ابحث بين معلمي الإنجليزية المتعددين...
المنشورات
lianxi9
The older generations tend to have traditional ideas about how people should live, think and behave. Some people argue that these traditional ideas are not helpful in preparing the younger generations for modern life. Do you agree or disagree?
It might be hard for the older generations to integrate into the current society because they tend to consider things in a traditional way. Though those traditional ideas have some merits, I do not think some of them can be applied into modern life.
The traditional value about family is still helpful these days. It encourages people to take responsibility for their family. If the younger generations have a family, they should be faithful to their spouses, share household chores and look after children. Nowadays some young people do not take marriage seriously and they are reluctant to support their family. As a result, the divorce rate is increasing. What is worse, their irresponsible attitude to family may also influence the next generations. However, inheriting the traditional family value will help the young develop a sense of responsibility to some extent.
On the other hand, the old view on work is somewhat outdated. It tells the young to stick to their positions and avoid any risk. It might be useful in the past but now the world is changing so fast that people have to face uncertainty. If they only pursue job stability and escape from troubles, they may not be qualified for a higher position in work. In contrast, people who have adventurous spirit and courage to take risks and deal with problems are more likely to improve themselves and achieve success in their careers. They may make mistakes and fail, but unlike the older generations who regard those bad results as shames, the younger tend to learn lessons from their mistakes and failures, and know how to take advantage of them.
In conclusion, I admit that some transitional ideas can help the younger generations realise more clearly what they should do , but others are too conservative to help them prepare for challenges and difficulties they may encounter. It is time for the young to change and add new meanings to the old values.
0
0
Lianxi8
Today, more and more parents depend on their children's grandparents for childcare. Do you think this is a positive or negative trend?
Looking after children is never an easy job, especially for working parents. They lead a hectic lifestyle and may not have enough time for their children, but it is unsafe to leave children at home without supervision. As a result, young parents rely on their parents for childcare.
This brings advantages to all concerned. It is a relief for young parents to some extent as they can save time and energy and focus more attention on their work. They may get promotion because of their high efficiency, and therefore earn more salaries to improve the living standard of their family. With higher salaries, they can also afford better education for their children. Children’s grandparents will also feel more connected to their own children’s family because they take one part of the family responsibility and contribute to the family. Those grandparents will not feel isolated and lonely as their grandchildren can bring them joy. In addition, they will also be motivated to learn to use advanced technology such as cellphones and computers for better childcare. Therefore, the elderly may share more common topics with their children and even grandchildren.
On the other hand, it may have some negative influences on the family relationship. Young children are likely to ]feel distant from their parents if their parents spare no time for them and help them deal with troubles. Consequently, it might be hard for the parents to communicate with their children. For example, children may be more willing to accept their grandparents’ advice instead of their parents’. In addition, a lack of communication may cause arguments and damage the family bond.
In conclusion, depending on the elderly for childcare has both advantages and disadvantages, but I think it is a negative trend in the long term. It may cause social problems if those children grow up and also depend on their parents who have no knowledge about taking care of young children for childcare.
0
0
Lianxi 7
Students from rural areas often find it difficult to access university education. Some people think that universities should make it easier for them to access higher education. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Due to the low income and limited education resources in rural areas, it is often hard for students there to get access to achieve a higher degree. Universities can choose to give easier accesses to the rural students, but I do not think it is a responsibility these universities should take.
Universities can take students' family backgrounds into consideration when they recruit new students. Before enrollment, they can send staff to rural areas to keep those students informed about their requirements and the latest changes of their evaluation system. They may set different standards according to the particular situation of different places. If students are from remote area, universities may not be too strict with them. Moreover, universities can provide poor students with student loans to relieve their financial pressure.
However, I think government should also take action to increase the university enrollment rate of rural students. Local governments should offer those students subsidies if they are admitted by a university. And more fundamentally, governments need to invest more in education, such as providing advanced teaching equipment for the schools and hiring experienced teachers with a high salary to improve the education system in the underdeveloped areas. Governments can also encourage local enterprises to donate money and equipment to the rural schools.
Overall, I think universities should ensure equal opportunity for everyone to get high education, but they also have the right not to change their enrollment requirements. Therefore, I think governments should be more responsible for giving easier access to students from rural areas.
0
0
Lianxi6
Every year several languages die out. This is not important because life will be easier if there are fewer languages in the world. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The extinction of several minority languages seems not to make a difference to most people. They think the removal of language barriers would make it easier to communicate with ethnic minorities. I partly agree with this view.
Fewer languages mean that people may have fewer cultural differences and conflicts. They are less likely to misunderstand each other. People who speak the same language may share the same culture, custom and religion. They know how to talk with others in an appropriate way that makes both of them enjoy their conversation. In other words, they do not need to pay too much attention to the choice of words and worry if it is offensive to others. By contrast, people who can only speak minority languages may find it hard to integrate into the mainstream of society because the international media tend to use dominant languages. They may not have the direct access to the latest information and feel isolated.
However, if no action is taken to prevent those languages from dying out, culture will lack character and therefore, the world will lose the cultural diversity. People may follow the same fashion, watch the same TV shows and read the same books. Even their thinking pattern may become similar. Instead, if people from different cultural backgrounds work together, they will share opinions with each other and think more creatively. They can also work out various solutions to one problem as they can view it from various perspectives. As a result, they can work more efficiently and achieve career success more easily.
To conclude, I think life would be more convenient if there are fewer languages in the world, but meanwhile it would become boring.
2
0
lianxi5
Schools should only offer subjects that are beneficial to students' future career success. Other subjects, such as music and sports, are not important. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Schools are expected by students to provide a variety of courses including academic courses and music or sports. But students also have the right to choose what they want to learn. Therefore, I think subjects offered by schools should not be limited to courses that seem beneficial to students' future careers.
Schools need to focus more on academic courses because they lay a basic foundation for students' life. Courses like literature can enrich students' vocabulary and broaden their minds. Their reading skills and writing skills can be honed by reading the world's classics and they can have a better understanding of different cultures. They will be more open-minded and tolerant if they encounter cultural conflicts in the workplace. Other courses like mathematics helps improve students' logical thinking skills. They may view things from a different perspective instead of solving problems in a similar way. Thus, they are less likely to make mistakes in work and accomplish their tasks cautiously and objectively.
On the other hand, subjects such as music and sports also plays an important role in students' future career. For example, music can help them relieve stress. Students will feel frustrated if what they learn everyday are only complicated theories and principles. Music can give their brain some rest and help students study more efficiently. They may also draw inspiration from music and think creatively. When they enter the job market after graduation, their creativity and imagination can help them stand out in the cut-throat competition.
In conclusion, my opinion is that schools should not only provide core courses that are beneficial to students' future career, but offer optional courses like music and sports as well.
2
0
