Curbing Grade Inflation Essay Example for Free

Curbing Grade Inflation Essay Grade inflation takes place when students are given a higher grade than what they actually deserved in order to address the declining expectations and diminishing educational standards. The phenomenon of grade inflation is observable in the current trends in grading, which is mostly given by private colleges and universities. Grade inflation suggests that the terminology used in grading no longer reflects the reality, especially when it comes to the performance of students. As a result, the efforts of students who actually work hard and have exceptional capabilities are being undermined. In addition, grade inflation also affects the proper assessment of students, as it does not reflect the real grades that they deserve. Being the case, Princeton University decided to implement a policy that will limit professors in giving the grade of A among students per department. However, the aforementioned policy is questioned regarding its effectiveness and also the way by which it can contribute to the greater good for the greater number of people. Grade inflation should be stopped because of the disadvantageous effects that it has among students and the educational institutions and also in the society as a whole. The utilitarian principle gives utmost emphasis for the greater good of the most number of people. Grade inflation does not merely affect one individual or student but rather its ill effects are reflected upon the whole educational institution and the society. In terms of the educational institution, since grade inflation is used in order to give students higher grade than what they deserve, the real problem of diminishing educational standards of different colleges and universities is not properly addressed. Grade inflation gives a false facade that students are doing well, which reflect that the educational standards are also efficient. Due to this, the problems within the educational institutions is not properly identified and solved. In the same manner, the society as a whole is also affected by grade inflation. The primary reason as to why education is given importance in almost any state is because of the reason that educated individuals become more productive citizens in the society. Quality education allows them to properly hone their skills and capabilities, which will enable them to find good jobs and contribute substantially to the society. Rule utilitarianism asserts that the creation and implementation of rules bring about the greater good for the most number of people. As such, grade inflation should be stopped because it adversely affects numerous people and this societal problem can be addressed through the implementation of rules. However, the policy implemented by Princeton University in order to deal with the problem of grade inflation is not the proper way in order to address the problem. Based on the rule utilitarianism, it is better to have a rule than no rule at all because its presence will bring about a greater good rather than the absence of it. In application with the policy of Princeton University, their way of solving grade inflation does not benefit the majority of the students because only a minimal number of students have the possibility to be given a grade of A. As a result, many students will have to compete with the minimum number of times that the professor can given a grade of A. Due to this, there are chances that excellent students have to settle for a lower grade because professors have to limit giving students an excellent grade. In addition to this, added pressure is given for students in order to get excellent grades, which is not necessarily advantageous for their educational learning. Moreover, since many Ivy League universities have not yet applied the same grading policy as Princeton University, there will be instances wherein students coming from Princeton University will have a lower GPA as compared from students from other schools. The low GPA of students from Princeton University can adversely affect their chances of getting competitive jobs and also lessen their chances in being accepted in graduate school. The grading policy of Princeton University is only advantageous for those students who will get an excellent grade, which is minority of the student population because giving a grade of A is only limited. Furthermore, rule utilitarianism also points out that there is no sense in keeping a rule if a better rule will bring about greater good. In the case of the grading policy of Princeton University, there are better policies that can be applied, which can address grade inflation without undermining the good of the majority of the students. One possible way is by enhancing assessment tools that measures the ability of students through objective means, which will assure or even lessen the subjectivity of professors. The grading policy of Princeton University is not a good rule based on the standard of rule utilitarianism because it does not promote greater good. Majority of the students are adversely affected by this policy. It is not wrong to give value to the hard work and excellent skills of minority students but it should not be at the expense of the majority because doing so no longer promote greater good for the greater number of people.

Essay on The Holy Bible - Dionysus and Genisis God :: Holy Bible Genesis Essays

Dionysus and Genisis God  Ã‚  Ã‚      Every individual has his/her own view of a divine power. It appears that each different culture looks at its’ higher being in a different way.   Texts and myths are used by each culture to explain its god or gods or even goddesses.   Genesis, from the Bible, shows the many characteristics of the Christian God, as does Euripides' The Bacchae of Dionysus.   The two separate Gods are shown to illustrate very similar human characteristics; however, they differ by their godly attributes and their effect on how women are viewed in today's society.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Christian God, as described in Genesis, possesses some common human characteristics. The Greek God of all that is emotional, Dionysus, is depicted in The Bacchae to have those same human emotions. Both Gods portray a very common human emotion: need. The Genesis God wants to be the only God that the people belief in; he is needy in receiving recognition for being the only God. Dionysus has a very similar conflict. The entire play deals with Dionysus testing the Theban women of their sincere devotion and belief for him. While Dionysus struggles to be recognized as a true God, the Christian God is struggling to be recognized as the only God. Both Gods possess this very human emotion that we call need; both are in desperate search for recognition and acceptance.   Another human emotion that can be found in both Gods is authority and wrath. The Biblical God punishes Adam and Eve severely when they eat from the Tree of Forbidden Fruit. He uses his godly authority and sends them out of Paradise. Dionysus portrays that same angry emotion; he gets angered so easily when someone refuses to belief in him. Need and wrath are very human emotions that the Christian God and Dionysus experience.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The attributes and power that each God has is a major difference between the depiction of the God in Genesis and the Dionysus from The Bacchae. Genesis tells of the story of how God created the earth, and how he made the animals, man and woman. This God is shown to have the power to do anything in his will. He is the one and only true God.   Dionysus does not possess that kind of power. Essay on The Holy Bible - Dionysus and Genisis God :: Holy Bible Genesis Essays Dionysus and Genisis God  Ã‚  Ã‚      Every individual has his/her own view of a divine power. It appears that each different culture looks at its’ higher being in a different way.   Texts and myths are used by each culture to explain its god or gods or even goddesses.   Genesis, from the Bible, shows the many characteristics of the Christian God, as does Euripides' The Bacchae of Dionysus.   The two separate Gods are shown to illustrate very similar human characteristics; however, they differ by their godly attributes and their effect on how women are viewed in today's society.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Christian God, as described in Genesis, possesses some common human characteristics. The Greek God of all that is emotional, Dionysus, is depicted in The Bacchae to have those same human emotions. Both Gods portray a very common human emotion: need. The Genesis God wants to be the only God that the people belief in; he is needy in receiving recognition for being the only God. Dionysus has a very similar conflict. The entire play deals with Dionysus testing the Theban women of their sincere devotion and belief for him. While Dionysus struggles to be recognized as a true God, the Christian God is struggling to be recognized as the only God. Both Gods possess this very human emotion that we call need; both are in desperate search for recognition and acceptance.   Another human emotion that can be found in both Gods is authority and wrath. The Biblical God punishes Adam and Eve severely when they eat from the Tree of Forbidden Fruit. He uses his godly authority and sends them out of Paradise. Dionysus portrays that same angry emotion; he gets angered so easily when someone refuses to belief in him. Need and wrath are very human emotions that the Christian God and Dionysus experience.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The attributes and power that each God has is a major difference between the depiction of the God in Genesis and the Dionysus from The Bacchae. Genesis tells of the story of how God created the earth, and how he made the animals, man and woman. This God is shown to have the power to do anything in his will. He is the one and only true God.   Dionysus does not possess that kind of power.

Human Morality Essay

A common question throughout history has always been about human morality. Because of our higher thinking capacity, we are hardwired to adapt and refine our basic instincts to survive; therefore, it is obvious this question would be disputed throughout time. Are humans innately good, bad, or plainly neutral? The position that any one person takes may be derived from any number of ideas, be them philosophical thoughts or scientific inquiries. This essay asserts that morality is innate, and uses both scientific studies and ideas from philosophers to support this argument. Man is essentially good, and the different ways people are nurtured—from societal influences to parental influences—creates the large spectrum and variety of behavior that may not be deemed â€Å"good† or â€Å"moral. † The magazine Smithsonian published an article named â€Å"Born to Be Mild† in January of 2013 on morality in young children. This article wrote about a few different studies done on children by three different experimenters. In one of the studies titled â€Å"Spontaneous Altruism by Chimpanzees and Young Children,† Felix Warneken tested the morality of humans through young babies (because they have had little to no socialization) and also tested morality of chimpanzees, the closest relative to humans. In this study, 18-month-old toddlers were tested to see if they would help others in need by retrieving a dropped item that an adult struggled for. In almost all instances, the child returned the item. Warneken stated, â€Å"[Helping at that age] is not something that’s been trained, and [the children] come to help without prompting or without being rewarded† (Tucker 39). Not only did the toddlers help people in need, they also helped without social cues (such as the distress someone in need has). Many toddlers in the experiment Warneken created helped retrieve a can that had fallen off a table next to an adult and the adult failed to realize something was amiss. When Warneken tested the chimpanzees to see if they would return the same answers, he tested chimpanzees that were nursery-raised and semi-wild chimps. Both tests displayed the same results as the tests on the toddlers—chimpanzees were willing to help both humans and other chimps in need with no reward for themselves (Tucker 39-41). The fact that most of the toddlers and human relatives, the chimpanzees, helped others in need both with and without social cues strongly points to the idea that human morality is innate. A second study highlighted in the Smithsonian article was a reproduction of a previous study from the mid-2000s. The original study was an animated presentation shown to six to ten month old babies in one group and three month old babies in a second. The animated presentation consisted of a red circle attempted to climb a hill. In one instance, a triangle helped the circle climb, and in another, a square knocked the circle down. When the square and triangle were presented to the older group of babies, almost all babies chose the helping triangle over the hindering square. For the younger group, the researchers tracked the eye movement of the babies to either the triangle or square, because the babies could not physically grab the object. In the reproduction, done by another experimenter, the results were the same. Once again, evidence suggests that because babies seem so morally good, humans are innately good, and it is the nurture we receive as we are socialized into this culture that may cause some people to seem morally corrupt (Tucker 38-39). It should be noted that because the reproduction provided the same results as the original study, an even stronger case was created for the idea of innate human morality. The messages that Machiavelli gives in â€Å"The Qualities of the Prince† may cause one to believe that humans are innately evil because through â€Å"The Qualities of the Prince,† Machiavelli details how to be cunning, take control, and maintain control as a ruler of a province. His teachings seem to create humans as greedy people, hungry for more. This is actually very incorrect. Machiavelli clearly states, â€Å"it is necessary for a prince†¦to learn how to not be good† (42). I emphasize that Machiavelli wrote a man must learn to not be good. One can assume from this that Machiavelli is saying man is at least in some degree, wholesome and moral. After all, humans were never meant to civilize and evolve. We are, in true form, animals that have an instinct to survive. Ruling and gaining power is a man-made idea. Opponents to the idea that humans are moral might suggest that if ruling is man-made, evil is already within us because we created the concept of ruling others; however, if man were truly evil, he would not take murder as a heavy offense, and would kill others in his way to get what he wants instead of just gaining control. The examples of rulers that Machiavelli writes help to reiterate this point. These men were not born thinking of war and control. They were raised and socialized to lead and gain power. Steinbeck and the messages he delivers in The Grapes of Wrath also point to the idea that human morality is innate. The author often writes of the distinct line of those with, and those without—in other words, the owners and the migrants or farmers. Steinbeck makes a point to write about how close-knit the migrants are in many instances. Steinbeck writes â€Å"‘I lost my land’ is changed†¦[to] ‘We lost our land. ’,† ‘I have a little food’ plus ‘I have none’†¦. is ‘We have a little food’† (151); â€Å"the twenty families became one family† (193); and â€Å"when a baby dies a pile of silver coins grew at the door flap† (195). All of these quotes show the goodness in others, to do something for someone in need. This is all in contrast to the owners, which on multiple different pages Steinbeck writes how disconnected they are from the land, and â€Å"the quality of owning freezes you forever into ‘I’† (Steinbeck 152). These owners are so encompassed by the material culture around them, by the greed and the blanketed reality that they cannot see with a moral compass anymore. Of course they have one, for at one point they might have been like the farmers, caring for others and instituted into the â€Å"we† group. Proponents for human neutrality might argue that the owners were never at any point good, that they were neutral and socialized into the owning culture, unlike the farming culture. This is not the case, however, through a passage that Steinbeck wrote very early in The Grapes of Wrath, which said, â€Å"Some of the owner men were kind because they hated what they had to do, and some of them were angry because they hated to be cruel, and some of them were cold because they had long ago found that one could not be an owner unless one were cold† (31). This insinuates that in all types of owners, there is a moral compass. Even in the coldest owners, deep within them, they acknowledge the idea that the work they do is wrong. Because the owners know what is wrong, they know the opposite as well—what is right. If the owners were not innately good, their views on what is right or wrong would be skewed by their societal influences. While people will never give up the argument of human morality, it is a safe bet to argue that humans are innately good. We possess the ability to help spontaneously and without reward, as shown in the scientific studies, and we understand what is right and wrong. Our societal influences and the way we were raised affects if we will channel our morality or go against it, as shown by Machiavelli in â€Å"The Qualities of the Prince† and by Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath. Works Cited Machiavelli, Niccolo. â€Å"The Qualities of the Prince. † A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee Jacobus. 8th e. Boston: Bedford, 2010. Print. Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Penguin, 1939. Print. Tucker, Abigail. â€Å"Born to Be Mild. † Smithsonian Jan. 2013: 35-41, 76-77. Print.

Recidivism Is An Important Part - 1606 Words

Recidivism is an important part and essentially one of the main problems of the criminal justice system. Recidivism occurs anytime an individual reverts to committing illegal activities, after they have endured some form of punishment for a previous (if not the same) crime. Every neighborhood and every community experiences crime. Every community sends its criminals away and once their time is served they are released back into that same community. Under the canopy of recidivism, regardless of the specific type of crime, the issue if not changed will continue to perpetuate crime. While not every criminal reverts, problems within the criminal justice system are facilitating recidivism. To be considered a recidivist, a person that was once†¦show more content†¦The reasoning behind these harsher sentences is that â€Å"putting people in prison for years or even decades should prevent offenders from re-offending by incapacitating them and/or deterring would-be-offenders from committing crimes† (Wright, 6). The theory of deterrence and the aim of incapacitation are well intended but are not concrete. Deterrence theoretically operates by magnifying the certainty that there will be punishment for crimes. In hopes of deterring non offenders from offending taking into account the consequences (usually confinement). â€Å"Research to date generally indicates that increases in the certainty of punishment, as opposed to the severity of punishment, are more likely to produce deterrent benefits† (Wright, 1). The seriousness of the penalty should prompt the possible offenders to think twice or weigh their options prior to carrying out a crime. Half of Stat e inmates and a third of Federal prisoners reported committing their current offense under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Mumola). This works against the deterrence theory because while the individual is under the influence their thought process is dysfunctional. There isn’t a sound thought process in their mind while committing or before deciding whether or not to commit the crime. â€Å"Therefore, it is unlikely that such persons are deterred by either the certainty or severity of punishment because of their temporarily impaired capacity to consider the pros and cons of