In the article Working at McDonald’s, author Amitai Etzioni expresses a very strong viewpoint as to why working at McDonald 's is hindering our youth more than it is benefiting them in the long run. When you first get the job it seems like a great opportunity to gain work ethic and become independent. However, Etzioni says that these jobs provide little to nothing in fundamental skills that are supposed to help them in the future, and it also limits their creativity and their room for initiative. Fast food jobs like these will distract them, pull them away from school, and make them look at money different. One of Etzioni’s quote that grabbed my attention was when he said,”These are breeding grounds for robot working for yesterday’s assembly
This statement is made because blind consumers are not free from the hidden truth of our food: such as the process, the chemical additives, and the state of the food we consume. In “A Healthy Constitution,” Alice Waters gave an example of how the transition from processed to whole foods changed the attitude and health of students in an alternative high school. She concluded that the nutritional value of processed foods, which is nearly nonexistent, had a negative effect on the mental state and well-being of students; the alternative, fresh whole foods, were grown locally grown and had greater nutritional value(Waters 141).
In The Office season 5, episode 10, a seemingly simple decision is turned into a complicated one because decision-making is not Michael Scott’s best skill. In this episode, Oscar discovers a surplus that must be spent so that it does not affect the budget for the next year. Oscar feels that this should be spent on a new copier, while Pam thinks that the money would be better spent on new chairs. At any other company this would be a programmed decision but at Dunder Mifflin it is a non-programmed decision. It is non-structured because it is not a decision that Michael has had to make before.
Neusner’s article expresses the significance of being challenged in one’s academic career. Individuals that are not challenged are unlikely to be prosperous, they are presented with erroneous standards and expectations. Sherry’s article, “In Praise of the “F” word”, identifies shortcomings in the education system itself. Sherry expresses that students are graduating with nugatory diplomas because they are not learning to be of service in the workforce. For instance, good students may graduate, even though they are practically illiterate.
Swifts argument is better. Swift honestly had a better argument even though he was joking, it made more of an connection with me. The fact, eating and breeding humans would stop overpopulation, famine, and the poor not having any work opportunities. But Hardin’s argument was just harsh, I didn't really like how he talked about people he had a very negative perspective on other people such as immigrants. Hardin states that when immigrants come over to there home country they have to provide there needs and resources to the immigrants, but the immigrants just keep coming because they are getting free resources and they don't have to do anything to get the resources.“In sharing with each according to his needs, we must recognize that needs are determined by population size, which is determined by the rate of reproduction, which at present is regarded as a sovereign right of every nation, poor or not(Hardin)”.
Students shouldn’t be ostracized because of their unique capacities for learning. Standardization limits the creativity that students can expose to make the world a better place. According to the speaker, “we have to go in the exact opposite direction” of standardization. The current model of education has to do away with manufacturing students that benefit the economy and look to teaching in a way that will create a more innovative human race. This is what I believe Ken Robinson has been trying to get across for several years and finally expressed
Consequently, newer technologies and their implementation in people’s lives allow for such an immediate response they give to the user of the technology. In “Project Classroom Makeover,” Davidson discusses how she had her class at Duke try to come up with a new inventive way of using the new technology of the time, an iPod. Davidson discussed this when she stated, “we would be giving out free iPods to every member of the entering first-year class, there were no conditions. We simply asked students to dream up learning applications […] and we invited them to pitch their ideas to the faculty” (49). Giving these students free range on the application of the devices for an educational purpose, it provided them an environment where they can use their individual strengths to solve a problem at hand.
The author writes in an informal tone for adults with children in the house. In my perspective, I disagree with the author because it's not all the parents fault and fast food companies should know not to sell bad food just to make profit for themselves. Another reason is
With no corporate influence it should make things less complicated to the mind of a child. Some parents may think that this is extreme and sheltering their kids, but these partnerships are everywhere. There are plenty of opportunities for kids to see corporate sponsors and partnerships, they do not need them in school. School is a place where kids go to learn and become educated for their future; school education is the one of the most important things in the world. Therefore corporate sponsorship should be banned in
Both students and teachers can now find facts within seconds. This can be very useful when explaining and debating topics.” As we all know, kids in this day in age have so much power in the palm of their hands they can get any piece of information they need in seconds and they should be able to use that power. Another reason kids should be able to use their smartphones in class is that teachers now are able to create assignments which kids can complete on their phones. Of course, this brings up a completely different argument which has some very good points too. What if a child decides not to work on the assignment and uses their phone inappropriately when they aren 't supposed to?