Ba In Exercise Science Health Science And Human: Fill & Download for Free

Within the field of life sciences and medicine is the study of psychology. Psychology in its broadest terms is the study of the human mind and human behavior, offering the chance to explore unanswered questions about the brain, such as how it functions under stress, how it learns language, how it remembers facts or how mental illness can affect the way it works. Those pursuing research in this area have the chance to help further scientific understandings of the brain, to promote the all-round health and welfare of current and future generations.For your career there are many different areas which you can choose to focus on. These include health, clinical, educational, research and teaching, occupational, counseling, neuro, sport and exercise, and forensic. Often during a psychology degree you will gain a broad knowledge in all of these areas before specializing in one or two areas of interest after your first or second year. These areas of specialization will in turn help you enter related psychology careers after graduation.

After Completing BA in Psychology you have ample of opportunity in different fields:School Counseling School counselors work with children who are troubled, helping such children function more effectively with their peers and teachers, deal with family problems, etc. They work at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.School Psychology School psychologists do a lot of testing--mostly of children who are encountering difficulties in school--to try to diagnose the problem and, sometimes, to suggest ways of dealing with the problem. School psychologists are typically trained in departments of education (vs. departments of psychology) and work in public school systems.Social Work Another career option to consider if you're interested in counseling is social work. As is true with other disciplines, there are a variety of allied fields in social work. Social workers who practice psychotherapy are usually called either clinical social workersor psychiatric social workers. Clinical social workers are trained to diagnose and treat psychological problems. Psychiatric social workers provide services to individuals, married couples, families, and small groups. They work in mental health centers, counseling centers, sheltered workshops, hospitals, and schools. They may also have their own private practiceClinical Psychology Clinical psychologists assess and treat people with psychological problems. They may act as therapists for people who are experiencing normal psychologicalcrises (e.g., grief) or for individuals suffering from chronic psychiatric disorders. Some clinical psychologists are generalists who work with a wide variety of populations, while others work with specific groups such as children, the elderly, or those with specific disordersCounseling Psychology Counseling psychologists do many of the same things that clinical psychologists do. However, counseling psychologists tend to focus more on persons with adjustment problems rather than on persons suffering from severe psychological disorders. They may be trained in psychologydepartments or in education departments. Counseling psychologists are employed in academic settings, college counseling centers, community mental health centers.Health Psychology Health psychologists are concerned with psychology's contributions to the promotion and maintenance of good health and the prevention and treatment of illness. They may design and conduct programs to help individuals stop smoking, lose weight, shed alcoholism, manage stress, and stay physically fit. They are employed in hospitals, medical schools, rehabilitation centers, public health agencies, academic settings, and private practice.Teaching and Research If you're interested in teaching undergraduate, master's-level, or doctoral-level students, you will probably work in a university setting, where you will probably also do research. If an individual is not interested in teaching and wants to focus on research, he/she can work for government agencies (for example, the Center for Disease Control) or for private research organizations. To work as a psychologist in these settings, one would need a Ph.D. in psychology.Industrial/Organizational Psychology I/O psychologists (as they are usually called) are concerned with the relationships between people and their work environments. They may develop new ways to increase workplace productivity or be involved in personnel selection. They are employed in business, government agencies, factories, industrial set-ups, corporate houses, and academic establishments.Sports Psychology Sports psychologists are concerned with the psychological factors that improve athletic performance. They also look at the effects of exercise and physical activity on psychological adjustment and health. Sports psychologists typically work in academic settings and/or as consultants for sports teams.Agency/Community Counseling Graduate programs in agency or community counseling train you to provide counseling services in human service agencies in the local community--for example, in community mental health centers. They may also train you to administer a limited number of psychologicaltests (vocational interest tests, for example).The work is similar to that done by a person with a master's or doctoral degree in clinical or counseling psychology, psychotherapy, and, perhaps, limited psychological testing.Educational Psychology Educational psychologists attempt to understand the basic aspects of human learning and to develop materials and strategies for enhancing the learning process. For example, an educational psychologist might study reading and then develop a new technique for teaching reading. Educational psychologists are typically trained in departments of education (known as departments of psychology) and employed in colleges and universities.You can join any below listed College for psychology :Indian Institute of Psychology and Research, BangaloreGujarat Forensic Sciences UniversityLok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan National Institute of Criminology & Forensic Science (LNJN NICFS)Lovely Professional Unversity,PunjabNIMHANSTata Institute of Social Sciences, MumbaiUniversity of PuneDr.Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, AgraDelhi University, DelhiJamia Millia IslamiaJadavpur University

Yes, perhaps many of the experiments (except the ones involving the astronauts themselves as the subjects) could be controlled from the ground with astronauts visiting only occasionally. But their idea for developing the ISS is to demonstrate that they can keep a constant human presence in space over a long period of time. That’s separate from the science goal. It’s not optimized for science alone.It’s actually a policy to keep it manned at all times:“Develop and operate the International Space Station to support activities requiring the unique attributes of humans in space and establish a permanent human presence in Earth orbit. The International Space Station will support future decisions on the feasibility and desir­ability of conducting further human exploration activities.”White House Fact Sheet on National Space Policy, September 1996Apparently it can be operated without a crew on board, which is something that could have happened in 2011 Space station may fly without a crew later this year but they prefer to have the crew there in case of any problems that might arise. Leaving it unmanned increases the risk that they could lose the ISS and have to de-orbit it, due to something that went wrong that a human on site could have fixed.A zero gravity space station doesn’t have to be permanently manned. Both Skylab and Mir had times when they weren’t manned. And nowadays we could do much more by way of controlling experiments in orbit telerobotically from Earth.If scientists were to develop a facility in space to let them do as much zero gravity research as possible for minimum cost - well it wouldn’t be the ISS. Because that wasn’t the only design goal for it. It would be interesting to see what a purpose built zero gravity research space station would be like. I suspect it would be largely automated but with frequent visits by astronauts - not necessarily for long periods of time except when the research is actually being conducted into effects of zero gravity on astronauts.They do a lot of good research on the ISS. But whether it’s worth the $150 billion dollars cost for science alone - I think it might be hard to justify it by the science.But when you look at the political side of it, the way it has helped Russia, ESA and US to co-operate in space, the perspectives of astronauts up there, and the many other intangible benefits - and also looking forward to the future, to humans living long term in space for other reasons as a result of their experiences of living on the ISS, well I think it is hard to evaluate.It was basically a political decision.The cost wasn’t that large for large industrial modern nations, given that it was built by the richest nations, with higher salaries than most of the world population - the ESA estimated that the lifetime cost of its contribution to the ISS was about one Euro per person, or the price of one cup of coffee in a coffee shop, by each person living in the EU. That is a single cup of coffee to pay for the entire cost of the ESA contribution to the ISS throughout its lifetime, not one coffee per year.The USA made a far larger per capita contribution. With a population of 318.9 million, it spent the equivalent of $72.4 billion in 2010 dollars, so that's $227 per person spent on the ISS. Still that may not seem a huge contribution for a nation that is especially keen on humans in space, for a 30 year project, so a little under $8 per person per year.I am in two minds about the ISS myself. Depends on whether I wear a "science hat" or a "political hat" :).SCIENCE VALUE OF THE ISSI don't think those costs can be justified by the research alone, because we could have built it as a telerobotic facility operated from the ground, and done nearly all the same research for far less cost except the research into human effects of weightlessness. I don't know of any comparison study, but without the need to send humans there every few months, wouldn't be surprised if that would have cost an order of magnitude less.WOULD BUILD IT DIFFERENTLY WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITIES FOR HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCHYes, it gives us experience in humans living in space, but it's not a research priority to find out how best to sustain humans in closed systems for long duration spaceflights either. It would be built differently if its primary purpose was to prepare for interplanetary flights or a return to the Moon.So it seems a bit of one thing and a bit of another- mainly a zero gravity lab, but operated by humans with some human factors research, but not prioritized for that either.If it was prioritized for human factors research there would be far more focus on such things as developing closed systems, growing food in space, generating oxygen from algae, and artificial gravity research.AND SURELY ASTRONAUTS ARE NOT THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THE ZERO GRAVITY RESEARCHIt costs the equivalent of an astronaut's weight in gold to send them to space for one week, at least going by the amount the Russians charge tourists on the ISS. How much does it cost to ferry an astronaut to the International Space Station? Or if you work the other way from the estimated total cost of the ISS, then it's about $7.5 million a day per astronaut - more or less the same ballpark (a little less).Native gold nugget from Venezuela, photo by Rob Lavinsky It costs, very roughly, the value of an astronaut's weight in gold to keep an astronaut on the ISS for one week. If your main aim was to run a zero gravity lab in space, you'd find a way to make sure the astronauts travel to the ISS only occasionally, and operate the experiments from the ground as far as possible.If you had to justify the ISS as a science project, competing for research grants with other big budget science projects - I think you'd have a lot of explaining to do, to show why you want to run it this way, rather than telerobotically.HUMAN VALUE WITH SCIENCE AS EXCELLENT "ADD ON"But on the other hand it is hard to assess how much value it has had in terms of international co-operation, and the astronauts view on the Earth from space, and other intangible effects. And that wasn't their mandate, to build either a human factors research station, or the least cost way to make a zero gravity lab.I think it is fair to say it is more like Apollo, politics led, with objective to have a permanent human presence in space and involve astronauts from all the participating parties - then adding as much good science to it as one can.And given what it is - it does do a lot of excellent scientific research.If it has as much as saved us from a single war also, even a minor war, through co-operation in space, then it is well worth it.COMPARISONS WITH OTHER WAYS OF USING THE MONEYAnd the countries involved spend far far more on their military programs than they do on the ISS. In 2015, the US alone will spend around 600 billion on defence, four times as much as the whole world has spent on the ISS over its entire lifetime. So if you think of it as funding that might otherwise have gone on defence, it's not a huge sum.If you think of it as money that could have been used for planetary exploration, it's enough for an extra flagship class $5 billion extra mission every year for 30 years (normally NASA only do one of those every decade). We could have highly capable robotic spacecraft around every planet in the solar system and on the Moon and many rovers on planetary surfaces if we'd spent this money on robotic exploration. And it is enough to do a hundred and fifty $1 billion surveys of all the world's oceans.Then if you think of it as used for alleviating poverty, providing clean water for the world, etc, well it is a big sum. It is enough to fund three years of the five year project to bring clean water and sanitation to all.WHY NOT BOTH?However it's not either / or anyway. There is no reason at all why we can't have both an international space station if we so wish, and planetary exploration, and do a complete survey of all the Earth's oceans, and clean water for all as well, and achieve many other things. (Suppose that the US and Europe clubbed together, that's a billion people so they can achieve a $1 billion dollar project such as surveying all the world's oceans with $1 each, or a $250 billion dollar project to bring clean water to all over five years, with $50 spend per capita per year).So, I don't think myself that the best way to achieve humanitarian goals is to cut back on other things that people also find inspiring. They are like the "soft targets" because people talk about them and they are very obvious targets precisely because they are inspiring.As a planet we are actually quite wealthy and can afford to do such things. Our future I hope will be a world where every child has the same expectation of a life without poverty, a healthy life and a decent education. It is something that we have almost within reach, and no real reason why we can't get there. The UN continues to set targets of humanitarian goals, one decade after another(here are some of its goals for 2030), and - not often publicized so much, but these goals are actually being met, also (some of its recently achieved goals from previous targets).But hopefully this will also be a future where we will continue to do things that we find inspiring on many levels, whatever those happen to be. Whether they are cathedrals, or temples, or pyramids, or megaliths, or space stations, or whatever it is that inspires us and carries our aspirations forward in the future.FUTURE OF SPACE STATIONS - DO THEY ALL HAVE TO BE THESE 150 BILLION DOLLAR PROJECTS?First, launch costs are going down. With SLS when it is ready, if that works out, we could launch the total mass of the ISS with just four launches (up to 130 ton payload, ISS mass about 420 tons).Inflatable habitats such as the Bigelow habitats also have potential to reduce costs enormously. The BA 330 will have 330 cubic meters of internal volume, for only 1 ton of extra mass, 20 tons instead of the 19 for Tranquility which has a pressurized volume of 70 cubic meters. So nearly five times as much volume for almost the same mass.Bigelow BA330 inflatable habitat - will be 330 cubic meters, nearly five times the pressurized volume of Tranquility for almost identical total mass, 20 tons instead of 19Then, all our space stations to date - I think that ISS, MIR, Skylab etc - are manly focused on zero gravity research.Important though this zero gravity research undoubtedly is, still, it remains a fact that in all this time we haven't had any experiments in generating artificial gravity in space and its effect on humans. Just to get the first ever data points from space could be well worth doing to prove - or disprove, or shed new light on the various attempts at predicting the effect of artificial gravity on humans from ground based experiments.Indeed we have done hardly any research at all in low gravity either. Could you grow plants in a greenhouse on the Moon, and how would they do?Also, could a space station in future try to generate some of their oxygen from green algae, to test to see if this is possible in space conditions? Or try growing plants in space in a big way, not just a few lettuces? In ground experiments, crew were able to generate all their oxygen and most of their food from three modules each of 79 cubic meters.Will we get to test this in space any time soon?I think that in the future we may see more research of this nature.If we ever send humans back to the Moon or to interplanetary space for years on end rather than the few days of the Apollo missions we need answers to these questions. And if you can generate all the oxygen inside a spacestation, and scrub the CO2 using plants, and keep humans healthy using artificial gravity- this also has potential to reduce the number of supply missions to a space station.Maybe for our next space station we can reduce the cost further if we make some of the food and all the oxygen in orbit? And maybe if we have astronauts under artificial gravity, they won't need to spend two hours each day of their precious time in space exercising, just to keep at the same health levels as a bed bound patient on the Earth (and possibly not even that).Much of this originates inmy answer to a question on Quora: is the ISS the most expensive single human artifact ever, after adjusting for inflation?and my rewrite of it as my Science20 article:Is The International Space Station The Most Expensive Single Item Ever Built?