The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Some people believe that if a large percentage of a population questions authority, then the whole group to which the population belongs is bound to suffer. However, some groups thrive when there is radical dissent from authority among a large percentage of the population. For example, it seems to me that the Age of the Enlightenment was a result of more and more people questioning the established authority of the church, and asking difficult questions about the causal structure of the observable universe. While some people might argue that this wide-spread questioning was destructive to the status quo and created more harm than good, I would point to the obvious increase in quality of life for the average person. For example, in the middle ages, if the average person were to contract a bacterial infection of the chest, then there was a good chance that the person would either suffer a long period of illness or die. In the former case, these long periods of illness would detract from the sick person's ability to contribute to the household, and as a result, even if the family did not contract the same sickness, they would inevitably suffer from the loss of the contribution of their sick family member. Once people began to question the church, and its established authority concerning the causal structures of the known, observable universe, in many cases these same people were able to create remedies for bacterial illnesses. The courage to question authority has resulted in antibiotics and as a result the quality of life for the average family has drastically increased. Therefore, it is not true that when some people question authority, the whole group suffers.
A more interesting proposal might be that if a large percentage of a population begin to question legitimate authority, then the entire group of people may be bound to suffer. For example, most people would agree that the practice of genocide is morally evil. Conscience and empathy for our fellow human beings simply does not permit this form of radical doubt and questioning. But, what happens when large groups of the population do begin to doubt this legitimate tenant of conscience and act on their doubt? In the case of the Third Reich German state during the second world war, millions of Jewish people were tortured, treated like garbage and murdered in cold blood. In the case of Darfur, millions of people were tortured, slain and thrown away like garbage. This happened because people began to question the basic authoritative tenants of human conscience, the tenants that demand empathy, respect, and cooperation among the human species.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Ugh
Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Major
What or who is society? The term 'society' is ambiguous. The result will vary depending on who we designate as responsible for identifying special talents in children and providing training for them.
What are special talents? Who we train will depend on what we take to be a special talent.
Minor
What sort of training will be provided?
What good could result from the proposal?
There may be an increase in the number of young experts. An increase in the number of young experts is desirable because there may be problems that require diligent work over a life time. Young experts would have a longer time to work on these pressing problems.
This is an emotional topic because it seems to grant special privilege to select people. But, it does not say that some children will not be selected for training. It may turn out to be the case that all children possess unique talents, and that society will be burdened with keeping its promise to provide special training to all children. The implication may be that society ought to select those AND ONLY THOSE children that have special talents and provide them with training; but it is not clear that this implication was intended in the original meaning of the statement.
I am suppose to select examples that show how the proposal will be advantageous or disadvantageous.
Society should identify those children who have special talents and should provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Key terms
Society
Identify
Special talents
provide training
Society could use either standardized tests or naturalistic observations by teachers and parents or both in order to identify special talents in children. The problem with standardized tests is that they are predictable and since they are predictable, they can be manipulated, gamed and prepared for by anyone who possesses adequate resources. Therefore, insofar as the test is a stepping stone to a good, it will typically be only those with the resources that gain access to the good that lay behind the test. On the other hand, naturalistic observations by parents and teachers are subject to prejudice and bias. Every parent wants the best for their child, and teacher's typically only observe the child in one particular setting. Therefore, neither parent nor teacher observation is ground alone for recommending a child for special training based on an identification of special talent. Some balanced combination of naturalistic observation and standardized testing may alleviate the defects of the methods of identifying special talents on their own.
Starts....
Starts....
Society should not identify those children who have special talents and should not provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position
My mother attempted to identify talents that she saw in me as a child. At one time, she saw a sportsman. She enlisted in me basketball, football, indoor soccer, ice hockey and little league baseball. By far, I was the worst at baseball. Although, as an honorable mention, my football skills may have contributed to my teams three year losing streak. Anyway, I remember the baseball team coach was nice enough to appease my mother by placing me in the right outfield. It was the outfield for losers, the solitary solipsistic outfield since very few batters were left handed and therefore very few balls were hit into the right field. I will never forget the game that ended my little league baseball career. On a hot summer afternoon, I stood in the dusty right field, glove in hand, drifting away into a fantasy world of swimming in lakes and sweet italian ice. The sun was glaring, and the umpire whistle blaring. The sound of the parental bleachers woke me, "Danny, Danny, catch it, catch it, the ball, the ball! filled my aural space of fantasy. I searched through the sky for that effigy of American past time; my panic intensified. Still, the screams and no ball. And then, I experienced the awakening. Parents ought not choose sports for their children. When parents choose sports for their children, their children are struck between the eyes with an odd fly ball to the left out field, the outfield for solitude; their intrinsic right to a silent period of fantasy and dream is stifled. Later in life, my mother caught on to my lack of sportsmanship. She enrolled me in art classes. But, the damage was already done, the association formed: performance was anxiety provoking, and it wouldn't be until a quarter of a century later, after years of self sought talk therapy that I would be able to pursue my own past time. The problem with the statement is that it gives no credit to what children want for themselves. It ignores their voice, and their say in their future. No doubt adults ought to identify special talents and provide support for those burgeoning abilities in children, but the problem is that there is no consensus as to what constitutes a "special talent" or even the best method for edifying that talent. Children have many special talents. I did not have a talent at baseball, but my mother saw that talent in me. The result was a disaster. Some people might object that more objective perspective may be able to identify a "special talent". In that case, they might advocate for several opinions and move toward specialized testing. But, children are already burdened with the testing they have in regular school to learn reading and writing and mathematics. Further standardized testing simply robs children of their exploratory childhood. Some explore in silence, and some explore openly. As adults, we ought to respect those differences, and rather than seek to identify special talents, we ought to recognize special talents and encourage even more of those talents to grow by providing catholic support and training.
WHY CAN'T I WRITE A COHERENT PEICE!
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Major
What or who is society? The term 'society' is ambiguous. The result will vary depending on who we designate as responsible for identifying special talents in children and providing training for them.
What are special talents? Who we train will depend on what we take to be a special talent.
Minor
What sort of training will be provided?
What good could result from the proposal?
There may be an increase in the number of young experts. An increase in the number of young experts is desirable because there may be problems that require diligent work over a life time. Young experts would have a longer time to work on these pressing problems.
This is an emotional topic because it seems to grant special privilege to select people. But, it does not say that some children will not be selected for training. It may turn out to be the case that all children possess unique talents, and that society will be burdened with keeping its promise to provide special training to all children. The implication may be that society ought to select those AND ONLY THOSE children that have special talents and provide them with training; but it is not clear that this implication was intended in the original meaning of the statement.
I am suppose to select examples that show how the proposal will be advantageous or disadvantageous.
Society should identify those children who have special talents and should provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Key terms
Society
Identify
Special talents
provide training
Society could use either standardized tests or naturalistic observations by teachers and parents or both in order to identify special talents in children. The problem with standardized tests is that they are predictable and since they are predictable, they can be manipulated, gamed and prepared for by anyone who possesses adequate resources. Therefore, insofar as the test is a stepping stone to a good, it will typically be only those with the resources that gain access to the good that lay behind the test. On the other hand, naturalistic observations by parents and teachers are subject to prejudice and bias. Every parent wants the best for their child, and teacher's typically only observe the child in one particular setting. Therefore, neither parent nor teacher observation is ground alone for recommending a child for special training based on an identification of special talent. Some balanced combination of naturalistic observation and standardized testing may alleviate the defects of the methods of identifying special talents on their own.
Starts....
Starts....
Society should not identify those children who have special talents and should not provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position
My mother attempted to identify talents that she saw in me as a child. At one time, she saw a sportsman. She enlisted in me basketball, football, indoor soccer, ice hockey and little league baseball. By far, I was the worst at baseball. Although, as an honorable mention, my football skills may have contributed to my teams three year losing streak. Anyway, I remember the baseball team coach was nice enough to appease my mother by placing me in the right outfield. It was the outfield for losers, the solitary solipsistic outfield since very few batters were left handed and therefore very few balls were hit into the right field. I will never forget the game that ended my little league baseball career. On a hot summer afternoon, I stood in the dusty right field, glove in hand, drifting away into a fantasy world of swimming in lakes and sweet italian ice. The sun was glaring, and the umpire whistle blaring. The sound of the parental bleachers woke me, "Danny, Danny, catch it, catch it, the ball, the ball! filled my aural space of fantasy. I searched through the sky for that effigy of American past time; my panic intensified. Still, the screams and no ball. And then, I experienced the awakening. Parents ought not choose sports for their children. When parents choose sports for their children, their children are struck between the eyes with an odd fly ball to the left out field, the outfield for solitude; their intrinsic right to a silent period of fantasy and dream is stifled. Later in life, my mother caught on to my lack of sportsmanship. She enrolled me in art classes. But, the damage was already done, the association formed: performance was anxiety provoking, and it wouldn't be until a quarter of a century later, after years of self sought talk therapy that I would be able to pursue my own past time. The problem with the statement is that it gives no credit to what children want for themselves. It ignores their voice, and their say in their future. No doubt adults ought to identify special talents and provide support for those burgeoning abilities in children, but the problem is that there is no consensus as to what constitutes a "special talent" or even the best method for edifying that talent. Children have many special talents. I did not have a talent at baseball, but my mother saw that talent in me. The result was a disaster. Some people might object that more objective perspective may be able to identify a "special talent". In that case, they might advocate for several opinions and move toward specialized testing. But, children are already burdened with the testing they have in regular school to learn reading and writing and mathematics. Further standardized testing simply robs children of their exploratory childhood. Some explore in silence, and some explore openly. As adults, we ought to respect those differences, and rather than seek to identify special talents, we ought to recognize special talents and encourage even more of those talents to grow by providing catholic support and training.
WHY CAN'T I WRITE A COHERENT PEICE!
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Stupid GRE
Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term, realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition.
As I see it, the idea that people should be encouraged to pursue realistic, long term goals, rather than immediate fame and recognition is based on an assumption that there are such things as "realistic, long term" goals.
I would need some examples that show there are no such things as "realistic, long term" goals. That would be my evidence.
As I see it, the idea that people should seek immediate fame and recognition is based on an assumption that "fame and recognition" can be defined. They can't.
I would need some evidence to show that the definitions of fame and recognition is inherently ambiguous.
As I see it, the idea that people should be encouraged to pursue realistic, long term goals, rather than immediate fame and recognition is based on an assumption that there are such things as "realistic, long term" goals.
I would need some examples that show there are no such things as "realistic, long term" goals. That would be my evidence.
As I see it, the idea that people should seek immediate fame and recognition is based on an assumption that "fame and recognition" can be defined. They can't.
I would need some evidence to show that the definitions of fame and recognition is inherently ambiguous.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Math
Ugh...so, I figure I am going to start documenting the errors that I make on the math portion of the GRE.
One thing that I notice is that I tend to panic when I don't recognize what is being asked in a particular question. For instance, I know absolutely nothing about 3-D figures, or solids. I don't know what a diagonal is, and I don't know how to find an area. Although, I think it may be s^3. Whatever it is, I panic when I am confronted by a question like that...
I am able to draw 3D cubes and rectangles; and so I do. And then I label the sides. I look at it, and I wonder, what is a diagonal on this image. It's a definition I just don't know the meaning of...and so I panic...I make something up and pick a answer. What am I supposed to do? I read the answer on the practices I'm doing and walk away...if I am confronted by that exact same question on the test, I'd get it correct...but, that's highly unlikely, and it seems like a very poor way to study.
In the back of my mind, I am thinking...well, if only I could get more organized.
Things seem simply when they are axiomatically stated. For instance, the sum of the lengths of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the other side. Ok, so, if I have a triangle with sides a, b, c and I want to compare the quantity a + b + c to 2b, I could reason that if the sum of the length of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the other side, then when two sides of a triangle are added together, and compared to a third side, the added two sides will be larger, but if I double the third side, what follows? The added two sides will be a + c > b and the third side would be 2b. Now, distribute a 2 to all sides of the equation 2a + 2c > 2b, what follows? Not much of help. If the equation said that a + c > 2b, I'd be money. But, it doesn't. I suppose I could try to -2b from one side, and get 2a + 2c - 2b > 0 and then I could factor out the 2, leaving me with 2(a + c - b) > 0, but that doesn't do me any good either.
So, here is another one of my problems when it comes to the GRE. I can manipulate the elements of an equation and hope to hit upon a solution, but what sort of thing am I doing if I am not driven by a purpose? The purpose should be to get either 2b > (a + b + c) OR (a + b + c) > 2b OR (a + b + c) = 2b OR come up with a proof that shows that the two quantities are ambiguous.
So, list what the end result should look like...
2b > (a + b + c) v (a + b + c) > 2b v (a + b + c) = 2b v ambiguous
Assume that...
a + c > b since we're dealing with a rule that says that the sum of two sides of a triangle is greater than the third side alone.
Ok, then, what? How can I make (a + c) > b look like one of the end results....
I could add b to both sides: a + c + b > b + b; thus, (a + b + c) > 2b
So, if I know the rule that is being tested in the GRE, then I could work with this sort of strategy. I can list out the possible solutions, and the rule. And then, I could ask myself, how can I may the rule look like one of the outcomes. Really, rules seem to be the wrong way to think about these simple statements, statements like the sum of two sides of a triangle is greater than the third side alone; instead, let's call them facts. As facts, they serve as my true premise. Insofar as I use valid reasoning, I ought to be able start with a true premise and reason to a true conclusion. Since the GRE supplies only four possible true conclusions, all I need to know is the fact that they want me begin with...
Take another example,
x/y = z/4; and all the variables are positive.
Compare 6x and 2yz
Well, I know that positives divided by positives are positive. I know that an integer divided by fraction always equals a larger integer. For instance, 4/1/2 = 8 and so on. But, we're getting ahead of ourselves. What is the true conclusion that I am supposed to reason to find? There are four possibilities. Those possibilities are...
A) 6x > 2yz or 6x < 2yz or 6x = 2yz or ambiguous
So, what do I know...
I know that an integer divided by a fraction equals a bigger integer; and I know that a fraction divided by an integer equals a smaller fraction...
But, that's not exactly helpful information for me.
So, what is being tested here?
How can I make x/y = z/4 look like one of my true conclusions?
I could try to make it look like the one with the equal sign. How?
Multiple both sides by 6...
6(x/y) = 12yz
Divide each side by 6
x/y = 2yz
Divide x/y, a fraction, by 2, an integer...
x/y/2=x/y*1/2=x/2y
x/2y=yz....
But, wait....
When I had...x/y = 2yz, I can substitute in x/y in my conclusions...
So, either 6x > x/y or 6x < x/y
And we know that x/y = z/4
So, 6x > z/4 or 6x < z/4
So, 6x > x/y or 6x < x/y
So, 6x > 2yz or 6x < 2yz
I need these...x/y = z/4 = 2yz...to look like something above....
The problem is that I have an integer on one side and fractions on both sides....
So, the question is asking me to compare 6x to quantities that I know little about....
x/y=z/4= (4x=yz)
8x=2yz
6x<2yz
So, the problem I have in this question doesn't appear to be capable of being solved in the way that I solved earlier. Or at last, there is something that I missed in trying to solve it. I have the vague idea that I have true conclusions, and I need to validly reason to only one of them, but I'm not sure of how to go about doing that....something is missing...I know not what.....
Another....
1/x > 1/x^2; x ~= 0
x or 1/4
x>1/4 v x<1/4 v x=1/4 v ambiguous
What's the easy way to do this?
Well, for starters, I feel like I am dealing with three different things.
I could pick numbers.
That's about the only thing I feel like i know how to do here...
4>8 is false....so x can't be 1/4
But, we know if x was a fraction, that a fraction squared will always be less than the original, and an integer divided by fraction will always produce a larger integer, therefore, an integer divided by a fraction squared will result in a larger integer had the fraction not be squared.
Proof.....2/1/4=8 and 2/1/4^2=2/1/16=32
So, if x were a fraction, then it would turn out that the original statement is false; but the GRE is not giving us false information; therefore, we can assume that x is not a fraction. And if x is not a fraction, and x ~=0, then it would have to be the case that x was bigger than 1/4. Therefore, A would be correct.
Ok, here's something ratios....
I don't know shit about ratios....
If for every 1 freshman I have 3 of sophomores, we say this is a ratio of 1F to 3S.
Apparently, I can set up a fraction with variables. f/s=1/3
Simp. 3f=s
Now, if for every 3 sophomores there are 5 juniors....we say this is a ratio of 3S to 5J
s/j=3/5 = 5s=3j
And, 5(3f)=3j =15f=3j =5 freshmen to 1junior
What is the ratio of freshmen to juniors?
F
SSS
JJJJJ
Another....
55 student
4 boys to 7 girls
How many girls do I need to add to make the ratio become 1 to 2?
First, how many boys and how many girls are there?
For every 11 students, there will be 4 boys and 7 girls. If the group is 55 students, than there will be
5 x 11 = 55, 5 groups of students. And if there are 7 girls in each group there will be 35 girls and 20 boys, which equals out to 55 students. If I want to ratio of boys to girls to be 1 to 2, then if I add 5 more girls to the class, I will get 20 boys to 40 girls, which reduces to 1 to 2....
Fuck man....I'm totally and utterly overwhelmed right now...
One thing that I notice is that I tend to panic when I don't recognize what is being asked in a particular question. For instance, I know absolutely nothing about 3-D figures, or solids. I don't know what a diagonal is, and I don't know how to find an area. Although, I think it may be s^3. Whatever it is, I panic when I am confronted by a question like that...
I am able to draw 3D cubes and rectangles; and so I do. And then I label the sides. I look at it, and I wonder, what is a diagonal on this image. It's a definition I just don't know the meaning of...and so I panic...I make something up and pick a answer. What am I supposed to do? I read the answer on the practices I'm doing and walk away...if I am confronted by that exact same question on the test, I'd get it correct...but, that's highly unlikely, and it seems like a very poor way to study.
In the back of my mind, I am thinking...well, if only I could get more organized.
Things seem simply when they are axiomatically stated. For instance, the sum of the lengths of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the other side. Ok, so, if I have a triangle with sides a, b, c and I want to compare the quantity a + b + c to 2b, I could reason that if the sum of the length of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the other side, then when two sides of a triangle are added together, and compared to a third side, the added two sides will be larger, but if I double the third side, what follows? The added two sides will be a + c > b and the third side would be 2b. Now, distribute a 2 to all sides of the equation 2a + 2c > 2b, what follows? Not much of help. If the equation said that a + c > 2b, I'd be money. But, it doesn't. I suppose I could try to -2b from one side, and get 2a + 2c - 2b > 0 and then I could factor out the 2, leaving me with 2(a + c - b) > 0, but that doesn't do me any good either.
So, here is another one of my problems when it comes to the GRE. I can manipulate the elements of an equation and hope to hit upon a solution, but what sort of thing am I doing if I am not driven by a purpose? The purpose should be to get either 2b > (a + b + c) OR (a + b + c) > 2b OR (a + b + c) = 2b OR come up with a proof that shows that the two quantities are ambiguous.
So, list what the end result should look like...
2b > (a + b + c) v (a + b + c) > 2b v (a + b + c) = 2b v ambiguous
Assume that...
a + c > b since we're dealing with a rule that says that the sum of two sides of a triangle is greater than the third side alone.
Ok, then, what? How can I make (a + c) > b look like one of the end results....
I could add b to both sides: a + c + b > b + b; thus, (a + b + c) > 2b
So, if I know the rule that is being tested in the GRE, then I could work with this sort of strategy. I can list out the possible solutions, and the rule. And then, I could ask myself, how can I may the rule look like one of the outcomes. Really, rules seem to be the wrong way to think about these simple statements, statements like the sum of two sides of a triangle is greater than the third side alone; instead, let's call them facts. As facts, they serve as my true premise. Insofar as I use valid reasoning, I ought to be able start with a true premise and reason to a true conclusion. Since the GRE supplies only four possible true conclusions, all I need to know is the fact that they want me begin with...
Take another example,
x/y = z/4; and all the variables are positive.
Compare 6x and 2yz
Well, I know that positives divided by positives are positive. I know that an integer divided by fraction always equals a larger integer. For instance, 4/1/2 = 8 and so on. But, we're getting ahead of ourselves. What is the true conclusion that I am supposed to reason to find? There are four possibilities. Those possibilities are...
A) 6x > 2yz or 6x < 2yz or 6x = 2yz or ambiguous
So, what do I know...
I know that an integer divided by a fraction equals a bigger integer; and I know that a fraction divided by an integer equals a smaller fraction...
But, that's not exactly helpful information for me.
So, what is being tested here?
How can I make x/y = z/4 look like one of my true conclusions?
I could try to make it look like the one with the equal sign. How?
Multiple both sides by 6...
6(x/y) = 12yz
Divide each side by 6
x/y = 2yz
Divide x/y, a fraction, by 2, an integer...
x/y/2=x/y*1/2=x/2y
x/2y=yz....
But, wait....
When I had...x/y = 2yz, I can substitute in x/y in my conclusions...
So, either 6x > x/y or 6x < x/y
And we know that x/y = z/4
So, 6x > z/4 or 6x < z/4
So, 6x > x/y or 6x < x/y
So, 6x > 2yz or 6x < 2yz
I need these...x/y = z/4 = 2yz...to look like something above....
The problem is that I have an integer on one side and fractions on both sides....
So, the question is asking me to compare 6x to quantities that I know little about....
x/y=z/4= (4x=yz)
8x=2yz
6x<2yz
So, the problem I have in this question doesn't appear to be capable of being solved in the way that I solved earlier. Or at last, there is something that I missed in trying to solve it. I have the vague idea that I have true conclusions, and I need to validly reason to only one of them, but I'm not sure of how to go about doing that....something is missing...I know not what.....
Another....
1/x > 1/x^2; x ~= 0
x or 1/4
x>1/4 v x<1/4 v x=1/4 v ambiguous
What's the easy way to do this?
Well, for starters, I feel like I am dealing with three different things.
I could pick numbers.
That's about the only thing I feel like i know how to do here...
4>8 is false....so x can't be 1/4
But, we know if x was a fraction, that a fraction squared will always be less than the original, and an integer divided by fraction will always produce a larger integer, therefore, an integer divided by a fraction squared will result in a larger integer had the fraction not be squared.
Proof.....2/1/4=8 and 2/1/4^2=2/1/16=32
So, if x were a fraction, then it would turn out that the original statement is false; but the GRE is not giving us false information; therefore, we can assume that x is not a fraction. And if x is not a fraction, and x ~=0, then it would have to be the case that x was bigger than 1/4. Therefore, A would be correct.
Ok, here's something ratios....
I don't know shit about ratios....
If for every 1 freshman I have 3 of sophomores, we say this is a ratio of 1F to 3S.
Apparently, I can set up a fraction with variables. f/s=1/3
Simp. 3f=s
Now, if for every 3 sophomores there are 5 juniors....we say this is a ratio of 3S to 5J
s/j=3/5 = 5s=3j
And, 5(3f)=3j =15f=3j =5 freshmen to 1junior
What is the ratio of freshmen to juniors?
F
SSS
JJJJJ
Another....
55 student
4 boys to 7 girls
How many girls do I need to add to make the ratio become 1 to 2?
First, how many boys and how many girls are there?
For every 11 students, there will be 4 boys and 7 girls. If the group is 55 students, than there will be
5 x 11 = 55, 5 groups of students. And if there are 7 girls in each group there will be 35 girls and 20 boys, which equals out to 55 students. If I want to ratio of boys to girls to be 1 to 2, then if I add 5 more girls to the class, I will get 20 boys to 40 girls, which reduces to 1 to 2....
Fuck man....I'm totally and utterly overwhelmed right now...
Issue task 30 minutes
Reason: Students are more motivated to learn when they are interested in what they are studying.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
HOLY SHIT! THAT WAS A DISASTER. When it comes to the subject of education, and learning, my thought becomes incredibly muddled and complicated. I am much better taking about "knowledge" and "belief" and "art"...I will begin to work on only the education questions.
Friday, October 18, 2013
The vice president for human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company's president.
"In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the Internet inappropriately from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. Installing software on company computers to detect employees' Internet use is the best way to prevent employees from wasting time on the job. It will foster a better work ethic at Climpson and improve our overall profits."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
"In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the Internet inappropriately from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. Installing software on company computers to detect employees' Internet use is the best way to prevent employees from wasting time on the job. It will foster a better work ethic at Climpson and improve our overall profits."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In a nutshell, the vice president of Climpson has argued that if we monitor employee internet usage while on the clock and punish aberrant usage, then we will deter employees from wasting time, foster a strong work ethic, and improve the company profits. On first glance, this argument seems to compel action. However, prior to making a decision, the company board would be advised to consider the evidence presented by extremely successful corporations.
The board of Climpson ought to be asking the question: have any other companies experimented with providing time for employees to play while on the job? If so, what are the results? Results favoring employee free time would be a strong indication that we need to rethink the basic parameters of leadership at Climpson.
At least two major companies in the modern world have implemented programs that provide specific time during the week for employees to recreate. Both the major internet search engine provider, Google and DuoLingo, an incredibly successful software firm that specializes in free language programs, provide their employees, in addition to the normal lunch hour, time during the week for recreation during which employees can work on the clock on personal projects that they think will help accomplish the overall good of the company. And the results are staggering! Employees report greater on the job satisfaction and productivity has never been better. These companies do not discriminate between "personal" time and "work" time. Rather, they see clearly that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it were the case that companies similar to Climpson have experimented with this method, and the evidence is in favor of providing such "free" time, then it may not be the case that Climpson will need to implement internet monitoring programs. On the contrary, Climpson may benefit from implementing an employee-autonomy focused work schedule. Clearly, then, the VP will need to address this important issue and convince the board that there is strong evidence in favor of monitoring internet usage to increase productivity.
This prior point plays into my last point. The VP of Climpson thinks that internet monitoring will increase work ethic. However, as the last example demonstrates, there is strong evidence on offer than work ethic ties into employee perceptions of personal autonomy. The VP of Climpson obviously has a strong bent toward the old practice of "seek and destroy" coaching, that is, instead of encouraging good behavior, leaders should seek out trouble makers and punish them. The problem with this approach is that it could backfire and create disgruntled workers. And we all know that an unhappy worker is far less productive than her counterpart.
In order to make his case, the VP of Climpson ought to provide some compelling evidence that the "seek and destroy" method actually does work in the proposed way. Will internet monitoring actually have the intended effect of strengthening morale? Prior to the presentation of this evidence, we must prudently decline to decide on a course of action.
Vocab
Fortuitous (adj.) happening by chance; propitious; prosperous; chance; fortunate; haphazard
- I would much rather get an answer fortuitously incorrect because of a guess on the GRE than get an answer marked wrong simply by not responding.
Gambol (v.) to dance or skip around playfully
- I would like to go outside and gambol with Laura; however, I must study so that I can do what I want to do with my life.
Lachrymose (adj.) teary; weepy
- The women left the man's house in such a lachrymose state that the neighbors wondered whether he had broke up with her.
Peregrinate (v.) to wander from place to place; to travel (esp. on or by foot)
- I enjoyed Europe the most while peregrinating through the streets looking in shop windows and passing closely by the pedestrians.
Rebarbative (adj.) causing annoyance or irritation
- The black and yellow stripes on some creatures has a rebarbative function; other creatures are warned that they ought to stay away from such audacious colors.
Venerable (adj.) respected because of age
- As a human institution, some people surely venerate marriage simply for its perpetuation of our connection to the past.
Livid (adj.) discolored as by a bruise; colloquial: furiously angry
- Stuck in a stupid bureaucratic meeting, the livid man watched out the window as his car was ticketed by the parking authority.
Cloy (v.) to satisfy beyond desire
- Cloy yourself and cure yourself of your rapacious want
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)