Co-education

Imagine being asked to spend twelve or so years of your life in a society which consisted only of members of your own sex. How would you react? (Of course all of us have experienced such conditions!) You wouldn't feel too happy about it.
In my opinion no one can put up with that situation unless there was something definitely wrong with them. It is very surprising to me that parents or education authorities impose such abnormal conditions on youngsters.
Any discussion of this topic is bound to question the aims of education. To me the main aim of education is to equip young people with all they need to take their place in adult society. Now adult society is made up of both men and women, so how can a segregated school prepare young people for this purpose? Anyone entering adult society after years of segregation can only be in for a shock.
I believe a co-educational school offers children nothing less than a true version of society in miniature; therefore, it's comparable to real society on a small scale. Boys and girls have the opportunity to get to know each other; they learn to live together from earliest childhood, and they are put in a position where they can compare themselves with each other in terms of academic ability, athletic achievement and many of the extra-curricular activities which are part of school life.
Co-education disproves the theory that boys are cleverer than girls or vice-versa. In a co-educational school, everything falls into its proper place. Having classes together is an excellent idea and is successful in most schools. This way, boys become aware of girls' abilities and vice-versa; a spirit of co-operation and competition thrives in the co-educational system.
Girls and boys at a self-conscious age take extra care of themselves. Growing up together and sharing activities will widen the students' talents and a healthy atmosphere pervades in all co-educational schools. The spirit of co-operation that grows between boys and girls makes it easier later on to adjust in a mixed society. However, when boys and girls are separated, they feel they are poles apart. Boys and girls get involved in rivalry instead of constructive competition.
We know that adolescence is a critical age. Teenagers experience a lot of physical and emotional changes. Their characters are not stable yet; they need time so that their final characters take shape. Naturally if they are in a segregated school they might easily form illusions about the opposite sex; for example, boys might think that girls are mysterious creatures or girls might imagine that boys are romantic heroes. Such illusions can be dangerous when later boys and girls want to form relationships and work together. In my opinion the greatest advantage of co-education is that it prevents boys and girls from forming such illusions about each other. Under co-education teenagers are disillusioned very soon; as a result, co-education helps teenagers to form a realistic attitude toward the opposite sex and a healthy attitude toward life. Another advantage of co-education is that it prevents sexual deviation. If not exposed to a co-educational environment, there are will be some disadvantages. A male-only school has homosexuality rate of 63%, more than a public school open to all genders with a 14% rating. This is one of the faults with not having mixed schools.
Some parents prefer to send their children to single-sex schools in order to minimize their contact with the opposite sex, and therefore, to some extent prevent their children from its aftermaths (again, of course in our country there's no other choice, but let's imagine we were in a position that we were allowed to choose.) First of all, it's important to understand that just by sending your child to an all-girls or all-boys school doesn't stop them from seeking out the opposite sex. You can minimize contact when your child is in school, but you can't stop your children meeting others through extra classes, the neighborhood, or through friends. If your child meets someone with whom she shares chemistry, and if she makes the decision to contact such person, there's little a parent can do.
On the other hand, when you send your child to a co-educational school, your child will have exposure to the opposite sex from the outset; hence, your child will not only feel more comfortable in the company of the opposite sex, but will also be able to handle advances better. This way, boys don't grow up believing that women are airy goddesses , more like book illustrations to a fairy-tale than human beings. After all, there are no goddesses with freckles, pigtails, piercing voices and inky fingers, and there are no romantic heroes with knobbly knees, dirty fingers and unkempt hair.

In conclusion, when the time comes for young people to leave school and enter society, they are fully prepared to do so as well-adjusted adults. They've had years of experience in coping with the problems that men and women face.

On the other hand, if you examine the Western sociologists and what they have discovered through their research, their studies more or less negate the positive aspects of co-education. In fact, the increasing achievement level of female students has been attributed to the increase on single-sex classes. Single-sex classes along with a female teacher, provides a positive role model for the students, not only in traditionally female-dominated subjects like humanities, but also in subjects like science and engineering. The latter subjects, which were traditionally considered as "male domains" are now being characterized by increasing female achievement levels. Single-sex classes increases the confidence of female students, according to this interpretation, and results in a more positive attitude to science and technology subjects.

A psychologist working on the study of individuals, Michelle Stanworth, who carried out her study "Gender and Schooling," discovered that interaction in the classroom affected the female students in a very negative way: they got less attention of the teachers, were discouraged from class participation and lacked self-esteem considerably. Her conclusion was determined by interviews with teachers. When asked about whom they give the most attention to, the teacher named a male student two and a half times as often as a female student. Most of the teachers felt that it was much more difficult to remember the names of the female students of the class. Discouragement in class participation was determined through the response of the pupils who reported that the male students were four times more likely to join a class discussion, twice as likely to seek help from the teacher and twice as likely to be asked questions. And finally, girls' underestimation of their ability was discovered when the pupils were asked to rank themselves in terms of their ability, and teachers were asked to rank their students accordingly. In 9 out of 24 cases in which there was a discrepancy between the two rankings, girls had placed themselves lower than their teacher's estimate and all but one boy placed themselves higher than the teacher's rank (!).

The above mentioned studies do point towards the fact that mixed-sex classrooms are disadvantaging female students in many ways. Of course the above studies have been criticized as well. But we can't ignore the fact that if the wider society is characterized by patriarchal relations, such relations tend to reflect themselves in the classroom as well, which, as I said in the beginning, is considered as a miniature form of the society as a whole.

Children's Upbringing

About a hundred years ago the common attitude to bringing up children was the Victorian attitude: children were treated harshly; they were punished for their mistakes. If they made a mistake, they would get a good spanking, but the modern attitude toward mistakes is different. Nowadays a mistake is a sign of learning and gaining experience; in other words, you learn and gain experience by making mistakes. Therefore, these days mistakes are regarded as something constructive.

On the contrary, those days children weren't allowed to express their views freely. They weren't allowed to question their parents' decisions; let alone argue with them. Parents were relaxed and confident because they knew where they stood. To cut a long story short, children were totally dominated by their parents. Toward the end of this period, Freud introduced modern psychology.

According to modern psychology, children must grow up in a relaxed atmosphere. They shouldn't grow with anxiety and fear. Freud revolutionized the theories about children's upbringing and parents have been puzzled ever since. Nowadays there's no balance between parents' authority and children's freedom. It seems that children's happiness is important even at the cost of parents' suffering. Modern parents suffer from fear and guilt all the time. They fear their wrong treatment might cause their children to form complexes. Apart from that, when they're harsh to their children or when they happen to punish them, they have a sense of guilt for a long time. Certainly a child needs love and a lot of it, but modern parents' permissiveness is doing more harm than good. Psychologists have succeeded in undermining parents' confidence and authority. Parents aren't as decisive in treating their children as they used to be. They have lost their self-confidence regarding this matter; their situation as parents is shaky, compared with the past.

Unfortunately children have realized this quickly. These days parents are hesitant; they don't know how to act in problematic situations, so from early childhood the children are in control and parents' lives are regulated according to the needs of their kids. When these little children grow up into teenagers they take complete control.

These days children are more rebellious, more aggressive and more demanding. They take their parents for granted; they don't appreciate anything and have become thankless. If the young people are going to give a party; for instance, parents are asked to leave the house. Their presence merely spoils the fun. What else can the poor parents do but obey?

Strict Parents Vs Children's Reaction

Some parents still believe in being strict. They strongly control and supervise their children. They dictate what they think is right to their children. At times, they're extremely hard on their children. Some of these parents are very picky toward their children. They sometimes humiliate or ridicule their children, especially in front of other people.
Another group of strict parents are dominating parents who try to dominate their children. They make decisions for their children. They even think for their children. Of course such parents mean well, but their approach is wrong.
The other group are possessive parents; parents who think they own their children. They always try to keep their children dependant on them.
Different children show different reactions to these attitudes. Some children become rebellious; they rebel against their parents, teacher, etc. Rebellious children become aggressive. They don't approve their parents anymore. On the other hand, some children lose their self-confidence and become timid and inhibited. They might form some inhibitions such as shyness, lack of self-confidence, lack of courage and the like. Such children will not be able to communicate with other people very well. They may not be able to express their emotions and feelings freely. They won't be able to form mature relationships with others. Some of these children can be very demanding, sensitive and impatient with other people.

Total Freedom

There are two contrasting attitudes toward children's upbringing. Some parents believe it's good for children and youngsters to be allowed to run wild without any control or supervision. They claim this approach can help children to achieve their full potential. If children aren't limited too much, their talents will flourish better. They also believe that children or youngsters who are free to try everything will build up stronger personalities because their characters take shape naturally. Such children won't become timid or inhibited; they will be able to express their opinions and emotions freely. They'll be able to form mature relationships with people. Of course children who are given freedom to do everything without guidance and supervision will certainly make mistakes.

The positive point is that when these children make mistakes, they have to take responsibility for their mistakes. They won't put the blame on others and won't hold other people responsible for their mistakes. This way they'll grow up to become mature, responsible adults.

Total freedom approach has disadvantages, too. One disadvantage is that if there's no control or supervision, children might make big mistakes. We know that children are inexperienced. Most of them can't distinguish between good and bad; therefore, they might make mistakes whose consequences can be irreparable. Sometimes one gross error can make you suffer for your whole life.

Another disadvantage of this attitude is that quite a lot of children and youngsters don't have the capacity for freedom. They can be quickly spoiled by freedom. Some of them might turn to crime. This can increase juvenile delinquency. Others might become self-centered and inconsiderate; they show no consideration or appreciation for others; they always put themselves first. Such children usually become thankless. They often take their parents and teachers for granted and they don't appreciate their efforts.

My sister as a teenager

It sometimes gets really hard to get along with my sister; she's 19 and still a teenager. I must have been like her when I was her age, but to tell the truth I don't remember being like that at all. My mother says everybody goes through this: the state that you don't know where you truly stand. Sometimes you imitate your friends and sometimes you try to act independently. You don't know where you're going and what it is that you really want. It's a kind of crisis I suppose. Meanwhile, I believe the hardest job of all is the parents' during this period.

Teenagers are going through their adolescence. Teenage is a formative stage of their development because their final characters begin to take shape at this stage. Teenagers undergo a lot of physical and emotional changes; their character isn't stable yet. In most cases their emotions overshadow their wisdom; they can't make sensible decisions in difficult situations. Parents must treat teenagers very tactfully; otherwise, the consequences might be irreparable.

Academic Decline in Universities (4): Social Factors

There have been certain remarkable cultural changes in our society during the past few decades. Our society used to be education-oriented. An educated person with even a moderate salary was able to support a family and put some money aside ,too. But these days our society is more money-oriented than education-oriented. People don't give much credit to education. Success is measured in terms of the money you earn; the more money you earn, the more successful you are. As a result of this, more and more youngsters give up the idea of higher education and decide to enter the world of business, but since they don't have any expertise, they don't set up constructive businesses; therefore, they become dealers.
Another consequence of this social situation is that young people go for the majors that lead to higher salaries; as a result, the ultimate goal is not self-perfection or gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Almost every university graduate wants to get a well-paid job and those who are not accepted in these fields take up science, social sciences, humanities and arts. That's why we don't have many good scientists, artists, poets, etc.

Academic Decline in Universities (3): Job Prospects

     Another demotivating factor is poor job prospects. Quite a lot of university students don't see promising job prospects ahead of them. They see that thousands of university graduates are jobless and thousands of others are not working in their field of study. Therefore, they see no point in studying hard or doing research. They only learn by memorization. They cram too many facts into their heads; as a result, their knowledge is superficial and they can't put their knowledge into practice. They are only concerned about obtaining a degree. They become degree-oriented and their main concern is to get a degree and enter the job market as soon as possible, but when this happens they are bitterly disappointed. They realize they have neither the qualifications nor the practical experience to work effectively.

Academic Decline in Universities (2): The Role of Professors

     The second factor which contributes to academic decline is the professors. Nowadays some professors don't take their jobs seriously, they do a cursory job and in some cases they whitewash the whole job. Some professors never update their information; as a result, their knowledge is not up-to-date: it is usually out-of-date. Unfortunately some of them do not have a deep sense of responsibility. Several of them have to handle several jobs at the same time. This is because their future is not secure. They don't do a lot of research and don't keep up with the latest developments in their fields. They don't put the students under pressure and they don't give their students proper assignments. In fact they set a bad example for their students.
     However, I don't put all the blame on professors. Maybe they cannot swim upstream. Higher education in Iran suffers from mismanagement and lack of planning and needs fundamental changes. Learning strategies in Iran are mainly based on memorization. Students don't usually learn through practice and experimentation; all they do is to cram their heads with facts and figures. 

Academic Decline in Universities (1): The Role of the Students

     In my opinion in recent years there has been a remarkable decline in the academic level of universities in Iran. Most universities don't enjoy a high academic level. This academic decline can be attributed to four factors.

1.The role of the students:
     Quite a lot of students who pass the university entrance exam have to take up their majors according to the rating they get. Most of these students have to take up a major they're not interested in; in other words, they take up their majors out of force not out of choice: naturally they soon lose interest in their studies.

     

A friend is someone who knows you and loves you just the same

     I agree that in general you should accept people as they are-I mean with their positive and negative qualities-but in the case of friendship I think it depends on the type and depth of friendship.
     In superficial friendship maybe you only want to fill your free time with somebody, so you don't get very fussy about your friend's behavior; you mainly try to enjoy the time that you spend together, but things can be very different in deep friendships.
     In my opinion, real friends must somehow influence each other. They should help each other to develop spiritually. What's the use of friendship if you don't show any reaction to your friend's wrong behaviors and big mistakes. What's a friend for then?
     Therefore, in my opinion, if you realize that a friend of yours has a bad quality which is harming your friendship, you should tactfully deal with it. I believe the best thing to do would be to show each other the right attitude or behavior by your actions and not by giving direct advice. I strongly believe that in most cases advice is counter-productive.

Spanish

     I have studied English since I was eight. Attending English classes has always been my favorite extra-curricular activity. I remember myself longing for the day of the class to arrive. Today this has changed into a voracious desire for language learning; any language.
     I started Spanish last year, and I still study it whenever I have time. There was a time when I couldn't even think of any other language but English, for I was in the midst of it, and now I'm amazed how attracted I am to Spanish. Whenever I listen to Marc Anthony's songs my eyes start glowing because now, not only do I enjoy the music, but also I understand the lyrics to a great extent. 
     When I decided to study Spanish everybody around said French would be a more suitable choice as a second foreign language; however, ''como siempre" (as always) I did what I wished and chose Spanish. Who cares if all so-called intellectuals know French? I'm completely satisfied with the decision I've made because later I found out that in terms of culture Iranians and Spanish people have a lotin common.
     At first it was rather difficult for me to try to speak a language other than English; I wasn't able to see the connections between the two languages and Spanish was totally weird for me. Whenever I ran out of words or phrases and I couldn't express what I meant, automatically the English version would come to my mind. At those times I had started to be very grateful towards English-my beloved English. How easier it was to produce a past verb in English than to do the same in Spanish, but when you get used to it and you're able to somehow connect it to your everyday life, it becomes pleasurable. What's more pleasurable than learning anyway? let alone learning a language.

Who am I?

     For every being cursed with self-awareness there remains the unanswerable question: Who am I? We struggle to find meaningful connections to one another. We are the caring friend, the loving father, the doting mother, the protected child. We fight and we love in the hope that somehow together we can understand our significance in the universe. But in the end no one can share our burden. Each of us alone must answer the question: Who am I? What does it mean to be alive? And in the vast infinity of time, how do I matter?
     There are nearly seven billion people on this planet; each one unique, different. What are the chances of that? And why? Is it simply biology, physiology that deters this diversity? A collection of thoughts, memories and experiences that carves out our own special place or is it something more than this? Perhaps there's a master plan that drives the randomness of creation; something unknowable that dwells in the soul and presents each one of us with a unique set of challenges that will help us discover who we really are.
     We are all connected: joined together by an invisible thread; infinite in its potential and fragile in its design. Yet, while connected we're also nearly individuals and the vessels to be filled with infinite possibilities and an assortment of thoughts and beliefs. A collection of disjointed memories and experiences-can I be me without these? Can you be you? And if this invisible thread that holds us together were to sever, to cease, what then? What would become of billions of lonely, disconnected souls? There lies the great quest of our lives to find, to connect, to hold on for when our hearts are pure and our thoughts in mind, we are all truly one, capable of repairing our fragile world and creating a universe of infinite possibilities.