Parent Survey Questions: Fill & Download for Free

The quickest method is perhaps best defined by the narrowness and focus of your research question. Too broad a topic requires a wide net to gather data. A focused problem under investigation will result in a much cleaner dissertation.That being said, the quickest method is also the one that will yield the most correct results so that you don't have to re-do your entire document because your dissertation committee will not allow you to proceed because of poor research design.And... THAT being said, see below:Survey research can be completed relatively quickly, provided enough of your sample population completes the survey instrument in a timely manner. Allow enough time to develop a reliable and valid instrument, pilot test it, establish norms, and distribute to your sample.Experimental studies take the time necessary to develop a method to answer a research question, pilot test to ensure reliability and validity, make observations "run" the experiment, collect data, and analyze data.Qualitative studies involve a great deal of one-on-one time spent in interviews, observations, and transcribing field notes.In all of these methods, you have to allow time for human subjects participation clearance from your university's research office, and/or from schools, parents, subjects, etc.Good luck!

I’m going to try a different way of answering this than I usually do. Let’s see how I do…The questioner says that democrats are highly-educated. I agree. What is it about getting an education that tends to make one a democrat?Education takes place outside of the home. Often, outside of your community. It often takes place in another part of your state, or in another state, or sometimes in another country. The concept of “going away to college” is the first step. Going away to college means that you are leaving home, at least temporarily. Leaving home gives one a new look at the same problems that affect all people, but you get an opportunity to see them handled differently. This teaches you that there are different ways of looking at the same thing. You start to understand that things are not yes or no, black or white, straight or gay. You begin to challenge yourself with the concept of “It Depends…”When you leave home, you leave your parents. You have to either find new experts to tell you how to do things, or, you have to figure them out for yourself. This reaffirms your ability to evaluate circumstances and make the best decision possible at that moment. You become more independent.It isn’t just the world that introduces you to new things. You are in college, so you are being shown new things every day. You are exposed to ideas that aren’t like your own and asked to defend those ideas as if they were your own. Look at the concept of race. I came from a very small town. The town was 99.2% white. I am white. In that town, it is very difficult to gain any perspective on any race, other than your own. I didn’t know people of color because there were no people of color. When I went to away to college, I was thrust into situations where I now had the opportunity to form my own opinions on people who were different. These opinions didn’t develop in the vacuum of a small town. They developed in the presence of blacks and Mexicans; Asians and Europeans. I learned about them, from them. I met students who are gay. I learned that I could be friends with people unlike myself. I let them learn about me.Opening yourself to this experience broadens your mind. You learn to accept that there are more than two sides to every argument. You can hold more than one position, depending on circumstances. Your instructor might be right today, but wrong tomorrow.Very important here: you are taught to evaluate facts and data. You are introduced to the scientific method. You learn to interpret data and form opinions based upon those facts. You learn that opinion is not equal to fact. You learn to ask for facts before you form your opinions.For fun, I take all of the surveys that the Trump administration puts out. Because I have been educated in the science of social surveys, I can see the tricks that his people use to influence or shape your opinions in the surveys. They shape the responses so that you are forced to agree with him. They present 4 choices, and none of them disagree with the stated question. Would others notice this if they had my education? Do you see how the questions are playing you? I do.It is less fun having to fact-check our president. Because I have been trained to question facts and data, I don’t believe him when he says that his State of the Union was the most-watched SOTU of all time. I look it up:• Clinton, Feb. 17, 1993: 66,900,000*• Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: 62,061,000• Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998: 53,077,000• Obama, Feb. 24, 2009: 52,373,000*• Bush, Jan. 29, 2002: 51,773,000• Obama, Jan. 27, 2010: 48,009,595• Trump, Feb 28, 2017: 47,741,000*• Clinton, Jan. 25, 1994: 45,800,000• Trump, Jan. 30, 2018: 45,551,000• Clinton, Jan. 19, 1999: 43,500,000• Bush, Jan. 23, 2007: 45,486,000• Bush, Jan. 20, 2004: 43,411,000See, he barely makes the top ten list. Notice that each of his 3 predecessors all delivered SOTU’s with higher numbers. His own inaugural speech, delivered in place of a SOTU, topped his numbers from this year. He was even beaten by himself, making his statement false. This speech wasn’t even HIS most-popular speech, let alone when he compares himself to Obama.One of the questions on Trump’s most-recent survey asked: Do you believe that colleges indoctrinate, rather than educate students?Educating students teaches them to question what they are told. If that is indoctrination, then I’m willing to live with it. And yet, Democrats are frequently called, “Sheep.”Sheep don’t question everything like Democrats do. Sheep listen to presidents and believe everything he says just because he said it. Republicans are the sheep. Fox News counts on it.My head explodes if I have to watch Fox News while waiting for my car to be serviced. Why? Because I’ve been highly-educated and I know to question what they tell me. We can only take so much of it before we flip out.Do you think CNN is fake news? If you do, you haven’t been trained to question facts. If you research their facts, you will find that they have the data to back them up. This doesn’t make them fake news.So, why do highly-educated people support the Democratic party? Because the Democrats tend to make decisions based upon facts. We believe in Global Warming because the facts support the theory. We believe that giving tax breaks to rich people only makes them richer and does nothing for the middle class because the facts prove this out. We believe in equality of all people because science tells us that we are all 99% the same and we choose to look at the similarities, and not the differences. We use those facts to unite us, rather than separate and divide us.Unity is friendlier. Division is racist.I’m a smart, friendly person, who has been trained to make myself even smarter. I like my politics like I like my people. I find more of them being Democrats.So…how’d I do?Here’s a prediction: if you read to this line, you are probably college-educated and Democrat. If you aren’t, this sentence doesn’t even exist.Here is an interesting read if you want some info about how conservatives and liberals think differently: Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies?

100 years ago, we might have asked the same questions of Schroedinger, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, and the other pioneers of the quantum revolution.After all — what’s the point of doing all this esoteric stuff with matter far smaller than anyone can possibly comprehend, what possible use could this have? What were we paying them for anyway? Just to sit around wondering about fuzzy cats or teleporting electrons?Lot of nonsense, right?Then, between the 1940s and 1960s, something incredible was invented.The humble transistor.The solid state physics required to design and build this semiconducting device is entirely based on quantum mechanics. No quantum mechanics: no transistors. And do you know what has transistors in abundance?The device you are reading this on.I am writing this in the library of Trinity College, Oxford. I have within a 1 metre radius of me more than 4 billion transistors (according to Transistor count, my Google Pixel, and my Intel Core i7 laptop). A brief survey shows that if I expand it to a 10 metre radius, I get more than 20 billion transistors, operating the phones, tablets and computers of those around meIn the entirety of Oxford there will be trillions of transistors. Back in 2014, a Forbes article estimated that there were 2,913,276,327,576,980,000,000 transistors that had ever been made. That’s [math]2.9\times 10^{21}[/math]transistors.Every single one of those 3 sextillion transistors was constructed only because of our knowledge of quantum mechanics.Transistor technology dominates our life, completely and utterly.Every single sector of the economy is entirely dependent on computers, such that it is estimated that severe Solar storms could cost USA tens of billions of dollars per day, because of the effects it would have on our tech-dominated lives.And it all would be impossible (or, at least, ludicrously bulky!) without the quantum mechanics discovered and formalised by the pioneers of their fields.It is the height of hubris to assume that everything we know now is everything that will ever be useful. There’s a famous quote from around the end of the 19th century, often misattributed to Charles Holland Duell which says:Everything that can be invented has been invented, all that is left is to perfect what we haveThis was from around 1899, six years before Einstein overturned our notions of space and time, and the first Quantum Revolution.119 years later, we look back on this quote with scorn: look how much the world has changed since then.I am broadcasting this text simultaneously and near-instantly to the entire planet, from a device which can carry out every single calculation performed by every single human being before 1899 in a second, whilst simultaneously storing the contents of every single book written before 1899.That would be insane to someone back then. I would be locked up in a sanitarium for even suggesting such a thing were possible.But it happened, and these changes were only possible because of the work of the pioneers, the people who did the research.So the question is: did those researchers set out to build the information age?Did Dirac sit down and say “you know, I really want to play Candy Crush whilst sitting on the toilet, I better get to unifying the two divergent views of quantum mechanics, and also begin the first foray into a quantum field theory, so that we can get cracking”?No.No he did not.The consequences of their research were entirely unseen. Nobody knew at the time that their research would have commercial applications — the thought would probably have seemed quite ridiculous to them.Nevertheless, here we are.So, the askers of this question (and there are many of them — including my parents!) are like the apocryphal Charles H. Duell of today. Implicit in the question is that we know all the physics we need for the future: that there’s no point in carrying on, since the answers are not going to be useful.Now, remember that must have been exactly how they felt 100 years ago!History does not look kindly on that quote. It teaches us a lesson about modesty of knowledge: we can never know what is right around the corner. We can never know how the discoveries of today might be useful in 100 years time.That in itself is motivation to carry on answering questions. It is an investment in the future of humankind. How, when, and even if that investment will pay off is unknown. But history shows us that every time we try to answer fundamental questions, it has consequences for us as a species further down the line.Why would 2018 be any different to 1918?On a personal note, I think that this purely economic argument is far from the whole picture.Nobody sits down and demands that J. K. Rowling’s books be important for the development of mankind. Nobody expects the Marvel films to speak to solving the issues of the world, or that Van Gogh was a prick for not addressing world hunger.Art is Art. It needs no justification other than to speak to some deep need inside of us to admire, to tell stories and to seek beauty.Money is poured into the arts — people buy expensive paintings (with no utilitarian purpose), and go to the cinema, and do all sorts of “pointless but expensive” things.Why should science be held to a different standard?Knowledge is Knowledge. Like art, it speaks to a primal part of us, the need to understand, to catalogue and investigate.Science is (one part of) an embodiment of what it means to be human, what sets us apart from the animals. To pin it down for purely utilitarian purposes is deeply, deeply sad — in the same way that doing the same for art would be.Science is by no means the entire picture, but to clip its wings with instantaneous utilitarianism is not only foolish (see above for the economic arguments), it means sacrificing some of what it means to be human. It means calling to an end the endeavour which began since we first started banging sticks together, and making fire.Science, like art, is its own end.Knowledge is power, and science is knowledge.