Please check these application in relevance to the prompt. Its for college (short)
In Italics are the actual essay. One is long one is short it doesn't matter which one i just want somebody to read the essay in relevance to the prompt to see if they get what i am trying to say. Any grammar problem you notice would be appreaciated as well, thanks.
Everyone has a shortcoming. What is yours, and how has it helped or hurt you?
There is no such thing as perfection, and I can whole heartily testify to this. My greatest folly would have to be my tendency to procrastinate. I’m sure we’ve all procrastinated sometimes in our lives but I have practiced this dark art many a times. Some common occasions includes writing a term paper or simply washing my own clothes. The central problem to all this havoc is not because I am lazy, for if I was lazy I wouldn’t bother doing any of them. My own surmise is that I often try to magnify the time span of something that is already limited. For example, if my mom called at 3 p.m. to say that she wouldn't be back until 9 p.m. and I was to wash my clothes in the meantime, I probably wouldn't start until 8 p.m. and be lucky to be finished by 9 p.m.! During this whole ordeal, I keep on telling myself, “no worries it is only 5 p.m.” or “its just only 7 p.m. I got all the time in the world.” I know at the end procrastination will end up hurting me more than helping me and so that is why I am in the process of practicing abstinence and so far it has been great.
Is censorship in a classroom ever justified?
The central goal of education is to become aware and conscious of our surroundings with no partial feelings whether it is the epitome of human civilization or the base of humanity. Thus the censorship of controversial or blatantly shocking topics in classrooms should have no contention. Censorship by definition is withholding of information, “in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable.” In theory this sounds perfectly flawless, however, in an imperfect world that we live in there is all the more folly in this theory. Let me ask you this. Would we want our children to be unaware and ignorant of the tragedy of the holocaust merely because it is such a cruel and controversial time period of human history? Do we really want to hide the perfidious and knavish acts done by the Catholics church during the 13th, 14th and the 15th century, of hypocrisy, of sexism, of double dealing merely to preserve the church’s present state? No, I think not, for we would be merely kidding ourselves in face of the truth. After all truth is all knowing.
Does the words racism and holocaust ring any bells to your ear? I am sure we can all conclude that racism and hatred are both some of the basest and foulest ideals ever conjured in human thought. And so in the justification of censoring these topics because they’re too disturbing and painful, we are to educate the young generations of these atrocities as sugary coated topics in disguise or altogether abolish them in classroom discussions. Is this really the way for us to make the public “aware” of these atrocities by merely hiding them? In the end, in this course of action we would be only doing the collective an ill-service for we would be merely hiding the truth by putting an artificial cover that would eventually be penetrated and furthermore we would be insinuating the spread of these evils by looking pass these issues.
The spread of sexism is still prevalent in our society. With the goal of education in mind, the classroom is an institution for the betterment of society of these vices through awareness. There is no possible and logical way we are to make the make the public aware of the wickedness of sexism, of the depravity of female sexuality and femininity, and of folly of male domination without assailing the problem head on. There is no compromise in these social issues and thus there should be no censorship.
I am an ardent believer that one of the main goals of education is to make ourselves become aware of our place and position in our world. In such we can not become fully aware of our place and problems if we are to merely censor everything that is unsettling or foul. It is imperative that we open all venues of learning, not only the pleasant but also the disturbing and unsettling sections that beset us.
Re: Please check these application in relevance to the prompt. Its for college (short)
whole heartily- wholeheartedly (one word)
many a times- many a time or many times
with no partial feelings whether it is the epitome of human civilization or the base of humanity- I'd change this- without bias?? Also, ate the end, I'd use 'humanity at its basest' (is that what you mean??) If so, then I am not sure I agree with the idea- surely education, while it might include the highest and the lowest, would attempt partiality- the ability to mdistinguish between the good and the bad
perfectly flawless, however, in an imperfect- semi-colon before 'however'
Let me ask you this. Would- colon or dash
because it is such a cruel- I'd use the past tense to keep the flow
Does the words- Do, also put the word in inverted commas- 'holocaust'
ring any bells to your ear- delete in your ear
we are to educate- I'd use 'are we'
we would be insinuating the spread - assisting?
of the depravity of female sexuality- are you sure you mean this or do you mean the exploitation thereof?
make ourselves become aware = delete become
I get you point, but would you extend your argument beyond the examples without any limits? How would you handle a book like 'The Bell Curve', a text that is held by its detractors to be racist pseudoscience, but which attempts to show intellectual differences between the races? This is not a historical text, but a current work. In any classroom, there has to be a selection of material because the quantity available dictates it, so choices have to be made, which imposes some form of censorship by exclusion, IMO. I fully agree that we shouldn't exclude things because they are uncomfortable and unpleasant, especially where they express deep truths about human nature, but I still think that our choice will reflect out biases. In literature, should we include or exclude writers like Kipling and Conrad, both of whom have been called racist, though whose quality as writers far exceeds many of the popular choices of today? It's a very difficult area, and I would generally agree with you, but I am not sure I'd take it the whole hog. I think reading Conrad and Kipling will help understand their period, but I do have my doubts about the Bell Curve.