Merchant Of Venice And Shylockes Essays - William Shakespeare

Merchant Of Venice And Shylockes In the play the Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare, the character Shylocks portrayal changes a great deal. This mans image goes from that of a cruel and evil murder to a pitiful and helpless beggar of mercy. These circumstances raise the question of what kind of man Shylock truly is, and whether or not the reader should feel pity for him. There is no doubt that Shylock is a man with faults, but there is evidence to suggest that his intentions though cruel and heartless are the result of years of unjust provocation on the part of Antonio. Shylock reveals a very dark side of himself once he has Antonio at his mercy. Out of context, Shylocks actions would be perceived by most people to be savagely unmerciful. Shylock refuses twice the bond which is owed to him by Antonio, and upon seeing his determination to have Antonios life, the Duke asks him How shalt thou hope for mercy, rendering none? (IV,I, 88) Shylocks response to this is What judgment shall I fear, doing no wrong?. (IV, I, 89) In this he is clearly saying that he believes his actions to be completely justified. In order to make a reasonable argument on Shylocks behalf, a reader must see this exchange as more than the simple collection of a debt. There is a bitter past and a history of problems between Shylock and Antonio. Some of these problems become clear to the reader when Shylock states to the reader: How like a fawning publican he looks! I hate him for he is a Christian,But more for that in low simplicity He lends out money gratis and brings down the rate of usance here with us in Venice.If I catch him once upon the hip, I will feed the fat that ancient grudge I bear him. He hates our sacred nation, and he rails, Even there where merchants most do congregate, on me, my bargains, and my well won-thrift. Which he calls interest. Cursed be my tribeIf I forgive him! (I,III,38-49) In other words he is accusing Antonio of being a vicious anti Semite whose practice of loaning interest free money is a great threat to his livelihood. This quote indicates that Shylocks motives against Antonio stem both from a desire to gain personal revenge as well as revenge for the injustices of Christians suffered by the Jewish people. Clearly Antonio and Shylocks relationship is not on the best of terms when Antonio comes to Shylock with a request for a loan of 3,000 ducats. In response to this request, Shylock replies: You call me misbeliever, cutthroat dog,And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine, And all for use of that which is mine own. Well then, it now appears you need my help. (I,III,109-112)He goes on to say: Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last , You spurned me on such a day, another time You call me dog, and for these courtesies Ill lend you thus much money? (I,III,124-127) One would think that Shylock is at this point able to look past these humiliating acts that Antonio had committed against him, and is willing to lent him a helping hand in his time in need, but rather than accept this help as a generous offering, Antonio replies:I am as like to call thee so again, To spit on thee again, to spurn thee again. If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not As to thy friends, for when did friendship take A breed for barren metal of his friend?But it rather to thine enemy, Who if he break, thou mayest with better face Exact the penalty. This is a very clear case of provocation. Antonio knows exactly the risk he is taking, and rather than attempt to foster any kind of peace with Shylock, he embraces hate and encourages Shylock to do the same. Under these circumstances it would take a very pious man to offer Antonio mercy. Shylocks inability to find this mercy for Antonio becomes forgivable. As a result Shylock becomes a man whom the audience sympathizes with at the end of the play.

What Harvards Asian Admissions Lawsuit Reveals About How You Should Approach College Applications

What Harvard's Asian Admissions Lawsuit Reveals About How You Should Approach College Applications SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips The hottest news in college admissions these days is the release of documents from thelawsuit filed against Harvard University for unfair admissions practices against Asian-Americans. For the first time in recent memory, an elite institution's opaque admissions practices have been laid bare. More than 90,000 pages of internal Harvard admissions documents have been made available for use in the lawsuit, with excerpts made publicly available in court filings. In this article, I'll summarize what this lawsuit is about and what we learned about how top-tier schools like Harvard choose which students to accept. (Spoiler: most of it confirms what I wrote about in my How to Get Into Harvard guide. If you haven't read that, I suggest you open it in a tab right now, and read it after you finish this article). Most importantly, we'll cover what this means for how YOU should be preparing for college admissions. Caveats: Since this lawsuit (and admissions in general) has a lot to do about race, I'll talk about race explicitly here, understanding that these are triggering topics for many people. I suggest trying to focus pragmatically on what you can get out of these news. I'm a Harvard alum and also Asian-American, which depending on your personal viewpoint could mean I'm biased in any direction. Generally, I don't have enough information to have a strong opinion about the merits of the lawsuit. As I'll explain below though, my opinion about this lawsuit doesn't matter since we're really looking at the admissions data and what it means for your acceptance rates into Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc. What the Harvard Admissions Lawsuit is About First, a very simplistic introduction. A subset of Asian-Americans are frustrated that they are possibly discriminated against in college admissions. More specifically, assuming the same academic achievements - SAT/ACT scores, coursework, and grades - Asians feel they are less likely to be admitted than white, black, and Hispanic applicants. Disgruntled college applicant Michael Wangis a representative example. Despite being 2nd in his high school class, having a 36 ACT score, and several national-level awards, he was rejected by 6 of 7 Ivy League colleges in 2015. "I saw people less qualified than me get better offers...what more could I have done to get into your college? Was it based on race?" Spotting an opportunity, Edward Blum of the Project on Fair Representation pushed a lawsuit against Harvard. The lawsuit alleges that: "holistic admissions" is actually a cover to practice racial discrimination Asian-Americans are discriminated against in admissions - meaning, lower admissions rates controlling for qualifications. In their words, "an Asian-American with a 25% chance of admission would have a 35% chance if he were white, a 75% chance if he were Hispanic, and a 95% chance if he were African American." the % of Asian-Americans in Harvard's student class has stayed the same (~20%) despite increases in the qualifications of Asians, suggesting a strict racial quota This echoes controversy in the 1920s withHarvard's discrimination against Jewish candidates. Now, why should the public care what a private institution like Harvard does? Because it receives federal funding (e.g. in research grants). And Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964prohibits racial discrimination in recipients of federal financial assistance. (If you're interested in the legal aspects of this case,here's an insightful analysis.) While Harvard is the sole defendant in the lawsuit, this is really an attack on admissions practices for ALL top-tier colleges like Princeton, Yale, and Stanford. Harvard, given its reputation and size, is just the juiciest target. In response, Harvard generally defends its admissions practices as promoting diversity, promoting "opportunities to engage with and learn from classmates who come from widely different backgrounds and circumstances...which would leave students ill prepared to contribute to and lead in our diverse and interconnected nation and world." "A significant reduction in the number of African-American and Hispanic students on campus would inhibit...the benefits of a diverse student body and significantly undermine [Harvard's] educational mission." How You Feel About This Doesn't Really Matter for Admissions Results Like most matters dealing with race, this is controversial with a wide spectrum of opinions.You might think Harvard is totally in the right in how it does admissions. Or you might think that discrimination really is happening and the system needs to change. Whatever you believe, the pragmatic question is this - what does this mean for you and YOUR college applications? If you or your child are in high school, you're relatively powerless to change the system in the time that it matters for you, no matter what you believe. The first decision point for you is whether you want to play the college admissions game or not. In the extreme, this controversy might sound so outrageous to you that you become a conscientious objector, and you don't want to support the college admissions machine. This might mean you refuse to apply to possibly discriminatory schools. If so, all the power to you. But most likely, you're likely not in this group. You still want to get into the best college you can because of its impact on your future. This means that you need to deal with whatever disadvantage you're dealt, and make the most of it.You need to learn the rules of the college admissions game, andyou need to prepare yourself for the best chance of success. That's what the rest of this article is about. I'm not going to opine on the morals of the situation, but rather objectively talk about how college admissions at places like Harvard works, and what it means for you. What the Lawsuit Has Revealed About the Harvard Admissions Process I'll cut to the chase. Released legal documents show for the first time that Harvard application readers rate each applicant on a score of 1-6 on these categories: Academic Extracurricular Athletic Personal Recommendation letters (2 teachers, counselor) Alumni (interview) personal and Overall rating 1 is the highest possible score. Each score can also have a "+" or "-", just like A+/A- grades. We'll explain in a second how you get 1's on these categories, but I want to focus on the big picture for now. From my reading of the legal documents, it seems like the first 4 factors are really the most heavily considered (since they're mentioned most often), with the recommendation letter and alumni ratings used as supplementary factors. All of these ratings are combined by the application reader in an Overall rating, again from 1 to 6. This Overall rating is CRITICAL for admissions, as we'll discuss below. The Overall rating is "not a formula" and doesn't involve adding up other ratings. It's a holistic grade. Harvard instructs readers to assign the score by "stepping back and taking all the factors into account and then assigning that Overall rating." (In reality, I suspect the grade is close to your top 2 scores - you can get a 1 on academic and personal and a 4 on athletic, and the 4 won't bring down your total score.) From released legal filings, here's a description of what the overall ratings mean: 1. Tops for admission: Exceptional - a clear admit with very strong objective andsubjective support (90+% admission). 2. Strong credentials but not quite tops (50-90% admission). 3. Solid contender: An applicant with good credentials and support (20-40%admission). 4. Neutral: Respectable credentials. 5. Negative: Credentials are generally below those of other candidates. 6. Unread. The application is given to two readers to give ratings. Finally, a third, usually more experienced reader adjusts the ratings for accuracy. In one example, the first reader gave a student a 1, but the third reader adjusted it downward to a 2+. How strongly does your Overall rating correlate with your admission rate? VERY strongly. Here's a quote from legal documents: "Those who have an Overall score of 3- or worse are almost always rejected. Those who receive an Overall rating of a 1 are always accepted." What are your chances of admission depending on your Overall score? Here's more detail on admissions rates for all domestic applicants across 6 years, in the Classes of 2014 to 2019. This dataset includes only regular decision students (Harvard didn't have early action in years 2014-2015) and excludes special situations (athletes, legacy, Dean's list, faculty/staff kids) and international applicants. Rating Population Population % Admit % Admitted Number 3 56825 47.23% 0.02% 9 3 44472 36.96% 2.35% 1047 3+ 14289 11.88% 9.14% 1306 2+/2/2- 4674 3.88% 65.15% 3045 1 50 0.04% 100.00% 50 To explain the columns: Population: number of applicants with that rating Population %: % of total applicants who have that rating Admit %: % of applicants with that rating who were admitted Admitted Number: number of applicants with that rating who were admitted Through all of this, remember that the total admissions rate is around 6%. Anytime you can beat this number, you have a better shot at getting in. Here are the takeaways: If you get an Overall score of 1, you have guaranteed admission. However, this is very rare - with 30,000 applicants in a year, you can expect only 12 students to get this score. These are truly exceptional people who stand out even among the incoming class. If you get a score of 2+/2/2-, you have a 65% chance of getting in.Furthermore, this comprises the top 3.9% of all applicants - in a group of 30,000 applicants, 1,164 will get a 2 score. These are much better chancesthan average, and much more realistic than a score of 1 for us mortals. I wish they separated out the 2+/2/2- from each other, but this wasn't available. If you get a score of 3+, you start getting into the crapshoot.These get into the well-rounded, but not stand-out students. Even though you're still in the top 15% of all applicants, your admissions rate is just 9%, a bit above the overall average. Furthermore, you're competing against 3,000 other students. If you get a score of 3, you're in the average. Average is bad for Harvard admissions.Your admission rate drops down to 2.4% (just 1 out of 40 people in this group get in). If you get a score of 3- or below, you have nearly zero chance of getting admitted.This is also the most common category to fall into - nearly half of all applicants score a 3- or below. This strongly confirms my framework of admissions for world-class students(from my How to Get Into Harvard guide). The 6% admissions rate is just an average, and it doesn't apply to everyone - the stronger your application, the more likely you are to be admitted. For a select group of ~1,000 students per year, their admission is MUCH better than the average admissions rate.These students are likely to be standouts on a national or international level, not just on a state or regional level. Again, I want to emphasize, this is likely more or less what happens at all elite institutions - including Princeton, Stanford, and Yale. The exact rating scales and criteria may differ, butthis type of grading is a very common model in college admissions. Simplifying your application into a score allows for faster comparisons across thousands of applicants. If you want to get into Harvard, Princeton, or other top-tier schools, you need to try to get into that select top 5% of applicants, with a 2 score. You do NOT want to be part of the masses in the 3+ and below group - this is where the crapshoot happens, and the crapshoot is a terrible place to be. Want to get into Harvard or your personal top choice college? We can help. PrepScholar Admissions is the world's best admissions consulting service. We combine world-class admissions counselors with our data-driven, proprietary admissions strategies. We've overseen thousands of students get into their top choice schools, from state colleges to the Ivy League. Learn more about PrepScholar Admissions to maximize your chance of getting in. More Data, for the Data Nerds Here's the table again, this time including early action applicants and special situations (roughly 3,000 per year): Rating Population Population % Admit % Admitted Number 3 61707 44.43% 0.13% 79 3 51483 37.07% 3.97% 2042 3+ 18131 13.06% 13.40% 2429 2+/2/2- 7466 5.38% 74.00% 5525 1 94 0.07% 100.00% 94 The conclusions don't strongly change. By adding in early action applicants (who tend to be better qualified than regular decision ones), you see a higher % of 1 and 2 ratings.In a year with 30,000 applicants, there are 21 students with a 1 rating, and 1,614 students with a 2 rating. We can now take this chart, subtract the Regular Decision students chart further up, and see the admission rates for only early action applicants and special situation students(athletes, legacy, Dean's list, faculty/staff kids): Rating Population Population % Admit % Admitted Number 3 4882 26.29% 1.43% 70 3 7011 37.75% 14.19% 995 3+ 3842 20.69% 29.23% 1123 2+/2/2- 2792 15.03% 88.83% 2480 1 44 0.24% 100.00% 44 A big question on many students' minds is - how much does applying early improve my chances of admission, with the same application? Some things seem clear: The (early action + special situation) population gets much better ratings as a population. 15% of the (EA + SS) pool gets 2 ratings compared to 4% in regular decision, and 20% of (EA + SS) gets 3+ compared to 12% in regular decision. This heavily suggests to me that the early action pool contains more talented students than the regular decision pool. Much of the higher admission rate for early action has to do with self-selection of more talented students.. For the same rating, the admission rate is higher in (EA + SS) than regular decision. For example, a 3+ has an admit rate of 29%, compared to 9% in regular decision. Some part of this is due to the early action effect - because of signaling early interest and commitment to the school, you likely do get a small admissions boost by applying early. However, much of this I believe is still due to the special population. Recruited athletes might tend to get an overall 3+ rating, for instance, but get a huge advantage by being recruited. Likewise, legacy students may tend to apply early AND get higher admissions rates no matter when they apply, which skews the early numbers up. Ideally we'd get the admission rate for the same regular applicants, controlling for special status and application strength. But the data don't go detailed enough to let us do that. For fun, here are statistics on the # of applicants and admit rate for early action as compared to regular decision: Regular Decision Regular Applicant Special Circumstances Year Applicants Admits Admit Rate Applicants Admits Admit Rate 2014 23,176 1,471 6.30% 1,200 515 42.90% 2015 27,016 1,408 5.20% 1,244 515 41.40% 2016 24,968 857 3.40% 728 155 21.30% 2017 22,963 754 3.30% 641 116 18.10% 2018 22,799 709 3.10% 591 108 18.30% 2019 24,134 690 2.90% 623 100 16.10% Early Action Regular Applicant Special Circumstances Year Applicants Admits Admit Rate Applicants Admits Admit Rate 2014 0 0 0 2015 0 0 0 2016 2,982 458 15.40% 600 367 61.20% 2017 3,448 487 14.10% 663 460 69.40% 2018 3,272 520 15.90% 686 451 65.70% 2019 4,238 524 12.40% 755 467 61.90% A few takeaways: for regular applicants, the early action admission rate is higher than the regular decision rate - for class of 2019, it was 12.4% vs 2.9%. a large part of this is student qualification - better students tend to apply earlier. a minor part of this is signaling your interest - Harvard practices Restrictive Early Action (as do Yale, Princeton, and Stanford), meaning you can apply only to Harvard early action. Thus Harvard knows you're more likely committed to Harvard, and since they want to protect their yield rate, this increases admission rate a bit. so while you might get a slight advantage from applying early through signaling interest, it won't be as large a boost as the early action admit rate suggests. special circumstances students get a HUGE advantage over regular applicants. athletes are admitted at 86%. This group makes up about 230 students per year. (Note this means recruited varsity athletes, not just having athletics as an extracurricular.) legacy students are admitted at 33.6%. This group makes up about 774 students per year. (Note these students are usually highly qualified in their own right - they may just get a second look and slightly preferable treatment.) dean and director's interest list are at 42%. (There seem to be no particular criteria for being included on this list, but they include applicants "encountered at recruiting events" and applicants "related to donors to Harvard." I believe this is not mutually exclusive with the other groups - ie you can be a legacy athlete on the dean's list.) If you're reading this, you're most likely not a special circumstances student (nor was I). So you have to make up for it with a world-class application. Matthias Neugebauer/Flickr How Do You Earn a *1* in Each Rating? Now the critical question - what do you have to do to earn a 1 in the Academic, Extracurricular, Athletic, and Personal ratings? Luckily, as we learned fromfilings for the lawsuit, Harvard readers are given a rubric to grade applicants on. Remember that the Overall Rating is a holistic combination of the ratings, not a strict average. I would believe that if you earn a 1 in Academic and Personal ratings, you're likely to get a 2 or above in Overall rating. You only need to be world-class in one way, with a Spike. Academic Rating: 1. Summa potential. Genuine scholar; near-perfect scores and grades (in most cases) combined with unusual creativity and possible evidence of original scholarship. 2. Magna potential: Excellent student with superb grades and mid-to high-700 scores (33+ ACT). 3. Cum laude potential: Very good student with excellent grades and mid-600 to low-700 scores (29 to 32 ACT). 4. Adequate preparation. Respectable grades and low-to mid-600 scores (26 to 29) ACT). 5. Marginal potential. Modest grades and 500 scores (25 and below ACT). 6. Achievement or motivation marginal or worse. This confirms what we already know - getting perfect grades and test scores is not impressive enough to be world-class in academics. As the Harvard Interviewer Handbook says elsewhere, "more than presenting the Committee with superior testing and strong academic records...the applicant admitted primarily for unusual intelligence also presents compelling evidence of creativity and originality." (emphasis mine) Legal documents reveal some useful details: out of 42,749 applicants for Class of 2022, 8,000 had perfect GPAs 625 had a perfect score on ACT; 361 had a perfect 2400 on SAT 3,500 had perfect SAT math; 2,700 had perfect SAT verbal. There are just too many students who perform at the top 1% of academics. With 4 million high school students per year, 1% is 40,000 students! Within academic-type applicants, Harvard is looking for the leading future scholars.To get a 1 in this rating requires demonstration of this in high school, likely through original research that is vetted favorably by a Harvard faculty member. As Harvard Dean of Admissions William Fitzsimmons said, "Several hundred of our admittedstudents each year have the kind of stunning academic credentials- well beyond test scores and grades- that our faculty believe place them among the best potential scholars of their generation. ..." For this, it's not enough just to do research - thousands of students do this every year. It might not be sufficient either to be a minor co-author on a paper. Ideally, you need to show original contributions and ideas, corroborated by your research supervisor (e.g. in a supplementary recommendation). You might also be nationally-ranked in a research competition like Intel ISEFor Regeneron STS. Extracurricular Rating: 1. Unusual strength in one or more areas. Possible national-level achievement or professional experience. A potential major contributor at Harvard. Truly unusual achievement. 2. Strong secondary school contribution in one or more areas such as class president, newspaper editor, etc. Local or regional recognition; major accomplishment(s).[in another filing]: "Significant school, and possibly regional accomplishments: for example, an applicant who was the student body president or captain of the debate team and the leader of multiple additional clubs." 3. Solid participation but without special distinction. (Upgrade 3+ to 2- in some cases if the e/c is particularly extensive and substantive.) 4. Little or no participation. 5. Substantial activity outside of conventional EC participation such as family commitments or term-time work (could be included with other e/c to boost the rating or left as a "5" if it is more representative of the student's commitment). 6. Special circumstances limit or prevent participation (e.g. a physical condition). 2: " 5: "Family responsibilities at home or very limited resources that make it unlikely that the applicant could participate in extracurricular or other activities." A 2 rating focuses on "school andregional accomplishments." To put it bluntly: big fish in a little pond. Remember - there are over 37,000 high schools in the country. Not every school has the same extracurriculars, but just think - in the US every year, there are at least 20,000 student body presidents (and vice presidents, treasurers, etc.); 10,000 captains of the debate team; 50,000 captains of sports teams; 100,000 presidents of clubs. There are a LOT of local achievers. To be world-class, you have to do something that is notable on the national or international scale. This doesn't necessarily mean that you literally need to build an international-level organization with branch offices in Paris. The point is that among all the applicants, your achievements stand out on the national stage - for instance, building a mobile app with hundreds of thousands of active users is likely pretty nationally distinctive. Athletic Rating: This is relatively more straightforward: 1. Unusually strong prospect for varsity sports at Harvard, desired by Harvard coaches. 2. Strong secondary school contribution in one or more areas; possible leadership role(s). 3. Active participation. 4. Little or no interest. 5. Substantial activity outside of conventional EC participation such as family commitments or term-time work (could be included with other e/c to boost the rating or left as a "5" if it is more representative of the student's commitment). 6. Physical condition prevents significant activity. 1 is for recruited varsity athletes. Personally, I was probably a 4 - I got an A in PE and that's it. And that was OK - Harvard stillwanted me! Again, it's not about being well-rounded, it's about having a spikethat makes you world-class. Personal Rating: Here it gets a bit tricky. Here are a few statements in the legal documents that I pulled out: The personal rating "summarizes the applicant's personal qualities based on all aspects of the application, including essays, letters of recommendation, the alumni interview report, personal and family hardship, and any other relevant information in the application." Characteristics include "applicant's humor, sensitivity, grit, leadership, integrity, helpfulness, courage, kindness," whether the person is an "attractive person to be with" and is "widely respected." This is a more subjective category than the other 3 ratings. It's based on the student's background, how the student presents herself (in the essays and interview), and how others perceive the student (recommendations). Note that just like having an Academic Spike, it's possible to have a Personal Spike too. A student might get a Personal rating of 1 (say, for having overcome tremendous difficulties and showing outstanding personal character), while getting non-1 scores for Academic, Extracurricular, and Athletic scores. And this might be sufficient to get the student admitted (though 1's in Personal are rarer than in the other categories). Here's the rubric description, which is not super helpful except for the bottom ratings: 1: Outstanding 2: Very Strong 3: Generally Positive 4: Bland or somewhat negative or immature 5: Questionable personal qualities 6: Worrisome personal qualities This is why the interview is important - no matter how much of a genius you are, Harvard doesn't want jerks in its community. And if you can't suppress being a jerk for an hour-long interview, you certainly won't behave well for 4 years of college. It's also bad to be "bland" - interviewers want to see some sort of spark or joie de vivre, partlysince this is indicative of passion and thus future impact on the world. Nearly all applicants who are admitted went through an interview - as the document says, "those who do not interview are rarely admitted." (FYI: The personal rating is where the lawsuit alleges Asian-Americans are punished. Despite having higher academic and extracurricular scores than any other racial group, Asians received the lowest score of any racial group on personal rating from Harvard admissions staff.) What % of Students Get What Scores? Now that you understand what it takes to get these scores, what % of students actually get these scores? We'll show you the data below, but here are some trends to keep in mind: getting a 1 in even just one section is rare (1% of applicants get it) if you get a 1 in any section, your chances of admission are between 50-70%. getting a 2 in any single section is much more common (20-40%) with a much lower chance of admission (between 12-26%) (Source) Academic Rating Academic Rating 5 4 3 2 1 Applicants 5969 17690 58061 60468 650 % of Population 4.2% 12.4% 40.6% 42.3% 0.5% Admitted 4 175 2429 7500 450 Admit rate 0.1% 1.0% 4.2% 12.4% 69.2% Extracurricular Rating Extracurricular Rating 5 4 3 2 1 Applicants 952 4639 102784 34038 425 % of Population 0.7% 3.2% 72.0% 23.8% 0.3% Admitted 52 187 3957 6147 215 Admit rate 5.5% 4.0% 3.8% 18.1% 50.6% Personal Rating Personal Rating 5 4 3 2 1 Applicants 24 604 112513 29660 37 % of Population 0.0% 0.4% 78.8% 20.8% 0.0% Admitted 0 1 2846 7687 24 Admit rate 0.0% 0.2% 2.5% 25.9% 64.9% Some interesting things to note: Extracurricular and Personal Ratings have a huge mass of people at 3 (above 70%). Per the rubric above, this likely means: their extracurriculars weren't anything special - school-level participation without any major distinction their personal qualities were positive but not extremely strong - of the "top 25%" of the class type Academic Ratings have a smoother spread, with roughly 40% scoring both 2 and 3. Letter of Recommendation Rating: Legal filings show the following scoring for "School Support," with separate ratings for teachers 1, 2, and counselor. 1. Strikingly unusual support. "The best ever," "one of the best in x years," truly over the top. 2. Very strong support. "One of the best" or "the best this year." 3. Above average positive support. 4. Somewhat neutral or slightly negative. 5. Negative or worrisome report. 6. Neither the transcript nor prose is in the folder. 8. Placeholder. 9. Transcript only. No SSR prose. This largely matches what's on the Common App teacher recommendation form: As a reminder, "Top Few" is shorthand for "One of the top few encountered in my career." I'm going to guess that a 1 rating for recommendation letter means all of the below: recommenders rated student as "Top Few" in most categories recommenders are credible and have seen a lot of students (i.e., not rookie teachers) the reader may be familiar with the recommender's historical quality of recommendation the school is a top-tier school (so the student has tough competition for being outstanding) Overall Rating: Let's come back to the Overall Rating, because the lawsuit revealed something interesting about well-rounded students: "Harvard readers use the label 'Standard Strong' to characterize an application that had strong qualities but not strong enough to merit admission." For example, an admissions reader wrote of one Standard Strong student (who was Asian): "busy and bright" but"will need to fight it out with many similar to him." This reminds me of the classic problem with well-rounded students. They're definitely not off-putting - but they're not particularly impressive either.Like thousands of toy balls in a bargain bin, they all look the same.This is where the crapshoot is - the committee has to tear their hair out choosing the last 500 applicants among 10,000 qualified ones. Don't know how to make your college application world-class? We can help. PrepScholar Admissions is the world's best admissions consulting service. We combine world-class admissions counselors with our data-driven, proprietary admissions strategies. We've overseen thousands of students get into their top choice schools, from state colleges to the Ivy League. Learn more about PrepScholar Admissions to maximize your chance of getting in. What Do You Do With This Information? Let's put it all together. The Harvard lawsuit has revealed these takeaways about top-tier college admissions: applicants are scored based on how impressive their academic, extracurricular, athletic, and personal achievements are the highest scores are reserved for people who are world-class, distinguishing themselves as some of the top in the nation (or even the world) in what they do the overall rating is NOT an average of all your scores. Most likely, it's weighted toward your most impressive achievement. Therefore, you don't need to worry about being very well-rounded. the higher the score you get, the higher your chance of admission. At Harvard, the average admissions rate is 5% to 6%. But students getting the highest score of 1 have a 100% admission rate; students getting 2+/2/2- have a 70% admission rate personal qualities are important and cannot be ignored. Ideally you are likable, charismatic, honest, kind, and funny - and this shows in your essays, your recommendation letters, and interviews. All of this means that as you become a stronger world-class applicant, your chances of admission become less like a random lottery. You need to spend LESS time trying to be well-rounded, trying to cover all your bases. If you try to be an equally good athlete, musician, debater, scientist, and volunteer all at once, you will be mediocre at them all. Especially if you don't actually enjoy doing some of these activities. There are other people who focus on their area of greatest talent and interest, who will achieve far more than you can. If you want to increase your chances of getting into Harvard, you need to develop a Spike. For a deep dive into how to do this, read myHow to Get Into Harvard guide. I guarantee you'll learn something new that will change how you prepare your college apps. Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points or your ACT score by 4 points?We've written a guide for each test about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download it for free now:

List of the Strong Bases (Arrhenius Bases)

List of the Strong Bases (Arrhenius Bases) Strong bases are bases which completely dissociate in water into the cation and OH- (hydroxide ion). The hydroxides of the Group I (alkali metals) and Group II (alkaline earth) metals usually are considered to be strong bases. These are classic Arrhenius bases. Here is a list of the most common strong bases. LiOH - lithium hydroxideNaOH - sodium hydroxideKOH - potassium hydroxideRbOH - rubidium hydroxideCsOH - cesium hydroxide*Ca(OH)2 - calcium hydroxide*Sr(OH)2 - strontium hydroxide*Ba(OH)2 - barium hydroxide * These bases completely dissociate in solutions of 0.01 M or less. The other bases make solutions of 1.0 M and are 100% dissociated at that concentration. There are other strong bases than those listed, but they are not often encountered. Properties of the Strong Bases The strong bases are excellent proton (hydrogen ion) acceptors and electron donors. The strong bases can deprotonate weak acids. Aqueous solutions of strong bases are slippery and soapy. However, its never a good idea to touch a solution to test it because these bases tend to be caustic. Concentrated solutions can produce chemical burns. Superbases In addition to the strong Arrhenius bases, there are also superbases. Superbases are Lewis bases that are Group 1 salts of carbanions, such as hydrides and amides. Lewis bases tend to be even stronger than the strong Arrhenius bases because their conjugate acids are so weak. While Arrhenius bases are used as aqueous solutions, the superbases deprotonate water, reacting with it completely. In water, none of the original anion of a superbase remains in solution. The superbases are most often used in organic chemistry as reagents. Examples of the superbases include: Ethoxide ionButyl lithium (n-BuLi)Lithium diisopropylamide (LDA) (C6H14LiN)Lithium diethylamide (LDEA)Sodium amide (NaNH2)Sodium hydride (NaH)Lithium bis(trimethylsilyl)amide, ((CH3)3Si)2NLi

English Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 72

English - Essay Example To be specific, the villagers never try to realize that their belief in ‘the lottery’ is false. Instead, the blindly accept the tradition and happen to be the victims of the same. The speaker in the work by Shirley Jackson states that, â€Å"Soon the men began to gather, surveying their own children, speaking of planting and rain, tractors and taxes† (6). Besides, the lottery is used as a tool to sustain orthodoxy, but it brutally punishes individuals. Jackson Bill knows that lottery is not a fortune to his family. Still, he never tries to act against this inhuman custom. As the community members are supposed to follow the orthodoxy, one cannot expect the protagonist (say, Jackson Bill) to act against the same. S.T. Joshi opines that, â€Å"Certainly there is nothing supernatural about â€Å"The Lottery† (1948), whose impact rests on the very possibility of its occurrence† (13). From a different angle of view, the author makes use of the helpless cha racters to expose the inhuman aspects of orthodoxy. On the other side, the villagers still believe that sacrifice can result in fortune (say, good harvest). The author makes use of Tessie as the tool to proclaim the need to discard orthodoxy. Tessie is portrayed as the victim of orthodoxy, but she does not try to subdue to the same. Instead, she tries to express her views on forced human sacrifice. Still, this does not change the villagers’ attitude because their belief is blind. They never try to go beyond orthodoxy because their community never allows it. James Hugh Toner makes clear that, â€Å"By custom, others in the family join in to kill the lottery â€Å"winner†Ã¢â‚¬  (9). Bill knows that he cannot save his wife. Still, he does not try to save his wife. On the other side, Tessie tries to educate the villagers on their inhuman orthodoxy, but for no use. So, the author expects that Tessie’s fate will create awareness among the mass on the need to discard inhuman rituals

International Marketing (Qasim) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

International Marketing (Qasim) - Essay Example The key products offered in Subway include: custom sub sandwiches, salads, soft drinks and some other food items (Ibis Report 2013). Company’s rational behind internationalization The company’s strategy is based on the aggressive international expansion worldwide. Internationalization decision is mainly based on the business growth opportunities offered by rapidly growing markets. Subway will continue to expand internationally, especially in emerging economies as it is likely to be the largest source of profit and revenue growth (Ibis Report 2013). Today, these markets include markets not yet saturated with fast food brands (Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, China, India (Fertman n.d.). Mode of entry-selection of market entry strategy to enter into various countries Subway restaurants chain has chosen franchising option as a mode of entry strategy for starting business in various countries. Initially, the Subway chain did not even select new countries to expand into, as entrepreneurs from these countries contacted Subway (Welch et al, 2008). The original foreign entry in 1986 had a following typical format: individual entrepreneurs contacted the restaurants chain from a country where there were no Subway locations, and then the development team worked together with the entrepreneur, providing assistance in opening a franchise restaurant under Subway brand (Welch et al, 2008, 61). Thus, the company transferred the method of operation to the franchisee and had a much greater degree of control over its marketing efforts in a foreign market (Lecture notes). However, nowadays, Subway is also searching actively for new markets. Business Development department of Subway determines which markets would be appropriate to entry by evaluating a number of factors, including: the cost of doing business, the GDP, fast-food development and some others, etc. By operating as a franchising chain, Subway as a franchisor experiences less risks and is capable t o penetrate various markets very rapidly. Besides the obvious benefits and advantages of the franchise concept, Subway is imposed to certain risks as well. The value of the brand, either increasing or decreasing will have effect on the franchisee competitiveness. Franchisee of Subway has a number of responsibilities, including: initial franchising fee, finding locations, hiring employees and operating restaurants, leasehold improvements and equipment and paying a fee into the advertising fund and 8% royalty to the company (Subway Global Brochure 2013, 4). Subway also has certain responsibilities, such as: providing access to operational systems, guidance on store design and equipment ordering, operations manual, training program, R&D, ongoing support and periodic audits, and informative publications (Subway Global Brochure 2013, 4). The marketing mix strategies adopted by the company There are recognized several key elements of international marketing mix, including: product support , price support, promotion/selling support, inventory support, distribution support, service support, and financial support (Lecture notes). Below are briefly evaluated all these elements with a reference to Subway restaurants chain. Product support. Even though the product line and customer service are standardized among all Subway restaurants as it is common for any franchising chain, there are cultural and local eating habits in particular country that require adaptation

Benetton Group Advertising Campaign Media Essay

Benetton Group Advertising Campaign Media Essay Oliviero Toscanis job title was Creative Director and Photographer for the Benetton Group starting in 1982. Under the direction of Oliviero Toscani, the Benetton Group had a very questionable advertising campaign. The Benetton Group used shock advertising until Oliviero Toscanis final campaign about death row inmates. Customers and retailers alike did not approve of this particular advertising campaign. This happened in the year 2000 and caused Toscani to leave the company. The Benetton Group has since switched their advertising to more traditional methods under the direction of James Mollison (Ganesan 2, 8-10). There are certain basic objectives of advertising. When Benetton used shock advertising, it had both pros and cons. There are still certain companies that use shock advertising today, but not to sell clothing and accessories. There are many basic objectives of advertising. The main basic objective of advertising is to convince the customer to buy the product or service that the business is selling. Our textbook defines marketing objectives as, what is to be accomplished by the overall marketing program. (Belch 33). The objective of most advertisements is to solve a problem or concern for the customer. Another objective is to make sure that no one is offended by the advertising. The advertising should show the product or service in a positive light that will somehow benefit the customer. Our textbook describes public relations as it relates to a positive image as follows, generally has a broader objective than publicity, as its purpose is to establish and maintain a positive image of the company among its various publics (Belch 25). Before they hired Oliviero Toscani to be their Creative Director and Photographer, they used an outside advertising agency. It saved Benetton a lot of money to do their advertising in-house. Luciano Benetton, one of the original owners of the company, approved all of Oliviero Toscanis work (Ganesan 6). The main advertising objective for Benetton while Toscani was in charge of it was to make the public aware of controversial social and political issues (Ganesan 1). These issues were at the heart of the advertisements, while the Benetton label looked like just a footnote in the advertisement (Ganesan 6,7). Some people may not even have known they were advertising for Benetton. Viewers must interpret the message advertisers are trying to communicate to them. Our textbook discusses the clarity of the advertising message by stating, Many ads are objective, and their message is clear and straightforward. Other ads are more ambiguous, and their meaning is strongly influenced by the consumer s individual interpretation (Belch 121). Benettons shock advertising could be interpreted differently depending on each individual person. This relates to the concept of selective comprehension. Our textbook discusses selective comprehension by stating, Consumers may engage in selective comprehension, interpreting information on the basis of their own attitudes, beliefs, motives, and experiences (Belch 122). The purpose of advertising is to convince the customer to buy your product or service. Unless the product or service the company is trying to sell relates to a particular social or political issue, it should not be mentioned in the advertising. Benettons product symbolism was the social and political issues that it was trying to make the public become aware. Our textbook discusses product symbolism and states, For many products, strong symbolic features and social and psychological meaning may be more important than functional utility (Belch 61). After Toscani left the company, they focused more on traditional advertising where the product was the central focus, along with a positive look at an issue (Ganesan 13). For example, the advertising campaign after Oliviero Toscani left centered on being a volunteer [Figure (x) on page 10]. Some other issues addressed after Toscani left Benetton that werent portrayed in a controversial way included worldwide hunger, protecting human rights, poverty, and child labor (Ganesan 10,14). Social and political causes were Benettons message (Ganesan 1). Our textbook states the following regarding a companys message, The encoding process leads to development of a message that contains the information or meaning the source hopes to convey. The message may be verbal or nonverbal, oral or written, or symbolic (Belch 148). There are both pros and cons to Benettons shock advertising campaign. One of the pros of Benettons shock advertising campaign is that it attempted to educate people on the various social and political concerns happening at that time. The customers watching the advertisement may pay closer attention and start talking about the issue. It gives viewers a forum for open discussion of an issue (Ganesan 1). Shortly after Oliviero Toscani started working at Benetton, the social issues such as people of different races doing things together and getting along were the primary focus. These images portray positive ways of thinking and encourage unity among different races (Ganesan 4). For example, Figure (i) that is shown on page 4 has a multi-racial group of people smiling and hugging. In addition, Picture 4 on page 15 of the adult white hand against the childs black hand are appropriate, positive images. Although Figure (viii) on page 8 looks a little unpleasant, the message is positive and a little uplifting. Nevertheless, as more time went on, the advertising campaign headed by Oliviero Toscani started to get disturbing, especially when it was concentrated on the political issues. One of the cons of Benettons shock advertising campaign is that the images shown can offend some viewers (Ganesan 13). Children do not really need to see some of those images. The overcrowded Albanian ship shocked me (Picture 11 on page 16). It just made me realize that all those little dots shown on there were all people-individual human beings. Picture 15 on page 17 was a little shocking also because all those little dots on there are portraying real people who have AIDS. Some of the images I saw offended me and I really did not want to look at them. In particular, Picture 5 on page 15 with the white angelic-looking girl next to the black girl with her hair looking like horns. I do not see any purpose to this advertisement. This picture is the total opposite of the prior pictures that enco uraged racial unity. It looks like, that in this case, Benetton is being inconsistent with their previous advertising. The campaign glamorizing death row inmates [Figure (ix) on page 9 and Picture 13 on page 17] was the most shocking. This was the same campaign that caused Oliviero Toscanis departure from the company, for good reason. Fifteen million dollars was spent on this campaign that offended and shocked so many people. (Ganesan 2, 8-10). This advertising campaign used the death row inmates as shock value in order to sell their product. I do not understand what showing death row inmates has to do with selling clothing or accessories. Some issues do not need to be addressed, especially worldwide, through an advertising campaign. They lost retailers, particularly Sears, and were sued by the victims families. This is a direct result of their insensitive advertising campaign. This entire advertising campaign has caused bad publicity for the Benetton name (Ganesan 8-10). Our textbo ok discusses negative publicity by stating that, Publicity is not always under the control of an organization and is sometimes unfavorable. Negative stories about a company and/or its products can be very damaging (Belch 24). That is what happened in this situation with Benetton. It put their name out in the public, but in a negative light. It also tainted their reputation (Ganesan 2). I definitely do not agree with Oliviero Toscanis opinion that it is acceptable for offensive images to be in art and journalism, so therefore offensive images should be acceptable in the advertising industry. Offensive images are not acceptable in art, journalism, or advertising. One of the objectives of advertising is to try to persuade customers to buy your product or service. I do not understand how an image of a newborn baby with their umbilical cord still attached [Figure (vi), page 7] persuades the customer to buy Benetton clothes. An advertising campaign that uses shock advertising is the anti-smoking commercials. This is appropriate because they are trying to let the viewer know the consequences of smoking and inform viewers that smoking may eventually kill you. Some people do not believe that bad things will ever happen to them. Seeing a commercial like this may really shock a viewer into quitting smoking to improve their overall health. Some of these commercials are very difficult to watch without having to turn away. For example, the commercial they currently show where they cut into the brain of a person who was only in their 30s to show that they died of a stroke from smoking. Another anti-smoking commercial that sticks in my mind that really shocked me was when they showed the artery and squeezed out all the plaque that was built up from smoking. The message of this commercial was to show that smoking builds plaque up in your arteries, which will eventually kill you. Anti-smoking advertising also uses f ear appeals to try to stop people from smoking. Our textbook discusses fear appeals and states, Fear is an emotional response to a threat that expresses, or at least implies, some sort of danger. Ads sometimes use fear appeals to evoke this emotional response and arouse individuals to take steps to remove the threat (Belch 197). A commercial for something that actually has something to do with a controversial social issue is when shocking advertising would be acceptable to use. It shocks people into doing something about the problem. For example, the commercials they have on television now for the ASPCA that show animals that have been hurt or are suffering. Those commercials shock you because of the abuse the animals suffer. But, they are a charitable organization that is soliciting funds for the ASPCA to help these animals, so thats why they are acceptable. The images they show on the commercials are related to the cause they are trying to get money for. The animals have no control of how people treat them. This tugs at the heartstrings of people who love animals. The song Angel plays in the background and the singer Sarah McLachlan comes on to speak out against animal abuse and neglect and asks for donations to the ASPCA. Another shock-advertising commercial that they show frequently on television is for The Humane Society of the United States. These commercials have the same sort of message as the ASPCA. These commercials shock me and stick in my mind because I remember the image of the overfilled cage of dogs shown on them. Another scenario where shock advertising is used and is acceptable is for the Christian Childrens Fund. The commercials show children that are dirty and living in squalor in order to solicit funds for their charitable organization. They show a child living in shocking conditions and ask the viewer to sponsor a child for just a certain amount of money per day or month. The commercial states that many children have died just because they are poor and do not have enough healthy food or clean water. These commercials are usually aired late at night and the announcer says something about how the viewer should do it right now while they are just watching television and have nothing else to do. They do want the viewer to put it off until tomorrow because it will be too late then. It is appropriate to use shock advertising when a charity or non-profit organization is using it to solicit funds for their organization. I whole-heartedly agree with Benettons decision to stop their shock advertising and return to advertising that is more traditional. There is a time and place for everything, and shocking people in order to sell clothes is not it. If Benettons goal was to bring controversial issues to the attention of people, it should have been done in a separate forum. And, if Toscani insisted on shock advertising, it should only be in an adult-type setting where children do not have to see images that offend adults. An alternative could have been to set aside a minimal amount of their advertising funds into the shock advertising and the rest into traditional advertising. A company should want to put a positive image in their advertising to sell their products, not negative images that some people may think of as offensive. These shocking images are probably the images that people remember most in their mind and therefore forget what the product is that the company was trying to sell. Benettons shock advertising was negative and offensive to many people. Viewers may remember the advertising because of the shock value of it. However, we may never know how many people really remembered that those shocking images were an attempt to sell Benetton clothes. The basic objective of advertising was not met under Oliviero Toscanis direction. There is no logical reason to try to sell clothes with images that have nothing to do with clothes. There are times when shock advertising is appropriate, but selling Benetton clothing and accessories is not one of them.

Logic on a New Level Essay

In 1995, a talk show host, by the name of Rush Limbaugh was quoted while responding to a newspaper article written about a study completed by the NCEA (National Center for Economic Alternatives). According to this newspaper article, the study done by the NCEA claimed that American farmers use chemical fertilizers, and that due to our large economy, small businesses, and families, America is a waste generating country. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to analyze the logic of Rush Limbaugh’s speech, given to argue against this study. In the first segment of Rush’s speech he refers to the NCEA as â€Å"environmentalist wackos† which is a common fallacy made throughout his statement. This is referred to as a tu quoque fallacy, which shows that just because you are connected with a certain group of people does not mean you apply to commonly used stereotypes. The NCEA may have done a study relating to the environment but that doesn’t mean they are environmentalists. When Rush refers to the NCEA as â€Å"wackos†, this is attacking personal character that is not directly relevant to the issue at hand, this fallacy is know as ad hominem. Rush argues with the study, by first defending American farmers and exploiting the fact that farmers â€Å"never† receive praise for feeding the world. We can conclude two fallacies from this accusation, one being over-generalizing( using such words as never can easily be proven wrong) and ignoratio elenchi, which is an irrelevant response. Feeding the world and using chemical fertilizers are two different topics that cannot be compared logically. If you consider the statement closely you will also know that farmers do receive praise, their paycheck is the reward. When the NCEA concluded their study, they stated that America was waste generating. Rush attacked the NCEA for not considering our â€Å"economy a beckon of hope†. He argued that people from all around the world want to come to America. This is again a ignoratio fallacy because it is simply irrelevant information. Rush is also attempting to appeal to a certain popular  prejudice, he stated â€Å"American families have worked generations for a high standard of living, no they’re not held up for praise. No! Instead they’re all trashed†. This statement is an ad populum fallacy, because he is appealing to a certain group without any connection to America being a waste generating society. He continues on during his speech to sarcastically suggest that the NCEA would rather us give up our technology and â€Å"live more like the Soviets†. This is an ad poplum statement appealing to people that fear communism. Rush is attacking the personal character of Soviets, which is ad hominem and he is committing a tu quoque, which is stating that just because someone is a Soviet does not make them primitive. This statement can be simply concluded as a ignoratio statement and a slippery slope(just because one event takes place does not place any connection to another event) because it is completely irrelevant to America and its waste. In Rush’s conclusion he tells the â€Å"environmentalist wackos† to shut up and stop speaking their opinion. Rush is familiar of the rights of every American, their freedom of speech, and is violating other peoples views and is being unconstitutional. Rush thinks that by shutting up the environmentalists and asking them to turn to more constructive work like himself, he will eliminate the problem. This is a straw-man fallacy, because he is twisting the issue around. After learning about fallacies and there use in proving someone to be illogical, I have determined that Rush Limbaugh has a very biest view point and does not always use the correct solutions for a problem. He comes across like a very strong assertive person with a convincing argument but does not use logic to strengthen his beliefs.