When asked how many students have had experience in a library setting, about half the class did not raise their hands, so not everyone was familiar with this field. This made me relax a bit because I have not had any experience or library internships at all.
Right when I got my acceptance letter for SU, I was a journalist, and about to accept another job as a copy editor in Oneonta. When I told my friends and family I was going to pursue a library and information science degree, numerous believed I was going from the dying journalism/newspaper field to another field with limited opportunities. However, after researching and physically being in last night’s first class, I’m going to prove my people wrong.
Libraries have been around for thousands of years. From ancient Egyptian libraries with diplomatic and royal scrolls to medieval monk illuminations to the digital library, the field has kept evolving. The idea that libraries are dead is not true; but the way information is used and presented has changed drastically. The general population does not fully comprehend and see this difference, yet.
Still, information will always be around, but they way it is presented has changed. The functions of libraries in the 21st century have changed. Because of the Internet, more and more information is found online. To keep with the trend, libraries are digitalizing books, artifacts and articles because people find information online. The important thing to remember is that patrons are still seeking information, but receiving it in a different method.
Because information is now moving online, some automatically assume books will not be around in the future, therefore, libraries and librarians will be eliminated. Once this innovation becomes the norm, I think people will realize that books may not be as popular, but librarians will still serve a purpose to help others obtain information.
Similarly, people think that newspapers are dying, but only the physical print publication is suffering. People still want and seek news, but they move to online publications for it. Journalists and bloggers create multi-media stories with photo slides, videos and articles. News is still presented to people, but again, the format and functions have changed.
Though print edition of books may be obsolete in a few decades, people will still hunt for information, but through a different format. We realize that knowledge and information are power, and we want to cultivate our minds and interests to the best of our abilities. Librarians, myself included, will help people understand and obtain information they require in the future, no matter what the current and popular method may be.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Cookies or Career?
A few days ago, my friends and I talked about feminism, and I’m honestly not sure what the 21st century definition of it means. As we gathered around to talk about our career aspirations and goals after college, no one but me wanted to get married and have a family. When I spoke this fact, they were surprised that I would pick a family over a career. This got me thinking about the “F” word.
Back when feminism hit the big wave in the later part of the 20th century, it was girl power. Careers, no husbands, no shaving, burning bras. Activists wanted to get women out of the kitchen and into the work force. But, what if some women wanted to stay there because they enjoyed cooking or spending time with children?
Now, these radical feminist are trying to make decisions about what will make us happy. Isn’t that what the patriarchal society did to us before the wave? So, basically, we are shifting from one dictator to another.
Personally, I think women should have the right to choose what they want to do, whether it is a cook or a corporate executive. Each person knows what he or she is good at, so ideally that should be enough.
Some of my friends criticized me for wanting to have both a career and family, while others thought I would waste away my talent on a heinous husband. Why can’t I have both? I plan to have a career as a librarian and a family one day.
My career doesn’t define who I am; neither does the person I marry one day. I define me. Those other things are part of my life, but they aren’t my being.
So, the next time my friends decide to burn their bras defying The Man, I’m going to make chocolate-chip cookies for myself because they are delicious.
Back when feminism hit the big wave in the later part of the 20th century, it was girl power. Careers, no husbands, no shaving, burning bras. Activists wanted to get women out of the kitchen and into the work force. But, what if some women wanted to stay there because they enjoyed cooking or spending time with children?
Now, these radical feminist are trying to make decisions about what will make us happy. Isn’t that what the patriarchal society did to us before the wave? So, basically, we are shifting from one dictator to another.
Personally, I think women should have the right to choose what they want to do, whether it is a cook or a corporate executive. Each person knows what he or she is good at, so ideally that should be enough.
Some of my friends criticized me for wanting to have both a career and family, while others thought I would waste away my talent on a heinous husband. Why can’t I have both? I plan to have a career as a librarian and a family one day.
My career doesn’t define who I am; neither does the person I marry one day. I define me. Those other things are part of my life, but they aren’t my being.
So, the next time my friends decide to burn their bras defying The Man, I’m going to make chocolate-chip cookies for myself because they are delicious.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Ohhh, me so hungry
Santa Clara County officials are proposing a ban of eliminating Happy Meal toys with high-calorie children’s meals. Unless fast-food restaurants can provide health alternatives, children may not be receiving toys in their food bags.
To fight the obesity epidemic in the United States, Supervisor Ken Yeager supports this proposed action. He claims that banning promotional toys will keep obesity levels down among children. The proposal states that unhealthy food includes any meal that has more than 485 calories and more than 600 mg of salt, sugar or fat.
However, it is unsure if this ban will be helpful or not because children can receive unhealthy meals at places besides fast-food restaurants. Schools and the home are a few of the many places that supposedly add to childhood obesity.
But, instead of blaming fast-food restaurants and vending machines for making children overweight, why is there no blame administered on parents? All I see on the news is blame of corporations and companies, never the person ultimately responsible for what goes into a child’s mouth.
Parents take children to fast-food restaurants. Parents give children money for soda and candy in school vending machines. They are as much responsible as these companies for the obesity epidemic.
Fast-food restaurants offer an easy, quick meal for busy people. There is no prep time or clean-up needed. You sit, order, and eat. Parents may be too busy, or lazy, to prepare a healthy meal for themselves and children after work and school, so McDonald’s is on the menu one night and Taco Bell the next.
I understand this is a problem the country is facing, but fault lies with the individual, not the whole. People do know what is right and wrong, so they can tell the difference between healthy and unhealthy food.
They are too lazy to take time out of their schedules to do anything about it, though. But after a long day at work, is it worth the effort to cook a healthy meal? Maybe yes or no, depending on the person speaking.
Another reason contributing to the obesity epidemic is lack of exercise. Adults and children can spend hours watching television or sitting at a computer playing games. Many video games are a sit-down activity, and those are highly popular among children.
Again, these games are bought by parents or children. Again, the individual can be blamed for the fatness of America. It is up to the individual to take care of his or her problems. It’s a strict mindset, and it will be a tough one to get out of.
If America really wants to get out of this fat funk, maybe more programs and education about food needs to happen rather than banning toys in Happy Meals. Ultimately, if you want someone to do something, you can’t just say “No.” There has to be reasons and examples how to fix a problem. The average American is dumb; we literally need things to be outlined for us on a plate.
Still, I’m not sure how effective this proposed ban will be if it passes in Santa Clara. Maybe it’s crazy; maybe this proposal will have some positives in the future. But, if fatty wants a burger, nothing will stand in his way of oozing calories and salty heaven.
To fight the obesity epidemic in the United States, Supervisor Ken Yeager supports this proposed action. He claims that banning promotional toys will keep obesity levels down among children. The proposal states that unhealthy food includes any meal that has more than 485 calories and more than 600 mg of salt, sugar or fat.
However, it is unsure if this ban will be helpful or not because children can receive unhealthy meals at places besides fast-food restaurants. Schools and the home are a few of the many places that supposedly add to childhood obesity.
But, instead of blaming fast-food restaurants and vending machines for making children overweight, why is there no blame administered on parents? All I see on the news is blame of corporations and companies, never the person ultimately responsible for what goes into a child’s mouth.
Parents take children to fast-food restaurants. Parents give children money for soda and candy in school vending machines. They are as much responsible as these companies for the obesity epidemic.
Fast-food restaurants offer an easy, quick meal for busy people. There is no prep time or clean-up needed. You sit, order, and eat. Parents may be too busy, or lazy, to prepare a healthy meal for themselves and children after work and school, so McDonald’s is on the menu one night and Taco Bell the next.
I understand this is a problem the country is facing, but fault lies with the individual, not the whole. People do know what is right and wrong, so they can tell the difference between healthy and unhealthy food.
They are too lazy to take time out of their schedules to do anything about it, though. But after a long day at work, is it worth the effort to cook a healthy meal? Maybe yes or no, depending on the person speaking.
Another reason contributing to the obesity epidemic is lack of exercise. Adults and children can spend hours watching television or sitting at a computer playing games. Many video games are a sit-down activity, and those are highly popular among children.
Again, these games are bought by parents or children. Again, the individual can be blamed for the fatness of America. It is up to the individual to take care of his or her problems. It’s a strict mindset, and it will be a tough one to get out of.
If America really wants to get out of this fat funk, maybe more programs and education about food needs to happen rather than banning toys in Happy Meals. Ultimately, if you want someone to do something, you can’t just say “No.” There has to be reasons and examples how to fix a problem. The average American is dumb; we literally need things to be outlined for us on a plate.
Still, I’m not sure how effective this proposed ban will be if it passes in Santa Clara. Maybe it’s crazy; maybe this proposal will have some positives in the future. But, if fatty wants a burger, nothing will stand in his way of oozing calories and salty heaven.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Sick day? Nah, I have to go to work
According to a survey conducted by the Thomson Reuters’ health unit, nearly three-quarters of Americans will go to work even if they are sick. Though snot may be hanging out of the nose and coughing is more frequent than speaking, it’s a challenge the working American has to face.
The study shows people will not take off work because they do not want to lose that day’s wages. Also, a missed day at work means work will be double the next day back. Today, a measly $100 means a lot, and apparently it’s not worth it to miss a day of work.
Employers stress the importance of taking time off to recuperate from an illness, but rarely does that happen. If a sick person attends work, he or she increases the chance of infecting co-workers with that ailment and prolonging the illness.
I look at my office, and I can hear someone hacking away every few days. Noses are blown loudly, and the smell of sickness hovers in the air. People are constantly using hand sanitizers and spraying desks with Lysol to exterminate germs.
It’s hard to take a day off where I work. Because of the nature of my work, we need to meet certain goals every month for projects. If we even miss a day, it will double our workload the next. One day can throw off an entire month’s productivity; if we don’t meet our goals at the end of each month, we will be written up. After a certain number of write-ups, a person may lose his or her job.
So, is it worth it to suffer through the day and infect other co-workers than get fired? The answer is yes.
My company provides excellent sick time and benefits, but rarely do I hear or see a co-worker take advantage of this time.
For now, I’m going to keep using that Lysol in my area and maybe start wearing a protective mask to work.
The study shows people will not take off work because they do not want to lose that day’s wages. Also, a missed day at work means work will be double the next day back. Today, a measly $100 means a lot, and apparently it’s not worth it to miss a day of work.
Employers stress the importance of taking time off to recuperate from an illness, but rarely does that happen. If a sick person attends work, he or she increases the chance of infecting co-workers with that ailment and prolonging the illness.
I look at my office, and I can hear someone hacking away every few days. Noses are blown loudly, and the smell of sickness hovers in the air. People are constantly using hand sanitizers and spraying desks with Lysol to exterminate germs.
It’s hard to take a day off where I work. Because of the nature of my work, we need to meet certain goals every month for projects. If we even miss a day, it will double our workload the next. One day can throw off an entire month’s productivity; if we don’t meet our goals at the end of each month, we will be written up. After a certain number of write-ups, a person may lose his or her job.
So, is it worth it to suffer through the day and infect other co-workers than get fired? The answer is yes.
My company provides excellent sick time and benefits, but rarely do I hear or see a co-worker take advantage of this time.
For now, I’m going to keep using that Lysol in my area and maybe start wearing a protective mask to work.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
French President Proposes New Ban on Fashion
Currently, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is attempting to propose a law that would ban women from wearing Islamic veils and coverings in public.
In an NPR article, Sarkozy said clothing of this nature is demeaning toward women and unwanted in France. He also claims Muslim clothing “threatens the dignity of women.”
But when wearing this clothing is a part of a culture and a tradition, how can it be threatening, especially if it is by choice and free will? If this legislation is banned, it will be taking away free will for women who chose to wear the Islamic veils.
It is as if Sarkozy is no better than his ultra-conservative counterparts around the world, Like those extreme traditionalists, Sarkozy is attempting to tell women what they can and cannot wear. While he claims he is trying to preserve dignity, he is destroying it. Additionally, he has no evidence if this is demeaning or not because he is not a woman and he has not had the experience of wearing these clothes on a daily basis.
Women should have the right to choose what they wear in public, but even this will not be exercised in the 21st century when people like Sarkozy are making fashion choices for us. Besides, isn’t it a truth universally acknowledged that women have better fashion sense than men?
Also, France is predominately Catholic, so why not restrict what Catholics can wear? Some nuns wear the traditional habit; the only skin showing is the face. They wear coifs or veils that cover hair and part of the face. There has been no mention of nuns uncovering themselves in public, only those who wear the Islamic fashion.
Sarkozy is committing a heinous act of chauvinistic pigism. He is segregating Islamic women in France, wanting them to become more French by not wearing the coverings. Instead of promoting culture and peace, Sarkozy cares about the French national image rather than what the people have to offer.
Coming from a wealthy background and named one of Vanity Fair’s Best-Dressed list, it is apparent image is important to Sarkozy. However, the type of image vital to Sarkozy is coming off as superficial and arrogant.
Instead of censoring what women should wear in France, Sarkozy should focus on the image France is portraying; right now, it’s disrespectful and shallow. Those should not be the front-running qualities of a country as big as France.
With the financial crisis around the world and the never-ending threat of terrorism, Sarkozy should be focusing his effort and attention on matters more pressing than fashion choices.
By dictating what people are and are not allowed to wear is only the beginning of more demands. Though this type of action may not explode into a dictatorship, it’s a small step in that direction.
When Hitler began his expenditure to extinguish those of Jewish descent from Europe, he started small by forcing hem wear yellow stars on their clothing. This act took away free will and identity.
In other words, I think this proposed legislation is a cover-up for public image. Sarkozy doesn’t want France to be associated with ultra-conservative terrorist culture, but the thinking behind this idea is backward and medieval, as well.
Let’s just hope that the rest of the French government doesn’t worry about the latest Gucci clothing line or sparkling white teeth, but will focus on preserving free will and other central issues.
In an NPR article, Sarkozy said clothing of this nature is demeaning toward women and unwanted in France. He also claims Muslim clothing “threatens the dignity of women.”
But when wearing this clothing is a part of a culture and a tradition, how can it be threatening, especially if it is by choice and free will? If this legislation is banned, it will be taking away free will for women who chose to wear the Islamic veils.
It is as if Sarkozy is no better than his ultra-conservative counterparts around the world, Like those extreme traditionalists, Sarkozy is attempting to tell women what they can and cannot wear. While he claims he is trying to preserve dignity, he is destroying it. Additionally, he has no evidence if this is demeaning or not because he is not a woman and he has not had the experience of wearing these clothes on a daily basis.
Women should have the right to choose what they wear in public, but even this will not be exercised in the 21st century when people like Sarkozy are making fashion choices for us. Besides, isn’t it a truth universally acknowledged that women have better fashion sense than men?
Also, France is predominately Catholic, so why not restrict what Catholics can wear? Some nuns wear the traditional habit; the only skin showing is the face. They wear coifs or veils that cover hair and part of the face. There has been no mention of nuns uncovering themselves in public, only those who wear the Islamic fashion.
Sarkozy is committing a heinous act of chauvinistic pigism. He is segregating Islamic women in France, wanting them to become more French by not wearing the coverings. Instead of promoting culture and peace, Sarkozy cares about the French national image rather than what the people have to offer.
Coming from a wealthy background and named one of Vanity Fair’s Best-Dressed list, it is apparent image is important to Sarkozy. However, the type of image vital to Sarkozy is coming off as superficial and arrogant.
Instead of censoring what women should wear in France, Sarkozy should focus on the image France is portraying; right now, it’s disrespectful and shallow. Those should not be the front-running qualities of a country as big as France.
With the financial crisis around the world and the never-ending threat of terrorism, Sarkozy should be focusing his effort and attention on matters more pressing than fashion choices.
By dictating what people are and are not allowed to wear is only the beginning of more demands. Though this type of action may not explode into a dictatorship, it’s a small step in that direction.
When Hitler began his expenditure to extinguish those of Jewish descent from Europe, he started small by forcing hem wear yellow stars on their clothing. This act took away free will and identity.
In other words, I think this proposed legislation is a cover-up for public image. Sarkozy doesn’t want France to be associated with ultra-conservative terrorist culture, but the thinking behind this idea is backward and medieval, as well.
Let’s just hope that the rest of the French government doesn’t worry about the latest Gucci clothing line or sparkling white teeth, but will focus on preserving free will and other central issues.
Hello Lawnchair, Goodbye Blood, Sweat & Tears
America is trillions of dollars in debt. Hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed. There are increased taxes on the smallest items like soft drinks and cigarettes.
These are only some of the many problems facing the average American today. Hope is scarce for a better tomorrow, but Americans have no problem blaming the government for the current economic struggle today.
True, the American government overspends and money should be utilized at home in cities and towns, not abroad. But, when push comes to shove, are Americans blaming the government for lack of money and jobs instead of themselves because that is the easy way out? By George, I think he’s got it.
The government is like a parent to its citizens, but there comes a time when the baby has to leave the nest. America has finally let the flocks fly from the coop, but the flocks are not taking responsibility for themselves, therefore crashing and burning.
Americans have the resources to better conditions and lifestyles. We have a free public education. However, dropout rates are high. It is almost impossible to find a job without a high-school diploma or GED. The fact is that people are too lazy and stubborn to continue their education.
Instead of trying to better themselves, people will hold signs on street corners hoping a Good Samaritan will lend out food or money. This is not an acceptable use of time, and it’s pure laziness. That time could be spent looking for jobs or opportunities to finish an education.
We blame the government for overspending, but have we examined our own pocketbooks recently? Americans overspend like the government does, but on a much smaller scale.
Let’s face it: Americans are materialistic. We need to have the latest technology, the designer labels and expensive vacations.
I’ve heard people complain they can barely pay rent, but what else is the paycheck going for? Cell-phone plans, iPods and cigarettes are not necessities in life, but people will spend money on these items instead of bills and rent. How is that responsible?
To not be in debt, Americans should curb their costs and budget like there is no tomorrow. A vacation to Cancun may have to wait a year or the new text-messaging plan may have to be cancelled for a few months.
America is in so much debt because Americans spend so much money and live on credit. Simplicity and the essentials have long been obsolete to the American mind. We should focus on the things we need, not the things we want.
Also, we blame the government because we are selfish. It makes so many mistakes, what is one more added to the list? The government acts as our scapegoat, when in fact we should take responsibility for ourselves. Blaming a third party is immature and irresponsible.
I remember hearing stories of hard-working immigrants coming through Ellis Island in high school. These people came to America hoping for a better life than the one they left in the old country. They were not afraid to work hard, and they had the dream of a better tomorrow.
But whatever happened to the American dream? Immigrants dreamed American streets were paved in gold and a poor man could become rich. Not all people who came to America succeeded, but there were thousands who worked hard and flourished, creating better lives for them and their families.
They took advantage of education and job opportunities. They saved money for a new house or for their families. Poor men and women became millionaires.
Maybe it’s time Americans get this kind of work ethic back. It’s in our blood from our ancestors from hundreds or dozens of years ago. We need something to wake up this potential that runs in our veins. Or, maybe we are ignoring the call for greatness because we are fat and lazy.
The struggling economy is not going to go away overnight. It’s going to take years and years for things to be right again; even that hope is a far cry out into the wild. It is up to each person to take responsibility for his or her actions and work hard. Maybe then, we can have a happier America.
These are only some of the many problems facing the average American today. Hope is scarce for a better tomorrow, but Americans have no problem blaming the government for the current economic struggle today.
True, the American government overspends and money should be utilized at home in cities and towns, not abroad. But, when push comes to shove, are Americans blaming the government for lack of money and jobs instead of themselves because that is the easy way out? By George, I think he’s got it.
The government is like a parent to its citizens, but there comes a time when the baby has to leave the nest. America has finally let the flocks fly from the coop, but the flocks are not taking responsibility for themselves, therefore crashing and burning.
Americans have the resources to better conditions and lifestyles. We have a free public education. However, dropout rates are high. It is almost impossible to find a job without a high-school diploma or GED. The fact is that people are too lazy and stubborn to continue their education.
Instead of trying to better themselves, people will hold signs on street corners hoping a Good Samaritan will lend out food or money. This is not an acceptable use of time, and it’s pure laziness. That time could be spent looking for jobs or opportunities to finish an education.
We blame the government for overspending, but have we examined our own pocketbooks recently? Americans overspend like the government does, but on a much smaller scale.
Let’s face it: Americans are materialistic. We need to have the latest technology, the designer labels and expensive vacations.
I’ve heard people complain they can barely pay rent, but what else is the paycheck going for? Cell-phone plans, iPods and cigarettes are not necessities in life, but people will spend money on these items instead of bills and rent. How is that responsible?
To not be in debt, Americans should curb their costs and budget like there is no tomorrow. A vacation to Cancun may have to wait a year or the new text-messaging plan may have to be cancelled for a few months.
America is in so much debt because Americans spend so much money and live on credit. Simplicity and the essentials have long been obsolete to the American mind. We should focus on the things we need, not the things we want.
Also, we blame the government because we are selfish. It makes so many mistakes, what is one more added to the list? The government acts as our scapegoat, when in fact we should take responsibility for ourselves. Blaming a third party is immature and irresponsible.
I remember hearing stories of hard-working immigrants coming through Ellis Island in high school. These people came to America hoping for a better life than the one they left in the old country. They were not afraid to work hard, and they had the dream of a better tomorrow.
But whatever happened to the American dream? Immigrants dreamed American streets were paved in gold and a poor man could become rich. Not all people who came to America succeeded, but there were thousands who worked hard and flourished, creating better lives for them and their families.
They took advantage of education and job opportunities. They saved money for a new house or for their families. Poor men and women became millionaires.
Maybe it’s time Americans get this kind of work ethic back. It’s in our blood from our ancestors from hundreds or dozens of years ago. We need something to wake up this potential that runs in our veins. Or, maybe we are ignoring the call for greatness because we are fat and lazy.
The struggling economy is not going to go away overnight. It’s going to take years and years for things to be right again; even that hope is a far cry out into the wild. It is up to each person to take responsibility for his or her actions and work hard. Maybe then, we can have a happier America.
When I grow up I wanna be famous, be on TV
“What do you want to do with your life?”
Well, I’m finally able to ask the what-do-you-want-to-do-with-your-life question I am asked at every family function. Now, I can answer this question to strangers and friends without hesitation or awkwardness.
I want to be a librarian. I’m planning to receive my Master’s in this at Syracuse.
However, this new-found statement brings another series of questions people ask. “Why would you want to be a librarian,” “You don’t look like a librarian,” “You have to go to school for that” or “Don’t you mean high-school librarian?”
These are only a few of the many questions I’ve received in the past few months, but before I knew more about the program at Syracuse or the profession in general, I had the same stereotypes fixed in my head as my questioners. After doing some research, I realized how wrong and ignorant I was.
People ask me why I want to go in this profession. I really can’t give a good answer because it feels right. It’s hard to describe a feeling.
As a child, I loved books. Some of my favorite memories would be the weekly trip to the library, rummaging through the shelves, seeing what books I would take home with me.
In middle school, I was the librarian’s teachers pet. She would always save the new release, giving me a change to read them before the other students even looked at them. Because of her, my love for stories and books grew.
In college, I majored in English, again cultivating my interest in books. Then I thought I would want to go into publishing or the library world. And it looks like I’m going to.
I want to work in a library more for the love of reading. It’s for the books themselves. You may discover a lone book among the shelves, covered in dust, waiting for someone to check it out. I want to be able to provide people with resources for research or the love of learning.
I’m not really sure what to expect from this journey or what graduate school will entail; everything is so new to me, but my experience so far has been enlightening, making me eager to find out more about this profession and what it can offer me.
Well, I’m finally able to ask the what-do-you-want-to-do-with-your-life question I am asked at every family function. Now, I can answer this question to strangers and friends without hesitation or awkwardness.
I want to be a librarian. I’m planning to receive my Master’s in this at Syracuse.
However, this new-found statement brings another series of questions people ask. “Why would you want to be a librarian,” “You don’t look like a librarian,” “You have to go to school for that” or “Don’t you mean high-school librarian?”
These are only a few of the many questions I’ve received in the past few months, but before I knew more about the program at Syracuse or the profession in general, I had the same stereotypes fixed in my head as my questioners. After doing some research, I realized how wrong and ignorant I was.
People ask me why I want to go in this profession. I really can’t give a good answer because it feels right. It’s hard to describe a feeling.
As a child, I loved books. Some of my favorite memories would be the weekly trip to the library, rummaging through the shelves, seeing what books I would take home with me.
In middle school, I was the librarian’s teachers pet. She would always save the new release, giving me a change to read them before the other students even looked at them. Because of her, my love for stories and books grew.
In college, I majored in English, again cultivating my interest in books. Then I thought I would want to go into publishing or the library world. And it looks like I’m going to.
I want to work in a library more for the love of reading. It’s for the books themselves. You may discover a lone book among the shelves, covered in dust, waiting for someone to check it out. I want to be able to provide people with resources for research or the love of learning.
I’m not really sure what to expect from this journey or what graduate school will entail; everything is so new to me, but my experience so far has been enlightening, making me eager to find out more about this profession and what it can offer me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)