Should Students Be Graded on Attendance Essay Example for Free

Should Students Be Graded on Attendance Essay Should a student be graded on his or her attendance in class? No, a student should not be graded on their attendance in class. A student should be graded on their work that they do in class not the fact they are sometimes not in attendance. A student should not be graded on their class attendance for many reasons. One of those main reasons could be a continuous illness. A student with a continuous illness has no choice but to miss days out of class. For example a student with diabetes has to go to doctors appointments to have their glucose level checked. This student can quickly get sick and need medical attention, which will cause them to miss class. Would you rather have a student in your class sick and not learn anything or would you have them miss class and seek medical attention. A student that misses class often can possibly pass that class. It all depends on the grade that they have. Yes missing class sets the student back and causes him or her to spend time making up the work that they have missed, but that does not mean they are going to fail. If this student is passing that class they can afford to miss one class every often. It is when they start to miss too many classes that you should start to deduct points from their grade. A student with a passing grade and does his or her work should not be graded on their attendance because you never know what the circumstances of their absence might be. Often time’s college students feel that since they are paying for school they have the right to miss class. True students are paying for class but that does not give them the right to miss class. Yes you are paying for your education and you should be able to miss class whenever you would like too. It’s the student and their parent’s money and they should be able to waste it however they want. Some students feel that they pay a teacher to come to class everyday and that if that teacher misses days out of class then they have the right to miss class. In some cases this statement is true. It’s their money and they feel as though they have the right to miss class since they are paying for it. Students should not be graded on their classroom attendance. A student can have a good average and if they miss class and get a grade for not being present it could lower their grade. Students sometimes do not miss class intentionally, events just happen that cause them to miss class. Although a student pays for their education it does not give them the right to miss class at any time. Students are in school to get an education and should attend class everyday.

Revenge Does nNot Bring Happiness in The Count of Monte Cristo Essay

It is believed by many that it is human nature to deem themselves to be a tantamount to God. Such is the case when one decides to take revenge against those who wrong him. Though vengeance seems like the perfect way to achieve justice, a sense of equity, in actuality it is merely an unsatisfactory hypocritical action. This is the definitive realization of the protagonist, Edmond Dantà ¨s in Alexandre Dumas’ â€Å"The Count of Monte Cristo†. The protagonist comes to understand that after a lifetime of searching for justice, he really only yearns justice from himself. Akin to many of Alexandre Dumas’ other masterpieces, â€Å"The Count of Monte Cristo† is a dramatic tale of mystery and intrigue that paints a dazzling, dueling, exuberant vision of the Napoleonic era in France. In this thrilling adventure, Edmond Dantà ¨s is toiling with the endeavor of attaining ultimate revenge, after being punished by his enemies and thrown into a secret dungeon in the Ch ateau d’If. He reluctantly learns that his long intolerable years in captivity, miraculous escape and carefully wrought revenge are all merely vital parts in his journey of awakening to the notion that there is no such thing as happiness or unhappiness, there is merely the comparison between the two. Ultimately, the irony that Dumas is presenting through this novel suggests that the inability to attain happiness through the hypocrisy that is revenge is because one is really avenging their own self. This becomes evident through his dramatic transformations from a naà ¯ve, young sailor, to a cold, cynical mastermind of vengeance, and finally to a remorseful, humble man who is simply content. To be naà ¯ve is something that pertains to childish innocence. The prevailing theme of innocence to exper... ...ate bliss† (Dumas, 531) As soon as Edmond is able to accept and remorse his hypocritical actions, he returns back to his original state, that of a good man who is content with the simple joys of life. In conclusion, a hypocritical action, such as revenge, cannot possibly bring about happiness. This is because hypocrisy essentially refers to being the very thing that one hates. Edmond Dantà ¨s is initially a man who appreciates all his blessings, however small they may be, although, after being the victim of treachery he morphs into a vengeful, bitter man. When a feeling of discontent arises following his vengeance, Dantà ¨s realizes that by revenging others he is really avenging himself. In other words, one cannot repair an immoral action with an equally immoral reaction. Only when accepting this notion can one rejoin humanity and feel content, as Edmond Dantà ¨s does.

Fame in Cinema and Television Essay

The â€Å"star phenomenon† began in theatrical advertising of certain actors’ names in the 1820s. It was not immediately transferred to Hollywood, nor to the many other film industries developing in parallel across the glove. Hollywood studios at first, from about 1909 to 1914, ignored â€Å"stars† – actors in whose offscreen lifestyle and personalities audiences demonstrated a particular interest. This was partly because of the costs involved in â€Å"manufacturing stardom† on a scale which the studies could translate into measureable box-office revenue, and for fear of the power which stars might then wield. Stars need all kinds of resources lavished on their construction such as privileged access to screen and narrative space, to lighting, to the care of costumers, make-up workers, voice coaches, personal trainers, etc. , as well as to audience interest through previews, supply of publicity materials, etc. Skillful casting is also important, though rarely discussed in work on stars, perhaps because it is seen to detract from the star’s own intentions in a performance. Key career decisions involve a star’s choice of casting agency or the choices made by a particular film’s casting director. Once established, the star system worked lucratively for the studios. Stars were used as part of the studio’s â€Å"branding† or promise of certain kinds of narrative and production values. They were useful in â€Å"differentiating† studios’ films. Stars were literally part of the studio’s capital, like plant and equipment, and could be traded as such. James Stewart, making an interesting comparison with sports celebrities, said once â€Å"Your studio could trade you around like ball player like when I was traded once to Universal for the use of their back lot for three weeks. † Stars’ large salaries, said to be due to nebulous qualities such as â€Å"talent† or â€Å"charisma†, worked to negate the powers of acting unions, who might otherwise have been able to calculate acting labor and ask for more equal distribution of profits (Branston and Stafford 2003). And stars have always functioned as a key part of Hollywood’s relationship to broader capitalist structures. In the 1930s, for example, over-production of manufactured goods had reached crisis point in North America, and the large banks funding Hollywood sought its help in shifting goods from warehouses to consumers. In addition to this, the celebrity is part of the public sphere, essentially an actor or, to use Robert Altman’s 1992 film characterization of Hollywood denizens, a â€Å"player. † In the contemporary public sphere, divisions exist between different types of players: politicians are made to seem distinctly different from entertainment figures; businesspeople are distinguished from sports stars. And yet in the mediated representation of this panoply of players, they begin to blend together. Film stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger share the stage with politicians like George Bush; Gorbachev appears in a film by Wenders; Michael Jackson hangs out on the White House lawn with Ronald Reagan; Nelson Mandela fills an entire issue of Vogue. The celebrity is a category that identifies these slippages in identification and differentiation. Leadership, a concept that is often used to provide a definitional distance from vulgarity of celebrity status, provides the last discursive location for understanding the public individual. The argument I want to advance here is that in contemporary culture, there is a convergence in the source of power between the political leader and other forms of celebrity. Both are forms of subjectivity that are sanctioned by the culture and enter the symbolic realm of providing meaning and significance for the culture. The categorical distinction of forms of power is dissolving in favor of a unified system of celebrity status, in which the sanctioning of power is based on similar emotive and irrational, yet culturally deeply embedded, sentiments (Marshall 1997). Of course, depending on the type of media where actors and actresses appear, their power and charisma varies. In addition to this, depending on the type of media used, individual’s star quality or qualities of being a celebrity varies. On television, an individual can become a star without ceasing to be his or her anonymous self, because the medium celebrates innocuous, domestic normality. Once on the â€Å"The Tonight Show† Jack Paar maddened the studio audience by attentively quizzing one of its number and ignoring Cary Grant, who’d been planted in the adjoining seats. As well as a practical joke, this was a boast of television’s license to bestow celebrity on those it promiscuously or fortuitously favors. But the medium can just as easily rescind that celebrity. Obsolescence is built into the television star, as it is into the sets themselves: hence those mournful commercials for American Express in which the celebrities of yesteryear- the man who lent his croaky voice to Bugs Bunny or a candidate for the Vice-Presidency in 1964- laud the company’s card, which restores to them an identity and a televisibility they’d forfeited. The game show contestants experience this brief tenure of television celebrity- Warhol’s fifteen minutes- at its most accelerated. But in order to quality for it, they have to surrender themselves to the medium. Their only way of winning games is to abase themselves, feigning hysteria on â€Å"The Price is Right,† exchanging sordid confidences on â€Å"The Newlywed Game,† incompetently acting out inane charades on Bruce Forsyth’s â€Å"Generation Game. † The cruelest of the games is â€Å"The Gong Show,† where one’s span of celebrity may not even extend to fifteen seconds. More or less, untalented contestants sing, dance, juggle or fiddle until the inevitable gong sends them back to nonentity. For some, the gong supervenes immediately. They’ve been warned this will happen, and coached to disappear with dignity, but are expected to go through with their act all the same and suffer their condemnation. Even a few seconds of television fame is worth the price of one’s self-esteem. The show pretends to be a talent quest, but is a smirking parody of that. The hosts on the game shows are, for similar reasons, parodies of geniality. A host soothes his guests and smoothes obstacles out of their way. But in homage to Groucho, the comperes subject their victims to a ritual humiliation, and their patter keeps the game-players throughout flinching and ill-at-ease (Conrad 1982). Television is good but may not be ideal for preserving important works. On the other hand, a good film can be shown anywhere in the world where there is an audience. Furthermore, the cinema will turn actors and actresses into stars. There are many well-known television actors and actresses, but they have no international fame like their big-screen counterparts. Films together with film magazines contribute directly to the formation of a star system and its attendant mythology. The stars perceived themselves to be, and were in turn also used as, icons for a modern lifestyle, especially fashion (Zhang 2005). They are given greater chances to achieve or receive international awards and become known not only in a particular state but to the whole world, unlike in the case of television stars. Those famous actors who appeared on television ten years ago have now vanished due either to lot or disintegrated videotape or a lack of interest by the contemporary audience. In Africa, there was a necessity to build more cinema theaters, instead of enforcing further use of television, because it was helping them to maintain a viable film industry. In Iran, they have more than 150 cinema houses. Their industry if progressing because they have a loyal audience who make it possible to recuperate money invested in production, which in turn is invested in the making of new films (Ukadike 2002). As a whole, it can be said that fame in cinema is more lasting than fame in television. In addition to this, the stars or celebrities appearing on cinemas rather than on televisions are the ones who are more favored by producers and stockholders. Moreover, they are preferred than the television stars to be used in magazines, especially if it is an international magazine. As such, the lifestyle of actors and actresses in cinemas are greater than those who only appear in television shows. The cinema industry as well as its actors and actresses are greatly favored and nowadays, more specifically preferred by a good number of the countries. Bibliography BRANSTON, GILL and STAFFORD, ROY, The Media Student’s Book (USA: Routledge, 2003). CONRAD, PETER, Television (USA: Routledge, 1983). MARSHALL, P. DAVID, Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture (Minneapolis: Regents of the University of Minnesota, 1997). UKADIKE, NWACHUKWU FRANK, Questioning African Cinema (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002). ZHANG, ZHEN, An Amorous History of the Silver Screen (London: University of Chicago Press, 2005).

Major General Gideon J. Pillow in the Civil War