🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
6
answers
0
watching
874
views
6 Jan 2018

1.Mainstream American culture is largely based on the traditions of another culture. Which culture? Why? What are some elements of our culture that provide evidence of this influence?

2. Describe the role of ethnomusicologists.

3. In your opinion, why is it important to study the music of various cultures?

4. How are music labels helpful? How are they a hindrance?

5. Name at least 10 careers in the music industry. Which one is most appealing to you? Why?

Watch
6
answers
0
watching
874
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Deanna Hettinger
Deanna HettingerLv2
9 Jan 2018
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

Write a summary of of this article below. You should write at least one paragraph.

ABSTRACT
Feminist theories in sociology reflect the rich diversity of general theoretical
orientations in our discipline; there is no one form of feminist theory. The development
of these theories over the last 25 years has only recently begun to
influence the mainstream theory canon, which has much to learn from their insights.
This chapter demonstrates why feminist versions of the following theory
types should be more fully integrated into mainstream sociological theory:
neo-Marxist, macro-structural, exchange, rational choice, network, status expectations,
symbolic interactionist, ethnomethodological, neo-Freudian, and social
role. Feminist standpoint theory, an epistemological critique of mainstream sociology,
is discussed at the beginning, and the chapter concludes with a brief
account of the newly developing effort to theorize the intersection of race, class,
and gender.
INTRODUCTION
The term “feminist theory” is used to refer to a myriad of kinds of works, produced
by movement activists and scholars in a variety of disciplines; these are
not mutually exclusive and include: (a) normative discussions of how societies
and relationships ought to be structured, their current inequities, and strategies to
achieve equity; (b) critiques of androcentric classical theories, concepts, epistemologies,
and assumptions; (c) epistemological discussions of what constitute
appropriate forms, subject matters, and techniques of theorizing from a feminist
perspective; and (d ) explanatory theories of the relationship between gender and

various social, cultural, economic, psychological, and political structures and
processes. Much of this work is explicitly interdisciplinary in inspiration and
intended audience. To complicate matters further, there is no consensus on the
exact meaning of the word “feminist,” which makes it difficult to distinguish
with precision between theoretical material that pertains to gender (e.g. Parsons
1949, 1955, which no one would label feminist) and gender-related theory that
is specifically “feminist.” Finally, there is little consensus among feminist sociologists
about the basic theoretical questions that require an answer, resulting
in the proliferation of theories at a low level of abstraction that explain specific
phenomena (e.g. pay inequity), in addition to more abstract, general works.
To remain within the limits of one chapter, I confine this review in several
ways, beginning by excluding feminist theory that has not been produced or used
extensively by sociologists. While feminist theory is often defined as “womencentered”
(e.g. Lengermann & Niebrugge 1996:436; Smith 1979, 1987; Alway
1995), I use a definition that focuses more broadly on gender, yet maintains the
normative emphasis implied by all definitions of the term feminist, which thus
enables one to distinguish feminist from other gender-relevant theory.

Some feminists focus on those contemporary theories and texts that ignore
the contributions of feminist theories and the topic of gender and conclude that
feminist contributions remain largely ghettoized within our discipline (e.g.Ward
& Grant 1991, Alway 1995). My view is that, while progress has been made
in integrating feminist concerns and insights into the discipline’s theoretical
discourse, much work remains to be done. This chapter demonstrates the
abundance and variety of feminist theoretical insights that can and already have
to some extent contributed to a more robust theoretical understanding of social
life, one which reflects the centrality of gender in virtually all sociocultural
contexts. It also demonstrates that feminist theories emanate from, critique, and
revise the rich array of theoretical traditions that define our discipline. Space
limitations preclude much discussion of precisely how feminist theories can be
better integrated with mainstream ones. Rather, I focus attention primarily on
reviewing the central insights of feminist theories in order to better inform those
sociologists who may be unfamiliar with much of this body of work about the
rich array of theoretical ideas that are at their disposal.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES
Much of the literature that is labeled “feminist theory” consists of epistemology
and epistemological critiques of “malestream” sociology. Its foundations reflect
several nonfeminist traditions, especially Marx’s and Mannheim’s discussions
of ideology, Foucault’s work on knowledge and power, and phenomenological
and ethnomethodological approaches, the exact mix of influences varying by
author. While this work makes important contributions to these traditions, for
two reasons I believe that it is a misnomer to call thiswork feminist epistemology
(or theory). First, the issues raised are not in any fundamental way different
from those raised by many scholars who haveworked in these traditions but have
not been interested specifically in women or committed to feminism. Feminists
extend their insights in important ways, but this does not constitute a uniquely feminist approach to sociology. Second, many women in sociology, whose
scholarship they and others consider as well within the feminist tradition, do
not agree with this perspective.
Feminist scholars in a number of disciplines critique what they define as
mainstream, “masculinist,” “objectivist,” and “positivist” social science, and
develop a “feminist” alternative called standpoint theory. In sociology, the
two most widely cited are Dorothy Smith (especially 1987, 1990, also 1979,
1989) and Patricia Hill Collins (especially 1990, also 1986, 1989), whose basic
ideas constitute the focus of this section (see also Harding 1986, 1991). Where
Smith focuses on developing a “woman’s standpoint,” Collins’ work is directed
at an Afrocentric feminist standpoint epistemology. The Issue of Essentialism
Feminist standpoint theory, which is highly attuned to reification committed by
mainstream sociologists, cannot avoid reifying the genders. While Smith and
Collins explicitly recognize considerable variation among women (and presumably
men) in their experiences and consciousness, their own logics, and
many times wording, make it clear that they assume that there are overarching,
gender-specific standpoints; they could not otherwise talk about a “masculine”
form of discourse. In addition, Collins explicitly cites such feminist theorists
as Gilligan (1982) and Chodorow (1978, also 1974), who argue that the
genders are fundamentally different in their moral reasoning and capacities
for/commitments to interpersonal relationships.
Positing dichotomous gender differences that are treated as transcultural and
transhistorical is termed “essentialism,” a view that has substantial currency
among feminists in a variety of disciplines but is hotly contested in our own
(e.g. Lorber et al 1981, Coser 1989, Epstein 1988). The empirical evidence for
it is flawed, often based on small, nonrandom, American samples, and typically
finds only modest differences, along with extensive overlap, between the sexes.
Essentialist thinking converts differences of degree into differences of kind. The
presumed but often unstated origin of essential differences includes psychodynamics
rooted in the parental division of labor (Chodorow 1978) and biological
sex (Rossi 1977, 1984). It has become common for feminist scholars to recognize
within-gender categorical differences (e.g. race, class), but this awareness
of difference has often failed to preclude essentialist thinking about basic personality
and value orientations (e.g. the assumption that, regardless of other
differences, women are nurturant and oriented toward personal relationships,
while men are individuating and oriented toward abstract moral principles).
Given that the evidence suggests modest between-sex and considerable withinsex
differences on virtually all individual-level traits, a dichotomous gender
variable is theoretically useless when speaking of individual-level phenomena.
Explanations that begin by categorically attributing different characteristics
to women and men—cognitive, emotional, relational, and/or behavioral—not
only exaggerate differences in the distribution of such traits by gender, they also
implicitly treat these variables as dichotomous rather than continuous.

The purpose behind much of advertising is to influence each of the five Consumer Decision Making process (Problem Recognition, Information Search, Evaluation of Alternatives, Product Choice (i.e. Purchase) and Outcomes (i.e. Postpurchase). Each stage of the Consumer Decision Making process has techniques that help consumers to manage the stage and then move onto the next one successfully. Eventually, the consumer moves to purchase (where we get excited to make the sale) but don't underestimate how important the last stage (post purchase) is to making additional sales in the future. Below are guidelines that show basic techiniques used to target and manipulate each Consumer Decision Stage through advertising.

Below are some issues that you will want to consider as you evaluate each of the five chosen advertisements. Please remember that your goal is not simply to answer these questions, but to provide insights into the consumer’s decision making process that you feel would be useful to a marketing manager (e.g., if an ad triggered the consumer’s decision to purchase the product). Other areas to comment on would be level of involvement, etc.

Consumer Decision Making Stage:

Considerations for Stage:

Common Ad Techniques:

Problem Recognition

What problems does this product solve for the consumer? • What triggered the decision to purchase this product? • Was this the first time the consumer purchased such a product?

Define and discern the Actual and Desired States

Ask a question (What’s for dinner tonight?)

Show before (actual state) and after (desired state)

Use the word “new” or “introducing” to initiate curiosity.

Information Search

• Did the consumer seek information about the product and about various brands? How was this information collected, and how much information was collected? • Was the consumer searching for any advertisements for the product? What was the consumer’s reaction to these advertisements?

Match amount of information with type of product.

Direct consumers to website, free kit or other information venues.

Show role models that “look” like the target market.

Show the entire line of product offerings (all the flavors and colors, etc.)

Testimonials, etc.

Evaluation of Alternatives

• How many alternatives were considered? How were they selected?• What features and characteristics of the product were most important to the consumer? Salient and Determinant defined attributes.
• How important was the brand of the product to the consumer?

Featuring specific variables that the product is known for (ex. Volvo=Safety). This is known as “positioning” a product.

Competitive method (brand compares themselves to “leading brand or category”)

Comparative method (brand compares themselves to another brand by name (Coke vs. Pepsi)

Product Choice

• Did any other people play a role in the decision process? Describe theroles that each person played.
• How was the final choice determined? How carefully was the decision made?
• Where did the consumer make the purchase? Why? • Did the consumer pay full price for the product?

Tell consumers where and how the product is sold.

Offer many ways to pay for the product.

Divide payments.

Offer sales promotion (coupons, rebates)

Post-Purchase Evaluation

• How is the product used and consumed? How does the consumer feel when he or she uses the product?
• What is the meaning of this product to the consumer?

Does it merely
serve a function for the consumer, or does it say something about who the consumer is?

Does the Ad encourage repeat purchase or loyalty to the brand- how?

Show awards the brand has won.

Show how a brand should be consumed.

Allow consumers many ways to return the product.

Allow consumers to easily provide feedback.

Reward consumers loyalty

This assignment asks you to find one ad that addresses each of the needs of the five stages (in other words five different ads). This means that there must be five different ads for the total project, one for each stage (all ads are different from one another). Create a Power Point Presentation that shows how the advertiser is addressing the needs of the consumer for the specific Consumer Decision Making stage.

*Be aware that there is a helpful power point demonstration in a conference opened this week marked as "Advertising and the Consumer Decision Process (Ad Examples)". This is informative only and does not need to be commented on.

First, show the ad in a slide and then follow-up with a slide which explains (bullet form) why the ad slide targets the Consumer Decision Making process stage. ALL ADS MUST BE STILL ADS (NO VIDEOS or LINKS). Therefore the ad MUST be able to be copied and pasted within the power point slide (NO LINKS). Here is the format of the presentation:

Slide 1: Name, date

Slide 2: Problem Recognition Ad

Slide 3: Explanation why it addresses this stage

Slide 4: Information Search Ad

Slide 5: Explanation why it addresses this stage

Slide 6: Evaluation of Alternatives Ad

Slide 7: Explanation why it addresses this stage

Slide 8: Product Choice (Purchase) Ad

Slide 9: Explanation why it addresses this stage

Slide 10: Outcomes (Postpurchase) Ad

Slide 11: Explanation why it addresses this stage

Slide 12: Conclusion

In the conclusion of the slide presentation choose which ad is most effective (overall) and why.

Logistics Run Down:

-No more than 18 slides in length (includes cover page and bibliography)

-Include a cover page and bibliography of sources. Outside sources (esp. learning resources from weeks covered) are encouraged to be cited and used.

-Organize and utilize the headings given above.

-No more than 2 grammatical/spelling errors are allowed (please proof before submitting).

-Text is required to be in Times Roman, 12 pt font, double space the text.

- Keep voice in business third person. Do not include visuals in text analysis, if need to add create an appendix and refer your reader to such.

The opportunity cost of going to college is almost never discussed, yet it is quite high, so high that it is seriously impacting the broader American economy. For non-economists, “opportunity cost” is one of the most important concepts in economics. Because of scarcity we only have limited resources, and when we use those resources to do something like go to college, we cannot use them for other things that we also believe are desirable.

By far the most important resource we use in producing goods and services is labor or “human capital.” Based on what we pay owners of resources, we can say that roughly two-thirds of all production of goods and services is attributable to direct human effort – work. When kids go to college, they forego entering the labor force in a major, full-time manner. When six or seven percent of the entire American population is in college, that means a significant reduction in work effort occurs because otherwise highly productive persons in the physical prime of their lives are only lightly utilized in making things or providing services.

Today, only slightly over 59 of every 100 Americans of working age actually work, down from almost 66 in 2000. If we had the employment-population ratio of 15 years ago, we would have at least 16 million more working Americans today – an increase of over 10 percent. Our output would be probably the better part of a trillion dollars higher. The push for “college for all” is one reason we have less work effort today (to be sure, the modern welfare state has also lowered work incentives a lot for other reasons).

The college for all crowd says higher education augments one’s human capital, and we forego output today from working to bolster output tomorrow from more productive workers. And, no doubt, that is sometimes true. We have many productive engineers and accountants who gained important skills in college, for example. But is that necessarily true of all college graduates, particularly when Arum and Roksa tell us that graduating college seniors typically have only marginally better critical reasoning skills that freshman? And when over 40 percent of those entering four year colleges fail to graduate in six years? What if millions of those who do graduate take jobs similar to those without that college education? What if the debt incurred to pay for the college leads many to delay marrying, delay buying houses? There is evidence that to some extent the push for college has led to all of these unintended consequences.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has published great work showing that there is a very severe underemployment problem amongst college graduates, and other equally good research demonstrating what many of us have been saying for years: the student financial aid programs such as subsidized student loans, have pushed up the cost of college. Now a sister Federal Reserve Bank, namely Philadelphia, is jumping into the act.

The Philly Fed in a new study shows that high student loan debt is preventing young potential entrepreneurs from starting new businesses – they cannot afford the necessary debt. Opportunity cost again: if I borrow a lot to go to college, I cannot afford to borrow to start a business.

Enrollment in all forms of higher education today are up roughly 50 percent or seven million from what they were in 1990. What if enrollments had only risen proportionate to population growth – we would have three or four million fewer enrolled in college today. Would our nation be better or worse off? No one knows for sure, but the continued rise in the proportion of Americans with a college education has been accompanied by a sharp reduction in the rate of economic growth. I bet we would have fewer underemployed recent graduates. I bet we would have less than 17 percent delinquency rates on college loans, and far less than a trillion dollars in loan debt. I bet we would have a higher rate of labor force involvement and entrepreneurial activity among the young. And I bet we would be spending tens of billions less on higher education, and at least a little bit more on capital goods investment, highway construction, et cetera. In short, I suspect we would have been better off as a nation.

Richard Vedder directs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, teaches at Ohio University, and is an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Question :

This is a short article discussing the concept of opportunity cost and college. Provide your views on this topic.Do you agree/disagree with the article? Why? What are your thoughts on the current employment landscape of college graduates? Provide any insight on this topic on a specific industry, your own experience, or the experiences of people that you know who have already graduated.

Related Documents

ECO105Y1
Final Exam
Study Guide
ECO105Y1- Final Exam Guide - Comprehensive Notes for the exam ( 139 pages long!)
taupegoldfish356
ECO101H1
Final Exam
Study Guide
ECO101H1- Final Exam Guide - Comprehensive Notes for the exam ( 27 pages long!)
pinkgrasshopper49
ECO349H1
Final Exam
Study Guide
ECO349H1- Final Exam Guide - Comprehensive Notes for the exam ( 22 pages long!)
olivewolf184

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in