The new 2014 GED exam is entirely computer-based and consequently provides candidates with an easier entry to the examination. It makes sense to prepare for the GED exam online and there is a new website called MyCareerTools that publish tons of GED practice tests and offer tips.
This redesign of the GED program was required to prepare students in accordance with contemporary prerequisites of post-secondary education and the job prospects of tomorrow. The completely new, all computer-based, GED exam will continue to require applicants to show up face-to-face at one of the many official testing centers.
I really like this website because they also have great online free GED classes, which is rare because most of the websites ask more than $50 for the same information! And with Mycareertools tools you can just listen to lessons on your phone when you drive to work.
Recent college grads still looking for full-time employment—or faced with the prospect of moving back home to live with mom and dad—are probably cursing their English and philosophy degrees. But while they’re sending out resumes and getting rejected, in May there were 2.6 million unfilled jobs. The problem is that many of those positions are in science and tech—fields that most grads simply aren’t prepared to enter. Now officials in the United Kingdom are proposing an interesting solution to the mismatch between majors and job prospects. They plan to require colleges to collect data about the employment and salary prospects of each degree. That way, majors with a poor employment track record will be “named and shamed” and the degrees with the worst records several years in a row would eventually be axed.
We don’t need more STEM majors. We need more STEM majors with liberal arts training.
The ability to draw from other disciplines produces better scientists.
In business and at every level of government, we hear how important it is to graduate more students majoring in science, technology, engineering and math, as our nation’s competitiveness depends on it. The Obama administration has set a goal of increasing STEM graduates by one million by 2022, and the “desperate need” for more STEM students makes regular headlines. The emphasis on bolstering STEM participation comes in tandem with bleak news about the liberal arts — bad job prospects, programs being cut, too many humanities majors.
As a chemist, I agree that remaining competitive in the sciences is a critical issue. But as an instructor, I also think that if American STEM grads are going lead the world in innovation, then their science education cannot be divorced from the liberal arts.
Our culture has drawn an artificial line between art and science, one that did not exist for innovators like Leonardo da Vinci and Steve Jobs. Leonardo’s curiosity and passion for painting, writing, engineering and biology helped him triumph in both art and science; his study of anatomyand dissections of corpses enabled his incredible drawings of the human figure. When introducing the iPad 2, Jobs, who dropped out of college but continued to audit calligraphy classes, declared: “It’s in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough — it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our heart sing.” (Indeed, one of Apple’s scientists, Steve Perlman, was inspired to invent the QuickTime multimedia program by an episode of “Star Trek.”)
Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, credits her degree in philosophy and medieval history in helping her be the first woman to lead a high-tech Fortune 20 corporation. “If you go into a setting and everybody thinks alike, it’s easy,” she has said. “But you will probably get the wrong answer.”
I became a chemistry professor by working side-by-side at the bench with a number of mentors, and the scholar/mentor relationships I’ve enjoyed were a critical aspect of my science education. And it is the centerpiece of a college experience within the liberal arts environment. For me, it was the key that unlocked true learning, and for my students, it has made them better scientists and better equipped to communicate their work to the public.
Like apprentices to a painter, my students sit with me and plan experiments. We gather and review data and determine the next questions to address. After two to three years of direct mentoring, students develop the ability to interpret results on their own, describe how findings advance knowledge, generate ideas for subsequent experiments and plan these experiments themselves. Seniors train new students in the lab, helping them learn gene recombination techniques that depend on accurate calculations and precise delivery of reagents. Put simply, a microliter-scale mistake can spell disaster for an experiment that took days to complete. And while my students work on these sensitive projects, they often offer creative and innovative approaches. To reduce calculation errors, one of my students wrote a user-friendly computer program to automatically measure replicate volumes. He did this by drawing on programming skills he learned in a computer science course he took for fun. Young people stuck exclusively in chemistry lecture halls will not evolve the same way.
A scientist trained in the liberal arts has another huge advantage: writing ability. The study of writing and analyses of texts equip science students to communicate their findings as professionals in the field. My students accompany me to conferences, where they do the talking. They write portions of articles for publications and are true co-authors by virtue of their contributions to both the experiments and the writing. Scientists are often unable to communicate effectively because, as Cornell University president David J. Skorton points out, “many of us never received the education in the humanities or social sciences that would allow us to explain to nonscientists what we do and why it is important.”
I interviewed for a job about a month ago. My first interview went very well, and they told me they would contact to me as soon as possible to set up an interview with the CEO. They called me back about an hour after my interview, it was such a great feeling.
I went in for my second interview and it went pretty smoothly but I wasn’t 100 percent confident in myself. The CEO told me they still had some interviews to complete and that they would let me know either way when they decided on who would be chosen. I sent out thank you e-mails and waited to hear back from them. About two weeks later I hadn’t heard anything so I e-mailed them following up about the position and asked if it had been filled.
They called me back and said I was still in the running but they were still conducting the interviews and would call or e-mail me shortly. It was a very nice conversation and I was happy with the outcome but it’s been about a month since my interview and I haven’t heard a thing.
Two out of the three positions had already been filled so I am assuming they would want to hire someone as soon as possible. Am I being impatient or did they just forget to fill me in? How long is too long to wait? Hopefully I’ll hear from them soon!
i just learned i wont be getting hired at one of my only prospective jobs. i havent been employed since november and im still looking for work, but i need money to survive.
im a trans woman who’s been on the brink of homelessness every month for a while, and im terrified at not being able to keep it up. i need donations to pay rent and eat. currently, i am literally $10 short of february’s rent, but after that im flat broke and i dont know how ill pay for march.
PLEASE consider donating to my paypal (email@example.com) to keep me alive and safe. please pass this along and help me live.