How many subjects in secondary school?

Posted on October 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In some countries, secondary education focuses in depth on two or three subjects, while in others students take a large number of subjects. Which system do you think is better?

If you had a medical problem, would you rather go to a specialist or to a general practitioner? There are times when both are needed. In this essay, I will discuss whether studying a wide range of subjects is better than concentrating on one or two areas.

First of all, it’s not surprising that many countries have opted for secondary school systems with a large number of subjects. For one thing, having many subjects helps young people to become more balanced They learn about the world through science, art, music, literature, sport, cooking, woodwork, design, or computing, and they learn skills in each area. A second point is that there is plenty of time to specialize. Now that more people go on to college and futher degrees, there is no need to begin to concentrate too early. In addition, specialization does not allow people to change. As we grow, our tastes may change, and someone who is interested in math at 12 years may suddenly prefer to study music when she is 17.

However, many countries prefer fewer skills in secondary school. In the UK for example, students take only a couple of subjects at A level. This can have several advantages. First of all, it leads to excellence in each subject. Students can learn much more than when they are taking 9 or 10 subjects. Secondly, it makes it easier for students to get into university and to do well. The student already knows the subject in depth, and does not have to make difficult choices. But an important point to remember is that studying one or two subjects in depth does not mean students know nothing about other topics. Doing A-Level chemistry does not mean that you cannot play the violin or excel in Russian.

In my opinion, students should be able to choose between these two options. For some, a wide range of subjects is a better choice, but for others, it’s more interesting to dig deep and specialize in only one or two areas. I believe it depends on the student’s personality, and while most students are adaptable, one or other approach will suit most students better.

Are Parents the Best Teachers?

Posted on October 8, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Are parents always the best teachers?

Throughout my life, I have been lucky enough to have a very good relationship with my parents. They have supported me, given me necessary criticism, and taught me a great deal about how to live my life. Parents can be very important teachers in our lives; however, they are not always the best teachers.

Parents may be too close to their children emotionally. Sometimes they can only see their children through the eyes of a protector. For example, they may limit a child’s freedom in the name of safety. A teacher might see a trip to a big city as a valuable new experience. However, it might seem too dangerous to a parent.

Another problem is that parents may expect their children’s interests to be similar to their own They can’t seem to separate from their children in their mind. If they love science, they may try to force their child to love science too. But what if their child’s true love is art, or writing, or car repair?

Parents are usually eager to pass on their values to their children. But should children always believe what their parents do? Maybe different generations need different ways of thinking. When children are young, they believe that their parents are always right. But when they get older, they realize there are other views. Sometimes parents, especially older ones, can’t keep up with rapid social or technological changes. A student who has friends of all different races and backgrounds at school may find that his parents have narrower views. A student who loves computers may find that her parents don’t really understand or value the digital revolution. Sometimes kids have to find their own ways to what they believe in.

The most important thing to realize is that we all have many teachers in our lives. Our parents teach us, our teachers teach us, and our peers teach us. Books and newspapers and television also teach us. All of them are valuable.

Childcare: Who should provide it?

Posted on October 8, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Why should the government help working parents by providing childcare facilities?

Should parents, particularly mothers, stay at home to take care of children? Or should they be allowed to help their family and their country’s development by going out to work? In some countries, the government provides financial assistance to parents who use childcare, and I will give some reasons why I think this is a good idea.

Firstly, childcare centres may assist children in their early development. They give children an opportunity to mix with other children and to develop social skills at an early age. Indeed, a whole range of learning occurs in childcare centres.

Moreover, parents and children need to spend some time apart. Children become less dependent on their parents and parents themselves are less stressed and more effective care-givers when there are periods of separation. In fact, recent studies indicate that the parent-child relationship can be improved by the use of high-quality childcare facilities.

In addition, parents who cannot go to work because they don’t have access to childcare facilities cannot contribute to the national economy. They are not able to utilise their productive skills and do not pay income tax. In fact, non-working parents can become a drain on the tax system through social welfare payments for dependent spouses or other tax rebates, instead of earning their own money and paying tax.

In conclusion, government support for childcare services assists individual families and is important for the economic well-being of the whole nation.

Should boys and girls attend college together?

Posted on October 3, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Should male and female students be allowed to study together in college? What are some of the possible problems and benefits of studying separately or together?

In some colleges in the UAE, men and women are educated together. However, in most colleges, male and female students study separately. In this essay I will ask if having men and women together in class is always a good thing.

There are some reasons why male and female students should be educated separately. First of all, one reason why it’s good to teach them separately is because men and women think differently. If they are taught in the same class, the men or women may not understand the topic fully. Another reason that some people give is that young men and women will not be able to concentrate on their studies. They claim that the students will be focusing on each other instead of learning. Finally, some people say that women suffer in mixed environments. The women don’t get heard as much and the women’s participation drops.

However, there are many strong reasons why college should be coeducational. In the first place, it’s good preparation for the real world. When people start working, they will work side-by-side with women. Secondly, it allows us to learn different ways of thinking. Men and women have complementary learning styles, and the result can be better project work. Finally, while it’s true that young men and women will be interested in each other, this does not mean that their grades will suffer or they they will stop concentrating: In fact, they may even be more interested in college.

In conclusion, although some people are afraid that educating men and women together can lead to lower grades, especially for women, I believe it will be better for work and make college more enjoyable. If we allow our students to learn together, the result will be better graduates, workers and partners.

Young people and free time

Posted on October 3, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Young people today have a lot of free time. In your opinion, do they use this time well or do they waste it?

Do young people today use their free wisely? Or do many of them just waste it doing pointless activities? In this essay, I will discuss how most of the young people I know spend their free time.

Of course, many young people, just like many old people, waste their time. Some youngsters choose to sleep instead of getting up and being active. They get used to being lazy and the slightest effort is too much. Others are more active, but prefer to spend all their time in the mall or in the coffee shop, just watching girls or chatting with their friends. This if fine for a while, but it’s not very productive. Still others of course never leave the house and just sit around chatting on the internet or watching sports on television. It’s a lot easier to just sit at home and criticize your team than to get fit and take part, but that’s what many people prefer to do.

However, there are also many young people who are extremely active and productive. After all, most sport is played by young people, and stadiums are full of people supporting their favorite teams. Secondly, most young people are trying to create a good future for themselves. A lot of young people do extra courses or spend their time reading in order to do better in their studies. But the most important point is that young people are not very different from older people. Sometimes we all spend too long doing one thing, when we should try to have a balanced range of activities. All of us need to relax and have fun, and all of us, young and old, need to try new things and meet with friends and family.

In conclusion, it’s not really a question of age. Old and young people can choose to use their time well or to fritter it away. Hopefully we can all make choices that benefit us in the long run.

What’s the best way to help poor countries?

Posted on June 13, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Many poor countries receive financial help from richer nations, but poverty is still a problem. Should we give other kinds of help to developing countries in order to eliminate poverty? What other kinds of help can we give, or is money sufficient?

There is a saying that the poor will always be with us, and it sometimes seems that despite years of poor countries being helped financially, the need is just as great as ever. Where has all our foreign aid gone? Why has it not helped? In this essay I will discuss whether we need to reconsider the types of aid we give to poorer countries.

There are many different forms of development aid. When we hear about earthquakes or floods, it’s natural that we rush to our cupboards to look for blankets, clothes, and tins of food. These pile up outside collection depots in our country and cost a fortune to ship to the suffering country, where they clog up warehouses for months and often end up on the black market or make local food or clothing businesses unprofitable. Another form of aid is military aid. We generously sell our planes or tanks to our friends in developing countries, or even give them loans to buy our stuff. Since these countries have frequent wars or need to keep down their own population, it’s a good business, for us. A third type of aid is human expertise. We send consultants and economists, engineers and academics, trainers and managers. They drive around in imported four-wheel drives and live in expensive, secure villas, eating imported food.

Of course, financial aid is not perfect either. Too often, our money disappears into the pockets of ministers and generals and their friends, never reaching the needy. However, the right amount of money, given to the right people in the right way, can do more than our jet fighters, expensive generators, and bags of expired pasta can. Money moves quickly: it does not need trucks or petrol or airlifts. It stimulates local business and allows the people to make their own choices about what to buy and what the most urgent needs are, short and long term. If correctly distributed, money gives people independence. Yes, teach people to fish and you teach them for a lifetime, but give them some money, and they can set up a fish canning factory or a shrimp farm, employing and feeding hundreds.

In summary then, money is still a good way to help other people. Of course, it cannot be thrown at the problem, but without cash, every other form of aid is useless. In our blessed, comfortable lives, we cannot function without money – why should we expect the less fortunate to do so?

Should foreigners pay more? (short)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In many places, foreign visitors are charged more than locals when they visit cultural or tourist attractions. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Tourist attractions often have two admission prices: one for locals or residents, and one for foreigners or visitors from far away. Some see this as discrimination, while others accept it as being fair. In this essay I will say why I think it is reasonable for foreign visitors to pay more.

I don’t think locals should pay the same as foreign tourists. For one thing, a historical attraction in my country is part of my heritage. My ancestors built it, and I should have free or cheap access so I can know my history. Second, let’s face it : most tourists are rich – or at least richer than us locals. If they can afford to fly from Australia or China to see a castle or a rare animal, than they can pay a few dollars more. In addition, I pay taxes in my country, so I have already paid a lot more from my salary than the foreign tourist who is only here for a few days.

I think foreigners should pay more for several reasons. First of all, it raises money to maintain the attraction. The higher admission fees from foreigners are important in Egypt or Mexico to preserve world-class historical sites. Secondly, tourists pay far more for their flights, hotels, and cocktails. A few dollars extra to visit a museum is nothing. Third, most tourists only visit the attraction once in their lives. Who is not prepared to pay a little extra for a special occasion?

To sum up, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to pay a little extra when I am in a new country, and vice versa. In fact, I’ve already started to save for my next trip!

Do we need so many languages? (short)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Many languages are disappearing every year. Is this a bad thing, or could having fewer languages help bring people together?

Will we all think the same way in future? Or will countries communicate better? In this essay I will look at a future with fewer languages.

Many people worry about threats to their native language. They think they will lose their identity, and fear losing their culture, or even their religion. They worry that we will lose diversity and instead begin to think and act in the same way worldwide. Some even worry about the increased danger of conflict in a world with just five or six major languages.

However, this is too simplistic. It is true that many languages have disappeared and will disappear. But it’s important to remember that languages are alive, not static. English people do not talk like Shakespeare, and Greeks do not talk like Aristotle. Arabic changes, and so do Mandarin and Thai. New languages are developing right now. Second, even if a language changes, ideas remain. Not many Europeans speak Arabic today, but six hundred years ago it was the language of science. No one speaks Latin or ancient Greek, but the ideas of their philosophers still survive. Third, sharing a language is no guarantee against war. Many countries have vicious civil wars where both sides share a language.

In conclusion, our native language is one way of expressing our ideas and worldview. If it’s useful, we should use it, but we should also realize that our identity and potential is not limited to the geographical accident of our birthplace and native language. What’s more important is that we learn to think, reflect, and genuinely communicate with others, regardless of what languages we use.

Do we need so many languages? (long)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Many languages are disappearing every year. Is this a bad thing, or could having fewer languages help bring people together?

The world appears to be moving towards a smaller number of languages such as English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese or Hindi, each with millions or billions of speakers. Unfortunately this means that smaller languages are in danger of disappearing. Some people fear the loss of culture and identity, while others believe a world with easier communication would be a better place. In this essay, I will discuss the dangers of both outcomes.

We are indeed losing a lot of languages. One language expert estimates that 60%-80% of all languages will disappear in 100 years, just three generations from now. This is a major loss. First of all, the way that people think is to a certain degree rooted in their first languages. A community’s language is bound up with its way of life, culture, religious beliefs and identity. A second point is the loss of diversity: different languages can contribute to different ways of looking at and solving human problems. Thirdly, fewer languages does not necessarily mean better communication: it could even mean a dangerous situation with billions of people fighting against each other, rather than smaller groups as in the past. This could be the most important drawback: as more people speak one language, it becomes easier for billions to be influenced by shallow media or aggressive politicians.

However, there might be a lot to be gained from having fewer languages and greater communication. First of all is today’s practical problem of translation: business is more difficult, travel is more complicated, and misunderstandings arise. Another current problem is marginalization: communities who do not speak a major world language fall behind in science and technology and their economies suffer. Third, having fewer languages might mean more shared ideas. Global collaboration could happen instantly rather than taking years. And finally, although some people are afraid of the loss of culture or identity, it seems that good ideas can survive. We don’t speak Latin or classical Greek anymore, but the ideas and values of the people who spoke those languages are still with us.

In conclusion, it seems inevitable that some languages will disappear: like animals or plants, they need a specific habitat and can be squeezed out by stronger competitors. The answer is not to hide and isolate ourselves but to be confident about our identity in whatever language we speak.

Should foreigners pay more? (long)

Posted on June 7, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In many places, foreign visitors are charged more than locals when they visit cultural or tourist attractions. Do you agree or disagree with this?

To visit the beautiful and remote mountain kingdom of Bhutan, foreigners (everyone without a Bhutanese or an Indian passport) have to pay up to $240 a day. This is an extreme example of charging visitors more than locals, but the country has many valid reasons for this policy. In this essay, I will say why I generally agree with foreigners paying more to visit cultural or historical sites.

It’s easy to see why some foreign visitors resent being charged more. First of all, nobody likes to pay more than other people for the same thing. It’s irritating to know that the person beside you in a queue or at a tourist attraction has paid much less just because of his or her nationality. A second annoying point is that you often don’t get any better service just because you have paid more to enter a historical site or entertainment venue. In fact, the place is often overcrowded with locals and your visit can suffer. Furthermore, knowing that you as a foreign visitor are paying more often makes you bad-tempered and therefore less likely to enjoy the experience. Finally, some think that places such as Cambodia’s Angkor Wat or Ireland’s Cliffs of Moher are world cultural or natural treasures and should be open to everyone. They are not the property of some money-grabbing ministry.

However, there are good reasons why overseas visitors should pay more. For one thing, foreign tourism is still a privilege of the well-off. Why should countries not charge rich visitors as much as the market will bear? Nobody is forced to visit these places. Second, the attraction or cultural site is part of the local community’s history and heritage. They should not have to pay to learn about their own history. A third point is that it is extremely expensive to maintain places like Istanbul’s Topkapi palace. Tourists who may be visiting once in a lifetime can and should contribute to the cost of maintenance. In fact, this is the most important point: if you have dreamed all your life of visiting Peru’s Machu Picchu or China’s Terracotta Army then surely you are ready to spend a little more for this experience.

In conclusion, we need to put things in perspective. The admission fees rarely add much to the cost of our visit, compared to hotels or travel, and we as foreign travelers help maintain and preserve the site for the locals and for future generations.

Writefix.com

Argument essays, graphs, other writing, and speaking for IELTS, PET, and TOEFL

Category: Essays

How many subjects in secondary school?

Related Posts:

Are Parents the Best Teachers?

Childcare: Who should provide it?

Related Posts:

Should boys and girls attend college together?

Related Posts:

Young people and free time

Related Posts:

What’s the best way to help poor countries?

Related Posts:

Should foreigners pay more? (short)

Related Posts:

Do we need so many languages? (short)

Related Posts:

Do we need so many languages? (long)

Related Posts:

Should foreigners pay more? (long)

Related Posts: