Preparing a job structure Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Preparing a job structure - Research Paper Example A number of objectives and goals will guide this process of job evaluation. These objectives will be increasingly crucial in guiding the process of evaluating the jobs and ranking them according to their importance. These goals included: 1. To collect sufficient information and data in regards to the description of the job, specification of the job and specifications of employees for the different kinds of jobs in the deli. 2. To make a comparison between the responsibilities, duties and demands of a job with those of other job descriptions. 3. To determine the grades, ranks or positions of the jobs. 4. To find out the arrangement and position of jobs in the deli. In coming up with the job structure below, several principles were followed. First, the employee was not the one to be rated but the job. Based on the demands of the job, several elements were selected and rated. It was crucial to identify which jobs were to be evaluated first before commencing with the job evaluation proce ss. Nine different jobs were identified that had to be evaluated and ranked. There were two methods selected to evaluate the jobs. The first was the factor- comparison method, and the second is the point factor technique. It is crucial to note that two key goals of carrying out a job evaluation are to create internal principles of comparisons and to measure virtual significance or price of a job to a business. This evaluation focused on the above methods of evaluation and how to choose the compensable factors for determining the worth or value hierarchy of a job. When carrying out a quantitative job evaluation, it is crucial to choose the applicable compensable factors first. Compensable factors are the criteria used to provide a platform for judging the value of a job, the element utilized to measure the worth or a job or the intrinsic elements in jobs increase the worth or value of an organization. Four key compensable factors were used to evaluate jobs in this case. These include skill, responsibility, effort and work conditions. These compensable factors were chosen after identifying the internal values of the organization, after reviewing the content of the jobs of each work- group. The four compensable factors for job evaluation seemed useful after identifying several potential elements that show the internal value of the company. It was clear that the company values skills, knowledge, effort, ability to handle responsibilities and different working conditions. It was crucial for the evaluation that the compensable factors be developed. This was achieved by first identifying the lowest and highest levels of all factors of interest and then creating intermediate stages by identifying a rational progression that shows logical differences. After this, it was easy to create a hierarchy reflecting the worth of each job consistent with the perception of the management of the relative worth or value of the job. In constructing this job structure, it was also si gnificant that the compensable factors be weighed. This was done by first considering the nature of the job performed and ranked the elements or factors chosen according to their priority as perceived by the organization. The factor- comparison technique for evaluating jobs was crucial in constructing the job structure. The method allowed for the selection of several factors as reflected by the job

Different essays Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Different essays - Essay Example Therefore, they mate with members from a diverse population. Thus, a new species may develop (Alcamo & Schweitzer, 2011). It implies evolution is devoid of have a particular goal that it intends to realize (Simon, 2015). They just evolve meaning they have a capability of changing their structure and reacts on the problems the environment presents at the specific times (Simon, 2015). For evolution to occur, mutation has to take place though it is an extremely slow progression and cannot be rapidly (Simon, 2015). The genes may shift from one population to another and the nonrandom mating may occur quickly but the generic drift occurs by chance randomly. Therefore, it might take a while before this happens. Moreover, selection varies in different genotypes. It may take a while for individuals in a population to be varied (Simon, 2015). Some bacteria have a mutation that makes them possible to survive the penicillin (Simon, 2015). Moreover, the administration of the penicillin changes the environment in which the bacteria reside. The bacteria with resistance genes will survive this new environment. The resistance genes pass over to several generations due to natural selection (Simon, 2015). Due to the usage of penicillin for many generations, the resistant bacteria increase over time. This makes penicillin less effective (Simon,

Review Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Review - Essay Example The article mentions that in the year of 1999, 38% of the teenagers in the United States spent their money in churches. The article states that young adults have lower income resources and financial stability as compared to adults of the society and still, in 2004, the researchers found that 3 out of every 10 young adults donated money to churches as compared to 6 out of 10 adults. So, we see that the rate of donor young adults is almost half of the older adults, which is very good for the age of young adults. The article further mentions that the government of the United States expects to project nearly $15 trillion as an â€Å"intergenerational transfer of wealth† between years 2006 and 2021. This is a significant amount of money that is transferred among the peers of a generation, and the generation being discussed here is the young adults. This means, that young adults of the society are responsible enough to think how to save extra bucks and spend them in charities so tha t some poor person is helped out of his miseries. This is actually the actual love for humanity which is the real essence of philanthropy. The article also suggests that young adults tend to give more volunteer time as compared to older adults, if they have very little to donate to charities.

The Divided Kingdom Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

The Divided Kingdom - Essay Example In Samaria which was the capital of Israel at the time, people fed on their children (2 Kings 6:25-30). According to Collins, for both Judah and Israel, the offences against God were: idol worship, religious syncretism, desecration of the temple with idols, a litany of social and economic injustices and moral decadence. All these problems persisted because of Israel and Judah’s failure to listen to God’s word which came through the prophets. Bad leadership may also have exacerbated this unfortunate state of affairs. All the kings of Israel were not faithful to YHWH, while the bad kings in Judah were Rehoboam (930-913 BC), Abijam (913-911 BC), Jehoram (848-841 BC), Ahaziah (841 BC), Queen Athaliah (841-835 BC), Uzziah (781-740 BC), Manasseh (697-642 BC), Amon (642-640 BC), Jehoahaz (609 BC), Jehoiakim (609-598 BC), Jehoiachin (598-597 BC), Zedekiah (597-586 BC). The good kings of Judah were Asa (11-870 BC), Jehoshaphat (870-848 BC), Jehoash (835-796 BC), Amaziah (796-781 BC), Jotham (740-736 BC), Hezekiah (716-687 BC) and Josiah (640-609 BC) (Collins, 75). Question 2: The history outlined in 1 and 2 Kings is a theological history rather than an accurate accounting of events because therein, the authors were interested in giving an explanation for the division of Israel into two; the reason for the captivity; and hope for the future, rather than an accurate blow-by-blow chronicles of events. The Deuteronomistic History clearly shows that both Judah and Israel succumbed to unfaithfulness to YHWH, and that total destruction of both empires was the appropriate punishment. Again, there are those who trace Deuteronomistic History back to the Babylonian Exile of 585 BC, as the place and time of authorship. The gravity behind this standpoint is that the authors of these books may have been written out of retrospection, and not at the time the actual events contained in Deuteronomistic History materialised. This is to the effect that writing from memory may not be as detailed as a writing which may have been composed at the actual time an incident happened. While this absence of much specific detail may accost the books in Deuteronomistic History, it is not to be misconstrued as to mean contradiction. Instead, details such as exact timeframes and more details concerning Judah are characteristically missing from Deuteronomistic History. Being in Babylon, the authorship behind the Deuteronomistic History may have written to explain the reason behind God’s people being in exile, in lieu of giving a blow-by-blow account on the details which built up, in the run-up to the Exile. In another wavelength, other theorists such as Thomas Romer, a French scholar, have come to see a distinct party of authors who may have had different views (Raymond, 130). 3: David and Solomon as Both Good and Evil Kings Both David and Solomon are remembered simultaneously as both good and evil kings because their regimes were marked with faithfulness and u nfaithfulness to God. The good exploits David and Solomon exacted emanated from faithfulness to God, while their negative acts were are a result of their unfaithfulness to God. David’s goodness is exemplified in the fact that he is the only king, who presided over a united Israel, transported the Ark of the Covenant from Shiloh to Jerusalem, established Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, drove away Israel’s enemies from Jerusalem and Israel, extended mercy to Mephibosheth (the house

Meursault in The Stranger by Albert Camus Essay Example for Free

Meursault in The Stranger by Albert Camus Essay Life is wonderful, but also hard. We struggle to find the meaning in our lives, but we can not accomplish it. There are many kinds of thoughts or philosophies of life; some think that life is already determined by God or destiny when they were born, while others think that they decide what they do by themselves. In the stranger, Albert Camus creates Meursault as a protagonist, who does not think about anything deeply. Because of that, he can not really enjoy his life. However, finally, he thinks about his life when he faces death; he truly realized how to face to the absurd world, and thus becomes Camus perfect existential hero. Meursault is indifferent, and he thinks he perfectly enjoys each moment; however, the reality is he just wastes time and does not even know that. Meursault thinks that emotion is ridiculous because people are controlled by it, and regret or feeling sorry is a waste of time. Thus, even when he faces his mothers death, he does not feel anything. He does not have interest in his mothers death, so he does not even know when his mother died. Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I dont know(3). Usually, ones mothers death significant and people think about their lives through her death. Even though it is not his, and he knows that he can not find it, he should think about what his life means from the relationship between death and life. However, it is possible that he does not care about it too much because he can not do anything in her death, but he does not care about his marriage, too. He has a girlfriend, named Marie, and when she asked him to get married with her, he was still indifferent, Then she pointed out that marriage was a serious thing. I said No'(42). He dos not know what is important in life. It is not because he has different sense of values but because he does not care about anything seriously. He has not had a big problem in his way, but his way to live is now problem. When he takes Arabs life away, he does not really realize what he did. Even when he was in the police station, he does not understand what he did, thus, c I was even going to shake his hand, but I remembered that I had killed a man(64). He treats everything as a fact, so he does not really have an  emotion. He thinks it is the way to enjoy his life, but it makes his life more meaningless. He does not think deeply. Also, he thinks death is death, so there is no future after death. Then, he shot the Arab four times more, but he does not know what it means, Then I fired four more times at the motionless body where the bullets lodged without leaving a trace. And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness(59). He does not feel good about shooting four more times, but it is not worth death at all. Taking human life is same as knocking the door of unhappiness for him; his way to live, which is without emotion makes his life horrible later, but at this time, he does not understand anything. Life without emotion is easy because an emotion does not make sense, so he can make sense with everything in his life. However, it also makes his life colorless. Because he is different from others, the society beats him; the world does not help him, so he now has to create meaning in his life by himself. When he is on trial, he testifies honestly because he always follows his heart and does what he wants; however, it does not fit the society, then people judge him from their subjective justice. @ @When he honestly testifies about why he killed Arab, people did not listen seriously, cI blurted out that it was because of the sun. People laughed(103). People do not understand him, and then they do not treat him as usual. They beat the stranger; there is nobody to help him. Moreover, they think they are right, so people rid from the society and make him look worse. The prosecutor does not want Meursault to live in the society, which the prosecutor lives and to have the same human heart. He stated that I had no place in a society whose most fundamental rules I ignored and that I could not appeal to the same human heart whose elementary response I knew nothing of(102). He denies Meursaults human right. He should be in trouble, but in the trial, there are only people who think they are normal and right, so they are the same as him. Thus, they do not notice that the prosecutor is wrong. Their personality is horrible because there is no exception. Meursault thinks about this judgment and the machinery of justice(108). It is exactly correct. They follow their own common sense, and treat him as a stranger. The consequence is a death penalty. However, ironically, this situation, which makes him face death and being aware that nobody helps him, makes him  think about his life and notice that he has to find it by himself. Right before his death, he realized the meaning in life. People do not know why they are living, but they laugh at him because they think he is stupid and better than him; however, ironically, he understands his life. When he accepts the absurd world, he can create meaning of his life; there is no future, so he has to think about every single moment carefully and enjoy it. Ironically, he does not have time any more. However, he thinks, I had been happy and that I was happy again(123). Actually, he enjoys his life because he did not know that he has lived indifferently. His life is hard for ordinary people to understand, but for him, it totally makes sense. Moreover, he understands everything now, so he feels happiness again. Also, he feels a sense of superiority because he knows that people who look down on him do not know. There are many thought about world, and he wants to see the absurd world, and show them his way to live, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate(123). He notices that nobody seriously cares about him, but still they come to his execution. Playing the game is ridiculous for him, but people can not live without it. Nobody really has a grudge against him, but they follow the others. Being apart from society is scary and alone, so usually people can not do that. He also feels that, so he wanted to die in the crowd. Also, he is proud of his life, so he wanted to show how he lived. Now, he really enjoys his life. The life is meaningless; he realizes it when he faces death. If people know that, they give up everything; however, for Meursault, everything makes sense. There is no clue in the world, so what he can do is creating the meaning by himself. Life is hard because nobody helps him, but he decides everything and what he does has meaning. He can enjoy his life fully, so his life is wonderful. He has to enjoy his life while he is living because there is nothing after death. There is no meaning in the world, so he creates it. Everything is to be happy.

Theories of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes Essay Example for Free

Theories of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes Essay The concept of social contract theory is that in the beginning man lived in the state of nature. They had no government and there was no law to regulate them. There were hardships and oppression on the sections of the society. To overcome from these hardships they entered into two agreements which are:- 1. Ç ²Pactum UnionisÇ ³; and 2. Ç ²Pactum SubjectionisÇ ³. By the first pact of unionis, people sought protection of their lives and property. As, a result of it a society was formed where people undertook to respect each other and live in peace and harmony. By the second pact of subjectionis, people united together and pledged to obey an authority and surrendered the whole or part of their freedom and rights to an authority. The authority guaranteed everyone protection of life, property and to a certain extent liberty. Thus, they must agree to establish society by collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they had against one another in the State of Nature and they must imbue some one person or assembly of persons with the authority and power to enforce the initial contract. In other words, to ensure their escape from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws, and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it. Thus, the authority or the government or the sovereign or the state came into being because of the two agreements. Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes theory of Social Contract appeared for the first time in Leviathan published in the year 1651 during the Civil War in Britain. Thomas HobbesÇ ¯ legal theory is based on Ç ²Social contractÇ ³. According to him, prior to Social Contract, man lived in the State of Nature. ManÇ ¯s life in the State of NATURE was one of fear and selfishness. Man lived in chaotic condition of constant fear. Life in the State of Nature was Ç ®solitaryÇ ¯, Ç ®poorÇ ¯, Ç ®nastyÇ ¯, Ç ®brutishÇ ¯, and Ç ®shortÇ ¯. Man has a natural desire for security and order. In order to secure self- protection and self-preservation, and to avoid misery and pain, man entered   into a contract. This idea of self-preservation and self-protection are inherent in manÇ ¯s nature and in order to achieve this, they voluntarily surrendered all their rights and freedoms to some authority by this contract who must command obedience. As a result of this contract, the mightiest authority is to protect and preserve their lives and property. This led to the emergence of the institution of the Ç ²rulerÇ ³ or Ç ²monarchÇ ³, who shall be the absolute head. Subjects had no rights against the absolute authority or the sovereign and he is to be obeyed in all situations however bad or unworthy he might be. However, Hobbes placed moral obligations on the sovereign who shall be bound by natural law. Hence, it can be deduced that, Hobbes was the supporter of absolutism. In the opinion of Hobbes, Ç ²law is dependent upon the sanction of the sovereign and the Government without sword are but words and of no strength to secure a man at allÇ ³. He therefore, reiterated that civil law is the re al law because it is commanded and enforced by the sovereign. Thus, he upheld the principle of Ç ²Might is always RightÇ ³. Hobbes thus infers from his mechanistic theory of human nature that humans are necessarily and exclusively self-interested. All men pursue only what they perceive to be in their own individually considered best interests. They respond mechanistically by being drawn to that which they desire and repelled by that to which they are averse. In addition to being exclusively self-interested, Hobbes also argues that human beings are reasonable. They have in them the rational capacity to pursue their desires as efficiently and maximally as possible. From these premises of human nature, Hobbes goes on to construct a provocative and compelling argument for which they ought to be willing to submit themselves to political authority. He did this by imagining persons in a situation prior to the establishment of society, the State of Nature. Hobbes impels subjects to surrender all their rights and vest all liberties in the sovereign for preservation of peace, life and prosperity of the subjects. It is in this way the natural law became a moral guide or directive to the sovereign for preservation of the natural rights of the subjects. For Hobbes all law is dependent upon the sanction of the sovereign. All real law is civil law, the law commanded and Page 3 of 7 enforced by the sovereign and are brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men, in such a manner, as they might not hurt but to assist one another and join together against a common enemy. He advocated for an established order. Hence, Individualism, materialism, utilitarianism and absolutions are inter-woven in the theory of Hobbes. Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by John Locke John Locke theory of Social Contract is different than that of Hobbes. According to him, man lived in the State of Nature, but his concept of the State of Nature is different as contemplated by Hobbesian theory. LockeÇ ¯s view about the state of nature is not as miserable as that of Hobbes. It was reasonably good and enjoyable, but the property was not secure. He considered State of Nature as a Ç ²Golden AgeÇ ³. It was a stat e of Ç ²peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservationÇ ³. In that state of nature, men had all the rights which nature could give them. Locke justifies this by saying that in the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind was a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct oneÇ ¯s life as one best sees fit. It was free from the interference of others. In that state of nature, all were equal and independent. This does not mean, however, that it was a state of license. It was one not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in oneÇ ¯s interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there was no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, was not a state without morality. The State of Nature was pre-political, but it was not pre- moral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. So, the State of Nature was a Ç ®state of libertyÇ ¯, where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful. Property plays an essential role in LockeÇ ¯s argument for civil government and the contract that establishes it. According to Locke, private property is created when a person mix es his labour with the raw materials of nature. Given the implications of the Law of Nature, there are limits as to how much property one can own: one is not   allowed to take so more from nature than oneself can use, thereby leaving others without enough for themselves, because nature is given to all of mankind for its common subsistence. One cannot take more than his own fair share. Property is the linchpin of LockeÇ ¯s argument for the social contract and civil government because it is the protection of their property, including their property in their own bodies, that men seek when they decide to abandon the State of Nature. John Locke considered property in the State of Nature as insecure because of three conditions; they are:- 1. Absence of established law; 2. Absence of impartial Judge; and 3. Absence of natural power to execute natural laws. Thus, man in the State of Nature felt need to protect their property and for the purpose of protection of their property, men entered into the Ç ²Social ContractÇ ³. Under the contract, man did not surrender all their rights to one single individual, but they surrendered only the right to preserve / maintain order and enforce the law of nature. The individual retained with them the other rights, i.e., right to life, liberty and estate because these rights were considered natural and inalienable rights of men.   Having created a political society and government through their consent, men then gained three things which they lacked in the State of Nature: laws, judges to adjudicate laws, and the executive power necessary to enforce these laws. Each man therefore gives over the power to protect himself and punish transgressors of the Law of Nature to the government that he has created through the compact. According to Locke, the purpose of the Government and law is to uphold and protect the natural rights of men. So long as the Government fulfils this purpose, the laws given by it are valid and binding but, when it ceases to fulfil it, then the laws would have no validity and the Government can be thrown out of power. In Lockes view, unlimited sovereignty is contrary to natural law. Hence, John Locke advocated the principle of -Ç ²a state of liberty; not of licenseÇ ³. Locke advocated a state for the general good of people. He pleaded for a constitutionally limited government.   Locke, in fact made life, liberty and property, his three cardinal rights, which greatly dominated and influenced the Declaration of American Independence, 1776. Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau Jean Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher who gave a new interpretation to the theory of Social Contract in his work The Social Contract and Emile. According to him, social contract is not a historical fact but a hypothetical construction of reason. Prior to the Social Contract, the life in the State of Nature was happy and there was equality among men. As time passed, however, humanity faced certain changes. As the overall population increased, the means by which people could satisfy their needs had to change. People slowly began to live together in small families, and then in small communities. Divisions of labour were introduced, both within and between families, and discoveries and inventions made life easier, giving rise to leisure time. Such leisure time inevitably led people to make comparisons between themselves and others, resulting in public values, leading to shame and envy, pride and contempt. Most importantly however, according to Rousseau, was the invention of private property, which constituted the pivotal moment in humanityÇ ¯s evolution out of a simple, pure state into one, characterized by greed, competition, vanity, inequality, and vice. For Rousseau the invention of property constitutes humanityÇ ¯s Ç ®fall from graceÇ ¯ out of the State of Nature. For this purpose, they surrendered their rights not to a sing le individual but to the community as a whole which Rousseau termed as Ç ®general willÇ ¯. According to Rousseau, the original Ç ®freedom, happiness, equality and libertyÇ ¯ which existed in primitive societies prior to the social contract was lost in the modern civilisation. Through Social Contract, a new form of social organisation- the state was formed to assure and guarantee rights, liberties freedom and equality. The essence of the RousseauÇ ¯s theory of General Will is that State and Law were the product of General Will of the people. State and the Laws are made by it and if the government and laws do not conform to Ç ®general willÇ ¯, they would be discarded. While the individual parts with his natural rights, in return he gets civil liberties such as freedom of speech, equality, assembly, etc. The Ç ²General WillÇ ³, therefore, for all purposes, was the will of majority citizens to which blind obedience was to be given. The majority was accepted on the belief that majority view is right than minority view. Each individual is not subject to any other individu al but to the Ç ®general willÇ ¯ and to obey this is to obey himself. His sovereignty is infallible, indivisible, unrepresentable and illimitable. Thus, Rousseau favoured peoples sovereignty. His natural law theory is confined to the freedom and liberty of the individual. For him, State, law, sovereignty, general will, etc. are interchangeable terms. RousseauÇ ¯s theory inspired French and American revolutions and given impetus to nationalism. He based his theory of social contract on the principle of Ç ²Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chainsÇ ³. COMPARISION OF THE THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT OF THOMAS HOBBES, JOHN LOCKE AND JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU 1. Hobbes asserts that without subjection to a common power of their rights and freedoms, men are necessarily at war. Locke and Rousseau, on the contrary, set forth the view that the state exists to preserve and protect the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right and sometimes the duty to withdraw their support and even to rebel. 2. Hobbes view was that whatever the state does is just. All of society is a direct creation of the state, and a reflection of the will of the ruler. According to Locke, the only important role of the state is to ensure that justice is seen to be done. While Rousseau view is that the State must in all circumstance ensure freedom and liberty of individuals. 3. Hobbes theory of Social Contract supports absolute sovereign without giving any value to individuals, while Locke and Rousseau supports individual than the state or the government. 4. To Hobbes, the sovereign and the government are identical but Rousseau makes a distinction between the two. He rules out a representative form of government. But, Locke does not make any such distinction. Page 7 of 7 5. RousseauÇ ¯s view of sovereignty was a compromise between the constitutionalism of Locke and absolutism of Hobbes. CRITICAL APPREHENTION 1. Rousseau propounded that state, law and the government are interchangeable, but this in present senerio is different. Even though government can be overthrown but not the state. A state exists even there is no government. 2. Hobbes concept of absolutism is totally a vague concept in present scenario. Democracy is the need and examples may be taken from Burma and other nations. 3. According to Hobbes, the sovereign should have absolute authority. This is against the rule of law because absolute power in one authority brings arbitrariness. 4. Locke concept of State of nature is vague as any conflict with regard to property always leads to havoc in any society. Hence, there cannot be a society in peace if they have been conflict with regard to property. 5. Locke concept of laissez-faire is not of welfare oriented. Now in present scenario, every state undertake steps to form a welfare state.

Universal Issues in Education Essay example -- Argumentative Persuasiv

Universal Issues in Education Many universal issues in education are a major concern for our country today. The principles defining education, how children are raised, the grave impact of technology, and the way minorities are treated and perceive themselves are all issues for us to be alerted about. Teaching and learning have been an important issue since human existed in this world. What is "teaching and learning?" According to the Oxford dictionary, "teaching" is the process to cause somebody to know or to be able to do something, and "learning" is the practice to gain knowledge and skill. In Paul Goodman' s opinion, the schools are only a therapeutic halfway house for young kids. And Ralph Waldo Emerson refers that "universities are, of course, hostile to geniuses." In general, education is to help young people adapt to this society and perform well. The manner in which children are raised affects the development and growth of a child trying to learn in school. In, "Zen and the Art of Burglary", a father feels he must lock his son in a trunk in order for his son to determine how to secretly escape and master his father's skill. The son finally acquires the skill, but he had to experience the actual deed, first. Sometimes, kids need to venture through a certain act, so that they eventually understand how it works (Fa-yen). Another concern in raising children deals with what they pick up from adults. Moral intelligence is learned from other people. Children are constantly observing grown-ups, and in turn, begin imitating their behaviors and mannerisms. Kids begin to pick up skills on day one. Parents are capable of teaching their children about wishing and yearning, as well as coping with disappointment. During a ... ...duced to a new field of study. Finally, education should help to build a good social identity for people as well as maintaining their own heritage. Bibliography 1. Gelernter, D., "Unplugged". The New Republic. 1994. 2. Goodman, P. Little Brown Reader. Pg. 358. 3. Emerson, R.W. Little Brown Reader. Pg. 361. 4. Fa-yen,W. "The Sayings of Goso Hoyen". Buddhism in China. 1964. 5. Coles, R. "On Raising Moral Children". The Moral Intelligence of Children. 1997. 6. Stoll,C. "Invest in Humanware". The New York Times. 1996. 7. Bambara, T.C. "The Lesson". Little Brown Reader. Pg. 442. 8. White, M. "Japanese Education". Little Brown Reader. Pg. 396. 9. Belencky, M.F., McVicker, B., Goldberger, N.R., Tarule, J.M. "How Women Learn". Women's Way of Knowing. 10. Shen, F. "The Classroom and the Wilder Culture". Little Brown Reader. Pg. 417.