Writing Feedback / "Who was the strongest character in 12 Angry Men, and why?" [NEW]

The topic: "Who was the strongest character in 12 Angry Men, and why?"
Due: tomorrow :o

Start:

12 Angry Men's entire purpose revolved around the building and understanding of contrasting characters. The film was riddled with dynamic characterization, savvy symbolism and gut-wrenching drama. In my opinion, the strongest character was juror #4, Armin Mueller-Stahl. Juror #4 was an independent thinker, was rational, and was collected even as the tension began to build.

The ability to remain independent proved to be the most important character trait of juror #4. Throughout the film Mueller-Stahl's character was able to think freely, and never let his personal bias or peer-pressure affect his decision-making. I believe that when juror #4 finally changed his vote to not guilty; that was in itself enough to put the others at ease about their own indecisiveness. He was one of the few characters in the story who didn't take sides, make alliances, or look for approval right off the bat. It's obvious that he was there to find the truth, and would have listened to everyone's opinion twice to make sure he had done just that. However, thinking on his own and without prejudice was not Mueller-Stahl's only asset.

Juror #4 was also a rational and reasonable businessman which enabled him to look at the case with an open mind. Unlike Juror #3, George C. Scott, Mueller-Stahl was able to communicate his ideas and thoughts like a professional and did so in an organized fashion. He analyzed each piece of evidence with care and used logic to guide his vote. It's important to note that he was the second to last juror to change their vote to not guilty. I believe the author intended for the audience to realize that the not guilty vote was the right choice, and Mueller-Stahl acted as his buffer in doing so.

Mueller-Stahl's character was able remained calm and collected throughout the most stressful of situations. For example, while juror #10 went off on a racist, golem-like rage, juror #4 sat through nearly his entire scene without saying a word. When William's rant finally came to a close Mueller-Stahl sharply, but calmly asked him to "shut his filthy mouth." Referring to a discussion question from class, I believe that Mueller-Stahl's character, and only his character, would have had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head had there been a woman present.

While all the characters from 12 Angry Men were unique, and characterized extremely well, Mueller-Stahl's character stood out from the pack for a few reasons. Being collected, polished and rational were all tremendous advantages to juror #4 in making his vote the correct one. I firmly believe he who listens, as opposed to talking all the time, truly has a one-up advantage over the crowd. Mueller-stahl was able to listen, analyze and report his findings back honestly and without discrimination. It's easy to see why Armin Mueller-Stahl's character was the strongest of the group.

Research Papers / Single-Sex Education Persuasive Research Paper [3]

Regression at its Finest

Single-sex classrooms and/or schools rarely facilitate greater academic achievement. Gender segregation in public schools is so rare that the research available is extremely limited and usually proves to be inconclusive or biased. Incorporating such a system into our public schools is unconstitutional, and one could understand why single-sex education is an attempt to make up for the lack of hardworking teachers, the poor student to teacher ratios, or the outdated methods used to educate my generation. Separating pupils according to their sex, as opposed to their age, reinforces gender stereotypes, and broadens the gap between boys and girls. However, that's not to say it isn't effective in private, independent institutions, where religion, race, and the student's financial situation will all play a significant role in gaining acceptance to his or her/s school of choice.

While some single-sex schooling activists, such as Dr. Leonard Sax, claim to have documented research illustrating the advantages of segregated classrooms, the evidence provided is hardly conclusive. Dr. Sax, who happens to be the founder and executive director of the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education (NASSPE), refers to one particular study that Stetson University Researchers carried out to validate his pro-segregation reasoning. The study took place at a public school in Deland, Florida, and its subjects were 4th grade boys and girls. Cheryl Downs, Stetson's Director of Media and Pubic Communications, wrote an interesting piece on the school's pilot study. She suggests that after four years of research "...the experiment continues to yield strong evidence that single-gender education, for many children, leads to higher achievement" (Downs Par.2). `While the results obviously favored Mr. Sax and Mrs. Downs' opinions, they lacked depth, substance and proved to be relatively thin. Both Dr. Sax and Mrs. Downs portray to the following result as definitive. According to the results posted on the NASSPE's website, boys in a single-sex education environment improved their FCAT (Florida's standardized test) scores by nearly fifty percent. Girls in the same situation improved by roughly fifteen percent (NASSPE. Par.1). This is a single study and its results are an approximation; I found no graphs, charts or any other form of concrete evidence. It's a bit optimistic, or rather a bit bias to assume that because one above-average public school allegedly excelled under these circumstances, that all public schools will have such luck. In an article published by Education Digest, written by Gerald W. Bracey, author of five educational books and an independent researcher, Bracey suggests that Dr. Leonard "... often grossly distorts the data to make a point"(24). The truth is there just isn't enough reliable research available to prove that separating the boys from the girls will facilitate greater academic achievement.

Lack of evidence is a huge disadvantage to Dr. Sax's party, but is hardly the only reason to avoid single-sex schooling. Segregating students by race, gender, or religion used to be illegal, not to mention immoral. Johanna Grossman, a professor of law and the Associate Dean for Faculty Development at Hofstra University, says "Single-sex educational programs must also comply with Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. Title IX is a federal statute prohibiting sex discrimination in schools receiving any form of federal funding." (Par.10). How are single-sex schools not covered under sexual discrimination? One would look at the situation and assume that these programs are in direct violation of Title IX, but the Bush Administration amended the federal statute in November of 2006. The amendment allowed local school leaders to initiate single-sex classrooms if they deem it necessary. An article on MSNBC's website written by the Associated Press in October of 2006 claims, "The Bush administration is giving pubic schools wider latitude to teach boys and girls separately in what is considered the biggest change to coed classrooms in more than three decades" (Par.1). It's rather unfortunate; separating students only promotes sexism. It gives children, teenagers and even adults the idea that it's okay to segregate the human race. If that was the case, and gender apartheid was acceptable, then why have women worked so diligently to gain equal rights all these years? Is it fair that little Jane has more opportunities than Jack? What if Jack wants to work in event planning, or perhaps be an interior decorator, or a nurse? Who will guarantee that the all-boys schools offer the same courses that are traditionally taken up by girls to their male students? Coeducation gives Jack the same opportunities as Jill, and visa versa. After all, we don't live in a segregated state. Ellen Goodman, a syndicated columnist with the Boston Globe, wrote a passage in the book Opposing Viewpoints: Education. In the passage, Goodman writes: "We live in a coed world, we work in it. A generation of coed schools and dorms and workplaces has produced more equality between men and women, not less." (103). The workforce is coed, and students entering the workforce should be prepared to deal with real life situations. Single-sex schools are a social regression and attempt to shelter young scholars from the real world.

The lack of gender-equal academic evidence, the faulty claims of success, and the promotion of sexual segregation is enough to make most turn away from single-sex institutions. However, if single-sex schooling won't solve the problems public schools deal with on a daily basis, what will? Spending more federal tax dollars certainly isn't the answer. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, "The nation's public school districts spent an average of $8,701 per student on elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2005, up 5 percent from $8,287 the previous year..." (Par.1). If spending more money isn't the answer, what is? Ronald F. Bernard, the dean of Linda Christas Academy in Sacramento, suggests "Much of the disengagement seen in American public schools can be attributed, I [Bernard] believe, to the incompatibility of the social messages children receive at home and through the media emphasizing their very real importance as individuals, with the inexhaustible emphasis on collective values delivered in the public schools." (Bernard. Par. 2). I agree with Ronald, but I also blame the government for monopolizing the public education system. On top of the monopoly, it's safe to say that kids have evolved over the last ten or fifteen years. I don't think it would hurt to reevaluate the way educators instruct their students, especially in the Math and Science courses.

While single-sex education is certainly out of the question for the public school system, the idea is not entirely out of the question for private institutions. Children in the public school system do not deserve to have their rights violated, their education jeopardized or their morals challenged in a single-sex education experiment. Students attending private institutions usually pay out-of-pocket to attend such a school. Therefore, they have the right to organize, prepare, and execute an attempt at single-sex education. It's important that the organizers and executives of the program are sure to create a level playing field on both sides of the spectrum, and that the program be entirely volunteer. There are many determining factors in the outcome of the single-sex system in private schools. Providing it's a voluntary experiment and everyone is on board; the school will succeed depending on the student's acceptance of the program. I believe each situation will be unique, and that neither coeducation nor single-sex education will act as a silver bullet in solving the problems that educators face year in and year out.

America is a country built on equality. The country as a whole has made incredible progress in treating and perceiving each citizen as equal. To take that away, and regress to the 1950's in the name of single-sex education is outrageous. Gender equality has been a theme in America and across the globe, in most regions, for many years. Students are the educators of tomorrow, and teaching them to promote single-sex schooling will only result in disaster. As of now, coeducation is the status quo, and while it may not be flawless, it does work. It does promote equality and it's produced countless male and female executives, doctors, and lawyers. It's safe to say that coeducation could use updating, but it's incredibly efficient. Like Peter Meyer said in his 2008 article in Education Next, "...there are no reliable counts of single-gender schools in the first half of the 20th century..." (Meyer. 15) There is just not enough hard evidence to make the enormous switch from coeducation to single-sex education.

Revised once, looking for any more suggestions. I literally corrected, removed or added everything he suggested. I hope can at least get a B+ this time around. Most of my work was on the Works Cited page. My formatting was supposed to be MLA, and I followed my handbook to make sure I was doing it correctly. He said I was following a "bad example" from the book, so I finally did it correctly.

I added 1 source from a particular database he suggested too.

Writing Feedback / Quality or characteristic that helps be a good parent - my 1st Formal Essay [3]

I've been out of school for nearly 3 years, and I've been assigned my first graded essay. I've been working on it here and there, but still can't get it to flow. I was wondering if I could get some feedback, and with your feedback... if I could get your expertise. You know, what do you do, where'd you go to college.

Is this a student helping student forum? Anyway, thanks a lot. I really do appreciate any serious help I can get. I've got to nail these basic essays and this English class if I want in to a good Pharmacy school.

The assignment is a formal essay, 3 pages in length and double spaced. <-- irrelevant, sorry

The topic: One specific quality or characteristic that helps make a person a good parent.

"The most important quality one can have while raising a child is patience. Patience is a virtue that is rarely practiced, and for some, it may seem nearly impossible to master. Patience is a skill, and like any skill, it takes time to perfect it. Parenting is a venture that not only requires an inconceivable amount of attention, but great endurance as well. This particular attribute will prove to be one of the most valuable traits picked up along the road to raising a child.

Parenting can be a daunting task, and it's especially difficult for new mothers and fathers. From the time children are infants, to the time they learn how to tie their shoes, they will cry. Sometimes it's expected, they're hungry or perhaps tired, but most of the time the tears begin to pour down their rosy cheeks for no apparent reason; creating a state of panic and frustration amongst new parents. Patience plays a key role in understanding and dealing with a child's unavoidable episodes. Parents who don't practice patience often have a hard time coping with these sorts of situations, and occasionally resort to other remedies in order to quiet an infant. In some cases, the extreme lack of patience can lead to children being shaken (Shaken Baby syndrome) and these demonstrations can result in the death of a baby. This isn't the only time a parent will encounter a situation that requires a great deal of patience.

As patience proves to be an invaluable tool during the first few years of parenting, it is just as vital to parental success during the adolescent years as well. The random bursts of tears will fade, and the overwhelming task of catering to the infant's every need will deteriorate over time, but you can be sure that the next phase of parenting wont be easy without a little tolerance. As the youths begin to develop into young adults they will need: new clothes for school, clean pants for football, or a new trumpet for band practice. Parents are expected to provide for the child, usually ignoring their own difficulties along the way. Perhaps they're barely hanging on at work, losing the six pack from their college days, or even be on the brink of bankruptcy; children will always be priority number one. Patience is quite obviously the most valuable tool in the coping toolbox. Perhaps it's nine o' clock, and the parent has had a full day at work. He or she is exhausted, and the moment it's time for bed the children remember they need two pillowcases each for an early Halloween party the following morning. This instantly turns into a hectic situation, and the parent needs to make one of two choices: go to the store and pick-up the pillowcases, or go back to bed and let his or her child go unprepared. It's an obvious turn out; the parent will take a deep breath or count to ten and then hit the road. Regardless of how tired they are or how frustrated parents get; they will usually prevail with a little patience.

As kids finish their final year of high school and prepare to leave for college, the everyday grind of washing an impossible amount of clothes, making sure dinner is prepared and forcing them to do their homework is rapidly coming to a close. The distinct feeling of accomplishment begins to flow like the Nile through parents' bodies. It's time for the once helpless infant to make his or her own way in the world. While this might not be a formal good-bye, it is a stressful time and requires a great deal of perseverance. College costs money, and a lot of it. They will need books, computers, cell phones and a vehicle. The tension will build as the days wind down toward their departure. Parents will be required to let their sons and daughters roam free, and doing so calls for great patience.

Mr. Harris, my English teacher, told my class a brief story of his animosity for baseball, and about the first time his son asked him to sign up for tee-ball. Although he couldn't bear to watch the sport, he agreed to sign his boy up for tee-ball; ignoring the rotten feeling in the pit of his stomach. When the season started, Mr. Harris had not the slightest clue what was going on, so he began taking his son to college level games to learn the rules and positions. By the time the season was finished Mr. Harris couldn't get enough baseball, and it was his son who was ready to move on. This is a perfect example of how patience trumps most any characteristic pertaining to parenting. Raising a child is a full time job that requires swinging at a few wild pitches, and working through the tough times with patience."

It's due Tuesday, and I'll probably edit it throughout tonight and tomorrow... again. Thanks for any help! I'm just looking for the A.