Their romance fluorished // is closest in meaning with...

they started to deepen their relationship

their love story didn't succeed

they needed fluor in their romance

Don't dare acclimatise any soon //is closest in meaning with...

you should adapt to the weather

you should get used to the climmate

She lingered before my eyes // is closest in meaning with...

she changed and I couldn't do a thing

Confidence test | Quizalize

Lack of self-confidence test

Mission To prepare our students for a lifetime of endless potential. We accomplish this by: Preparing students for university transfer through academically rigorous programs grounded in the liberal arts tradition of William & Mary Expanding access to college credentials through strategic partnerships, specialized programming, and scalable innovation. Values A Friendly Family Atmosphere It is a constant theme that emanated from faculty, staff, and students. It is the comfort, the warmth, the family feeling that permeates the campus. An expansive atmosphere of support that allows all members of the college to uncover and act on their inherent potential. The atmosphere is valued, and it is embedded at the very core of the college. Enthusiastic Student Focused Service Ask any faculty of staff member at RBC why they come to work on any given day, and a single answer will resound: STUDENTS. We value that our mission centers on the success of our student body, and we endeavor to provide service of the highest quality to support their journey to success. Processes and proceeded are built, assessed, and improved in the name of the student, and we agree that nurturing that potential is our sole purpose. The Power of Difference Difference comes in many forms: the diversity of our campus population; the myriad ways that problems can be solved and risks mitigated; the various methods in which students learn and can be supported; the entrepreneurial spirit and nimbleness of faculty and staff. RBC continually stives to build an inclusive and welcoming community of individuals with diverse talents and skills from multitude of backgrounds who are committed to civility, mutual respect, and the free and open exchange of ideas. We value these differences because each new exchange expands out collective breadth of experience and knowledge and makes us stronger and better than we were. Building Confidence The dramatic transformation that occurs in students between Welcome Week and Commencement is incremental but astounding. Students move from the general idea of college education to fully formulated plans that include academic majors, professional goals, and transfer programs that strategically align their skills and dreams. Faculty and staff grow personally and professionally, and they hit stride on their career goals as they interact and engage with the campus. We value that RBC is a place where every individual can assist another human being in reaching the next stage of their life and career with newly discovered confidence or cultivate their own individual potential and fortitude. Quality Outcomes In the end the result matter and the faculty, staff and students of RBC value that we do our best to be the best. Through rigorous processes of assessment and adjustment, strategic change is continuously pursued to ensure that every outcome is of the highest quality, and that every initiative uses the efforts and resources of the College responsibly and efficiently. Vision As an extension of William & Mary, Richard Bland College is in the vanguard of learning-outcomes based liberal arts education for university transfer and a model for testing and applying outcomes-driven solutions in higher education.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

THE STRATEGIC PLAN OF RICHARD BLAND COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY 2020-2025 “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.” – Abraham Lincoln What is the role of a selective, two-year, residential, liberal arts transfer institution within the higher education landscape of the Commonwealth of Virginia? This is a key question that must be answered to ensure the success of Richard Bland College (RBC) and the constituency that the College serves. The 2020 RBC strategic plan’s primary objective is to answer that very question so that the College, the community and the Commonwealth can engage successfully within this identity and purpose to the benefit of all. RBC has long been identified as the hidden gem of higher education in Virginia. The hidden adjective is based both on its relative obscurity—few are aware of RBC outside the Tri-Cities region—and its rural setting featuring 750+ acres of wetlands, bucolic forest, and the state’s oldest and largest pecan grove. Additionally, on average, a student of Richard Bland College travels a mere 36 miles to campus. This keeps the knowledge of RBC in a tightly focused radius. The gem moniker refers both to the College’s reputation for excellence and the undeniable sensation that the campus often elicits in its students, visitors, faculty and staff, the feeling of a warm and palpable embrace of care, compassion and support. That sensation is where we start. According the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), 99% of the 11.5 million new jobs created since the great recession require workers to have more than a high-school education. Students with a bachelor’s degree have an earning potential almost double that of people with only a high school education, and yet only 17% of residents in the Petersburg area have a bachelor’s degree, 15% below the national average. The obstacles in the way of education have been exhaustively researched and include financial challenges, academic under-preparedness, low self-esteem, slow college assimilation and immature levels of self-efficacy. To combat this growing problem, Richard Bland College initiated a pilot program to determine the viability of a data-driven approach to improve retention and graduation rates. The program ultimately effected a cultural, organizational and operational shift at RBC, resulting in a personalized model of student support, the Exceptional Student Experience (ESE@RBC). Originally many of the practices that RBC used as the basis of ESE@RBC were adapted from the four key principles found in the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) Pathways Project: 1) map pathways to student end goals; 2) help students choose and enter a program pathway; 3) keep students on path; and 4) ensure that students are learning. Unfortunately, limited resources made it necessary to skip some primary elements of guided pathways and instead to focus on a specific, high-priority project that was immediately available for implementation, dedicated student support. This strategic framework reimagines the way that RBC serves students, faculty and staff within the context of our existing culture, the principles of guided pathways and a hybrid work-college experience. Rather than thinking of a two-year college as a pipeline to a four-year university, this vision describes a more expansive menu of well-defined pathways to high-demand fields, all radiating from a curriculum constructed around the development of soft skills that define the liberal arts experience: critical thinking, written communication, analytical reasoning, civic engagement and oral communication. Furthermore, the impact of meaningful work is a resonating theme, providing avenues to participate in career-focused internships and jobs that develop important life & work skills, confidence, and character. Richard Bland has tested its entrepreneurial mettle and its capacity for transformation in recent years. The College was among a select few Competency-Based Education sites established by the U.S. Department of Education. We were ahead of the curve using predictive analytics to improve student retention and success rates, and online enrollment now makes up nearly 20 percent of course offerings. It may be counter-intuitive, but these and other deep-level institutional changes still to come will ensure that Richard Bland College remains true to its original mission. We prepare our students for a lifetime of endless potential.

MDE Conference Pre Test

______ the sun set, the temperature began to drop. A) After B) While C) Since She studied all night for her test. ______, she was confident when she walked into class. A) Meanwhile B) As a result C) Before We arrived at the park early. ______, we set up our picnic and waited for the others to arrive. A) First B) Later C) Then The alarm rang loudly. ______, I jumped out of bed and rushed to get ready. A) Before B) Immediately C) Eventually The Wright brothers made their first successful flight in 1903. ______, air travel has advanced significantly. A) Since then B) Before C) Meanwhile Example Paragraphs (Choose the Best Transition Word) Cooking Instructions First, preheat the oven to 375°F. ______, mix the flour, sugar, and baking powder in a large bowl. Next, add the eggs and milk, stirring until smooth. (Options: Then, Before, While) Historical Events The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. ______, the United States officially became a separate nation from Britain. (Options: As a result, Before, However) Personal Narrative I packed my bags and headed to the airport. ______, I realized I had forgotten my passport at home. (Options: Later, Suddenly, Before) Daily Routine Every morning, I wake up at 6 AM. ______, I brush my teeth and make a cup of coffee. (Options: First, Afterward, Meanwhile) Science Explanation The caterpillar forms a chrysalis. ______, it undergoes metamorphosis and transforms into a butterfly. (Options: Eventually, Meanwhile, Before)

Write questions similar to ______ the sun set, the temperature began to drop. A) After B) While C) Since She studied all night for her test. ______, she was confident when she walked into class. A) Meanwhile B) As a result C) Before We arrived at the park early. ______, we set up our picnic and waited for the others to arrive. A) First B) Later C) Then The alarm rang loudly. ______, I jumped out of bed and rushed to get ready. A) Before B) Immediately C) Eventually The Wright brothers made their first successful flight in 1903. ______, air travel has advanced significantly. A) Since then B) Before C) Meanwhile Example Paragraphs (Choose the Best Transition Word) Cooking Instructions First, preheat the oven to 375°F. ______, mix the flour, sugar, and baking powder in a large bowl. Next, add the eggs and milk, stirring until smooth. (Options: Then, Before, While) Historical Events The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. ______, the United States officially became a separate nation from Britain. (Options: As a result, Before, However) Personal Narrative I packed my bags and headed to the airport. ______, I realized I had forgotten my passport at home. (Options: Later, Suddenly, Before) Daily Routine Every morning, I wake up at 6 AM. ______, I brush my teeth and make a cup of coffee. (Options: First, Afterward, Meanwhile) Science Explanation The caterpillar forms a chrysalis. ______, it undergoes metamorphosis and transforms into a butterfly. (Options: Eventually, Meanwhile, Before)

This is a vocabulary matching exercise where you need to match the words in bold with their meanings (labeled a-g, though the meanings aren't visible in the image). Let me help you identify the words in bold from each sentence: 1. **disappointed** - "It rained, so we didn't go hiking. We were very disappointed." 2. **nervous** - "I'm always a little nervous before tests because I'm afraid I won't do well." 3. **terrified** - "My sister is terrified of spiders. Every time she sees one, she screams." 4. **exhausted** - "My father was working all day and came home exhausted." 5. **annoyed** - "I was annoyed when Rob borrowed my tablet again without asking." 6. **proud** - "Pete won the science competition and his parents were very proud of him." 7. **confident** - "The coach is confident that the team will win the next game." To complete this exercise, you would need to match these words with their corresponding meanings (a through g) which are not visible in the image provided. The exercise also mentions that after matching, you should "listen and check your answers," suggesting there's an audio component to verify your choices. Would you like me to provide definitions for these emotions/feelings to help you match them with their meanings?

Related quizzes

Related quizzes