Do the Benefits of a Competitive Society Extend only to those Willing to Compete?

The benefits of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete.
Describe a specific situation in which someone not willing to compete might benefit in a competitive society. Discuss what you think determines when the benefits of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete.

_____
Competition is defined as a contest between people or groups of people for resources. Societies adopting capitalistic systems encourage competition as a way to strive for efficient economies. In a competitive society, benefits mainly extend to those who are willing to compete. However, societies that push for an increasing middle class and wish to decrease rates of poverty will adopt mechanisms that extend the benefits of competition to the people as a whole, including those who cannot or are willing not to compete.

In a competitive society, the benefits extend to those willing to compete (or more aptly, the winners) in various ways. They gain more resources in terms of capital and land. They exude a more "prestigious" image in society as top companies and players in the economy. They are able to attract more trust and therefore, more investors. Furthermore, they are able to use their monetary gains to create more products and compete even more in the marketplace. These "winners" also are able to extend their influence beyond their business niche and even delve into politics. That is, they can buy votes, mold policies, and create laws will benefit their business practices.

In a democratic society, a government has an interest in decreasing poverty and increasing the middle class who will gain skills to compete in the marketplace. In order to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, a country such as the United States will implement a progressive tax system that will take a percentage of resources from economically successful individuals and companies. Revenue gained from these taxes help provide free education, welfare benefits, infrastructure, etc. These government programs benefit not only the competitors in society but more so, those who are not willing to or cannot compete. Many programs are designed to provide opportunities for non-competitors to gain the resources to compete. While a nation cannot force people to compete, the promise of a higher quality of life provides an incentive for citizens to pursue higher education and lucrative work.


Indeed, a society that encourages competition will more likely than not have citizens who are driven to create the best products and services. The incentive to make money and be rewarded in multiple other ways (e.g., power and influence) keep businesses and individuals up on their feet with a goal to get on top. Of course, not everyone in a society is willing to compete or has the resources to do so. In the effort to make sure that non-competitors have the chance climb onto the competitive ladder, societies will take a percentage of the competitors' gains to fund various social programs. As is often said, a society is only as strong as its weakest member.

Is a Good Education its own Reward?

A good education is its own reward.
Describe a specific situation in which a good education might not be its own reward. Discuss what you think determines when a good education is its own reward and when it is not.

___
In times of a sluggish economy and high unemployment rate, the utility of going to debt to attain a college education has been increasingly questioned. Millions of students have found themselves in a situation where they owe thousands of dollars only to struggle with getting employed upon graduation. Indeed, many have started to doubt whether a good education is its own reward. That is, for what value is an expensive Ivy League degree when one cannot even use it to find high paying jobs these days? Indeed, whether a good education is its own reward is a subjective question that really depends on the perspective and goals of the student.

The idea of what constitutes a good education is relative. Most feel that attending a top-ranked institution is a good education per se due to the quality of classmates and professors. Others feel that a good education can be attained anywhere and depends on how much the student is willing to learn and make of the experience. Whether a good education is its own reward takes into account the purpose of the student in pursuing education. If he views education as a means of developing himself as a person, the education is rewarding in itself. However, if he views education more as a means of getting employed, then the good education will not be valuable per se. That is, the education must lead to the job he has in mind in order for it to be considered rewarding.

Many people, indeed, view attaining a good education as a means to a goal. In a world where most of us must compete in the market economy to survive, education is viewed as a necessity of life. It is the means in which to feed ourselves and our family in a society of scarce resources. It is widely known that those who are less educated, in general (and with exceptions, of course), tend to not make as much money as those who have attained college degrees and beyond from respectable institutions. When a person is focused on mere survival and does not have the luxury to pursue interests outside of work and dabble in the arts, education is more likely to be viewed in utilitarian terms.

On the other hand, someone who does not worry about survival and comes from a comfortable background will more likely view good education as a reward in itself. These privileged people have the means to pursue their passions (whether practical or not) and can learn merely for the sake of learning. They have the resources to further their artistic skills, ponder about philosophy, and plan about saving the world through volunteering and working for NGOs and humanitarian organizations. They do not view their education mostly as a means of providing food on the table but more as something that will round themselves out as developed human beings who can contribute beauty to the world.

Indeed, it is natural to view things in terms of economic utility when society is undergoing hard financial times. Everything, including the pursuit of an education, must be seen through a lens focusing on which actions will get the most bang for the buck. Undoubtedly, a good education offers students intangible benefits which are not recognized immediately---including broadening points of views about the world, affecting interactions with people, etc. However, most people--out of necessity and survival--tend to view their world from a myopic perspective and expect immediate and tangible results from their investments. Education, from this point of view, must lead to the strengthening of skills that will appealing to employers and valuable to landing one's dream job.

Action taken for the good of the greatest number can be Detrimental to the interests of the few

Action taken for the good of the greatest number can sometimes be detrimental to the interests of the few.
Describe a specific situation in which an action taken for the good of the greatest number might not be detrimental to the interests of the few. Discuss what you think determines whether or not action taken for the good of the greatest number will be detrimental to the interests of the few.
___

Democratic systems, such as that of the United States, take into account the will of the majority in taking government action. This is reflected by the practice of majority vote in electing representatives to the legislature. These politicians, in turn, have the responsibility to make decisions based on the interests of the majority of their constituents. However, when action is taken for the good of the greatest number, this can adversely harm the minority. Certain mechanisms, thus, are established in democratic systems to help protect individual and minority interests.

Indeed, people will usually vote for what is good for them. When a majority chooses a certain action, in general, it will best serve society as a whole. Sometimes this is not the case when people are driven by base motives, such as prejudice and fear of what they do not know. For instance, a majority might vote to suppress the rights of homosexuals because they believe that lifestyle is detrimental to their own children's well being, as well as the moral trajectory of the future. This had been realized when Colorado citizens voted in the mid-90s to restrict the rights of homosexuals to participate equally in the political process (eventually struck down by the Supreme Court). While such bills to discriminate against certain people may be for the greater good (well, at least according to majority belief), they can adversely affect minorities rights to participate as full Americans in a free society.

The majority has the potential to "tyrannize" the majority when their collective will is put into action. This has been demonstrated in the past in terms of religious, sex, and race discrimination. However, certain mechanisms in our democracy exist as a check to the majority and serve to protect individual and minority rights. The Bill of Rights of the American Constitution, for instance, is an instrument by which individuals and minorities can use courts to protect their freedoms and rights. The document outlines several freedoms, including those of speech, religion, etc. that are guaranteed for every US citizen. When a person's fundamental rights have been infringed, he or she can turn to the courts to ask for an injunction (put an end to the discrimination) and even claim reparations and damages. These paths to recourse attempt to not only protect the victim but to also discourage others in the future from infringing on those rights.

The United States also has a system of checks and balances where the government is divided into three branches and not one holds power over the other. The legislature, for example, may pass a law (driven by majority interest) that adversely affects a minority. Another branch, the judiciary, can place a check on this law by ruling it unconstitutional. Not only the judiciary serves as a check on other branches--All the branches balance each other out and can use their power to prevent action from another branch.


Indeed, there may be instances where action taken for the good of the majority may not be detrimental to the interests of the minority. This may include, for instance, decisions to provide certain basic services to the population, including education and health care. Not all actions by the majority are driven by base motives and may beneficial to the good of all--even to the minorities who disagreed with the action. It is important, however, to keep in place the mechanism that help protect minorities in cases where majority action infringes on constitutional rights and freedoms.

Do Ordinary Citizens, not Heroes, determine the History of a Nation?

Ordinary citizens, not heroes, determine the history of a nation.
Describe a specific situation in which heroes, not ordinary citizens, determine the history of a nation. Discuss what you think determines whether ordinary citizens or heroes determine the history of a nation.

___
In the United States' relatively short history, there have been a few national heroes that stand out in schoolroom textbooks: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. These type of men are representative of the movers and shakers of US history. Granted, there have been many unsung heroes (including women, as well as ordinary citizens) who have contributed significantly to history but have not been recognized in textbooks. However, those who have been touted as our heroes have stood out for the reason that they possessed qualities that are extremely rare--that is, the charisma, extraordinary professional accomplishments, and the ability to convince ordinary citizens to follow and support their cause. In a sense, ordinary citizens help determine the history of a nation but usually with the leadership of a national hero.

Not all significant accomplishments in history can be recorded. There have been many people, including ordinary citizens, that have helped determine the trajectory of the United States. There are a select few, however, whose accomplishments become known by every school child and are commemorated during certain days of the years. These heroes not only pushed forward significant changes during their time--they also continue to inspire future leaders to make a difference in the greater community. Martin Luther King Jr., for example, was the most influential leader during the Civil Rights movement whose actions and causes opened educational and professional doors for non-white citizens. He continues to have an important presence in millions of people's lives today by exemplifying hope and change for a more equal society. Heroes, such as Martin Luther King Jr., not only make significant changes during their time but also continue to move the nation towards a certain direction beyond their lifetimes.

Of course, ordinary citizens also have significant roles in national history. They have been the ones deployed overseas to risk their lives during war. They work everyday to move the nation's economy. They raise families that contribute (positively and negatively) to the direction of our nation. However, they do not determine the history of a nation per se. It is the national leaders or heroes that have the ability to rally together ordinary citizens in the hundreds of thousands to support their cause and move history forward.


The nation's heroes have historically (and for the most part) been people belonging to the privileged classes and backgrounds. For example, most of the leaders that we deem as heroes have been our presidents---white men with high education and influential families. Only a handful of non-whites, such as Martin Luther King Jr., have been widely recognized. However, as our nation becomes more diverse and opens opportunities to minorities, more people with different backgrounds will be recognized for their groundbreaking accomplishments and uncanny ability to influence thousands of other people to support their cause.

Social Justice can occur only when People Accept the Equality of Others?

Social justice can occur only when people accept the equality of others.
Describe a specific situation in which social justice might occur without people accepting the equality of others. Discuss what you think determines whether or not social justice can occur only when people accept the equality of others.
___

The concept of social justice involves creating a society based on principles of equality and solidarity. It is the idea that values human rights, as well as the sanctity of human life. A society that strives for social justice believes that that all people, no matter their circumstances at birth, must have full access to the tools that allow them to develop socially and personally. These tools may include, among others, free access to education and health care, as well as property and income redistribution. For social justice to occur, people must accept the equality of others.

Social justice is centered around the idea that all people are equal---not just under the law---but in all aspects. One's intelligence, appearance or family background does not influence one's inherent value. In a society based on social justice, all people have the potential to contribute equally in society; therefore, each person is entitled to the same resources (as far as education, health, etc.) in order to reach this potential. To ensure that all people have access to these resources, the state must establish systems of income redistribution, as well as free public services. A society cannot rely on the magnanimity of people with money to voluntarily share their resources with others, so state must impose a system that gives the poor chances to move up the social ladder.

However, it may be impossible to create a functioning society on the sole basis of social justice because of efficiency concerns. When resources are distributed from the "haves" to the "have nots", this might create a lack of incentive for entrepreneurial and innovative types to create and work at their optimal level. The "have nots" may develop a sense of entitlement to welfare benefits and also not work to their potential. Granted, while social justice is not necessarily socialism, the idea of providing the "have nots" with opportunities to rise above their circumstances is key.

While social justice aspires to the idea of all humans as inherently equal, the harsh reality is that humans are not born equal. Some are born with abilities and features that allow them to survive in a world of scarce resources. Others are not so lucky and must struggle intensely to make it in the world. However, one could treat all people as equals under the law. Some may argue that social justice does not entail redistributing resources from the rich to the poor. Perhaps social justice can be achieved by assuring that a society treats people equally under its law. An ironic point is that treating people equally under the law means that income distribution practices and free health care for the "have nots" would be in question. Indeed, the concept of "all humans as equals" is a relative phrase that means different things to different people when considering the definition of social justice.

Is it Better to Tolerate Minor Defects in the Law than to change it?

It is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it.
Describe a specific situation in which it might be better to change the law than to tolerate minor defects in it. Discuss what you think determines when it is better to tolerate minor defects in the law than to change it and when it is better to change it.
___

In society, laws are established as a means of providing order and fairness among the citizens. The United States, with its democratic form of government, has adopted a checks and balances systems in its creation and administration of laws. Specifically, the legislative branch is in charge of writing the laws with the executive as a vehicle of enforcement. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the laws. Since humans draft the laws of our nation, there will be errors. When these errors are merely technical or some other insignificant factor, it might be wiser to not take actions to change the law. However, when the errors are substantive (even if considered "minor"), it might be better to correct the laws to avoid confusion and room for interpretation.

A defect in the laws may be quite insignificant in its implications. An example of this might be a spelling, grammatical or formatting error when laws are formally placed in the books. These types of errors may not be worth correcting since our nation has limited resources and more pressing problems to address. The correction of such insignificant errors will add to the red tape and bureaucracy of government. These minor defects should be left uncorrected more so in cases where the law is not applicable to citizens in general but, for example, only affect one small industry.

It may be wise to correct minor defects in a law if it is substantive in nature--that is, if it affects the actual meaning and interpretation of the law. For instance, if a law in the books states that the speed limit of a certain highway is 75 mph when it, in actuality and as reflected in traffic signs, is 70 mph, a lot of problems may result. People may find these "minor" loopholes and profit from them through the justice system. When there is an opportunity, to clarify a black and white situation and avoid problems of interpretation, the government should correct the law.

When a minor defect (whether technical or substantive) in a law is exposed, the agency in charge of making the law should perform a quick costs- benefits analysis to determine whether the law is worth correcting. Some defects may be so trivial that it would waste precious resources in the effort of correcting them. Other defects may be substantive and could be a center of an interpretation dispute in future occasions. These disputes, in the form of lawsuits, may end up costing the government more than it would have had the law been corrected. Indeed, in this time of economic austerity, the government should focus on priorities, not just when it comes to law matters, but in all spheres. To spend resources on matters that do not have any real affect on the citizenry's well being and welfare would be irresponsible.

Does creative inspiration, rather than careful planning, result in the best solution to a problem?

Creative inspiration, rather than careful planning, often results in the best solution to a problem.
Describe a specific situation in which careful planning might result in the best solution to a problem. Discuss what you think determines whether creative inspiration or careful planning can best solve a problem.
___



As humans, we all encounter problems that must be solved on a daily basis in order to thrive and survive. These problems range from the mundane, such as attempting to wake up in the morning at a certain time, to the complex, such as working out marital difficulties. As children, we learn from our families and in the classroom how to go about solving problems. We are taught to not let problems simmer for a long period in fear of an over-blown and more serious consequence that results by waiting. Some problems may be solved through certain methodology (e.g., academic problems in the classroom) and others may be quite nebulous with no certain path to follow. Granted, some of the best solutions to problems have been worked out by creative inspiration and with little planning. However, most humans cannot count on being creatively inspired at an opportune time. They can, on the other hand, carefully plan for their set direction and various contingencies--thereby, possibly increasing their confidence and chances in the problem being solved.

Careful planning entails preparing for set actions ahead of time with a thoughtful plan. One will take into account contingencies, examine all possible options, consult other people for advice, etc. Sometimes people have a sufficient amount of time to solve a certain problem. Some will waste this time and not bother with problem solving. More motivated people, however, will make good use of the time to increase chances of a successful outcome. Carefully planning out strategies may not be the strong point for certain people but with practice and perseverance, one can always improve his or her ability to plan situations out in a thorough basis.

Some people, however, are blessed with the ability to solve problems through mere creative inspiration. These sudden moments of inspiration are often experienced by renowned artists who can create work originating from the soul. Some may experience these flashes of enlightenment during the unconscious stage of dreaming or perhaps during meditative practice. While we all would like to solve problems via creative inspiration, we do not all have the ability to tap into the part of us that suddenly provides solutions. Indeed, creative inspiration can be cultivated in one's life by learning how to be in tune with one's self and inner desires. However, only a few people are in touch with their creative selves.

Indeed, the regular man cannot rely on creative inspiration to provide the best answer to problems. All, however, can nurture the ability to plan carefully about upcoming situations. Granted, sometimes it is difficult to plan for all contingencies and to come up with the best plan even with careful planning. It is worth one's time, however, to plan out situations in order to build confidence and know that one has tried his very best to resolve a problem.

Art Should not Challenge our Perception of the World?

Art should not challenge our perception of the world.
Describe a specific situation in which art challenges our perception of the world. Discuss what you think determines whether or not art should challenge our perception of the world.
___

The creation of art is an exclusively human function that serves many purposes. It may be created in order to experience one's self in relation to the universe, express one's imagination, communicate a message, among other functions. The potential of art is limitless and may provide practical uses, such as challenging our perceptions of the world. On the other hand, art may exist for no real reason at all--perhaps for the purpose of just "being art" To define what art should and should not do would be limiting the potential that art has to offer to human beings.

Art is a general umbrella of practices containing several disciplines--it includes dance, poetry, drama, etc. It could also be expressed in disciplines not usually perceived as being "artistic," including teaching, lawyering, and nursing. Art is not necessarily "beautiful" per se and could even be found in simple tasks, such as washing dishes and sweeping the floor. In essence, the expression of art is limitless and is up to the human to experience life in an artistic fashion or mundane manner. Granted, some art may have tangible impacts on human beings and the world while other art really has no lasting implications. Indeed, the ability of art to challenge our perceptions of the world, in a sense, makes art richer and meaningful in our experience as human beings.

When art challenges one's perception of the world, he or she experiences life in a different way. For example, a painting depicting nature could cause one to focus more attention on the beauty of the natural world around them. A play sending a message about acceptance of one's neighbors may cause an audience member to think twice about judging people around him before knowing their story. Art could also have the affect of inspiring beauty in our daily lives and spreading that light with those we contact. Of course, not all types of art have this ability to impact others. Arguably, the more art can influence senses/emotions and perhaps change in perceptions of the world, the more valuable it is.

Those who claim that art should not challenge our perceptions of the world are, perhaps, fearful of changes in the status quo. Creation of art, for example, may be threatening in authoritarian nations which do not tolerate any type of dissent or calls for change. In China, a prominent human rights activist and Noble Prize winner is currently imprisoned for his writings that supposedly threaten the stronghold of the Communist party. Those opposed to art as vehicles of change especially fear their loss of power and ability to control other people.


Despite the richness and beauty that art can bring to our world, it is often perceived as a frivolous undertakings and not deserving of attention that other "hard" disciplines, such as science and mathematics, have. As a result, nations, such as the United States, do not fully support art initiatives and take measures to de-fund art and public education programs during hard economic times. Indeed, encouraging the creation of art in young generations is key to developing well-rounded citizens with an appreciation for creative undertakings and the potential of art to develop humans in different levels.

Are Witnesses who have something to gain from providing Testimony often Lying?

A witness who has something to gain from providing testimony is often lying.
Describe a specific situation in which a witness who has something to gain from providing testimony might not be lying. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a witness who stands to gain from providing testimony will lie.
____


The American court system is adversarial in nature, wherein both plaintiff and defendant have the opportunity to present their sides before an impartial person or group of people. Each side can gather evidence, which may come in the form of photographs, videos, eye-witness and expert testimony, etc. Indeed, witnesses who have something to gain from providing testimony have the incentive to lie. However, the opposing lawyer has the right to cross-examine witnesses and use his power of persuasion and analysis to debunk the credibility of lying witnesses and sway the judge and/or jury to his side.

Witnesses may have something to gain when providing testimony. For instance, they may be trying to protect themselves and family members from physical, economic or reputational harm. Perhaps they may be attempting to escape their own complicity in the matter. They may also happen to be hired by the plaintiff or defendant to provide expert testimony. Just because witnesses have something to gain from providing testimony does not necessarily mean they are lying. Indeed, it is the cross-examining lawyer's duty, in front of the judge or jury, to expose any motives for stretching the truth. However, it may be improper ( or against the rules of evidence) to emphasize in court that expert witnesses are being paid. The fact that our judicial system is an adversarial process allows witnesses with "mixed motives" to appear before the court. They are prohibited by law from being untruthful but the opposing side, of course, never assumes the sincerity of witnesses and looks for probable ways to discredit his testimony.

While expert witnesses gain monetarily from providing testimony, they do not always "lie" per se. These witnesses are usually well-accomplished in their fields and have performed a good amount of academic and field research to be considered "experts." They are hired by lawyers to testify in areas from surgical practices to forensic crimes. These witnesses can present evidence in favor of their clients with the hopes of adding expert credibility to the evidence. While the witnesses will often not downright lie, they have the ability to sometimes stretch the truth and perhaps view the evidence from a narrow point of view which favors clients. As in the case of eye-witness testimony, it is the cross-examining lawyer's job to expose the evidence as unreliable and also provide counter-evidence in the form of opposing expert witnesses.

Witnesses may have good incentives to lie before the court. However, this fact in itself does not exclude them from providing testimony. Indeed, it is the cross-examining lawyer's responsibility to analyze where exactly this witness is coming from and expose any biases and holes that may be present in the testimony. Judges and juries must also remember that just because witnesses have something to gain from providing testimony does not necessarily mean that they are not telling the truth.

Is the image of a product more important than the product itself?

In business, the image of a product is more important than the product itself.
Describe a specific situation, in business, in which the product itself might be more important than the image of the product. Discuss what you think determines, in business, whether or not the image of a product is more important than the product itself.
___


In a capitalistic economy, competition provides a mechanism by which the best products and services reach the population. Businesses, in order to attract and keep clientele, must keep up-to-date with what is being offered in the marketplace and ensure that their can brands can compete with (or better yet, outdo) similar products. With similar products being sold by an array of businesses, marketing becomes key in attracting and maintaining consumers. However, for longevity purposes, products must prove to live up to their great marketing image; a low-quality product--although having a "good image" at the outset will most often end up as mere fads.

Marketing companies know that buyers act on emotion. The functionality or practicality of a product is often insufficient for attracting customers. In our consumerist society where most attempt to keep up with the Jones', people are driven by various factors when it comes to buying items. First, they want to feel important. They are bombarded with ads on a daily basis that indirectly tell them they cannot be complete without possessing a certain product. If the Jones drive a BMW, they must also strive to purchase one. Once they perceive family members and friends conforming to the messages of the ads, the pressure increases for them to fit in and buy that certain brand. Indeed, most people want to feel accepted in society and possessing a certain item with a great image will fulfill (albeit temporarily) one's desires.

Especially living in an internet-based society, competition among products has become even more fierce. The majority of Americans have access to the internet and therefore, more access to information as to what products are in the market. Therefore, businesses need to work twice as hard to differentiate their products and services from the millions of others out there. One company that has arguably run the most successful marketing campaign is Apple. Their ipod and iphone products are the best examples of products that have become popular due to ingenious marketing techniques. (e.g., product packaging, layout, etc.)While there exist several mp3 players with the same technological capabilities as the ipod, Apple still finds its sales well above those of the nearest competitor. Steve Jobs has essentially garnered a fan base that will buy all products with the Apple brand---even the limited-capability ipad computer despite already having full functional computers at home.

While image is key in high sales, a product will not last too long in a market unless its quality and functionality live up to its image. There have been several products that reach unprecedented sales for a short amount of time but suddenly disappear from publicly view. Why? Most likely, the product had not proven to be of quality value to their consumers. People purchased the product based on emotional appeals of the ad but then did not view it as a valuable item in the long run. In turn, those around the buyers also realized that the product was not worth the purchase. Granted, a product may have practical and valuable application to buyers for a long term; however, businesses need to keep up with trends and continue re-inventing their product image in order to attract consumers. Indeed, high-quality products and great marketing go hand in hand when striving to maintain high sales.

Change People's Opinions by Appealing to their Emotions

The most effective way to change people's opinions is to appeal to their emotions.
Describe a specific situation in which the most effective way to change people's opinions might not be to appeal to their emotions. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the most effective way to change people's opinions is to appeal to their emotions.
___


Each one of us as human beings perceives ourselves as being the center of the universe. It is our own thoughts we hear and emotions we feel on a day to day basis. The ego is a driving force that causes us to act in our own self-interest and we are instinctively motivated by what makes our egos flourish and avoid pain. In this sense, most humans are guided by emotions, as opposed to logical reasoning. Therefore, the best way for politicians, advertisers, religious institutions and other groups to change people's opinions is to appeal to their emotions. Those humans, however, who have gained control over their egos or who have been trained to think analytically may overcome such fallacious appeals.

In the case of politics, the appeal to emotions of voters is up front and center come election time. Common people do not have the faculties or motivation to research for themselves the history or actual stances of political candidates. Furthermore, campaign managers understand that luring voters on their side involves sending simple messages that have emotional appeal. This commonly includes inducing fear in the voter as to what would occur if he or she voted for the other side (i.e., Candidate X will raise your taxes or send our jobs to China!) This could also involve appealing to voter's jingoistic pride (i.e., Returning to the Constitutional principles and intentions of our Founding Forefathers). While politicians themselves may be intelligent people with reasoned stances, they need to get down to the level of the common people in order to gain their votes. People, in general, fear those who are more intelligent than themselves and they more readily respond to sound bites appealing to their emotions.

Religious institutions find it essential to appeal to people's emotions as a matter of survival. The tenets of organized religion are essential based on faith, as opposed to reason. The reason why people support their churches and attend services is based on the fear of the unknown. People are not comfortable with the possibilities that could occur following death. Do we just die period? Do we go up to heaven or down to hell? Religion provides us with a sense of solace and answers to the unknown. Admittedly, these answers are not based on pure logic or evidence---but rather an appeal to our emotions. The church comforts us as we make our way in life blindly towards uncertain death. Not knowing for sure what is to come is a source of suffering for people but religious institutions, in exchange for financial and moral support, ease these doubts with their services and promises for salvation.

While some people do not bother with either politics or religion, they are no doubt affected by the ubiquitous advertisements in our daily lives. Marketers understand that the most effective way to get people to buy their products is to appeal to emotion. Most products in the market are fungible and companies must distinguish themselves in some way to attract customers. One of the most successful companies (as far as advertising and sales) in recent years is Apple. They have essentially taken over the digital audio player market with the Ipod. While all MP3 players are essentially the same technology-wise, Apple has successfully branded their Ipod as THE coveted item --the best the market has to offer. Along with an aesthetically pleasing design, Ipods are supported by brillian ads that have largely appealed to our emotions--that is, our ego's need to feel "cool." It is a sort of snob appeal where one automatically feels less fashionable if carrying another brand of MP3 player. Many other successful ads appeal to various emotions, such as the desire to feel more beautiful and wealthy. Our logical minds would tell us that we do not need these products and gadgets to live quality lives. However, emotions overtake us and we support and feed into America's consumer culture.

Granted, not all people are swayed by the emotional appeals of politicians, churches, and advertisers. Some have become aware of the workings of their ego and can control their emotional desires. Others have been formally trained in the art of analytical reasoning and are conditioned to question everything before them. Indeed, most people do not have the faculties or opportunities to prevent themselves from becoming slaves to their emotions. Therefore, politicians, churches, and advertisers will continue to find success in pushing through simplified messages for personal gain.

Higher Education would be more Effective with Selective Admissions

Higher education would be more effective if colleges were more selective in choosing students.
Describe a specific situation in which higher education would not be more effective if colleges were more selective in choosing students. Discuss what you think determines whether or not higher education would be more effective if colleges were more selective in choosing students.
___

Many view the widespread access of higher education in this country as a top goal. Our culture, indeed, touts the graduation from a 4-year college and beyond as somehow completing a person and fulfilling one's potential. Politicians, in response, promise to make sure that all children can enter college so they can succeed in a competitive economy. The reality, however, is that making college accessible to more people by being less selective in admissions is counterproductive to maintaining the quality of higher education in this country.

When colleges admit students who have not proved themselves during high school, professors find themselves catering to the lowest denominator. That is, the coursework is simplified and classroom discussions cannot be conducted at a sophisticated level. In the process, students who are actually capable of studying and thinking critically lose out by not being challenged to the full extent. They are graded relative to the performance of their fellow students and easily receive high grades. When students from a college graduate and attempt to find jobs, it is difficult for employers to discern which candidates are most prepared for work---especially when ranking reports show that the school is not selective with admissions.

If colleges were more selective in the admissions process, they would experience better graduation rates. Students who have not achieved good test scores and grades during high school are less likely to pass courses and graduate from college. Some college institutions admit virtually all applicants regardless of high school performance. When these students repeatedly flunk and re-take courses, they delay graduation and waste money in the process. They could have, admittedly, succeeded in a route different from that of higher education. Other options include taking shorter technical/trade school courses that focus on practical job skills, joining the armed services or even following their entrepreneurial ambitions right out of high school. Unfortunately, our system hails higher education as the most prestigious route out of high school. Those who do not enter college are viewed as somewhat less "capable" than the university students. In order to ensure that young people are directed towards where their strengths lie, our culture should alter its perceptions of what are regarded as worthy paths following high school graduation.

Granted, there are arguments for why higher education systems could benefit from not being so selective in the admissions process. First, relaxing standards for admission would allow a greater diversity of students in the system. Diversity may refer to economic, ethnic, and other differences. Due to systemic factors, minorities (at least the Latino and African American populations) have consistently shown lower test scores and grades. Allowing underserved populations access to higher education adds different and valuable perspectives to the college classroom. The admissions of underrepresented minorities in prestigious institutions on the basis of race is known as "affirmative action" and continues to be a controversial political issue in America.

If a college chooses to admit students who have not proven themselves in high school (by means of test scores and grades), it may also open opportunities for late bloomers. Some people mature later in life and realize the value of education and studying. A few of these students may even find their passion during college and pursue successful careers later in life. However, these are exceptional cases and it remains true that those who have proven themselves in high school tend to have higher rates of graduation from college.

If colleges want to best serve students and society, they should make an effort to select students that have proven themselves in the past. Higher student quality translates to a more efficient and effective education. Students who have not demonstrated a capability to think critically and study during high school will be less likely to graduate and even waste time and resources. Indeed, we need to change our perception of what constitutes a "worthy" path after high school in order to maintain the integrity of higher education, as well as open paths for students that will work best for them.