As a college student with the goal of one day becoming a doctor, I find myself strategically selecting the courses I will need for this future career. However, after reviewing many schools' course requirements for this field of study, I begin to wonder why we must take all of the classes they require. The countless Literature, History, and Math classes we must take tend to be somewhat irrelevant.
Many students go in to school knowing exactly what they want to do with the rest of their life, yet they must go through four years of college, studying completely irrelevant subjects, that more than likely will never be used again. We should not be required to spend countless hours studying, and even years of schooling, on top of all the money for tuition, to take classes unrelated to what our major focus is. Rather, we should spend more time focusing on what we plan to have a career in.
I have argued this with many adults, who tell me that colleges require you to take these core classes so we will have a basic knowledge of these subjects. But I'd like to argue that we gain the basics in high school classes. Why repeat this at such a high cost to the wallet? My senior year in high school was a total waste of time because I have basically gone over the exact same thing my first year in college. Instead of wasting my time retaking courses I have already taken, I should be devoting my time learning new material.
If colleges adopted this new standard then the chances are more people would want to attend college and get a better education instead of skipping out on it and starting a career right out of high school. This would promote a more knowledgeable society who are not blanketed by ignorance.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Summer Vacation? Should it be removed?
Summer has always been a time that has brought great joy to all the kids and teachers in America. It is a time to finally stop worrying about all the grueling school work and just relax by the pool and take in the next couple months of freedom. Although I love summer as much as the next guy, does it really benefit society to take all that time off of school?
With the summer vacation students have a couple months to forget everything they had previously learned in the last 8 or so months in school. Then when they get back to school they have to spend at least a good month to catch back up so they can remember everything that they had forgot while vacationing in the summer. We all know that the more people use the knowledge they have the less likely they will forget about it in the future; so why not cut summer vacation entirely and just have school year around? It would not of course be twelve straight months of school. There would would weeks off intermittently where kids can relax, but not the a huge amount of time like in the summer. This way kids can have their time off but not have to waste time making up what they forgot in the summer; and the teachers will be able to fit in more material.
Although this seems all nice and dandy would it really work? I believe it would definitely be hard for the American society to grasp since they are so used to having their summers off. Plus Although summer vacation might hinder the learning curb for some students there are tons of summer camps and other activities for kids to learn from and make themselves better citizens that kids could not otherwise do in school. Also kids need a break from the pressures of school and have time to relax. In the end I believe taking away summer vacation would not be as beneficial as keeping it.
With the summer vacation students have a couple months to forget everything they had previously learned in the last 8 or so months in school. Then when they get back to school they have to spend at least a good month to catch back up so they can remember everything that they had forgot while vacationing in the summer. We all know that the more people use the knowledge they have the less likely they will forget about it in the future; so why not cut summer vacation entirely and just have school year around? It would not of course be twelve straight months of school. There would would weeks off intermittently where kids can relax, but not the a huge amount of time like in the summer. This way kids can have their time off but not have to waste time making up what they forgot in the summer; and the teachers will be able to fit in more material.
Although this seems all nice and dandy would it really work? I believe it would definitely be hard for the American society to grasp since they are so used to having their summers off. Plus Although summer vacation might hinder the learning curb for some students there are tons of summer camps and other activities for kids to learn from and make themselves better citizens that kids could not otherwise do in school. Also kids need a break from the pressures of school and have time to relax. In the end I believe taking away summer vacation would not be as beneficial as keeping it.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Child discipline
It seems to me that children in today's day and age are rather spoiled, impolite, and rebellious. As I work around kids almost all day I see many different kids and their behavior not only to their superiors such as their parents or me, but to the other children they play with as well. I am not saying all kids are brats. I am merely stating the obvious increased trend of unruly children. I believe this is due to a lack of enforcement of the rules on behalf of the parent. Parents are too concerned about either their own personal lives or their child's view of them to discipline their children properly when they misbehave. Also when they do punish them for their behavior it is not strict enough so the kids do not really understand the magnitude of the situation. Saying all of that brings me to the point of how should you punish your child, and what is socially acceptable now and days as a punishment. I am fully aware that I do not personal have any children of my own so I do not know first hand what it is like to be a parent but like everyone I was a kid once too and I know what my parents did in order to make me behave; plus I have some experience since I work with kids as my job.
I have always thought that good old fashion spankings could never fail to get the point across when a child has misbehaved. Unfortunately if parents start going around spanking their kids, especially in public, they could find themselves in an unwanted situation. I have seen it happen when a parent spanks their child in public for being bad then out of nowhere some liberal stranger who thinks it is wrong to spank their child sees it and calls the police claiming the parent is abusing their kid. Yes, there might be an extremely few cases of that but the majority of the time the parent was right to do what they did and it is no ones business to interfere with the rearing of someone's child. If physical punishment works best to teach the child not to misbehave then that is what needs to happen but there are other ways which society these days has deemed more acceptable. Now parents instead of physically punishing their child parents opt to take away things the child has or likes to do such as a toy, television, or fun event. They believe that this way the child wants to be better than in order to receive the thing they want most.
Both ways are good in that they get the point across but like we all know all kids are different and respond in totally different ways. What works for one child might not work for another child, so they parent has to change things up a little. The only thing is that parents should not be monitored by strangers and called into the cops for doing something that parents have been doing since the beginning of time. People just need to accept that some people discipline their children differently and not interfere, except if it is an extreme situation.
I have always thought that good old fashion spankings could never fail to get the point across when a child has misbehaved. Unfortunately if parents start going around spanking their kids, especially in public, they could find themselves in an unwanted situation. I have seen it happen when a parent spanks their child in public for being bad then out of nowhere some liberal stranger who thinks it is wrong to spank their child sees it and calls the police claiming the parent is abusing their kid. Yes, there might be an extremely few cases of that but the majority of the time the parent was right to do what they did and it is no ones business to interfere with the rearing of someone's child. If physical punishment works best to teach the child not to misbehave then that is what needs to happen but there are other ways which society these days has deemed more acceptable. Now parents instead of physically punishing their child parents opt to take away things the child has or likes to do such as a toy, television, or fun event. They believe that this way the child wants to be better than in order to receive the thing they want most.
Both ways are good in that they get the point across but like we all know all kids are different and respond in totally different ways. What works for one child might not work for another child, so they parent has to change things up a little. The only thing is that parents should not be monitored by strangers and called into the cops for doing something that parents have been doing since the beginning of time. People just need to accept that some people discipline their children differently and not interfere, except if it is an extreme situation.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Why have an Abortion?
In the eyes of many the biggest fear of having sex is having a baby. Unfortunately they have developed a method to abort a pregnancy and relieve the minds and lives of many who do not want their baby. The reasons for abortion are as numerous as can be thought of, but should abortion really be allowed? Everyone knows that having an abortion is ending a life, a life that could have had a chance to live but because of some parents choices are quickly squelched. I am aware that due to extenuating circumstances such as rape, many parents/women would want to have an abortion...but for all the parents who do not want to have a baby due to selfish reasons, why destroy a life?
Americans, specifically, these days put too much emphasis on what their own personal happiness, rather than the older values of responsibility and integrity. We all know in the 1950s if you had a kid you were stuck with it forever, but now if a woman gets pregnant she can just run down to the nearest clinic and have the child aborted without a second thought. Is that really what America has come too, a bunch of self-centered people who if inconvenienced just look for the easy way out instead of owning up to their problems?
I believe that abortion should not be allowed except for certain situations because people these days have been shirking out of their responsibilities as parents due to their own selfish desires. The government should regulate and go through each case individually to make sure that parents are held responsible for their actions. Also there are thousands of couples around the country who are unable to have their own child and would be very excited to have the chance to be a parent. In the end what reasons are their to end a life?
Americans, specifically, these days put too much emphasis on what their own personal happiness, rather than the older values of responsibility and integrity. We all know in the 1950s if you had a kid you were stuck with it forever, but now if a woman gets pregnant she can just run down to the nearest clinic and have the child aborted without a second thought. Is that really what America has come too, a bunch of self-centered people who if inconvenienced just look for the easy way out instead of owning up to their problems?
I believe that abortion should not be allowed except for certain situations because people these days have been shirking out of their responsibilities as parents due to their own selfish desires. The government should regulate and go through each case individually to make sure that parents are held responsible for their actions. Also there are thousands of couples around the country who are unable to have their own child and would be very excited to have the chance to be a parent. In the end what reasons are their to end a life?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Gay Marriage
With the rise of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s gay and lesbian relationships started to come out and speak for their rights as homosexuals. Though at first there were not enough people to obtain social support for their cause and to change societies mind about homosexuals but as social norms have changed so has societies view of gay rights. As more and more homosexuals speak out for gay rights society has been forced to deal with the issues.
With the implementation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by Bill Clinton, the right to gay marriage has been given to the states but protects the rights of all the other states when it comes to gay marriage, although this is not enough for some people. Citizens who do agree argue that by allowing gay marriages we, as citizens, are skewing the original meaning of the institution of marriage which is to be with one man and one woman. By allowing gay marriage we are permitting the fundamental values of marriage to be forever altered, and if we can so easily alter the values of marriage what stops it from being altered again and again? They believe that the values that were originally meant for union between a man and a woman be protected and not be changed to include the new false idea of what marriage should be. That is why many support the implementation of a federal amendment to halt infringements upon the institution of marriage and set the record straight that marriage is between a man and a woman.
On the other hand supporters of gay marriage want the rights and privileges that are set forth in Article IV in the constitution relating to individual rights and liberties and Article X talking about the rights given to the states. They argue that they are equal citizens who fight for their country and deserve equal rights and benefits of marriage just as does everyone else. They don’t want to be discriminated because they happen to love someone of the same sex just accepted for who they are. It is their belief that an adaptation to the constitution with an amendment saying that it is illegal to marry someone of the same sex is against the constitution and against what America, the land of the free, stands for.
I believe that homosexuals have their right to love whomever they wish and no one should stop them from doing so but I personally don’t approve of them violating the sacred bond of marriage which should be held between man and woman. I would definitely vote for an amendment to the constitution which prohibits gay marriage because I believe the institution of marriage should not be changed and the benefits should be reserved for those who have upheld those God given values.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Violence In the Media
Since the mid 1900s media violence has been an issue of debate, because of that many studies have been performed on the effect that this violence has on the youth of America. At first there was not such a huge problem because showing too much violence in the media was considered taboo, but as society has hungered for more interesting and exciting entertainment the appearance of violence has become extremely frequent and more violent. Therefore many people such as the Federal Communications Commission stepped up and said that there needed to be laws passed to regulate the violence that appears on the television so that the youth would not be influenced by this health issue. On the other hand others simply said that the parents need to supervise what their kids do and do not watch.
Those who support that the television should be regulated by the government believe this because of the substantial scientific evidence that they have amassed which deals with the health issues that affect the American youth due to violence on the television. They have surmised that children who watch violent images on the television are prone to act violently themselves while others might be desensitized to it. The glamorization of violence is largely charged with this affect on the youth because it sugar coats it and makes it seem like it is not a big deal and that it is acceptable. Supporters of television regulation believe that by regulating the programs which children are able to see will that they will live healthier better lives.
Though it is an undeniable fact violence on the television can have this affect on children, that doesn’t mean the right decision is to have government regulation on the television. Many who oppose government regulation feel that it is the parent’s job to determine what their children can and cannot watch. They believe that any action made to regulate violence on television would be a direct violation of the first amendment, the freedom of speech. Also even if they did decide to regulate it there would be no standard to which they could judge what exactly is violence and what is not. Finally, by regulating violence the government would be taking away the affect it has of portraying the truth and not covering up how life truly can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)