Should college students stay at home? (very short version)

Posted on April 14, 2012 by Mr Writefix

Many university students live with their families while others need to live away from home because their universities are in different cities. What are the advantages and disadvantages in both situations?

Is university just a place to get a piece of paper? Or can it be a place to grow personally and academically? This essay will explain why it’s better for most students to move away from home.

Living at home while studying has many advantages. It’s more comfortable than student accommodation. Rent and laundry are free, and there’s no need to cook. Your favorite DVDs are still in your old room, with the Justin Bieber posters and the Hello Kitty collection from when you were nine. The same old friends live nearby, although fewer because some have gone to college now.

Yes, your new college friends across the city are cold and penniless. But they sit in cafes for hours discussing politics and playing guitar and talking to that cute Korean student. The dorms are noisy, but there are always new people to meet. Some of your new college friends have signed up with a Japanese conversation club; others are going abseiling soon. While you snooze on the long uncomfortable bus ride home, they are working together in the library on next week’s assignment. While you sit with your mother watching television watching, they are exploring clubs and giggling during poetry readings.

Clearly, college is about more than a certificate. It’s about learning – not just academically, but about other people and the way you view the world. It doesn’t mean forgetting your old life, but it does mean opening up to new ideas and new experiences. Give it a try! You can always go home at the weekend!

258 words, 19 sentences, 13.5 words per sentence. This essay has exactly the same ideas and structure as a much longer essay (413 words) here.

Should children be free?

Posted on February 27, 2012 by Mr Writefix

Some people say that younger children should follow their instincts and be allowed to behave as freely as they want, while others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

How people treat children varies from society to society and from family to family. Some children seem to be almost wild, while others are expected to follow strict rules, almost like miniature adults. In this essay I will say why I think children benefit from freedom but need some guidelines.

We often think of childhood as a time of freedom. This is very strange, since, as children, we have no choice over who we live with, what we eat and or generally what we do. However, in the care of a good family, children are free to play, learn, run, fall, talk, shout, cry or be happy. They know that they are loved and that whatever they do they have someone to turn to.

However, very few parents, whether in traditional or modern societies, allow their children to follow their instincts completely. They are trying to get their children to succeed into society, and as a result, try to make their children learn acceptable social behavior. People are often quick to criticize the way other people raise their children, and there is a lot of pressure on parents to produce perfect children.

Parents of course have to set some limits. Sometimes the limits are for the children’s safety: they are not allowed to play here, go there, or sit in the front of the car. There can be limits on the kind of food or the time for bed. There can also be social limits: children have to act a certain way with parents or older family members or with people outside and they have to learn to share, to play with other children, to go to school. There is a constant negotiation of these limits, but it’s often said that children are happier knowing that there are limits.

It’s impossible to set a rule that will work for all children, all families, or all societies. However, childhood should be a time of learning and exploring, and that means pushing boundaries and finding how far you can go. If children don’t have some limits, they will not have a structure in their life and a framework for the future.

Should bright students be taught separately? (1)

Posted on October 29, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Is it fair to students to have different abilities in one classroom?

In some schools, students are divided into classes with different levels of ability. In other school systems, students are taught together, regardless of ability. In this essay, I will discuss if students benefit from being educated together.

In many countries, students are educated together regardless of ability for a variety of reasons. Political correctness is one: some policymakers believe that ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ are more important than meeting the needs of individual students. Another reason is ease of administration. Schools just randomly assign teachers and students to classes. The results, however, are that bright students are bored because they are not challenged. Weaker students stay weak and demotivated, and the country is deprived of the opportunity to create an elite group of students in arts, engineering or other disciplines who will go on to excel in university.

There are some arguments for educating students of different ability together. One claim is that students will learn to cooperate with other students of different abilities. It’s also suggested that few students are good at everything: they can learn from being in classes with students with different skills. These situations are similar to work and real life. However, the main reason against having separate classes is often political: some people fear that it leads to the development of an elite or favored group, with weaker students or schools being left with inferior teachers and fewer resources.

In conclusion, instead of being an educational debate about how to serve students well, it is often a political one. We need to find out which system works best for our students and give them the best chance to succeed.

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.

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?

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.

Universities and rural areas (short)

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Shorter version – 241 words – of the essay at https://writefix.com/blog/?p=213!

Not many young people living in rural areas have access to university education. Universities should make it easier for people from rural areas. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Most top universities are located in big cities. However, millions of people still live in villages and small towns, far from the city. How can they get a good university education? In this essay, I will say why I think universities must serve rural as well as urban students.

We don’t need to build big colleges in every rural area. First of all, it would be too expensive. It’s better and more efficient to locate universities in cities because thousands of students can use them. Secondly, small campuses would lack resources and would be boring. They would not offer many courses, and the staff might not be the best available. A third point is that rural students and urban students should mix and learn from each other. They should not be separate.

In fact, there are many better ways to help rural students. First of all, they may need money. People working on farms may be poor and unable to afford fees and accommodation. The college can help by reducing fees and housing costs. Second, using technology can really help. Even in rural areas, many people have internet or email, and can take courses this way. Thirdly, first or second year courses can be given in the countryside, and students can then transfer to finish.

In conclusion, since universities are usually funded by the government, they should serve all the people, not just the city students. Everybody deserves access to education.

Universities and rural areas (long)

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Not many young people living in rural areas have access to university education. Universities should make it easier for people from rural areas. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Now that the majority of the world’s population live in cities, it’s easy to forget that millions still live in the countryside, far from most of the world’s prestigious schools and colleges. In this essay, I will suggest how universities can make it easier for students living far from cities to receive a good education.

It’s not necessarily a good thing for colleges to open physical campuses in rural areas. First of all, land costs money, and building labs, libraries and research units is eye-wateringly expensive. Secondly there is the problem of staff. Not all university staff will be able or will want to relocate to small towns or villages far from their colleagues. A third issue is inefficiency. A tiny campus in a rural area may only serve a few hundred students, compared to extensive facilities for thousands of students in a city. In addition, students in a small campus may miss the interaction and atmosphere of a larger city university.

However, there are many ways to facilitate third level education outside the cities. For one thing, there are many technological solutions. Radio and television have long been used to extend the reach of education, and now almost all bricks-and-mortar universities offer some form of distance education via email or the internet. These are not perfect solutions, but they can work well. Another approach is to offer beginner-level courses in rural campuses and then require students to transfer for their final years. Yet another approach is specialization, where particular departments or faculties disperse across the country, perhaps with agriculture in one province and engineering in another. However, a very important point is to offer scholarships and to have special entry requirements or quotas for students from rural areas. Many people in the countryside may lack the financial resources to live in cities and pay high tuition fees.

In conclusion, many universities nowadays welcome diversity and equality in their policies and student bodies. It’s important for them to also make sure that students from rural areas also get the best education they can.

You can find a shorter version of this essay (241 words, compared to 343 for this one) here.

Writefix.com

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

Tag: education

Should college students stay at home? (very short version)

Related Posts:

Should children be free?

Related Posts:

Should bright students be taught separately? (1)

Related Posts:

How many subjects in secondary school?

Related Posts:

Are Parents the Best Teachers?

Childcare: Who should provide it?

Related Posts:

What’s the best way to help poor countries?

Related Posts:

Do we need so many languages? (long)

Related Posts:

Universities and rural areas (short)

Related Posts:

Universities and rural areas (long)

Related Posts: