Concept of Culture :: essays research papers

Anthropology introduces culture as a means to perpetuate human existence, because without culture, we would not exist. Individuals are created biologically, while persons are created by social society. Anthropologists firmly believe that our existence is dependent on culture, because culture shapes the social roles people fill on a day to day basis. Without these social roles, people would not know how to express emotions or respond to any given circumstance because we understand everything through culture. Examining any culture requires that you have culture, and people are incapable of escaping the bounds of cultural interpretation to view foreign cultures without bias.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Roy Wagner articulates the absolute truth of culture always existing in his novel The Invention of Culture. Humans believe things can be intrinsic to us as a species, however anthropologists argue that most of what is perceived as natural is actually a result of culture. For example, the words used to communicate daily seem natural because people naturally correspond using language, although words and body language must have originated somewhere; they are not inherent to the human race.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Anthropologists study culture in different ways; some are structuralists such as Rad-Cliffe Brown and Leach, some are cultural relativists, and those like Roy Wagner combine structuralism and cultural relativism to attain their own category as ontologists. Describing categories and universal concepts is important to structuralists. Cultural relativists rely on ethical truths to be relative to a specific culture. Existence rather than analysis of being is what ontologists study. Despite the varying approaches, anthropology teaches people that we are all categorized and live in a sort of order.

The Effect of Colonialism in Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe Essay

This essay is about the effect of Colonialism seen in the book Things Fall Apart. Through out the whole book you can see different impressions on the tribe, many other people, and the relationships between the white man and the black man.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  "Does the white man understand our custom about land?" "How can he when he does not even speak our tongue? But he says that our customs are bad; and our own brothers who have taken up his religion also say that our customs are bad. How do you think we can fight when our own brothers have turned against us? The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peaceably with his religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. Now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act like one. He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart." (Achebe, 17) This discussion of the white man not understanding the customs and traditions, comes ever since the arrival of the colonialists, Obierika seems to voice Achebe's own thoughts on colonialism. Upset by the fact that the white men have come and completely disregarded the Igbo sense of justice, Obierika points out the impossibility of the colonialists understanding anything about the Umuofians without speaking their language. Then he points out the foolishness of belittling unfamiliar customs.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Obierika does not lay the whole blame on the white man’s side. He feels also that the Umuofians who have con...

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury :: Ray Bradburys Fahrenheit 451

In the 1950 novel Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury presents the now familiar images of mind controlled worlds. People now live in a world where they are blinded from the truth of the present and the past. The novel is set in the, perhaps near, future where the world is in war, and firemen set fires instead of putting them out. Books and written knowledge is banned from the people, and it is the firemen’s job to burn books. Firemen are now the policemen of this time. Some people have rebelled by hiding books, but have not been very successful. Most people have conformed to this world. Guy Montag, a fireman, is a part of the majority who have conformed. Throughout the novel Montag goes through a transformation, where he changes from a Conformist to a Revolutionary. Guy Montag has never questioned his job before the day he met Clarisse McClellan. This is the first time where Montag is confronted with the idea that, he doesn’t understand the whole truth about books. Monta g meets Clarisse as he is one day walking home from work, and they strike up a conversation. During their conversation Montag is questioned why books are illegal and why firemen burn the books. She also asks him if he had ever read any of the books that he burned. His reply was that it is against the law. Clarisse even asks, "… long ago [did] firemen put fires out instead of going to start them?"(Fahrenheit 451, page 38) Montag replies by telling her that that is nonsense, and that "Houses have always been fireproof,…"(Fahrenheit 451, page 38) Here you can see how brainwashed and blinded the truth is for the people. Clarisse says good night to Montag, and right before she leaves she asks him, "Are you happy?"(Fahrenheit 451, page39) Before Montag can reply Clarisse is gone, and she leaves Montag pondering her question. As he tells himself that her question was nonsense, he starts to realize that he is not happy with his life. Someone else who changed Montag’s thinking, changed it by their actions not by tell him anything. One day the firemen got a call with an address of someone who was hiding books. The firemen, doing their job like always, went to the house to find the books and burn them. When they got there they had found the books, but when they went to burn them the person who owned the books would not leave them.

Negative Effects of Genetically Modified Food/Crops Essay

Genetically modified organisms refer to organisms whose genetic components have been changed to produce an unnatural occurrence. Genetic engineering refers to the technology employed in the alteration of the genetic elements, which also facilitates the transfer of genes between related and non-related species. This technology is applied in the production of Genetically Modified (GM) crops/foods in order to meet the desired objectives of the industry operators. The 1980 US Supreme Court pronouncement on the legal patentability of biological life in the Diamond vs. Chakrabartyn case opened the gateway to genetic engineering (Lex Orbis). There are some perceived benefits of the GM foods industry, both to the producer and consumer, especially in regard to increased food productivity and nutrition. Conversely, there have been reported cases on potential risks to human health and the environment due to GM foods/crops. The harmful effects of GM foods production and consumption cannot be overlooked, due to their impact on human health, the environment and socio-economic operation of a society. The introduction and widespread use of Genetically Modified (GM) foods has been met with uncertainties in regard to public acceptability due to the confirmed and potential harmful effects of this technology. GM foods are disputable for various reasons, one of them being the adverse effects of these foods to human health. There are concerns over deaths, near-deaths and diseases such as cancer and bacterial infections arising out of GM foods. Human beings need food for survival but it is incongruous to consume potentially harmful food for one’s existence just for survival. Studies indicate that there have been recorded deaths attributable to Genetic Engineering in foods. In 1989, a genetic modification of the food supplement known as L-tryptophan produced a devastating disease known as the Eosinophilia Myalgia syndrome (EMS). There were about 37 people who died from the ailment, as well as around 1500 who were physically impaired. The GM food supplement was manufactured by a Japan’s chemical company known as Showa Denko, which offered a $2 billion settlement to the victims, but investigations into the product were not carried out. In addition, initial GM tested products such as Flavr Savr have been reported as harmful to animals, evidenced by the premature deaths of the animals used in these lab tests. Further, in 1996, a company known as Pioneer Hi-Bred, the largest seed company in the US, produced soybeans with the added protein methionine, through splicing Brazil nut DNA into the conventional soybeans (Cummins, Lilliston and Lappe 36). Researchers from the University of Nebraska reported that the use of the GM soybeans may result in fatal allergies to individuals allergic to Brazilian nuts. Fortunately, the company withdrew the product from the market before any fatalities occurred. Allergenic reactions to GM foods are another area of concern to the consumer public. There has been an increasing rate of food-allergenic individuals in the nation, especially among children, which was confirmed by the Center for Disease Control. The increased alteration of diets contributes to the rising rate of food sensitivity, since GM foods are not comparable to regular foods (Nestle). Other indications of the allergenic quality of GM foods include the following: A study on GM potatoes with cod genes indicated they were allergenic; two independent studies indicated that GM Bt corn produced allergenic effects, even on the farmers who used genetically engineered Bt sprays to produce such corn; in 1999, York Laboratory researchers discovered a connection between the rise in allergic reactions to soy and the consumption of GM soy. The potential risks of GM foods extend to disease causality and bacterial infections. Scientists have established a connection between a protein hormone known as GH and a chemical hormone called IGH-1 associated with breast cancer, and in some instances, prostate cancer. The protein hormone GH is injected in dairy cows to facilitate the production of more milk, thus it has been used to boost the productivity of dairy corporations. Genetically modified versions of the hormone have been approved to enhance milk productivity despite warnings by scientists that this GM hormone increases the IGF-1 hormone in consumers, from about 70 to 1000%. Dr. Samuel Epstein, a University of Chicago doctor and the Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition explained the connection between GH and IGF-1; that the GH induces the malignant conversion of human breast epithelial cell types that eventually leads to cancerous growths. However, the US Food and Drugs Administration rejected the importance of such findings. The proponents of GM foods point to some science reviews which claim that GM crops in the market pose limited risks to human health. GM foods undergo protocol tests to determine their effects on human health as well as their allergenic quality. These tests have been evaluated by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the result is that the GM foods currently in circulation pose no allergic effects to people. The World Health Organization further maintains that all GM foods in the global market have been approved after passing the necessary risk assessment tests; hence they are not harmful to human health. Additionally, the organization claims that adverse effects of these foods have not been proved among the general public where the GM foods have been permitted thus there should be no reason for alarm (World Health Organization). However, this position falls short of completely meeting the concerns of consumers, since various scientific studies have reflected negative health effects of GM foods, contradicting WHO’s position. Despite the observation of harmful effects on a minority, GM foods cannot be ruled as completely safe for human consumption. In consideration of all the evidence presented, it is certain that genetic engineering technology presents certain dangers and health hazards that need to be thoroughly assessed before GM foods are absorbed into the global market. The assessment criteria for these products should also be revised with reference to case studies and reports highlighting potential harms of genetic modification (The Economist 19). Consumers should also be fully aware of the type of products displayed in the market in order to make informed choices. Genetic modified foods and crops have also been frowned upon for their potential negative effects to the environment. There are concerns over the toxicity levels in the soil due to genetic engineered farming, leading to soil pollution and destruction of plant and animal life. Despite the positive effects of genetic engineering technology in boosting food supply to the public, the application of this technology raises the use of chemicals and bio-engineered products in farms, hence the environmental degradation. It is essential to support a food crop production system that maintains environmental standards rather than ruin them, thus maintaining the spirit of environmental conservation. The GM crop industry advocates for this technology on the grounds that genetic engineered seeds and plants are helpful to the environment by decreasing the amount of chemicals used in farms. However, most of the GM agricultural products have a high chemical resistance, which in turn increases rather than decreases the use of herbicides or pesticides with toxic effects to the farms. The GM crop industry seeks to profit from the sale of more products, and these include seeds as well as pesticides and herbicides. In light of this issue, it is conceivable that the industry intends to sell more genetic engineered agricultural products as well as chemicals; hence environmental safety is a challenge if farmers rely on these products, since they go hand in hand with great use of herbicides/pesticides. According to environmental scientist, R. J. Goldburg, scientists expect that the use of herbicides will triple due to GM agricultural products (Goldburg 647). An example of a company in this industry is Monsanto, which is a world leading corporation in the production of genetic engineered seeds as well as the herbicide known as Roundup. The herbicide glyphosate, also called Roundup, has damaging effects to plant and animal life. The US Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that Roundup poses a threat to 74 endangered species; it affects natural processes in plant life such as photosynthesis. Further, the herbicide decays in the soil but it leaves deposits on the crops harvested for the consumer. Glyphosate, which is the main component in Roundup, is harmful to humans, and has led to numerous cases of illness among farmers. Various scientific research projects also indicate the harmful effects of GM products to the soil; these include the research carried out by Oregon scientists which indicates the GM microorganism, klebsiella planticola killed vila soil nutrients and rendered it sterile. Similarly, in 1997, it was established that Rhizobium melitoli, a GM bacterium, released toxins in the soil that caused pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency also expressed its concerns over the matter, but these microorganisms are still in operation. The Oregon research also indicated that some of these microbes killed wheat plants when introduced into the soil. Other indicators of the environmental effects of GM products include the creation of super weeds and super pests; plant and animal invasions; destruction of forests; the death of beneficial insects and genetic pollution. GM elements such as Bt endotoxin have been reported to stay in the soil for about 18 months and could be transported to other wild plants, thus forming super weeds, resistant to beetles and butterflies, and this process affects the balance of nature. Super pests are created when common pests like budworms and cottonboll worms develop immunity from toxins due to repeated exposure. Research indicates that cottonboll worms have developed immunity from Bt sprays used in organic farming (Tabashnik, Gassmann and Crowder 199-202). Plant and animal invasions threaten the existing species and result to the imbalance of nature. Emerging GM strains can induce bio-invasions into plant or animal life, such as the invasion of the kudzu vine, which is an exotic plant from Japan with rapid growth. The damage to forest life is yet another justification for the claims against the production of GM foods/crops. GM trees have developed a resistance towards chemical sprays thus when spraying is carried out in a forest with GM trees, they survive but the plant life around them are killed. Unlike rainforests or tropical trees that support animal life such as fungi, insects and birds, GM trees are flowerless and sterile; hence they cannot support forest life in its entirety. Research further demonstrates that GM components destroy beneficial insects in plant life such as the monarch butterfly larvae which feeds on milkweed. In 1997, New Scientist reported that the proteins found in genetically modified canola flowers could potentially harm honeybees (Pain) Additionally, genetic pollution is another negative effect of GM production on the environment. Genetic pollution is facilitated by the transfer of GM pollen through rain, wind, birds or insects, and it becomes difficult to contain since unlike chemical pollution, it does not decay. The government of Thailand terminated field assessments for Bt cotton from Monsanto after the Institute of Traditional Thai Medicine established genetic pollution of nearby plants (GRAIN 1-7). In the face of the controversy around GM technology and its effects on the environment, the supporters of the technology advocate that it offers a solution to environmental strain caused by overpopulation. The proponents of genetic engineering argue that the technology is beneficial to the environment since it presents a solution that prevents further depletion of the environment as the world population rises. It is evident that overpopulation has caused negative effects on the environment, due to the constant struggle for land, water, fuels and other resources necessary for human existence. For this reason, supporters of this technology view it as the means to support the food requirements of the world as a whole while maintaining the status of the environment. GM food production has the potential to support the growing need of food supplies in the present world, but its damaging effects to the environment cannot be ignored since they pose long-term risks, that impact on future generations. These destructive effects on the environment, plant and animal life have been scientifically proven, thus they are not negligible GM crop production definitely introduces harmful effects to the environment and its inhabitants, making it an unsafe means to support food demands. The collaboration of core organizations in the environmental sector should be established in order to forge a way that incorporates stringent environmental standards in the GM food industry. Such organizations include the US Food and Drug Administration and the United Nations Environment Programme. There are a lot of concerns in the GM food industry, with some risks already identified while some remain to be discovered, hence there should be more emphasis on safe food production strategies rather than a technology filled with uncertainties (Krech 580). The other argument against genetically modified foods arises out of the negative political, social and economic implications of the industry to modern society. The extensive application of biotechnology in food production will change established farming drastically, the strongest effect being on the indigenous farmers, and eventually the consumers. GM food production requires patenting, and the large corporations in this sector will eventually push the indigenous farmers out of their farms, while they control food products and prices. Advocates against GM crop production argue that his industry will displace farmers out of their livelihoods, since they face the risk of being bought out by large multinational companies that can pursue genetic engineering from a large-scale level. The control of the GM food production industry by large corporations amounts to bio-colonization, which by extension refers to the power that bio-technology controllers possess in the current and future market. The ability to control genetic components as well as agricultural resources is the source of so much power, for its food production. Indigenous farmers in the U. S. are currently self-sufficient in food production, but with the advancements in the GM food industry, more and more people will be dependent upon these industry controllers for food. These industry controllers may be referred to as the bio-colonizing companies, which will possess a lot of decisive power in the world economy due to their control of genetic and agricultural resources. Agricultural workers will also be greatly afflicted with the transfer of control in the industry from individuals to corporations or governments. The result will be displacement of farmers from their economic activity by more powerful forces, leading to a high rate of food dependency from companies and the government (Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability 206). Unfortunately, the WTO, World Bank and GATT provide regulations that facilitate large-scale and foreign interests at the expense of local economies, which further impede self-sufficiency in those countries. Another socio-political issue of concern is the debate on the labeling of GM foods. Proponents of GM foods argue that these foods are similar to regular foods thus the need for labeling is unnecessary, but a counterargument is that with the potential risks of GM foods, consumers should be fully aware of the contents of their foods in order to make informed choices. The consumer has the right to be informed of the ingredients in his/her food, irrespective of the safety or harmful levels of the food. Some parties argue for genetic engineering in food production as the solution to world hunger and other economic problems that arise out of food shortages. The proposition is that GM foods can be produced even under harsh soil and climatic conditions since they can be engineered to withstand such conditions. For this reason, most lands that have previously not been utilized for farming can now be made useful, and eventually solve the problem of overcrowding on the fertile lands. According to the proponents, this move is expected to increase food productivity, thus solving two problems at the same time; the scramble for resources and food security. However, such an argument fails to consider the bigger picture in regard to autonomy in food production among local farmers and regions. It is clear that the GM food industry is controlled by large corporations and governments, hence they would in turn control productivity and supply on the international front. In this regard, indigenous farmers as well as small economies do not achieve food security; rather they become more dependent on multinational companies. In summary, genetically engineered foods raise a lot of questions and concerns among the public due to the insufficient information regarding the sector and the potential harm it presents to the people and the environment. There are proponents with valid perspectives who argue for and against the concept, but it is important that the benefits of this technology are weighed against the risks, in order to determine the true value of the industry to consumers (Ackerman). Positive effects include increased food supply and control of overpopulation in fertile lands, but these benefits are overshadowed by the numerous reported and unreported harmful effects of genetic science in food production. From health complications to environmental degradation and negative socio-economic impacts, the GM food production industry is potentially catastrophic in the present time and in the future ahead. Works Cited Ackerman, Jennifer. â€Å"FOOD: How Altered? † National Geographic Magazine. (2002). Web. 18 March 2011. Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. Washington, D. C. : National Academies Press, 2010: 206-207. Print. Cummins, Ronnie, Ben Lilliston and Frances Moore Lappe. Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2004: 36-38. Print. Goldburg, R. J. â€Å"Environmental Concerns with the Development of Herbicide-tolerant Crops. † Weed Technology 6. 3 (1992): 647-652. Print. GRAIN. â€Å"Bt Cotton through the Back Door. † Seedling (2001): 1-7. Print. Krech, Shepard. Encyclopedia of World Environmental History: F-N. London: Routledge, 2004: 580-581. Print. Lex Orbis. â€Å"Patenting Microorganisms. † Lex Orbis: Intellectual Property Practice. (30 April 2005). Web. 18 March 2011. Nestle, Marion. â€Å"Agricultural Biotechnology, Policy, and Nutrition. † The New England Journal of Medicine (2002). Print. Pain, Stephanie. â€Å"War in the Woods – Dutch Elm Disease is back with a Vengeance. But this time Biotechnology. † New Scientist. (1997). Web. 18 March 2011. Tabashnik, BE, et al. â€Å"Insect Resistance to Bt Crops: Evidence versus Theory. † Nature Biotechnology (2008): 199-202. Print. The Economist. â€Å"Who’s Afraid of Genetically Modified Foods? † The Economist. (19 June 1999): 19-21. Print. World Health Organization. WHO: 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods. 2011. Web. 18 March 2011.

Effective Memorization Strategies

EFFECTIVE MEMORIZATION STRATEGIES Memorization, as defined by Wikipedia, is the process of committing something to memory. It is a process that everyone undertakes to store in memory for recalling later. Memorization is an ongoing, lifelong process. Examples of some of the items that we strive to memorize on a daily basis are telephone numbers, addresses, music, lists and maps. The memory demands for students in college are much greater than they are for adults due to the amount of information they are bombarded with on a daily basis. Being able to memorize information efficiently and accurately is very important to all college students. Adults generally have acquired much of the skills and knowledge that are required on a daily basis. It can be very challenging in a college setting to study whether it be in a dormitory or apartment. Constant commotion of people coming and going is not very conducive to memorizing text. It is recommended that students find a work-space where they are able to concentrate. The ideal location is one free of distractions such as a library. In 1996 Brown and Miller categorized memorization techniques. Their categories were: memorizing through repetition (rote), memorizing through mnemonic techniques, memorization through grouping, memorizing through association, and memorizing through visual, auditory and konesthetic systems. * There are several different techniques that can be used to improve memorization. Rote memorization is a technique that focuses on remembering facts by a means of repetitition. Everyone can remember back in grade school when we were introduced to the times tables. Multiplication facts such as two times two equals four are examples of learning by using rote memorization. Other examples are learning the states and their capitals and sight words which are taught in elementary school. An article written by Grace Fleming states â€Å"Rote learning is often viewed as bad practice, although some would argue that rote memorization is a necessary first step in learning basics. † Opponents of Rote memorization use the argument that this process involves learning facts without developing a deep understanding. In earlier days rote memorization was sometimes referred to as â€Å"drilling† E. D. Hirsch Jr. , a education reformer, does feel that drilling is essential. In circumstances where recall of information must be automatic such as mulitplication tables, â€Å"you need something like drilling. † He warns though that teachers need to strive to make sure the drilling isn't boring. Mnemonics is another memorization strategy. It is a very powerful tool that works extremely well for memorizing lists. The word Mnemonics is derived from the name of the Greek goddess of memory who was called Mnemosyne. It is based on the fact that it is much more easier for the human mind to remember personal, humorous or otherwise meaningful information than arbitrary sequences In Biology class students are required to learn to learn the biological classification system which is kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. A student might commit to memory the phrase â€Å"Keep Pond Clean Or Frogs Get Sick. † Using the first letter of each word in this phrase would prompt a student into remembering the list. This is known as the sentence technique. An example of the word technique would be using the word HOMES to memorize the Great Lakes: Huron, Ontario Michigan, Erie, Superior. This can be referred to as word play. Mnemonics works best when there are strong association between the mnemonic and the what they stand for. Mnemonics link strategy is a system of remembering items by creating an association with these unrelated items. For example, a person might have to go to the grocery store to buy potatoes, chicken and a broom. In their mind they could picture a chicken sweeping up potatoes with a broom. When they reached the store and visualized this it would be easy to complete their shopping. This method is sometimes referred to as imaging. Some people find it easier to memorize using associations. Memorizing a new subject by associating it with a process you are very familiar with can help some students. Using Biology again as an example, you can relate cell structure to a factory. The cell body could be the boss in a factory. You could think of the ribosomes asmessengers in this factory. Grouping is another effective memorization technique. Students can be required to learn hundreds of facts. Trying to memorize a list this long would be impossible. To simplify memorization of this list the student can divide the subject into groups. Memorizing through visual, auditory and kinesthetic systems can be a very useful tool for some students. Research has shown that each sense is processed in a different part of your brain. Using these systems can enhance learning by using more of your brain. Some students have very good retention when they make flashcards to study for a test.

Pros and Cons of Single-Sex School on Students

PROS & CONS OF SINGLE-SEX SCHOOL ON STUDENTS Pros & Cons of Single-Sex School on Students INTRODUCTION Single-sex school has not been a stranger to us even from back in those old days. It practically shows how gender differences and effects caused by it had largely impacted on the society. People learnt how the attraction between Adam and Eve kind brings a lot of many things, including the separation of these two kinds through – one of the most important thing to the society, the education. According to the article ‘What is Single Sex  Education? Defining Single-Gender  Education’ by Amanda Morin,  Single-Sex education are the practice of educating girls and boys in separate classes or schools. Just like many other co-educational schools, single-sex ones are no exception to the ‘villains and angels’ of this issue. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the pros and cons of single-sex school, which would be my focus in the essay. Pro, based on the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, are something that are in favour of. Hence, con would be the opposite meaning of pro, meaning disadvantages of something, issues or problems.Before 1900, education in America was contained largely within a single-sex framework (Bracey, 2007). That structure was the result of societal views, expectations, and opportunities for each gender. As a rule, males required greater formalized education to facilitate their expected worldly occupations, and females received a much less formalized education, rich in the practical skills necessary for their anticipated domestic life. Males and females required such different educational experiences and subject matter that they were educated separately (Cohen, 2000).There were long and storied history in American higher education about single-sex colleges and universities where a few original colleges in U. S. existed – though that is to educate men only. However, in the early 1800s severa l seminaries for women were founded to provide girls with a liberal education. Post Civil War has also produced the women's colleges of the Northeast, whom been wishing to demonstrate that women were as capable of achieving advanced education as were men. By 1950 the percentage of women in higher education dropped to a low of 30 percent, and enrolment at many of the single-sex institutions began to decline.The 1960s and 1970s saw a more pronounced shift away from single-sex institutions toward coeducation. The history of one’s place or issue could probably make us understand better, whereas would help us to elaborate more on the matter. The focus in this essay would be the advantages and disadvantages of single-sex school, from two different perspectives – academically, and socially. ADVANTAGES As we all know it, boys and girls inhibit and exhibit different learning style and learning outcomes. Research has shown that boys and girls brains are different, they are progr ammed to learn distinct ways.It is not saying that one gender is inferior to the other, they are just different. Single sex education has been shown to reduce stereotypes based on gender rather than promote them. Factors such as smaller classrooms and teacher training are factors of a good school and many single sex schools offer those variables, in addition to offering different and specialized teaching styles which also may improve the quality of education. From the book entitled ‘Early Implementation of Public Single-Sex School : Perceptions and Characteristics’ , its study team has contacted all 20 schools the U.S. Department of Education identified as public single-sex schools in 2003. It shows academic behaviours in 164 single-sex classrooms and 45 coed classrooms in the single-sex and coed schools visited. Students in the single-sex elementary, middle, high schools, were more likely to complete homework than were students in the coed comparison elementary and mid dle school, but no study on high school were included. One public charter school in Northeast Indianapolis namely Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School, segregates academic classes for its younger students.Overall, the policy has been positive, resulting in better grades and fewer distractions. On the social side of this matter, Rosemary Salomone, professor of law at St. John’s University and author of the 2003 book Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Schooling, said that: â€Å"Many students in single-sex classes report feeling more comfortable raising their hands and expressing uncertainty regarding a lesson or topic without fear of embarrassment or teasing from the opposite sex. † Boys tend to soften up and become more collaborative as they can just be boys and not worry about what the girls might think in a single sex setting.Girls become competitive, bold, and a risk-taker which also give girls the opportunity to take on leadership roles and interact wit h women in positions of leadership. National Coalition of Girls' Schools had conducted a survey which 93% of the women surveyed felt that they had more leadership opportunities and that 63% felt they were well-prepared for the â€Å"real world. † DISADVANTAGES On the surface, it is undeniably true that most single-sex schools do well academically, by saying that the gender gap between girls and boys has been overcome. However, by separating them, the gender gap are still there, but not always seen.Over the past 10 years, 130 independent schools that taught girls and boys separately have either become co-educational or closed. Some schools now offer single-sex lessons in an attempt to close the gender gap that has seen girls overtake boys in achievement. This gender gap is about the fact where boys are always lagging behind girls, and if practiced through placing them in a same sex school, it should probably causes the fact that all-boys’ school lagging behind all-girls ’ school. From the article ‘All-boys school are not the answer’ by Oli De Botton, in practice, the single-sex question is a distraction from what really matters.It sounds obvious, but both boys and girls will do better if they are taught better by excellent teachers. That means skilled teachers whom can attract and teach the students well – regardless of their gender. Kids that are able of responding to all learning environments are better, which they can break out from their comfort zone. Let boys and girls learn together, taught by the best teachers we can find. A new report, published in the journal Science, states that single-sex schools’ students are no better educated than those who attend co-ed schools. The study has also noted that a review commissioned by the U. S.Department of Education found only, little overall difference in academic outcomes between children in single-sex schools versus those in co-ed schools. The professor of psycholog y and education at Penn state, Lynn Liben says that â€Å"There's really no good evidence that single-sex schools are in any way academically superior, but there is evidence of a negative impact,† Another disadvantage would be students’ socialization. The article ‘Co-ed vs. Single-sex schools’ by ULS. com has said that a wider range of people allows the interaction of students of both sexes which allow them to learn how to work and talk to people of the opposite sex.This, though does not happen in a single-sex school causing lack social skills of the students of a single-sex school. Furthermore, the all-boys and all-girls situation might lead to other case such as homosexual. Ghanaweb. com has reported that how their Ghana Education Service has conceded that single-sex schools in Ghana are becoming the place where homosexuals breed. Stephen Adu, the Deputy Director General of the GES told Citi News, that he disagree to the way of dealing with the situation with converting such schools into mixed school. Instead he thinks holistic approach is required to deal with the situation.He added, â€Å"I will agree that homosexuality and lesbianism started with single-sex schools. It has become prevalent and so more people have become aware of it. This is just one of the many problems we have in our educational system†. OPINION In my opinion, single-sex school is neither good or bad. It is the matter of how people work, consider and tolerate it. Elizabeth Weil, in her article titled ‘Teaching Boys and Girls Separately’ stated that the United States Department of Education, along with the American Institute for Research, published a meta-analysis comparing single-sex and coed schooling.The authors started out with 2,221 citations on the subject that they then whittled down to 40 usable studies. Yet even those 40 studies did not yield strong results: 41 percent favored single-sex schools, 45 percent found no positive or negat ive effects for either single-sex or coed schools, 6 percent were mixed (meaning they found positive results for one gender but not the other) and 8 percent favored coed schools. I have one friend of mine, ex single-sex’s school student, whom has such different way of thinking. She’s a feminist, has such a hard time trusting guys and has limited social skills.She doesn’t know how to interact with boys especially, even with the girls sometimes. This is what I can see from her. My evaluation and interpretation might be wrong as I am not an expert. As academically, she’s a perfectionist, hardworking, competitive and a bright student indeed. But her low self-esteem and lack of social skills penetrated her from speaking in class as she doesn’t have the ability of delivering what she wanted to say. What I can see is that single-sex school benefit so much on the academic side, as students really focuses on studying because there is no other distraction an d attraction at school.They really want to compete with each other, curious and wanting to know their ability because they think they have the same capabilities, just at different levels. However, it is sad to compare to their socialization, because single-sex school changes the way they think. They got used to the all-girls or all-boys situation that they end up being sexist, which then later lead to cases like homosexuals. CONCLUSION. Boys and girls are obviously different in nature, and vary in their likings and favourites. What people do not know is a little bit of understanding in these differences could bring such a vast improvement on students.Socialization and academic are both important, and must be balanced well in order to have a fully accomplished life. Pros and Cons are unavoidable where we can’t really choose the good one instead of the bad one but to accept both willingly and somehow work with it. REFERENCES References : RMC Research Corporation Portland, Ore. (August, 2008). Early Implementation of Public Single-Sex Schools : Perceptions and Characteristics. Bradley, K. (n. d. ) The Impact of Single-Sex Education on the Performance of First and Second Grade PUBLIC School Students.Kreyden, V. (March, 2011). Multiple benefits of single-sex classes. Retrieved from : http://blogs. indystar. com/ypress/2011/03/01/multiple-benefits-of-single-sex-classes/ Morin, A. (n. d. ) What is Single-Sex Education? :Defining Single-Gender Education. Retrieved from : http://childparenting. about. com/od/schoollearning/a/what-is-single-sex-education-def. htm Weil, E. (March, 2008). Teaching Boys and Girls Separately. Retrieved from : http://www. nytimes. com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t. html? pagewanted=all (e-news) APPENDICES

Birago Diop’s Vanity Essay

Birago Diop: He was born in 1906 at Dakar, Senegal. He was educated in Senegal and in France where in qualifed in veterinary surgeon. VANITY is one of his many poems he used in expressing the presence of the ancestor. THE POEM VANITY If we tell, gently, gently All that we shall one day have to tell, Who then will hear our voices without laughter, Sad complaining voices of beggars Who indeed will hear them without laughter? If we roughly of our torments Ever increasing from the start of things What eyes will watch our large mouths Shaped by the laughter of big children What eyes will watch our large mouth? What hearts will listen to our clamoring? What ear to our pitiful anger Which grows in us like a tumor In the black depth of our plaintive throats? When our Dead comes with their Dead When they have spoken to us in their clumsy voices; Just as our ears were deaf To their cries, to their wild appeals Just as our ears were deaf They have left on the earth their cries, In the air, on the water, where they have traced their signs For us blind deaf and unworthy Sons Who see nothing of what they have made In the air, on the water, where they have traced their signs And since we did not understand the dead Since we have never listen to their cries If we weep, gently, gently If we cry roughly to our torments What heart will listen to our clamoring, What ear to our sobbing hearts?