The Future for Londons Museums: Development Strategies

The Future for Londons Museums: Development Strategies THE FUTURE OF LONDON’S MUSEUMS Q. What does the future hold for London’s museums? ABSTRACT The following research paper investigates the present condition of London’s museums, focusing upon three aspects: their historical development, their present issues and debates, and their strategies for ensuring future survival and prosperity. To ascertain these facts five senior management figures from five leading London museums were interviewed and asked to complete questionnaires discussing the themes mentioned above. The research focuses at much length upon the decision of the present Labour government to introduce free admission to London’s museums and to finance this policy with funds from the National Lottery. Another key aspect of the research was to determine the level of competition posed to London’s museums by European, American and other international museums; further, to discover how London’s museums might raise their performance to match this competition. A third central aspect of the research, viewed both from the sides of museum management and from the government, is the question of the strategies that London’s museums will pursue in the twenty-first century. The survival and success of London’s museums will very much depend upon the decisions made regarding such strategy and its efficacy once put into place. The present research assesses the likely efficacy of such strategies, and the consequences that their implementation will have upon the public’s ‘museum experience’. The results of the research paint double-sided picture: on the side, of optimism regarding the increased admissions figures witnessed since free admissions began, and, on the other side, a gloomy scene dominated by the London museums’ lack of financial support and by the negative consequences of the government insistence of putting attendance figures before a qualitative artistic and cultural experience. CONTENTS PAGE (Jump to) Abstract Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Literature Review Section 3: Methodology Section 4: Results Analysis Section 5: Conclusion Section 6: Bibliography Section 7: Appendixes Section 1: Introduction Since the foundation of the British Museum almost two hundred and fifty years ago, London has had an international reputation as the museum capital of the world, as the city with the finest collections, the best specialists and the most to offer the fascination of the public. In addition to the British Museum, London can boast the Natural History Museum, the Science Museum, the London Transport Museum, the Victoria Albert Museum and the Theatre Museum amongst numerous other world-class museum-experiences. In their early decades London’s museums flourished through the generosity of private donations and gifts, and through royal and government funding; these ample resources gave museums such as the British Museum unrivalled funds for the construction of magnificent architecture and the gathering of the most splendid specimens and pieces from across the globe. But by the early 1990’s, and reflecting Britain’s changed economic circumstances, London’s museums found themselves in need of considerable new funds to pay for refurbishments and developments so as to keep pace with other museums in the capital cities of Europe and in America. The advent of the National Lottery in 1994, and the terms of its constitution whereby a majority of its funds would go to museums and galleries, apparently offered the very chance to bring about a revival in the fortunes and prosperity of London’s museums. Thus between 1994-2003 more than  £13 billion was given to good causes by the National Lottery and the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) (Selwood Davies, 2005: p.3);  £1 billion was given to six hundred museums across the country (Selwood Davies, 2005: p.3). These funds were intended for the construction of new buildings and exhibition halls, and to compensate museums and galleries for the loss of revenue that they would incur onc e free admission was introduced. A few smaller museums were also enabled to open in London because of grants from the HLF. The next radical step in the recent history of London’s museums came when the Labour Party in their 1997 manifesto, promised that when elected they would introduce free admission into London’s museums — a move that it was anticipated would greatly increase attendance from members of the general public. In the event, this prediction turned out to be just right, particularly in the two years immediately succeeding the introduction of free admission. The government minister then in charge of museums in 2001, Estelle Morris, spoke of 2000 as ‘an unprecedented season of openings and flourishing’ (DOC, 2000) for London museums. The year 2000 witnessed nine major construction or refurbishment projects in London’s great museums and a total of  £379 million spent on this ( £193 million of which came from lottery sources) (Selwood Davies, 2005: p.4). The most spectacular of these projects was the construction by Norman Foster of the Great Court at the British Museum costing  £110 million (of which  £47 million was derived from lottery sources) (Selwood Davies, 2005: p.5). All in all, it seemed that the lottery was proving a vital fertilizing force in the rejuvenation and restoration of London’s great museums. This optimism was very clearly reflected in the visitor figures following free admission. In 2001/2002 London museums that had previously received capital funding from lottery sources noticed a staggering rise in visitor numbers of 5.3 million when compared with the 1999/2000 season; in 2002/2003 this figure jumped again to 6.3 million extra visits compared with 1999/2000 (this representing an increase of 89%). In stark contrast London museums that did not receive lottery funding say they annual attendance figure drop by 7% in 2001/02 and 13% in 2002/03 when compared to the 1999/00 season. To take an individual instance, the Victoria Albert Museum witnessed an increase in attendance from 75,773 in November 2 000 to 132,882 in November 2001 (this figure even jumped 270% by March 2002). Likewise, attendance figures at the Science Museum rose by 120% and the National History Museum by 74% in the same period (All figures: Selwood Davies, 2005: pp. 6-10). Nonetheless, this stream of incessantly impressive and rising admissions figures masked a major concern unsettling many of the managers and director’s of London’s leading museums. These figures of course welcomed lottery funding as a vital means of rejuvenating London’s museums and making them competitive with museums found in New York, Paris, Berlin and elsewhere. Nonetheless, the advent of free admission introduced at the same time a far greater degree of vulnerability and uncertainty in the financial arrangements and security of London’s museums. It was obvious to museum strategists and directors that a great deal of lottery money would be needed to compensate for the loss of revenue endured once free admission was introduced. Crucially, it would be paramount that lottery contributions of the levels of 2001 would be sustained for the long-term; nothing would be worse that one spectacular year for two of prosperity and massive investment followed by ten or twenty years of under investment and decline. It is recent charge imputed by many museum directors against the government and the HLF directors that they were naà ¯ve in profoundly underestimating the levels of investment that would e required to sustain not only the rejuvenation of London’s museums but merely also their survival. The British Museum alone, for instance, according to its director Neil MacGregor stands to lose  £80 million over ten years from lost revenues and reclaimed VAT. Increased attendance figures are welcomed naturally by all museum directors on the absolute condition that sufficient funds are made available to pay the costs of this increased attendance. Selwood and Davies calculated that since the advent of free admission and 7.3 million extra visitors each of these visitors cost London’s museums on average  £3.56 per visitor —  £3.56 extra that has to be found by the museums from non-lottery funding (Selwood Davies, 2003: p.8). Thus free admission has had a bitter sting in its tale, and it may be said that presently a great many of London’s famous museums find themselves in financial difficulties, unable to pay for restorations and improvements; unable to compete with American and European museums for the finest pieces and exhibitions, unable to attract the brightest researchers and curators — and ultimately in danger of losing the great reputations that some have nurtured for as long as two centuries. It is clear to all, museum directors and government officials alike, that the present funding arrangements of London’s museums are precarious and that a serious strategy needs to be devised to offer such museums long-term financial security and thus a platform to compete with the other leading museums of the world. This present dissertation conducted interviews, by way of questionnaires with five senior figures from five of London’s leading museums — the British Museum, the Science Museum, the Natural History Museum, the London Transport Museum and the V A museum — to ascertain their thoughts and attitudes regarding the present state and the likely future state of London’s museums. These senior figures were questioned on their beliefs regarding the lottery funding of museums, on the advent of free admission, on the extent of government funding, on international competition, and on future strategy. The picture that emerges from these interviews is one of profound uncertainty over the future survival and prosperity of London’s museums; buffeted on the one side by the loss of revenue from free admission, and on other sides by the short-fall in promised lottery investment and the present government’s obsession with the quantitative aspect of museum attenda nce at the expense of the quality of the visitor’s experience. Section 2: Literature Review It perhaps appropriate to preface this literature review with a few remarks about its undertaking. Often when undertaking research that refers to relatively recent events, the researcher finds that the academic world has not yet had time to catch-up in print and publish scholarly books and articles covering these events. With the present research however the proposition was entirely opposite; even though the subjects of lottery funding, free admission and so on are relatively recent, there is nonetheless an abundance of literature dealing with the specific question of the future of London’s museums. The task of the researcher was thus to sift this material so as to isolate its most pertinent and relevant parts. Another unusual aspect of this present literature review is its wide use of government documents and announcements. An overriding theme throughout the present paper is the intimacy of the relationship between the government and museum managers and directors. Naturally, the government perspective upon events is not published through academic books and journals, but by speeches, white-papers, press releases and so on. This research of course made much use of the outstanding museum journals, pre-eminently Curator: The Museum Journal. Of the several articles from this journal used in this dissertation, one was of seminal importance in providing statistical and analytical evidence of the impact of lottery funding and free admission upon London’s museums, this being: S. Selwood and M. Davies (2005) ‘Capital Costs: Lottery Funding in Britain and Consequences for Museums. The article excellently articulates the dilemma that has crept upon London’s museums now that the inadequacy of lottery funding to meet extra visitors numbers has become apparent. There are hints in the above article to possible solutions to the funding crisis facing London’s museums, and these solutions are discussed in greater depth in R. Baron’s ‘Reinventing a State Program for Museum Funding’ (2003). Question marks as to the thoroughness and efficacy in practice of the governmentâ€⠄¢s free admissions policy is raised in several places: Freudenheim’s ‘That Politics Problem’ (2005), Babbidge’s ‘UK Museums; Safe and Sound? (2000) and Sharp’s ‘Controversy and Challenge: British Funding Increases Nationally, But Not to National Museums’ all echo the apprehensiveness and fear felt by many museum directors and staff towards the financial liabilities that would arise in the wake of free admissions (2006). Freudenheim, in particular, highlights a certain naivety in government’s attitude towards the workings of national museums; citing in particular the government’s inveterate insistence upon the increasing of admissions figures no matter what the effects of this upon either museum costs or the aesthetic museum-experience of visitors. The government’s position, and its obvious delight and sense of fulfilment at increased attendance figures since free admission, is given in a number of documents. Principally, the paper London Cultural Capital – Realising the Potential of a World Class City published by the London’s Museums Agency (2004) establishes the governments intentions and strategy towards the future of London’s museums. The paper gives fifteen government policies, under the headers value, access, creativity, and excellence by which the government’s museum strategies will be delivered in future. The government, in association with the National Lottery, has written in several places of its satisfaction at the results of the introduction of the policy of free admissions. In particular, the paper One Year On Visitor Numbers Soaring At National Museums Following Abolition Of Entry Charges published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 1 January 2003 gives a sense of the euphoria and achievement perceived by the government. Also, the paper Two Years On Free Admission to National Museums Draws Even Bigger Crowds again published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 9 March 2003 gives much the same impression. In each of these documents the government stresses its loyalty and commitment to the principle of free admission and to the extension of this principle as far as possible. At the same time, there is little reference in these documents to the nervousness and trepidation felt by museum directors and managers about the future prosperity of the institutions they preside over. It is in this absence of self-criticism, that the reader perceives the origins of the discrepancy between that government’s perception of the financial condition of London’s museums and the reality of their condition. The possible consequences of such as disparity increasing, and of a competition gap widening between London’s museums and th ose in America and Europe, are well delineated in Cain’s article ‘Museums and the Future of Collecting’ (2005). In short, the extant literature paints the present picture of London’s museums as a time of grave uncertainty with respect to their financial predicament and thus their world-class legacies and reputations. These sources also acknowledge the considerable benefits already brought by lottery funding and free admission, and point also to the great future potential of these schemes; they instil in the reader at the same time a warning that idealism must be checked by pragmatic considerations before London’s museums can attain the future they deserve. Section 3: Methodology The principal method of primary data collection for this research was the interviewing, by way of questionnaires, of several senior figures at five of London’s leading museums. The decision to interview senior management and directing figures, rather than members of the public, had the obvious advantage that the answers obtained would be the specialist opinions of people with an intimate knowledge of the subject matter of the research. Members of the general public, especially those living in London, often show much interest and curiosity towards the subject of the prosperity and fate of London’s museums, but at the same time are not professionals with direct experience of the key debates and consultations. To arrange these five meetings, the researcher wrote fifteen letters to major London museums. Of these fifteen requests for an interview, seven positive responses were returned to the interviewer, of which five eventually furnished the opportunity of an interview. In requesting these interviews letters were sent to the director of each museum, irregardless of the sex, race, or religion of the person. Of the five eventual interviewees, three were men and two women; their ages ranged between forty-one and sixty-three. At the behest of interviewees, all of whom preferred to speak off the record due to the sensitivity of many of the issues of discussion, neither their names nor their titles are given in the final publication of this research. Thus, in the transcripts presented in the appendix of this research, each of the five interviewees are referred to as ‘a senior figure’ and ascribed a coded number following the simple scheme 001-002-003-004-005. This sensitivity, arising from the various present tensions over funding between London museums, the HLF and the government, clearly raises certain ethical questions about the present research. Above all, is it permissible to expose senior figures to possible embarrassment or worse, for the sake of the findings of this research. In answer to this question, the present researcher would say two things: firstly, that explicit consent for every interview was obtained by the researcher before the commencement of each interview, thus all interviewees participated at their own volition; secondly, following Utilitarian principles of seeking ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, the researcher decided that the possible positive benefits and improved public understanding of the topic that might arise from this research could justify the slight ethical risks associated with the carrying-out of this research. It is a belief of the researcher that by informing the academic com munity and the public of the chief issues and controversies now affecting London’s museums, that the debate generated from this knowledge will lead to greater consideration on all sides being shown towards the preservation and improvement of London’s world-famous reputation as a museum centre. A number of criticisms may be levelled at the methodology discussed in this section. Firstly, it might be asked, with some justification, whether or not the interviewing of only five museum figures can produce results characteristic of attitudes and opinions of London’s museums as a whole. Naturally, critics might ask how the researcher can infer from the collection of five opinions general trends governing the many hundreds and thousands of senior figures working for the management of London’s museums. Likewise, why does the report interview exclusively figures from museum management and not from the government or from the National Lottery? In response to the first question the reply must be that with limited resources and limited time, it seemed most prudent to the researcher to restrict the field of investigation to a narrow focus, where the results obtained could be subjected to a significant scrutiny and analysis — something which resource constraints would have rendered impossible had the field been extended much wider. Moreover, whilst only five persons were interviewed, these figures preside over London’s five largest museums which between them see greater attendance figures and government investment than all of London’s other museums combined. Thus the opinions of the figures interviewed actually are far more representative of London as a whole than would first appear likely. In response to the second question, a similar answer might be given: only museum directors were interviewed because they are the persons with the most intimate knowledge of the matters under discussion. If the present researcher were in future to extend the present research, then the opinions of others outside of museum management would certainly have to be included. As it was, the present report incorporates sufficient expert opinion, to make its findings relevant to the better academic and public understanding of the issues affecting the future of London’s museums. Section 4: Results Analysis The aim of the present research was to investigate the likely future of London’s museums; this research was undertaken by way of interviews with five senior figures from five leading London museums. From the information gained from the literature review undertaken by the researcher it seemed most appropriate to question these museum directors on five main subjects: lottery funding, the advent of free admission, international competition, future strategy and the employment of new researchers and curators. The expectation of the researcher was that the general opinion of these senior figures would have initially been one of welcome to the proposed lottery funding, but that this initial welcome would have turned to mild scepticism in the wake of free admission and the provocation of severe uncertainty following the extra costs incurred by increased visitor numbers and lesser-than-expected lottery investment. What opinions then did these results produce in actuality? (1) Lottery Funding. The five interviewed senior figures unanimously (5 of 5) welcomed the original government proposals to aid London’s and Britain’s museums through funds made available by the national lottery. Museums such as the British Museum, with its newly built Great Court, was given considerable lottery funding amounting to  £47 million (Selwood Davies, 2003: p.3). Museum directors were quick to concede that such developments would have been impossible without these lottery funds — or an extremely large, but unlikely, private donation. In short, museum directors were united in their praise for proposed lottery investment. (2) Free Admission. The chief feature of the respondents’ answers to questions posed about free admission were twofold: on the one hand, respondents welcomed the opportunity to open their doors to ever greater numbers of people, thus disseminating cultural and scientific experience as far as possible; on the other hand, words such as ‘apprehension’ and ‘scepticism’ were used liberally by nearly all of those interviewed. What most strongly prompted this apprehension was the ‘twining’ of free admission introduction with the compensation for lost revenue by lottery funding. Directors confided that when allowed to charge admission fees their museums did at least have a degree of self-sufficiency and so could determine their own future strategies and successes. But lottery funding conditioned by the introduction of free admission policies has subjected London’s museums to a profound financial vulnerability and loss of independence. These museums, now depend upon the HLF for often as much a half of their income; if controversies or difficulties arise with the lottery directors or with the ministers directing them, then the museums are forced to abide by outside instruction and policy. Moreover, the great fear that lottery investment would not be sustained appears to have come true for all of the five museums whose for whom senior figures were interviewed for this research. So too, insufficient lottery funding has been made available to compensate for the extra costs incurred by the vastly increased visitor numbers experienced after the introduction of free admission. Interviewees hinted at a certain naivety and lack of preparation on the part of ministers and lottery managers with respect to the projected visitor increases following free admission and the costs that would be incurred by this. (3) International Competition. On the question of international competition there was further unanimity of opinion amongst the senior figures interviewed. Each respondent vigorously asserted that the collections of the museums he or she presided over as a manager were the equal of any equivalent museum anywhere in the world. Managers from the British Museum and the Natural History Museum, not to mention others, could rightly boast that their reputations were pre-eminent amongst international museums. At the same time, three of the figures interviewed (the exceptions presided over specialist museums with little international competition) confided that many American and European museums simply had far better funding and so purchasing-power than their own London museums. For the immediate future, this gap will mean that these international museums will continue to purchase new pieces of exceptional public interest whilst London’s museums will have to remain content with their exi sting impressive but static collections. In the medium- and long-term future, if this purchasing disparity continues then a qualitative difference will emerge ever more clearly between the museums of London and those of America and Europe. (4) Recruitment. When embarking upon the present research the researcher did not anticipate that ‘the difficulty of recruiting new researchers and curators’ would be a major concern to London’s museums regarding their futures. Nonetheless, as the searching through the literature review proceeded and as the topic came into better perspective this problem seemed to be a central concern for several of the major London museums. Specialist museums like the V A and the Theatre Museum do not, according to results, face such problems; but senior figures from the Natural History Museum, the British Museum and the Science museum may all face crises over recruitment in the near future. According to these figures the recruitment of new staff has been a subject neglected by the government in their ceaseless quest for higher admission figures and in ‘measuring the value’ of a museum-goers’ experience. The science museum can no longer attract top scientists and researchers because they are paid so little:  £20,000 as a starting salary, peaking at  £50,000 ( ). Commercial companies and American museums offer far better salaries and improved facilities. If this ‘brain-drain’ continues for much longer, then it may prove to be the greatest of all dangers to the future prosperity of London’s museums. These institutions are sustained not only by their pieces and specimens, but by the care and expertise of their curators and other staff; it is this expertise and the respect that arises from it that gives these institutions their world-class reputations. If this expertise evaporates, then no amount of increased admission or funding or improved strategy will protect the legacies and future prosperity of London’s museums. But towards the re-capture and enticement of these experts the government and the lottery fund seem somewhat blinded; given the extent to which London’s museums now rely upon government fun ding, it is precisely with the government that the responsibility lies for providing sufficient funding for home-grown and international experts to crave as they used to the opportunity to work in the prestigious museums of London. (5) Future Strategy. The senior figures interviewed for this research are nearly as one when they declare that future strategy has to be built around the attainment of financial stability; this is to be sought through an improved, more efficient and more effective relationship with the government and the HLF. A better balance has to be struck between the government’s ardent desire for ever increased admissions and the practical and pragmatic methods by which these extra admissions, dragging with them their extra costs, will be paid for. If a resolution and balancing is not achieved here then the obvious and inevitable path down which London’s museums must slide is that of ever greater debt and so lesser purchasing-power for new pieces and so a general decline in the standing and reputation of London’s museums. The reality of this predicament is brought home, even as this dissertation is written-up, by the announcement today of the London Theatre Museum (BBC, 2006 ) that they face imminent closure unless a major cash injection from the lottery fund is received. The alternative strategies are these: firstly, an abrupt about-face by the museums whereby they begin to charge for admission. This path is unattractive as there are numerous legislative, ethical and civil obstacles to this policy’s reinstatement. Another alternative is increased public funding from a source other than the lottery; this however looks most unlikely in the short-term. Thus, setting aside the remote chance that a massive private donation will save them, museums must, in their strategising come to agreement with the government about how extra funding from the lottery may be obtained. In short, the results obtained from this present research point to two things: firstly, that senior figures from the five museums interviewed welcomed in general lottery funding as a means to achieve rejuvenation and restoration; secondly, that this optimism changed to apprehension and tentativeness once it became clear the extent to which lottery funding would be dependant upon free admissions policies. Thirdly, it is obvious from all the interviews, that London’s museums are at a cross-roads and a defining moment in their illustrious history. To the left, is the danger of an ever greater financial disparity caused by increasing visitor figures and inadequate lottery funding; to the right is offered a sound financial structure that will ensure the continuation and prosperity of London’s museums’ world-class reputation. Section 5: Conclusion In the final analysis, it seems mo

Personal Essay - I Welcome the Challenge -- Personal Narrative, essay

I have learned a great many things from playing soccer. It has changed my entire outlook on and attitude toward life. Before my freshman year at Cool high school, I was shy, had low self-esteem and turned away from seemingly impossible challenges. Soccer has altered all of these qualities. On the first day of freshman practice, the team warmed up with a game of soccer. The players were split up and the game began. However, during the game, I noticed that I didn't' t run as hard as I could, nor did I try to evade my defender and get open. The fact of the matter is that I really did not want to receive the ball. I didn't' t want to be the one at fault if the play didn't' t succeed. I did not want the responsibility of helping the team because I was too afraid of making a mistake. That aspect...

Causes and Effects of Earthquakes Essay

There are some programs, like the ones that are broadcast at National Geographic Channel, where professionals show us on many opportunities documentaries about earthquakes and the amount of damage that they had produced in some areas. But†¦ what is an earthquake? We can define them as the shaking of the Earth’s surface caused by the rapid movement of the Earth’s rocky outer layer. In addition, earthquakes results from two main factors and can have two harmful effects. There are two main causes of seismic tremors. One of them is fault rupture. The faults slip because of movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates. Because of the pressure within the crust increases slowly over hundreds of years and finally exceed the strength of the plates, earthquakes take place. Human activities can also be the cause of significant earthquakes. Human beings carried out many activities that increase stress in the earth’s crust which lead to earthquakes. For example, injecting fluid into deep wells for waste disposal, filling reservoirs and firing underground nuclear test blasts. Since the tectonic plates and humans activities, seismic tremors take place. Earthquakes can mainly have two dreadful effects. First, one direct effect of earthquakes is ground shaking and landslides. The earthquake’s waves make the ground move, shaking buildings and causing weaker structures to collapse. The damage of properties can lead to secondary effects such as fire, which is produced because of the rupture of natural gas mains and water lines. Second, other post-earthquake threats are tsunamis. In many cases, the slip fault is located beneath the sea which can produce tsunamis. Tidal waves wash ashore and water moves inland, causing severe flooding, the loss of lives due to drowning and damage to property. To conclude, there are two main reasons as well as consequences of earthquakes. Although we can prevent earthquakes, there are some measures we can take to reduce the damage that they caused. I think that it is important to be concerned about this topic because we never know whether we can be victims of an earthquake.

Role of education in a developed country

Ads not by this site About the role of education in a developed country. Over the years, mankind has recognized the need of maintaining an educated civilization as being part of the patterns and orders of evolution. It is fairly safe to say that without education there cannot be any progress on a social, moral as well as economic scale. Knowledge and culture are the basic elements to a thriving and prosperous society. From a social point of view, education is a matter of acquiring the ability to adapt to demanding situations.Due to the continual change in modern means of living there has been an increased number of social issues needing to be dealt with. As a rule, the more articulate our need to prosper, the more detrimental we find ourselves to react to negative stimuli. Thus education supports us in developing the necessary mental capacity of overcoming such internal conflicts. For instance, a narrow-minded person has the tendency of reacting in a violent and self- deprecating way , while a broad-minded one will discover solutions to problems nstead of aggravating them.From a moral point of view though, education still stands as a major influence on both the form and content of our society. Clearly, we develop a mutual understanding of the unspoken rules which are at the very essence of a nation. To cast some light on the issue of moral values, teachers instigate in their students the importance of education in relation to personality development. In effect, Ireland is a great model of a healthy educational system, thus being one of the ost highly regarded nations on behalf of teaching methods.However, education does not only clear the path towards a brighter society, but it also enhances the opportunities and chances of citizens to find a stable working place. The unemployment rate is lower in developed countries than in illiterate ones such as the African villages. All of this being due to the higher level of knowledge. In other words, the more educated a n ation, the higher the chances of important discoveries taking place.Also, it has been proven that educated people have a lesser chance of contracting mental illnesses. To conclude, there is enough evidence to support the view that a country is more prosperous and thriving than other ones as long as the level of education among its population is above the average. As Horace Mann said â€Å"A human being is not attaining his full heights until he is educated. â€Å"

Best Character Analysis Myrtle Wilson - The Great Gatsby

Best Character Analysis Myrtle Wilson - The Great Gatsby SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips In most books and movies, the â€Å"other woman† – the woman having an affair with a married man – is often painted as a villain. But what about in The Great Gatsby, a novel in which both married women (Myrtle Wilson and Daisy Buchanan) are having affairs? Especially given that one (Daisy) ends up killing the other (Myrtle), is Myrtle just a one-note â€Å"other woman,† or is there more to her? Myrtle’s role in the story isn’t as large as Daisy’s, Gatsby’s, or Tom’s. However, she is crucial to the plot of the story, and especially to its tragic conclusion. Find out more about Myrtle’s role in Gatsby in this guide! Article Roadmap Myrtleas a character Physical description Myrtle's history before the novel begins Actions in the novel Character Analysis Myrtle quotes Common discussion topics and essay ideas Quick Note on Our Citations Our citation format in this guide is (chapter.paragraph). We're using this system since there are many editions of Gatsby, so using page numbers would only work for students with our copy of the book. To find a quotation we cite via chapter and paragraph in your book, you can either eyeball it (Paragraph 1-50: beginning of chapter; 50-100: middle of chapter; 100-on: end of chapter), or use the search function if you're using an online or eReader version of the text. Myrtle Wilson's Physical Description Then I heard footsteps on thestairs and in a moment the thickish figure of a woman blocked out the light from the office door. She was in the middle thirties, and faintly stout, but she carried her surplus flesh sensuously as some women can. Her face, above a spotted dress of dark blue crepe-de-chine, contained no facet or gleam of beauty but there was an immediately perceptible vitality about her as if the nerves of her body were continually smouldering. She smiled slowly and walking through her husband as if he were a ghost shook hands with Tom, looking him flush in the eye. (2.15) Unlike Nick’s description of Daisy, which focuses on her voice, mannerisms, and charm, and unlike his description of Jordan, which focuses on her posture and athleticism, Nick’s description of Myrtle focuses almost entirely on her body itself. Perhaps this fits with her role as Tom’s mistress, but it also indicates Nick sees little in Myrtle in terms of intellect or personality. This description also speaks to the strong physical attraction between Tom and Myrtle that undergirds their affair. This attraction serves as a foil to the more deep-seated emotional attraction between Gatsby and Daisy, the novel’s central affair. Myrtle Before the Novel Begins We don’t know a ton about Myrtle Wilson’s background except what we can gather from the passing comments from other characters. For example, we get the sense Myrtleloved her husband when they got married, but has since been disappointed by his lack of cash and social status, and now feels stifled by her twelve-year marriage: "I married him because I thought he was a gentleman," she said finally. "I thought he knew something about breeding, but he wasn't fit to lick my shoe." "You were crazy about him for a while," said Catherine. "Crazy about him!" cried Myrtle incredulously. "Who said I was crazy about him? I never was any more crazy about him than I was about that man there." She pointed suddenly at me, and every one looked at me accusingly. I tried to show by my expression that I had played no part in her past. "The only crazy I was was when I married him. I knew right away I made a mistake. He borrowed somebody's best suit to get married in and never even told me about it, and the man came after it one day when he was out. She looked around to see who was listening: " 'Oh, is that your suit?' I said. 'This is the first I ever heard about it.' But I gave it to him and then I lay down and cried to beat the band all afternoon." "She really ought to get away from him," resumed Catherine to me. "They've been living over that garage for eleven years. And Tom's the first sweetie she ever had." (2.2-7) She begins her affair with Tom Buchanan after he sees her on the train and later presses against her in the station: I was going up to New York to see my sister and spend the night. He had on a dress suit and patent leather shoes and I couldn't keep my eyes off him but every time he looked at me I had to pretend to be looking at the advertisement over his head. When we came into the station he was next to me and his white shirt-front pressed against my armand so I told him I'd have to call a policeman, but he knew I lied. I was so excited that when I got into a taxi with him I didn't hardly know I wasn't getting into a subway train† (2.120). Myrtledesperately wants to come off as sophisticated and wealthy despite herhumble roots. Nick finds her efforts tacky and vulgar, and he spends a lot of time commenting on her clothes, mannerisms, and conversational style. She is oblivious about upper-class life: she tells her sister at one point Tom doesn’t divorce Daisy because Daisy is Catholic. This is a small inside joke on Fitzgerald's part - since Tom and Daisy are part of the community of uber-WASPy residents of East Egg, there's almost nochance that Daisy could be Catholic. That Myrtle thinks accepts Tom's lieshows that she is not a well-schooled as she thinks she is about the life and customs of the elite class she wants to be a part of. Still, before the novel begins, Tom has gotten comfortable showing Myrtlearound in popular restaurants and doesn’t hide the affair. Perhaps this causes Myrtle to misunderstand what she means to Tom: she doesn’t seem to realize she’s just one in a string of mistresses. To see Myrtle's life events alongside those of the other characters, check out our timeline of The Great Gatsby. Want to get better grades and test scores? We can help. PrepScholar Tutors is the world's best tutoring service. We combine world-class expert tutors with our proprietary teaching techniques. Our students have gotten A's on thousands of classes, perfect 5's on AP tests, and ludicrously high SAT Subject Test scores. Whether you need help with science, math, English, social science, or more, we've got you covered. Get better grades today with PrepScholar Tutors. Summary of Myrtle's Action in the Novel The idea of Myrtle Wilson is introduced in Chapter 1, when she callsthe Buchanans’ house to speak to Tom. We get our first look at Myrtle in Chapter 2, when Nick goes with Tom to George Wilson’s garage to meet her, and then to Myrtle’s apartment in Manhattan for a party.On that day, she buys a dog, has sex with Tom (with Nick in the next room), throws a party, and is fawned on by her friends, and then ends up with a broken nose when Tom punches her after she brings up Daisy. This doesn’t prevent her from continuing the affair. Later on, in Chapter 7, George starts to suspect she’s having an affair when he finds her dog’s leash in a drawer at the house. He locks her upstairs in their house, determined to move out west once he gets the money from the car sale he’s waiting on from Tom. Myrtle glimpses Tom, along with Nick and Jordan, as they drive up to Manhattan in Gatsby’s yellow car. Myrtle and George fight later that evening, and Myrtle manages to run out of the house after yelling at George to beat her and calling him a coward. Just then, she spots the yellow car heading back for Long Island. Thinking it’s Tom, she runs toward and then out in front of the car, waving her arms. But Daisy is driving the car, and she decides to run over Myrtle rather than get into a head-on collision with an oncoming car. She hits Myrtle, who dies instantly. Myrtle’s death emotionally and mentally devastates George, which prompts him to murder Gatsby (who he mistakes for both his wife’s killer and lover), and then kill himself. The death car. Key Myrtle Wilson Quotes Mrs. Wilson had changed her costume some time before and was now attired in an elaborate afternoon dress of cream colored chiffon, which gave out a continual rustle as she swept about the room. With the influence of the dress her personality had also undergone a change. The intense vitality that had been so remarkable in the garage was converted into impressive hauteur. Her laughter, her gestures, her assertions became more violently affected moment by moment and as she expanded the room grew smaller around her until she seemed to be revolving on a noisy, creaking pivot through the smoky air. (2.56) Here, we see Myrtle transformed from her more sensuous, physical persona into that of someone desperate to come off as richer than she actually is. Wielding power over her group of friends, she seems to revel in her own image. Unlike Gatsby, who projects an elaborately rich and worldly character, Myrtle’s persona is much more simplistic and transparent. (Notably Tom, who immediately sees Gatsby as a fake, doesn’t seem to mind Myrtle’s pretensions – perhaps because they are of no consequence to him, or any kind of a threat to his lifestyle.) "Daisy! Daisy! Daisy!" shouted Mrs. Wilson. "I'll say it whenever I want to! Daisy! Dai" Making a short deft movement Tom Buchanan broke her nose with his open hand. (2.125-126) Here we see Myrtle pushing her limits with Tom – and realizing that he is both violent and completely unwilling to be honest about his marriage. While both characters are willful, impulsive, and driven by their desires, Tom is violently asserting here that his needs are more important than Myrtle’s. After all, to Tom, Myrtle is just another mistress, and just as disposable as all the rest. Also, this injury foreshadows Myrtle’s death at the hands of Daisy, herself. While invoking Daisy’s name here causes Tom to hurt Myrtle, Myrtle’s actual encounter with Daisy later in the novel turns out to be deadly. "Beat me!" he heard her cry. "Throw me down and beat me, you dirty little coward!" (7.314) When George confronts his wife about her affair, Myrtle is furious and needles at her husband – already insecure since he’s been cheated on – by insinuating he’s weak and less of a man than Tom. Also, their fight centers around her body and its treatment, while Tom and Daisy fought earlier in the same chapter about their feelings. In this moment, we see that despite how dangerous and damaging Myrtle’s relationship with Tom is, she seems to be asking George to treat her in the same way that Tom has been doing. Myrtle's disturbing acceptance of her role as a just a body - a piece of meat, basically - foreshadows the gruesome physicality of her death. Michaelis and this man reached her first but when they had torn open her shirtwaist still damp with perspiration, they saw that her left breast was swinging loose like a flap and there was no need to listen for the heart beneath. The mouth was wide open and ripped at the corners as though she had choked a little in giving up the tremendous vitality she had stored so long. (7.317) Even in death, Myrtle’s physicality and vitality are emphasized. In fact, the image is pretty overtly sexual – notice how it’s Myrtle’s breast that’s torn open and swinging loose, and her mouth ripped open at the corners. This echoes Nick’s view of Myrtle as a woman and mistress, nothing more – even in death she’s objectified. This moment is also much more violent than her earlier broken nose. While that moment cemented Tom as abusive in the eyes of the reader, this one truly shows the damage that Tom and Daisy leave in their wake, and shapes the tragic tone of the rest of the novel. The graphic and bloody nature of Myrtle's death really sticks with you. Common Essay Topics/ Areas of Discussion You will most likelybe asked towrite about Myrtlein relation to other characters (especially Daisy), or in prompts that ask you to compare the â€Å"strivers† in the book (including also Gatsby, George Wilson) with the old money set (Tom, Daisy, Jordan). To learn how best to approach this kind of compare and contrast essay, read our article on common character pairings and how to analyze them. It’s less likely, but not impossible, that you will be assigned a Myrtle-specific essay. In either case, Myrtle’s most important chapters are 2 and 7, so close read those carefully. When writing about her, pay close attention to Myrtle’s interactions with other characters. And if you’re writing an essay that discusses Myrtle as someone trying to live out the American Dream, make sure to address her larger influences and motivations. We’ll take a look at some of these strategies in action below. Why Do Tom and Myrtle Get Together? What Do They See in Each Other? For readers new to Gatsby, Tom and Myrtle’s relationship can seem a bit odd. There is obvious physical chemistry, but it can be hard to see why the classist, misogynist Tom puts up with Myrtle - or why Myrtle accepts Tom's mistreatment. For Tom, the affair – just one in a string he’s had since his honeymoon – is about taking and being able to get whatever he wants. Having an affair is a show of power. Especially since he’s been taking her around popular restaurants in Manhattan (2.4), it’s clear he’s not exactly hiding the relationship – instead, he’s flaunting it. He’s so assured of his place in society as a wealthy man, that he’s free to engage in some risky and socially inappropriate behavior – because he knows no one can actually touch his wealth or social position. For Myrtle, the affair (her first) is about escape from her life with George, and a taste ofa world – Manhattan, money, nice things – she wouldn’t otherwise have access to. It’s clear from how Myrtle moves and speaks that she’s confident and self-assured, and assumes that her relationship with Tom is a permanent ticket into the world of the wealthy – not just a fleeting glimpse. The fact that Tom sees Myrtle as disposable but Myrtle hopes for more in their relationship is painfully apparent at the end of Chapter 2, when she insists on bringing up Daisy, and Tom responds by breaking Myrtle’s nose. But despite this nasty encounter, the two continue their relationship, suggesting that this kind of abuse is the norm for Tom’s affairs, and Myrtle is too eager to stay in the new world she’s found – or even believes that Tom will still leave Daisy for her – that she stays as well. By the end of the novel, Myrtle doesn't seem to have been completelymistaken about Tom's affection for her. After all, Tom says he that he â€Å"cried like a baby† (9.145) when he found dog food for the dog he's bought her in Myrtle’s apartment. Of course, since it's Tom, his grief is probablyself-pitying than selfless. Either way, their relationship is indicative of both their values: Myrtle's ambition and Tom’s callousness. What Does Myrtle’s Life (and Tragic Ending) Say About the American Dream? Myrtle, like George and Gatsby, was obviously not born into money, and instead is relying on her own wits to make it in 1920s America. In a manner quite similar to Gatsby’s, she consciously adopts a different persona to try and get access to a richer circle (while George seems to be the only one relying on honest work – his shop – and honest relationships, through his loyalty to Myrtle, to improve his lot in life). But Myrtle aims too high, and ends up killed when she mistakes Gatsby’s yellow car for Tom’s, and runs out in the road assuming the car will stop for her. In the same way that Gatsby overestimates his value to Daisy, Myrtleoverestimates her value to Tom. Even if Tom had been driving the car, and even if he had stopped for her, he would never have whisked her away from George, divorced Daisy, and married her. Furthermore, the fact she assumed the garish yellow car was Tom’s shows how little she understands the stiff, old money world Tom comes from. Myrtle’s complete misunderstanding of Tom, as well as her violent death, fit the overall cynical message in the book that the American Dream is a false promise to those born outside of the wealthy class in America. As hard as anyone tries, they don’t stand a chance of competing with those in America born into the old money class. They will never understand the strange internal rules that govern the old money set, and will never stand a chance of being their equal. How Does Myrtle's Home Reflect Her Character, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values? This is a prompt that you can obviously use for any of the characters, but it’s especially interesting in Myrtle’s case, since she has two residences: the house above the auto shop that George owns, and the apartment that Tom Buchanan rents for her in the city. Myrtle'shome with George is a dark, hopelessimage of working class life in America: it's an apartment above a baregarage, nestled in the dreadful Valley of Ashes. George is utterly mired in this home, even coated with a thin layer of ash from the factories outside. In contrast, Myrtle is vivacious and free of the ash, which gives her a layer of separation from her actual home. Myrtle’s apartment with Tom is overstuffed and gaudy, and she seems much happier and more at home there. The mix of high-brow pretension in the decor with her low-brow entertainment speaks to how Myrtle values the appearance of wealth and sophistication, but doesn’t actually understand what upper-class taste looks like the way Tom and Daisy Buchanan do. So while the Wilson’s garage is a testament to the struggle of the working class in American in the 1920s, Myrtle and Tom’s apartment is a physical representation of the airs Myrtle puts on and the appearances of wealth she values. Myrtle's taste in decor overlaps quite a bit with King Louis XIV's. Why Exactly Does Myrtle Run Into the Road? One of the novel’s most important events is also one that can be confusing for students: namely, Myrtle’s death at the end ofChapter 7. How exactly does she end up in the road? What does it have to do with her strange encounter with Tom, Nick, and Jordan in the garage earlier in the day? The incident is confusing because we come at it from many narrative angles: Setup from Nick's point of view Michaelis’s inquest testimony about the accident Nick'sdescription of the accident sceneright after Myrtle's death Gatsby's explanation of the accident to Nick after the fact Additional information from Michaelis in Chapter 8 about George’s actions both before and after Myrtle’s death A final revelatory confession from Tom about his role in George's violence in Chapter 9 Piecing together these three takes on the incident, this is what happens, in order: Before the accident, George has begun to suspect Myrtle's affair. George locks Myrtle up above the garage, saying "She’s going to stay there till the day after to-morrow, and then we’re going to move away† (7.3). Michaelis, uncomfortable, finds an excuse to leave. Tom, Jordan, and Nick driveup to the gas station in the yellow car. Tom brags that the car is his. Myrtle looks downstairs and concludes two things: first, that Jordan is Tom’s wife, and second, that Tom owns the yellow car. Later that evening, Myrtle fights with George about being locked up. We don’t see much of this fight. All we know is that she cries â€Å"throw me down and beat me!† (7.314) to George. Meanwhile, Gatsby and Daisy are driving back from Manhattan to East Egg after the Plaza Hotel showdown. Myrtle runs outside. Outside, Myrtle sees the yellow car and assumes it’s Tom on his way back to Long Island. Myrtle runs out to the car, waving her arms, likely because she thinks Tom will stop for her and rescue her from George. At the same time, another car is driving in the opposite direction towards Manhattan. When Daisy sees Myrtle in the road, she has to make a quick decision: either run over Myrtle, or swerve into the oncoming car to avoid Myrtle. Daisy first drives toward the oncoming car, but at the last second, turns back into her own lane and hits and kills Myrtle instead. What’s Next? Still a bit confused about the climax of the novel? Get a detailed recap of Chapters 7,8and 9 to understand exactly how the three deaths play out. Learn more about Myrtle’s marriage and her relationship with Tom over at our post about love and relationships. Still a bit confused about the old money/new money/working class themes? Read about social class in the novel in our post on the role of social classes in this novel. Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points or your ACT score by 4 points?We've written a guide for each test about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download it for free now:

Research Unilever and Proctor and Gamble Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Research Unilever and Proctor and Gamble - Essay Example The research aims to bring forth the comparison and contrast of the above principles between the two organizations, Unilever and Proctor and Gamble. Major similarities and differences would be brought forth between the two organizations on the two principles. Fayol’s 14 Principles of Management- Comparison and Contrasts between Unilever and Proctor and Gamble (P&G) Division of work Division or specialization of work is chosen as the first topic to compare between the two organizations. In Proctor and Gamble, division of labor has begun right from the beginning of the company. Since the mid 1850s the company has reinforced division of labor with the initiation of moving operations to Western Row. While Proctor handled the financials and sales, Gamble supervised the factory productions. Now it is seen that the company has four major pillars which account for the main corporate structure of the organization, namely, the global business units, market development organizations, cor porate functions and the global business services (P&G, 2011). The division of labour in Unilever can also be seen from the fact that labor is employed in such activities like food production, distribution, and marketing etc. Its labor division strategies are also seen to be aimed at increasing employment and generating job opportunities. For example, in Indonesia, while the company employs 5000 individuals, an estimate of 300,000 more jobs were supported both in the fields of production as well as distribution (Pfitzer & Krishnaswamy, 2007, p.7). Despite the fact that both organizations demonstrate division of labour as a main component of their corporate structure, however, the degree or extent of specialization and division of tasks is much more in Proctor and Gamble in comparison to Unilever. This is because it represents a highly bureaucratic structure characterized by an authority hierarchy, explicit rules, clear division of labor and impersonality (Andersen & Taylor, 2010, p. 141). On the other hand, there is less labor division in Unilever, which emphasizes more on maintaining a geographical structure where the head in each geographic region is responsible for maintaining profitability in the region while the country managers are responsible for the local sales and marketing of products. Rather it can be said that Unilever reflects both of a geographic as well as a multidivisional structure. In fact now it is even recommended that the company implements a matrix structure in order to tightly coordinate between the geographic regions and the various specializations or divisions (Hill, 2008, p.197). Centralization According to Fayol centralization is considered essential for all organizations and is said to occur as a natural consequence of the organizat

Simon Cowell - The Globalization of 'Idol' and the Journey it Took to Research Paper

Simon Cowell - The Globalization of 'Idol' and the Journey it Took to Bring Reality Television to TV Stardom - Research Paper Example Of course, most viewers not only tune to the program to watch their favorite contestant but also Simon Cowell the most famous reality TV judge. With Simon Cowell seated in the centre state from week to week and from season to season, the show has maintained the top position for eight consecutive seasons. With Cowell’s departure from the series, American idol still fares well in reality TV ratings. This factor is the main source of controversy concerning the contribution of Cowell to American idol and American idol to Cowell's successes. With this in mind, it seems more profound to claim that American idol is responsible for the creation of Simon Cowell. However, it is a fact that American Idol did not require him to become the number one reality TV show in the globe. This essay investigates the controversy between Simon Cowell and American Idol in relation to their global stardom. Who made the American Idol? Simon Cowell is often confused with Simon Fuller the British reality TV producer and manger. It is unfortunate that people link or associate American Idol’s success with Conwell despite having played a minor role in the production of the show. Simon Fuller is the man behind the production and the globalization of the American Idol although he is not present in most scenes. On the other hand, Conwell was given the role of being a judge when the program came into air in the mid 2002. This indicates that the American Idol could have been in existence even without Cowell’s participation. Although Cowell contributed to the creation of the modern day American Idol, the program acquired public interests when it was still under its early stage of production. The pop Idol was the first version that Fuller established in 2001 before Simon Cowell’s version the X Factor came into the scene (Sweney web). The American Idol was established on the X factor, which was a refined version of the pop Idol. Although the American Idol became the most r eality TV show, it had its foundation on the Pop Idol, which was Fuller’s creation. Before Simon Cowell became a judge on American Idol, Fuller had already acquired the credit of being the best reality TV show producer in the world. This indicates that Cowell worked on an established program to produce the American Idol and he was not involved in the initial work of creating the program. Reality TV shows such as American Idol and X Factor have grown to reach their status due to their interactive nature. Unlike other TV series, reality TV shows are the only programs that incorporate the views of the viewers (Rushfield 231). This involves direct votes through calls, text messages or internet that viewers make during every audition. Choosing the winner among the many contestants who compete for the top price is the main task in a reality TV shows. The role of determining the winner among the high number of contestants who present themselves at every audition is demanding task. A s a judge, Simon Cowell is known for his excessive scrutiny and criticism of contestants. Although judges are important in American Idol, they play a minor role of confirming the results. This is because the viewers are the main players in the selection a winner an audition. This indicates that American Idol could have achieved its current success without the contributions of Simon Cowell. In addition, other judges such as Jenifer Lopez, Randy Jackson, Steven Tyler and Ryan have immensely contributed to the