My 20-year-old daughter, Allison, who has her own apartment in Philadelphia, sent me a text the other day: “I need socks and shampoo.” I laughed and texted back, “I need deodorant and coffee filters.” I had a fleeting thought that she was   (1)   asking me to pick some items for her, but I   (2)   to think she was playing a cell phone game. I   (3)   not to be a helicopter parent. My experience as a mother and professor has taught me that it won't    (4)  .

Instead, I prefer a more hands-off   (5)  . After Allison turned 18, I no longer had any    (6)   to know her work and life schedule.

But that’s not what I   (7)   at Drexel University where I teach. Most of my students talk to their   (8)   three times a day or more. One students’ mother called when she didn’t   (9)   from him for a few days. He was in the library so he   (10)  , “Hello.” She accused him of being drunk,   (11)   it was about10 a.m. on Tuesday, and   (12)   that he take a picture of himself holding a newspaper with that day’s   (13)   on it and send it to her.

I’ve always treated my students as independent beings, telling them on the first day of the new term that I will not   (14)   up on their missed classes or assignments. I am getting them to become independent thinkers and take responsibility for their   (15)  .

But their parents don’t   (16)   them like me. I know a mother who watches the surveillance cams (监控摄像) at her child's school for hours, hoping he will walk   (17)   the camera. However, my daughters only come to me with stuff that’s more   (18)   than a late-night pizza purchase, and I think that’s because I give them space.

Many parents try to find if their kids are   (19)   from them. But we have to learn to respect others’ privacy and independence,   (20)   when technology is so powerful. So I am going to do my best not to be a helicopter parent.

Boys’ schools are the perfect place to teach young men to express their emotions and involve them in activities such as art, dance and music．

Far from the traditional image of a culture of aggressive masculinity(男子气概)，the absence of girls gives boys the chance to develop without pressure to be consistent to a stereotype(传统观念)，a US study says．

Boys at single-sex schools were said to be more likely to get involved in cultural and artistic activities that helped develop their abilities to express their emotions，rather than feeling they had to obey the“boy code”of hiding their emotions to be a “real man”．

The findings of the study are against the received wisdom that boys do better when taught alongside girls．

Tony Little，headmaster of Eton，warned that boys were being ignored by the British education system because it had become too focused on girls．He criticized teachers for failing to recognize that boys are actually more emotional than girls．

The research argued that boys often perform badly in mixed schools because they become discouraged when their female peers do better earlier in speaking and reading skills．

But in single-sex schools teachers can adjust lessons to boys’ learning style，letting them move around the classroom and getting them to compete in teams to prevent boredom，wrote the study’s author, Abigail James of the University of Virginia．

Teachers could encourage boys to enjoy reading and writing with “boy-focused” approaches such as themes and characters that appeal to them．Because boys generally have sharper vision，learn best through touch, and are physically more active，they need to be given “hands-on”lessons where they are allowed to walk around．“ Boys in mixed schools view classical music as feminine(女性的)and prefer the modern type in which violence and sexism are major themes.” James wrote．

Single-sex education also made it less likely that boys would feel they had to give in to a stereotype that men should be “masterful and in charge” in relationships．“ In mixed schools boys feel pressed to act like men before they understand themselves well enough to know what that means.” the study reported.

The newspaper must provide for the reader the facts, pure, unprejudiced, objectively selected facts. But in these days of complex news it must provide more; it must supply interpretation, the meaning of the facts. This is the most important assignment facing American journalists—to make clear to the reader the problems of the day, to make international news understandable as community news, to recognize that there is no longer any such thing as“local”news, because any event in the international area has a local reaction in the financial market, political circles, in terms, indeed, of our very way of life.

There is in journalism a widespread view that when you start an interpretation, you are entering dangerous waters, the rushing tides of opinion. This is nonsense.

The opponents of interpretation insist that the writer and the editor shall limit himself to the “facts”. This insistence raises two questions. What are the facts? And: Are the bare facts enough?

As for the first question, consider how a so­called“factual”story comes about. The reporter collects, say, fifty facts; out of these fifty, his space being necessarily restricted, he selects the ten which he considers most important. This is Judgment Number One. Then he or his editor decides which of these ten facts shall hold the lead of the piece. This is Judgment Number Two. Then the night editor determines whether the article shall be presented on page one, where it has a large influence, or on page twenty­four, where it has little. Judgment Number Three.

Thus in the presentation of a so­called“factual”or“objective” story, at least three judgments are involved. And they are judgments not at all unlike those involved in interpretation, in which reporter and editor, calling upon their research resources, their general background, and their“news neutralism(中立)”，arrive at a conclusion as to the significance of the news.

The two areas of judgment, presentation of the news and its interpretation, are both objective rather than subjective processes—as objective, that is, as any human being can be. If an editor is determined to give a prejudiced view of the news, he can do it in other ways and more effectively than by interpretation. He can do it by the selection of those facts that support his particular viewpoint. Or he can do it by the place he gives a story—promoting it to page one or dragging it to page thirty.

Scientists have exactly discovered the set of brain cells involved in making risky decisions, and have been able to control them in rats using targeted light. By changing the activity of the cells they were able to change the behaviour of risk-taking rats to avoid risk, hinting the approach could in future be used to treat people with impulse (冲动) control problems.

Risk-taking is a key part of survival, knowing when to take a chance could pay off—such as moving to a new area to look for food when pickings are slim.

While all animals need an element of risk, the preference towards it varies between individuals. Researchers found this variation, which determines how risk-averse an individual is, is regulated by brain cells in a region of the brain called the nucleus accumbens. This cluster of neurons releases the neurotransmitter dopamine, which regulates the brain’s reward and pleasure centres.

Previous studies have shown that in patients with Parkinson’s disease, taking medication which blocks specific dopamine receptors (DR2) (受体) leads to increased gambling (赌博) behaviour and risk taking behaviour. In studies with rats, researchers were able to use a technique called optogenetics (光遗传学)—which uses light sensitive proteins to change the activity of cells—to modify cells with DR 2 in the nucleus accumbens.

Rats were trained to choose one of two levers, offering them a choice between a “safe” or “risky” choice. The safe option resulted in a small, but consistent amount of a sugar water treat. But the risky choice consistently delivered smaller amounts of sugar water, with the occasional large pay off—essentially encouraging the animals to gamble for a bigger prize. Around two-thirds of the animals weren’t keen on risk, opting for the safe option, but the remaining third were risk-seekers. Brain scans of the animals showed that those with low levels of DR2 consistently went for the gamble.

But using pulses of light to stimulate (刺激) the DR2 cells and improve their activity could cause the risk-takers to play it safe and opt for the guaranteed but less rewarding option. Once the light-pulses stopped, the risk-takers returned to their gambling strategy.

In the risk-averse animals, stimulating the same cells had little to no effect.

Professor Karl Deisseroth, of Stanford University in California, said: “Humans and rats have similar brain structures involved.”And we found a drug known to increase risk preference in people had the same effect on the rats. So every indication is that these findings are relevant to humans. “Risky behavior has its moments where it’s valuable. As a species, we wouldn’t have come as far as we have without it.”