High Cost Of College Essay

Education for Free Every year many young people work hard to pass their school-leaving exams and enter a college. However, for many of them acquiring good marks is not the only worry. Unlike the lucky minority from wealthy families, they must also think about the ways of getting money to pay for their education. The government claims that free education is impossible, as there is no possibility to subsidize the universities and colleges with the budget funds. Moreover, when education is fully supported financially by the state, colleges lose their independence and the spirit of democracy and freedom. They also consider that students have a lot of opportunities to obtain the money they need. They can get a scholarship if they are really talented. They can work during their university years. Or they can also take a loan from a bank, which they will pay back after they have started working. Despite the numerous possibilities, for many students the cost of the education is still too high. Scholarships are very unlikely to cover the total cost and students who manage to obtain one successfully still have to work to earn their living. Earning enough money to pay for your college education is next to impossible with a part-time job, while working full-time leaves students with no time to study, which means that the money is actually wasted. And a bank loan is so huge that students have to pay it back for many years. To sum up, the cost of college is too high for many talented young people and this prevents them from getting higher education, which means our society actually loses potential professionals. I strongly believe that the state must take an active role in supporting education and if not make it free, provide enough money to reduce the cost at least by half.

How to Fake a French Accent

We love the beautiful accent that the French have when they speak English, and it can be fun or even useful to imitate it. If youre an actor, comedian, grand sà ©ducteur,  or even if you just have a French-themed Halloween costume, you can learn how to fake a French accent with this in-depth look at how the French speak English.* Please note that the pronunciation explanations are based on American English; some of them wont sound right to British and Australian ears. *Si vous à ªtes franà §ais, ne men voulez pas  ! Jai à ©crit cet article parce quil sagit dun sujet intà ©ressant et potentiellement utile. Franchement, jadore votre langue et jadore à ©galement votre accent quand vous parlez la mienne. Si vous voulez, vous pouvez utiliser ces tuyaux pour rà ©duire les traces de franà §ais dans votre anglais. Mais, à   mon avis, ce serait dommage. French-infused Vowels Nearly every English vowel is affected by the French accent. French has no diphthongs, so vowels are always shorter than their English counterparts. The long A, O, and U sounds in English, as in say, so, and Sue, are pronounced by French speakers like their similar but un-diphthonged French equivalents, as in the French words sais, seau, and sou. For example, English speakers pronounce say as [seI], with a diphthong made up of a long a sound followed by a sort of y sound. But French speakers will say [se] - no diphthong, no y sound. (Note that [xxx] indicates IPA spelling.) English vowel sounds which do not have close French equivalents are systematically replaced by other sounds: short A [à ¦], as in fat, is pronounced ah as in fatherlong A [eI] followed by a consonant, as in gate, is usually pronounced like the short e in getER at the end of a word, as in water, is always pronounced airshort I [I], as in sip, is always pronounced ee as in seeplong I [aI], as in kite, tends to be elongated and almost turned into two syllables: [ka it]short O [É‘], as in cot, is pronounced either uh as in cut, or oh as in coatU [ÊŠ] in words like full is usually pronounced oo as in fool Dropped Vowels, Syllabification, and Word Stress When faking a French accent, you need to pronounce all schwas (unstressed vowels). For reminder, native English speakers tend toward rmindr, but French speakers say ree-ma-een-dair. They will pronounce amazes ah-may-zez, with the final e fully stressed, unlike native speakers who will gloss over it: amazs. And the French often emphasize the -ed at the end of a verb, even if that means adding a syllable: amazed becomes ah-may-zed. Short words that native English speakers tend  to skim over or swallow will always be carefully pronounced by French speakers. The latter will say peanoot boo-tair and jelly, whereas native English speakers opt for peant buttr n jelly. Likewise, French speakers will usually not make contractions, instead pronouncing every word: I would go instead of Id go and She eez reh-dee rather than Shes ready. Because French has no word stress (all syllables are pronounced with the same emphasis), French speakers have a hard time with stressed syllables in English, and will usually pronounce everything at the same stress, like actually, which becomes ahk chew ah lee. Or they might stress the last syllable - particularly in words with more than two: computer is often said com-pu-TAIR. French-accented Consonants H is always silent in French, so the French will pronounce happy as appy. Once in a while, they might make a particular effort, usually resulting in an overly forceful H sound - even with words like hour and honest, in which the H is silent in English.J is likely to be pronounced zh like the G in massage.R will be pronounced either as in French  or as a tricky sound somewhere between W and L. Interestingly, if a word starting with a vowel has an R in the middle, some French speakers will mistakenly add an (overly forceful) English H in front of it. For example, arm might be pronounced hahrm. THs pronunciation will vary, depending on how its supposed to be pronounced in English: voiced TH [à °] is pronounced Z or DZ: this becomes zees or dzeesunvoiced TH [ÃŽ ¸] is pronounced S or T: thin turns into seen or teen Letters that should be silent at the beginning and end of words (psychology, lamb) are often pronounced. French-Tinted Grammar Just as English speakers often have trouble with  French possessive adjectives, mistakenly saying things like  son femme  for his wife, French speakers are likely to mix up  his  and  her, often favoring  his  even for female owners. They also tend to use  his  rather than  its  when talking about inanimate owners, e.g., This car has his own GPS. Similarly, since all  nouns have a gender  in French, native speakers will often refer to inanimate objects as  he  or  she  rather than  it. French speakers often use the pronoun  that  for a subject when they mean  it, as in thats just a thought rather than its just a thought. And theyll often say  this  instead of  that  in expressions like I love skiing and boating, things like this rather than ... things like that. Certain  singulars and plurals  are problematic, due to differences in French and English. For example, the French are likely to pluralize  furniture  and  spinach  because the French equivalents are plural:  les  meubles,  les  Ãƒ ©pinards. In the present tense, the French rarely remember to conjugate for the third person singular: he go, she want, it live. As for the past tense, because spoken French favors the  passà © composà ©Ã‚  to the  passà © simple, the French tend to overuse the formers literal equivalent, the English present perfect: I have gone to the movies yesterday. In questions, French speakers tend not to invert the subject and verb,  instead  asking where you are going? and what your name is? And they leave out the helping verb  do: what mean this word? or what this word mean? French-flavored Vocabulary Faux amis  are just as tricky for French speakers as they are for English speakers; try saying, as the French often do, actually instead of now, and nervous when you mean  Ãƒ ©nervà ©. You should also throw in occasional French words and phrases, such as: au contraire  - on the  contraryau revoir  - good-byebien  sà »r !  - of course!bon appà ©tit  - bon appetit, enjoy your mealbonjour  - hellocest-à  -dire  - that iscomment dit-on ___  ?  - how do you say ___?euh  - uh, umje  veux  dire  - I meanmerci  - thank younon  - nooh là  Ã‚  là  Ã‚  !  - oh dear!oui  - yespas  possible !  - no way!sil  vous  plaà ®t  - pleasevoilà  Ã‚  - there you go French Faces And, of course, theres nothing like  gestures  to make you look more French. We particularly recommend  les  bises,  la  moue, the  Gallic shrug and  dà ©licieux.

Analysis Of Daniel Kahneman s Thinking Fast And Slow Essay

In a paper published in 2011 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers tested the common caricature of legal realism that â€Å"justice is what the judge ate for breakfast†. They studied eight parole judges in Israel over 50 days in a 10 month period, who spent their entire days reviewing applications for parole. What they found was shocking, that the percentage of favorable rulings dropped gradually to nearly zero within each decision session and returned abruptly to around 65% after a break. This is illustrated in the diagram below, where dotted lines indicate food breaks. This was after accounting for different variables and checking for alternative explanations. This goes to show that the human mind is limited. Even moral decisions made by highly educated individuals cannot escape the curse of mental fatigue as shown by the Israelian judge study. The human rationality is also often plagued by hindsight bias, the anchoring effect, the bandwagon effect, negativity bias, amidst a whole list of cognitive biases, best illustrated in Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast Slow. If we could design a machine that can make decisions without the fallibility of human rationality, would it then be a better idea to let the machines make decisions on our behalf, and save us from the mistakes of our minds? My answer is that we should not allow machines to make moral decisions on our behalf. Humans’ rationality might not be perfect, but we are not irrational andShow MoreRelatedBook Review â€Å"Thinking, Fast and Slow†868 Words   |  4 PagesI read the international bestseller â€Å"Thinking, Fast and Slow† of Daniel Kahneman (Winner of the Nobel Prize) over the last 3-4 weeks. I think it is a very interesting book and it is describing very critically the human brain and mind, which gave me many insights into decision-making and errors we are doing automatically without noticing it every day. He is very often talking about System 1 and System 2. System 1 is fast; its intuitive, associative, metaphorical, automatic, impressionisticRead MoreThinking, Fast And Slow By Daniel Kahneman1286 Words   |  6 Pagesdistinctive book called, â€Å"Thinking, Fast and Slow† by Daniel Kahneman, is one of very few exquisite readings I’ve completed so far. Daniel Kahneman is a psychologist in Princeton University, and due to his research, he won a Nobel Prize in 2002 in economics. In the beginning of his book, he speaks of our cognitive System 1 and System 2 ways of thinking. System 1 generates feelings, impressions, and memory. It is very instinctive, automatic, and is considered quick thinking. System 2 on the other handRead MoreFrankenstein Pursuit Of Knowledge Essay1673 Words   |  7 Pages Among the many themes explored in Mary Shelley s timeless classic â€Å"Frankenstein†, the one I find to be most relevant and the one that truly resonated with me was the da ngers that stem from the pursuit of knowledge. This theme resonated with me for many reasons because, while the pursuit of knowledge has allowed humankind to exert and enjoy unparalleled and unprecedented power over the animal kingdom and the world itself, it’s a seemingly benign aspect of human nature that can paradoxically renderRead MoreTypes Of Evidence For Instructional Purposes Essay2330 Words   |  10 PagesStatistical analysis is hard for us to understand because our brain cannot easily comprehend statistical averages and it is difficult for us to acquire such knowledge (Kahneman, 2011). 5. Our personal experience is awful basis for knowledge because our brains never work perfectly. Our brains are fundamentally flawed due to the evolutionary biology of our species. Some of these flaws are based on older evolutionary adaptations suited for a simpler way of life. Many automatic thinking reflexes biasRead MoreStrategic Marketing Management337596 Words   |  1351 PagesStrategic and marketing analysis 2 Marketing auditing and the analysis of capability 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Learning objectives Introduction Reviewing marketing effectiveness The role of SWOT analysis Competitive advantage and the value chain Conducting effective audits Summary 3 Segmental, productivity and ratio analysis 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 Learning objectives Introduction The clarification of cost categories Marketing cost analysis: aims and methods An illustrationRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 Pagesand permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, or you may fax your request to 201-236-3290. Many of the designations by manufacturersRead MoreMarketing and E-commerce Business65852 Words   |  264 Pagesgraphics contained herein could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Microsoft and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time. Partial screen shots may be viewed in full within the software version specified. Microsoft ® and Windows ®, and Microsoft Office ® are registered trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation in the U.S.A. and other

Love Sex and Death

Question: Discuss about the Love Sex and Death. Answer: Introduction: The Same sex marriage can be identified as one of the most controversial socio-political debates of the recent times. A number of civilized states have legalized it whereas various countries are lagging behind because of religious regulations and societal prejudices (Djupe et al. 2016). However, the debate of the same sex marriage has often been supported and discouraged by a number of philosophic views or theories. The version of new natural law by Finnis and George, the argument of Richard Mohr and the stand point of Claudia Card against marriage have been identified a few mostly popular arguments in this regard. Here, in this essay, the author has made a critical assessment of these theories for identifying the most successful theory. The author has summed up the assessment with identifying the most popular and successful ideology in this regard. In conclusion, the summery has been provided with an insight into the three ideologies assessed by the author. Discussion: The idea of legalization of the same sex marriage has faced a number of criticisms. From religious to ethical, the law makers have identified quite a few points of view those are nullifying the importance any step in favour of this decision. On the other hand, over the years, scholars have also provided supporting arguments in favour of the homosexual unions. The theories like the new natural law or the criticism of marriage are holding a position against the idea of legalizing the same sex marriage. New natural law can be identified as the most common argument against the idea of same sex marriage. As mentioned by Anderson (2013) the new natural law states that the heterosexual union is the natural selection. Moreover, the natural instinct of all animal is essentially reproduction or procreation. Moreover, the creative approach of the heterosexual marriage is the matter of basic good. As mentioned by Finnis (1993) the heterosexual union is oriented toward children, but it is not extrinsically good (i.e. good because of its role in child-rearing); it is intrinsically good. Finniss version of the natural law has supported this idea. According to the authors, the state has no authority of discouraging the same sex marriage by criminalizing it. As mentioned by George (2013) the rephrase of the natural law theory by Finnis and George argues that it is important to respecting every basic good in every act. Hence, their ides states that one cannot act to destroy, damage, impede, violate or pursue an illusory form of basic good. As analysed by Finnis (1993) the version of the new natural law provided by them offers arguments against homosexuality as well as all form of non-marital sexual unions. As per this argument, the idea of same sex marriage restricts the marital (basic good) good. As mentioned by Contreras (2013) professor Finnis has mentioned that legalizing the same sex marriage would be an injustice. As per the thought of Finnis, legalizing the same sex marriage will disrupt the judgement that marriage is a committed and exclusive union between men a nd women with the aim of reproduction and providing the child a healthy familial life. However, as argued by Anderson (2013) the natural law supports the right of individual liberty. However, the scholars who are opposing the same sex marriage with the ground of natural laws are demeaning the idea of personal independence and liberty. Moreover as mentioned by Barker (2012) the idea of basic good is typically relative. Moreover, as argued by Becker (2012) the validity of the legal base cannot or must not be assessed with a religious view of natural law. On the other hand, the argument rose by Richard Mohr, has supported that idea of same sex marriage. As mentioned by Gilreath and Ward (2016) the idea of restricting the same sex marriage is limiting the access of ethical legal approach by this group of people. As discussed by Barker (2012) the substantive marriage philosophy of Mohr articulates marriage as intimacy given substance in the medium of everyday life, the day-to-day the fused intersection of love's sanctity and necessity's demand". The theories against the decision same sex marriage is its substantive nature, i.e. child rearing. However, as argued by Mohr (1995) the childless marriages should also not be recognised, not because the couples pattern of sexual intimacy but the absence of the act of child rearing. As mentioned by Barker (2012) Mohr has supported the same sex marriage under the light of the argument that the conservative form of marriage should be reformed to allow for the often open, communitarian nature of Gay multi-partner relationships. Moreover, Mohr has identified that the same sex couples are substantive enough with their responsibility divisions, familial roles and explicit companionship (Gruen 2013). Hence, the idea of contravening the nature or the natural good can be declined with its substantive nature. As argued by Mohr (1995) with the logic of the essential substantive nature of marriage, the same sex marriage cannot be criminalized. As identified by them the substantive marriage is neither essentially nor exclusively heterosexual and the homosexual couples are also maintaining the substantive nature of union it its various ways. Hence, as argued by Barker (2012) denial of recognition of same sex marriage is therefore irrational and unjustified. On the other hand, the professor of philosophy in the university of Wisconsin-Madison, Claudia Card has ignored the importance of legalizing the same sex marriage by criticising marriage itself. As mentioned by her, the legalization of marriage provides a legal right of the persons, property, and lives of the spouses to each other which makes both of them vulnerable to torture, rape, battery, stalking, mayhem, or murder (Card1996). As argued by Weston (2013) Card has rightly identified that the legalization of marriage promotes state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem. The major idea that the critics of same sex marriage in the light of Claudias argument is the legal approach of marriage will disrupt the sense of equality in the same sex unions. As argued by Rosenlee (2014) for the gay couples, marriage can be a dangerous idea, as it hols a patriarchal and heteroarchical foundations. On the other hand, as mentioned by Claudia, the legal access of the Person of the partner is more likely to make them vulnerable to physical abuse (Tietjens Meyers 2016). On the other hand, for the lesbian couples, Card has identified the idea of legalizing the same sex marriages will create the obligation for them to have a monogamist union, mainly in the United States (Card1996). As argued by Tietjens Meyers (2016) Card has opined that the legalization of same sex marriage will bring to peace or benefit to the lesbian or gay couples, rather it will complicate their union with a number of complex regulations. As mentioned by Weston (2013) Claudia Cards stand against the same sex marriage has actually stemmed out of the idea of eliminating marriage itself. As mentioned by Rosenlee (2014) the states and the legal regulations have made the marriage a political union. The benefits a couple can get through marriage like financial security, tax benefits or inheritance make the union a contact than a loving sacrament. As mentioned by Tietjens Meyers (2016) Card has never denied the injustice in the denial of the legal rights of marriage for the lesbians or gay couples. However, she has questioned the behind supporting the potentiality of loss of freedom and justice through any kind of marriage with its dominating, heterosexual ideologies. Now, as mentioned by Djupe et al. (2016) among the above-discussed three, the most popular argument is the new natural law argument against the legalization of same sex marriage. As mentioned by Becker (2012) this argument has got the religious support that can be identified as the strongest hold for this ideology. As argued by the supporters of the new natural law the same sex marriage is against the god set norms and it is contrary to the natural law and procreative objective of society (Djupe et al. 2016). Thus, the new natural law has got the support of the religious ideologies which craftily collects the support of the society. The lack of procreative or the reproductive nature is the most natural instinct of all animals. However, the nature of the same sex marriage contravenes this basic good. Now, as per the new natural law, supporting any act that restricts the potentiality of a good act is unethical. Thus, this argument has got a conservative ethical approach. Thus by integrating a religious, societal and ethical perspective, the new natural law has become the most successful and popular arguments among all of the three. Conclusion: In conclusion, it can be said that the arguments against the same sex marriage can have their own grounds. The new natural law has identified the contravening nature of the natural instincts of human beings, whereas the substantive marriage approach has denied the logic of lack of procreative nature of the same sex marriage. The first one has advocated the criminalization of same sex marriage whereas the latter one has supported its legalization. However, the argument upheld by Claudia Card has denied the legalized value of any form of marriage as identifying it pro-abusive, dominant and contrary to the freedom of the individuals. References: Anderson, E.A., 2013. A defense of the sterility objectionto the new natural lawyers argument against same-sex marriage. Ethical theory and moral practice, 16(4), pp.759-775. Barker, N., 2012. Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage. In Not The Marrying Kind (pp. 93-128). Macmillan Education UK. Becker, A.B., 2012. Determinants of public support for same-sex marriage: Generational cohorts, social contact, and shifting attitudes. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(4), pp.524-533. Card, C., 1996. Against marriage and motherhood. Hypatia, 11(3), pp.1-23. Contreras, F.J., 2013. Is the New Natural Law Theory Actually a Natural Law Theory?. In The Threads of Natural Law (pp. 179-189). Springer Netherlands. Djupe, P.A., Lewis, A.R. and Jelen, T.G., 2016. Rights, Reflection, and Reciprocity: Implications of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate for Tolerance and the Political Process. Politics and Religion, 9(03), pp.630-648. Finnis, J.M., 1993. Law, morality, and sexual orientation. Notre Dame L. Rev., 69, p.1049. George, R.P. ed., 2013. Reason, morality, and law: the philosophy of John Finnis. OUP Oxford. Gilreath, S. and Ward, A., 2016. Same-Sex Marriage, Religious Accommodation, and the Race Analogy. Wake Forest Univ. Legal Studies Paper Forthcoming. Gruen, L. ed., 2013. Sex, morality, and the law. Routledge. Mohr, R.D., 1995. Case for Gay Marriage. The Notre Dame JL Ethics Pub. Pol'y, 9, p.215. Rosenlee, L.H.L., 2014. Review of Oppression and Moral Agency: Essays in Honor of Claudia Card. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 41(1-2), pp.199-206. Tietjens Meyers, D., 2016. Surviving Evils and the Problem of Agency: An Essay Inspired by the Work of Claudia Card. Metaphilosophy, 47(4-5), pp.539-557. Weston, K., 2013. Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. Columbia University Press.