "Ecosystems" while our other classmates were just satisfied to go for cells, then cell cycle, the cell theory and that stuff. They had straight forward projects (from what I've heard from) compared to ours, our entire group was bent on doing our own projects. We each had at least one project proposal, however we couldn't decide on which idea was good.
My group mates complained about my ideas being "too creative to be attained", while I called theirs, "too simple for a good grade" which just spurred the entire group into a frenzy wherein me and Wilbur were fighting over the project proposals, while Julianne and Leonard were just sitting there twiddling their thumbs and just laughing at the free entertainment.
Wilbur's project proposal was an aquarium, it was pretty straight forward, since an ecosystem could be easily controlled within the aquarium, all we needed to buy were: fish, plants, turtles, bugs, fish food, an aquarium, and water with a balanced pH level. It would get us a good grade, but in my own opinion, it's a generic idea.
My ideas on the other hand were composed of: Pokemon, Sims, Spore, and studying the ecosystem of the classroom.
In Pokemon, we could hold a battle royale at school (just for the fun of it) but on a serious note, we could display natural selection and artificial selection, and how different habitats affect a Pokemon's strengths and weaknesses. We could also add traits that could be passed down from parent to offspring. We would have 2 players playing Pokemon Diamond//Pearl, while one person played Pokemon Red. One player would be in charge of artificially training their Pokemon through EV's, while the other person would be naturally training his Pokemon casually. The player in Pokemon Red would be the "control group" because IV's and EV's were not present in Pokemon Red Version, but rather, all Pokemon had the same stats no matter what.
My Sims and Spore idea was basically a comparison between these "simulation" games and real life. It's pretty straight forward, but it's more of an observational project (but it'll guarantee people at our booth BECAUSE WE WILL LET PEOPLE PLAY SPORE AND SIMS!)
My study on the ecosystem of the classroom is more of a "creative" way to make an aquarium. In short: The teacher would be a producer, as he feeds information to the students (consumer) and the non living materials being the desks, fans, windows, and stuff like that. We could record the differences in each classroom, like the social levels, reactions to different circumstances, and stuff like that. But this would require an in-depth observation.
Julianne's idea was basically a board game (I'm not sure how it'll work though, but I assume it'll be dungeons and dragons based) and it was basically our fall back plan.
Leonard just laughed at all of the jokes I made during the discussion. And he supports my Pokemon idea!
And it all boiled down to our class discussion: What kind of bender were we? (Avatar the Last Airbender kind of Bender) I was an Air bender... because I'm free spirited, Nico was a Fire bender because he looked like one, and Nino was THE AVATAR because he wanted to be one.
So yeah... I got nothing to do, that's basically why I'm making this blog. It makes my life seem interesting.