Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Parents today are more involved in their children’s education than were parents in the past. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Those lovely days were gone for good, when parents set out with their kids and pets in a sunny weekend to a park and played football together for a whole afternoon. The reason might be that these weekends are always occupied by homework and handwork of their children’s that they have to help them with. So, the answer is well illustrated by reality that parents are more involved in their children’s education.
It should be put firstly that parents are more concerned about the education of their kids nowadays, especially when taking the rapid evolution of society into consideration. Maybe a degree of high school could guarantee you a modest job 20 years ago, unfortunately, now the limitation has been lifted up to a bachelor’s degree. So in hopping that their children can lead decent lives, parents invest more money and time into children’s education to maximize their potentials.
In spite of much more substance investments, parents also have to involve themselves in their children’s education activities, and they are capable of doing so. For people of my age (born in 1990s), our parents were busy about making livings and the academic puzzles we encountered in schools were not those things that they can solve with their intelligence, so it’s fair to say that our parents were not so helpful in our educations. But, today’s young parents are mostly well-educated and not struggle to make livings, so they can figure out time to help their kids with their homework and handworks, and may even help them to initiate research programs required by their future universities. The whole thing demonstrates that parents are extra teachers and families have become extra schools.
As mentioned above, the world is changing every second, so the knowledge that children receiving is quite different from what their parents have gotten, which means parents should keep up with tides, with what their kids are receiving. Simply speaking, parents need to educate themselves in order to teach their children better, and that fast them tighter with their kids’ educations. To some degree, parents are studying together with their kids in new-born areas like high-tech (programming, AI, etc.), trends (pop music, photography, etc.) and new lifestyles, they help each other make progresses and adapt to the fancy world.
In conclusion, parents indeed get more involved in their children’s education for the reasons of their own willing, abilities, and the force of the changing society.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more enjoyable to have a job where you work only three days a week for long hours than to have a job where you work five days a week for shorter hours. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Starting work at 10 a.m. and ending work at 8 p.m., repeating that schedule 5 days a week, that is a common scene when we talk about daily work. But has anyone ever questioned the rationality of this planning? Is that the best choice we are offered? The answer is NO. For the following reasons I will state how less working days with longer working hours can be a better option.
It should be put into first place that working more hours a day would not be a bad thing, it will make we finish our works quicker and better. Some people may think that working too long a day will wear them out, thus they cannot concentrate on what they are doing. On the contrary, instead of exhausting people, longer working hours will help them focus on their jobs and finish their jobs more effectively, for they will be disturbed by other trifles during this consecutive period. Just like, when you know you have to draw your design in the next 5 hours, other than drawing for 3 hours and watching a movie in the following 2 hours, you can give more attention on your designing, and your train of thoughts won’t be interrupted. In this occasion, one day’s working output value is much more than two days’ otherwise.
But there might be other people arguing that longer working hours means less time for private issues. This worrying is not necessary, actually, because we have more day-offs, with which we can systematically plan our personal affairs, like traveling or learning new skills. With the old schedule, we have only two days a week off, that is not enough whether you plan to visit another city you always planning to, or master on your freestyle swimming skill you just learned, but with a four-days’ off, they will be possible. That is to say, longer working hours bring more play days, meaning the private issues can be handled more effectively as well.
What we can not neglect is that most companies are using the old schedule right now, that indeed makes some sense. Because employees spend a lot of time on commutes, if their working hours expand, there will be little time for them to rest, that is inhumanity. Yet, with the trend that people can finish their work just from home increasing, the new schedule will eventually be more feasible.
During agricultural times, people worked as whenever they wanted; during contemporary society, working schedule was set by 8 hours a day and 5 days a week. Now here comes the new world, and new working arrangement should be erected, why not start with the new working schedule?
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Because the world is changing so quickly, people now are less happy or less satisfied with their lives than people were in the past. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
In this day and age, people all around the world, no matter American, Chinese or Japanese, all fall into a sense of nostalgia, meaning that they are always prone to looking back into those “Golden Ages” and sighing for the old good days followed by cursing the realities they living in. But base on rational analysis, it will make no sense to state that people feel less happy than their eldership, for the whole world is actually being better anyway.
First illustration which can demonstrate my opinion is that people’s lives have been much richer, what we eat, wear, where we live and how we communicate have been changed completely in the last 20 years, basically all fundamental demands of our lives can be fulfilled. So objectively speaking, people should be much happier today. Needless to say there are more abundant ways to entertain ourselves, considering how convenient it is for us to meet our idols, like Cristiano Ronaldo, Brad Pete, or even Barak Obama, you might have realized one of your life-long aspirations if you born 20 years earlier. I bet the dreaming lives of our parents is exactly what we have now.
According to historical experiences, if there is a period when people feel unsatisfied with their current living conditions for quite some time, there must be coups and revolutions, which are not like to happen in foreseeable future in today’s peace world. We should admit that imparity is always an accessory of society. The gap between the wealthy and poor is a major problem of today’s world, however lots of people are trying to fix this phenomenon, the macroeconomic controls applied by authorities, like taxes, social security and medical insurance, are aimed to protect citizens from falling into hell, whereas charitarians like Steve Jobs help people to realize their very own dreams.
We can’t deny that people suffer more stress nowadays, but that is not because they have to struggle more to earn decent lives today, it is due to our growing desires toward more things. As mentioned in the question, the world is changing every second, what fulfills our desire today may become outdated tomorrow, then we begin our journey to pursue something new, as long as that loop never ends there will be people being trapped in it. It is fair enough to say that, more desire more stress, if you chose to purse more, then you need to sustain sufferings derive from that.
Old days make people emotional, and we tend to be dwelling on the past from time to time, which makes reality to become an object of ridicule when we are unhappy, but that can’t change the true face of reality, that is we do lead a happier life now.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Young people today have no influence on the important decisions that determine the society as a whole. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
If time dates backwards a century, the world at that time can really be called the world of youth. Einstein, Boer, Schrodinger, along with other outstanding young people, they all made their magnificent groundbreaking founds at their 20s or 30s, ever since had the world and the history of humanity changed. Looking at today’s young people, they are typically considered to be lazy and be indifferent about the outside world, they are the cause of “low desire society”. But, truly, are today’s young people so terrible? My answer is No.
It should be put into first place that young people never stop making miracles and shattering the world. Young people may not be so active in the field of political or business, which require lots of life experiences, but in the domain of high-tech or basic sciences, the figures of young people will never be deficient. Young talents like Terence Chi-Shen Tao and Mark Zuckerberg, they keep expanding the boundary of human knowledge and making the world a better place. Mao Zedong, a strategist of contemporary China, once said, “The world will belong to young people, eventually.” That is because young people shape the world they live in, they change the culture, they make new rules, and the world will adapt to that changes when times goes by, when old people fade out and young people come to the center of the stage.
From historical perspective, the society always wants a lot from its young people, whenever they deviate from the expectations of society, they will be blamed for that. Considering “the Lost Generation” after the World War One and “the Beat Generation” after the World War Two, now society’s disappointment emotions towards the youth is just the replay of history, the basic confliction between the youth and the old, the ruler of the society. So, when judging from different criterions, we may get different attitudes. Young people view the world differently from their elders, what cherished by the elders may be abandoned by their successors, and vice versa, things pursued by young people could be strange to their predecessors. Toleration can be a solution, when this two opposite groups learn to respect each other, we may find out that young people are not as incorrigible as we thought before.
We can not deny that young people nowadays are indeed not as hard-working as their parents, and they care less about the world. The cause of this change is that the material life of people has been greatly improved during the last decades, and we are provided by more choices to focus on what we truly love, not be distracted by the outside world. Is this change benign? We can’t be sure. But it’s happening, and will probably be lasting for decades, maybe we can judge it by then.
It’s time for us to stop complaining that young people are ridiculous, that they are wasting their lives for nothing, and start to respect each other. Old people should lead the youth to their way of life, and let them finish their journeys by themselves, no matter the outcomes, just respect their decisions.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? When teachers assign projects on which students must work together, the students learn more effectively than they are asked to work alone on projects. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
In this day and age, whenever talking about globalization, an example of how an airplane is manufactured will be referred to, it goes like this, the shells are made in Japan, the engines are from Germany, while other subassemblies come from several different countries, and eventually, all parts are aggregated in China, and then here born the airplane. It is easily to tell from this story that cooperation is needed when we want things done, and so is it when we students do our jobs.
It should be inferred firstly that when working in a group, students can communicate with each other and interchange their ideas. There is little people who can be perfect in every aspect, it is not exaggerating to say that everyone has its own defects, thus we need someone to correct our directions when we detract from right path, which is one function of a good team. Apart from making the group work more effectively as a whole, cooperation can also help individuals in that group improve themselves. As mentioned above, team members help each other amend their downsides, in the mean time they can learn from their partners’ upsides. Just like in a project, A is good at analysis, B can write the report in a perfect manner, and C is an excellent presenter, when these three people work together, they can finish their tasks remarkably, and they will influence one another in their adept field.
Another benefit of group-working is that it can propel group members to finish their jobs in a higher quality. First of all, when working with other people, students will be under peer pressure, which means the group itself has an influence that forces individuals to change their previous attitudes and be consistent with the criteria of the group. So in a good team, when individuals find that their coworkers are trying every bit to polish their project, they will do the same for the sake of not letting others down. Besides, working along with others will help when we come through some difficulties, not only because the reasons we mentioned in the first part, they can also share the pressures with us and help us conquer sluggishness.
However, we cannot ignore the appearance of free riders inside groups, it is human nature that some people always want to enjoy the fruits without making an effort. Thus, to stem this from happening, group members should pinpoint everyone’s accountability at the very beginning, and set up explicit rules to assure everyone’s rights are protected and everyone’s duties will be done.
The debates on whether working in a group is better than working alone are never died, my opinion is that a good team outweighs a bunch of good individuals. So, if you can find a good team, be a member of it; if not, create one.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Famous entertainers and athletes deserve to have more privacy than they have now. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
In this day and age, people’s awareness of protecting their own privacy has been risen to an unprecedented level, especially after the exposure of that Facebook, a company owns private data of billions of users, has leaked an enormous amount of information of their customers for commercial purposes. However, when it comes to celebrities, the situation becomes a little bit odd, it seems that people are too curious about their personal lives to forget that this famous people need privacies as much as we do.
It should be put out firstly that, privacy is a basic right of humanitarian that is protected by any constitutions of modern civilizations. The reasons that famous personalities are treated specially are due to the particularities of their jobs, but those people are not different from us substantially, so they deserve to be treated as equal. It is not uncommon that some maniac fans brake into the dwellings of their idols and hide there to peek their lives, that is horrific when the victims are ourselves, and so is it for the celebrities. In essence, that kinds of activities are law- breaking and will impose threats on life securities of public figures, and those who commit this should be put into prison. In this sense, the pries of privacies of celebrities are more than curiosities, they are crimes indeed.
Apart from the discussions from legal aspect, too much attentions on the personal affairs of celebrities can do harm to their normal lives. Let alone the inconveniences caused by fanatic followers everywhere celebrities go, those enthusiasms might block their natural developments. Take children celebrities as an example, people love them for some of their certain characters, and they tend to force the famous kids to maintain their present status by criticizing on the internet whenever the kids do something beyond their expectations, and the companies own the kids will adjust them to their previous ways. This may make consumers satisfied, but will definitely twist the nature of those kids, and shade a miserable memory of their unfree even pathetic childhood. So a proper way to love our idols is to give their privacies back to them.
However, it cannot be denied that public figures should stay more transparent than normal people, for they have magnificent influences and tremendous powers when comparing with general publics. It is obvious that there is little perfect man, everyone may do things wrong from time to time, some are forgivable, others are forbidden. Public figures get their name because they have public influences, if they hide their dirty secrets from the public, like drug-using, DUI, or even corruptions, there will be no way for authorities to correct them, thus their fans may mimic them to do the same thing, which will eventually destroy the fabric of the society. To some extent, transparency of public figures is also necessary.
Despite all the fame and wealth possessed by celebrities, they are normal citizens under the protection of law, privacies of theirs are protected too, we should respect that point. But considering all the influences and powers they might have on general people, transparency and reasonable regulations are also indispensable.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? For the successful development of a country, it is more important for a government to spend money on the education of very young children than to spend money on universities. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Whenever we talking about the technology power of cutting-edge field, like astronomy, spacial physics, or computing, of a country, we often mention how many excellent universities or other superior remarkable scientific research institutions it has, not the numbers of primary schools or high school teachers. It is obvious that universities make more contributions to the country than organizations that educate very young children, thus they deserve to be funded more.
It should be put out firstly that the finances needed by colleges and universities outweigh those of fundamental educations greatly. Considering the tuitions of these two kinds of education will justify the demand of more investment in advanced education, we spend 500 dollars per year to get in a primary school, yet that for a university is at least 100 folds of that. Besides, the cost of fundamental education is limited, we just need to pay for the text books, teachers and some classroom equipment; but as for advanced education, high-edge instruments and experimental consumables which can’t be cheap are always required to conduct their studies. So, in the sake of fair, I mean, to keep both systems operate properly, universities will be costlier, thus should get more investments substantially.
Apparently, we invest for returns, so, whatever it is that will benefit the country most should be poured in more money, in this case, it is the universities. As said by Deng Xiaoping, a strategist of contemporary China, “Science and technology are the first productivity”, which means a country depends on its level of the well development of technology to make any progress in every aspect of that country, and that derives from the research works of universities and institutes of scientific research which demand huge bulks of funds and their return will be lavish as well. Not to mention that talents graduate from those institutes will be the leaders in the domain of economics, legislations, policies and etc., among those people, the direction of the developments will be set, and that will at least partly ensure a bright future of the country. So, in a word, investment in advanced education is actually investment in the future of the country.
However, emphasizing the importance of university educations doesn’t mean distaining the indispensability of fundamental education, after all, fundamental education gets its name for its foundational functions when providing geniuses to higher education. Nobody is born in their 20s, so it is not exaggerating to say that little is capable of doing high-end researches without fundamental education. The necessity and the importance of fundamental education cannot be too much, considering it as a seed bank, only with enough well developed seeds, can a forest flourish.
It is unfair to choose only one of them, advanced education and fundamental education, as our priority, because they a two parts of a chain, without each, will the chain be broken. However, we must make our decision when talking about how much money to spend on which aspect, then I say, invest more in the advanced education, because it will ensure you to have plenty of money for other purposes.