Some time ago, I received a call from Jim, a colleague of mine, who teaches physics. He asked me if I would do him a favor and be the referee on the grading of an examination question. I said sure, but I did not quite understand why he should need my help. He told me that he was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, but the student protested that it wasn't fair. He insisted that he deserved a perfect score if the system were not set up against the student. Finally, they agreed to take the matter to an impartial instructor. And I was selected.
I went to my colleague's office and read the examination question. It said: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer." The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, tie a long rope to it, lower the barometer to the street, and then bring it up and measure the length of the rope. The length of the rope will be the height of the building."
I laughed and pointed out to my colleague that we must admit the student really had a pretty strong case for full credit since he had indeed answered the question completely and correctly. On the other hand, I could also see the dilemma because if full credit were given to him it could mean a high grade for the student in his physics course. A high grade is supposed to prove competence in the course, but the answer he gave did not show his knowledge on the subject. "So, what would you do if you were me?" Jim asked. I suggested that the student have another try at answering the question. I was not surprised that my colleague agreed, but I was surprised that the student did, too.
I told the student that I would give him six minutes to answer the question. But I warned him that this time his answer should show some knowledge of physics. He sat down and picked up his pen. He appeared to be thinking hard. At the end of five minutes, however, I noticed that he had not put down a single word. I asked him if he wished to give up, but he said no. He had not written anything down because he had too many possible answers to this problem. He was just trying to decide which would be the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to go on. In the next minute, he dashed off his answer, which read: "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer and time its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula S = 1 /2 at2, calculate the height of the building."
At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He nodded yes, and I gave the student almost full credit.
When I left my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem. I was curious, so I asked him what they were. "Oh, yes," said the student. "There are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out in a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of a simple proportion, determine the height of the building. The beauty of this method is that you don't have to drop the barometer and break it."
"Fine," I said. "Any more?"
"Yes," said the student. "There is a very basic measurement method that people will like, because it is so simple and direct. In this method, you take the barometer and walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units. The only trouble with this method is that it doesn't require much knowledge of physics."
"Of course, if you prefer a more sophisticated method, a method that will really show some knowledge of physics, you can tie the barometer to the end of a rope, swing it as a pendulum and determine the value of'g' at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of'g' the height of the building can, in principle, be worked out."
Finally, he concluded that while there are many ways of solving the problem, "Probably the best and the most practical in a real-life situation is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: Mr. Superintendent, I have here a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of this building, I will gladly give you this barometer!"
At this point, I asked the student if he really didn't know the expected answer to this question. He smiled and admitted that he did, but said he was fed up with standard answers to standard questions. He couldn't understand why there should be so much emphasis on fixed rules rather than creative thinking. So he could not resist the temptation to play a little joke with the educational system, which had been thrown into such a panic by the successful launching of the Russian Sputnik.
At that moment I suddenly remembered the question: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? We teachers are always blaming the students for giving wrong answers. Perhaps we should ask ourselves whether we are always asking the right questions.
2010年9月24日星期五
The Monsters Are Due On Maple
It is Maple Street, a quiet, tree-lined, residential street in a typical American town. The houses have front porches where people sit and talk to each other across their lawns. STEVE BRAND polishes his car parked in front of his house. His neighbor, DON MARTIN, leans against the fender, watching him. A Good Humor man rides a bicycle and is just stopping to sell some ice cream to a couple of kids. Two women gossip on the front lawn. Another man waters his lawn.
At this moment one of the boys, TOMMY, looks up and listens to the sound of a tremendous roar from overhead. A flash of light plays on his face, then moves down the street past lawns and porches and rooftops, and then disappears. STEVE BRAND, the man who has been polishing his car, stands there speechless, staring upwards. He looks at DON MARTIN, his neighbor from across the street.
Steve: What was that? A meteor?
Don: That's what it looked like. I didn't hear any crash, though, did you?
Steve: Nope, I didn't hear anything except a roar.
Mrs. Brand (from her porch): Steve? What was that?
Steve: Guess it was a meteor, honey. Came awful close, didn't it?
Mrs. Brand: Much too close!
(People stand on their porches, watching and talking in low tones. We see a MAN screwing in a light bulb on a front porch, then getting down off the stool to turn on the switch and finding that nothing happens. A MAN working on an electric power mower plugs in the plug. He turns on the switch, on and off, but nothing happens. Through the window of a front porch a WOMAN is seen dialing her phone.)
Woman: Operator, operator, something's wrong with the phone, operator!
(MRS. BRAND comes out on the porch.)
Mrs. Brand (calling): Steve, the power's off. I had the soup on the stove, and the stove just stopped working.
Woman: Same thing over here. I can't get anybody on the phone, either. The phone seems to be dead.
First Voice: Electricity's off.
Second Voice: Phone won't work.
Third Voice: Can't get a thing on the radio.
Fourth Voice: My power mower won't move, won't work at all.
(PETE VAN HORN, a tall, thin man, is seen standing in front of his house.)
Van Horn: I'11 cut through the back yard . . . see if the power' s still on on Cherry Street. I'll be right back!
Steve: Doesn't make sense. Why should the power and the phone line go off all of a sudden?
Don: Maybe it's an electrical storm or something.
Charlie: That doesn't seem likely. Sky's just as blue as anything. Not a cloud. No lightning. No thunder. No nothing. How could it be a storm?
Woman: I can't get a thing on the radio. Not even the portable.
Charlie: Well, why don't you go downtown and check with the police, though they'll probably think we're crazy or something. A little power failure and right away we get all excited.
Steve: It isn't just the power failure, Charlie. If it was, we'd still be able to get a broadcast on the portable.
(There's a murmur of reaction to this. STEVE walks over to his car.)
Steve: I'll run downtown. We'll get this all straightened out. (STEVE gets into his car, turns the key. The engine is dead. He then gets out of the car.)
Steve: I don't understand it. It was working fine before—
Don: Out of gas?
Steve (shakes his head): I just had it filled up.
Woman: What does it mean?
Charlie: It's just as if. . . as if everything had stopped. ( Then he turns toward STEVE.) We'd better walk downtown.
Steve: OK, Charlie. ( He turns to look back at the car.) It couldn't be the meteor. A meteor couldn't do this.
(He and CHARLIE exchange a look. Then they start to walk away from the group. TOMMY, a serious-faced young boy tries to stop them.)
Tommy: Mr. Brand...you'd better not!
Steve: Why not?
Tommy: They don't want you to.
(STEVE and CHARLIE exchange a grin. STEVE looks back toward the boy.)
Steve: Who doesn't want us to?
Tommy (jerks his head in the general direction of the distant horizon): Them!
Steve: Them?
Charlie: Who are them?
Tommy (very intently): Whoever was in that thing that came by overhead. I don't think they want us to leave here.
(STEVE walks over to the boy. He kneels down in front of him. He forces his voice to remain gentle. He reaches out and holds the boy.)
Steve: What do you mean? What are you talking about?
Tommy: They don't want us to leave. That's why they shut everything off.
Steve: What makes you say that? Whatever gave you that idea?
Woman (from the crowd): Now isn't that the craziest thing you ever heard?
Tommy (persistently): It's always that way, in every story I ever read about a ship landing from outer space.
Woman (to the boy's mother, SALLY,): From outer space yet! Sally, you'd better get that boy of yours up to bed. He's been reading too many comic books or seeing too many movies or something!
Salty: Tommy, come over here and stop that kind of talk.
Steve: Go ahead, Tommy. We 'll be right back. And you 'll see. That wasn't any ship or anything like it. That was just a... a meteor or something. (He turns to the group, now trying to sound optimistic although he obviously doesn't feel that way himself.) Meteors can do some crazy things. Like sun spots.
Don: Sure. They raise Cain with radio reception all over the world. And this thing, being so close-why, there's no telling the sort of stuff it can do. (He wets his lips, smiles nervously.) Go ahead, Charlie. You and Steve go into town and see if that isn't what's causing it all.
(STEVE and CHARLIE again continue to walk away down the sidewalk. The people watch silently. TOMMY stares at them, biting his lips and finally calling out again.)
Tommy: Mr. Brand!
(The two men stop again.)
Tommy: Mr. Brand. . .please don't leave here.
(STEVE and CHARLIE stop once again and turn toward the boy. There's a murmur in the crowd, a murmur of irritation and concern.)
Tommy: You might not even be able to get to town. It was that way in the story. Nobody could leave, except—
Steve: Except who?
Tommy: Except the people they'd sent down ahead of them. They looked just like humans. And it wasn't until the ship landed that—(The boy suddenly stops again, conscious of his parents staring at him and of the sudden quietness of the crowd.)
Sally: Tommy, please, son, don't talk that way—
Man: The kid shouldn't talk that way... and we shouldn't stand here listening to him. Why, this is the craziest thing I ever heard of.
(STEVE walks toward the boy.)
Steve: Go ahead, Tommy. What about the people that they sent out ahead?
Tommy: That was the way they prepared things for the landing. They sent people who looked just like humans... but they weren't.
(There's laughter at this, but it's a laughter that comes from a desperate attempt to lighten the atmosphere.)
Charlie (rubs his jaw nervously): I wonder if Cherry Street's got the same deal we got. (He looks past the houses.) Where is Pete Van Horn, anyway? Didn't he get back yet?
(Suddenly there's the sound of a car's engine starting to turn over. LES GOODMAN is at the wheel of his car.)
Sally: Can you get it started, Les?
(GOODMAN gets out of the car, shaking his head.)
Goodman: No.
(As he walks toward the group, he stops suddenly. Behind him, the car engine starts up all by itself. GOODMAN whirls around and stares at it. His eyes go wide, and he runs over to his car. The people stare toward the car.)
Man: He got the car started somehow. He got his car started!
Woman: How come his car just started like that?
Sally: All by itself. He wasn't anywhere near it. It started all by itself.
(DON approaches the group: He stops a few feet away to look toward GOODMAN's car and then back toward the group.)
Don: And he never did come out to look at that thing that flew overhead. He wasn't even interested. (He turns to the faces in the group.) Why? Why didn't he come out with the rest of us to look?
Charlie: He was always an oddball. Him and his whole family.
Don: What do you say we ask him?
(The group suddenly starts toward the house.)
Steve: Wait a minute... wait a minute! Let's not be a mob!
(The people seem to pause for a moment. Then, much more quietly and slowly, they start to walk across the street. GOODMAN stands there alone, facing the people.)
Goodman: I just don't understand it. I tried to start it, and it wouldn't start. You saw me. (And now, just as suddenly as the engine started, it stops. There's a frightened murmuring of the people.)
Don: Maybe you can tell us. Nothing's working on this street. Nothing. No lights, no power, no radio. Nothing except one car—yours!
(The people pick this up, and their murmuring becomes a loud chant filling the air with demands for action.)
Goodman: Wait a minute now. You keep your distance—all of you. So I've got a car that starts by itself—well, that's weird—I admit it. But does that make me a criminal or something? I don't know why the car works—it just does!
(This stops the crowd, and GOODMAN, still backing away, goes up the steps and then stops to face the mob.)
Goodman: What's it all about, Steve?
Steve (quietly): Seems that the general impression holds that maybe the people in one family aren't what we think they are. Monsters from outer space or something. Different from us. You know anybody that might fit that description around here on Maple Street?
Goodman: What is this, a practical joke or something?
(Suddenly the engine of the car starts all by itself again, runs for a moment, and stops. The people once again react.)
Goodman: Now that's supposed to make me a criminal, huh? The car engine goes on and off? (He looks around at the faces of the people.) I just don't understand it... any more than any of you do! (He wets his lips, looking from face to face.) Look, you all know me. We've lived here five years. Right in this house. We're no different from any of you!
Woman: Well, if that's the case, Les Goodman, explain why—(She stops suddenly.)
Goodman (softly): Explain what?
Steve: (cutting in): Look, let's forget this—
Charlie: Go ahead; let her talk. What about it? Explain what?
Woman (a little reluctantly): Well... sometimes I go to bed late at night. A couple of times... I'd come out here on the porch and I'd see Mr. Goodman here standing out in front of his house... looking up at the sky. (She looks around at the circle of faces.) That's right, looking up at the sky as if... as if he were waiting for something.
Goodman: She's crazy. Look, I can explain that. Please... I can really explain that. She's making it up anyway.
(He takes a step toward the crowd, and they back away. He walks down the steps after them, and they continue to back away. He's suddenly and completely left alone. He looks like a man caught in the middle of a menacing circle.)
Read the text a second time. Learn the new words and expressions listed below.
At this moment one of the boys, TOMMY, looks up and listens to the sound of a tremendous roar from overhead. A flash of light plays on his face, then moves down the street past lawns and porches and rooftops, and then disappears. STEVE BRAND, the man who has been polishing his car, stands there speechless, staring upwards. He looks at DON MARTIN, his neighbor from across the street.
Steve: What was that? A meteor?
Don: That's what it looked like. I didn't hear any crash, though, did you?
Steve: Nope, I didn't hear anything except a roar.
Mrs. Brand (from her porch): Steve? What was that?
Steve: Guess it was a meteor, honey. Came awful close, didn't it?
Mrs. Brand: Much too close!
(People stand on their porches, watching and talking in low tones. We see a MAN screwing in a light bulb on a front porch, then getting down off the stool to turn on the switch and finding that nothing happens. A MAN working on an electric power mower plugs in the plug. He turns on the switch, on and off, but nothing happens. Through the window of a front porch a WOMAN is seen dialing her phone.)
Woman: Operator, operator, something's wrong with the phone, operator!
(MRS. BRAND comes out on the porch.)
Mrs. Brand (calling): Steve, the power's off. I had the soup on the stove, and the stove just stopped working.
Woman: Same thing over here. I can't get anybody on the phone, either. The phone seems to be dead.
First Voice: Electricity's off.
Second Voice: Phone won't work.
Third Voice: Can't get a thing on the radio.
Fourth Voice: My power mower won't move, won't work at all.
(PETE VAN HORN, a tall, thin man, is seen standing in front of his house.)
Van Horn: I'11 cut through the back yard . . . see if the power' s still on on Cherry Street. I'll be right back!
Steve: Doesn't make sense. Why should the power and the phone line go off all of a sudden?
Don: Maybe it's an electrical storm or something.
Charlie: That doesn't seem likely. Sky's just as blue as anything. Not a cloud. No lightning. No thunder. No nothing. How could it be a storm?
Woman: I can't get a thing on the radio. Not even the portable.
Charlie: Well, why don't you go downtown and check with the police, though they'll probably think we're crazy or something. A little power failure and right away we get all excited.
Steve: It isn't just the power failure, Charlie. If it was, we'd still be able to get a broadcast on the portable.
(There's a murmur of reaction to this. STEVE walks over to his car.)
Steve: I'll run downtown. We'll get this all straightened out. (STEVE gets into his car, turns the key. The engine is dead. He then gets out of the car.)
Steve: I don't understand it. It was working fine before—
Don: Out of gas?
Steve (shakes his head): I just had it filled up.
Woman: What does it mean?
Charlie: It's just as if. . . as if everything had stopped. ( Then he turns toward STEVE.) We'd better walk downtown.
Steve: OK, Charlie. ( He turns to look back at the car.) It couldn't be the meteor. A meteor couldn't do this.
(He and CHARLIE exchange a look. Then they start to walk away from the group. TOMMY, a serious-faced young boy tries to stop them.)
Tommy: Mr. Brand...you'd better not!
Steve: Why not?
Tommy: They don't want you to.
(STEVE and CHARLIE exchange a grin. STEVE looks back toward the boy.)
Steve: Who doesn't want us to?
Tommy (jerks his head in the general direction of the distant horizon): Them!
Steve: Them?
Charlie: Who are them?
Tommy (very intently): Whoever was in that thing that came by overhead. I don't think they want us to leave here.
(STEVE walks over to the boy. He kneels down in front of him. He forces his voice to remain gentle. He reaches out and holds the boy.)
Steve: What do you mean? What are you talking about?
Tommy: They don't want us to leave. That's why they shut everything off.
Steve: What makes you say that? Whatever gave you that idea?
Woman (from the crowd): Now isn't that the craziest thing you ever heard?
Tommy (persistently): It's always that way, in every story I ever read about a ship landing from outer space.
Woman (to the boy's mother, SALLY,): From outer space yet! Sally, you'd better get that boy of yours up to bed. He's been reading too many comic books or seeing too many movies or something!
Salty: Tommy, come over here and stop that kind of talk.
Steve: Go ahead, Tommy. We 'll be right back. And you 'll see. That wasn't any ship or anything like it. That was just a... a meteor or something. (He turns to the group, now trying to sound optimistic although he obviously doesn't feel that way himself.) Meteors can do some crazy things. Like sun spots.
Don: Sure. They raise Cain with radio reception all over the world. And this thing, being so close-why, there's no telling the sort of stuff it can do. (He wets his lips, smiles nervously.) Go ahead, Charlie. You and Steve go into town and see if that isn't what's causing it all.
(STEVE and CHARLIE again continue to walk away down the sidewalk. The people watch silently. TOMMY stares at them, biting his lips and finally calling out again.)
Tommy: Mr. Brand!
(The two men stop again.)
Tommy: Mr. Brand. . .please don't leave here.
(STEVE and CHARLIE stop once again and turn toward the boy. There's a murmur in the crowd, a murmur of irritation and concern.)
Tommy: You might not even be able to get to town. It was that way in the story. Nobody could leave, except—
Steve: Except who?
Tommy: Except the people they'd sent down ahead of them. They looked just like humans. And it wasn't until the ship landed that—(The boy suddenly stops again, conscious of his parents staring at him and of the sudden quietness of the crowd.)
Sally: Tommy, please, son, don't talk that way—
Man: The kid shouldn't talk that way... and we shouldn't stand here listening to him. Why, this is the craziest thing I ever heard of.
(STEVE walks toward the boy.)
Steve: Go ahead, Tommy. What about the people that they sent out ahead?
Tommy: That was the way they prepared things for the landing. They sent people who looked just like humans... but they weren't.
(There's laughter at this, but it's a laughter that comes from a desperate attempt to lighten the atmosphere.)
Charlie (rubs his jaw nervously): I wonder if Cherry Street's got the same deal we got. (He looks past the houses.) Where is Pete Van Horn, anyway? Didn't he get back yet?
(Suddenly there's the sound of a car's engine starting to turn over. LES GOODMAN is at the wheel of his car.)
Sally: Can you get it started, Les?
(GOODMAN gets out of the car, shaking his head.)
Goodman: No.
(As he walks toward the group, he stops suddenly. Behind him, the car engine starts up all by itself. GOODMAN whirls around and stares at it. His eyes go wide, and he runs over to his car. The people stare toward the car.)
Man: He got the car started somehow. He got his car started!
Woman: How come his car just started like that?
Sally: All by itself. He wasn't anywhere near it. It started all by itself.
(DON approaches the group: He stops a few feet away to look toward GOODMAN's car and then back toward the group.)
Don: And he never did come out to look at that thing that flew overhead. He wasn't even interested. (He turns to the faces in the group.) Why? Why didn't he come out with the rest of us to look?
Charlie: He was always an oddball. Him and his whole family.
Don: What do you say we ask him?
(The group suddenly starts toward the house.)
Steve: Wait a minute... wait a minute! Let's not be a mob!
(The people seem to pause for a moment. Then, much more quietly and slowly, they start to walk across the street. GOODMAN stands there alone, facing the people.)
Goodman: I just don't understand it. I tried to start it, and it wouldn't start. You saw me. (And now, just as suddenly as the engine started, it stops. There's a frightened murmuring of the people.)
Don: Maybe you can tell us. Nothing's working on this street. Nothing. No lights, no power, no radio. Nothing except one car—yours!
(The people pick this up, and their murmuring becomes a loud chant filling the air with demands for action.)
Goodman: Wait a minute now. You keep your distance—all of you. So I've got a car that starts by itself—well, that's weird—I admit it. But does that make me a criminal or something? I don't know why the car works—it just does!
(This stops the crowd, and GOODMAN, still backing away, goes up the steps and then stops to face the mob.)
Goodman: What's it all about, Steve?
Steve (quietly): Seems that the general impression holds that maybe the people in one family aren't what we think they are. Monsters from outer space or something. Different from us. You know anybody that might fit that description around here on Maple Street?
Goodman: What is this, a practical joke or something?
(Suddenly the engine of the car starts all by itself again, runs for a moment, and stops. The people once again react.)
Goodman: Now that's supposed to make me a criminal, huh? The car engine goes on and off? (He looks around at the faces of the people.) I just don't understand it... any more than any of you do! (He wets his lips, looking from face to face.) Look, you all know me. We've lived here five years. Right in this house. We're no different from any of you!
Woman: Well, if that's the case, Les Goodman, explain why—(She stops suddenly.)
Goodman (softly): Explain what?
Steve: (cutting in): Look, let's forget this—
Charlie: Go ahead; let her talk. What about it? Explain what?
Woman (a little reluctantly): Well... sometimes I go to bed late at night. A couple of times... I'd come out here on the porch and I'd see Mr. Goodman here standing out in front of his house... looking up at the sky. (She looks around at the circle of faces.) That's right, looking up at the sky as if... as if he were waiting for something.
Goodman: She's crazy. Look, I can explain that. Please... I can really explain that. She's making it up anyway.
(He takes a step toward the crowd, and they back away. He walks down the steps after them, and they continue to back away. He's suddenly and completely left alone. He looks like a man caught in the middle of a menacing circle.)
Read the text a second time. Learn the new words and expressions listed below.
Message of the Land Pira Sudham
Yes, these are our rice fields. They belonged to my parents and forefathers. The land is more than three centuries old. I'm the only daughter in our family and it was I who stayed with my parents till they died. My three brothers moved out to their wives' houses when they got married. My husband moved into our house as is the way with us in Esarn. I was then eighteen and he was nineteen. He gave me six children. Two died in infancy from sickness. The rest, two boys and two girls, went away as soon as we could afford to buy jeans for them. Our oldest son got a job as a gardener in a rich man's home in Bangkok but later an employment agency sent him to a foreign land to work. My other son also went far away.
One of our daughters is working in a textile factory in Bangkok, and the other has a job in a store. They come home to see us now and then, stay a few days, and then they are off again. Often they send some money to us and tell us that they are doing well. I know this is not always true. Sometimes, they get bullied and insulted, and it is like a knife piercing my heart. It's easier for my husband. He has ears which don't hear, a mouth which doesn't speak, and eyes that don't see. He has always been patient and silent, minding his own life.
All of them remain my children in spite of their long absence. Maybe it's fate that sent them away from us. Our piece of land is small, and it is no longer fertile, bleeding year after year and, like us, getting old and exhausted. Still my husband and I work on this land. The soil is not difficult to till when there is a lot of rain, but in a bad year, it's not only the ploughs that break but our hearts, too.
No, we two haven't changed much, but the village has. In what way? Only ten years ago, you could barter for things, but now it's all cash. Years ago, you could ask your neighbors to help build your house, reap the rice or dig a well. Now they'll do it only if you have money to pay them. Plastic things replace village crafts. Men used to make things with fine bamboo pieces, but no longer. Plastic bags litter the village. Shops have sprung up, filled with colorful plastic things and goods we have no use for. The young go away to towns and cities leaving us old people to work on the land. They think differently, I know, saying that the old are old-fashioned. All my life, I have never had to go to a hairdresser, or to paint my lips or nails. These rough fingers and toes are for working in the mud of our rice fields, not for looking pretty. Now young girls put on jeans, and look like boys and they think it is fashionable. Why, they are willing to sell their pig or water buffalo just to be able to buy a pair of jeans. In my day, if I were to put on a pair of trousers like they do now, lightning would strike me.
I know, times have changed, but certain things should not change. We should offer food to the monks every day, go to the temple regularly. Young people tend to leave these things to old people now, and that's a shame.
Why, only the other day I heard a boy shout and scream at his mother. If that kind of thing had happened when I was young, the whole village would have condemned such an ungrateful son, and his father would surely have given him a good beating.
As for me, I wouldn't change, couldn't change even if I wanted to. Am I happy or unhappy? This question has never occurred to me. Life simply goes on. Yes, this bag of bones dressed in rags can still plant and reap rice from morning till dusk. Disease, wounds, hardship and scarcity have always been part of my life. I don't complain.
The farmer: My wife is wrong. My eyes do see—they see more than they should. My ears do hear—they hear more than is good for me. I don't talk about what I know because I know too much. I know for example, greed, anger, and lust are the root of all evils.
I am at peace with the land and the conditions of my life. But I feel a great pity for my wife. I have been forcing silence upon her all these years, yet she has not once complained of anything.
I wanted to have a lot of children and grandchildren around me but now cities and foreign lands have attracted my children away and it seems that none of them will ever come back to live here again. To whom shall I give these rice fields when I die? For hundreds of years this strip of land has belonged to our family. I know every inch of it. My children grew up on it, catching frogs and mud crabs and gathering flowers. Still the land could not tie them down or call them back. When each of them has a pair of jeans, they are off like birds on the wing.
Fortunately, my wife is still with me, and both of us are still strong. Wounds heal over time. Sickness comes and goes, and we get back on our feet again. I never want to leave this land. It's nice to feel the wet earth as my fingers dig into the soil, planting rice, to hear my wife sighing, "Old man, if I die first, I shall become a cloud to protect you from the sun." It's good to smell the scent of ripening rice in November. The soft cool breeze moves the sheaves, which ripple and shimmer like waves of gold. Yes, I love this land and I hope one of my children comes back one day to live, and gives me grandchildren so that I can pass on the land's secret messages to them.
One of our daughters is working in a textile factory in Bangkok, and the other has a job in a store. They come home to see us now and then, stay a few days, and then they are off again. Often they send some money to us and tell us that they are doing well. I know this is not always true. Sometimes, they get bullied and insulted, and it is like a knife piercing my heart. It's easier for my husband. He has ears which don't hear, a mouth which doesn't speak, and eyes that don't see. He has always been patient and silent, minding his own life.
All of them remain my children in spite of their long absence. Maybe it's fate that sent them away from us. Our piece of land is small, and it is no longer fertile, bleeding year after year and, like us, getting old and exhausted. Still my husband and I work on this land. The soil is not difficult to till when there is a lot of rain, but in a bad year, it's not only the ploughs that break but our hearts, too.
No, we two haven't changed much, but the village has. In what way? Only ten years ago, you could barter for things, but now it's all cash. Years ago, you could ask your neighbors to help build your house, reap the rice or dig a well. Now they'll do it only if you have money to pay them. Plastic things replace village crafts. Men used to make things with fine bamboo pieces, but no longer. Plastic bags litter the village. Shops have sprung up, filled with colorful plastic things and goods we have no use for. The young go away to towns and cities leaving us old people to work on the land. They think differently, I know, saying that the old are old-fashioned. All my life, I have never had to go to a hairdresser, or to paint my lips or nails. These rough fingers and toes are for working in the mud of our rice fields, not for looking pretty. Now young girls put on jeans, and look like boys and they think it is fashionable. Why, they are willing to sell their pig or water buffalo just to be able to buy a pair of jeans. In my day, if I were to put on a pair of trousers like they do now, lightning would strike me.
I know, times have changed, but certain things should not change. We should offer food to the monks every day, go to the temple regularly. Young people tend to leave these things to old people now, and that's a shame.
Why, only the other day I heard a boy shout and scream at his mother. If that kind of thing had happened when I was young, the whole village would have condemned such an ungrateful son, and his father would surely have given him a good beating.
As for me, I wouldn't change, couldn't change even if I wanted to. Am I happy or unhappy? This question has never occurred to me. Life simply goes on. Yes, this bag of bones dressed in rags can still plant and reap rice from morning till dusk. Disease, wounds, hardship and scarcity have always been part of my life. I don't complain.
The farmer: My wife is wrong. My eyes do see—they see more than they should. My ears do hear—they hear more than is good for me. I don't talk about what I know because I know too much. I know for example, greed, anger, and lust are the root of all evils.
I am at peace with the land and the conditions of my life. But I feel a great pity for my wife. I have been forcing silence upon her all these years, yet she has not once complained of anything.
I wanted to have a lot of children and grandchildren around me but now cities and foreign lands have attracted my children away and it seems that none of them will ever come back to live here again. To whom shall I give these rice fields when I die? For hundreds of years this strip of land has belonged to our family. I know every inch of it. My children grew up on it, catching frogs and mud crabs and gathering flowers. Still the land could not tie them down or call them back. When each of them has a pair of jeans, they are off like birds on the wing.
Fortunately, my wife is still with me, and both of us are still strong. Wounds heal over time. Sickness comes and goes, and we get back on our feet again. I never want to leave this land. It's nice to feel the wet earth as my fingers dig into the soil, planting rice, to hear my wife sighing, "Old man, if I die first, I shall become a cloud to protect you from the sun." It's good to smell the scent of ripening rice in November. The soft cool breeze moves the sheaves, which ripple and shimmer like waves of gold. Yes, I love this land and I hope one of my children comes back one day to live, and gives me grandchildren so that I can pass on the land's secret messages to them.
Going Home Pete Hamill
They were going to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. There were six of them, three boys and three girls, and they got on the bus at 34th Street, carrying sandwiches and wine in paper bags. They were dreaming of golden beaches and sea tides as the grey, cold spring of New York vanished behind them. Vingo was on the bus from the beginning.
As the bus passed through New Jersey, they began to notice that Vingo never moved. He sat in front of the young people, his dusty face masking his age, dressed in a plain brown suit that did not fit him. His fingers were stained from cigarettes and he chewed the inside of his lip a lot. He sat in complete silence and seemed completely unaware of the existence of the others.
Deep into the night, the bus pulled into a Howard Johnson's restaurant and everybody got off the bus except Vingo. The young people began to wonder about him, trying to imagine his life: perhaps he was a sea captain; maybe he had run away from his wife; he could be an old soldier going home. When they went back to the bus, one of the girls became so curious that she decided to engage him in a conversation. She sat down beside him and introduced herself.
"We're going to Florida," the girl said brightly. "You going that far?"
"I don't know," Vingo said.
"I've never been there," she said. " I hear it's beautiful."
"It is," he said quietly, as if remembering something he had tried to forget.
"You live there?"
"I was there in the Navy, at the base in Jacksonville".
"Want some wine?" she said. He smiled and took a swig from the bottle. He thanked her and retreated again into his silence. After a while, she went back to the others as Vingo nodded in sleep.
In the morning they awoke outside another Howard Johnson's and this time Vingo went in. The girl insisted that he join them. He seemed very shy and ordered black coffee and smoked nervously, as the young people chattered about sleeping on beaches. When they got back on the bus, the girl sat with Vingo again. After a while, slowly and painfully, he began to tell his story. He had been in jail in New York for the last four years, and now he was going home.
"Are you married?"
"I don' t know."
"You don't know?" she said.
"Well, when I was in jail I wrote to my wife. I said, 'Martha, I understand if you can't stay married to me.' I said I was going to be away a long time, and that if she couldn't stand it, if the kids kept asking questions, if it hurt her too much, well, she could just forget me. Get a new guy—she's a wonderful woman, really something—and forget about me. I told her she didn't have to write to me or anything, and she didn't. Not for three-and-a-half years."
"And you're going home now, not knowing?"
"Yeah," he said shyly. "Well, last week, when I was sure the parole was coming through I wrote her again. I told her that if she had a new guy, I understood. But, if she didn't, if she would take me back she should let me know. We used to live in Brunswick, and there' s a great oak tree just as you come into town. I told her if she would take me back, she should tie a yellow ribbon to the tree, and I would get off and come home. If she didn't want me, forget it, no ribbon and I'd understand and keep going on through."
"Wow," the girl said. "Wow."
She told the others, and soon all of them were caught up in the approach of Brunswick, looking at the pictures Vingo showed them of his wife and three children. Now they were 20 miles from Brunswick, and the young people took the window seats on the right side, waiting for the approach of the great oak tree. Vingo stopped looking, tightening his face into the ex-con's mask, as if fortifying himself against still another disappointment. Then it was 10 miles, and then five, and the bus became very quiet.
Then suddenly all of the young people were up out of their seats, screaming and shouting and crying, doing small dances, shaking clenched fists in triumph and exaltation. All except Vingo.
Vingo sat there stunned, looking at the oak tree through his misty eyes. The tree was covered with yellow ribbons, 30 of them, 50 of them, maybe hundreds, a tree that stood like a banner of welcome, blowing and billowing in the wind. As the young people shouted, the old con slowly rose from his seat, holding himself tightly, and made his way to the front of the bus to go home.
As the bus passed through New Jersey, they began to notice that Vingo never moved. He sat in front of the young people, his dusty face masking his age, dressed in a plain brown suit that did not fit him. His fingers were stained from cigarettes and he chewed the inside of his lip a lot. He sat in complete silence and seemed completely unaware of the existence of the others.
Deep into the night, the bus pulled into a Howard Johnson's restaurant and everybody got off the bus except Vingo. The young people began to wonder about him, trying to imagine his life: perhaps he was a sea captain; maybe he had run away from his wife; he could be an old soldier going home. When they went back to the bus, one of the girls became so curious that she decided to engage him in a conversation. She sat down beside him and introduced herself.
"We're going to Florida," the girl said brightly. "You going that far?"
"I don't know," Vingo said.
"I've never been there," she said. " I hear it's beautiful."
"It is," he said quietly, as if remembering something he had tried to forget.
"You live there?"
"I was there in the Navy, at the base in Jacksonville".
"Want some wine?" she said. He smiled and took a swig from the bottle. He thanked her and retreated again into his silence. After a while, she went back to the others as Vingo nodded in sleep.
In the morning they awoke outside another Howard Johnson's and this time Vingo went in. The girl insisted that he join them. He seemed very shy and ordered black coffee and smoked nervously, as the young people chattered about sleeping on beaches. When they got back on the bus, the girl sat with Vingo again. After a while, slowly and painfully, he began to tell his story. He had been in jail in New York for the last four years, and now he was going home.
"Are you married?"
"I don' t know."
"You don't know?" she said.
"Well, when I was in jail I wrote to my wife. I said, 'Martha, I understand if you can't stay married to me.' I said I was going to be away a long time, and that if she couldn't stand it, if the kids kept asking questions, if it hurt her too much, well, she could just forget me. Get a new guy—she's a wonderful woman, really something—and forget about me. I told her she didn't have to write to me or anything, and she didn't. Not for three-and-a-half years."
"And you're going home now, not knowing?"
"Yeah," he said shyly. "Well, last week, when I was sure the parole was coming through I wrote her again. I told her that if she had a new guy, I understood. But, if she didn't, if she would take me back she should let me know. We used to live in Brunswick, and there' s a great oak tree just as you come into town. I told her if she would take me back, she should tie a yellow ribbon to the tree, and I would get off and come home. If she didn't want me, forget it, no ribbon and I'd understand and keep going on through."
"Wow," the girl said. "Wow."
She told the others, and soon all of them were caught up in the approach of Brunswick, looking at the pictures Vingo showed them of his wife and three children. Now they were 20 miles from Brunswick, and the young people took the window seats on the right side, waiting for the approach of the great oak tree. Vingo stopped looking, tightening his face into the ex-con's mask, as if fortifying himself against still another disappointment. Then it was 10 miles, and then five, and the bus became very quiet.
Then suddenly all of the young people were up out of their seats, screaming and shouting and crying, doing small dances, shaking clenched fists in triumph and exaltation. All except Vingo.
Vingo sat there stunned, looking at the oak tree through his misty eyes. The tree was covered with yellow ribbons, 30 of them, 50 of them, maybe hundreds, a tree that stood like a banner of welcome, blowing and billowing in the wind. As the young people shouted, the old con slowly rose from his seat, holding himself tightly, and made his way to the front of the bus to go home.
Half a Day Naguib Mahfous
I walked alongside my father, clutching his right hand. All my clothes were new: the black shoes, the green school uniform, and the red cap. They did not make me happy, however, as this was the day I was to be thrown into school for the first time.
My mother stood at the window watching our progress, and I turned towards her from time to time, hoping she would help. We walked along a street lined with gardens, and fields planted with crops: pears, and date palms.
"Why school ?" I asked my father. "What have I done ?"
"I'm not punishing you, " he said, laughing. "School's not a punishment. It's a place that makes useful men out of boys. Don' t you want to be useful like your brothers?"
I was not convinced. I did not believe there was really any good to be had in tearing me away from my home and throwing me into the huge, high-walled building.
When we arrived at the gate we could see the courtyard, vast and full of boys and girls. "Go in by yourself, " said my father, "and join them. Put a smile on your face and be a good example to others. "
I hesitated and clung to his hand, but he gently pushed me from him. "Be a man, " he said. "Today you truly begin life. You will find me waiting for you when it's time to leave. "
I took a few steps. Then the faces of the boys and girls came into view. I did not know a single one of them, and none of them knew me. I felt I was a stranger who had lost his way. But then some boys began to glance at me in curiosity, and one of them came over and asked, "Who brought you?"
"My father, " I whispered.
"My father's dead, " he said simply.
I did not know what to say. The gate was now closed. Some of the children burst into tears. The bell rang. A lady came along, followed by a group of men. The men began sorting us into ranks. We were formed into an intricate pattern in the great courtyard surrounded by high buildings; from each floor we were overlooked by a long balcony roofed in wood.
"This is your new home, "said the woman. "There are mothers and fathers here, too. Everything that is enjoyable and beneficial is here. So dry your tears and face life joyfully. "
Well, it seemed that my misgivings had had no basis. From the first moments I made many friends and fell in love with many girls. I had never imagined school would have this rich variety of experiences.
We played all sorts of games. In the music room we sang our first songs. We also had our first introduction to language. We saw a globe of the Earth, which revolved and showed the various continents and countries. We started learning numbers, and we were told the story of the Creator of the universe. We ate delicious food, took a little nap, and woke up to go on with friendship and love, playing and learning.
Our path, however, was not totally sweet and unclouded. We had to be observant and patient. It was not all a matter of playing and fooling around. Rivalries could bring about pain and hatred or give rise to fighting. And while the lady would sometimes smile, she would often yell and scold. Even more frequently she would resort to physical punishment.
In addition, the time for changing one' s mind was over and gone and there was no question of ever returning to the paradise of home. Nothing lay ahead of us but exertion, struggle, and perseverance. Those who were able took advantage of the opportunities for success and happiness that presented themselves.
The bell rang, announcing the passing of the day and the end of work. The children rushed toward the gate, which was opened again. I said goodbye to friends and sweethearts and passed through the gate. I looked around but found no trace of my father, who had promised to be there. I stepped aside to wait. When I had waited for a long time in vain, I decided to return home on my own. I walked a few steps, then came to a startled halt. Good Lord! Where was the street lined with gardens? Where had it disappeared to? When did all these cars invade it? And when did all these people come to rest on its surface? How did these hills of rubbish find their way to cover its sides? And where were the fields that bordered it? High buildings had taken over, the street was full of children, and disturbing noises shook the air. Here and there stood conjurers showing off their tricks or making snakes appear from baskets. Then there was a band announcing the opening of a circus, with clowns and weight lifters walking in front.
Good God! I was in a daze. My head spun. I almost went crazy. How could all this have happened in half a day, between early morning and sunset? I would find the answer at home with my father. But where was my home? I hurried towards the crossroads, because I remembered that I had to cross the street to reach our house, but the stream of cars would not let up. Extremely irritated, I wondered when I would be able to cross.
I stood there a long time, until the young boy employed at the ironing shop on the corner came up to me.
My mother stood at the window watching our progress, and I turned towards her from time to time, hoping she would help. We walked along a street lined with gardens, and fields planted with crops: pears, and date palms.
"Why school ?" I asked my father. "What have I done ?"
"I'm not punishing you, " he said, laughing. "School's not a punishment. It's a place that makes useful men out of boys. Don' t you want to be useful like your brothers?"
I was not convinced. I did not believe there was really any good to be had in tearing me away from my home and throwing me into the huge, high-walled building.
When we arrived at the gate we could see the courtyard, vast and full of boys and girls. "Go in by yourself, " said my father, "and join them. Put a smile on your face and be a good example to others. "
I hesitated and clung to his hand, but he gently pushed me from him. "Be a man, " he said. "Today you truly begin life. You will find me waiting for you when it's time to leave. "
I took a few steps. Then the faces of the boys and girls came into view. I did not know a single one of them, and none of them knew me. I felt I was a stranger who had lost his way. But then some boys began to glance at me in curiosity, and one of them came over and asked, "Who brought you?"
"My father, " I whispered.
"My father's dead, " he said simply.
I did not know what to say. The gate was now closed. Some of the children burst into tears. The bell rang. A lady came along, followed by a group of men. The men began sorting us into ranks. We were formed into an intricate pattern in the great courtyard surrounded by high buildings; from each floor we were overlooked by a long balcony roofed in wood.
"This is your new home, "said the woman. "There are mothers and fathers here, too. Everything that is enjoyable and beneficial is here. So dry your tears and face life joyfully. "
Well, it seemed that my misgivings had had no basis. From the first moments I made many friends and fell in love with many girls. I had never imagined school would have this rich variety of experiences.
We played all sorts of games. In the music room we sang our first songs. We also had our first introduction to language. We saw a globe of the Earth, which revolved and showed the various continents and countries. We started learning numbers, and we were told the story of the Creator of the universe. We ate delicious food, took a little nap, and woke up to go on with friendship and love, playing and learning.
Our path, however, was not totally sweet and unclouded. We had to be observant and patient. It was not all a matter of playing and fooling around. Rivalries could bring about pain and hatred or give rise to fighting. And while the lady would sometimes smile, she would often yell and scold. Even more frequently she would resort to physical punishment.
In addition, the time for changing one' s mind was over and gone and there was no question of ever returning to the paradise of home. Nothing lay ahead of us but exertion, struggle, and perseverance. Those who were able took advantage of the opportunities for success and happiness that presented themselves.
The bell rang, announcing the passing of the day and the end of work. The children rushed toward the gate, which was opened again. I said goodbye to friends and sweethearts and passed through the gate. I looked around but found no trace of my father, who had promised to be there. I stepped aside to wait. When I had waited for a long time in vain, I decided to return home on my own. I walked a few steps, then came to a startled halt. Good Lord! Where was the street lined with gardens? Where had it disappeared to? When did all these cars invade it? And when did all these people come to rest on its surface? How did these hills of rubbish find their way to cover its sides? And where were the fields that bordered it? High buildings had taken over, the street was full of children, and disturbing noises shook the air. Here and there stood conjurers showing off their tricks or making snakes appear from baskets. Then there was a band announcing the opening of a circus, with clowns and weight lifters walking in front.
Good God! I was in a daze. My head spun. I almost went crazy. How could all this have happened in half a day, between early morning and sunset? I would find the answer at home with my father. But where was my home? I hurried towards the crossroads, because I remembered that I had to cross the street to reach our house, but the stream of cars would not let up. Extremely irritated, I wondered when I would be able to cross.
I stood there a long time, until the young boy employed at the ironing shop on the corner came up to me.
2010年9月19日星期日
Gender Roles from a Cultural Perspective
1 Over the past few decades, it has been proven innumerable times that the various types of behavior, emotions, and interests that constitute being masculine and feminine are patterned by both heredity and culture. In the process of growing up, each child learns hundreds of culturally patterned details of behavior that become incorporated into its gender identity. Some of this learning takes place directly. In other words, the child is told by others how to act in an appropriately feminine or masculine way. Other details of gender behavior are taught unconsciously, or indirectly, as the culture provides different images, aspirations, and adult models for girls and boys.
2 Recently, for example, a study of American public schools showed that there is a cultural bias in education that favors boys over girls. According to the researchers, the bias is unintentional and unconscious, but it is there and it is influencing the lives of millions of schoolchildren every year. Doctors David and Myra Sadker videotaped classroom teachers in order to study gender-related bias in education. Their research showed that many teachers who thought they were nonsexist were amazed to see how biased they appeared on videotape. From nursery school to postgraduate courses, teachers were shown to call on males in class far more than on female students. This has a tremendous impact on the learning process for, in general, those students who become active classroom participants develop more positive attitudes and go on to higher achievement. As a matter of fact, in the late 1960s, when many of the best all-women's colleges in the northeastern United States opened their doors to male students, it was observed by professors and women students alike that the boys were "taking over" the classroom discussions and that active participation by women students had diminished noticeably. A similar subordination of female to male students has also been observed in law and medical school classrooms in recent years.
3 Research done by the Sadkers showed that sometimes teachers unknowingly prevented girls from participating as actively as boys in class by assigning them different tasks in accordance with stereotyped gender roles. For instance, one teacher conducting a science class with nursery school youngsters, continually had the little boys perform the scientific "experiment" while the girls were given the task of putting the materials away. Since hands-on work with classroom materials is a very important aspect of early education, the girls were thus being deprived of a vital learning experience that would affect their entire lives.
4 Another dimension of gender-biased education is the typical American teacher's assumption that boys will do better in the "hard", "masculine" subjects of math and science while girls are expected to have better verbal and reading skills. As an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, American boys do, indeed, develop reading problems, while girls, who are superior to boys in math up to the age of nine, fall behind from then on. But these are cultural, not genetic patterns. In Germany, for example, all studies are considered "masculine", and it is girls who develop reading problems. And in Japan, where early education appears to be nonsexist, both girls and boys do equally well in reading.
5 The different attitudes associated with the educational process for girls and boys begin at home. One study, for example, showed that when preschoolers were asked to look at a picture of a house and tell how far away from the house they were permitted to go, the boys indicated a much wider area than the girls, who generally pointed out a very limited area close to the home. Instead of being encouraged to develop intellectual curiosity and physical skills that are useful in dealing with the outside world, as boys are, girls are filled with fears of the world outside the home and with the desire to be approved of for their "goodness" and obedience to rules. These lessons carry over from the home to the classroom, where girls are generally observed to be more dependent on the teacher, more concerned with the form and neatness of their work than with its content, and more anxious about being "right" in their answers than in being intellectually independent, analytical, or original. Thus, through the educational process that occupies most of the child's waking hours, society reinforces its established values and turns out each gender in its traditional and expected mold.
2 Recently, for example, a study of American public schools showed that there is a cultural bias in education that favors boys over girls. According to the researchers, the bias is unintentional and unconscious, but it is there and it is influencing the lives of millions of schoolchildren every year. Doctors David and Myra Sadker videotaped classroom teachers in order to study gender-related bias in education. Their research showed that many teachers who thought they were nonsexist were amazed to see how biased they appeared on videotape. From nursery school to postgraduate courses, teachers were shown to call on males in class far more than on female students. This has a tremendous impact on the learning process for, in general, those students who become active classroom participants develop more positive attitudes and go on to higher achievement. As a matter of fact, in the late 1960s, when many of the best all-women's colleges in the northeastern United States opened their doors to male students, it was observed by professors and women students alike that the boys were "taking over" the classroom discussions and that active participation by women students had diminished noticeably. A similar subordination of female to male students has also been observed in law and medical school classrooms in recent years.
3 Research done by the Sadkers showed that sometimes teachers unknowingly prevented girls from participating as actively as boys in class by assigning them different tasks in accordance with stereotyped gender roles. For instance, one teacher conducting a science class with nursery school youngsters, continually had the little boys perform the scientific "experiment" while the girls were given the task of putting the materials away. Since hands-on work with classroom materials is a very important aspect of early education, the girls were thus being deprived of a vital learning experience that would affect their entire lives.
4 Another dimension of gender-biased education is the typical American teacher's assumption that boys will do better in the "hard", "masculine" subjects of math and science while girls are expected to have better verbal and reading skills. As an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, American boys do, indeed, develop reading problems, while girls, who are superior to boys in math up to the age of nine, fall behind from then on. But these are cultural, not genetic patterns. In Germany, for example, all studies are considered "masculine", and it is girls who develop reading problems. And in Japan, where early education appears to be nonsexist, both girls and boys do equally well in reading.
5 The different attitudes associated with the educational process for girls and boys begin at home. One study, for example, showed that when preschoolers were asked to look at a picture of a house and tell how far away from the house they were permitted to go, the boys indicated a much wider area than the girls, who generally pointed out a very limited area close to the home. Instead of being encouraged to develop intellectual curiosity and physical skills that are useful in dealing with the outside world, as boys are, girls are filled with fears of the world outside the home and with the desire to be approved of for their "goodness" and obedience to rules. These lessons carry over from the home to the classroom, where girls are generally observed to be more dependent on the teacher, more concerned with the form and neatness of their work than with its content, and more anxious about being "right" in their answers than in being intellectually independent, analytical, or original. Thus, through the educational process that occupies most of the child's waking hours, society reinforces its established values and turns out each gender in its traditional and expected mold.
Boys Are Teachers' Pets
The classroom is a man's world, where boys get two-thirds of the teachers' attention even when they are in a minority. They are allowed to tease the girls and they receive praise for sloppy work that would not be tolerated from girls.[1] Boys are accustomed to being teachers' pets, and, if girls get anything like equal treatment, boys will protest and even disrupt lessons.
These claims are made in a book out[2] this week, written by Dale Spender, a lecturer at the London University Institute of Education. She argues that discrimination against girls is so typical of co-educational schools[3] that single-gender classes are the only answer.
Her case is based on tape-recordings of her own and other teachers' lessons. Many of them, like Spender, had deliberately set out to give girls a fair chance. "Sometimes,"says Spender, "I have even thought I have gone too far and have spent more time with the girls than the boys."
The tapes proved otherwise. In 10 taped lessons (in secondary school and college), Spender never gave the girls more than 42 percent of her attention (the average was 38 percent) and never gave the boys less than 58 percent. There were similar results for other teachers, both male and female.
In other words, when teachers give girls more than a third of their time, they feel that they are depriving the boys of their rightful share[4]. And so do the boys themselves. "She always asked the girls all the questions," said one boy in a classroom where 34 percent of the teachers' time was allocated to girls. "She doesn't like boys, and just listens to the girls,"said a boy in another class, where his gender got 63 percent of the teacher's attention.
Boys regarded two-thirds of the teacher's time as a fair deal[5]—and when they got less they caused trouble in class and even complained to a higher authority. "It's important to keep their attention," said one teacher. "Otherwise, they behave very badly."
According to Spender's research , double[6] standards pervade the classroom. "When boys ask questions, protest, or challenge the teacher, they are often met with respect and rewards; when girls engage in exactly the same behavior, they are often met with criticism and punishment."
A boy seeking attention will quickly get a response from a teacher. "But girls can be ignored; their hands can be held up for ages, and their often polite requests for assistance are disregarded as the teacher is obliged to remain with the boys."
One girl, talking about a male teacher, commented: "You wouldn't want to have your hand up to tell him there was a fire, if you were a girl. We'd all burn to death before he asked you what you wanted to say."
Boys' written work, too, is judged by different standards, says Spender. When she asked teachers to mark essays and projects, the same work got better marks when teachers were told that it came from boys. "When a boy decides to make a thing of it, there's not a girl that can match him,"[7] one teacher said of a project on inventions. But, in fact, the work had been done by a girl.
Neat and tidy work from girls was treated with some contempt. "I think she could have spent more time on getting some facts than on making it look pretty," was one comment. "Typical, isn't it? All that effort just to make it look nice[8]—you can't beat girls for being concerned with appearances,"was another. But when Spender indicated that the work came from a boy, the tune changed dramatically.
Spender concludes that, in mixed classes[9], the girls are at a disadvantage. If they are as noisy and ambitious as the boys, they are considered "unladylike"; if they are quiet and passive, they are ignored.
A few schools have introduced single-gender groups for math and science, says Spender, and have found significant improvements in girls' results. Separating boys and girls within schools for certain subjects—rather than a return to single-gender schools—is the most hopeful solution she suggests.
These claims are made in a book out[2] this week, written by Dale Spender, a lecturer at the London University Institute of Education. She argues that discrimination against girls is so typical of co-educational schools[3] that single-gender classes are the only answer.
Her case is based on tape-recordings of her own and other teachers' lessons. Many of them, like Spender, had deliberately set out to give girls a fair chance. "Sometimes,"says Spender, "I have even thought I have gone too far and have spent more time with the girls than the boys."
The tapes proved otherwise. In 10 taped lessons (in secondary school and college), Spender never gave the girls more than 42 percent of her attention (the average was 38 percent) and never gave the boys less than 58 percent. There were similar results for other teachers, both male and female.
In other words, when teachers give girls more than a third of their time, they feel that they are depriving the boys of their rightful share[4]. And so do the boys themselves. "She always asked the girls all the questions," said one boy in a classroom where 34 percent of the teachers' time was allocated to girls. "She doesn't like boys, and just listens to the girls,"said a boy in another class, where his gender got 63 percent of the teacher's attention.
Boys regarded two-thirds of the teacher's time as a fair deal[5]—and when they got less they caused trouble in class and even complained to a higher authority. "It's important to keep their attention," said one teacher. "Otherwise, they behave very badly."
According to Spender's research , double[6] standards pervade the classroom. "When boys ask questions, protest, or challenge the teacher, they are often met with respect and rewards; when girls engage in exactly the same behavior, they are often met with criticism and punishment."
A boy seeking attention will quickly get a response from a teacher. "But girls can be ignored; their hands can be held up for ages, and their often polite requests for assistance are disregarded as the teacher is obliged to remain with the boys."
One girl, talking about a male teacher, commented: "You wouldn't want to have your hand up to tell him there was a fire, if you were a girl. We'd all burn to death before he asked you what you wanted to say."
Boys' written work, too, is judged by different standards, says Spender. When she asked teachers to mark essays and projects, the same work got better marks when teachers were told that it came from boys. "When a boy decides to make a thing of it, there's not a girl that can match him,"[7] one teacher said of a project on inventions. But, in fact, the work had been done by a girl.
Neat and tidy work from girls was treated with some contempt. "I think she could have spent more time on getting some facts than on making it look pretty," was one comment. "Typical, isn't it? All that effort just to make it look nice[8]—you can't beat girls for being concerned with appearances,"was another. But when Spender indicated that the work came from a boy, the tune changed dramatically.
Spender concludes that, in mixed classes[9], the girls are at a disadvantage. If they are as noisy and ambitious as the boys, they are considered "unladylike"; if they are quiet and passive, they are ignored.
A few schools have introduced single-gender groups for math and science, says Spender, and have found significant improvements in girls' results. Separating boys and girls within schools for certain subjects—rather than a return to single-gender schools—is the most hopeful solution she suggests.
Risks and You
1 At some time or other, all of us have played the part of a hypochondriac, imagining that we have some terrible disease on the strength of very minor symptoms. Some people just have to hear about a new disease and they begin checking themselves to see if they may be suffering from it. But fear of disease is not our only fear, and neither is risk of disease the only risk we run. Modern life is full of all manner of threats-to our lives, our peace of mind, our families, and our future. And from these threats come questions that we must pose to ourselves: Is the food I buy safe? Are toys for my children likely to hurt them? Should my family avoid smoked meats? Am I likely to be robbed on vacations? Our uncertainties multiply indefinitely.
2 Anxiety about the risks of life is a bit like hypochondria; in both, the fear or anxiety feeds on partial information. But one sharp difference exists between the two. The hypochondriac can usually turn to a physician to get a definitive clarification of the situation-either you have the suspected disease or you don't. It is much more difficult when anxiety about other forms of risk is concerned, because with many risks, the situation is not as simple.
3 Risks are almost always a matter of probability rather than certainty. You may ask, "Should I wear a seat belt?" If you're going to have a head-on collision, of course. But what if you get hit from the side and end up trapped inside the vehicle, unable to escape because of a damaged seat belt mechanism? So does this mean that you should spend the extra money for an air bag? Again, in head-on collisions, it may well save your life. But what if the bag accidentally inflates while you are driving down the highway, thus causing an accident that would never have occurred otherwise?
4 All of this is another way of saying that nothing we do is completely safe. There are risks, often potentially serious ones, associated with every hobby we have, every job we take, every food we eat-in other words, with every action. But the fact that there are risks associated with everything we are going to do does not, or should not, reduce us to trembling neurotics. Some actions are riskier than others. The point is to inform ourselves about the relevant risks and then act accordingly.
5 For example, larger cars are generally safer than small ones in collisions. But how much safer? The answer is that you are roughly twice as likely to die in a serious crash in a small car than in a large one. Yet larger cars generally cost more than small ones (and also use more gas, thus increasing the environmental risks!), so how do we decide when the reduced risks are worth the added costs? The ultimate risk avoider might, for instance, buy a tank or an armored car, thus minimizing the risk of death or injury in a collision. But is the added cost and inconvenience worth the difference in price, even supposing you could afford it?
6 We cannot begin to answer such questions until we have a feel for the level of risks in question. So how do we measure the level of a risk? Some people seem to think that the answer is a simple number. We know, for instance, that about 25,000 people per year die in automobile accidents. By contrast, only about 300 die per year in mine accidents and disasters. Does that mean that riding in a car is much riskier than mining? Not necessarily. The fact is that some 200 million Americans regularly ride in automobiles in the United States every year; perhaps 700,000 are involved in mining. The relevant figure that we need to assess a risk is a ratio or fraction. The numerator of the fraction tells us how many people were killed or harmed as the result of a particular activity over a certain period of time; the denominator tells us how many people were involved in that activity during that time. All risk levels are thus ratios or fractions, with values between 0 (no risk) and 1 (totally risky).
7 By reducing all risks to ratios or fractions of this sort, we can begin to compare different sorts of risks-like mining versus riding in a car. The larger this ratio, that is, the closer it is to 1, the riskier the activity in question. In the case just discussed, we would find the relative safety of car travel and coal mining by dividing the numbers of lives lost in each by the number of people participating in each. Here, it is clear that the riskiness of traveling by car is about 1 death per 10,000 passengers; with mining, the risk level is about 4 deaths per 10,000 miners. So although far more people are killed in car accidents than in mining, the latter turns out to be four times riskier than the former. Those ratios enable us to compare the risks of activities or situations as different as apples and oranges. If you are opposed to risks, you will want to choose your activities by focusing on the small-ratio exposures. If you are reckless, then you are not likely to be afraid of higher ratios unless they get uncomfortably large.
8 Once we understand that risk can never be totally eliminated from any situation and that, therefore, nothing is completely safe, we will then see that the issue is not one of avoiding risks altogether but rather one of managing risks in a sensible way. Risk management requires two things: common sense and information about the character and degree of the risks we may be running.
2 Anxiety about the risks of life is a bit like hypochondria; in both, the fear or anxiety feeds on partial information. But one sharp difference exists between the two. The hypochondriac can usually turn to a physician to get a definitive clarification of the situation-either you have the suspected disease or you don't. It is much more difficult when anxiety about other forms of risk is concerned, because with many risks, the situation is not as simple.
3 Risks are almost always a matter of probability rather than certainty. You may ask, "Should I wear a seat belt?" If you're going to have a head-on collision, of course. But what if you get hit from the side and end up trapped inside the vehicle, unable to escape because of a damaged seat belt mechanism? So does this mean that you should spend the extra money for an air bag? Again, in head-on collisions, it may well save your life. But what if the bag accidentally inflates while you are driving down the highway, thus causing an accident that would never have occurred otherwise?
4 All of this is another way of saying that nothing we do is completely safe. There are risks, often potentially serious ones, associated with every hobby we have, every job we take, every food we eat-in other words, with every action. But the fact that there are risks associated with everything we are going to do does not, or should not, reduce us to trembling neurotics. Some actions are riskier than others. The point is to inform ourselves about the relevant risks and then act accordingly.
5 For example, larger cars are generally safer than small ones in collisions. But how much safer? The answer is that you are roughly twice as likely to die in a serious crash in a small car than in a large one. Yet larger cars generally cost more than small ones (and also use more gas, thus increasing the environmental risks!), so how do we decide when the reduced risks are worth the added costs? The ultimate risk avoider might, for instance, buy a tank or an armored car, thus minimizing the risk of death or injury in a collision. But is the added cost and inconvenience worth the difference in price, even supposing you could afford it?
6 We cannot begin to answer such questions until we have a feel for the level of risks in question. So how do we measure the level of a risk? Some people seem to think that the answer is a simple number. We know, for instance, that about 25,000 people per year die in automobile accidents. By contrast, only about 300 die per year in mine accidents and disasters. Does that mean that riding in a car is much riskier than mining? Not necessarily. The fact is that some 200 million Americans regularly ride in automobiles in the United States every year; perhaps 700,000 are involved in mining. The relevant figure that we need to assess a risk is a ratio or fraction. The numerator of the fraction tells us how many people were killed or harmed as the result of a particular activity over a certain period of time; the denominator tells us how many people were involved in that activity during that time. All risk levels are thus ratios or fractions, with values between 0 (no risk) and 1 (totally risky).
7 By reducing all risks to ratios or fractions of this sort, we can begin to compare different sorts of risks-like mining versus riding in a car. The larger this ratio, that is, the closer it is to 1, the riskier the activity in question. In the case just discussed, we would find the relative safety of car travel and coal mining by dividing the numbers of lives lost in each by the number of people participating in each. Here, it is clear that the riskiness of traveling by car is about 1 death per 10,000 passengers; with mining, the risk level is about 4 deaths per 10,000 miners. So although far more people are killed in car accidents than in mining, the latter turns out to be four times riskier than the former. Those ratios enable us to compare the risks of activities or situations as different as apples and oranges. If you are opposed to risks, you will want to choose your activities by focusing on the small-ratio exposures. If you are reckless, then you are not likely to be afraid of higher ratios unless they get uncomfortably large.
8 Once we understand that risk can never be totally eliminated from any situation and that, therefore, nothing is completely safe, we will then see that the issue is not one of avoiding risks altogether but rather one of managing risks in a sensible way. Risk management requires two things: common sense and information about the character and degree of the risks we may be running.
Science Looks Twice at Twins
If twins interest you, Twinsburg will fascinate you.
Every summer since 1976, this little town outside Cleveland, Ohio, has been invaded by twins. Last summer 2,356 sets of twins showed up from around the world to watch and take part in parades, fireworks, magic acts, a 5K race[1], and more than 100 contests: contests to honor the oldest twins, the youngest, the most alike, the least alike, the twins with the widest combined smile[2].
Had you been there, you might have noticed a large group of scientists who also attend the festival. Some come seeking clues to the causes of health problems—skin diseases, cancer, and heart attack, for example. Others are interested in how it feels to be a twin. But of all the scientists, perhaps the ones doing the most important-and most controversial-work are those who study nature and nurture, that age-old question of how we come to be the kind of people we are.[3]
Why are some of us good at math, or writing, while others excel at art or basketball? What causes the differences in our intelligence, talents, and tastes? Are they largely determined by the genes we inherit from our parents (nature)? How much do our experiences in life (nurture)—the social environment we grow up in—have to do with it?
If you were a scientist interested in this question, wouldn't you love to study identical twins? Just think of it: two people who developed from the same fertilized egg. That is, two people with the exact same set of genes. Any differences between such identical twins would have to be the result of differences in their environment. But could you also say that any similarities were the result of having the same genes?
Not really. Remember, most twins share a similar environment—same house, food, relatives, and so on. The only way you could accurately measure the effects of nature and nurture would be to study identical twins raised apart, in different environments.
Over the last ten years, a team of scientists led by psychologist Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.[4] has studied about 65 pairs of identical twins who were raised apart. They've also studied about 45 fraternal twins who were raised apart.
The scientists bring each pair of twins to the University of Minnesota for a week of intensive testing. Doctors and dentists on the team give the twins thorough physical examinations. They record the twins' height, weight, eye color, ear shape, and head length.
Meanwhile, psychologists give the twins IQ[5] and personality tests. To measure personality, the psychologists try to determine things like how much the twins worry, whether they are cautious or reckless, and how creative they are. They measure these and other traits by the twins' responses to statements such as "I rarely, if ever, do anything reckless" and "The flames of a wood fire stimulate my imagination". By the end of the week, each twin has answered about 15,000 questions.
Bouchard's team has been startled by the similarities between twins raised apart. The twins often have surprisingly similar gestures and postures, for instance. In pictures, many of the twins strike[6] nearly identical poses. And some of the identical twins discover they have led remarkably similar lives.
The first set of identical twins Bouchard studied, the "Jim twins", were adopted by different families four weeks after they were born. They grew up in Ohio, 45 miles away from each other. When they were reunited at the age of 39, they discovered a series of striking similarities. Both were named Jim. Both drove the same model blue Chevrolet, liked woodworking, chewed their fingernails, and owned dogs named Toy. Both started having late-afternoon headaches at the age of 18.
The sort of similarities the Jim twins discovered are common with the twins the Minnesota team has studied. Some critics of the Minnesota study say the coincidences are not surprising. They argue that everyone's life has enough details that a number of coincidences are bound to exist. What's more, for every coincidence discovered by a pair of identical twins raised apart, a skeptic could point to a vast number of undiscovered differences. The same two twins might have different model television sets and support different football teams. But the differences would go unreported since they would not surprise anyone.
But beyond the coincidences, the Minnesota scientists have gathered and analyzed a mountain of data about the twins' health, intelligence, and personalities. And according to Bouchard, the data on the identical twins raised apart show clearly that nature—the genes we inherit—exerts a notably strong influence over our lives. The Minnesota team has found that these identical twins are remarkably similar in physical traits such as height, fingerprints and heart rates. Adult identical twins also tend to have similar medical histories, developing the eye disease glaucoma at the same time, for example.
The Minnesota team has reported that intelligence also seems to be influenced much more by genes than by environment. Despite being raised by different families, separated identical twins studied by Bouchard's team earned identical or nearly identical scores on adult intelligence tests.
But most surprisingly, the Minnesota team finds that genes play a big part in shaping our personalities—helping to determine whether we respect tradition and like to follow rules, for example, or whether we're dedicated nonconformists. According to Bouchard, the genes you were born with have a lot to do with whether you are confident, cheerful, and optimistic, or whether you have a negative view of the world. "The study shows in a very persuasive way that genes influence every aspect of behavior," says Nancy Segal, a psychologist with the Minnesota team.
Other scientists disagree. How can you study whether intelligence is inherited, they ask, when there are so many different ways just to define intelligence? The same problem applies to other traits, they say.
Bouchard himself makes the point that even the most closely matched twins he has studied are different from each other. So even though genes may have a strong influence over our lives, they're not the only influence. Our day-to-day experiences help to mold us too.
You know what that means: you still have to study for tests!
Every summer since 1976, this little town outside Cleveland, Ohio, has been invaded by twins. Last summer 2,356 sets of twins showed up from around the world to watch and take part in parades, fireworks, magic acts, a 5K race[1], and more than 100 contests: contests to honor the oldest twins, the youngest, the most alike, the least alike, the twins with the widest combined smile[2].
Had you been there, you might have noticed a large group of scientists who also attend the festival. Some come seeking clues to the causes of health problems—skin diseases, cancer, and heart attack, for example. Others are interested in how it feels to be a twin. But of all the scientists, perhaps the ones doing the most important-and most controversial-work are those who study nature and nurture, that age-old question of how we come to be the kind of people we are.[3]
Why are some of us good at math, or writing, while others excel at art or basketball? What causes the differences in our intelligence, talents, and tastes? Are they largely determined by the genes we inherit from our parents (nature)? How much do our experiences in life (nurture)—the social environment we grow up in—have to do with it?
If you were a scientist interested in this question, wouldn't you love to study identical twins? Just think of it: two people who developed from the same fertilized egg. That is, two people with the exact same set of genes. Any differences between such identical twins would have to be the result of differences in their environment. But could you also say that any similarities were the result of having the same genes?
Not really. Remember, most twins share a similar environment—same house, food, relatives, and so on. The only way you could accurately measure the effects of nature and nurture would be to study identical twins raised apart, in different environments.
Over the last ten years, a team of scientists led by psychologist Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.[4] has studied about 65 pairs of identical twins who were raised apart. They've also studied about 45 fraternal twins who were raised apart.
The scientists bring each pair of twins to the University of Minnesota for a week of intensive testing. Doctors and dentists on the team give the twins thorough physical examinations. They record the twins' height, weight, eye color, ear shape, and head length.
Meanwhile, psychologists give the twins IQ[5] and personality tests. To measure personality, the psychologists try to determine things like how much the twins worry, whether they are cautious or reckless, and how creative they are. They measure these and other traits by the twins' responses to statements such as "I rarely, if ever, do anything reckless" and "The flames of a wood fire stimulate my imagination". By the end of the week, each twin has answered about 15,000 questions.
Bouchard's team has been startled by the similarities between twins raised apart. The twins often have surprisingly similar gestures and postures, for instance. In pictures, many of the twins strike[6] nearly identical poses. And some of the identical twins discover they have led remarkably similar lives.
The first set of identical twins Bouchard studied, the "Jim twins", were adopted by different families four weeks after they were born. They grew up in Ohio, 45 miles away from each other. When they were reunited at the age of 39, they discovered a series of striking similarities. Both were named Jim. Both drove the same model blue Chevrolet, liked woodworking, chewed their fingernails, and owned dogs named Toy. Both started having late-afternoon headaches at the age of 18.
The sort of similarities the Jim twins discovered are common with the twins the Minnesota team has studied. Some critics of the Minnesota study say the coincidences are not surprising. They argue that everyone's life has enough details that a number of coincidences are bound to exist. What's more, for every coincidence discovered by a pair of identical twins raised apart, a skeptic could point to a vast number of undiscovered differences. The same two twins might have different model television sets and support different football teams. But the differences would go unreported since they would not surprise anyone.
But beyond the coincidences, the Minnesota scientists have gathered and analyzed a mountain of data about the twins' health, intelligence, and personalities. And according to Bouchard, the data on the identical twins raised apart show clearly that nature—the genes we inherit—exerts a notably strong influence over our lives. The Minnesota team has found that these identical twins are remarkably similar in physical traits such as height, fingerprints and heart rates. Adult identical twins also tend to have similar medical histories, developing the eye disease glaucoma at the same time, for example.
The Minnesota team has reported that intelligence also seems to be influenced much more by genes than by environment. Despite being raised by different families, separated identical twins studied by Bouchard's team earned identical or nearly identical scores on adult intelligence tests.
But most surprisingly, the Minnesota team finds that genes play a big part in shaping our personalities—helping to determine whether we respect tradition and like to follow rules, for example, or whether we're dedicated nonconformists. According to Bouchard, the genes you were born with have a lot to do with whether you are confident, cheerful, and optimistic, or whether you have a negative view of the world. "The study shows in a very persuasive way that genes influence every aspect of behavior," says Nancy Segal, a psychologist with the Minnesota team.
Other scientists disagree. How can you study whether intelligence is inherited, they ask, when there are so many different ways just to define intelligence? The same problem applies to other traits, they say.
Bouchard himself makes the point that even the most closely matched twins he has studied are different from each other. So even though genes may have a strong influence over our lives, they're not the only influence. Our day-to-day experiences help to mold us too.
You know what that means: you still have to study for tests!
The Case for Creativity-Encouraging Children to Think
1 Creativity is the key to a brighter future, say education and business experts. Here is how schools and parents can encourage this vital skill in children.
2 If Dick Drew had listened to his boss in 1925, we might not have a product that we now think of as practically essential: masking tape. Drew worked for the Minnesota Manufacturing and Mining Company, better known as 3M. At work he developed a sticky-side substance strong enough to hold things together. But his boss told him not to pursue the idea. Finally, using his own time, Drew perfected the tape, which now is used everywhere by many people. And his former company learned from its mistake: Now 3M encourages people to spend 15 percent of their work time just thinking and developing new ideas.
3 It is a strategy that more and more companies are employing and one that experts around the country say we ought to be following with our children, both at home and at school. The feeling is that if we teach them to think creatively, they will be better able to function in tomorrow's society.
4 Creativity's benefits reach beyond music and art. Successful students and adults are the ones who discover a number of ways to approach problems.
5 Creativity is not something one is just born with, nor is it necessarily a characteristic of high intelligence. Just because a person is highly intelligent does not mean that he uses it creatively. Creativity is the matter of using the resources one has to produce original ideas that are good for something.
6 Unfortunately, schools have not tended to promote creativity. With strong emphasis on test scores and the development of reading, writing and mathematical skills, many educators sacrifice creativity for correct answers. The result is that children can give back information but can't recognize ways to apply it to new situations. They may know their multiplication tables, for example, but they are unable to apply them to story problems.
7 In some schools, however, educators are recognizing the problem and are developing new approaches to teaching which should encourage creativity in their students. Some teachers are combining the basics with activities where the students must use their imagination. For example, instead of simply asking WHEN Columbus discovered the New World, teachers might ask students to think about what would have happened if his trip had taken him to New York first instead of to the Caribbean area. With that question, students would have to use what they know about Columbus, what they know about New York, and what they know about the Caribbean. Teachers feel that even if the answers seem silly, it's OK, that sometimes being silly is an essential step toward creativity. In the classroom as well as at home, children must have the right to have crazy thoughts, experts say. Then it is up to parents and teachers to work with the children to develop those thoughts into workable ideas. The best strategy is to encourage children by asking them questions, meanwhile praising their ideas and new thoughts. Experts say that it is important to create an atmosphere in which there is no risk in being creative-a place where wild ideas are honored and valued, never scorned or dismissed.
8 There are things that parents can do at home to encourage creativity. They can involve children in decision-making if the problem is appropriate, asking the child for suggestions. Parents can help their children to understand the consequences of various decisions. Parents should also encourage their children to talk out loud about things they are doing. Thinking and language skills are closely related. Talking out loud improves language skills and thinking skills.
9 Having a sense of humor is also important in helping to develop creativity in a child. When parents show a sense of humor, children can see creativity in its purest form. By its nature, humor crosses conventional boundaries and breaks patterns. Creativity often does the same.
10 It is important to give children choices. From the earliest age, children should be allowed to make decisions and understand their consequences. Even if it's choosing between two food items for lunch, decision-making helps thinking skills. As children grow older, parents should let their children decide how to use their time or spend their money, but not automatically help them too much if they make the wrong decision. This may be confusing for the child, but that is all right. This is because one of the most important traits of creative people is a very strong motivation to make order out of confusion.
2 If Dick Drew had listened to his boss in 1925, we might not have a product that we now think of as practically essential: masking tape. Drew worked for the Minnesota Manufacturing and Mining Company, better known as 3M. At work he developed a sticky-side substance strong enough to hold things together. But his boss told him not to pursue the idea. Finally, using his own time, Drew perfected the tape, which now is used everywhere by many people. And his former company learned from its mistake: Now 3M encourages people to spend 15 percent of their work time just thinking and developing new ideas.
3 It is a strategy that more and more companies are employing and one that experts around the country say we ought to be following with our children, both at home and at school. The feeling is that if we teach them to think creatively, they will be better able to function in tomorrow's society.
4 Creativity's benefits reach beyond music and art. Successful students and adults are the ones who discover a number of ways to approach problems.
5 Creativity is not something one is just born with, nor is it necessarily a characteristic of high intelligence. Just because a person is highly intelligent does not mean that he uses it creatively. Creativity is the matter of using the resources one has to produce original ideas that are good for something.
6 Unfortunately, schools have not tended to promote creativity. With strong emphasis on test scores and the development of reading, writing and mathematical skills, many educators sacrifice creativity for correct answers. The result is that children can give back information but can't recognize ways to apply it to new situations. They may know their multiplication tables, for example, but they are unable to apply them to story problems.
7 In some schools, however, educators are recognizing the problem and are developing new approaches to teaching which should encourage creativity in their students. Some teachers are combining the basics with activities where the students must use their imagination. For example, instead of simply asking WHEN Columbus discovered the New World, teachers might ask students to think about what would have happened if his trip had taken him to New York first instead of to the Caribbean area. With that question, students would have to use what they know about Columbus, what they know about New York, and what they know about the Caribbean. Teachers feel that even if the answers seem silly, it's OK, that sometimes being silly is an essential step toward creativity. In the classroom as well as at home, children must have the right to have crazy thoughts, experts say. Then it is up to parents and teachers to work with the children to develop those thoughts into workable ideas. The best strategy is to encourage children by asking them questions, meanwhile praising their ideas and new thoughts. Experts say that it is important to create an atmosphere in which there is no risk in being creative-a place where wild ideas are honored and valued, never scorned or dismissed.
8 There are things that parents can do at home to encourage creativity. They can involve children in decision-making if the problem is appropriate, asking the child for suggestions. Parents can help their children to understand the consequences of various decisions. Parents should also encourage their children to talk out loud about things they are doing. Thinking and language skills are closely related. Talking out loud improves language skills and thinking skills.
9 Having a sense of humor is also important in helping to develop creativity in a child. When parents show a sense of humor, children can see creativity in its purest form. By its nature, humor crosses conventional boundaries and breaks patterns. Creativity often does the same.
10 It is important to give children choices. From the earliest age, children should be allowed to make decisions and understand their consequences. Even if it's choosing between two food items for lunch, decision-making helps thinking skills. As children grow older, parents should let their children decide how to use their time or spend their money, but not automatically help them too much if they make the wrong decision. This may be confusing for the child, but that is all right. This is because one of the most important traits of creative people is a very strong motivation to make order out of confusion.
A Long March to Creativity
The Jinling Hotel is a comfortable, modern hotel in the heart of Nanjing, a big city in eastern China. My wife Ellen, our year-and-a-half-old son, Benjamin, and I lived there for a month in the spring of 1987 while we were studying arts education in Chinese kindergartens and elementary schools. The key to our room was attached to a large plastic block with the room number printed on it. When leaving the hotel, a guest was encouraged to turn in the key, either by handing it to an attendant or by dropping it through a slot into a container. [1] Because the key slot was narrow and rectangular, the key and the block had to be inserted carefully so as to fit into the slot.
Benjamin loved to carry the key around, shaking it vigorously. He also liked to try to place it into the slot. He would move the key to the vicinity of the slot and then try to push it in. Because of his young age, lack of manual dexterity, and incomplete understanding of the need to orient the key "just so"[2], he would usually fail. Benjamin was not bothered in the least. He loved to bang the key on the slot and probably got as much pleasure out of the sounds it made, and the physical feelings it gave him, as he did those few times when the key actually found its way into the slot.[3]
Now both Ellen and I were perfectly happy to allow Benjamin to bang the key near the key slot. We were usually not in a hurry, he was having a good time, and this "exploratory behavior" [4] seemed harmless enough. But I soon observed an interesting phenomenon. Any Chinese attendant nearby—and sometimes even a mere Chinese passer-by—would come over to watch Benjamin. As soon as the observer saw what our child was doing, and noticed his lack of initial success at the appointed task, she (or, less often, he) attempted to intervene. In general, she would hold onto his hand and, gently but firmly, guide it directly toward the slot, reorient it as necessary, and help Benjamin to insert the key. She would then smile somewhat expectantly at Ellen or me, as if awaiting a thank you—and on occasion, would frown slightly, as if to criticize us as parents.
Unfortunately, even for the sake of Chinese-American friendship, we were not particularly grateful for this intervention.[5] After all, it was not as if Benjamin were running around wildly or without supervision; clearly we were aware of what he was doing and had not ourselves intervened. But it also became clear to us that we were dealing with totally different attitudes about the preferred behavior for children and the proper role of adults in their socialization.[6]
Spending a good deal of time with a baby in China, we had plenty of opportunity to compare Benjamin with Chinese babies and to observe the relationship that generally occurs between adults and young children. Time and again, adults would approach Benjamin, sometimes just to say "Hello" or to play with him (actions encountered the world over), but often with a particular agenda in mind[7]. Sometimes adults would tease Benjamin, pretending to give or to show him something, but then withdrawing the promised reward. More often, these adults would aid Benjamin with some task—retrieving a ball with which he was playing, helping him to sit straight in his seat, fixing his shirttail or his shoes, directing him away from a dangerous spot, or guiding the stroller he was awkwardly pushing around.
It became obvious to us that for some Chinese, babies are "fair game"[8]. Some adults (and even adolescents) feel little hesitation about intervening in the child-rearing process. Now it might be thought that Benjamin's appearance—he is Chinese, and we adopted him in Taiwan—encouraged this intervention; but similar intrusive interventions are reported by Westerners whose children do not look the least bit Chinese. It was equally clear that these Chinese agree on what is right or wrong in child rearing; in casual encounters with Benjamin and other Western children, they were exhibiting their shared beliefs.
Benjamin loved to carry the key around, shaking it vigorously. He also liked to try to place it into the slot. He would move the key to the vicinity of the slot and then try to push it in. Because of his young age, lack of manual dexterity, and incomplete understanding of the need to orient the key "just so"[2], he would usually fail. Benjamin was not bothered in the least. He loved to bang the key on the slot and probably got as much pleasure out of the sounds it made, and the physical feelings it gave him, as he did those few times when the key actually found its way into the slot.[3]
Now both Ellen and I were perfectly happy to allow Benjamin to bang the key near the key slot. We were usually not in a hurry, he was having a good time, and this "exploratory behavior" [4] seemed harmless enough. But I soon observed an interesting phenomenon. Any Chinese attendant nearby—and sometimes even a mere Chinese passer-by—would come over to watch Benjamin. As soon as the observer saw what our child was doing, and noticed his lack of initial success at the appointed task, she (or, less often, he) attempted to intervene. In general, she would hold onto his hand and, gently but firmly, guide it directly toward the slot, reorient it as necessary, and help Benjamin to insert the key. She would then smile somewhat expectantly at Ellen or me, as if awaiting a thank you—and on occasion, would frown slightly, as if to criticize us as parents.
Unfortunately, even for the sake of Chinese-American friendship, we were not particularly grateful for this intervention.[5] After all, it was not as if Benjamin were running around wildly or without supervision; clearly we were aware of what he was doing and had not ourselves intervened. But it also became clear to us that we were dealing with totally different attitudes about the preferred behavior for children and the proper role of adults in their socialization.[6]
Spending a good deal of time with a baby in China, we had plenty of opportunity to compare Benjamin with Chinese babies and to observe the relationship that generally occurs between adults and young children. Time and again, adults would approach Benjamin, sometimes just to say "Hello" or to play with him (actions encountered the world over), but often with a particular agenda in mind[7]. Sometimes adults would tease Benjamin, pretending to give or to show him something, but then withdrawing the promised reward. More often, these adults would aid Benjamin with some task—retrieving a ball with which he was playing, helping him to sit straight in his seat, fixing his shirttail or his shoes, directing him away from a dangerous spot, or guiding the stroller he was awkwardly pushing around.
It became obvious to us that for some Chinese, babies are "fair game"[8]. Some adults (and even adolescents) feel little hesitation about intervening in the child-rearing process. Now it might be thought that Benjamin's appearance—he is Chinese, and we adopted him in Taiwan—encouraged this intervention; but similar intrusive interventions are reported by Westerners whose children do not look the least bit Chinese. It was equally clear that these Chinese agree on what is right or wrong in child rearing; in casual encounters with Benjamin and other Western children, they were exhibiting their shared beliefs.
How I Discovered Words
1 The most important day I remember in all my life is the one on which my teacher, Anne Mansfield Sullivan, came to me. I am filled with wonder when I consider the immeasurable contrast between the two lives which it connects. It was the third of March, 1887, three months before I was seven years old.
2 On the afternoon of that eventful day, I stood on the porch, dumb, expectant. I guessed vaguely from my mother's signs and from the hurrying to and fro in the house that something unusual was about to happen, so I went to the door and waited on the steps. The afternoon sun penetrated the mass of honeysuckle that covered the porch, and fell on my upturned face. My fingers lingered almost unconsciously on the familiar leaves and blossoms which had just come forth to greet the sweet southern spring. I did not know what the future held of marvel or surprise for me.<1> Anger and bitterness had preyed upon me continually for weeks and a deep languor had succeeded this passionate struggle.
3 Have you ever been at sea in a dense fog, when it seemed as if a tangible white darkness shut you in, and the great ship, tense and anxious, groped her way toward the shore with plummet and sounding-line<2>, and you waited with beating heart for something to happen? I was like that ship before my education began, only I was without compass or sounding-line, and had no way of knowing how near the harbor was. "Light! Give me light!" was the wordless cry of my soul, and the light of love shone on me in that very hour.
4 I felt approaching footsteps. I stretched out my hand as I supposed to my mother.<3> Someone took it, and I was caught up and held close in the arms of her who had come to reveal all things to me, and, more than all things else, to love me.
5 The morning after my teacher came she led me into her room and gave me a doll. The little blind children at the Perkins Institution had sent it and Laura Bridgman had dressed it; but I did not know this until afterward. When I had played with it a little while, Miss Sullivan slowly spelled into my hand the word "d-o-l-l". I was at once interested in this finger play and tried to imitate it. When I finally succeeded in making the letters correctly I was flushed with childish pleasure and pride. Running downstairs to my mother I held up my hand and made the letters for doll. I did not know that I was spelling a word or even that words existed; I was simply making my fingers go in monkey-like imitation. In the days that followed I learned to spell in this uncomprehending way a great many words, among them, pin, hat, cup and a few verbs like sit, stand and walk. But my teacher had been with me several weeks before I understood that everything has a name.
6 One day, while I was playing with my new doll, Miss Sullivan put my big rag doll into my lap, also spelled "d-o-l-l" and tried to make me understand that "d-o-l-l" applied to both. Earlier in the day we had had a tussle over the words "m-u-g" and "w-a-t-e-r". Miss Sullivan had tried to impress it upon me that "m-u-g" is mug and that "w-a-t-e-r" is water, but I persisted in confounding the two. In despair she had dropped the subject for the time, only to <4> renew it at the first opportunity. I became impatient at her repeated attempts and, seizing the new doll, I dashed it upon the floor. I was keenly delighted when I felt the fragments of the broken doll at my feet. Neither sorrow nor regret followed my passionate outburst. I had not loved the doll. In the still, dark world in which I lived there was no strong sentiment or tenderness. I felt my teacher sweep the fragments to one side of the hearth, and I had a sense of satisfaction that the cause of my discomfort was removed. She brought me my hat, and I knew I was going out into the warm sunshine. This thought, if a wordless sensation may be called a thought, made me hop and skip with pleasure.
7 We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered. Someone was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly, I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten-a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that "w-a-t-e-r" meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that could in time be swept away.
8 I left the well-house eager to learn. Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. As we returned to the house every object which I touched seemed to quiver with life. That was because I saw everything with the strange, new sight that had come to me. On entering the door I remembered the doll I had broken. I felt my way to the hearth and picked up the pieces. I tried vainly to put them together. Then my eyes filled with tears; for I realized what I had done, and for the first time I felt repentance and sorrow.
9 I learned a great many new words that day. I do not remember what they all were; but I do know that mother, father, sister, teacher were among them-words that were to make the world blossom for me, "like Aaron's rod <5>, with flowers". It would have been difficult to find a happier child than I was as I lay in my crib at the close of that eventful day and lived over the joys it had brought me, and for the first time longed for a new day to come.
2 On the afternoon of that eventful day, I stood on the porch, dumb, expectant. I guessed vaguely from my mother's signs and from the hurrying to and fro in the house that something unusual was about to happen, so I went to the door and waited on the steps. The afternoon sun penetrated the mass of honeysuckle that covered the porch, and fell on my upturned face. My fingers lingered almost unconsciously on the familiar leaves and blossoms which had just come forth to greet the sweet southern spring. I did not know what the future held of marvel or surprise for me.<1> Anger and bitterness had preyed upon me continually for weeks and a deep languor had succeeded this passionate struggle.
3 Have you ever been at sea in a dense fog, when it seemed as if a tangible white darkness shut you in, and the great ship, tense and anxious, groped her way toward the shore with plummet and sounding-line<2>, and you waited with beating heart for something to happen? I was like that ship before my education began, only I was without compass or sounding-line, and had no way of knowing how near the harbor was. "Light! Give me light!" was the wordless cry of my soul, and the light of love shone on me in that very hour.
4 I felt approaching footsteps. I stretched out my hand as I supposed to my mother.<3> Someone took it, and I was caught up and held close in the arms of her who had come to reveal all things to me, and, more than all things else, to love me.
5 The morning after my teacher came she led me into her room and gave me a doll. The little blind children at the Perkins Institution had sent it and Laura Bridgman had dressed it; but I did not know this until afterward. When I had played with it a little while, Miss Sullivan slowly spelled into my hand the word "d-o-l-l". I was at once interested in this finger play and tried to imitate it. When I finally succeeded in making the letters correctly I was flushed with childish pleasure and pride. Running downstairs to my mother I held up my hand and made the letters for doll. I did not know that I was spelling a word or even that words existed; I was simply making my fingers go in monkey-like imitation. In the days that followed I learned to spell in this uncomprehending way a great many words, among them, pin, hat, cup and a few verbs like sit, stand and walk. But my teacher had been with me several weeks before I understood that everything has a name.
6 One day, while I was playing with my new doll, Miss Sullivan put my big rag doll into my lap, also spelled "d-o-l-l" and tried to make me understand that "d-o-l-l" applied to both. Earlier in the day we had had a tussle over the words "m-u-g" and "w-a-t-e-r". Miss Sullivan had tried to impress it upon me that "m-u-g" is mug and that "w-a-t-e-r" is water, but I persisted in confounding the two. In despair she had dropped the subject for the time, only to <4> renew it at the first opportunity. I became impatient at her repeated attempts and, seizing the new doll, I dashed it upon the floor. I was keenly delighted when I felt the fragments of the broken doll at my feet. Neither sorrow nor regret followed my passionate outburst. I had not loved the doll. In the still, dark world in which I lived there was no strong sentiment or tenderness. I felt my teacher sweep the fragments to one side of the hearth, and I had a sense of satisfaction that the cause of my discomfort was removed. She brought me my hat, and I knew I was going out into the warm sunshine. This thought, if a wordless sensation may be called a thought, made me hop and skip with pleasure.
7 We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered. Someone was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly, I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten-a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that "w-a-t-e-r" meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that could in time be swept away.
8 I left the well-house eager to learn. Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. As we returned to the house every object which I touched seemed to quiver with life. That was because I saw everything with the strange, new sight that had come to me. On entering the door I remembered the doll I had broken. I felt my way to the hearth and picked up the pieces. I tried vainly to put them together. Then my eyes filled with tears; for I realized what I had done, and for the first time I felt repentance and sorrow.
9 I learned a great many new words that day. I do not remember what they all were; but I do know that mother, father, sister, teacher were among them-words that were to make the world blossom for me, "like Aaron's rod <5>, with flowers". It would have been difficult to find a happier child than I was as I lay in my crib at the close of that eventful day and lived over the joys it had brought me, and for the first time longed for a new day to come.
Twins, Genes, and Environment
1 Heredity or environment: which is stronger? The potentials which a person is born with determine in some way what he will do in life. Therefore heredity is fate, a kind of predestination. However, genes do not work in a vacuum; as soon as we begin considering the role that they play in the development of the individual, we see that there can be no development without the interacting environment. No characteristic is caused exclusively by either environment or genes.
2 The relative effects of heredity and environment are most clearly observable in identical twins. Most identical twins are raised together and are remarkably alike in both appearance and behavior. These cases demonstrate that individuals with the same genes, when raised in the same environment, will respond to it in much the same way. They do not indicate what would happen if these identical individuals were raised separately.
3 A number of studies have been made of identical twins raised apart. The twins who were the subjects of these studies lived in America, were raised in much the same physical environments, and experienced much the same nutritional histories. Therefore, as one might expect, they maintained the closest resemblance to each other in physical appearance, height, and weight. Exceptions occurred when one twin had developed a rather severe illness and the other had not; but on the whole everyone is impressed by the great psychological and physical likenesses that exist between identical twins, even those who have been separated from infancy.
4 In a study of nineteen sets of twins who had been separated from birth, investigators found that in approximately two thirds of the sets there were no more significant differences than existed among unseparated pairs of twins. This strongly suggests the power of the genes and the limitation of the effect of environment. However, it must be remembered that, although the identical twins who were studied lived in different families far removed from each other, the environments in those families were not, on the whole, substantially different. Usually every effort would be made to put each child in a home with a background similar to that of its own family, and therefore it should not be surprising to find that the twins developed similarly. But in those cases in which there had been a greater difference in the environments of the separated twins, the differences between the twins were more substantial. The following case illustrates what happens to identical twins when they are brought up in contrasting environments.
5 Gladys and Helen were born in a small Ohio town and were separated at about eighteen months of age. They did not meet again until they were twenty-eight years old. Helen had been adopted twice. Her first foster parents had proved to be unstable, and Helen had been returned to the orphanage after a couple of years; after several months she was again adopted, by a farmer and his wife who lived in southeastern Michigan. This was her home for the next twenty-five years. Her second foster-mother, though she had had few educational advantages herself, was determined that Helen should receive a good education; Helen eventually graduated from college, taught school for twelve years, married at twenty-six, and had a daughter.
6 Gladys was adopted by a Canadian railroad conductor and his wife. When she was in the third grade, the family moved to a rather isolated part of the Canadian Rockies, where there were no schools, and Gladys' formal education came to an end, and was not resumed until the family moved to Ontario. She stayed at home and did housework until she was seventeen, and then went to work in a knitting mill. She went to Detroit at nineteen, got a job, and married when she was twenty-one.
7 Helen had been healthier than Gladys, in childhood and adulthood, but other than that, their environments had been very similar except for their educations. Their weight, height, hair color, and teeth were very similar. The differences that distinguished them were obviously associated with the different social lives they had led.
8 Helen was confident, graceful, made the most of her personal appearance, and showed considerable polish and ease in social relationships. Gladys was shy, self-conscious, quiet and without charming or graceful manners. A scientist who studied them remarked, "As an advertisement for a college education the contrast between these two twins should be quite effective."
9 Considering the nature of their environmental experiences, the differences in Helen and Gladys are not surprising. Since psychological traits depend so much upon experience, it is to be expected that they will reflect it. On the other hand, traits that are not liable to be influenced by the environment are more likely to exhibit a high degree of similarity in identical twins. Important as they are, genes alone are never absolutely responsible for any trait. What we can do is set by the genes, but what we actually do is largely determined by the environment.
2 The relative effects of heredity and environment are most clearly observable in identical twins. Most identical twins are raised together and are remarkably alike in both appearance and behavior. These cases demonstrate that individuals with the same genes, when raised in the same environment, will respond to it in much the same way. They do not indicate what would happen if these identical individuals were raised separately.
3 A number of studies have been made of identical twins raised apart. The twins who were the subjects of these studies lived in America, were raised in much the same physical environments, and experienced much the same nutritional histories. Therefore, as one might expect, they maintained the closest resemblance to each other in physical appearance, height, and weight. Exceptions occurred when one twin had developed a rather severe illness and the other had not; but on the whole everyone is impressed by the great psychological and physical likenesses that exist between identical twins, even those who have been separated from infancy.
4 In a study of nineteen sets of twins who had been separated from birth, investigators found that in approximately two thirds of the sets there were no more significant differences than existed among unseparated pairs of twins. This strongly suggests the power of the genes and the limitation of the effect of environment. However, it must be remembered that, although the identical twins who were studied lived in different families far removed from each other, the environments in those families were not, on the whole, substantially different. Usually every effort would be made to put each child in a home with a background similar to that of its own family, and therefore it should not be surprising to find that the twins developed similarly. But in those cases in which there had been a greater difference in the environments of the separated twins, the differences between the twins were more substantial. The following case illustrates what happens to identical twins when they are brought up in contrasting environments.
5 Gladys and Helen were born in a small Ohio town and were separated at about eighteen months of age. They did not meet again until they were twenty-eight years old. Helen had been adopted twice. Her first foster parents had proved to be unstable, and Helen had been returned to the orphanage after a couple of years; after several months she was again adopted, by a farmer and his wife who lived in southeastern Michigan. This was her home for the next twenty-five years. Her second foster-mother, though she had had few educational advantages herself, was determined that Helen should receive a good education; Helen eventually graduated from college, taught school for twelve years, married at twenty-six, and had a daughter.
6 Gladys was adopted by a Canadian railroad conductor and his wife. When she was in the third grade, the family moved to a rather isolated part of the Canadian Rockies, where there were no schools, and Gladys' formal education came to an end, and was not resumed until the family moved to Ontario. She stayed at home and did housework until she was seventeen, and then went to work in a knitting mill. She went to Detroit at nineteen, got a job, and married when she was twenty-one.
7 Helen had been healthier than Gladys, in childhood and adulthood, but other than that, their environments had been very similar except for their educations. Their weight, height, hair color, and teeth were very similar. The differences that distinguished them were obviously associated with the different social lives they had led.
8 Helen was confident, graceful, made the most of her personal appearance, and showed considerable polish and ease in social relationships. Gladys was shy, self-conscious, quiet and without charming or graceful manners. A scientist who studied them remarked, "As an advertisement for a college education the contrast between these two twins should be quite effective."
9 Considering the nature of their environmental experiences, the differences in Helen and Gladys are not surprising. Since psychological traits depend so much upon experience, it is to be expected that they will reflect it. On the other hand, traits that are not liable to be influenced by the environment are more likely to exhibit a high degree of similarity in identical twins. Important as they are, genes alone are never absolutely responsible for any trait. What we can do is set by the genes, but what we actually do is largely determined by the environment.
Two Ways of Looking at Life
Your attitude strongly reflects your outlook on life. Take a closer look at that connection. Are you a pessimist—or an optimist? Can you see how your way of looking actually does color[1] your attitude? And remember: change your outlook and you change your attitude.
The father is looking down into the crib at his sleeping newborn daughter, just home from the hospital. His heart is overflowing with awe and gratitude for the beauty of her, the perfection.
The baby opens her eyes and stares straight up.
The father calls her name, expecting that she will turn her head and look at him. Her eyes don't move.
He picks up a furry little toy attached to the rail of the crib and shakes it, ringing the bell it contains. The baby's eyes don't move.
His heart has begun to beat rapidly. He finds his wife in their bedroom and tells her what just happened. "She doesn't seem to respond to noise at all," he says. "It's as if she can't hear."
"I'm sure she's all right," the wife says, pulling her dressing gown around her. Together they go into the baby's room.
She calls the baby's name, jingles the bell, claps her hands. Then she picks up the baby, who immediately becomes lively and makes happy sounds.
"My God," the father says. "She's deaf."
"No, she's not," the mother says. "I mean, it's too soon to say a thing like that. Look, she's brand-new. Her eyes don't even focus yet."
"But there wasn't the slightest movement, even when you clapped as hard as you could."
The mother takes a book from the shelf. "Let's read what's in the baby book," she says. She looks up "hearing" and reads out loud: "Don't be alarmed if your newborn fails to be startled by loud noises or fails to turn toward sound. Reactions to sound often take some time to develop. Your pediatrician can test your child's hearing neurologically.'"
"There," the mother says. "Doesn't that make you feel better?"
"Not much," the father says. "It doesn't even mention the other possibility, that the baby is deaf. And all I know is that my baby doesn't hear a thing. I've got the worst feeling about this. Maybe it's because my grandfather was deaf. If that beautiful baby is deaf and it's my fault, I'll never forgive myself."
"Hey, wait a minute," says the wife. "You're worrying too much. We'll call the pediatrician first thing Monday. In the meantime, cheer up. Here, hold the baby while I fix her blanket. It's all pulled out."
The father takes the baby but gives her back to his wife as soon as he can. All weekend he finds himself unable to prepare for next week's work. He follows his wife around the house, thinking about the baby's hearing and about the way deafness would ruin her life. He imagines only the worst: no hearing, no development of language, his beautiful child cut off from society, locked in a soundless world. By Sunday night he has sunk into despair.
The mother leaves a message with the pediatrician's answering service[2] asking for an early appointment Monday. She spends the weekend doing her exercises, reading, and trying to calm her husband.
The pediatrician's tests are reassuring, but the father's spirits remain low. Not until a week later, when the baby shows her first startle to the loud sound of a passing truck, does he begin to recover and enjoy his new daughter again.
This father and mother have two different ways of looking at the world. Whenever something bad happens to him—a call from the bank manager, a disagreement with his wife, even a frown from his employer—he imagines the worst: bankruptcy, jail, divorce, and dismissal. He is prone to depression; he often feels extremely tired; his health suffers. She, on the other hand, sees bad events in their least threatening light. To her, they are temporary challenges to be overcome. After a reversal, she bounces back quickly, and finds all her energy again. Her health is excellent.
The optimists and the pessimists: I have been studying them for the past twenty-five years. The defining characteristic of pessimists is that they tend to believe bad events will last a long time, will undermine everything they do, and are their own fault. The optimists, who are confronted with the same hard knocks [3] of this world, think about misfortune in the opposite way. They tend to believe defeat is just a temporary setback, that its causes are confined to this one case. The optimists believe defeat is not their fault: circumstances, bad luck, or other people brought it about. Such people are not bothered by defeat. Confronted by a bad situation, they perceive it as a challenge and try harder.
These two habits of thinking about causes have consequences. Literally hundreds of studies show that pessimists give up more easily and get depressed more often. These experiments also show that optimists do much better in school and at work. They regularly exceed the predictions of aptitude tests.[4] When optimists run for office, they are more apt to be elected than pessimists are. Their health is unusually good. Evidence suggests they may even live longer.
Twenty-five years of study has convinced me that if we habitually believe, as does the pessimist, that misfortune is our fault, is enduring, and will undermine everything we do, more of it will happen to us than if we believe otherwise. I am also convinced that if we are in the grip of this view, we will get depressed easily, we will accomplish less than our potential, and we will even get physically sick more often. Pessimistic prophecies are self-fulfilling.
The father is looking down into the crib at his sleeping newborn daughter, just home from the hospital. His heart is overflowing with awe and gratitude for the beauty of her, the perfection.
The baby opens her eyes and stares straight up.
The father calls her name, expecting that she will turn her head and look at him. Her eyes don't move.
He picks up a furry little toy attached to the rail of the crib and shakes it, ringing the bell it contains. The baby's eyes don't move.
His heart has begun to beat rapidly. He finds his wife in their bedroom and tells her what just happened. "She doesn't seem to respond to noise at all," he says. "It's as if she can't hear."
"I'm sure she's all right," the wife says, pulling her dressing gown around her. Together they go into the baby's room.
She calls the baby's name, jingles the bell, claps her hands. Then she picks up the baby, who immediately becomes lively and makes happy sounds.
"My God," the father says. "She's deaf."
"No, she's not," the mother says. "I mean, it's too soon to say a thing like that. Look, she's brand-new. Her eyes don't even focus yet."
"But there wasn't the slightest movement, even when you clapped as hard as you could."
The mother takes a book from the shelf. "Let's read what's in the baby book," she says. She looks up "hearing" and reads out loud: "Don't be alarmed if your newborn fails to be startled by loud noises or fails to turn toward sound. Reactions to sound often take some time to develop. Your pediatrician can test your child's hearing neurologically.'"
"There," the mother says. "Doesn't that make you feel better?"
"Not much," the father says. "It doesn't even mention the other possibility, that the baby is deaf. And all I know is that my baby doesn't hear a thing. I've got the worst feeling about this. Maybe it's because my grandfather was deaf. If that beautiful baby is deaf and it's my fault, I'll never forgive myself."
"Hey, wait a minute," says the wife. "You're worrying too much. We'll call the pediatrician first thing Monday. In the meantime, cheer up. Here, hold the baby while I fix her blanket. It's all pulled out."
The father takes the baby but gives her back to his wife as soon as he can. All weekend he finds himself unable to prepare for next week's work. He follows his wife around the house, thinking about the baby's hearing and about the way deafness would ruin her life. He imagines only the worst: no hearing, no development of language, his beautiful child cut off from society, locked in a soundless world. By Sunday night he has sunk into despair.
The mother leaves a message with the pediatrician's answering service[2] asking for an early appointment Monday. She spends the weekend doing her exercises, reading, and trying to calm her husband.
The pediatrician's tests are reassuring, but the father's spirits remain low. Not until a week later, when the baby shows her first startle to the loud sound of a passing truck, does he begin to recover and enjoy his new daughter again.
This father and mother have two different ways of looking at the world. Whenever something bad happens to him—a call from the bank manager, a disagreement with his wife, even a frown from his employer—he imagines the worst: bankruptcy, jail, divorce, and dismissal. He is prone to depression; he often feels extremely tired; his health suffers. She, on the other hand, sees bad events in their least threatening light. To her, they are temporary challenges to be overcome. After a reversal, she bounces back quickly, and finds all her energy again. Her health is excellent.
The optimists and the pessimists: I have been studying them for the past twenty-five years. The defining characteristic of pessimists is that they tend to believe bad events will last a long time, will undermine everything they do, and are their own fault. The optimists, who are confronted with the same hard knocks [3] of this world, think about misfortune in the opposite way. They tend to believe defeat is just a temporary setback, that its causes are confined to this one case. The optimists believe defeat is not their fault: circumstances, bad luck, or other people brought it about. Such people are not bothered by defeat. Confronted by a bad situation, they perceive it as a challenge and try harder.
These two habits of thinking about causes have consequences. Literally hundreds of studies show that pessimists give up more easily and get depressed more often. These experiments also show that optimists do much better in school and at work. They regularly exceed the predictions of aptitude tests.[4] When optimists run for office, they are more apt to be elected than pessimists are. Their health is unusually good. Evidence suggests they may even live longer.
Twenty-five years of study has convinced me that if we habitually believe, as does the pessimist, that misfortune is our fault, is enduring, and will undermine everything we do, more of it will happen to us than if we believe otherwise. I am also convinced that if we are in the grip of this view, we will get depressed easily, we will accomplish less than our potential, and we will even get physically sick more often. Pessimistic prophecies are self-fulfilling.
Career Planning
1 Career planning does not necessarily follow routine or logical steps. Each of us places weight on different factors and may consider certain phases of career planning at different times. Career planning includes gathering information about ourselves and about occupations , estimating the probable outcomes of various courses of action<1>, and finally, choosing alternatives that we find attractive and feasible.
2 Many observers have pointed out that students are not very efficient career planners. They cite evidence that (1) most students choose from among a very narrow group of occupations; (2) as many as 40 to 60 percent choose professional occupations, when in reality only 15 to 18 percent of the work force is engaged in professional work; (3) young men show a striking lack of interest in clerical, sales, and service occupations, although these fields offer many job opportunities; and (4) as many as a third of the students are unable to express any choice of occupation.
3 In their book Decision Making<2>, Irving Janis and Leon Mann identify serious flaws in the ways many people make decisions. These flaws seem to be associated with the patterns people use to cope with problems. The first flaw is complacency. People who ignore challenging information about the choices they make demonstrate complacency. People who take the attitude that "It won't affect me" or "It will never happen" use complacency as a dominant pattern of behaving. Of course, complacency is appropriate for any decision in which nothing much is at stake, but that does not describe career decisions.
4 A second flaw in the way people cope with decisions is defensive avoidance. When confronted with a decision and unable to believe they can find an acceptable solution, some people remain calm by resorting to wishful thinking or daydreaming. Students who fail to think about the implications of their career choices often engage in rationalization (deceiving oneself with self-satisfying but incorrect explanations for one's behavior) or procrastination (putting off or delaying). Facing the situation may produce anxiety, but examining alternatives could also bring relief.
5 A third flaw is hypervigilance<3>. This occurs in career decision making when people believe there is not enough time to find a solution and they panic. They search frantically for career possibilities and seize on hastily invented solutions, overlooking the consequences of their choice as well as other alternatives. People who are in a panic sometimes do not think clearly or logically.
6 The best coping behavior is vigilance. Vigilant decision making occurs when people believe that (1) a choice should be made, (2) they can find a solution, and (3) there is enough time. Under these conditions, students can conduct an effective search for alternative careers, carefully evaluate each alternative, and work out contingency plans in case one or another risk appears.
7 Following are the keys to career planning.
8 1. Study yourself. This is the key to career planning. Understanding what you are like, what you value, and what you want to become is the foundation for all career planning. In studying yourself, you examine your strengths and weaknesses, your goals, and the trends in your personal development. The self-understanding that you gain enables you to imagine how certain occupations may best fit your personality, interests, abilities, and goals. All career decisions require us to learn both about ourselves and about work, and to integrate these two kinds of knowledge.
9 2. Write your career goals down. A technique useful for organizing ideas about your career development is actually to write them down by time blocks<4> in your life. Writing something down forces you to crystallize your thinking and to recognize unclear and half-formed<5> ideas. It may lead to new insights into your possibilities and may help you to see new relationships, patterns, and trends, or to identify gaps in your thinking about your career development.
10 3. Review your plans and progress periodically with another person. Every so often, take stock of your situation and consider what steps have to be taken next. Taking inventory of progress and planning further steps can help you cope with the changes that you undergo and the changes that take place in the labor market. Talking over your plans with a college counselor, your parents, and your friends helps you define your goals and improve your career plans or make them work.
11 4. If you choose a career that does not fit you, you can start over. Today, growing numbers of men and women are changing careers or getting second starts in careers that have greater appeal to them. Many of those who find that their line of work<6> is unsatisfactory restrain themselves for a different occupation. Often their new occupation is one that they overlooked when they were young or that they did not have an opportunity to pursue at that time for financial or other reasons.
12 Sociologists say that there are few changes in careers that involve "downward" movement; most involve the traditional business of "getting ahead".<7> Society no longer attaches the stigma of "instability" to the idea of career hopping, as it once did.<8>
13 Job changes and career shifts occur at all ages. It has been estimated that as many as one out of four male workers between the ages of twenty and twenty-five change their lines of work. About half that number do so between the ages of twenty-five and forty-four.
14 Career planning does not guarantee that all the problems, difficulties, or decision-making situations that face you in the future will be solved or made any easier. No formula can be given to do that. But career planning should help you to approach and cope better with new problems, such as deciding whether or not to enter educational or training programs, deciding whether or not to change jobs, and analyzing the difficulties you are having with a situation or a person.
15 Nobody can foresee what the future holds for any of us.<9> There are social, emotional, and moral considerations in our future that cannot be foreseen. But the most important lesson of this often unhappy modern world is that progress comes from planning. Ignorance about one's career is not bliss<10>; reason is better than chance and fate. Although there is no sure way to make career plans work out, there are things that you can do now to shape your career possibilities.
2 Many observers have pointed out that students are not very efficient career planners. They cite evidence that (1) most students choose from among a very narrow group of occupations; (2) as many as 40 to 60 percent choose professional occupations, when in reality only 15 to 18 percent of the work force is engaged in professional work; (3) young men show a striking lack of interest in clerical, sales, and service occupations, although these fields offer many job opportunities; and (4) as many as a third of the students are unable to express any choice of occupation.
3 In their book Decision Making<2>, Irving Janis and Leon Mann identify serious flaws in the ways many people make decisions. These flaws seem to be associated with the patterns people use to cope with problems. The first flaw is complacency. People who ignore challenging information about the choices they make demonstrate complacency. People who take the attitude that "It won't affect me" or "It will never happen" use complacency as a dominant pattern of behaving. Of course, complacency is appropriate for any decision in which nothing much is at stake, but that does not describe career decisions.
4 A second flaw in the way people cope with decisions is defensive avoidance. When confronted with a decision and unable to believe they can find an acceptable solution, some people remain calm by resorting to wishful thinking or daydreaming. Students who fail to think about the implications of their career choices often engage in rationalization (deceiving oneself with self-satisfying but incorrect explanations for one's behavior) or procrastination (putting off or delaying). Facing the situation may produce anxiety, but examining alternatives could also bring relief.
5 A third flaw is hypervigilance<3>. This occurs in career decision making when people believe there is not enough time to find a solution and they panic. They search frantically for career possibilities and seize on hastily invented solutions, overlooking the consequences of their choice as well as other alternatives. People who are in a panic sometimes do not think clearly or logically.
6 The best coping behavior is vigilance. Vigilant decision making occurs when people believe that (1) a choice should be made, (2) they can find a solution, and (3) there is enough time. Under these conditions, students can conduct an effective search for alternative careers, carefully evaluate each alternative, and work out contingency plans in case one or another risk appears.
7 Following are the keys to career planning.
8 1. Study yourself. This is the key to career planning. Understanding what you are like, what you value, and what you want to become is the foundation for all career planning. In studying yourself, you examine your strengths and weaknesses, your goals, and the trends in your personal development. The self-understanding that you gain enables you to imagine how certain occupations may best fit your personality, interests, abilities, and goals. All career decisions require us to learn both about ourselves and about work, and to integrate these two kinds of knowledge.
9 2. Write your career goals down. A technique useful for organizing ideas about your career development is actually to write them down by time blocks<4> in your life. Writing something down forces you to crystallize your thinking and to recognize unclear and half-formed<5> ideas. It may lead to new insights into your possibilities and may help you to see new relationships, patterns, and trends, or to identify gaps in your thinking about your career development.
10 3. Review your plans and progress periodically with another person. Every so often, take stock of your situation and consider what steps have to be taken next. Taking inventory of progress and planning further steps can help you cope with the changes that you undergo and the changes that take place in the labor market. Talking over your plans with a college counselor, your parents, and your friends helps you define your goals and improve your career plans or make them work.
11 4. If you choose a career that does not fit you, you can start over. Today, growing numbers of men and women are changing careers or getting second starts in careers that have greater appeal to them. Many of those who find that their line of work<6> is unsatisfactory restrain themselves for a different occupation. Often their new occupation is one that they overlooked when they were young or that they did not have an opportunity to pursue at that time for financial or other reasons.
12 Sociologists say that there are few changes in careers that involve "downward" movement; most involve the traditional business of "getting ahead".<7> Society no longer attaches the stigma of "instability" to the idea of career hopping, as it once did.<8>
13 Job changes and career shifts occur at all ages. It has been estimated that as many as one out of four male workers between the ages of twenty and twenty-five change their lines of work. About half that number do so between the ages of twenty-five and forty-four.
14 Career planning does not guarantee that all the problems, difficulties, or decision-making situations that face you in the future will be solved or made any easier. No formula can be given to do that. But career planning should help you to approach and cope better with new problems, such as deciding whether or not to enter educational or training programs, deciding whether or not to change jobs, and analyzing the difficulties you are having with a situation or a person.
15 Nobody can foresee what the future holds for any of us.<9> There are social, emotional, and moral considerations in our future that cannot be foreseen. But the most important lesson of this often unhappy modern world is that progress comes from planning. Ignorance about one's career is not bliss<10>; reason is better than chance and fate. Although there is no sure way to make career plans work out, there are things that you can do now to shape your career possibilities.
Planning
Assuming that you know what you want to do after college—and you may be considered shortsighted[2] these days if you have not picked a career by the time you enter college—you should start thinking about a job even before you graduate.
What companies or organizations have the job you want? Let's say you majored in English or history and you want to write a great novel. You need a job to support and educate you. You have to select from a list of several possibilities, not unlike choosing an option from the "menu" on the screen of a personal computer. Your options might include:
A. Working for a publishing company
B. Writing for a scientific company
C. Working for a public relations firm
D. Going to graduate school to postpone decision
E. None of these
If you select option A, for example, it would be a good idea to write letters while you are in college to a dozen or more publishing houses and ask for an interview with the personnel director. If you happen to have a contact[3]such as an editor who might be willing to meet with you, so much the better[4].
Make every effort[5]to have an interview. You should be familiar with the company before your interview and your aim should be to express to the personnel manager your interest in working for the company.[6] You might ask if a summer job (with pay, if possible) or an internship is available. In many cases interns do receive a small stipend; in others no pay is offered.
It is important at this stage of your life to find a summer job that will enhance your future career. If you cannot find one in your field, then the alternative is to take another type of summer job—lifeguard, housepainter, landscaper, waitress, or worker in a retail store or supermarket. These jobs tend to pay quite well, and you can save enough for many college expenses. That aspect has to be weighed against the fact that they might not help your career plans[7]. Any summer job that requires hard work and a certain amount of responsibility is good for your résumé. Naturally if the job is career-oriented[8], it makes [9] better reading.
One day on the commuter train [10], I was sitting in front of two high school girls, and one said to the other, "My college education won't cost my father one cent. At least I don't think so." She explained that she had been working weekends, summers, and Christmas and spring vacations as a waitress in a restaurant. Her tips were so good she had saved up $10,000. She planned to go to Rutgers University, commuting from home. If she continued working through college she figured she could graduate without debt and go to graduate school.
When I started looking for a summer job in college I found that the only organization that would hire me (except for restaurants) was Filene's, the big Boston department store that operated a summer branch on Cape Cod, where my family vacationed. During my freshman year at college I paid a visit to the Northampton, Mass., branch, a year-round [11] operation. I asked for a job selling on Saturdays and a job the following summer. I was hired on the spot. The following summer the manager of the Northampton shop assumed management of the Cape Cod branch for the summer, and she asked me to come along as a salesgirl.
All through college I earned my expenses by working for Filene's on the Cape during the summer months and on Saturdays and sale days during the college years. I also conceived and wrote copy [12] for the advertisements that Filene's ran in our college newspaper during the winter, and an art major did the drawings based on my ideas. By the time I was a senior I knew that I did not want to go into retailing, but it was my hedge [13] against the future. I knew from conversations with the store manager that if I could not find a newspaper reporting job I could find a spot on the Filene's training squad, and use that step toward a writing job.
What companies or organizations have the job you want? Let's say you majored in English or history and you want to write a great novel. You need a job to support and educate you. You have to select from a list of several possibilities, not unlike choosing an option from the "menu" on the screen of a personal computer. Your options might include:
A. Working for a publishing company
B. Writing for a scientific company
C. Working for a public relations firm
D. Going to graduate school to postpone decision
E. None of these
If you select option A, for example, it would be a good idea to write letters while you are in college to a dozen or more publishing houses and ask for an interview with the personnel director. If you happen to have a contact[3]such as an editor who might be willing to meet with you, so much the better[4].
Make every effort[5]to have an interview. You should be familiar with the company before your interview and your aim should be to express to the personnel manager your interest in working for the company.[6] You might ask if a summer job (with pay, if possible) or an internship is available. In many cases interns do receive a small stipend; in others no pay is offered.
It is important at this stage of your life to find a summer job that will enhance your future career. If you cannot find one in your field, then the alternative is to take another type of summer job—lifeguard, housepainter, landscaper, waitress, or worker in a retail store or supermarket. These jobs tend to pay quite well, and you can save enough for many college expenses. That aspect has to be weighed against the fact that they might not help your career plans[7]. Any summer job that requires hard work and a certain amount of responsibility is good for your résumé. Naturally if the job is career-oriented[8], it makes [9] better reading.
One day on the commuter train [10], I was sitting in front of two high school girls, and one said to the other, "My college education won't cost my father one cent. At least I don't think so." She explained that she had been working weekends, summers, and Christmas and spring vacations as a waitress in a restaurant. Her tips were so good she had saved up $10,000. She planned to go to Rutgers University, commuting from home. If she continued working through college she figured she could graduate without debt and go to graduate school.
When I started looking for a summer job in college I found that the only organization that would hire me (except for restaurants) was Filene's, the big Boston department store that operated a summer branch on Cape Cod, where my family vacationed. During my freshman year at college I paid a visit to the Northampton, Mass., branch, a year-round [11] operation. I asked for a job selling on Saturdays and a job the following summer. I was hired on the spot. The following summer the manager of the Northampton shop assumed management of the Cape Cod branch for the summer, and she asked me to come along as a salesgirl.
All through college I earned my expenses by working for Filene's on the Cape during the summer months and on Saturdays and sale days during the college years. I also conceived and wrote copy [12] for the advertisements that Filene's ran in our college newspaper during the winter, and an art major did the drawings based on my ideas. By the time I was a senior I knew that I did not want to go into retailing, but it was my hedge [13] against the future. I knew from conversations with the store manager that if I could not find a newspaper reporting job I could find a spot on the Filene's training squad, and use that step toward a writing job.
Study Habits
1 In college in any class, you will find widely different types of people, not only in personality but also in scholastic attitude. This same range from one extreme to the other can also be observed in their study habits. In fact, students can be divided into distinct groups based on their study habits. There are basically three categories: the perpetual studier, the average studier, and the crammer.
2 The perpetual studier is a rare breed indeed. But they exist and they aren't very hard to spot. They usually sit in the front of the class and write about three pages of notes a day regardless of how much material the instructor covers. They don' t talk to anyone except to answer questions, and that only at the end of class when the lecture is over. When a perpetual studier goes home, before he does anything else, he takes out all his books and begins studying for the classes that he has the next day. He studies until really late at night, stopping only once or twice for a quick snack. When he is informed that he has a test, he will begin preparing for it at least five days in advance unless, of course, he is told less than five days previous to the test, in which case he will study until he has covered all the notes he has at least ten times or until he knows the material backwards and forwards. Although the perpetual studier does well in school, he usually misses out on social life. There are a select few who maintain something of a social life, but this is rare. Most of them never meet new people except in situations where they are forced to, such as meeting their roommates at the start of school. However, they will graduate with a 4.0 grade point average and be successful in life-as long as they don' t choose careers that require many social skills.
3 The majority of students fall into a category that I refer to as the average studier. This person studies sufficiently but doesn't work more than necessary. When he studies for a test, he will look over the notes taken, reread appropriate pages in the textbook, and study with a friend sometimes. Overall, he may put in anywhere from two to six hours a day studying during the week leaving Friday and Saturday for his social life and then spend from four to eight hours studying on Sunday. The average studier takes his education seriously and will study with friends much more often than will the perpetual studier. He will have a good time getting an education. For him the line between education and having a good time is a lot thinner than with the perpetual studier. The average studier will leave college with at least a solid education and will be much more socially adept than the perpetual studier.
4 The third type of studier is the crammer. This type of person studies only when the threat of taking that class over is very great. When he studies for a test, he doesn't begin until the night before or the morning of the test. He spends most of his time doing anything that doesn't have to do with school. It amazes me how people like this manage to get by with the extremely small amount of studying they do, but somehow they do. Their homework is last on their list of things to do. If they are bored and they are on a borderline D, they might do some homework. But before they do such a deed, they will rack their brains trying to think of something else to do. It is amazing to watch a crammer trying to avoid doing homework. Cleaning the room even takes precedence over homework—not to mention sleep.
5 The crammers are easily recognized in any classroom. They sit in the place farthest from the teacher, and they usually group together. They seem to have the attitude that they are in class to do nothing but have a good time and attract attention. They enjoy disrupting class, and if left alone they will infect a classroom much like cancer infects a body. They are the teachers' nightmares, and there is always at least one in every class. But at the very last minute-before the axe falls, so to speak-they will hit the books. Although some of the crammers won't last for four years, most of them will graduate. They will leave college, though, with little education and few social skills.
6 It can be argued, of course, that there should be a fourth category-the never studier, one who quite literally never studies not even at the very last minute. But then, this person doesn't remain classified as a student for very long.
2 The perpetual studier is a rare breed indeed. But they exist and they aren't very hard to spot. They usually sit in the front of the class and write about three pages of notes a day regardless of how much material the instructor covers. They don' t talk to anyone except to answer questions, and that only at the end of class when the lecture is over. When a perpetual studier goes home, before he does anything else, he takes out all his books and begins studying for the classes that he has the next day. He studies until really late at night, stopping only once or twice for a quick snack. When he is informed that he has a test, he will begin preparing for it at least five days in advance unless, of course, he is told less than five days previous to the test, in which case he will study until he has covered all the notes he has at least ten times or until he knows the material backwards and forwards. Although the perpetual studier does well in school, he usually misses out on social life. There are a select few who maintain something of a social life, but this is rare. Most of them never meet new people except in situations where they are forced to, such as meeting their roommates at the start of school. However, they will graduate with a 4.0 grade point average and be successful in life-as long as they don' t choose careers that require many social skills.
3 The majority of students fall into a category that I refer to as the average studier. This person studies sufficiently but doesn't work more than necessary. When he studies for a test, he will look over the notes taken, reread appropriate pages in the textbook, and study with a friend sometimes. Overall, he may put in anywhere from two to six hours a day studying during the week leaving Friday and Saturday for his social life and then spend from four to eight hours studying on Sunday. The average studier takes his education seriously and will study with friends much more often than will the perpetual studier. He will have a good time getting an education. For him the line between education and having a good time is a lot thinner than with the perpetual studier. The average studier will leave college with at least a solid education and will be much more socially adept than the perpetual studier.
4 The third type of studier is the crammer. This type of person studies only when the threat of taking that class over is very great. When he studies for a test, he doesn't begin until the night before or the morning of the test. He spends most of his time doing anything that doesn't have to do with school. It amazes me how people like this manage to get by with the extremely small amount of studying they do, but somehow they do. Their homework is last on their list of things to do. If they are bored and they are on a borderline D, they might do some homework. But before they do such a deed, they will rack their brains trying to think of something else to do. It is amazing to watch a crammer trying to avoid doing homework. Cleaning the room even takes precedence over homework—not to mention sleep.
5 The crammers are easily recognized in any classroom. They sit in the place farthest from the teacher, and they usually group together. They seem to have the attitude that they are in class to do nothing but have a good time and attract attention. They enjoy disrupting class, and if left alone they will infect a classroom much like cancer infects a body. They are the teachers' nightmares, and there is always at least one in every class. But at the very last minute-before the axe falls, so to speak-they will hit the books. Although some of the crammers won't last for four years, most of them will graduate. They will leave college, though, with little education and few social skills.
6 It can be argued, of course, that there should be a fourth category-the never studier, one who quite literally never studies not even at the very last minute. But then, this person doesn't remain classified as a student for very long.
Food and Culture
We all have ideas about what kinds of foods are good to eat. We also have ideas about what kinds of foods are bad to eat. As a result, people from one culture often think the foods that people from another culture eat are disgusting or nauseating. When the famous boxer Muhammad Ali visited Africa, for example, one member of his group became quite sick when he saw someone pick up a butterfly and eat it. Many people would find it disgusting to eat rats, but there are forty-two different cultures whose people regard rats as appropriate food.
2 Some people in Africa think African termites make a delicious meal. Many other people would probably be sick if they had to eat termites, but one hundred grams of termites contain more than twice as many calories and almost twice as much protein as one hundred grams of cooked hamburger.
3 However, food likes and dislikes do not always seem related to nutrition. For example, broccoli is first on a list of the most nutritious common vegetables, but it is twenty-first on a list of vegetables that Americans like most to eat. Tomatoes are sixteenth on the list of most nutritious vegetables, but they are first on the list of vegetables that Americans like most to eat.
4 But dislike is not the only reason why some cultures will not eat a certain food. In some cultures, certain foods are taboo. Taboo is a word from the language of the Fiji Islands that is used to describe something that is forbidden. Some foods are taboo in certain religions, but there are also other food taboos that are not connected to a religion. We do not usually think about why certain things are taboo in our culture. We may not even know why they are taboo. Anthropologists try to discover the hidden reasons for taboos. For example, the sacred cows of India are well-known. Cows can go wherever they want to in the streets of India, and they can eat anything they want from the supplies of the foodsellers on the street. As a result, the cows are a problem. However, no one in India will kill them or eat them. It is taboo to do so. This custom seems strange to other people, but anthropologists believe that there are reasons for it. First, cows are valuable because the farmers need them to help plow their fields. Second, cow manure is used as a fertilizer on the fields. In India, many farmers cannot afford to spend money on fertilizer. Third, the cow manure can be dried and burned to make cooking fires. Therefore, farmers that kill their cows for meat soon find that they cannot plow or fertilize their fields or make a cooking fire.
5 Another example is that Americans do not eat dogs, although people from some other cultures regard them as good food. In the United States, dogs are very important to people as pets. They are usually regarded as part of the family, almost like a child in some cases. In addition, dogs have value as protection against criminals. Thieves will not usually enter a house where there is a dog because the dog will bark and possibly attack a stranger who is trying to get into a house. Apparently, the dog's place in society as a companion and as a protection against criminals makes the dog taboo as food.
6 The taboo against eating pork occurs in more than one culture. There is some evidence that some ancient Egyptians did not eat pork. The ancient Israelites also regarded pork as taboo. One explanation for the pig-eating taboo is that pork that is not cooked sufficiently may spread a disease called trichinosis. However, most people no longer think that this is a good explanation for the pork taboo. Another explanation is that the Israelites were nomads-they were always moving from place to place. People have to stay in one place to raise pigs. The Israelites did not want to stay in one place because they did not want to change their culture. As a result, they did not eat pigs.
7 Anthropologists believe that most food likes and dislikes are a result of the ways of life of different people. Some people live in areas where there are both large animals and many insects. It is difficult for these people to kill large animals, and it requires a lot of energy. It is easier for them to use insects for food because it is not difficult to catch insects and it does not require a lot of energy. Nomadic people who move around will not want to keep pigs for food. People will not eat pets such as dogs. Americans eat a lot of beef because there is plenty of land for raising cattle and their meat can be shipped cheaply for long distances by railroads.
2 Some people in Africa think African termites make a delicious meal. Many other people would probably be sick if they had to eat termites, but one hundred grams of termites contain more than twice as many calories and almost twice as much protein as one hundred grams of cooked hamburger.
3 However, food likes and dislikes do not always seem related to nutrition. For example, broccoli is first on a list of the most nutritious common vegetables, but it is twenty-first on a list of vegetables that Americans like most to eat. Tomatoes are sixteenth on the list of most nutritious vegetables, but they are first on the list of vegetables that Americans like most to eat.
4 But dislike is not the only reason why some cultures will not eat a certain food. In some cultures, certain foods are taboo. Taboo is a word from the language of the Fiji Islands that is used to describe something that is forbidden. Some foods are taboo in certain religions, but there are also other food taboos that are not connected to a religion. We do not usually think about why certain things are taboo in our culture. We may not even know why they are taboo. Anthropologists try to discover the hidden reasons for taboos. For example, the sacred cows of India are well-known. Cows can go wherever they want to in the streets of India, and they can eat anything they want from the supplies of the foodsellers on the street. As a result, the cows are a problem. However, no one in India will kill them or eat them. It is taboo to do so. This custom seems strange to other people, but anthropologists believe that there are reasons for it. First, cows are valuable because the farmers need them to help plow their fields. Second, cow manure is used as a fertilizer on the fields. In India, many farmers cannot afford to spend money on fertilizer. Third, the cow manure can be dried and burned to make cooking fires. Therefore, farmers that kill their cows for meat soon find that they cannot plow or fertilize their fields or make a cooking fire.
5 Another example is that Americans do not eat dogs, although people from some other cultures regard them as good food. In the United States, dogs are very important to people as pets. They are usually regarded as part of the family, almost like a child in some cases. In addition, dogs have value as protection against criminals. Thieves will not usually enter a house where there is a dog because the dog will bark and possibly attack a stranger who is trying to get into a house. Apparently, the dog's place in society as a companion and as a protection against criminals makes the dog taboo as food.
6 The taboo against eating pork occurs in more than one culture. There is some evidence that some ancient Egyptians did not eat pork. The ancient Israelites also regarded pork as taboo. One explanation for the pig-eating taboo is that pork that is not cooked sufficiently may spread a disease called trichinosis. However, most people no longer think that this is a good explanation for the pork taboo. Another explanation is that the Israelites were nomads-they were always moving from place to place. People have to stay in one place to raise pigs. The Israelites did not want to stay in one place because they did not want to change their culture. As a result, they did not eat pigs.
7 Anthropologists believe that most food likes and dislikes are a result of the ways of life of different people. Some people live in areas where there are both large animals and many insects. It is difficult for these people to kill large animals, and it requires a lot of energy. It is easier for them to use insects for food because it is not difficult to catch insects and it does not require a lot of energy. Nomadic people who move around will not want to keep pigs for food. People will not eat pets such as dogs. Americans eat a lot of beef because there is plenty of land for raising cattle and their meat can be shipped cheaply for long distances by railroads.
The Menu
Food history tells us that in early restaurants the recitation of the available food dishes became an increasingly time-consuming chore; therefore, written menus were developed to help guide diners in their eating choices. This list of dishes was commonly handwritten on a chalkboard or listed on a board that could be easily seen by the customers. Developments in printing finally led to a change and the larger restaurants'floor plans[1] made a single handwritten menu impractical, so printed menus were introduced.
Delmonico's restaurant in New York City is often given credit for introducing the first printed menu in the United States in 1834. That menu, as well as others of the period, was simple in design and offered specific information. Special occasions led to a call for unique designs and eventually led to more highly decorated menus.
For the most part, however, menu decoration followed the art movements of the time. The highly decorated late 19th century menus, which were influenced by Victorian art[2], gave way to modern art in the 20th century. Developments with graphics and printing allowed distinctive menu cover art.
By the 1930s, the menu was seen as a part of the restaurant's plan to create a memorable meal. It could develop an appetite, tell a joke, explain a food item, create a mood, tell something of the history of the restaurant, and, above all, sell some food. Restaurant trade publications encouraged the use of the menu as part of the business strategy, and the National Restaurant Association promoted effective menu graphics in its annual competition of best menus in the nation. Its guidelines for judging included (1) originality, (2) legibility, (3) ease of handling, and (4) sales effectiveness. Restaurant Management magazine in its November 1935 issue stated that most restaurant owners considerably underestimated the importance of the appearance of the menu. The magazine went on to say that the menu really has two important functions: (1) to sell food; and (2) to repeat and emphasize the unique atmosphere of that restaurant.
In spite of the Depression of the 1930s[3], restaurants did well and menu design became important. There were increasing numbers of many different types of restaurants during this decade, including cafeterias, drive-ins, and lunch counters[4]in stores, as well as the traditional, more formal restaurants. Many of the restaurants developed themes in food, decoration and menu styles.
Progress in printing, photography, and especially color photography opened up more opportunities for creative expression. During the Second World War food rationing often hurt the business of restaurants, but as soon as victory was achieved, eating out became very popular again.
In spite of the risks of casual dining and fast food restaurants, the mid-20th century provided many new opportunities for creative menu design. By the end of the 1960s, the increasingly popular coffee shops and restaurants that featured a singular item such as pizza, steak, or pancakes used new menu graphics. The 1970s brought a decline in eating out, but the 1980s, especially in homes where both parents were working, brought a big increase in the demand for many types of restaurants. Since then, menu design has provided the American public with a pleasing prelude to the dining experience.
Some popular historians are studying menus as a very special kind of documentation of America's love of eating out. For many generations of diners, taking a restaurant menu has been a way of preserving a memory or documenting a trip or a voyage. Many restaurants have provided customers with souvenir versions of their menus. The restaurant owners believe that this is a good way of advertising. Thus the menu now serves a new, but also important function.
Delmonico's restaurant in New York City is often given credit for introducing the first printed menu in the United States in 1834. That menu, as well as others of the period, was simple in design and offered specific information. Special occasions led to a call for unique designs and eventually led to more highly decorated menus.
For the most part, however, menu decoration followed the art movements of the time. The highly decorated late 19th century menus, which were influenced by Victorian art[2], gave way to modern art in the 20th century. Developments with graphics and printing allowed distinctive menu cover art.
By the 1930s, the menu was seen as a part of the restaurant's plan to create a memorable meal. It could develop an appetite, tell a joke, explain a food item, create a mood, tell something of the history of the restaurant, and, above all, sell some food. Restaurant trade publications encouraged the use of the menu as part of the business strategy, and the National Restaurant Association promoted effective menu graphics in its annual competition of best menus in the nation. Its guidelines for judging included (1) originality, (2) legibility, (3) ease of handling, and (4) sales effectiveness. Restaurant Management magazine in its November 1935 issue stated that most restaurant owners considerably underestimated the importance of the appearance of the menu. The magazine went on to say that the menu really has two important functions: (1) to sell food; and (2) to repeat and emphasize the unique atmosphere of that restaurant.
In spite of the Depression of the 1930s[3], restaurants did well and menu design became important. There were increasing numbers of many different types of restaurants during this decade, including cafeterias, drive-ins, and lunch counters[4]in stores, as well as the traditional, more formal restaurants. Many of the restaurants developed themes in food, decoration and menu styles.
Progress in printing, photography, and especially color photography opened up more opportunities for creative expression. During the Second World War food rationing often hurt the business of restaurants, but as soon as victory was achieved, eating out became very popular again.
In spite of the risks of casual dining and fast food restaurants, the mid-20th century provided many new opportunities for creative menu design. By the end of the 1960s, the increasingly popular coffee shops and restaurants that featured a singular item such as pizza, steak, or pancakes used new menu graphics. The 1970s brought a decline in eating out, but the 1980s, especially in homes where both parents were working, brought a big increase in the demand for many types of restaurants. Since then, menu design has provided the American public with a pleasing prelude to the dining experience.
Some popular historians are studying menus as a very special kind of documentation of America's love of eating out. For many generations of diners, taking a restaurant menu has been a way of preserving a memory or documenting a trip or a voyage. Many restaurants have provided customers with souvenir versions of their menus. The restaurant owners believe that this is a good way of advertising. Thus the menu now serves a new, but also important function.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)