Study something you like - VS - Study ONLY something that will be useful in the working world. Nowadays, having an university degree is taken almost for granted. On the other hand, the number of students and study opportunities has sharply increased. Nonetheless, the choice of the subject of one's study path is still very important, not only in view of one's future career, but especially because it will determine how pleasant and interesting its university and job experiences will be. Therefore, it would be wise to learn about something that we enjoy, more than something purely "useful". Undoubtedly, having a major in one of the so-called "expendable degrees" may be an advantage when looking for a job. Certain subjects, such as STEM, are highly requested in businesses and organisations nowadays. On the other hand, some people may love other subjects that are not considered as much useful on behalf of a future working career, like literature, philosophy and arts. This choice is frequently discouraged using the scarecrow of unemployment as if it was more a fact than a possibility. However, this isn't true. Many of these skilled students find jobs related to their areas of study, even if they don't fall in the category of subjects usually defined as useful. Others may want to continue their career in the academic world, giving their contribution to research or education. Unfortunately, some may not be lucky enough to find a job linked to their degree; however, in my opinion, this happens on both sides. The reason why scientific subjects appear to be more popular in the working world is that they have a wider range of applications. However, what's the point of having studied physics, for example, if you end working as an accountant just because you have a basic knowledge of informatics? I strongly believe that the main goal in our life is to pursue what we love, which includes studying about something that we enjoy. I think that, so long we put all our efforts and commitment in what we do, there's no "useless" degree. In my view, skills are always repaid.

Sales of Fairtrade-labeled coffee and bananas in Europe in 1999 and 2004. The tables summarize the information about how much Fairtrade-labeled coffee and bananas have been sold in 1999 and 2004 in five European countries. These are the UK, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium and Sweden. In 1999, Switzerland was the major consumer of coffee among the countries in exam, buying a total of € 3 million worth of coffee. Coffee has been sold the least in Sweden, for € 0.8 million. In 2004, the overall coffee demand has increased. The UK has become the largest coffee buyer, with a consumption worth € 20 millions. Sweden has stayed the country buying the least amount of coffee with purchases limited to € 1 million. Regarding bananas, Switzerland has been the largest consumer both in 1999 and in 2004, buying bananas for a total worth 15 and 47 millions euros respectively. In 1999, the fewest bananas have been sold in Belgium for a revenue of € 0.6 million, while in 2004, the minor buyers have become Sweden and Denmark, where sales have been limited to 0.9 and 1 million euros respectively. Overall, in 2004, the sales of both coffee and bananas have sharply increased, with the UK being the major consumer of both products.

Use of punishment as part of the education process [full title in the text] [Title] It is important for children to learn the difference between right and wrong at an early age. Punishment is necessary to help them learn this distinction. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? What sort of punishment should parents and teachers be allowed to use to teach good behaviour to children? [/Title] We are responsible for the future of our world and society. This has several implications, but the most important one is probably educating the next generation. However, despite being such a crucial task, it still lacks a clear and acknowledged method. As a result, educators, both parents and teachers, use their own, hoping for the best. One of the most popular laws of old school education is the so-called "reinforcement". If a child has a good behavior he or she should have a prize, while if they behave badly, they should be punished. In this way, the child associates nice feelings to certain behaviors and unpleasant ones to others. However, this method relies entirely on this empty, almost mechanic, association, without focusing on the explanation at its base. Punishing a child for specific behaviors won't teach him or her what is wrong, but just to avoid those specific behaviors or, growing up, how to sneak by adults and avoid being caught. The only way to rise a new generation able to discriminate between right and wrong is to teach them to think rationally, explaining them why certain things are acceptable and others are not. In no circumstances a child should be punished. A scolding is enough, if followed by a clear explanation. This is the only punishment that educators, in my view, should be allowed to use. Children are humans who still need to learn how things work. Making decisions is part of that complex process of trials and errors also known as experience.

Help with IELTS speaking test.

Hi there italki community,

I'm Antonio, an Italian boy and I'm going to attend a IELTS test next week. I feel quite confident about the Listening and Reading sections, and I think that my writing skills are overall decent. However, I feel very anxious about the Speaking part. I really am not the type of person who talks about everything, and the majority of sample topics just feel so fake that I almost cannot speak at all! I have talked to  few English people in the past, and I have been trying to improve my speaking a lot in the last week, but I can't see any upgrade.
If you want to help or you are interested in an exchange, feel free to contact me. I'm available on Skype and Whatsapp.

Thank you for your time, bye.

Some people learn a foreign language for utility, others say this shouldn't be the only reason. Globalization is one of the distinctive traits of today's society. Distant places are becoming increasingly closer due to the improvement of international transports. As places are becoming closer one to the other, the same happens to cultures and ideas. In order to interact with such cultures and understand all these new ideas, people need to communicate and therefore share the same language. Language is a tool that humans have created in order to fulfil a task: make communication simple. Many people nowadays learn a foreign language for this same reason: to be able to share thoughts and experiences. This applies both to people who enjoy doing their vacations abroad and just need to talk with the hotel staff, and to people who work in a foreign environment every day. In order to make this process more efficient, a common, universal language has been chosen: English. In the majority of cases, English alone fulfils the need of communication and it is the only tool you need to interact with the world. However, since humans had spread around the world, each different language has been containing traces of the history of the population that created it. Language has become not only a tool, but also a flag of culture. For this reason, a lot of people learn foreign languages not only to have a tool that helps them to communicate, but also to learn something about the people who speak it and connect with them. In my opinion, languages are powerful tools and, like any other tool, their importance lies in the task that they accomplish. I think that languages should be learned in order to be able to express yourself, not just for the sake of knowing them. Any other reason lies, in my view, in the domain of personal taste. In other words, learning a new language in order to know more about a culture may be interesting and fun, but this is not the reason why people should learn it in the first place.

Improved medical care has made people living longer. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? The improvement of the species is at the base of survival and the key of progress. Extending its lifetime has always been one of the objectives of human kind. Initially, humans didn't live much longer than many other big mammals, but the development of society and technology has gradually led people to live up to 80 years and longer. At the moment, it appears we have reached a hard cap, given mostly by the onset of neurodegenerative diseases, like dementia, which represent one of the limits of modern medicine. Because of such pathologies, old people may become unable to take care of themselves and need continual assistance. Sadly, in some cases, a longer life may not be seen being worth to be lived, if lived in this way. This is an important problem of modern society, and for this reason, it's extremely important to improve medical science in order to learn how to cure, and even prevent, these deseases. On the other hand, people who are 'lucky' enough to not experience such problems can actually make much more long term plans and projects, they can enjoy their retirement while still being active and, maybe, watch their grandchildren become parents and helping them. Hopefully, this will be true for anyone in the near future thanks to research. I strongly believe that anything that improves human life should be appreciated without any doubt. We should continue to promote medical care in order to reduce the cognitive impairment caused by neurodegenerative diseases, but, in the meantime, we should also learn, as a society, to take care of our ill elderly loved ones, without letting them feel like burdens. Both will lead not only to a longer life for all, but also a richer and better one.

Some people work for the same company all their life. Other think it's better to change. Discuss. Working is undoubtedly necessary to achieve economic independence and many people spend the majority of their waking hours doing it. Therefore, it's important to find a job that non only suites our practical needs, but that also fulfills us as individuals. Some people find their source of stable income as independent workers, but many others work as employees for companies or organisations. This working condition provides a structured environment in which workers cooperate for the good of the company. Some employees may like this system and the organisation for which they work , therefore they may desire to contribute through their abilities. In order to do this, they may commit all their working life to the same company, trying to prove their worth and climbing the so called "career ladder". However, not all employees may want this. They may prefer instead a wider range of experiences, or they may just don't like to be in the same working environment for long. These people may not advance in career as much and as fast as their more stable colleagues, but their knowledge of a vast range of working realities, versatility and flexibility are undoubtedly precious resources for any company. Personally, I think that both this views are needed. Committed employees are those who eventually reach the highest gears of the working machine and drive it, while the others usually find their career path in marketing and public relations, acting as bridges between the machine and the external world.

Charity in UK in 1990 and 2010 The chart shows the percentage fraction of British pople donating to charity, divided by age, separately for the years 1990 and 2010. It is clear that, both in 1990 and 2010, the peak in generosity is reached i the age period between 36 and 65 years, in other words during adulthood and third age. In 1990, the highest percentage of people donating money is achieved in the age range from 36 to 50 years, while in 2010 it is postponed to the next interval. This generational shift leads to people in age groups between 18 and 35 years appearing to donate more in 1990 than in 2010, and an opposite trend for the following groups. However, aside from the age shift, the distributions corresponding to the two years in exam aren't identical over the groups: in fact, in 1990 the peak of donations is higher than the one in 2010 and, overall, people's involvement in charity appears to be larger in 1990 than in 2010.