What Is the SAT Adversity Score What Does It Mean for You

What Is the SAT Adversity Score What Does It Mean for You SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips Last Thursday, the College Board announced via the Wall Street Journal that it has been testing out a project where, along with students' SAT scores, colleges see each student's "Overall Disadvantage Level," or their "adversity score." In this article, we'll go over what we know so far about the adversity score and how it might affect college admissions. We'll also give some tips on how to limit what information about you the College Board can use to calculate your adversity score. We'll keep this article updated as new information comes out on the adversity score, so be sure to check back periodically. What Is the SAT Adversity Score? The SAT adversity score, also known as a student's Overall Disadvantage Level, is a number that the College Board calculates from information it has about different aspects of an SAT test taker's life about the disadvantages they've faced.This score is visible to colleges and institutional score report recipients only; if you're a test-taker and you look at your SAT scores in your College Board account, you won't see this information. The College Board states that the adversity score is on a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 denoting test takers with the least amount of hardship and 0 the test takers with the most amount of hardship. Just what information goes into the adversity score calculation, though? The Wall Street Journal initially listed 12 factors that were used to determine a test taker's "adversity index." Further elaboration about how this adversity score is shared with colleges can be seen in the screenshot posted by the College Board: In the above image, you can see that the "Overall Disadvantage Level" (aka the adversity score) appears as part of an "Environmental Context" report, which is just one of several reports shown on the dashboard through which colleges view test takers' scores in context. From this screenshot, it's also possible to see that the "Disadvantage Level" calculated by the College Board draws from data in broad categories like college attendance, family stability, median family income, housing stability, education level, and crime, for both the applicant's high school and neighborhood. The only information on the Environmental Context Dashboard based on information about test-takers as invididuals is their SAT score. As per the College Board, the Environmental Context Dashboard (including adversity scores) was first used in a pilot study of 50 schools 2018-2019, with expansion to 150 schools planned for Fall 2019 and a more widespread release in the following year. Specific schools named as having had access to the adversity score for this past year's admission cycle include Florida State University, University of Michigan, Trinity, and Yale. How the SAT Adversity Score Is Calculated In contrast to the initial reporting from the Wall Street Journal, the adversity score does not take things like whether test-takers are English Language Learners or have differing AP opportunities into account. The following information is included on the Environmental Context Dashboard but is not actually used to calculate a student's "Overall Disadvantage Level" (aka adversity score). SAT Score in High School Context Applicant's SAT score compared to the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile scores from their high school* High School General Information Senior class size Free/reduced-price lunch rate Rural/urban Average SAT score of colleges students from that high school attend* %age of seniors taking an AP Exam* Average number of AP Exam taken* Average AP score from that high school* Number of unique AP exams administered at that high school* Instead, the adversity score is calculated using the following 31 publicly-available data points on test-takers' neighborhoods and high school environments*: Income and Family Structure median family income poverty rate % of families with children in poverty % of families that are single-parent families with children % of families that are single-parent families with children in poverty % of households with food stamps Housing % of housing units that are rental % of housing units that are vacant what % of income rent is Educational Attainment % of adults with less than a 4-year college degree % of adults with less than a high school diploma % of adults with agriculture jobs % of adults with nonprofessional jobs % unemployed college-going behavior Probability of being a victim of a crime (neighborhood-level only) *As of this article's publication, it's not entirely clear how the College Board is calculating things like "percentage of housing units that are vacant" for test-takers' high school environments (since in general, teachers do not actually live in schools). We'll update with more information as it becomes available. Why Did the College Board Create the Adversity Score? Based on quotes from the College Board's CEO David Coleman, it's clear that the main reason for this score is that the College Board is trying to show that the effort and "resourcefulness" needed to get a certain score differs drastically between test takers, depending on certain advantages or disadvantages the test taker starts out with. This is not the first time the College Board or the SAT's creator ETS has tried to contextualize SAT scores for colleges. According to the Wall Street Journal, one attempt to do this happened in the early 1990s, when Winton Manning (an ETS researcher) worked on creating a modified SAT score that took "background factors" into account called the Measure of Academic Talent. Far more extreme a change than the current adversity score, the MAT ended up being scrapped ostensibly due to lack of resources. In 1999, the ETS decided to take another crack at giving colleges more information about how SAT scores should be weighed. Through the Wall Street Journal, ETS announced that it was creating a program called Strivers, which would identify students whose actual SAT score exceeded their expected SAT score by 200 points or more as strivers. This expected SAT score was calculated using "14 different categories, including family income, parents' education level and high-school socioeconomic mix" (Wall Street Journal). (Sound familiar?) After public outcry, ETS decided not to go forward with the Strivers program in 1999. Archival footage of ETS circa 1999 before they announced the Strivers program. In 2019, it's not entirely surprising that the College Board is yet again trying out the idea that they should give more information to colleges about SAT test takers than just a single test score. As more and more colleges are becoming test-optional or test-flexible and events like the recent college admissions scandal and the more regular SAT/ACT cheating scandals continue to occur, it makes sense that the College Board would want to give colleges a reason to continue using the SAT as part of college admissions. While the information that the College Board is using to calculate the adversity scores for students is available to colleges anyway, being able to use a single score to compare students will save schools a lot of work; it's part of the logic behind using standardized test scores in the first place, after all. Or to look at it from a more optimistic point of view, the new adversity score will make it easier for colleges to identify students whose got the score against the odds, rather than with them. Now that we've discussed some of the general reasons why the College Board might have decided to implement the adversity score, we're going to move on to going over specific positive and negative aspects of the program. Pros of the SAT Adversity Score Although it's easy to dismiss as pointless or silly, the SAT adversity score does have some positive features. #1: It's a Sign the College Board Is Trying In recent years, the College Board has taken substantial steps towards trying to level the SAT prep playing field. By providing the entire Official Guide to the SAT, including eight official practice tests, for free on CollegeBoard.org, the College Board instantly became more accessible to test takers around the world of varying income levels. College Board's partnership with Khan Academy is another step in the direction of removing economic barriers from SAT prep (even if some aspects of the partnership means that relying on Khan Academy alone to prep won't necessarily be enough for everyone). As positive as they are, though, none of these measures so far have resulted in eliminating the gap between students of different races, income level, and parents' education level. So the fact that the College Board is seeking to account for this difference by giving test takers an explicit score that says "oh, this is why there might be that difference" could be seen as another attempt to get rid of SAT score gaps. #2: More Data = More Robustness The College Board regularly releases data on how certain factors like race and household income can affect SAT scores, even controlling for other factors. However, these reports don't really get into more complicated effects of how multiple factors interact (e.g. gender, household income, and highest level of parental education achieved), likely because it is difficult to explain these interactions and because the effects might not reach statistical significance. For the adversity score, however, statistical significance is not really relevant. Rather than having to justify why the 31 factors used in the adversity score have a significant effect on SAT scores, the College Board is just calculating the adversity score and handing it to colleges with a "Here, this is the Overall Disadvantage Level of the test taker." The colleges can then decide whether or not that's a metric worth considering, which brings me to the next pro of the adversity score. #3: It's Not Mandatory for Colleges to Consider Just because the College Board provides this data to colleges doesn't mean that admissions officers have to take it into account. In contrast to the proposed early '90s MAT, the adversity score will not actually change an applicant's SAT score. Colleges who want to build more economically diverse classes can use applicants' adversity scores to inform their admissions policies, while colleges who place less importance on this can choose to ignore it. #4: It Doesn't Explicitly Use Race as a Factor Unlike the previous "Strivers" program, which worked best when race was used as a factor, the current SAT adversity score skirts using race as an explicit factor in its calculations. Many of the factors used have traditionally been strongly correlated with race when it comes to SAT performance, so the adversity score still captures some of that discrepancy, even though race itself is omitted. Why is the College Board using this roundabout approach to try to account for SAT performance differences between test takers of different races? The recent Wall Street Journal article makes the insightful observation that this may help schools maintain diversity if even the appearance of race-based affirmative action is outlawed. Since the adversity score is calculated by the College Board, a third party, and the schools (presumably) don't know exactly what weight is given to various factors, only that race isn't one of them, then they may have a better chance at keeping the right to use the adversity score as a way to create diversity in their incoming classes. Because of this, we've landed on the side of the adversity score not including race being a marginally positive factor, but we'll have to see how things play out. Cons of the SAT Adversity Score Despite the positive aspects of the adversity score, we have some concerns about how this new feature will affect testing and admissions. #1: It Doesn't Actually Close the Score Gaps While it's admirable that the College Board is willing to publicly acknowledge that there are score differences between students from different backgrounds, and that it's harder for some students to get to a certain SAT score than for others, the adversity score doesn't actually change any of this. Imagine that you're talking to a teacher about how you've noticed that there is one female composer on the syllabus for a music survey class, and your teacher responds by giving you background into why it was harder for women to make their livings as composers or publicly assert they were composers, particularly if they were women of color. Yes, it's helpful to have that background to contextualize why fewer female composers are widely known, but that still doesn't change the fact that you're only listening to music by men. And don't get me started on Amy Beach Mrs. H. H. A. Beach. #2: None of This Is New Information The data going into the adversity score calculations is data that colleges can access from the public domain anyway. In compiling the data necessary to calculate the adversity score for each test taker and then presenting schools with those numbers, the College Board is essentially doing a huge amount of labor for free for schools. I discussed earlier in this article that a possible motivation for the College Board doing this free labor is to give schools a reason to keep using the SAT as part of college admissions. The fact that the College Board is doing admissions offices' jobs for them with this adversity score does not directly harm test takers and applicants. However, it does indirectly mean that the College Board is spending more of its resources trawling through data to give colleges information they have already and less resources on improving the SAT and making actual progress on eliminating score gaps. #3: It Will Increase Anxiety Among Test Takers and College Applicants It's not surprising that the College Board has so far declined to explain exactly how they calculate each student's adversity score; there's really no advantage to them doing so. The opacity of the whole adversity score program, however, from students not knowing it was going on at all last year or what schools were/are using it to students not being able to see it or know how it was calculated, is likely to increase anxiety and stress levels among SAT test takers and college applicants using SAT scores. We'll update this if and when more information comes out, because some of the categories listed are so broadly named ("college-attending behavior," I'm looking at you) that it's hard to know what they mean. And, speaking as a former high schooler, knowing that there's yet another part of the college admissions process that you can't control, can't see, but affects your admission would have driven me even further up the wall. #4: There's a Disproportionate Effect on Domestic Applicants Something the College Board didn't really address in any of its public statements through news organizations is how the new adversity score is going to be more easily calculated for US test takers than for international test takers. All of the data used to calculate the adversity score come from public records. And although some countries may have this information published freely in easily accessible formats, it's not a stretch to imagine that it's going to be a lot easier to gather things like housing values and vacancy rates for students who live in the United States. If schools are aware of this discrepancy and are specifically looking to increase their diversity when it comes to test takers in the US with certain adversity scores, fine. But it's inevitable that this is going to lead to some US applicants feeling like international applicants are getting a leg up in this regard. #5: Factors Are Still Too Broad Even though the adversity score takes 31 factors into account, some of these factors are still relatively broad or limited. Take a factor like "college-going behavior." Does this refer to the percentage of people in the neighborhood/parents who went to a 2-year college/some college but dropped out/any college at all? (If so, that's a double factoring of "% not attending a 4-year college" into the adversity score.) Whether people attended public or private schools? What degree you earned? What the average college-going rate is for parents of students at your school? In your county? State? Country? I realize that it's impossible for the College Board to get really granular with all of these factors, particularly since they're relying on publicly-available data, but that's why college admissions offices look at specific information about things like parent education level, rather than a score that aggregates that along with other information. What Does the New Adversity Score Mean for Your Admissions Chances? Because the fact that there is an adversity score is still relatively fresh, it's possible there may be changes to how the adversity score is used by schools or if the College Board continues with this program (since it's still being tested on a relatively small sample of schools). The best evidence of how the adversity score might affect your chances comes from the two schools discussed in the Wall Street Journal article, Yale and FSU. The dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale was quoted about how the adversity score was a positive influence in building a freshman class with more diversity. In the article, it was also noted that the assistant vice president for academic affairs at FSU stated "SAT adversity scores helped boost nonwhite enrollment in the incoming freshman class." If you use your SAT Essay-analytical skills, you'll notice that the Yale and FSU representatives are pretty vague about the affect the adversity score has had (e.g. "boost nonwhite enrollment" could mean either that nonwhite enrollment doubled or that one more nonwhite student enrolled). Still, based on this admittedly small sample size, the clear commonality is that the adversity score is being used by colleges who have access to it to increase diversity in admissions to some extent. This is unsurprising- it's hard to imagine what else schools would admit to using the adversity score for. If you're a test taker who could reasonably assume you'd have a low adversity score (two-parent household in a wealthy neighborhood with lots of parents with jobs involving post-graduate degrees), then it is possible your chances of admission may be negatively affected by the adversity score (assuming the schools you apply to are one of the 150 schools the College Board plans to have this program rolled out to in the fall). The provocative quote from the assistant vice president for academic affairs at FSU with which the Wall Street Journal chose to end its article puts it this way: "If I am going to make room for more of the [poor and minority] students we want to admit and I have a finite number of spaces, then someone has to suffer and that will be privileged kids on the bubble." (Wall Street Journal). Granted that the Wall Street Journal literally has "Wall Street" in its name and its own motivations for choosing the quotes it did to publish, the FSU representative isn't necessarily wrong (and presumably would know for his own school, at the very least). If a school you're applying to uses the adversity score and you're a middle-of-the-road applicant with few disadvantages, it might not be as easy as it was previously to get into some of the colleges you want to get into. One of the pieces of anecdotal feedback the College Board reports in its post about the adversity score tends to back up this assumption: "For some admissions offices, the tool was most useful for borderline acceptances and students who went to committee. For others, it was valuable for students from nonfeeder high schools and areas they are less familiar with." (bolding mine) So it's likely that the effect of the adversity score will be most felt by applicants who were already on the edge of acceptance/rejection for schools. If there are two applicants who have the same SAT score, have borderline GPAs, letters of recommendation, and personal statements, it's conceivable that colleges who see and use the adversity score would some of the time choose the applicant with the higher adversity score. But as you can tell from our qualifying and italicizing throughout this article, it's not a certainty. One final point about the adversity score is that college admissions is not actually a zero-sum game. Yes, each school has a target number of students that they want to admit, but they're not going to reject you because they're one over their quota of admitted students with overall levels of disadvantage. The adversity score as a way to attempt to recognize the achievements of students who had to overcome certain disadvantages does not nullify the achievements of students who didn't. Recap: Understanding the SAT Adversity Score We know this is kind of a long article, so here's a quick rundown of some of the main takeaways: The College Board is trying out giving some schools an adversity score for individual test takers, which is supposed to indicate how the test taker's "Overall Disadvantage Level" compares to the average test taker. The adversity score uses information about test-takers' neighborhood and high school environments, but does not use any information specific to any individual test-taker The College Board may be doing this to try to account for the score gap between students with different backgrounds or to try to make sure colleges don't do away with standardized testing as part of admissions (or a combination of the two). The factors used to calculate the adversity score include some traditionally associated with race, but do not explicitly include race. The existence of an adversity score could be good because it shows the College Board is at least making some attempt to ameliorate score gap issues, draws from different factors that it was previously hard to account for, and isn't mandatory for colleges to consider. The existence of an adversity score isn't great because it doesn't actually fix the score gap problem, doesn't actually provide new information, is likely to increase anxiety among test takers and college applicants, will disproportionately affect domestic test takers, and still relies on some undefined categories of data for calculation. The people most affected by this will likely be students on the cusp of admittance, where having a high adversity score might tip the scales in favor of one applicant over another. As a final take away, we want to stress that admissions is not going to necessarily be "easier" for applicants with higher adversity scores than it is for students with lower ones. The College Board just wants colleges to take into account that it was likely harder for a students with high adversity scores to get the scores they did on the SAT than for students with the same SAT score but lower adversity scores. We expect to see more in the news about the new adversity score in the weeks and month to come, so stay tuned for updates to this article. Us to the College Board right now. What's Next? Interested in reading about more standardized testing shenanigans? Check out our articles on the Harvard race-based discrimination lawsuit and past SAT/ACT cheating scandals. What does it take to be an outstanding applicant, adversity aside? Learn how to get into the most elite universities in the US with PrepScholar co-founder Allen Cheng's guide on Harvard and the Ivy League. You don't get to see the adversity score, but your SAT score report does show you lots of other interesting information. Find out what you can learn from your score report here. Disappointed with your scores? Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points?We've written a guide about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download it for free now:

The effect of oil price changes on stock markets of the GCC Essay

The effect of oil price changes on stock markets of the GCC - Essay Example In addition, the effects of the oil price trend to the leading beneficiary of oil in the GCC, Qatar, will be addressed. Over the past year, the price of oil has reduced significantly. Numerically, the price of oil has lost 40% of its value. The minimized price of oil has led to the global decrease of oil and oil products. The trend has been welcomed by the consumer as countries enjoy a record low price of oil. Regardless of the benefits, oil producers have suffered massively due to losses incurred. Specifically, GCC countries have recorded reduced low markets. With the price of oil dwindling further, the stock market of GCC countries face the risk of an economic crisis unless an intervention is developed to minimize the risks (Arouri, Bellalah & Nguyen, 2011). Over the years, GCC countries have been best placed to manipulate oil prices thus creating price targets that would suit their economic demands. With the new changes, how much of effect does it have on the GCC countries? The GCC comprises of six countries. They are Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, United Arab and Saudi Arabia. The six nations develop their economic background from the export of oil. The nations produce 20% of the world oil (Arouri, Bellalah & Nguyen, 2011). This places them as the greatest oil producers globally. In addition, the GCC has 47% of the global oil reserves. This is in addition to that the control 36% of the global oil exports. It is evident that the GCC is massively dependent on oil. In an argument by Arouri, Bellalah & Nguyen (2011) the influence of the oil prices has a massive influence on the stock market of the GCC countries. The change in oil prices is directly proportional to the changes in the stock market. Specifically, an increase in the oil prices influences a massive influence on the GCC stock market. This is based on that there is massive investments in the oil industry in the market. Arouri, Bellalah & Nguyen (2011) are of the assumption that the

Should our courts, as Jane Stapleton has suggested, wipe out recovery Essay

Should our courts, as Jane Stapleton has suggested, wipe out recovery for pure nervous shock on the basis that no reasonable bou - Essay Example It goes without saying that existed times in the history of the English society in general and the world community in particular when ‘harm’ as it goes in the law was considered to be a gross and visible injury caused to a person or persons1. As the science of psychology and psychiatry evolved and gained formal recognition, it dawned upon the society and the associated disciplines and institutions like law that the notion of a ‘psychiatric injury or harm’, sometimes unaccompanied by blood or gore was a valid, acceptable and plausible possibility. So, the institution of law attempted to commensurately extend the available remedies and recoveries, albeit to accommodate within its ambit the notions of psychiatric injury or harm. The concept of ‘nervous shock’ within the English law is a direct outcome of such humane and propitious developments.2 The problem is that the ‘nervous shock’ inflicted on a person is often not quantifiable lik e physical injuries, not to mention the many other pragmatic problems associated with this legal concept. In the light of this problem, there exists a school of intelligentsia represented by luminaries like Jane Stapleton who advocate the abolition of the legal remedies associated with such harm.3 Yet, it will be utterly sensitive and reasonable to hold that considering the problems and confusions associated with a form of injury or harm, necessitates and calls for a further evolution of the English law, rather than vying for the already scarce remedies available for it. Nervous Shock As per the English Law, ‘nervous shock’ stands to be a psychiatric illness caused to a person, usually intentionally. This legal provision also includes the psychiatric illnesses caused to a person owing to the negligent behaviour of somebody. It goes without saying that the term ‘nervous shock’ is somewhat misleading in the context of the issue it intends to cover. Yet, the E nglish Law has chosen to continue with the usage of this term to refer to the complex notion or concept it alludes to. As per the English Law, a person can claim damages, owing to the nervous shock caused to one by the intentional or negligent behaviour of a person or a party. However, recovery due to nervous shock is to some extent restrained if not impossible in the English Law. This development is influenced by the fact that mostly no reasonable boundaries for the course of action can be traced in such cases. ‘Nervous shock’ is this context is an issue that the English Law is still trying to grapple with so as to somewhat concretize and positively solidify the remedies and provisions associated with this form of wrong or injury.4 Problems Associated with the Concept of Nervous Shock In the realm of law, which depends to a great extent on logic, rationality and the analysis of reasonable and verifiable facts, the concept of ‘nervous shock’ almost seems to be an aberration and anomaly. In that context, the possibility of a mental injury or shock appears to have a predilection towards the realm of philosophy or metaphysics. Mind, no doubt, since times immemorial has been considered to be a metaphysical term, which is known and understood by many but which evades all attempts at generalization or the possibility of arriving at a common agreement as to holding some universal definition.5 Mind is an attribute that has to do

Deconstruction of Business Ethics To Enhance Morality and Justice Research Paper

Deconstruction of Business Ethics To Enhance Morality and Justice - Research Paper Example This brings us to organization theory, which Derek Pugh (1970) defines as the study of the structure, functions, and performance of groups and the behavior of individuals within them. Through the years, organization theory has expanded its dimensions to be animated by such issues as aesthetics, anti-capitalism, autonomy, identity, fashion and feminism, popular culture, resistance, representation and information, sexuality, social movements, etc. The word organization may thus involve diverse entities, from corporations and states to the village fairs and tennis clubs. Organizations are in effect the most rational answer to the egotistical human nature. Through the organization, modern society benefits from rational laws and ethical codes that it engenders. Such a concept or organization, however, has been perverted in places and circumstances where people are reduced to human status to become tramps, refugees, migrants, sub-proletarians and political inmates. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, as cited in Jones, C. (1966) says in these cases, the concepts of the social sciences, from law to anthropology, must be radically altered to prevent an â€Å"urgent catastrophe.† How does the organization theory fit in with the war on terrorism, preemptive wars in the Middle East, Guantanamo Bay, among others? This is the reason why business organizations worldwide are being asked to finance the American political and military hegemony, and why the US is so keen on exporting its own version of democracy. What of the attitudes of the new-style managers toward the interests of their employees Allen, F. (1965) warns: "Speeches and pronouncements by a corporation head

Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Delhi Metro Essay Example for Free

Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Delhi Metro Essay Key words: Transport, Air Pollution, Cost- benefit analysis and Shadow prices. Abstract: The growing demand for public transport in mega cities has serious effects on urban ecosystems, especially due to the increased atmospheric pollution and changes in land use patterns. An ecologically sustainable urban transport system could be obtained by an appropriate mix of alternative modes of transport resulting in the use of environmentally friendly fuels and land use patterns. The introduction of CNG in certain vehicles and switching of some portion of the transport demand to the metro rail have resulted in a significant reduction of atmospheric pollution in Delhi. The Delhi Metro provides multiple benefits: reduction in air pollution, time saving to passengers, reduction in accidents, reduction in traffic congestion and fuel savings. There are incremental benefits and costs to a number of economic agents: government, private transporters, passengers, general public and unskilled labour. The social cost-benefit analysis of Delhi Metro done in this paper tries to measure all these benefits and costs from Phase I and Phase II projects covering a total distance of 108 kms in Delhi. Estimates of the social benefits and costs of the project are obtained using the recently estimated shadow prices of investment, foreign exchange and unskilled labour as well as the social time preference rate for the Indian economy for a study commissioned by the Planning Commission, Government of India and done at the Institute of Economic Growth. The financial internal rate of return on investments in the Metro is estimated as 17 percent while the economic rate of return is 24 percent. Accounting for benefits from the reduction of urban air pollution due to the Metro has increased the economic rate of return by 1.4 percent. This paper forms part of the work done for a project `Economic Evaluation of Investment Projects in India’ funded by the Planning Commission, Government of India. We express our thanks to the officials of Rail India Technical and Economic Services (RITES) for providing us access to the detailed technical reports prepared by them for the Delhi Metro project. We are grateful to the participants in the workshop at the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi-110007 for their useful comments. About Metro Rail in Delhi Delhi, the capital city of India, is one of the fastest growing cities in the world with a population of 13 million as reported in the Census of India Report for the year 2000. Until recently, it was perhaps the only city of its size in the world depending almost entirely on roads as the sole mode of mass transport. The total length of the road network in Delhi has increased from a mere 652 km in 1981 to 1122 km in 2001 and it is expected to grow to 1340 km in the year 2021. This increase in road length is not at par with the phenomenal growth in the number of vehicles on these roads in Delhi. The cumulative figure of registered private and government buses, the main means of public transport, is 41,872 in 1990 and it is expected to increase to 81,603 by the year 2011. The number of personal motor vehicles has increased from 5.4 lakhs in 1981 to 30 lakhs in 1998 and is projected to go up to 35 lakhs by 2011. With gradual horizontal expansion of the city, the average trip length of buses has gone up to 13 km and the increased congestion on roads has made the corresponding journey time of about one hour. Delhi has now become the fourth most polluted city in the world, with automobiles contributing more than two thirds of the total atmospheric pollution. In this context, the decision of the Government of India to develop a mass transport system for Delhi providing alternative modes of transport to the passengers was most satisfied.

In act four of The Crucible, Arthur miller shows the varying views of :: Essay on The Crucible

In act four of The Crucible, Arthur miller shows the varying views of justice of the characters How does Arthur Miller use a range of dramatic techniques in Act 4 to conclude his exploration of the theme of justice? In act four of ‘‘The Crucible’’, Arthur Miller shows a turning point for some of the characters and that they have an unfair and incorrect viewpoint of justice. In order to understand this, we need to look at how harshly John Proctor comes about to be judged by his wife and himself. Another key idea to explore is how Judge Danforth does not seem very fair in making judgements, as he believes he is honest and scrupulous whereas he is a strong believer of theocracy and his view of justice is warped. Another of the writer’s concerns is how a society ensures justice and fairness when it believes that its fundamental beliefs are under attack. John Proctor is at first one of the only characters in Salem who sees the injustices of the court. Due to his ethical and moral beliefs, he believes that by the end, the right thing will come about and justice will be served. Proctor is able to see that Abigail is using her authority to get rid of Elizabeth so she can take her place as his wife. "I'll not give my wife to vengeance." By saving his wife and friends, he himself ends up condemned. He does the right thing and dies for it, and once again, the court failed to recognise the truth because they were relying on their rulings of intangible evidence. By the end, Proctor seems purified as he does what is good even if it is going to kill him. In the film version, an extra scene shows Abigail talking to Proctor while he is imprisoned where she asks him to run away with her. However, by this time it is apparent that his feelings for her have changed and blue lights show this coldness. It becomes obvious that by this time he does not care about Abigail and even hates her. Furthermore, Proctor seems to take on the role of Jesus as he was persecuted and executed in similar ways to him. In addition, just before Proctor was hanged, Elizabeth said to him â€Å"You take my sins upon you† and Jesus took other people’s sins and died for them. These dramatic techniques cause the audience to think of Proctor as a heroic person who has done nothing wrong. Proctor’s pride was the main reason for his death because he felt bad about what he had done with Abigail and then lied to try to save his

American Society for Training & Development: A Closer Look

Organizations exist for different purposes. There have been countless successful organizations but there were also equal numbers of unsuccessful ones. The American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) is clearly a successful organization. It is considered as the world’s largest association that is committed in workplace learning and performance professionals. Its members originate from different countries worldwide. ASTD is a committee organization which consists of a group of people who usually lead the whole organization. This type of organization, though it has a broad decision making, has a limited functional authority.The good thing on committee authority is that there is harmony between executives and co-workers. Even executives who have lesser experience can broaden their perspectives through active participation. Moreover, there is an assurance of continuity of committee functions. On the other hand, this type of organization is time consuming. Others also say tha t â€Å"committee is made up of the unfit selected by the unwilling to do the unnecessary. † There are also instances when the chairman is forced to make a decision when the committee members have difficulty arriving at a unified agreement.The responsibility is divided among the members and it seeks unanimous decisions. Committee organization is best used to represent interest groups, training, innovation and coordination of planning. The ASTD have the following services: they provide resources for the professionals, which are helpful for researches and publications. They also conduct conferences and expositions in different locations and facilitate the online communities. Aside from these, the ASTD offers programs and choices for careers. ASTD seeks to create a world that works better through exceptional learning and performance.They envision a world-wide leader in workplace learning and performance. Harrison says that leadership is really all about performance. In this case , wherein a 16-member team leads the members, the ASTD is spearheaded by designated leadership. The 16-member team takes responsibility for the whole members and drives them towards their goals. The designated leaders also think of how they will achieve these goals. One of the best things about what ASTD offers to its members is the wide array of resources from the marketplace that they can have access to.They have online environments where the members can gain access to resources such as articles, book summaries and reviews on topics ranging from management to trainings. Aside from these, there are also magazines, newsletters, research reports, Webpages and blogs. The organization also made way for the Training Fundamentals Community where the members can have access on different resources available and connect them to their peers who can help in developing training solutions for a particular organization.The ASTD also conduct conferences and expositions with world-renowned leaders as speakers. The members learn a lot of new things, whether theories or models, that they can adapt to their organization. This facilitates a better workplace learning and performance. The organization also offers exhibit and sponsorship opportunities for their training suppliers. It also offers many choices of certificates from education programs. ASTD also holds the Benchmarking Forum which offers opportunities to benchmark the practices and processes of the members.ASTD is clearly a place where a professional can be more professional. Their resources and programs will be the vehicle for an organization to achieve its success. Being a good leader or a professional means you follow principles that are good for the organization. You have to find ways on how to improve your skills and competencies. There will always be room for improvement to be able to lead the organization to that sweet success. REFERENCES http://www. astd. org/ASTD