Educational planning should aim at meeting the educational needs
of the entire population of all age group. While the traditional structure of
education as a three layer hierarchy from the primary stage to the university
represents the core, we should not overlook the periphery which is equally
important. Under modern conditions, workers need to rewind, or renew their
enthusiasm, or strike out in a new direction, or improve their skills as much
as any university professor. The retired and the age have their needs as well.
Educational planning, in their words, should take care of the needs of
everyone.
Our structures of education have been built up on the
assumption that there is a terminal point to education. This basic defect has
become all the more harmful today. A UNESCO report entitled ‘learning to Be’
prepared by Edgar Faure and others in 1973 asserts that the education of
children must prepare the future adult for various forms of self – learning. A
viable education system of the future should consist of modules with different
kinds of functions serving a diversity of constituents. And performance, not
the period of study, should be the basis for credentials. The writing is
already on the wall.
In view of the fact that the significance of a commitment of
lifelong learning and lifetime education is being discussed only in recent years
even in educationally advanced countries, the possibility of the idea becoming
an integral part of educational thinking seems to be a far cry. For, to move in
that direction means such more than some simple rearrangement of the present
organization of education. But a good beginning can be made by developing Open
University programs for older learners of different categories and introducing
extension services in the conventional colleges and schools. Also these
institutions should learn to cooperate with the numerous community
organizations such as libraries. Museums, municipal recreational programs,
health services etc.
What should be the major
characteristic of the futureeducational system?
.I am writing in response to response
to the article “Protecting our public spaces” in issue 14, published this
spring in it, the author claims that “all graffiti is public spaces.” I would
like to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an art from that
can benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other,
more accepted art forms.
People who object to graffiti
usually do so more because of where it is, not what it is. They argue, as your
author does, that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act
of property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the
images themselves from being considered genuine art.
I would argue that graffiti is the
ultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Though
graffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or
travel to a museum to see this kind of art. The artists usually do not receive
payment for their efforts. These works of art dotting the urban landscape are
available, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider
random words or names sprayed on stop signs to be art. Plenty of graffiti is
just vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is
breathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity. It takes
great talent to create such involved designs with spray paint.
Are these creators not artists
just because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they
cover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is
vandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out
of place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore,
graffiti is not going anywhere, so might as well find a way to live with it and
enjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space,
such as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the
public might feel like part owners of these works of art, rather than just the
victims of a crime.
According to the writer, random
words sprayed on stop sings are not
It is easy to make delicious-looking hamburger at home. But would this
hamburger still look delicious after it sat on your kitchen table under very
bright lights for six or seven hours? if someone took a picture or made a video
of this hamburger after the seventh hour, would anyone want to eat it? More
importantly, do you think you could get millions of people to pay money for
this hamburger? These are the questions that fast food companies worry about
when they produce commercials or print ads for their products. Video and photo
shoots often last many hours. The lights that the photographers use can be
extremely hot. These conditions can cause the food to look quite unappealing to
potential consumers. Because of this, the menu items that you see in fast food
commercials are probably not actually edible.Let's use the hamburger as an
example. The first step towards building the commercial hamburger is the bun.
The food stylist--a person employed by the company to make sure the products
look perfect--sorts through hundreds of buns until he or she finds one with no
wrinkles. Next, the stylist carefully rearranges the sesame seeds on the bun
using glue and tweezers for maximum visual appeal. The bun is then sprayed with
a waterproofing solution so that it will no get soggy from contact with other
ingredients, the lights, or the humidity in the room.Next, the food stylist
shapes a meat patty into a perfect circle. Only the outside of the meat gets
cooked-the inside is left raw so that the meat remains moist. The food stylist
then paints the outside of the meat patty with a mixture of oil, molasses, and
brown food coloring. Grill marks are either painted on or seared into the meat
using hot metal skewers.Finally, the food stylist searches through dozens of
tomatoes and heads of lettuce to find the best-looking produce.One leaf of the
crispest lettuce and one center slice of the reddest tomato are selected and
then sprayed with glycerin to keep them looking fresh. So the next time you see
a delectable hamburger in a fast food commercial, remember: you are actually
looking at glue, paint, raw meat , and glycerin. Are you still hungry?
Question:
According to the passage, fast food companies use things like glue and glycerin on hamburgers that appear in advertisements because
I. no one actually has to eat the food used in the commercial
II.it is important that people who see advertisement would pay for the food being advertised
III.filming a commercial or a print ad can take a very long time
