Two Teachers IVe Had - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 569 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/09/13 Category Advertising Essay Did you like this example? Two Teachers I’ve had I have met nearly a hundred teachers from kindergarten to college. The role of teacher affects me not less than my parents. They open the window of knowledge and touch my heart with wisdom. The altitude, the knowledge and the love of teachers make me a good person. Unfortunately a few teachers treated me badly in the classroom. There are two teachers from sixth grade who I can not forget in my life because they are totally different in attitude, teaching method and classroom management. The first obvious difference between my six grade’s mathematics and history teachers is attitude. My math teacher favored some rich students who gave her presents. They were also treated as VIP students in the classroom even though they poorly did in exams. She also had a short temper and often shouted at us when she was in a bad mood. In addition, she was very religious to school rules and regulations. We could not accidentally break any rule. Sometimes she added additional inconsiderable rules such as standing for an hour outside of the class for missing homework. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Two Teachers IVe Had" essay for you Create order However the rich students were escaped from her punishments. One of rich students did not do homework but he was just warmed but was not punished. On the contrary, my history teacher treated us fairly and was friendly. She followed school rules and regulations and understood and helped students depending on the situation. She was such a flexible teacher. The second difference between my sixth grade teachers is teaching method. The math teacher used the teacher-centered teaching method. She put in her favorite lessons and did not ask what we wanted to know as study. She never explained any lesson again and told students who requested to explain â€Å"lazy students†. There were few activities in the classroom. Therefore the class was boring and full of lectures. On the other hand, the history teacher used the student-centered teaching method. Therefore there were topics that we wanted to know in the curriculum. On the first week, she asked us what we wanted to study related to the content. She was too patient to explain a lesson repeatedly until we all understood it. There were lots of fun and activities in the class. We were so happy to study with her. The last difference between them is classroom management. In my high school, students had to go to different classrooms for different subjects. The math classroom arrangement was not very good. Tables and chairs were out of line and other furniture was not very clean. If we argued about a topic, she could not stop the argumentation as it took long. Sometimes I felt I was wasting my time in her class. She usually started the class by talking nonsense such as her personal things and other teachers. On the contrary, the history classroom arrangement was tidy and colorful. She taught us how to argue and discuss well. She usually started the class by reviewing the previous lesson. As a fact, we could connect the previous and the following lessons. In conclusion, these two teachers influenced me much due to their very obvious differences. I felt I was a victim in my mathematics classroom while I was so happy in my history classroom. However I am grateful to them because I became an educated person due to them. I would be nobody without them.

Importance Modern American History Free Essay Example, 1500 words

The article by Harold L. Cole and Lee E Ohanian also describe how these codes of conduct brought about distortion in the economy by increasing the prices and wages, restricting output and eventually reducing the capacity of production. Though the increased wages did benefit the fortunate few who had jobs in NIRA companies, in the bigger picture it shrunk employment and productive initiatives because the costs in the form of high wages exceeded the growth in productivity. Their article is important as it sheds light on how certain reforms or policies can have a negative effect on a country s economy Carlos Gibson in his article on American Regionalism and the United Nations explains to us about the Monroe Doctrine stating that it was at first a unilateral policy of the United States that was initiated to safeguard America from European encroachment such as Great Britain and France. The Monroe Doctrine upheld the values of freedom, democracy, and peace that reflected the progress of humankind. However, as times changed the Monroe Doctrine held different meanings for different people. Both Great Britain and France were on a campaign to gain economic control over the poorer nations by lending them money with the knowledge that they would not be able to pay it back. We will write a custom essay sample on Importance Modern American History or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page

Neighborhood Watch Free Essays

The theory of Opportunity-Reduction supports Neighborhood Watch program. This theory assumes that the initiative of potential crime victims or the citizens could help reducing the risk of criminals’ attack (Kilpatrick, 2004). The Opportunity-Reduction model involves four categories such as (1) increasing perceived effort, (2) increasing perceived risks, (3) reducing anticipated rewards, and (4) inducing guilt or shame (or removing excuses, Clarke, 1997) (Clarke and Homel, 1997). We will write a custom essay sample on Neighborhood Watch or any similar topic only for you Order Now The last category which is inducing guilt or shame was eventually omitted in the work of Wortley (2002) since the strategies under this category do not involve the reduction of criminal’s opportunity to attack but rather it encourages and gives the offender more chances of doing illegal actions (Wortley, 1997, 1998). Instead of inducing guilt or shame, Wortley replaces it with precipitation-control. Accordingly, this can be more effective in reducing permissibility for potential offenders or criminals. Wortley (2002) also adds another category which is increasing anticipated punishments which is based on the learning theory that views anticipated rewards can reduce crimes. This is an effective mean of overcoming crime problems and it is also applicable in real prison management (Severson, 2004). Opportunity-Reduction approach also supports Neighborhood Watch programs through crime prevention and self-defense training courses available for community police and citizens as well as focusing on quality of life by citizen participation   (Kilpatrick, 2004; Whittemore, 1989; Baker, Wolfer, Zezza, 1999). The Canterchase residents should be able to create partnerships, support and collaborate with each other. They need to communicate effectively by reporting or sharing information, use security or warning devices, use detectors or watchdogs. They must also apply problem-oriented policing in order to discuss the nature of problems, assign citizens in taking their responsibilities on crime reduction and solving crime-related problems. Techniques like the SARA or scanning, analysis, response, and assessment (Baker, Wolfer, Zezza, 1999; Wolfer, Zezza, 2001) are useful in community policing and crime prevention. References Baker, T. E., Wolfer, L., Zezza, R. (1999) â€Å"Problem-Solving Policing Eliminating Hot Spots.† The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 68(11). Clarke, R. V. (ed.) (1997) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies 2nd ed. Albany, NY: Harrow Heston. Kilpatrick, D. G. (2004) Interpersonal Violence and Public Policy: What about the Victims?. Journal of Law, Medicine Ethics 32(1), 73+. Whittemore, L. S. (1989) Appendix C the Success of Community Crime Prevention. Canadian Journal of Criminology 31(4), 489. Wortley, R. (1997) Reconsidering the role of opportunity in situational crime prevention. In G. Newman, R. V. Clarke and S. G. Shohan (eds.), Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention, Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, pp. 65–82. Wortley, R. (1998) A two-stage model of situational crime prevention. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 7, pp. 173–88. Wortley, R. (2002) Situational Prison Control: Crime Prevention in Correctional Institutions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.    How to cite Neighborhood Watch, Essay examples

Gay Marriage Essay Research Paper Homosexuals should free essay sample

Gay Marriage Essay, Research Paper Homosexuals should be allowed to get married because the disallowance of it violates their constitutional rights. Marriage is an establishment long recognized by our authorities under the right to prosecute felicity, and denying that right to any twosome, irrespective of gender, is unconstitutional. This statement, though, is non disputed. In fact, none of the statements raised in resistance to the allowance of homosexual matrimonies takes into history the constitutional rights afforded to all worlds. The statements are merely in relation to the possible reverberations ( existent or imagined ) of allowing these rights. Our state was built and has ever been based on the cardinal rules of freedom expressed in the Declaration of Independence and through our Constitution. The oppositions of homosexual matrimony demand to retrieve what freedom means to America, and understand the significance of puting a case in point that denies that freedom. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the establishment of matrimony is one of the rights guaranteed to all Americans by our Fundamental law. Baning same-sex matrimony is prejudiced. Marriage is a basic human right and should non be denied to any single. At assorted times in U.S. history, other minorities have been prevented from get marrieding: African americans, for illustration. Interracial matrimony was besides lawfully prohibited in assorted provinces, until the Supreme Court ruled such prohibitions unconstitutional in 1967 ( ? Should Gay? 31 ) . At this clip, nevertheless, matrimony is merely granted to heterosexual twosomes. Although homophiles live under the same fundamental law, they are non afforded the same rights as straight persons. The grounds presented against the allowance of homosexual matrimony are flimsy, and have nil to make with the constitutional rights that are supposed to be afforded every American. All of the statements against homosexual matrimonies have to make with the reverberations of allowing the constitutional right of matrimony to homophiles, but non with the constitutional rights of homophiles. The statements offered are unusually similar to the statements offered 30 old ages ago against interracial matrimonies. Marriage plays an of import function non merely in people? s experience of day-to-day life but besides in our civilization? s received ideals. Marriage viewed as a cultural ideal is one manner to explicate the strength of the recoil against cheery matrimony. Legally married straight persons would non lose any legal right or material benefit if homosexuals were allowed to acquire lawfully married ( Mohr 22 ) . Then why the dither? There is no moral ground to back up civil brotherhoods and non same- sex matrimony unless one believes that acknowledging homophiles would weaken a critical civil establishment. This was the implicit in statement for the Defense of Marriage Act ( DOMA ) , which implied that leting homophiles to get married constituted an # 8220 ; onslaught # 8221 ; on the bing establishment. The DOMA fundamentally concludes that homophiles are inherently depraved and immoral, leting them to get married would necessarily botch, and defame, the establishment of matrimony ( Sullivan? State? 18 ) . This claim strays from the kingdom of traditional societal policy enters the kingdom of cultural symbols. But symbols af fair: it is chiefly in footings of symbols that people define their lives and have individualities. Marriage viewed as a symbolic event, enacts, institutionalizes, and ritualizes the societal significance of heterosexualism. Part of the attractive force of matrimony for some straight persons, is that it confers position. One of the ways it does this is by separating such people from homophiles. If you remove that cultural position, you farther weaken an already beleaguered establishment ( Sullivan? State? 18 ) . Marriage is the main agencies by which civilization maintains heterosexualism as a societal individuality, and is the societal kernel of heterosexualism. In effect, on the plane of symbols and individualities, if one did non acquire married, one wouldn? T be to the full heterosexual. Using the same statement, if others were allowed to acquire married, one wouldn? T be heterosexual either ( Mohr 22 ) . This analysis explains why our authorities can claim that matrimony by vit amin D efinition is the brotherhood of one adult male and one adult female as hubby and married woman, even though this definition is round, lacks any content, and defines nil. The map of this definition is non to clear up or explicate ; its map is to guarantee heterosexual domination as a cultural signifier. ( Mohr 22 ) Supporting the civil brotherhood while opposing matrimony is an incoherent place, based more on sentiment than on ground, more on bias than rule. Marriage, under any reading of American constitutional jurisprudence, is among the most basic civil rights. # 8220 ; Separate but equal # 8221 ; was a failed and baneful policy with respect to race ; it will be a failed and baneful policy with respect to sexual orientation. The many progresss of recent old ages, the # 8220 ; domestic partnership # 8221 ; Torahs passed in many metropoliss and provinces, the generous bundle of benefits eventually granted in Hawaii, the discovery in Vermont # 8211 ; should non be thrown out. But neither can they be accepted as a solution, as some consecutive progressives and cheery pragmatists seem to desire. In fact, these half-measures, far from sabotaging the instance for complete equality, merely sharpen it. For there are no statements for the civil brotherhood that do non use every bit to marriage. T o back one but non the other, to profess the substance of the affair while keep backing the name and signifier of the relationship, is to prosecute in an act of pure stigmatisation. It risks non merely perpetuating public favoritism against a group of citizens but adding to the cultural balkanization that already pestilences American public life ( Sullivan? State? 18 ) . Particular spiritual statements against same-sex matrimony are justly debated within the churches and faiths themselves. That is non the issue here: there is a separation between church and province in this state. Supporters are merely inquiring that when the authorities gives out civil matrimony licences, those who are homosexuals should be treated like anybody else. Of class, some argue that matrimony is by definition between a adult male and a adult female. But for centuries, matrimony was by definition a contract in which the married woman was her hubby # 8217 ; s legal belongings. And that changed. For centuries, matrimony was by definition between two people of the same race. That besides changed. These things were changed because society recognized that human self-respect is the same whether one is a adult male or a adult female, black or white. No 1 has any more of a pick to be gay than to be black or white or male or female ( Sullivan? Let Gays? 26 ) The affair is finally simple plenty. Gay work forces and adult females are citizens of this state. After two centuries of invisibleness and persecution, they deserve to be recognized as such. A random adult female can get married a multimillionaire on a Fox Television special and the jurisprudence will harmonize that matrimony no less cogency than a womb-to-tomb committedness between Billy Graham and his married woman. The tribunals have upheld an perfectly unrestricted right to get married for defaulter pas, work forces with countless divorces behind them, captives on decease row, even the insane. In all this, we make a differentiation between what spiritual and moral tradition, expect of matrimony and what civil governments require approving it under jurisprudence. It may good be that some spiritual traditions want to continue matrimony for straight persons in order to promote unambiguously heterosexual virtuousnesss. And they may hold good ground to make so. But civil jurisprudenc e asks merely four inquiries before passing out a matrimony licence: Are you an grownup ; are you already married ; are you related to the individual you intend to get married ; and are you directly? It # 8217 ; s that last inquiry that rankles. When civil jurisprudence already permits the delinquent, the divorced, the imprisoned, the sterile, and the insane to get married, it seems uncovering that it draws the line at homophiles ( Sullivan? State? 18 ) . Mohr, Richard D. # 8220 ; The Stakes in the Gay Marriage Wars. # 8221 ; The Gay and Lesbian Review 2000: 22. # 8220 ; Should Gay Marriage be Legal? # 8221 ; U.S. News A ; World Report 3 June 1996: 31. Sullivan, Andrew. # 8220 ; Let Gays Marry. # 8221 ; Newsweek 3 June 1996: 26. # 8212 ; . # 8220 ; State of the Union # 8211 ; Why # 8220 ; Civil Union # 8221 ; Isn # 8217 ; t Marriage. # 8221 ; The New Republic 8 May 2000: 18.