Research the needs of the client group – international Asian students in Australia (Singaporeans). This research should include investigating a service which offers to counsel to that client group and discussing in your essay what you learned about how well (or not) the service meets the needs of the client group. Issues you should cover (not all will be relevant to every group) include a. What are the typical presenting problems? b. What characteristics of this group may need to be considered, when providing a counseling service? c. How would you address those characteristics? d. What specific training might be helpful or even necessary, in order to work effectively with this group? e. Ethical/legal issues particularly relevant to this group? f. Is this a group who typically accesses counseling services? If not, discuss why that might be. And what steps could be taken to improve their access? (these possible steps could be by the individual counselor, by the service, by the wider community, or all three). g. What are the benefits and drawbacks for belonging to this group? What would I need to consider when working with them?
Eliot's expositions really outline exceptionally close to home arrangement of distractions, reactions and thoughts regarding particular creators and masterpieces, and additionally define more broad speculations on the associations between verse, culture and society. Maybe his best-known article, "Custom and the Individual Talent" was first distributed in 1919 and not long after incorporated into The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism (1920). Eliot endeavors to complete two things in this article: he initially reclassifies "custom" by accentuating the significance of history to composing and understanding verse, and he at that point contends that verse ought to be basically "indifferent," that is independent and unmistakable from the identity of its author. Eliot's concept of custom is perplexing and bizarre, including something he depicts as "the chronicled sense" or, in other words of "the pastness of the past" yet in addition of its "nearness." For Eliot, past show-stoppers shape a request or "convention"; be that as it may, that request is continually being adjusted by another work which changes the "custom" to account for itself. This view, in which "the past ought to be changed by the present as much as the present is coordinated by the past," necessitates that a writer be acquainted with all artistic history – not simply the prompt past but rather the far off past and not simply the writing of his or her very own nation however the entire "personality of Europe." Eliot's second point is one of his most celebrated and combative. An artist, Eliot keeps up, must "selflessness" to this extraordinary attention to the past; once this mindfulness is accomplished, it will eradicate any hint of identity from the verse in light of the fact that the artist has turned into a negligible medium for articulation. Utilizing the similarity of a synthetic response, Eliot clarifies that a "develop" artist's mind works by being a latent "repository" of pictures, expressions and sentiments which are joined, under huge fixation, into another "craftsmanship feeling." For Eliot, genuine workmanship has nothing to do with the individual existence of the craftsman however is simply the consequence of a more prominent capacity to incorporate and consolidate, a capacity which originates from profound examination and extensive learning. Despite the fact that Eliot's conviction that "Verse isn't a turning free of feeling, however a break from feeling; it isn't the statement of identity, yet a getaway from identity" sprang from what he saw as the abundances of Romanticism, numerous researchers have noticed how persistent Eliot's idea – and the entire of Modernism – is with that of the Romantics'; his "unoriginal artist" even has joins with John Keats, who proposed a comparative figure in "the chameleon artist." But Eliot's conviction that basic examination ought to be "occupied" from the artist to the verse molded the investigation of verse for 50 years, and keeping in mind that "Convention and the Individual Talent" has had numerous depreciators, particularly the individuals who question Eliot's emphasis on accepted functions as models of enormity, it is hard to overemphasize the article's impact. It has molded ages of artists, commentators and scholars and is a key content in present day abstract feedback. As indicated by Eliot, "Each country, each race, has its own innovative, as well as its very own basic turn of brain… " (page 47 ). What's more, in this lies the unimaginable assignment of characterizing convention. Whatever we do depends on this imaginative or basic turn of brain, in view of our religions or our ethics or our craft; and this has been valid all through all of history. Furthermore, this is – on one side – custom. Be that as it may, when a country rises and falls, when a kingdom grows or a city bites the dust in a billow of fire, convention is lost. I would add to Eliot's words that each city, each family, every individual has his or her very own custom. Propensities, thoughts, however process – these are all piece of this "turn of psyche" that Eliot discusses in his article. Point of view is custom; in spite of the fact that Eliot says, "Yet in the event that the main type of convention… comprised in following the methods for the quick age before us… 'custom' ought to be decidedly disheartened," still my case is this: convention is in one's very own basic and inventive turn of brain, inside one's self – the majority have no place in this custom, no place in its creation, its consolation, or its characterizing. Thus this word, the same number of others, goes always unclear; it escapes the human personality as something imperceptible and vague evades our fingers, as an aroma escapes our getting a handle on hands. This is convention. What's more, past this, we can just hypothesize. "Feedback is an inescapable as breathing, and that we ought to be non the more awful to explain what goes in our psyches when we read a book and believe and feeling about it." (T. S. Eliot Tradition and individual ability, 1920, page 48) I extremely never contemplated the amount we condemn creators and artists. When we read a book we contrast it with another writer of a similar class or we contrast it with another book by that equivalent writer. In relatively each and every one of Literature classes in my auxiliary school, we contrasted one essayist with another. At whatever point you read a book or a sonnet there is some sort of feedback going ahead inside your head. When we censure an artist, writer, or some other author we generally take a gander at their history, we need to discover all aspects of their experience since that may clarify why they composed either. I need to ask, for what reason do we do this? I'm certain there are times where the writer/artist/whoever isn't expounding on their life and general encounters however something they are keen on. It is a custom in schools, that we need to learn the ballad or a novel, as well as we need to know everything about the essayist. As I would see it is that, when we getting more established and more established we understand that we don't have to take care of the essayist's life to comprehend his or her work. Without knowing these realities we can appreciate the book and comprehend it. The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock This lyric, the soonest of Eliot's significant works, was finished in 1910 or 1911 yet not distributed until 1915. It is an examination of the tormented mind of the prototypical present day man – overeducated, smooth, psychotic, and candidly stilted. Prufrock, the ballad's speaker, is by all accounts tending to a potential darling, with whom he might want to "drive the minute to its emergency" by one means or another culminating their relationship. Be that as it may, Prufrock knows excessively of life to "set out" a way to deal with the lady: In his mind he hears the remarks others make about his deficiencies, and he rebukes himself for "assuming" enthusiastic cooperation could be conceivable by any stretch of the imagination. The ballad moves from a progression of genuinely concrete (for Eliot) physical settings – a cityscape (the popular "understanding etherised upon a table") and a few insides (ladies' arms in the lamplight, espresso spoons, chimneys) – to a progression of ambiguous sea pictures passing on Prufrock's enthusiastic separation from the world as he comes to perceive his below average status ("I am not Prince Hamlet'). "Prufrock" is ground-breaking for its scope of scholarly reference and furthermore for the distinctiveness of character accomplished. C. S. Lewis once expressed, "Love anything and your heart will be wrung and potentially broken. In the event that you need to ensure keeping it flawless you should offer it to nobody. To cherish is to be powerless." Throughout T. S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," a man's portrayal clarifies why he conceals his actual self behind an impervious shell, unexpectedly hindering his identity. This lyric uses J. Alfred Prufrock, an apprehensive and fanatically thoughtful man, to indicate perusers that just open defenselessness, not dream and dreams, can fill in as an extension to address intense subject matters and give importance to life. >GET ANSWER