Sep 30, 2022, 2:45amUpdated on Sep 30, 2022
At least two Hudson Valley seniors earned perfect scores on the Advanced Placement U.S. History Exam.
The district says Oliver loves history and studied by reviewing notes and practice essays.
Pearl River says Kieran has been a high honor roll award and community service award recipient throughout his academic career.
The impressive scores will help both young men get into college and get college credit.
If you’ve ever encountered an interview with a historian who’s written about the relationship of American “founding father” Thomas Jefferson and the mother of most of his children, Sally Hemings, there’s a good possibility you’ve heard this phrase: “It’s complicated.”
Is it a case of a 41-year-old slave owner taking sexual advantage of a 14-year-old girl? Oh, yes, it certainly is. But how did their relationship evolve over 39 years together? Did it become something more like a marriage? Despite the obvious power dynamic, could the two have actually been in love?
Playwright Suzan-Lori Parks tackles these complex (and perhaps unanswerable) questions in her newest play, “Sally & Tom,” which has just premiered at Minneapolis’ Guthrie Theater. And she does so in an inspiringly imaginative way: By inviting us into the creative process of a Black playwright-actor, her white producer-director-actor lover, and their enthusiastic but resource-strapped little theater company as they approach opening night for her new play about … the relationship of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson.
Parks has already won a Pulitzer Prize for 2001’s “Topdog/Underdog,” and, after experiencing the Guthrie’s high-energy and expertly executed production of “Sally & Tom,” I can say that this transcends that play in both reach and grasp. It’s a powerful piece of theater that addresses such important issues as racial reckoning and foundational principles forsaken for the sake of capitalism, yet does so with plenty of humor and open-hearted affection for the process of making theater.
And what an honor for Twin Cities audiences to be the first to experience what should be the most talked-about new play of 2022. “Sally & Tom” is a triumph of not only historical storytelling — laying out the subjectivity that enters into such a pursuit — but also finding intriguing ways to explore how history echoes in modern relationships affected by differences in color, gender, economics and status.
As it opens, it would seem that we’ve been transported back to 1790, period-costumed dancers engaging in a minuet. When one of the actors directly addresses the audience, we find that this will be a play called “The Pursuit of Happiness.” But it’s not long before the scene stops and we realize that we’re in the midst of a rehearsal for a play still undergoing revisions.
From there, we watch as the play and production come together — and periodically apart — getting to know eight vividly drawn theater artists, with the linchpin relationship of playwright Luce and producer-director Mike changing while they play the roles of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson in “The Pursuit of Happiness.”
During the show’s first act, I found myself hoping that the backstage banter would take on a more naturalistic feel — it sometimes seemed as stagy as the 18th-century exchanges of the play within a play — and I got my wish in the second act, when “Sally & Tom” became grippingly real.
Director Steve H. Broadnax III brings impressive order to a potentially chaotic and confusing theatrical challenge. And each actor creates a convincing portrayal, spearheaded by Kristen Ariza and Luke Robertson as Luce and Mike. Amari Cheatom also impresses as a film and TV actor who joins the cast and brings potential buzz to the production, while Kadeem Ali Harris, Daniel Petzold, Kate Nowlin, Sun Mee Chomet and Gillian Glasco each get cleverly crafted stints in the spotlight.
Yes, it’s a “complicated” subject, but Parks may very well make it an overdue part of the public conversation with this excellent new play.
The National Testing Agency (NTA) on Wednesday issued a statement saying a fake tweet and YouTube video are circulating on social media regarding a leak of a history paper for UGC-NET December 2021 and June 2022 (merged cycles).
The test was held on October 10, 2022. The agency said there had been no such leak of any question paper and urged all stakeholders to beware of such tweets on social media that are “trying to deviate genuine aspirants from the real issue”.
"The denies allegations regarding leakage of Question Paper of History(06) paper Shift II," the NTA said in a statement.
The agency further said the format circulating on social media is not the same that had been delivered
Sign on to read the HT ePaper epaper.hindustantimes.com
PHOENIX - Aspen University in Phoenix is surrendering its nursing program license as it cannot meet the minimum required first-time pass rate percentage on the national test to become a nurse, says a document provided by the Arizona State Board of Nursing.
The National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) needs to have a pass rate of 80%, and the university doesn't see itself meeting that requirement in the near future.
"As of today, the year-to-date pass rate is 69.4%. Ninety-three out of the 134 students who have passed," said Dr. David Hrabe, education program administrator of the Arizona State Board of Nursing, at a July 29 board meeting.
The license was surrendered on Sept. 20 and the university agreed to a "teach out," meaning it's agreed to offer "instruction for its existing nursing students for up to two years, so that they may complete their degrees or seek other options."
Passing the national test, the NCLEX, is a requirement in the U.S. to become a nurse.
"At the end of this teach out period, the nursing program's provisional approval will automatically be surrendered. Aspen University will not be eligible to apply for reissuance of its approval for a period of two years," a news release from the Arizona State Board of Nursing said.
Students will also have the option to transfer their credits to another school, if applicable.
The university released a statement saying, in part, "Aspen had suspended admissions to its Arizona program in January 2022. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Aspen will continue its current Arizona nursing program for all current students and provide regular reports to the Board of Nursing about the program. It remains accountable to the Board to ensure that its current students receive expected instruction and learning opportunities. Once all currently enrolled students in the program have either completed the program or ceased enrollment, or within two years, whichever is sooner, Aspen’s program approval will be automatically voluntarily surrendered for a minimum period of two years."
Aspen University nursing students in other states will also be impacted.
"Aspen will suspend new enrollments and complete instruction of its program for currently enrolled Core nursing students in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas," the school said.
In A Room of One’s Own (1929), Virginia Woolf argued that, historically, successful women writers have not been mothers. Of Jane Austen, Charlotte and Emily Brontë, and George Eliot, she noted, “not one of them had a child.” This idea that having children stifles women’s creativity has had enormous cultural staying power for the past 100 years. Grappling with this narrative in 2018, for example, the narrator of Sheila Heti’s novel Motherhood wonders whether a baby would destroy her career as a novelist, asking whether “the universe lets women who make art but don’t make babies, off the hook?”
Given the cultural prominence of this idea that you can’t be a mother and a writer, it is surprising to learn that, across history, at least in Woolf’s Britain, roughly half of women writers have in fact had children. This is indeed lower than the percentage of women in the general population who had children—but the picture is not as dire as Woolf perceived. In a sample from the Orlando textbase of 1,115 British women who lived between medieval times and the present and who wrote at least one book, half (49 percent) were mothers. And the women writers who didn’t have children, like the canonical authors Woolf names, mostly lived in the 19th century. Even then, 41 percent of 19th-century women writers had children. Before the 17th century, women writers had children at similar rates to the general population. In the 20th century, with the rise of family planning and reproductive health care, women writers began to have more children again.
The Orlando Project is a textbase of entries on the lives and writing of more than 1,400 authors from medieval times to the present. Orlando began at the University of Alberta in 1995 and continues to grow in the present day. As specialists in 19th-century women’s writing and data and visualization, we have been collaborators on the project for the past four years. As parents of young children ourselves, we were repeatedly told that our writing and research would suffer after having kids. With unprecedented data to hand, we wondered if this had in fact been the case across history, or if the idea is a relic of the 19th century.
This interesting historical trajectory, with its pronounced dip in maternal authorship in the 19th century, initially confounded us. Why did women writing before the 19th century have more children? One explanation for the diminished fertility of women writers in the 19th century is that the shape of the career changed. The rise of the professional woman writer who was paid for her work in the commercial marketplace in the late 17th and early 18th centuries made it more important to restrict childbirth. Many earlier women writers are known for letters, life writing, and poetry written within a familial context, mostly for readers they knew, and often only published in book form centuries later. Margery Kempe (1373–1438), a mother of 14, became known as the author of the first autobiography written in English, a chronicle of her spiritual development. Early in their marriage, she and her husband were (as she described it) consumed by sexual desire, resulting in 14 children, a record she repented when she began dictating her life’s spiritual story around age 40. Lady Hester Pulter (1605–1678), a mother of 15 living and writing during the English Civil War, also circulated her royalist emblem poems and her prose romance within her family circle.
Production expectations for writers rose as authorship became a viable profession in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. For the first time in history, women (and men) could earn a living by writing journalism and fiction. Before writing became a career, women writers were almost as likely as other women to have children: 86 percent of women writers in the Orlando textbase born before 1600 did have children, a percentage roughly in line with the general population’s fertility in England and Wales. Afterward, the proportion of women writers who had children declined steeply, from 55 percent in the 1600s to 48 percent in the 1700s and 41 percent in the 1800s. In the 20th century, when limiting the size of one’s family became more possible, women writers became mothers in greater numbers, with 63 percent having at least one child.
The choice for most women who had sex with men and who were born before the 20th century would have been to have about seven children, or none. A lack of reliable birth control meant that in the 19th century, the average married woman in England or Wales had six or seven children, and a further 10 to 15 percent had 10 or more children. As better birth control became available, the number of births began to fall dramatically, from an average of just below six after 1875 to settling at just over two by 1940. In an era of unrestricted childbirth, as writer Rebecca Traister argues, spinsterhood could be a powerful position for women who wanted to safeguard their time for an increasingly demanding literary career. But despite the challenges, it was far from impossible, even for women in the 19th century, to have children and write. Nineteenth-century women writers who had children had around 3.33; roughly half the number of the average 19th-century mother, but plenty from a contemporary standpoint.
Does the number of children a woman writer has matter? Pointing to Joan Didion, Margaret Atwood, and Alice Walker, Lauren Sandler has argued that the secret to being both a successful writer and a mother is to limit yourself to one child. Single children have been common for women writers: 24 percent in our sample had one child. But across the centuries, having two or three children (39 percent), or even five or more children (34 percent), has been more common. In the 20th century, large families are less common for both writers and women in general: 87 percent of women writers who had children had one, two, or three.
There is a popular idea that you’ll lose a book, or maybe two, for every child you have. Men almost never seem to consider the issue of writing and its conflicts with having children, but in a rare exception, novelist and father of four Michael Chabon wrote that he was advised that “You lose a book for every child.” Journalist Hadley Freeman reports that a writer friend told her it’s two books for every child. This turns out not to be true, at least not for the writers in our database. In our sample, women writers without children published fewer books, on average (about 12), than those with one (14 books), two (13 books), or three children (16 books). The number of books does start to drop with four kids (11 books), or five or more children (10 books). (In our data set, we removed books that are exact duplicates, but some books that have different titles but similar content, for example A Room of One’s Own and A Room of One’s Own and Three Guineas, are counted separately, because we believe this type of republication does deliver a measure of a woman writer’s influence.) Unless three is the magic number of children to have to spur one’s productivity, a moderately sized family seems to have had little impact on the number of books women published.
While you may not lose a book for every child, with more children your book may come out a little later. One way to try to measure this effect is to calculate the average publication date for an author’s books and see what age she was. For those with no children, the average age at which they published a book was 46; for those with one or two children, it was 48; for three, it was 50. The age dropped down again for those with four to nine children, to 49, and to 48 for 10 or more children. Rather than every child causing a woman writer to lose a book, it might be more accurate to say that every child delayed a book by a year.
There are some amazing examples throughout history of women writers who had large families and large literary outputs. Charlotte Smith (1749–1806) and Sarah Trimmer (1741–1810) are two successful writers, a poet and a children’s author, respectively, who had 12 children apiece. The woman writer in the Orlando textbase with the largest number of children is Susanna Wesley (1669–1742), who wrote religious works addressed to her children. She had 18 or 19 children; her son was the founder of Methodism, John Wesley. Elizabeth Clinton, Countess of Lincoln (1574–1630), was a mother of 18 children who wrote The Countesse of Lincolnes Nurserie (1622), an advice manual on a woman’s religious and maternal duty to breastfeed her children. Emma Caroline Wood (1802–1879) produced 13 children and 14 novels. She took up writing to support herself at the age of 60, after her husband’s death.
Even in the 19th century, some women wrote big novels and had big families. Mary Elizabeth Braddon (1835–1915) had six children between 1862 and 1870. The 1860s were also the decade when Braddon, a bestselling novelist of sensational works, wrote her most important works, including Lady Audley’s Secret (1862). Elizabeth Gaskell (1810–1865) had seven children and wrote some of the most important fiction of the period, including Cranford and North and South. Margaret Oliphant (1828–1897), who had six children, three of whom survived childhood, and who also supported extended family members, wrote more multivolume fiction (232 titles) than any other Victorian novelist. And Woolf’s definition of motherhood is narrow: George Eliot (included as a mother in our sample) was a devoted stepmother to three stepsons, and Charlotte Brontë was pregnant when she died.
Social class and race may be more important factors in determining which writers have become mothers, historically. Class and race are more slippery concepts than the number of children one has, and the data is fuzzier on these points. But the 8 percent of women identified as lower-class or working-class writers in our database were actually more likely to be mothers than the rest of our sample set. At the beginning of the 19th century, around 60 percent of women were illiterate, which was far more of a bar to becoming a writer than whether or not you had children.
New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino recently noted that the idea that motherhood is a threat to an individual’s intellectual and creative possibility has usually been voiced by white women, and that books by authors of color, like Angela Garbes’ Essential Labor, may offer us an alternate model of caregiving and creativity. The women in the Orlando textbase are indeed predominantly white, which might suggest that race, alongside class, is more of a structural barrier to writing than maternity, at least in Britain. Historically, limiting births has been a heterosexual women’s issue, giving rise to the possibility that women who were not inclined to have sex with men were at an advantage as writers. The Orlando data is also slippery on the subject of sexuality. But from the information we have, writers tagged as “lesbian” represent only 8 percent of the sample set, and they, too, have an average of 0.63 children.
Virginia Woolf has had an outsize influence on the feminist literary canon, shaping our idea of what counts as good women’s writing—and what kind of life a woman writer should lead—well into the 21st century. Like her fellow writers of the early 20th century, she was desparate to establish literary standards that favored the slim experimental modernist novel, defining it as the opposite of what Henry James called the “large loose baggy monster” of the Victorian period, with its emphasis on feminine themes like courtship and domestic life. Woolf excluded the “lady novelists” of her parents’ generation from the canon in the process.
In Woolf’s canon and James’ comments, we can see a fear of fecund, prolific women writers. Gaskell’s North and South may conform to different literary standards than Mrs. Dalloway, but it is still an excellent novel.
If the narrative that women writers can’t be mothers is, at best, only half true, why do we continue to deliver this 100-year-old critical chestnut so much weight? Clichés about both writers and mothers are to blame. Writers are supposed to be independent, working in long stretches of unbroken solitude and living a life of the mind. Mothers, meanwhile, are supposed to epitomize selfless care and interdependence. They are also not generally held to be competent at anything other than caregiving: witness the phrase, “so simple, even my mother could do it,” and the well-documented bias against mothers in the workforce.
It is too early to say if and how 21st-century women writers will combine writing and motherhood, especially since parenthood is on the decline for everyone, not just writers. But the idea that it’s nigh impossible to have a child and write a book belongs in the 19th century.
I used to sit on the board of a final salary pension scheme. Like all closed funds where savers were no longer adding any new money, the struggle was to ensure that the money in the pot would last long enough to pay out the promises that had been made. Post-financial crisis, when interest rates and bond yields flat-lined, that became much harder.
You don’t want to take too much risk on shares, but you can’t be too cautious either.
Then one day we were introduced to an investment strategy that would make most of this pain go away and, best of all, it involved gilts — the safest of safe investments. It was called LDI — liability-driven investing.
We were given a short talk
We scored companies based on these measurements:
Price (50% of score): We averaged the no-exam life insurance rates for males and females in excellent health at ages 30, 40 and 50 for $500,000 and $1 million and a term length of 20 years.
Maximum face amount for lowest eligible age (10% of score): Companies with higher no-exam life insurance coverage amounts for the lowest age earned more points. Note that maximum no-exam coverage can sometimes become lower if you apply at a higher age.
Age eligible for best length/amount (10% of score): Companies offering no-exam life insurance to folks over age 50 earned extra points.
Accelerated death benefit available (10% of score): This important feature lets you access part of your own death benefit in the event you develop a terminal illness
Option to convert to a permanent life insurance policy (10% of score): This is a good option to have in place if you decide you want a longer policy, especially if your health has declined and you don’t want to shop for new life insurance.
Guaranteed renewals (5% of score): This option lets you extend the coverage after your initial level term period has expired, such as at the end of 10, 20 or 30 years.
Renewal rates can be significantly higher, but renewing can provide extended coverage to someone who may no longer qualify for a new life insurance policy because of health.
Median time from application to approval (5% of score): We gave more points to companies with lower no-exam life insurance approval times.
The timeline for approval could be within seconds or a month, depending on the company and possibly even your health.
Sources: Bestow, Ethos, Fabric, Haven Life, Jenny Life, Ladder, Policygenius and Forbes Advisor research.
Compare Policies With Leading Life Insurance Companies
Banaras Hindu University, BHU has been trending recently for a question asked in the recently conducted MA History paper. A question on 'Demolition of Adi Vishweshwar Temple by Aurangzeb' sparked controversy after many students objected to the same. Students of the Muslim community objected to the line of questioning, calling it biased towards the Hindu side.
The questions and controversy are largely raised by the students of the Muslim community. Speaking to Times Now Navbharat, one of the History professors, Dr. Rajiv Srivastava of the University said, the question has no intention of raising controversy and is purely based on Historical facts. Being a Historian, this is our responsibility to bring out facts related to History. Further, the professor also mentioned the professor saying the book which was referred to via the question is written by a Muslim scholar.
Gyanvapi mosque - Adi Vishweshwar temple dispute is already in court which makes the issue sensitive. As per the claims, the present-day Gyanvapi mosque is built on the site of the Adi Vishweshwar temple. This issue has already sparked a lot of controversies and is being debated by various groups.
In 1991, local priests filed a petition seeking permission to worship in the Gyanvapi Mosque complex in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh and since then several petitions have been filed. The matter is still in court.
The test was held on October 10, 2022.
The NTA in a statement said, "A fake Tweet and YouTube video is circulating on Social Media regarding leakage of History (06) paper Shift --II, UGC-NET December 2021 and June 2022 (Merged Cycles) conducted on October 10, 2022."
It further vehemently denies this allegation and said, "NTA vehemently denies this allegation regarding leakage of Question Paper of History (06) paper Shift -- II. It is clarified that there is no leak of any Question Paper."
NTA said that the format circulating on Social Media is not the same that was delivered to the candidates.
"Further, it is informed that the format circulating in Social Media is well after the conduct of the examination on October 10, 2022, and also it is not the same that was delivered to the candidates," it said.
It urged all stakeholders to beware of such tweets on social media that are "trying to deviate genuine aspirants from the real issue". (ANI)