Global Stocks Fall

Major global stock indexes traded lower on Thursday, following a plunge in Wall Street amid rising global growth concerns, geopolitical tensions and disappointing earnings results. The Nikkei 225 was the worst performer in Asia, slumping 3.7%. European shares opened in the red but attempted to recover during early trading hours.

Hand Writing Vs Typing: Should we follow Finlands example?

Much has been talked about in the last month and a half on the decision of Finland, the leading country in education, to remove cursive writing in schools from 2016 onwards. Teachers and education experts of all levels have debated the implications of this decision and the possibility of replicating a similar model in other countries now seems very real.

Hand Writing

So what do we here at ExamTime think? Our position remains the same as it has since our inception and that is to stand behind the modernization of education. Nobody can deny that hand writing helps to fine tune motor skills and brain functionality. But the reality is that the world, in which we now live, requires education to be at a level that will prepare students for the labor market in which they are ultimately going to end up in.

If we think about it, it makes sense to focus our efforts on mastering a practice that we are going to use on a daily basis going forward. Typing has become a requirement while hand-writing is becoming an outdated process. “At best, it is becoming a practice that is romantic,” says Enrique Dans, Professor and blogger. Among others, the benefits of typing include:

  • Content is written fasterhand writing
  • It promotes productivity
  • It promotes mental alertness
  • The fingers are exercised
  • You can be writing while reading

 

Some critics have asked, what happens then with class notes? Class notes are still one of a handful of hand writing tasks which are still widespread today. Our solution? Digital Notes. With ExamTime’s Digital Notes, you will have the same freedom that you get with a simple sheet of paper but with many added benefits. These include:

  • The ability to organize your notes easilyhand-writing-debate
  • Access them at any time
  • Share them with your friends
  • The ability to including images, videos, links,
  • External references and ExamTime resources

 

Is this what you expected? Check out our online notes to see how they work. To be able to take this big step, the only essential element is the availability of computers in the classroom. Fortunately a lot of progress is being made in this area and the ratio between students and computers is improving each year as digital learning becomes more important. Therefore, as soon as institutions can ensure that students have access to computers, the next step should be the replacement or alignment of typing with hand writing.

Once more, this move has put Finland at the forefront of educational reform. They have raised the bar and paved the path for other countries to follow. However, this is only the beginning. Educators and institutions still have a long way to. With that in mind, ExamTime has these 3 wishes for 2015, that:

  1. Other countries will follow the Finnish model and replace/align hand writing with typing
  2. Programming starts to be incorporated as a compulsory subject in all educational levels
  3. Teachers and students incorporate online tools to develop a better learning environment

Continue reading “Hand Writing Vs Typing: Should we follow Finlands example?”

Behind the Anti-War Protests That Swept America in 1968

Life &Arts

Anti-war demonstrators picketing in front of the White House on Jan. 19, 1968.
Anti-war demonstrators picketing in front of the White House on Jan. 19, 1968.
PhotoQuest / Getty Images
By Daniel S. Levy / LIFE Books

January 19, 2018

The following is an excerpt from LIFE’s new special edition, 1968: The Year That Changed the World, available in the TIME Shop, on Amazon and at retailers everywhere.

Protestors massed outside the White House at all hours. They circled alongside the fence, carrying signs reading “Stop the War,” “Bring the GIs Home Now,” and “We Mourn Our Soldiers, They Are Dying in Vain.” As the protesters walked, some handed out flyers, flashed peace signs, and held candles. Their chanting was so loud that they could be heard inside the executive mansion. “There aren’t enough walls to isolate you from that,” Lyndon Johnson’s younger daughter, Luci, later recalled of the constant refrains of “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”

Soon the voices of protest reached inside the White House’s staterooms, too. When the singer and Batman star Eartha Kitt attended a White House luncheon at which Johnson spoke, she stood up and scolded the commander in chief. “You send the best of this country off to be shot and maimed,” Kitt said. “They rebel in the streets. They don’t want to go to school because they’re going to be snatched off from their mothers to be shot in Vietnam.”

While personally affronted that Kitt would so publicly criticize him in the White House, Johnson knew why people protested. He knew why they begged for their fathers, sons, brothers, and boyfriends to come home from Vietnam. Both of his daughters’ husbands were serving there. Luci’s husband, Patrick Nugent, served in the Air National Guard, and Lynda’s husband, Captain Charles Robb, commanded a Marine rifle company. “To the Johnsons’ credit, their family had put their money where their commander in chief’s mouth was,” historian Mark Updegrove tells LIFE. Even so, says Updegrove, the President deeply believed that he had to keep his nation fighting, because “sometimes you have to take a stand, that you cannot take liberty for granted.”

As America’s military presence grew, so did the parallel battle for peace. It had been growing since the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Johnson’s subsequent call for the Operation Rolling Thunder bombing campaign. Civil rights groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Free Speech Movement had held teach-ins and marched in Washington and elsewhere. Young men publicly burned their draft cards. The New Left dubbed the United States “Amerika,” and the underground press disseminated antiwar information through their own news services.

 

It wasn’t just leftist students and hippies who opposed the war. Many people were against it because there was no sense that the United States could win. That’s what gave rise to the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War and what inspired Jeannette Rankin, the first woman elected to congress, to lead 5,000 women in a march to the Capitol. A financial brokerage house, Paine Webber, Jackson & Curtis, went so far as to run an ad saying that peace in Vietnam would be “the most bullish thing that could happen to the stock market.”

Eugene McCarthy’s entry into the 1968 presidential race gave a huge boost to the antiwar movement, and the battles of Khe Sanh and the Tet Offensive changed the minds of many, as Americans came to the realization that the North Vietnamese refused to be worn down. While a March 1967 poll had shown that more than half of Americans supported the way Johnson was handling the war, by early 1968 that proportion was down to about a third. The antiwar movement became more grounded in political analysis than in the starry-eyed assurance of earlier protesters, Anthony DeCurtis tells LIFE. “It was about capitalism and about something that needed to be overthrown,” he says, “and not by consciousness.”

Protests spread, and schools served as major centers of agitation. This was encouraged by the Johnson administration’s decision to abolish draft deferments for most graduate students, a move that affected some 650,000 men. Muhammad Ali, who had been banned from boxing because he refused the draft, toured campuses, giving hundreds of speeches.

At Harvard Law School, professor Alan Dershowitz taught a class on legal ways to resist the draft. Students there, as well as at Radcliffe and Boston University, took part in a four-day hunger strike against the war. And at Columbia, 3,500 students and 1,000 faculty members boycotted classes in protest. SDS members led by undergraduate Mark Rudd voiced their opposition to the school’s involvement with the Institute for Defense Analysis and weapons research for the military, while also fighting the school over the construction of a new gym that they complained offered discriminatory access to Harlem neighborhood residents. They also took over school buildings and occupied the president’s office. When 1,000 New York policemen descended on Columbia’s campus to clear out the protesters, that response resulted in many injuries and 700 arrests.

Agitation spread to hundreds of schools. A Milwaukee Journal survey found that 75 percent of students supported organized protest as a “legitimate means of expressing student grievances.” And some abandoned the Gandhian principles of nonviolence championed by Martin Luther King Jr. There were three arson attacks at Southern Illinois University by those opposing the war. Students at many universities also opposed recruitment by firms profiting from the war and protested their universities’ investments in companies such as Dow Chemical, which made napalm, a jelly gasoline that was used in Vietnam in firebombs and flamethrowers.

Some of those opposed to the war raided draft offices. Father Daniel Berrigan and eight other members of the Catholic Church entered the Selective Service office in Catonsville, Maryland, and seized hundreds of draft files. Outside, they doused the cards with their own homemade napalm. A group that became know as the Milwaukee 14 broke into that city’s Selective Service office and took 4,000 class 1-A draft cards, dragging them out in sacks and burning them in a park across the street.

Continue reading “Behind the Anti-War Protests That Swept America in 1968”

Donald Trump’s foreign policy is China’s gain

Donald Trump, we know, has forged a special bond with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. We should forget Russia’s effort to subvert American democracy — Vladimir Putin is fine, just fine. Even European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker turns out to be a good guy when it comes to talking trade. Now the US president says he is happy to meet his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani. Last week he was threatening Tehran with all manner of fire and fury. Given the great deal Mr Kim got in Singapore, Mr Rouhani might do well to grab the offer.

You can see why all this might leave Beijing feeling edgy. Chinese president Xi Jinping was also once a recipient of the Trumpian best-of-friends treatment. But, as the crazy kaleidoscope that is US foreign policy keeps spinning, the White House war on Beijing’s trade policies is establishing itself as something of a constant. The president’s revised view of Mr Xi is that “he’s for them and I’m for us”.

Mr Trump has a point. Most of his generalised rage about trade is a measure of ignorance about globalisation and supply chains. He lives in the 1950s. In those days, things were made in one country — usually America — and then sold in another — preferably just about everywhere else. The modern world of bits and pieces, with components and semi-finished products moving to and fro across borders, does not fit the president’s template.

China is different. When Mr Trump accuses it of stealing intellectual property, shutting out imports and manipulating the Renminbi, he strikes a chord elsewhere. It is no coincidence that European governments — most recently Britain — are toughening controls to stop Chinese investment becoming a route to involuntary technology transfer. European businesses complain as bitterly as US ones about Chinese ownership rules. Charges of dumping are frequent. China fully exploits the rules of the World Trade Organization — and then ignores them when it suits.

So the prospect of a protracted trade conflict probably presents Chinese leaders with real cause for concern — the more so since the economy is slowing and there are visible cracks in the financial system. Even the most authoritarian regimes fret about their grip on power. Communist Party rule has by and large won acceptance because of accompanying rises in living standards. Mr Xi does not want to test the proposition that his writ would still run unchallenged during an economic slump.

Mr Xi’s China is also unaccustomed to such pressure. For a decade and more it has had more or less a free run on both economics and geopolitics. Whether it was because they were anxious to grab a share of the Chinese market or concerned to lure Beijing into the multilateral system, western governments have been loath to offend. The softly-softly approach is shifting. And Mr Trump’s trade war makes it easier.

And yet. Tempting though it is to say that China is fast emerging as the big loser from Mr Trump’s foreign policy, the reality is more likely to be the opposite. For all that the US president has discomfited Mr Xi, the noise obscures the longer-term impact of American policy. Any short term pain should be set against the immense strategic gain for China flowing from Mr Trump’s worldview. In the inevitable global contest between these two great powers, the US is already surrendering advantage to its rival. Chinese policymakers have long had a plan for global primacy. You could be forgiven for thinking that the White House has decided to lend them a hand.

The US starts out with the huge advantage not just of its military and technological superiority but an unparalleled international alliance system. Economic, defence and security agreements with allies across Asia and the Middle East and military bases in dozens of nations have become part of the architecture of American power. Beijing has only a handful of willing accomplices — think, say, Cambodia — alongside the deference it can buy with foreign investment. You do not find other nations saying they want to copy China.

So how is the US playing this advantage? For all the present let’s-be-nice mood in the White House, Mr Trump is progressively dismantling the pillars of the US-led international order. One way or another the president has undermined the US commitments to climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, Nato, the EU and longstanding treaty relationships with Japan and South Korea. No one can be sure that tomorrow he will not tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement or pull US troops out of the Middle East. The credibility and trust on which US power was built is draining away. If the US does not respect an American-designed order why should anyone else?

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started