drupal

I found an article that said that the EU was going to continue to give money for stem cell research. And I remembered in class, we talked about the what the ethical argument would be for stem cell research. And one was that we would not want to be seen as not progressive, and this article discussed how Europe is going to be moving forward because of the research and if the US does not support the research, scientists will turn to other countries to do research.

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1077452006

Here is my paper...

As we enter into the 21st century, the media choices we have are numerous. If we want to know something we can turn on the TV to CNN, we can pick up a newspaper, or look it up on the internet. In this sense, the media has a positive influence on society because we have different places where we can get information and that means that information can be available to a greater amount of people, keeping us all connected. Yet, the media choices we have can also be a detriment to our society because especially with the internet and TV, people are not reading as much. And also, anyone can put something on the internet, and these negative images that are readily available to mass amounts of people can be very influential, particulary among children.

My paper is attached.

I found 2 examples, one is about the pollution of the earth and the other is about racial prejudices.

http://tiki.oneworld.net/penguin/pollution/choking_earth.gif

http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/pm/1942/20611cs.jpg

At first glance, a law requiring state universities to accept students who have distinguished themselves academically, seems to be a good idea - rewarding students for their hard work and achievements in high school with automatic, guaranteed acceptance into the state university of their choice. However, although initially set into place with good intentions, the 10% rule should be abolished at the University of Texas as it is not always an accurate portrayal of a student's qualifications for acceptance to the University.
Not taking into account the rigor of your high school is one reason the 10% rule should not be in effect as it would be harder for students in difficult, college prep schools to actually get into the top ten percent because even 3.9 - in my case - can not guarantee admission into the state school of my choice. Furthermore, student's who managed to graduate with a 3.0 at a mediocre high school can get into UT, and with such a current tend, the students and high school itself will not continue to advance because the below level standards have produced satisfactory results so far. And perhaps the main reason I believe the top ten percent rule should be abolished is that it does not take into account extra-curricular activities that the student may have been involved in, which does not accurately portray a student's qualifications. A senior who is well rounded and will be an excellent addition to the University may not be admitted simply because they fell short of the elusive top ten.
The top ten percent law requiring state colleges and universities to automatically accept students who are in the top ten percent of their class has its advantages of challenging students to work hard during their high school career by rewarding them with college admission. However, now with qualified students still not getting into the univeristy of their choice, the rule should be abolished to allow all students the opportunity to suceed.