Most American students go to traditional public schools. There are about 88, 000 public schools all over the US. Some students attend charter schools.

    Charter schools are self­ governing. Certain companies operate some charter schools. They are similar in some ways to traditional public schools. They receive tax money just as other public schools do. Charter schools must prove to local or state governments that their students are learning. These governments provide the schools with the agreement called a charter that permits them to operate.

    Charter schools are different because they do not have to obey most laws that govern traditional public schools. Each school can choose its own goals and decide what to teach and how to teach them in their own way. Class size is usually smaller than in traditional public schools.

    The government strongly supports charter schools as a way to re­organize public schools, which are failing to educate students. But some education unions are against charter schools. One teachers' union has just released the results of the first national study, which compared the progress of students in both traditional schools and charter schools.

    The results of the study show that charter school students performed worse on math and reading tests than the students in traditional public schools.

    Some experts say the study is not fair because students in charter schools have more problems than students in traditional schools. Other education experts say the study results would make charter school officials realize that they should help their students make greater progress .

    Growing up in one of the poorest communities with most crimes in Los Angeles, US, being raised by a poorly-educated single mother and attending the worst-quality public school, not many people expected much of me, so I chose to expect something of myself.

    On my 12th birthday, I bought a poster of Harvard University to hang in my room. Being at Harvard became my dream: I saw myself attending class in Sanders Theater, studying in Widener Library and eating in Annenberg Hall. Driven by this dream, I kept studying hard. I'd begin my day by asking myself these two questions: “What do I want in my life?” and “Are the things I am doing today going to get me closer to that life?”

    Asking myself the questions gave me the courage to ask over 50 Harvard, students for advice on my application essays; it gave me the energy to study just one more hour on my SATs when others were asleep; and it gave me the determination to apply for just one more scholarship when already refused many times. Moreover, reminding myself of my goal each day made it easy to say no to the same choices my friends made, because they would never get me closer to my goal. I found that even being poor could not take away my power to decide what I choose to do with my life.

    Every day I could feel myself getting closer and closer to my goal as my writing got better, my SAT score increased, and my scholarship offers started coming in. On March 31st, 2011, an email arrived from Harvard. The first word was “Congratulations!”. Tears of joy filled my eyes.

    Who you are today is the result of the decisions you made yesterday, and who you will be tomorrow will be the result of the choices you make today. Who do you want to be tomorrow?

    Every day, we are inching closer to some kind of artificial intelligence. Advances in big data, machine learning and robotics are going to give us a world where computers are effectively intelligent in terms of how we deal with them. Should you be scared by this? Absolutely, but not in the usual “robot overlords” (机器人帝国) kind of way. Instead, the real fear should be about getting human beings wrong, not getting AI right.

    The key to the technology is the ability of computers to recognize human emotions based on the ‘‘activation” of muscles in the face. A computer can identify the positions of facial muscles and use them to infer the emotional state of its user. Then the machine responds in ways that take that emotional state into account.

    One potential application of it is to provide “emotional robots” for the elderly. Having a machine that could speak in a kind way would comfort a lonely older person. That is a good thing, right? But that won't also relieve us from questioning how we ended up in a society that takes care of the elderly because we don't know what else to do with them? Can't we have more humane solutions than robots?

    “Emotion data” aren't the same thing as the real and vivid emotional experiences we human beings have. Our emotions are more than our faces or voices. How can they be pulled out like a thread, one by one, from the fabric of our being?

    Research programs can come with much philosophical concern, too. From the computers' point of view, what the computing technology captures are emotions, but at its root is a reduction of human experience whose outward expressions can be captured algorithmically (计算上). As the technology is used in the world, it can reframe the world in ways that can be hard to escape from.

    The technology will clearly have useful applications, but once it treats emotions as data, we may find that it is the only aspect of emotion we come to recognize or value. Once billions of dollars floods into this field, we will find ourselves trapped in a technology that is reducing our lives. Even worse, our “emotion data” will be used against us to make money for someone else. And that is what scares me about AI.

    What happens inside the head of a soccer player who repeatedly heads a soccer ball. That question motivated a study of the brains of experienced players.

    Researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York selected 34 adults, men and women. All of the volunteers had played soccer since childhood and  now competed year﹣round in adult soccer leagues. Each filled out a detailed questionnaire developed especially for this study to determine how many times they had headed a soccer ball in the previous year, as well as whether they had experienced any known concussions in the past.

    Then the players completed computerized tests of their memory and other learning skills and had their brains scanned. using a complex new M.R.I. technique which can find structural changes in the brain that can't be seen during most scans.

    According to the data they presented, the researchers found that the  players who had headed the ball more than about 1, 100 times in the previous 12 months showed significant loss of white matter in parts of their brains involved with memory, attention and the processing of visual information, compared with players who had headed the ball less.

    This pattern of white matter loss is "similar to those seen in traumatic brain injury", like that after a serious concussion, the researchers reported, even though only one of these players was reported to have ever experienced a concussion.

    The players who had headed the ball about 1, 100 times or more in the past year were also generally worse at remembering lists of words read to them, forgetting the words far more often than players who had headed the ball less.

    I live in Mumbai, India, a big city, but I came from a remote Kerala village. When I was a boy, hardly anyone spoke English around me. So, at age nine, Dad sent me to Montfort, an exclusive boarding school. There, I had to speak English or be punished. My uniform was typical English public school: grey jacket，tie，and black leather shoes-so different from the clothes most people in my village wore. And our official school sport was cricket, something I'd never heard of, let alone played, before arriving.

    Montfort had been built for the children of the British officials who once ruled India, but by the time I arrived in 1961, nearly all the students were from powerful Indian families. Its English traditions, however, continued.

    When I returned home for the holidays still wearing my uniform, people stared at me like I was an alien. "Speak some English," they teased. Looking back, I unwittingly brought a bit of English culture to my village.

    But English and too much Western influence are precisely what many traditionalists and politicians fear. They ask: Will such influences finish off our own culture?

    Various leaders have tried to erase the British traditions, pulling down old British statues and replacing many British-rule city names with older native names. Some even suggest changing our weekly day of rest from the "Western" Sunday to the "Hindu" Tuesday.

    Extreme responses I say. You can't change history, and it's only natural for foreign influences to affect a nation's culture. So Indian culture, as it is today, is really a mixture derived from centuries of foreign invasions.

    Add to that the massive changes of the 20th century resulting from the television, jet-age travel, the Internet, etc.

    Everything from clothes and language to food keeps changing, yet we remain Indian. I believe that Asian cultures are too ancient and deep-rooted to be weakened by foreign influences.

    Allow me to illustrate my point. Some time ago, I took my visiting Singapore-born-and-raised cousin to a Chinese restaurant for dinner. Later, while driving home，I talked about the fine Chinese food we'd just had.

    "Was that Chinese food?" my cousin exclaimed. "Oh, I didn't know." It must have tasted too Indian for him to realize it.

    Meanwhile, like countless others, my village has transformed over the past decades. Many people wear modern clothes and TV brings cricket into local homes. There's even an English- language school, where you can hear kids giggling, yelling, flirting-all in English, but with an Indian accent. Just like the Chinese food you get in India.

    Are these foreign influences something to worry about? I don't think so. India's Chinese food tastes pretty good to me!

    When "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" was first shown to the public last month, a group of excited animal activists gathered on Hollywood Boulevard. But they weren't there to throw red paint on fur-coat-wearing film stars. Instead, one activist, dressed in a full-body monkey suit, had arrived with a sign praising the filmmakers: "Thanks for not using real apes (猿)!"

    The creative team behind "Apes" used motion-capture (动作捕捉) technology to create digitalized animals, spending tens of millions of dollars on technology that I records an actor's performance and later processes it with computer graphics to create a final image (图像). In this case, one of a realistic-looking ape.

    Yet "Apes" is more exception than the rule. In fact, Hollywood has been hot on live animals lately. One nonprofit organization, which monitors the treatment or animals in filmed entertainment, is keeping tabs on more than 2,000 productions this year. Already, a number of films, including "Water for Elephants," "The Hangover Part Ⅱ" and "Zookeeper," have drawn the anger of activists who say the creatures acting in them haven't been treated properly.

    In some cases, it's not so much the treatment of the animals on set in the studio that has activists worried; it's the off-set training and living conditions that are raising concerns. And there are questions about the films made outside the States, which sometimes are not monitored as closely as productions filmed in the Sates.