Personal statement for master in business administration

For master in business administration - Personal Statement Example For me giving back to the community is very important, thus I was highly involved in volunteer work. Some of the places in which I volunteered include the House of Care of the Elderly, Handicapped and Orphans, Al hajj services, Al-Mataf company, and KAU Research Endowment Fund. I learned from my volunteering experiences the value of collaboration and teamwork. During my college years I also dedicated a portion of my time towards working. I worked as a summer trainee in Saudi Aramco for two months in the supplier performance unit. Another work experience that I had the opportunity to complete was working as a call center reservation agent in Makkah Clock Royal Tower. These two work experiences taught me the importance of being disciplined. They also help me improve my written and verbal communication skills. As a student I also knew that it was important to learn English. I completed level 112 in the intensive English program from ELS. All these experiences have prepared me to become a graduate student in business. I want to pursue an MBA because I realized that in todays competitive job marketplace a bachelors degree is not sufficient move up the corporate ladder. One of my long term goals is to reach the managerial level. To be a good manager a person needs to have a solid educational background. Enrolling in a business graduate program will open the doors of opportunity for

Evaluation of the commercialization Essay Example for Free

Evaluation of the commercialization Essay This paper discusses and evaluates both the negative and positive aspects and raised controversial issues regarding Bt-Corn, a transgenic maize developed through genetic engineering and biotechnology methods, and will finally conclude that the commercialization of Bt-Corn breeds for the past 14 years have been both economically advantageous and beneficial for the environment. The purpose of this paper is to further educate and inform the general audience regarding issues relating with genetically modified organisms and will try to disprove negative speculation and ambiguity with statistical data and experimental evidence. Introduction Recent development and advances in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering has enabled scientists today to improve crop varieties through alteration of their most fundamental building blocks, their DNA. These alterations of the genetic material allow scientists and researchers to develop ‘new species’ and breeds of organisms which posses certain altered favored traits, which would not otherwise naturally exist in the organism. (Peairs, 2007) However, there is much ambiguity and controversies surrounding the whole field of genetic engineering of organisms and their commercialization. Bt-corn, a breed of transgenic maize whose genetic material has been altered to include the ability to produce a certain toxin that has specific insecticidal property against pests, has been commercialized now for several years in the US and also in several other countries such as Canada, Germany, Spain, Argentina, Honduras, South Africa and the Philippines. (Wu, 2006) The prefix ‘Bt’ from Bt-Corn originates from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a species of soil bacterium that produces the insecticidal crystal protein or delta endotoxins, toxins that kill crop pests. Genetic engineering has allowed scientists to take the single gene that controls the production of the delta endotoxins from Bt, create a modified version of it and synthesize it with the DNA of selected corn species using recombinant DNA technology. This new set of ‘genetic code’ allows the plant to produce the delta endotoxins by itself; hence it is able to repel crop pests by itself. This newly acquired attribute is like a miracle for farmers, not just corn farmers since the insecticidal attribute of ‘Bt’ has also been implemented in several other crops such as Bt-potatoes and Bt-sweet corn. However, there have been several issues raised against the commercialization of Bt-corn in recent years due to investigations, which reveals how Bt-corn pollen proves to be lethal to other species of organisms that are not considered as pests. (Peairs, 2007) This paper will discuss, evaluate and finally demonstrate how the commercialization of Bt-Corn breeds is overall both economically efficient and beneficial for the environment through the following points: * Origins of Bt and Bt-Corn * Mode of action of Bt toxins Economical and environmental advantages of Bt-Corn * FDA regulations on genetically modified organisms * Controversies and issues raised * Evaluation Origins of Bt and Bt-Corn As previously stated above, Bt-Corn is a breed of transgenic maize whose genetic material have been altered and combined with the insecticidal crystal protein-producing trait of the common naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. Shigetane Ishiwata, a Japanese biologist, was the first to discover Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in 1901. However, it was not until Ernst Berliner rediscovered it in 1911 in Thuringia, Germany, that the bacterium was named Bacillus thuringiensis. In 1938 a French company started commercially producing the combination of the bacterium and its toxin crystals as a pesticide, calling it Sporeine, and in the 1950’s American organic farmers started using Bt on their crops as a way to control pest. (Aroian) As research methods improved (1960’s) and new Bt species were found producing thousands of other specific toxic proteins, more and more farmers started to use Bt. However, it was not until advancements in genetics and genetic engineering in the 1990’s that researchers were able to detect and isolate the specific genes that trigger production of the toxins and transfer it into certain species of crops, such as Bt-Corn. The first Bt crop that was registered with the USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), which allowed for its commercialization, is the Bt-Corn. (Aroian) In 2004, Bt-Corn comprises more than ? of the total acres of cornfields in the United States itself. Wu, 2006) According to Clive James, the chair of the ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications), today (2002) the total Bt-Corn fields in the world approximates to 25 million acres. (James, 2002) Mode of actions of Bt toxins Bacillus thuringiensis produces certain proteins, categorized as crystal proteins, which are very specific, well known for its ability to target and inhibit specific metabolic processes of certain speci es of organisms, mainly insects. Investigations have revealed that most of these insecticidal crystal proteins, when activated (when they come into contact with their specific host), attaches itself to the epithelium cells of the gut of the insects and causes the generation of pores in the cell membranes. These pores in the membranes of the epithelium cells, outermost cells that line the surfaces of structures, such as the gut, of organisms, disrupts the osmotic balance of the cells, causing them to swell and lyse. (Hofte, 1989) In simpler terms, basically these proteins (toxins) cause imbalance of water absorption (osmotic imbalance) in the cells of the ‘organs’ of specific insects, which causes these cells to swell and break (lyse). They are also very specific and selective on the species of insects they are able to affect, making Bt toxins potent in eradicating pests while being relatively harmless towards other organisms. There is substantial evidence that the toxins (insecticidal crystal proteins) are not harmful to human health nor are they detrimental for the health of vertebrates (mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, bony fish and sharks). According to Peairs, these toxins are considered to be very selective and very safe for humans and non-targeted organisms when compared to the most conventional and common pesticides used nowadays since they only attack certain groups of insects. (Peairs, 2007) Economical and environmental advantages of Bt-Corn It has been several years now, more than a decade, since the commercialization of Bt-Corn breeds and now more than ever, we are able to see statistical data and actual evidence that overall, using Bt-Corn is both economically efficient and beneficial for the environment. Economic advantages of Bt-Corn According to a study by Brookes, there have been substantial net economic benefits at the farms, totaling up to $5 billion in 2005 and $27 billion during the first decade (1996-2005) of the commercialization of genetically engineered crops. For the genetically engineered maize species, including Bt-Corn and other forms of genetically modified corn, boosted farm incomes by over $3. 1 billion since 1996. In the United States alone genetically modified maize crop income benefits accumulates to a little under $2. 3 billion, which is about 88% of the world GM maize crop income. (Brookes, 2006) The main reason for its economic advantage is its ability to produce higher yields of the same, or even better, quality of produce compared to ‘organic’ corn because two reasons. The first reason is that since pests are not lured to the crop, they unhindered and are able to flourish and produce more yields. The second reason is that the ability to self-pro duce insecticidal toxins allows farmers to cut down costs to maintain the crop since they do not have to purchase massive amounts of pesticide. This also means that less time will be spent on crop walking and the application of pesticides and herbicides, less usage of energy associated with less spraying, savings in costs of machinery and machinery usage (from less spraying and reduced harvest times) and also the unseen benefits in the health and safety of farm workers that is caused by handling pesticides. (Brookes, 2006) Environmental advantages of Bt-Corn The usage of Bt-Corn allows farmers to stop the usage of environmentally hazardous chemicals, may it be pesticides or herbicides. Overall between the years 1996 and 2005, GM crops have caused the net reduction in the environmental impact on the cropping area by 15. 3% while the total volume of active ingredient usage has also been reduced by 7%. Specifically in the GM maize sector there have been a net reduction in the environmental impact on the cropping area by 4. 6% through the reduction of pesticide usage and another net decrease in 4% in the environmental impact through the usage of more environmentally benign herbicides. Brookes, 2006) There has also been a decrease in greenhouse gasses emission; excess greenhouse gasses emission is a factor contributing to global warming. Brookes states in his article, that the two main reasons for the decrease in green house gasses emission is due to two factors. The first being reduced fuel usage from the less frequent need of using pesticides and herbicides applications (machinery used for spraying). From 1996 to 2005, it is estimated that there has been a reduction i n carbon dioxide emission of 4,613 million kg, calculated from the reduced fuel usage of 1,679 liters. In comparison, the permanent carbon dioxide savings from reduced fuel usage from 1996 to 2005 by planting GM crops is equivalent to the removal of 2. 05 million cars from the road for one year, assuming that a car does an average of 15,000 km per year, producing 2,250 kg of CO2 per year based on the fact that an average family car produces 150 grams of CO2 every km. (Brookes, 2006) FDA regulations on genetically modified organisms With the development in genetic engineering and biotechnology there is urgency and a need to both control and oversee products and methods used, especially relating with food products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are the three main supervisors of genetically modified foods. The FDA, the official government agency in charge of regulating food, drug and cosmetic laws and ensuring safety of food (other than meat), food additives, medicines, medical devices, veterinary drugs, cosmetics and genetically modified food products, plays the major role in the actual ‘screening’ of products that are available for the public. The FDA categorizes genetically modified food products under the ‘GRAS’ list; the GRAS list comprise of products that are ‘generally recognized as safe’, which demands the manufacturers to be responsible for the safety of their own products, allowing them to place products into the market without pre-approval of the FDA because whole foods are GRAS. Whole foods are foods that are unprocessed or unrefined such as unprocessed meat, poultry and fish, fruits and vegetables, and non-homogenized milk (basically unprocessed milk; straight from the animal). The manufacturer bears responsibility for ensuring the product is not adulterated or misbranded. However if there is proof that the product is adulterated, or detrimental to human health (animal health for animal products), then the products may be taken back from the market and the manufacturer may be prosecuted. (Gertsberg, 2009) Controversies and issues raised The development and continuation of research in the whole issue regarding genetic engineering of any organisms itself raises much issues. However, most of the issues raised within the field of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are issues regarding perspective and ethics, since there is much fear and ambiguity that most people feel when they think and speak about this issue. Controversies with genetic engineering There are not enough, if there are any, substantial, academic, plain physical experimental proof that genetically modified organisms are hazardous to both the health of humans and the environment. The main issues raised regarding GMOs are that there is a risk there new allergens will arise from the ‘unknown’ effects of combining different DNA sequences with each other, increased toxicity levels in organisms do to a faster metabolism, the possibility of unwanted/unintended gene transfer between different species, loss of biodiversity and basically unknown possible effects on different organisms related. (Turner, 2007) There are also several other ethical issues raised, such as the monopoly of world food production by several ompanies, problems with intellectual property and non-mandatory labeling, which is the case in the United States. Non-mandatory labeling violates the rights of consumers to choose between ‘organic foods’ and genetically engineered foods. Monarch butterfly issue and Bt-Corn Several years ago, an issue was raised regarding how non-pest (non-targeted) species of organisms, the Monarch butterfly species in this case, were affected by t he delta endotoxins contained in the pollen of a certain species of Bt-Corn. The issue revolves around how Monarch butterflies population was in danger of being killed through the poisoning by the Bt toxins. Monarch butterflies would migrate and lay their eggs on areas near the Bt-Corn fields. Their larvae feed on milkweed plants, a species of plants that grow in same regions as the Bt-Corn. However, Bt-Corn pollen would scatter throughout the area and lay on these leaves. Several investigations revealed some mortality in Monarch butterfly caterpillars that consume these pollen-covered milkweed leaves. (Peairs, 2007) Following the recent controversy, a number of private parties assembled and conducted workshops and investigations regarding this issue sponsored by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the United States. Scientists and researchers were assembled from U. S. and Canadian universities, ARS members and several other environmental organizations, in a joint effort to prove whether the issue has a scientific basis. (Hellmich, 2008) Laboratory experiments done with pure Crystal toxins (Bt toxins) mixed with artificial diets revealed that a certain type of Cry toxin, Cry1Ab, was harmful to Monarch caterpillars but other types of the Cry toxins were not toxic to them. Field studies done along with lab experiments conclude that there were not any adverse effects observed on the Monarch caterpillars who fed on milkweed leaves dusted with natural levels of the commonly found Bt-Corn pollen species. All but the single Cry toxin proved to be safe. The results of this experiment caused for the termination of the production of Bt-Corn species 176, which expressed high amounts of Cry1Ab toxins. (Hellmich, 2008) Several other studies were conducted to compare between the mortality of Monarch caterpillars in agricultural and non-agricultural habitats, where there aren’t any Bt-Corn species in the area. Results from this experiment show no significant differences in mortality rates of the caterpillars. (Hellmich, 2008) Another study conducted compared the mortality rates of Monarch caterpillars exposed to Bt-Corn species and ‘organic’ corn species with the commonly used pesticide, cyhalothrin. Experimentations revealed how, â€Å"†¦nearly all monarch larvae on milkweed plants inside the field were killed. † Hence Bt-Corn is safer than traditional commercial insecticides and pesticides. (Hellmich, 2008) The final risk assessment brought forth by Hellmich regarding the Monarch population and Bt-Corn is that the risks are negligible since exposure of the Monarch caterpillars to Bt-Corn pollen is low. Furthermore, the current commercially available Bt-Corn species and hybrids revealed low toxicity. Hellmich concludes that, â€Å"The bottom line from these studies is that all commercial Bt corn hybrids have negligible effects on populations of monarch butterflies, especially when compared with traditional insecticides. † (Hellmich, 2008) Evaluation In conclusion, through research and investigations conducted by researchers across the world, we can see how the commercialization of Bt-Corn for past 14 years have significantly benefitted both society and the environment through the ability of farmers to cut down costs, usage of energy, fuel and CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, increase in yields and decrease in the use of harmful chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides. We also see that most of the issues raised surrounding the issue of Bt-Corn and genetically engineered organisms are mostly just a matter of perspective and preferences. Lack of education and an open perspective regarding genetically modified organisms is the main hindrance towards improvements in the current agricultural field.

Student-Centered Learning Essay -- Education Teaching Essays

Student-Centered Learning missing works cited Definition(s) There are several ways that student-centered learning can be described, and they all lead back to the same basic idea, the student. First, student-centered learning can be defined as a discipline that involves the interaction of a team of students that experience creative learning to be used in the real world (Thornburg, 1995). Thornburg (1995) also mention that students are essential to the classroom, just like a team member is essential to a game. He says that teachers are part of the definition of student-centered learning, but they are not the main attraction. The students are the focus, and the teacher is the one who can assist among small groups of students. Eaton (1994) describes student-centered learning as the opposite if "teacher-centered". Another way of looking at student-centered learning is that the goals of a system (school) should meet the goals of the students (Harmon, & Hirumi, 1996). Next, the definition that naming students as "partners" with teachers in educa tion can be part of the student-centered learning process (Alley, 1996). Lastly, Csete and Gentry (1995) use the term "learner controlled instruction" instead of a student-centered approach. Learner controlled instruction can be termed as when the learner has some control in the type of instruction that is given. The control factors can range from "procedures" to "time restraints" to "evaluation". The point is that each student’s needs are different and in student-centered learning and learner controlled instruction the learner can decide how and what they want to learn, to function in the real world. Methods and Materials used in Student-Centered Learning Harmon and Hirumi (1... ...linear fashion by using interactive, discovery methods. The use and improvements of technologies like the computer, multimedia programs (Thornburg, 1995), and distance learning (Harmon, & Hirumi 1996) are also shifts from the teacher-centered approach to student-centered approach. The students now like to learn because of the technological influences in the schools (Thornburg, 1995). As a result of these strategies to student-centered learning, school is not just a small period in a child’s life, it is "lifelong learning", and each student can learn what is important to them (Thornburg, 1995). In conclusion, the shift to schools using the student-centered approach lets students take on a proactive role by working with others, using a variety of resources, and learning and evaluating skills on a continuous basis that they can use throughout life (Alley, 1996).

Battle Of The Somme

The Battle of the Somme started in July 1, 1916 and lasted until November 1916 between France and Germany. History considers this battle as the bloodiest of all battles in World War I. In the article â€Å"The Battle of the Somme†, the historical perspective of the Battle is outlined. This battle traces its origins from the many severe losses that the French had been experiencing at Verdun – to the east of Paris.The British Allied High Command, taking sympathy with the French losses, decided to attack the Germans to the north of Verdun thereby driving the Germans away from the Verdun battlefield.The battle at the Somme started with a weeklong artillery bombardment of the German lines where an estimated 1. 7 million shells were fired. By November 1916, when the battle ended, the British had lost 420,000, the French lost nearly 200,000 men and the Germans 500,000. (â€Å"The Battle of Somme†) Many historians agree that the neither the French and British nor the Ger mans won in this costliest battle to date. For many years, those who led the British campaign have received a lot of criticism for the way the Battle of Somme was fought – especially Douglas Haig.(â€Å"The Battle of the Somme†). This criticism was based on the many lives that were lost in the battle and the insignificant gains that either parties got in exchange for those massive losses. The British and French captured only a little more than five miles (8 km) at the deepest point of penetration—well short of their original objectives. The British themselves had gained approximately only two miles and lost about 420,000 soldiers in the process, meaning that a centimeter cost about two men.(â€Å"Battle of Somme†) What does this tell us? There are no victors in wars, only losers. This fact bears tremendous implications not only on Western civilization but on all civilizations that wage wars against one another. BIBLIOGRAPHY Battle of the Somme. Wikipedia. 2000. (http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme) Sheffield, Gary. The Somme, Cassell, 2003. The Battle of the Somme. 2000. (http://www. historylearningsite. co. uk/somme. htm)

Immaculate Perception

The stance of immaculate perception is a false one. Immaculate perception describes a pure and untainted perception, one that has no bias. Bias is acquired with experiences and teachings, both of which create expectancy, which taints perception with bias. One may argue that a newborn baby has immaculate perception, a clean slate with no expectations or sense conditioning. However, this point cannot be proved because where is the division between the experiences of the mother and the baby, or is there even a division between the two? Does the baby's formation count as an experience? With no clear answers to these questions how can immaculate perception occur in reality? This question leads to another one. What is reality and how does it relate to perception? Reality is the truth that we try to ultimately reach through perception as we sort through our sense datum. Yet, this truth can vary between people. The conclusion or truth that people search for through perception analysis can be determined by one's own needs and expectations. Though two creatures may be exposed to identical stimuli and sense datum their inferences achieved through perception will vary greatly because each has a tainted or biased perception. For example, a human and a dog are both put in a forest where they are lost and must find their way home. The person will rely highly on sight to sort through the wilderness and arrive home safely because he has conditioned himself to rely heavily on the sense of sight while, the dog may rely on scent more so then sight to track his way home. Both have perception that has been flawed or somewhat polluted. Both the human and dog are exposed to the same stimuli yet they each perceive their situations differently. This is due to their biased perception, the human through previous experiences has conditioned himself to perceive his experiences mainly through sight while the dog has done the same but with smell, neither has an unprejudiced perception because both have been conditioned through experiences. Perception is controlled and created by experience. The goal of perceiving is to know your surroundings. However your surroundings control your experiences. Therefore perceiving is a way of analyzing your experiences. But if this is true then there is no such thing as immaculate perception. Every individual's experiences are each unique. The way in which they are accepted or rejected depends on cultural conditioning as well as previous experiences. With this bias no one can claim to have untouched or virgin perception because it has been trained to only acknowledge certain elements of the surrounding. For example, I have been trained to rely on sight to gain the bulk of my knowledge of my surroundings but a blind person would have trained their senses or perception tools very differently having no sight. Therefore each experience and the sense datum gained from it would be different. The stance of immaculate perception claims that since the act of perceiving has no bias each experience for every person results in the same knowledge. This is false because it is impossible for two beings to infer the same information from a protocol. In a world made of unique creatures it's impossible for immaculate perception to exist.