The Education of Nineteenth Century Women Artists :: Essays Papers

The Education of Nineteenth Century Women Artists The formal education of women artists in the United States has taken quite a long journey. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century that the workings of a recognized education for these women finally appeared. Two of the most famous and elite schools of art that accepted, and still accept, women pupils are the Philadelphia School of Design for Women and the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts (the PAFA). Up until the early nineteenth century, women were mostly taught what is now called a â€Å"fashionable education† (Philadelphia School of Design for Women 5). Their mothers raised them to be proper, young ladies and expert housekeepers in expectation of marriage. If these women were fortunate enough to receive some kind of formalized schooling, they were to study penmanship, limited aspects of their mother language, and very little arithmetic (Philadelphia School of Design for Women 5). Unfortunately, this small degree of education was extremely constrictive to women. If they never married or were widowed at a young age, they really had no place to go. This form of women’s education created generations of women that were almost entirely dependent on their husbands and male relatives. During the nineteenth century, when the feminist movement was beginning, many schools were established specifically for the education of women, such as the Philadelphia School of Design for Women, and also for the education of both. In the beginning, women’s art schools mostly taught pupils practical applications of art. For example, female art students often studied drawing and lithographing, in hopes that they would be hired by industrial companies as designers. The Philadelphia School of Design for Women was one of the first all women’s art schools to establish this form of education. Founded in 1844 by a woman named Sarah Peter, the Philadelphia School of Design for Women was a school like none that had come before it. Peter was a wealthy woman of stature and decided to start this school in one of the rooms of her mansion and to hire a teacher to hold regular classes for women in art and design. (As a wonderful incentive for all women, tuition was free for the poor and the wealthy paid a very small sum.) Sarah Peter saw how truly poor the traditional education for women was and she strongly believed that every woman should â€Å"stand by her sex,† thus her reasoning for establishing this soon to become famous art school.

PepsiCo’s Restaurants Essay

In the case study, PepsiCo is considering in Carts of Colorado and/or California Pizza Kitchen. Senior Management is faced with the question of whether the necessary capital investment in order to purchase one or both of the businesses can be profitable for each of the acquired businesses, but must also take into consideration that the additional business units will not hinder the profitability PepsiCo itself. Would investing in other companies be the best way to expand PepsiCo? This question is important because it could affect the success of the company. By investing in a company PepsiCo started from Pepsi-Cola and then moved into a more diversified business with mainly soft drinks, snack foods and restaurants. In early 1990s, PepsiCo’s restaurant business is composed of Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC, all of them are business leaders in their segment. 1By investing in C1a1r1t1s1 1o1f1 1C1o1l1o1r1a1d1o1, it1 1w1o1u1l1d1 1e1n1a1b1l1e1 1P1e1p1s1i1C1o1 1t1o1 1e1n1t1e1r1 1n1e1w1 1m1a1r1k1e1t1 1a1n1d1 1n1e1w1 1c1u1s1t1o1m1e1r1s1 1a1n1d1 1h1e1l1p1 1t1o1 1a1c1c1e1l1e1r1a1t1e1 1t1h1e1 1s1a1l1e1s1 1g1r1o1w1t1h1 1b1e1s1i1d1e1s1 1o1f1 1o1r1g1a1n1i1c1 1g1r1o1w1t1h. The Cart of Colorado’s (COC) industry is subject to strict government regulations and the uncertain demand for carts and kiosks, so the attractiveness to enter this industry is between low and medium. COC had succeeded in purchasing their largest competitor that generated sales of $2.5 million in 1990, which gives them potential to grow in the manufacturing and merchandising of mobile food carts and kiosks industry. PepsiCo will gain competitive advantage for its link with COC because it will be able to customize the carts and kiosk for its fast food chain; it is more aligned with PepsiCo’s current strategies of quick service. However, the tradeoff will be PepsiCo may focus on too many different strategies and product markets. Focusing on the same customer targets can minimize this tradeoff. It will be an advantage for PepsiCo should go and form a strategic alliance with COC. PepsiCo can use the carts to expand their KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut businesses. In my opinion, I think it would be in PepsiCo’s best interest to invest in the two companies because in this case they are both successful and would help boost PepsiCo sales.

I am Legend Essay

Traditionally, bookstores categorize various books based on their respective contents – horror, fiction, literature, or science fiction. Horror texts invoke feelings of fear in readers due to their bizarre or macabre content. Science fiction or fiction books describe imaginary concepts of either scientific or general nature respectively. Conversely, literature books comprise of texts that are neither fictional nor horror-based. Matheson’s I am Legend novel thus belongs to the category of horror owing to the ghoulish events described therein. For example, the vampirism that is evident in the novel instills fear among readers, thus rendering the work a horror literature. Although ‘good’ or ‘bad’ are purely subjective terms, people sometime use these terms to describe different texts. Such categorization relies heavily on persons’ subjective judgment, for example, regarding the emotions that such texts invoke in readers. To illustrate, horror, mystery, or romance books may be termed as ‘bad’. Conversely, science fiction books are labeled as ‘good’. Since such classification is very subjective and unstable owing to persons’ varied preferences and views, there is essentially no entire class of books that can be categorically termed as either ‘bad’ or ‘good’. After studying Matheson’s I am Legend novel, I cannot help but view it as a subjectively ‘bad’ book based on the ghastly scenes that the author describes. For example, Robert Neville – the novel’s main character – is consistently described as being engaged in a futile rush to beat some seemingly insurmountable bigger forces. The character is thus clearly destined for death as is evident through his obviously futile attempts to fight against a vampire curse on earth. Eventually, Neville dies a sad and regretful death after spending a great deal of his time trying to outdo the evil that lurks on the earth. Through the somewhat unnecessary and martyr-like death of Neville, the author makes the book appear as a ‘bad’ one because a character is unjustly punished by death.

Chris Nolan Auteur Essay

Auteur theory could be applied to Christopher Nolan as his films feature recurring elements, the theory its self, derives from an â€Å"influential group of French film critics and film makers during the 1950’s† (Nykki Montano film 110). Auteur theory examines the individual creative vision and personal perspective of the director, an auteur will feature recurring themes in their films, from using the same actors as the protagonist for their films to even using the same cinematographer and composer for the soundtrack. The unique qualities that make Christopher Nolan an auteur are that, for most of his movies Nolan plays on the fragility of memory, for example giving his characters split personality’s or memory loss. This can be seen in Nolan’s 2000 film Memento. The Film Memento isn’t the type of film that has a definite answer. The movie is actually just one big interpretive question. The basic question on everyone’s mind being â€Å"what is actually going on in this movie?† Since the story is told backwards and is about a man, Leonard Shelby (played by Guy Pearce) who suffers from a memory disorder. Nolan and Guy’s character state, â€Å"It’s not amnesia.† This makes the movie even more questionable, because the audience is given another factor of confusion that is, can this character be trusted. The way Nolan portrays the joker in the dark night is also typical of the director, as the joker is given no identity, much like Leonard Shelby in Memento Another trait of is that he frequently uses hard cuts when transitioning to the next scene. This is noticeable in his films from ‘Batman Begins’ onward, especially in The Dark Knight, as in some instances, the hard cuts he uses will go so far as to nearly cut off character’s lines in order to quickly and efficiently get to the next scene.

Public Sphere

â€Å"The idea that a public sphere to which everyone can contribute on equal terms is simply a fantasy. † To believe that there exists a public sphere where every single member contributes on an equal level is highly unrealistic. Correspondingly, many academics have critically supported as well as argued against this view. There will be discussion of the public sphere and various writer’s views and concepts regarding it, with specific references to Howley (2007) and Turnbull (2006), as well as Hackett (2010), Holub (1994), Apppadurai (2000), Meikle (2008), and Fraser (1990). The different academics will introduce and discuss; an ideal and flawed public sphere, a democratic public sphere, and the important roles of audiences and participants. Furthermore, there will be a particular focus on Habermas, his theories and findings consequently deconstructing his ideas on his bourgeois public sphere theory. Overall, the key argument in this discussion is that the public sphere is ideally seen as an arena for equal opinions, however pragmatically this is not the case and it is difficult to achieve it because of the different factors that exist between individuals and participants. Holub (1994) explains the public sphere as; â€Å"a realm in which opinions are exchanged between private persons unconstrained (ideally) by external pressures. Theoretically open to all citizens and founded in the family, it is the place where something approaching public opinion is formed. It should be distinguished both from the state, which represents official power, and from the economic structures of civil society as a whole. Its function is actually to mediate between society and state; it is the arena in which the public organizes itself, formulates public opinion, and expresses its desires vis-a-vis [face to face with] the government†. Similarly, a majority of modern conceptualisations of the public sphere relate back to Jurgen Habermas and his bourgeois public sphere. Habermas defines it as a space of reflective discussion about issues and subjects of a common interest, following an informed democratic procedure (Meikle 2008). Thus, a relevant example would be; supplying different resources of media to developing countries in preparation for an election or some sort political decision. By doing this, individuals are being provided an informed democratic process, allowing them access to sources of independent media to make a more informed decision before they elect. This is often present in events such as elections as it is an arena where private people come together as a public; as one. By looking back, the characteristics of the public sphere have not changed when comparing the old and contemporary. Meikle (2008) discusses how Habermas emphasized the role of periodical press in the development of his public sphere (p. 129), describing it as the ‘coffee-house culture’ and how at the time people would sit and discuss topics and events which would in turn lead to influencing the political culture of the 17th and 18th century. However, it must also be noted that Habermas’ accepted criticism to his notion, as well as making it clear that the public sphere is not given to every type of society, and it does not own a fixed status. Furthermore, Meikle (2008) also likens the public sphere to a place where participants can discuss their ideas freely. However, it is important to regard these definitions as the ‘idyllic’ public sphere, Holub (1994) mentions ‘ideally’ in brackets, because realistically it is unachievable to have this sort of ‘perfect’ public sphere where everyone contributes equally. Many academics have criticized Habermas’ bourgeois public sphere, questioning if it ever really existed, and if it did, would it really be able to ever exist again? On that note, Hackett (2010) brings forth the notions that this concept of Habermas’ public sphere that presumes rationality, equality is false, and consequently, he critiques it, alongside Fraser (1990), saying that; â€Å"it embeds a masculinist notion of rationality, and a taken-for granted gendered distinction between private and public spheres. It ignores the ‘counter’ and minority public spheres of subordinate groups, the intrusion of social and economic inequalities into the processes of the public sphere, and the conversion of public opinion into effective state policy through representative political mechanisms. (2010, p. 4). Additionally, Fraser (1990) looks at how Habermas’ theory of the bourgeois public sphere constitutes a number of exclusions, in particular excluding women and individuals of lower social class, as it was not accessible to all. Lower class people did not have the resources and women did not have the same rights, privileges and power as men, in society, to have their equal say. Moreover some of these factors are still relevant, such as the social classes and accessibility to resources. Furthermore, Fraser (1990) mentions the exclusion of subordinate groups, where she states â€Å"subordinate groups sometimes cannot find the right voice or words to express their thoughts, and when they do, they discover they are not heard [and] are silenced, encouraged to keep their wants inchoate, and heard to say ‘yes’ when what they have said is ‘no. ’† (1990, p. 64). It is evident, that this access, whether it is technological, power or status related, to contributing to the public sphere still does not equate to equality. Rather, the factors that need to be considered are not access alone, but also what kind of ‘voice’ the speaker possesses in society. All of which are dependent on a number of factors, such as the speaker’s status in society, gender, age, class, education, culture and country. Moreover, public spheres are relevant in today’s new social media’s like Twitter, Facebook and various blogs. They create an arena in which social sites, like these, generate meanings which are then distributed and discussed amongst a large audience, consequently becoming a public sphere and letting interaction occur with all its participants. This emergence of social media has called for a new public sphere to be formed. Meikle (2008) discusses how media is an integral aspect of the public sphere and that in present society, it is inescapable. Media plays an obligatory part; today’s â€Å"newspapers and magazines, [internet,] radio and television are the media of the public sphere† (Habermas in Meikle, 2008, p. 128). However, for Habermas this role that media plays is an issue, stating that the world shaped by the mass media is only a public sphere on the exterior; only in ‘appearance’ and nothing else. Though the public sphere cannot be regarded as equal, Meikle does suggest that it can be look at in a positive sense; regarding it as a useful standard against which we can measure how the media actually do operate (Meikle, 2008, p. 131). Furthermore, Habermas’ ideal public sphere has often been said that it is being compromised by contemporary tabloid media and culture. It produces a blur between the private and public spheres in regards to celebrity culture and making their private lives a public concern and discussion. As well as regarding media as just pure entertainment, the tabloid media are constructing participants who only consume what they are being fed by the media instead of making their own informed decisions (Meikle 2008). Furthermore, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) believes that our contemporary political mediascapes, which refers to the â€Å"distribution of electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information [such as] newspapers, magazines and†¦ Television stations† (Apppadurai, 2000, p. 326), are in fact are a long way away from being an ‘ideal public sphere’. He looks at how â€Å"public opinion is no longer produced by the public, instead, public opinion is now something produced for the public† (2008, p. 129) we are being influenced and there is no opportunity to discuss ideas freely, or for there to be complete equality in the contribution to the public sphere because of the different factors that come into play. Similarly, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) uses the term ‘equals’ in regards to participants in the public sphere. Yet, Meikle (2008), in accordance to Fraser’s (1990) view, discusses how the public sphere cannot guarantee each person’s contribution to be of equal amount. This is because of the reasons and factors that exist in society such as; power and status; celebrity power over ordinary individuals, access to resources; developed and developing countries, and gender; the imbalance of power between men and women. Turnbull (2006) looks at the roles of audiences, and why their role is so vital in instances like these. Turnbull discusses the media’s audience and argues how media is looked at as a centrality in our lives and world, some have less or no access and the social and cultural context of the individual is â€Å"embedded in their access to and use of various media technologies†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ The â€Å"participation [of audiences] in an increasingly mediated public sphere may be largely conditional† (p. 80), as it alters the stance on every participant having an ‘equal’ contribution to the public sphere. Howley (2007) states that people need to promote a more democratic media culture, for a place that individuals can share their mutual interests and concerns, discuss topics. He supports that there is not one sole public sphere because there is not a single medium that is ‘perfect’ (pp. 357-358). Furthermore, Howley (2007) brings forth the idea that the public sphere is the centrality for media institutions but is also significant for media students, providing a theoretical perspective; it helps to emphasize the essential and crucial relationships between democracy and modern communication systems. As the role of a democracy, a citizen who is informed and wishes to engage, needs to be accommodated by the media; providing them resources of news, information and opinion, for that individual to then be able to use this to identify themselves towards this common interest. However, this notion of a democratically public sphere has issues that arise, the main one being the nature and conduct of public discourse in a highly mobile and heterogeneous society. By regarding societies that have things like ethnic, religious and cultural diversity, partisan politics, and economic stratification present, the sole idea of achieving agreement on matters of public policy seem inaccessible and unachievable. Also, another issue is the â€Å"contemporary media systems – characterised by unprecedented consolidation of ownership and control on the one hand, and the fragmentation of mass audiences into even smaller ‘niche markets’ on the other – makes issues of access to and participation in public discourse equally problematic† (pp. 343-344). Thus, this idea of an equal and democratic public sphere is difficult to have and carry out. In conclusion, the ideal public sphere tries to offer a place where people are able to discuss their ideas freely between one another. However, to believe that individuals can discuss in a completely free manner, with no influence and be complete equals, contributing on equal terms, is a far-fetched hope. There can only ever be a place of equality and rationality in an ideal society, as factors of social, linguistic and cultural inequalities, rights and even freedom of speech of an individual, all affect any possibility of equal communication and contribution between people in a public sphere. Public Sphere â€Å"The idea that a public sphere to which everyone can contribute on equal terms is simply a fantasy. † To believe that there exists a public sphere where every single member contributes on an equal level is highly unrealistic. Correspondingly, many academics have critically supported as well as argued against this view. There will be discussion of the public sphere and various writer’s views and concepts regarding it, with specific references to Howley (2007) and Turnbull (2006), as well as Hackett (2010), Holub (1994), Apppadurai (2000), Meikle (2008), and Fraser (1990). The different academics will introduce and discuss; an ideal and flawed public sphere, a democratic public sphere, and the important roles of audiences and participants. Furthermore, there will be a particular focus on Habermas, his theories and findings consequently deconstructing his ideas on his bourgeois public sphere theory. Overall, the key argument in this discussion is that the public sphere is ideally seen as an arena for equal opinions, however pragmatically this is not the case and it is difficult to achieve it because of the different factors that exist between individuals and participants. Holub (1994) explains the public sphere as; â€Å"a realm in which opinions are exchanged between private persons unconstrained (ideally) by external pressures. Theoretically open to all citizens and founded in the family, it is the place where something approaching public opinion is formed. It should be distinguished both from the state, which represents official power, and from the economic structures of civil society as a whole. Its function is actually to mediate between society and state; it is the arena in which the public organizes itself, formulates public opinion, and expresses its desires vis-a-vis [face to face with] the government†. Similarly, a majority of modern conceptualisations of the public sphere relate back to Jurgen Habermas and his bourgeois public sphere. Habermas defines it as a space of reflective discussion about issues and subjects of a common interest, following an informed democratic procedure (Meikle 2008). Thus, a relevant example would be; supplying different resources of media to developing countries in preparation for an election or some sort political decision. By doing this, individuals are being provided an informed democratic process, allowing them access to sources of independent media to make a more informed decision before they elect. This is often present in events such as elections as it is an arena where private people come together as a public; as one. By looking back, the characteristics of the public sphere have not changed when comparing the old and contemporary. Meikle (2008) discusses how Habermas emphasized the role of periodical press in the development of his public sphere (p. 129), describing it as the ‘coffee-house culture’ and how at the time people would sit and discuss topics and events which would in turn lead to influencing the political culture of the 17th and 18th century. However, it must also be noted that Habermas’ accepted criticism to his notion, as well as making it clear that the public sphere is not given to every type of society, and it does not own a fixed status. Furthermore, Meikle (2008) also likens the public sphere to a place where participants can discuss their ideas freely. However, it is important to regard these definitions as the ‘idyllic’ public sphere, Holub (1994) mentions ‘ideally’ in brackets, because realistically it is unachievable to have this sort of ‘perfect’ public sphere where everyone contributes equally. Many academics have criticized Habermas’ bourgeois public sphere, questioning if it ever really existed, and if it did, would it really be able to ever exist again? On that note, Hackett (2010) brings forth the notions that this concept of Habermas’ public sphere that presumes rationality, equality is false, and consequently, he critiques it, alongside Fraser (1990), saying that; â€Å"it embeds a masculinist notion of rationality, and a taken-for granted gendered distinction between private and public spheres. It ignores the ‘counter’ and minority public spheres of subordinate groups, the intrusion of social and economic inequalities into the processes of the public sphere, and the conversion of public opinion into effective state policy through representative political mechanisms. (2010, p. 4). Additionally, Fraser (1990) looks at how Habermas’ theory of the bourgeois public sphere constitutes a number of exclusions, in particular excluding women and individuals of lower social class, as it was not accessible to all. Lower class people did not have the resources and women did not have the same rights, privileges and power as men, in society, to have their equal say. Moreover some of these factors are still relevant, such as the social classes and accessibility to resources. Furthermore, Fraser (1990) mentions the exclusion of subordinate groups, where she states â€Å"subordinate groups sometimes cannot find the right voice or words to express their thoughts, and when they do, they discover they are not heard [and] are silenced, encouraged to keep their wants inchoate, and heard to say ‘yes’ when what they have said is ‘no. ’† (1990, p. 64). It is evident, that this access, whether it is technological, power or status related, to contributing to the public sphere still does not equate to equality. Rather, the factors that need to be considered are not access alone, but also what kind of ‘voice’ the speaker possesses in society. All of which are dependent on a number of factors, such as the speaker’s status in society, gender, age, class, education, culture and country. Moreover, public spheres are relevant in today’s new social media’s like Twitter, Facebook and various blogs. They create an arena in which social sites, like these, generate meanings which are then distributed and discussed amongst a large audience, consequently becoming a public sphere and letting interaction occur with all its participants. This emergence of social media has called for a new public sphere to be formed. Meikle (2008) discusses how media is an integral aspect of the public sphere and that in present society, it is inescapable. Media plays an obligatory part; today’s â€Å"newspapers and magazines, [internet,] radio and television are the media of the public sphere† (Habermas in Meikle, 2008, p. 128). However, for Habermas this role that media plays is an issue, stating that the world shaped by the mass media is only a public sphere on the exterior; only in ‘appearance’ and nothing else. Though the public sphere cannot be regarded as equal, Meikle does suggest that it can be look at in a positive sense; regarding it as a useful standard against which we can measure how the media actually do operate (Meikle, 2008, p. 131). Furthermore, Habermas’ ideal public sphere has often been said that it is being compromised by contemporary tabloid media and culture. It produces a blur between the private and public spheres in regards to celebrity culture and making their private lives a public concern and discussion. As well as regarding media as just pure entertainment, the tabloid media are constructing participants who only consume what they are being fed by the media instead of making their own informed decisions (Meikle 2008). Furthermore, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) believes that our contemporary political mediascapes, which refers to the â€Å"distribution of electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information [such as] newspapers, magazines and†¦ Television stations† (Apppadurai, 2000, p. 326), are in fact are a long way away from being an ‘ideal public sphere’. He looks at how â€Å"public opinion is no longer produced by the public, instead, public opinion is now something produced for the public† (2008, p. 129) we are being influenced and there is no opportunity to discuss ideas freely, or for there to be complete equality in the contribution to the public sphere because of the different factors that come into play. Similarly, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) uses the term ‘equals’ in regards to participants in the public sphere. Yet, Meikle (2008), in accordance to Fraser’s (1990) view, discusses how the public sphere cannot guarantee each person’s contribution to be of equal amount. This is because of the reasons and factors that exist in society such as; power and status; celebrity power over ordinary individuals, access to resources; developed and developing countries, and gender; the imbalance of power between men and women. Turnbull (2006) looks at the roles of audiences, and why their role is so vital in instances like these. Turnbull discusses the media’s audience and argues how media is looked at as a centrality in our lives and world, some have less or no access and the social and cultural context of the individual is â€Å"embedded in their access to and use of various media technologies†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ The â€Å"participation [of audiences] in an increasingly mediated public sphere may be largely conditional† (p. 80), as it alters the stance on every participant having an ‘equal’ contribution to the public sphere. Howley (2007) states that people need to promote a more democratic media culture, for a place that individuals can share their mutual interests and concerns, discuss topics. He supports that there is not one sole public sphere because there is not a single medium that is ‘perfect’ (pp. 357-358). Furthermore, Howley (2007) brings forth the idea that the public sphere is the centrality for media institutions but is also significant for media students, providing a theoretical perspective; it helps to emphasize the essential and crucial relationships between democracy and modern communication systems. As the role of a democracy, a citizen who is informed and wishes to engage, needs to be accommodated by the media; providing them resources of news, information and opinion, for that individual to then be able to use this to identify themselves towards this common interest. However, this notion of a democratically public sphere has issues that arise, the main one being the nature and conduct of public discourse in a highly mobile and heterogeneous society. By regarding societies that have things like ethnic, religious and cultural diversity, partisan politics, and economic stratification present, the sole idea of achieving agreement on matters of public policy seem inaccessible and unachievable. Also, another issue is the â€Å"contemporary media systems – characterised by unprecedented consolidation of ownership and control on the one hand, and the fragmentation of mass audiences into even smaller ‘niche markets’ on the other – makes issues of access to and participation in public discourse equally problematic† (pp. 343-344). Thus, this idea of an equal and democratic public sphere is difficult to have and carry out. In conclusion, the ideal public sphere tries to offer a place where people are able to discuss their ideas freely between one another. However, to believe that individuals can discuss in a completely free manner, with no influence and be complete equals, contributing on equal terms, is a far-fetched hope. There can only ever be a place of equality and rationality in an ideal society, as factors of social, linguistic and cultural inequalities, rights and even freedom of speech of an individual, all affect any possibility of equal communication and contribution between people in a public sphere.

Anyone can make a difference

There is no such thing as a perfect world although we continue to try and make it seem that way. Mankind has dreamt about making this wish a reality for many centuries yet has failed in its attempts. This concept along with the failure it carries exists because no one man or women can entirely change the world we live in. No two people are alike so therefore how can millions of individuals be expected to have the same exact motives or desires.In contrast, the reality is that no matter what sex, GE, religious belief or ethnicity you carry, everyone has the same bottom line basic needs that must be met for survival. If each and every one of us could understand that perception and accept it than the key to peace would be among us. Over the centuries in which humanity has been alive it seems that this fact has not been discovered by all its civilization. So therefore many have learned that by separating themselves from trying to persuade this thought, they can more over begin to focus on their own parts to play in this action movie called â€Å"Life†.This world is filled opportunity; anyone of us can have and will have the chance to take a stand in making our home a better place. Being a strong advocate of voting, it is shocking to conclude that many of Americans do not participate in the act of voting, elections or other democratic virtues. The best tool that we have at our disposal is the Benton 2 power to vote, which is the most sufficient way to voice our own opinions. Too many people described as Americans like the idea of problems fixing problems but this solution is unrealistic.If someone does not agree with how the government is running things then it is stated in the Declaration of Independence to speak up! It is overall OUR RIGHT to say so! The government should never have full control over our country; we are supposed to have a democracy run civilization not some communist dictatorship! Another action that should be used in attempt to make our wor ld a finer place is to recognize how something so simple as showing respect and love towards one another can lead to such positive self-outcomes beyond measure.Anyone no matter hat sex, age, religion or ethic background again should be treated equally and not any different then how you would want or expect to be treated. No one human being is better than another even if he or she makes more money or is shown to be in a higher standing within the system. I mean if there really is a â€Å"God†, than we are all his children, correct? No favorites would have been picked from the bunch over another. Nevertheless, along with these examples, a dedication to volunteer activities can also provide an impact on the community not alone on you.Regardless of the location in which you become involved with such extracurricular activities it is always known to show a positive feedback. There are so many amazing, kind hearted and wonderful people who reside here in Fresno, California not menti oning the rest of the planet yet along with these people one should recognize that there will be a lot of harsh ones to follow. Yet, experiences with others should never change your own view and relations to the outside world. It is true that his economy is so horrid Benton 3 eight now that it is causing thousands to morph into self-centered monsters.This reality is disgusting as it is the barrier that is separating that of commonality. Sadly enough, this sequence of events is taking venue only because of the way we have let such issues prolong. The need for survival is a mind-controlling factor yet if we could all realize that by working towards a much deeper long-term goal, we all would be much better off. The strong crave for the light bulb to one day appear over the naive is prodigious as help from America's people is so desperately needed.Evidentially enough, it is impossible to turn the minds of everyone single handedly so some must carry on with their own lives and continuall y try their best in spreading their own opinions and words in the appropriate ways. While dreaming of a greater day, maybe this exhibit will one day be transformed into a reality for at lease our children or children's' children to experience. All that any single individual can do is give effort and think that maybe their suggestions will make a positive influence and one day spread into something larger and far greater†¦

Facility design and learning Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Facility design and learning - Research Paper Example Free education as we know it today did not come into existence until the 1840s, when a popular movement began with education reformers Horace Mann and Henry Barnard. Working in Massachusetts and Connecticut, these two men helped to create statewide â€Å"common-school† systems that would provide education for everyone. (â€Å"Honor America’s Schools†, 2002). Aided by common-school advocates, they worked to establish a free elementary education accessible to everyone and financed by public funds. (â€Å"Honor America’s Schools†, 2002). Public education across the United States remains much the same as the common-school movement that was started in Massachusetts and Connecticut over a century ago. Public education is still free to those that wish to use it; however, American students are scoring lower than other countries in subjects such as science and math (â€Å"Associated Press†, 2007), and the very buildings that were constructed for their education are now being examined as the cause behind the lower test scores. The first cause that is being examined in the correlation between learning and learning facilities are the buildings themselves. According to a study conducted by the Tennessee Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) in 2003, school facility factors such as building age and condition, among others, can affect student health, safety, sense of self, and psychological state. Further evidence of this was determined by Glen I. Earthman in his 2002 study entitled School Facility Conditions and Student Achievement. In this study, Mr. Earthman stated that, when the socioeconomic factors of a classroom were controlled, researchers frequently found a difference between 5 and 17 percentile points between achievements of students in poor quality school buildings when compared with students in standard quality school buildings. Though the terms of poor quality and standard quality were not specifically defined in the study, the evidence was clear – the quality of the building affected the ability of students to learn. The elements of facility design that can affect learning go far beyond the ‘brick and mortar’ approach to a school. Perhaps the biggest contributor inside a school to a student’s learning is the air that they breathe. According to the National Center for Education Statistics 2003 Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities, Indoor Air Quality, commonly referred to as IAQ, encompasses almost anything and everything that affects air in an educational building, from mold and pollens to dust, paint odors and other allergens. In 1995, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that fifteen thousand schools in America suffered from poor IAQ, which affected more than eight million children in the American public school systems across the country (Schneider, 2002). Poor IAQ has been linked to a number of issues that affect student performance. Among the issues are eye, nose, and throat irritation, fatigue, headache, nausea, and sinus problems (Szuba, & Young, 2003). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a 2000 study, referred to these symptoms in total