title
stringlengths 16
18
| lang
stringclasses 1
value | source_name
stringclasses 1
value | format
stringclasses 1
value | category
stringclasses 1
value | cefr_level
stringclasses 8
values | license
stringclasses 1
value | text
stringlengths 2.17k
5.1k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
001_BGSU1004.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree?
Our educational system in one of the largest in the world. It offers variety, diversity but not flexibility and value for money. This is due to the fact that many of our university degree courses are either illegal or award the students with jobless future. They do not motivate students to make further research Undergraduates are looking forward to receive their degrees for the sake of some future reward .
University degrees are necessary in out materialistic society. However degree levels in vocational subjects, such as art and design, engineering, business studies, and hotel and catering, do not have a future. The role of university degrees has been replaced by the fact that they tell you nothing about a person's true ability and aptitude. They are mark either of success or failure .
Furthermore they are theoretical and do not prepare students for real life .
A good education should, among other things, train you to think for yourself. The examination system does anything but that. What has to be learnt is laid down by a syllabus and students are encouraged to memorize. Examinations do not motivate students to make research and read widely, they induce studying for marks instead. They lower the standards of teaching and lead to theoretical degrees that are designed to be put in a frame and to serve as souvenirs .
The most successful Bachelors and Masters or PhDs are not always the best educated. They are the best trained in the technique of working under stress. They live in a world of vicious competition where success and failure are measured. University degrees do anything but prepare them for this competition. They do not prepare students to think for themselves and make their own research on a given subject. They put restrictions to their sphere of knowledge and do not give them any opportunity to widen the already existing theory or amend some of the old things and add some new information .
Degrees which can be completed in a shorter period of time, the so called "fast-track" degree courses are even less practically oriented. Standards are rigorous yet students tend to memorize information and creative work is left behind. Another important point that should be made is the fact that many "fast-track" degree courses do not reflect and adopt to the needs of real life or professional bodies. One might have many degrees of this kind but what is the point of having them if he cannot put into practice his knowledge .
Many university degrees are a result of a subjective assessment by some examiner who marks stacks of hastily scrawled scripts in a limit amount of time. Students even do not have right to appeal after their examiner's decision. That is why many capable students turn into drop-outs and drop-outs turns into millionaires .
In conclusion I would like to say that only when the university degree courses become more practically oriented and not so theoretical will university degrees have any value and adapt to the need of real life. Furthermore students will be encouraged to make some research on their own, to chose postgraduate courses and to get postgraduate degrees .
|
002_BGSU1018.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree?
What is the purpose of knowledge? Living in the end of the twentieth century is both difficult and easy to answer a question like that. But it is important to do so at least for ourselves .
The Earth with all its secrets, existing long before man had a chance to appear on it, has always been challenging mystery for people. Humans are created tireless investigators, eager discoverers, active thinkers. Knowledge for them is a goal, a condition, pleasure and a leader to improvement of they lives .
It seems logical enough for everybody to see the importance of the discoveries in science - they practically lead to welfare in the material sphere of life, or help to preserve life in the form considered normal. With science fields like Geography, Sociology, History, Law, Political Studies, Language Studies it is a little more difficult to define in what way they are useful in the real world .
Some of them serve society. Some of them just serve people's passion for theorizing, statistics - making, categorizing, going into the abstract. I do not know whether most university degrees are theoretical, but I can well tell about mine, which I am studying at present. It is called "English and American Studies" and it is maybe the ideal example of a degree which does not prepare students for the ' real world'. One side of this real world is the opportunities for a professional realization after graduation. Everyone who has heard about this educational programme has asked the question, "So what would you do after you graduate? Become a teacher?"
Well a difficult question indeed. Having studied all British and American history, literature and culture and having received profound knowledge in the field of linguistics (including Historical Linguistics) the poor graduate finds himself at a loss in a society which either needs him for a teacher, a translator, a tourist guide, or merely as someone who knows English and could sit all day at a secretary's desk, or else for nothing at all. It somehow does not seem "fair". Five years' striving in the labyrinth of science and then all knowledge has to be stored in one's consciousness of a learned man .
Of course, in any country different societies exist and the opportunities vary, as well as the values. In my opinion, young people should be well aware of their aims before they apply for a certain degree. If they cannot estimate by themselves, they should be able to receive advise. On the other hand, this means that young people at the age of eighteen have to be able to think as people at the age of twenty-three, which is an awful prospect. The dilemma is clear - either grow old before their time has come or prepare themselves to be disappointed and helpless when it would be late to think with their mature minds .
What I can conclude about this problem is that what we have is not a case so much of inadequate education but rather of inadequate society, because in a modern society there has to be place for all those who deal with impractical science; for knowledge is not a means for making material progress only. If it was, what would man be like?
|
003_BGSU1022.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays education is indispensable for people in order to find their place in the real world. But is university education, in particular, of great help to one in doing this ? To my mind, most people would answer negatively to this question. Very often one feels dejected on finding out that after they have studied hard for 5 years in a university, most of the extensive knowledge that they accumulated there will hardly ever be useful to them in the real world. The reason for this is the fact that university education is much more theoretical than practical which turns out to be a decided disadvantage. One must always bear in mind that what matters more is not how much one knows but how well they can use what they know. Thus, it is pointless just to sit down and acquire knowledge solely in order to pass one's exams when one may probably never use it afterwards .
However, most universities maintain the tradition and continue teaching theory as before .
Last year, for example, we had a course in computing which was, on the whole, completely useless. Instead of being taught how to use a computer and different kinds of software, most of our time was taken up by theoretical explanations of the way in which computers work. I do not mean that this information is absolutely unnecessary but my point is that it is good for nothing when you do not know how to use a computer in order to write and print out our essay, for instance .
On the other hand, it would not be really true to say that university degrees are wholly unrewarding. Theoretical education may be less valuable than practical for one's life in the real world but, nevertheless it is very important. The reason for this is that no matter how irrelevant or impracticable it may be, it still provides one with some general idea about things in life and thus may serve as a standard for comparison. Then, as one has already formed some model to refer to, it would be easier for them to decide what to do in a certain situation. Despite the difficulty of putting theory in practice, it is far easier to do than to start directly with the latter. So, after all, it is much better to have theoretical knowledge than not to have any at all .
Both teachers and students have been aware of this particular deficiency of university education and its respective influence in one's life, so attempts have been made to correct it. One possible way of doing this has been through introduction and development of various applied sciences in recent years, like applied mathematics, applied linguistic and others. These, however, are not very wide-spread and only a small number of universities have them as separate courses .
Another way of making university degrees more useful to students is to achieve a certain balance between the two sides of education. Moreover, one should be free to choose whether to concentrate on theory or practice with respect to their future plans and personal preferences. This is very important because different jobs require different types of knowledge and what would be valuable for one student, would be of no use to another .
To sum it up, I would say that one cannot so quickly write university degrees and education off. There are still valid although they do not give one full knowledge of the real world. If they are not as good as they could be, it is up to us to change them and to make them better .
Then one will feel more confident on leaving university that they are ready to cope with problems and difficulties in life .
|
004_BGSU1057.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
The world we are living in is without any doubt a modern and civilized one. It is not like the world five hundred years ago, it is not even like the one fifty years ago. Perhaps we - the people who live nowadays, are happier than our ancestors, but perhaps we are not .
The strange thing is that we judge and analyse their world without knowing it and maybe without trying to know it. The only thing that is certain is that the world is changing and it is changing so fast that even we cannot notice it. Sciece has developed to such an extent that it is difficult to believe this can be true. A simple but quite impressive example of this development is the genetic engineering. Scientists have achieved something which was considered impossible and even monstrous before. Probably just in a few years they will be able to create a rational human being. Technology and industrialisation have also developed and in the present moment they do not stop developing. The consumers are overwhelmed by all kinds of products and goods. Technology is everywhere - in the houses, in the streets, in the shopping centers. We cannot run away from it even if we want to .
On the other hand we do need all these new technical products. We can no longer imagine our lives without a TV set or without a telephone. Computer systems like Internet enable us to communicate easy and fast. We are modern people and as modern people we are surrounded by all these things, by all these products of science technology and industry. This is our world. Whether we like it or not we must live in it. But all these inventions and innovations cannot change us - we remain human beings. With or without a washing machine we do not turn into animals. People are capable of adjusting to their environment and to remain humans .
In my opinion, technology cannot change us so much and to make us forget what is to dream and imagine. There is always place for dreaming and imagination in our modern world. If there was not imagination our lives would have been so dull and colourless and everybody would have gone crazy. I do not think that we can live without dreaming. Because if we do not dream we would not have any aims to achieve, we would not see a light in the end of the tunnel of life. It is our imagination that helps us go through the difficult moments in life. For example when your boyfriend leaves you it is such a relief to imagine that you will smash his face the next time you see him .
This is just a small relief but sometimes it helps you to feel better. But imagination helps not only in such cases it helps us to create our own world in our minds. A world where we could go whenever we feel the need to escape from the real one. A world where everything is the way we want it to be, where people are good and love is real. It is a fairy tale where we can go and relax, it is the improved mirror image of reality .
Imagination and dreaming will always have place in our modern or not so modern world .
Without them neither art nor literature will exist. And the fact that they still exist is a proof of the existence of imagination. If it was not for it I would not be able to write this essay, would I?
|
005_BGSU1062.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
It is a truth universally acknowledged that our age is the age of machines. Technology, industrialization and communications have developed and are still developing at a very fast rate. It is actually so fast that you find it difficult to keep pace with it. Thus if you buy a computer, for instance, that you are assured is the newest product of the industry at the present moment, you will certainly be surprised to find out in a year's time that what you paid dearly for a year ago constitutes nothing more than a useless heap of junk. In this way the new technologies and innovations which are meant to help man and make things more comfortable, actually reach the point of being rather an unpleasant nuisance. Thus, at a certain point of time you will probably find it much more easy to steer a spaceship than to operate a TV set. It may sound absurd today but in my view could well be the case in near future .
There are things in life, though , that don't change as quickly as that and that even are considered by some ever lasating. Such are the works of art that people have been producing eversince the dawn of human civilization. These works are products of people's imagination and dreaming rather than of rational thinking .
Basically imagination and dreaming are associated with concepts like creativity, freedom of mind and soul whereas practical thinking stands for reason. In my view imagination and dreaming require a simplicity of heart and soul that is to say, mind released from the burden of the artificial, mechanical thinking, which is inevitably imposed by the rich in technologies and computers everyday life. To my mind it's the children that enjoy this freedom of mind and soul today. They are the ones who feel at ease in the world of dreams. Children can see and observe what grown-ups are unable to because only they possess the purity and sharpness of the senses that vanishes once you grow up. How can a mind burdened with reason, scientific explanations and mathematical logic allow itself to dream or imagine. This is in my view impossible because these concepts are too opposite to co-exist .
The computers and technologies that keep on pervading our lives, providing us with ready products, which being useful on the one hand devoid people of the opportunity to think and develop their inventiveness. People become rather one-sided, develop pragmatic thinking and are easily involved in what some call "The rat race" . It is, however dangerous to go on trying to keep pace with the constantly developing science and technology because it might turn out at a certain point of time that man has fallen prey to his own creations .
|
006_BGSU1063.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree?
There are quite a few people who think that higher education is unnecessary and that there is no point in studying at university. With the technical schools and the gymnasiums being rather popular nowadays most students would consider it enough to complete high school and don't take the trouble to continue studying at a higher level. This phenomenon alone is quite eloquent and understandable too. And one doesn't have to search very hard to reach the conclusion that there are plenty of factors contributing to that unfavorable attitude that people in Bulgaria have towards university education .
Just take a stroll downtown to the marketplace and you'll find why so many people consider university studying useless. There is hardly any person in the world who can convince me that one needs to graduate Nuclear Physics to sell cucumbers or to have a PHD in literature to deliver newspapers. However, if one goes to an average Bulgarian marketplace one is most likely to encounter qualified people doing low-paid unqualified work. I haven't seen any recent statistics but I'm sure that the number of people who work in the field they have specialized in is very low. What is the point then to study when you know you'll end up cleaning lavatories or washing dishes? Naturally these are jobs like any other but you don't normally study all that much to be able to perform them. And knowing that once you graduate you join the long gray queue of young unemployed people is hardly any stimulus for a young person to apply for university .
Unfortunately unemployment is a major threat not only to those who study theoretical matters but to graduates of the technical institutes too. People studying practical things such as engineering unable to find decent jobs is, I'm sure most people would agree, not the rightest of prospects. And thus most of these graduates become frustrated due to the lack of proper occupation and consequently much energy, talent and knowledge is wasted. Then one starts to wonder whether there's any point in studying at all. In the last few years, though, things have changed a bit. As the country shows some signs of improvement in terms of economics and political stability people start to see a light at the end of the tunnel .
|
007_BGSU1071.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree?
What is the purpose of education? To provide us with knowledge that, together with our tastes, will help us take the profession that best sorts our abilities. A good university degree should serve as a ' passport ' to decent jobs within the range of one's qualification. All this means that university and real life should be in constant feed back. What we have, though, today is education that often loses track of reality, and degrees that indicate how does one manage on one's exams and with one's papers and thesis. Degrees have nothing to do with our capability for a certain job .
Take, first, the present situation in Bulgaria as a whole. In the period of what we think, and hope, to be a transition to a free-market economy, education gradually lost its position of a primal value in people's lives. In its place came ' free initiative', and a lot of people (including the young) gave themselves to amassing money through trade which often turned out to be nothing mote than a swindle . Aversion from study can be rooted in the fact that while you study, you do not earn money, but only accumulate knowledge and prepare for a future job. The deeper reason, though, must lie in the nature of education itself. The reason, it seems to me, is namely its irrelevance to life. You have to know what you study for, in the first place. In Bulgaria, we know that the moment we graduate we will be confronted by the risk of entering the army of unemployed. Our good diplomas will remain but a record on paper. And even if that does not happen, we are still very likely to take jobs that have nothing to do with what we had studied for. With all that in mind you soon end up asking yourself, ' Why study?'.
If, on the other hand, we take an inside look at the way study is being organised, we will soon notice a certain formula shared between students and lecturers. The time spent at university should prepare students for making well at their exams and, possibly, for writing good papers. Not a thought for students' future appliance. In such situation everyone has to take care of themselves, which not always gives the best of results .
To make the picture more complicated still, universities do not keep record of the demands of society. On many subjects the curricula still need updating, with others the problem is the vast number of students on admission. Very few of them will find job relevant to their study because all the vacancies have already been filled in by students who have graduated a couple of years ago .
The most natural thing for the universities to do would be to keep in touch with all the big and minor companies, all the national institutions, plus various foundations and committees and make a running record of their demands and offers on the one hand, and of students' capacities on the other. Another useful thing to do would be to arrange a system of training courses for students while still in their university. A simile of such system exists today, but it neither provides us with helpful skills nor enables us to make contacts in the sphere we are put in for a while, so that in the future we could be appointed for a certain position should we be approved. In the sphere of languages, for example, these courses offer you only the option of ' training ' yourself for a teacher (as if a specialist in English or German or any other language and literature can do nothing else!).
I do not know how things are in the sphere of law (one of the trendiest subjects nowadays, together with economics and a few more), but I cannot believe that students there have much wider range of opportunities to choose from .
Universities are not the only to blame. The whole arrangement (or rather disarrangement of our society is such that some very important links are missing - either cut or not yet woven into the new network. Thus, what we need is a through and complete reform both inside the educational system and outside, in the society. It involves a hard work to do, but the result may prove worth the efforts so that one day we could claim to have put into practice the Latin proverb ' We study for life ' not for study itself"!
|
008_BGSU1074.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
It is a fact that even well-educated people find themselves in a state of bewilderment at the mere thought of the speed in which technologies are revolutionizing the world. and no wonder, for I doubt it that there is anyone who hasn't been plagued with this feeling of uncertainty. It is, therefore, only natural that the effect of the so-called technological threat be exaggerated .
Obviously, if we are to avoid the hazard of falling into much extremes we need to find reasonable answers to the following questions: why is this negativistic attitude against technologies taking place ' how can analogical events in the past help us evaluate the present situation; why are not technologies overpowering the human mind; why are people afraid of the technological advent .
If we are to assume that technological progress and human imagination are two irreconcilable things, then we would imminently affiliate ourselves to the Romantic conceptions or even the Luddite attitude. This rage-against-the-machine phenomenon is on a par with primitive myth - making. Moreover, the trends which trigger this kind of attitude can even be traced back to a cheap horror story. Why? The answer here is fear - fear of the unknown. Just like Medusa in the myths of the ancient Greeks, the embodiment of ultimate evil, or even the gruesome monster in Bram Stoner's novel. These two examples both lead us to one and the same conclusion. People tend to generalize their fear in a flat black-and-white image. This also holds true for the stereotypes that have been built up to sum up the three-dimensional technological reality into a distorted one-dimensional concept. And what happens if this image is reduced to a terrifyingly intelligent machine which lurks the infinite paths of the informational highway? From this starting point it is not hard to jump to the conclusion that technologies may impair our mental abilities .
People are afraid of technological progress and claim that this threatens the human faculty. This is ludicrous, just as ludicrous as the primitive aggression of the Luddites on 19th century machinery. They believed that the machines are responsible for unemployment. Others believe that technology threatens to overpower their imagination. Unemployment than was due to mass migration to the cites. Deficiency of thought and lack of imagination is due to entirely personal characteristics .
As it was stated before, people are afraid of the unknown. It isn't hard for the half-informed to see a horrifying image of the near technologically wise future. But to think of a future world where machines are the decision-makers, where humans are reduced to mere walking extensions can hardly be acceptable with no amount of reasonable doubt. The reason why this can hardly be anticipated is the fact that the human mind is irreplaceable. It cannot become the author of its own creation. Whatever marvelous machinery is to be invented in the future, it will always be a byproduct inferior to the capacity of human imagination. What is more, imagination itself is so tightly intermingled with emotions that sometimes no distinct borderline can be drawn between the two. And emotions are often too subtle to be felt, let alone created .
People are sceptical about new technology because they are not equipped with the necessary knowledge to handle it. Being informed helps you avoid potential threats in using any technology, whether it be household appliances or sophisticated virtual reality products. This is analogous to driving a car wit or without a driving permit. Therefore, it is not knowing the rules of these man - made "tools" that is the cause for alarm. And a tool is simply a utility. It does not threaten to replace one's imagination. On the contrary, it helps both mind and imagination along the tortuous path of perfection .
Indeed, one must always have a "luddite" within him and not take things for granted. This is so, because like any revolution, the technological one has its aftermath. And it can be disasterous if the necessary precautions are not undertaken. But does that mean we have to shut our eyes to the blatant thruth and pretend that technologies do not exist? Besides, we have many other things to fear. You only have to turn on the eight o'clock news...
|
009_BGSU1088.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree?
Most people go to university to prepare themselves for a future career or at least because they are interested in a particular area of study. To become specialists they need an academic education and in this sense the university is the only means by which they can achieve their goal .
In my opinion the degree they receive is essential for their future career .
Of course, the knowledge students have acquired should be put into practice after graduation. At this point some find out that their expectations do not match with the real world .
However, one should not rely entirely on the degree to cope with the situation. Experimenting, practice, learning from one's own mistakes is needed to suceed on the working place. These are things that one discovers for oneself and that cannot be taught. There is not such a degree which can fully prepare us for life. The best of educations will not help a person succeed if he or she is uncooperative but has to work in group. The degree is the background we need but it is us who have to learn how to cope with reality. That is why I think that university degrees are far from being worthless .
There are majors that can be called "more theoretical" than others. For example, studying Philosophy or History means studying mainly theory while Medicine involves a lot of practice. For some areas of study practice is much more important than in others and that is why we should not expect the same ratio practice:theory in each field. Moreover, the theoretical fields prepare students for the real world in a different way. By encouraging them to think critically, organise and express their thoughts orally or in written form, make comparisons and associations, use logic or imagination, they prepare them not only for their career but also for life as a whole. Those are qualities which are essential for managing even in the most difficult situations .
Many majors produce mainly teachers, lecturers, writers or just theoreticians. For these professions practice, too, is needed but a deep knowledge of theory is essential .
On the other hand, practical excercise is crucial for other fields of study like Performing Arts, Fine and Applied Arts, Dentistry, Computer Programming etc. There is no doubt that after graduation, a student in one of these fields will be well prepared for his or her future work .
However, even those majors can not do without theory. For medical students, for example, theoretical knowledge is no less important than practical skills .
The value of university degrees is not in their being theoretical or practical. In one way or another every academic education will help a student to cope better with the real life. The most important thing is that the graduates are good specialists in their field and intelligent, independly thinking, self-confident human beings .
|
010_BGSU1139.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree?
Every intelligent young person dreams to graduate from the university one day. It seems to be the highest goal in most of the young people's lives. They do anything possible to become suitable applicants to a certain university. On the one hand the troubles they take are reasonable - after graduating you have more possibilities for a career; there are quite a lot of roads you can choose to walk along. You can even choose whether to walk or run. On the other hand, the things you study, especially here, in Bulgaria are so far away from reality that sometimes you forget what exactly your subject is .
Although it might sound too sophisticated, the University as an institution is a dream .
Before having the chance to be part of it your imagination makes it look like a dome. You fascinate about just teachers and friends; you dream of the hundreds tones of knowledge you are to get there but when the last thrill about you being a part of the Great Dome is gone, you feel as if you are on an entirely different planet. What is more - and entirely different HOSTILE planet .
Anyway, you suppose there is a kind of mistake... And you keep on hoping. Until one day you forget the subject you are studying. There are so many courses you have to take that there is no time left for the ones you like. You do not have time to read a single book, you do not have time to do your homework... But who cares! You have chosen to be there and dropping out is out of the question. But you keep on struggling. You fight for the right to learn. I, myself was extremely excited last year, when I was a First year student; on the one hand I was totally ruined physically and psychologically by everything I had to do, on the other hand I was absolutely pleased with the things I learned. This year I am able to see that most of the courses we have to take are so far away from reality, from anything that could happen to us, that I start to get amazed .
Everything is so theoretical and unintelligible that I have, subconsciously, begun to think of transferring to another university. But I know that this wouldn't change anything. There is no chance. There is no hope. The situation is the same in the universities all over the country. You get so much information, you loose so much of your time that after five years you feel like an old person - you remember things and faces but almost nothing from the nearly fifty exams you have passed because the information you have got has nothing to do with everyday life .
Anyway, you graduate as a specialist. But it turns out that you are an expert only according to he documents. Otherwise it is all the same as if you have not spent these five years in the Dome. You have learnt everything by heart; you know how it works but you cannot make it work, you cannot turn it on. Nothing has been said about turning on in the textbooks and grammars...
Despite everything I do not think that it is not worth studying in the University. On the contrary, you learn and become better informed but I believe that it would be much better if students had the chance to study real things and to get better-prepared for the real life and the real problems they will face after graduating .
|
011_BGSU1143.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree?
I agree to a great extent with this statement and, especially with the part preceding the comma. I can talk, of course, out of personal experience most objectively but I think I can express as well the feelings of many students from other fields. These are people I have talked to about this partucular subject thus I have gathered their opinion .
Just before coming back home I met a friend of mine who after hearing I had to write this essay offered his assistance by giving me some ideas. He is a "freshly-cut" graduate from the University of Architecture in Sofia. What he said was that the topic of my essay was very precise in its determining the problem of their education. They studied piles of most probably useless information and data but did very little on the practical level. They did not attend the actual planning of a new building, park, stadium etc .
Another major problem this friend pointed out was the lack of updating students with the technological progress in the particular field of study or work. He says that now that he has graduated he has taken up a course in computers. At university, instead of using ready-made packets of computer programmes especially devised for the utilization of the architect's work, they studied programming which once again is obviously useless. Nobody is giong to create his own programme .
In the field of ceramics, for example, the problems are serious. The students' time is occupied by theoretical courses such as technology of clay, perspective, aesthetics, etc. but nobody teaches the students how to use the pottery wheel and how to whet on it. They are not taught either how to draw the different types of patterns that decorate the dishes .
In our department problems are similar. Instead of having as many contacts with native speakers as possible we take theoretical courses in syntax, semantics, morphology etc. We don't know how to use the vast number of English teaching computer programmes. We don't use any TV or VCR equipment to aid our education. To make the course more practical we could also increase the number of translation classes .
To sum up then problems seem to be quite the same in the different field of the higher education. To make the study more useful a balance should be reached where we are given just the necessary and important theory, thus leaving space and time for practical courses which prepare us for the actual face of the profession that we are to be confronted with in our "working future".
|
012_BGSU1183.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today?
Finance in our modern world plays the greatest role of all. As a matter of fact it deserves an Oscar for its performance so far. It reigns over all aspects of human life and society - money has become a vital part of our existence and we need it as desperately as we need air to breathe and sun and water to support our living .
The famous quotation: "Money makes the world go round!" sums up as briefly and accurately as possible the essence of human society today. A plain and well-known fact is that people are obsessed with money and this is no longer considered a mental disease as other obsession are but the normal state of human affairs. In the society that we have built our life depends wholly on the money - if you have it you will be well-off and you'll live, if you don't then you can expect only the worst .
So, logically here comes the question why some people have more money than others and there are such that have no money at all. It is not an easy question to answer but if we take the title to be the most justified answer that we can safely conclude that there is something very wrong in our society. In fact there is, it is exactly this unequality of rights and possibilities which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer .
Probably the decision of this problem must be careful and exact application of the title of this essay but then it appears quite difficult to estimate someone's contribution to society. This is such a subjective issue that it is almost impossible for extremely subjective creatures as ourselves to accomplish the task. If we manage to do this then all our problems will be solved .
Equality as a social issue has been one of the major problems in the human society for centuries .
Since the dawn of civilization, the human society has been structured and divided into levels, ranks, classes or whatever one likes to name them. And since then the struggle for equality has never seized .
But what exactly is equality and how has it been treated through time?
In the past centuries equality was understood more or less in terms of wealth and nobility. There were rich and poor, noble and ordinary people. Society was divided into classes and one was considered equal only toe the people belonging to the same class .
Nowadays, things inevitably have changed. Our society is still divided into classes although many people deny that. Moreover, more divisions have been made in terms of religion, sexuality and so on. However, people feel more equal than ever before. Not only because the gaps between the classes have become smaller but because today equality is a state of mind .
Today, the first part of Orwell's statement "All men are equal" is the basis of many constitutions and declarations for the human rights and all politicians claim that people are equal because they have been given equal opportunities to succeed in life. Perhaps there's some truth in that .
Perhaps today it is not so important who you are, where you come from, how rich you fee. It is what is in your mind that counts, not in your pocket .
However, there are people who cannot "feel equal and think equally". The paradox here is that the problem is not in their mind but in their pocket. Because in our money-driven world it is extremely hard to live, exist even, let alone think and feel. Many poor people are bound to struggle for their living and does not consider themselves equal in any way to a rich businessman, for example. It is not that they cannot think and feel, they are stupid or insane but because they are mentally suppressed by the injustice of their life. In this sense, Orwell's statement is still true today. Some people are more equal then others because they have or are given the ability to feel so. Perhaps, it is trues in milder terms but let's hope we will be able to change that .
|
013_BGSU1184.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today?
Once the American president John Kennedy said something about the issue which will be discussed in this essay. His point was that one should not ask what the United Stated can do for them but what they can do for the United States. So, in the ideal situation one should contribute to the society they live in without expecting any reward at all. But as far as anyone has financial obligations, such as bills, rents, taxes, etc. this idea cannot be applied in real life. Besides, there is no living creature, at least not a human being, who can be made to work without and reward, whether it is financial or of some other kind. Of course, when stating this we should say that it refers to the present only it was not so long ago when slavery existed. Yet, slaves were at least given food, so even they got some kind of stimulation .
From the things mentioned above a very obvious conclusion can be drawn that in order to meet their needs people go to work and get a certain financial reward for the job they do. But here arises the more important issue of how much exactly should a person get for his or her contribution to society, or in other words who contributes more to society? Doctors or businessmen? At first sight it is clear that doctors should get the highest financial reward because there is no need to question their contribution to society, at all. But it is common knowledge that businessmen earn a lot more than doctors. However, this fact can be easily explained .
Businessmen are not paid by somebody else for their job. That is, they hind of personal reward themselves, so that is not a good example of fair distribution of remuneration. If we go back to the doctors again, it turns out that in some countries, particularly those of Eastern Europe, they get even less than skilled manual workers, whose job is not of primary importance to society but who work in the private sector, so if everything works right (which is often not the case in Bulgaria) the more they produce, the more they are likely to get as a financial reward. So, it turns out that the meaning of the word "contribution" has to be redefined for every particular society .
In addition, I would like to mention two more burning issues: pensions and women's payment, including child benefits. People who are retired evidently do not contribute much to the society, however they have done so far the most part of their lives and in my opinion, although they do not have the needs of a young person, they still deserve an honourable place in society. When mentioning women I mean that in some countries they are not equally paid with men even though they do exactly the same job. Besides, how can one estimate the contribution of a mother by paying her child benefits which are not enough even for a pair of baby's shoes .
To conclude with, people's financial reward is often not commensurate with their contribution to society. However, there was one tiny bit in the statement discussed. It says "the society they live in". So, it is not their fault if they live in the wrong society, that fails to provide them with what they really deserve .
|
014_BGSU1187.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today?
Before going into discussion of the topic it might be better to specify what exactly ' equal ' mean .
What do people understand by the word ' equal'? And by giving a clear definition it would than be easier to explain what we think about the statement and how true this is nowadays .
We live in a free country where you have the right to have your own point of view, to share your ideas with no fear what so ever. Therefore, even the meaning of a simple word requires your own opinion which varies from one person to another .
When we talk about people being "equal" what I personally imply in the meaning is that all people deserve the same rights as each other; they should have the same status; there should be no class division. But does this reality hold true today? To my opinion, the answer is ' no'. it is true hat we are all born equal, but what happens to us afterwords. Our lives take different directions, some live in luxury while others are on the other side of the line, wondering how to make it until the next day. The sad think is that if you are wealthy enough you can achieve all your goals although you may not deserve it. But if you are poor, if you cannot satisfy your needs no matter that you are clever you cannot develop as a person. You cannot achieve any progress in your life .
On the other hand, men can be equal but only before God and the law. God created us all the same and one day when our turn to stand before him comes he should than regard us a s equal .
No-one knows weather this is true or not but at least that is what the Bible teaches us .
"We are all equal before the law". The law is the same for everyone. But again if we stop and think more carefully about this statement we may spot certain gaps. Nowadays, we have witnessed how people who really deserve to be punished get away with it, and this arises yet another question: Is Temida blind? So, how can we say that all men are equal at all?
As I previously said to be equal people should be treated the same way with no exeptions what's so ever. But today there is no evidence in favour of this statement. I have tried to find even one but again, as it always happens, there is an exeption for everything. We have lived with that so far and we will continue this way as long as the world exists .
|
015_BGSU1234.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree?
If we are to consider the practical application of the knowledge one has gained during one's years in university, the first think that we must consider is the career one has chosen. If this career has to do with scientific research or the profession of a teacher (no matter whether it is a school or university teacher) then the preparation universities offer might be of considerable help .
Otherwise university education does not, as a rule, make young people flexible when it comes to their professional realization .
Although university education tries to give a wither perspective in certain areas of the achievements of human thought and culture, it very often fails to provide suggestions as to how the information received may be used by the individual. In other words, students are sometimes too much preoccupied with what other people have thought or said without being given the chance to assist themselves in the complex system of human experience, although they too take an active part in a constant recycling of information. If at least a small part of what is thought at university does not coincide with a student's personal beliefs, then we come to the question whether we need university education at all .
Another aspect of university education, which sometimes terrified students very much, is suggested by the saying "The more I learn, the less I know. In fact this really is the case when it comes to learning: there appear more and more interesting, or important things, which seem to demand close attention and sometimes students feel lost in this flow of interconnected details .
Such on abundance does have its influence on personal motivation and most often this influence is negative .
Thus we come to considering the role of the teacher which is closely related to the curriculum in terms of focus on different aspects of the disciplines thought. Although students at universities are not little children, they still may be very strongly impressed and even influenced by someone else. An important thing teachers must not forget is that students are individuals and personalities on their own and what both teachers and students should have in mind when it comes to communication is mutual respect. In my opinion, a very important thing about the process of education is the atmosphere of cooperation which is closely connected with overcoming certain difficulties (together) on the way of reaching s set goal. If teachers themselves are not convinced that what they do is what they want, or at least what should be done, then students cannot be convinced and motivated at all. Thus the years spent in university become a mere waste of tine and students are not given any idea of their own importance and potentials when it comes to intellectual achievements or just the satisfaction of a well-done job .
Actually, what makes university education of little value is not only the curriculum, but also the fact that students seldom get the right perspective of viewing the world in its complexity, no matter whether on the base of technical disciplines or the humanities .
|
016_BGSU1243.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today?
The question of equal opportunities for all has been very topical over the last few decades in the West, and the problem is beginning to gain momentum in our own country nowadays. Yet, it is interesting to note that the movement started in the USA as a backlash against the century-long oppression of the blacks. Which leads one to certain speculations - whether it is possible at all for everyone to have equal opportunities or this is just the next product of American hypocrisy and utopian thinking. In my humble opinion, the latter is the case - because people are not born equal and they are not raised in the same way, the result being that everyone is unique, and different from all the rest. And if equal opportunity be given to everyone, that would mean propping up the less competent and restricting the more able .
If we start from the very beginning and go as far back as birth, it would perhaps be less obvious that people are unique. And yet, however alike babies might look, they are never the same. As crude as it may sound, their genetic material is different, and that's a major part of who you are .
After all, your genes predetermine most of your future "parameters" such as potential looks, potential IQ, potential health and what not .
Then, who you become very much depends on your parents and the choices they make - who they are and what connections they have, how they bring you up and what opportunities they give you in terms of social environment, schooling, health care and so on. As a result, even identical twins are not the same person although they have the same genes. The uniqueness of everyone is not a racist or Faschist idea as some claim, it is a fact. And it stands to reason that you don't provide the same opportunities to people with different abilities. Race and nationality would seem to be excluded from the list, at least it would be logical, but experience show a different thing .
While it is only sensible to discriminate against people who are incompetent - because if you need an employee or a partner in business then they have to be the right person and quality for the position - it is only a prejudice to discriminate against people, or groups of people as it might be, on the basis of race or nationality. And however illogical this is, we know that the West, and the States in particular do that all the time, although they wouldn't admit it openly .
It seems to me that the most striking example of this is what happens in the admission offices of their colleges - though very few would actually say so, most of them have quotas for racial groups and for international students. Then, there are special scholar-ships awarded to minority groups - and that's discrimination as obvious as anything, only this time it is against the white people. And there's thousands things like this, official and everything, although contrary to the general appeal for equal opportunities .
So I would ask these American gentlemen if they would please keep their hypocrisy to themselves. I'd give discrimination the thumbs up, but only as long as it is based on sensible criteria, that are actually relevant, and not on things like I'm black, you are white. I'm tall and you're short, I'm American and you're a Pole. These are a part of who we are, but it's important that we order our priorities and judge people on the relevant points .
|
018_BGSU1259.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree?
Imagine yourself not taking an university degree. What will your future be like? Working as a shop assistant, a taxi driver or ...? I wonder if this will make you feel satisfied .
So what? As it turns out, you're left with very little choice indeed? That is why you go to university, spend another four or five years of your life there - and then you are ready to come face to face with life that crushes and smashes. For most people nowadays tend to look on university degrees as the stepping-stone to success. What you study is not so important. Nor what you get. What matters in this case is the diploma - the precious leaflet that is believed to be the key of many locked doors. Is it really so?
Reality tells a different story. During the years one spend at the University, one really learns a lot .
It is true that most of the time you've got the feeling that your head is constantly being filled up with heaps of useless information. It is also true that you spend many a sleepless night in desperate attempts to somehow absorb all this stuff - to cram it into your brain just for the sake of the exam, and the moment the exam is over, forget all about it. This is definitely a crack in the system, you must confess. It would undoubtedly be better of students were somehow made to study throughout the year - not just at the end of it, when session begins to haunt their dreams .
But such changes are a matter of years .
And here comes the question: what dos the university give you and what does it take? No doubt it takes a lot - maybe more that it gives. Your free time, your freedom and carelessness. And in a way it robs you of your previous self. Slowly but inexorably you change. You grow up to take responsibilities, to realize who you are, what you want from life and how to achieve it. And this is not little at all. It is not only due to the university, it is up to you above all. But it can not be denied that the university too is a major factor in this process of self-development .
As far the theoretical side - well, it is always there. And perhaps it will always be. And still you can really learn a lot from a single exam only - provided you know what to take and how to take it. What is more important is that during all these years of studying, taking exams and so on - you become mature - and ready to face life. The real life .
|
019_BGSU1291.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today?
When God made the human race he made all the humans equal, Equal in their possessions, minds, absolutely everything. But I guess that when God mixed the mixture he put a wrong ingredient too without noticing. And it spoiled everything, it transformed into a flow of the first men. Then he condemned us and it was inherited by the following generations .
As a whole we the humans are a cursed race. It is deeply rooted in us to kill, to steal, to lie .
Sooner or later it all comes out. We've been living on that planet for thousands of years now but there are certain things which will never change. One of them is the evil rooted in us. George Orwell was right because he was writing what he was seeing, he was writing reality. The present time is not much different from the time before two hundred years for instance. The bad people have always been bad and the good people have always been at the bottom. This is mostly true today in the 21st century when the driving force behind every person is the personal success at the expense of the others. Well, almost every person. The people who think only of their wealth think they are something more than the others, they think they can do whatever they want - these are the people we call "more equal".
Orwell's comparison of humans to animals is perfectly adequate. Because what are we? We are claimed to be the highest animal kind. Like them we are often guided by the instinct of self - preservation which makes us do bad things to others. Makes us neglect others, betray them, hurt them. When we follow that instinct we are blind for everything else but our survival. Another reason that makes people think they are "special" is money. Yes, the powerful money. They can put a man high in the clouds and block his common sense. When a person has money they think that the world is their, that it belongs to them. And what happens when they get a lot of money?
They become the world's best creatures. And want more and more money, this is loftiness and arrogance come from, from their sense of superiority and importance .
Yet another reason would be if a person has a right social position. For instance, a congressman, a TV journalist, a rich banker. They watch people from above. The "special", "more equal people" are everywhere, there isn't a certain place where they could be found, they are all around us. Of course, there are people who don't have any basis for their arrogance and "speciality".
Yes, Orwell couldn't has been more right than. People are cruel, they kill each other, they destroy their lives. And this is because one thinks that is more than the others. it's hard time we live in and everyone tries to play their role in this life neglecting the others .
|
020_BGSU1299.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today?
All men are equal. It is presumed that God made them so. Still all throughout the history of his species man have fought for equality. It has turned out that indeed some men are more equal than others. at least socially. And that is quite naturally .
All men cannot be equal. Each one of us is born with different capacity of mind and heart, at different places, under different conditions. Some have more wits or are more open-hearted than others, some have loving parents and a happy childhood, others do not. Some were born with a certain position in society which have secured them better opportunities for education, professional realization, personal or social success, for achieving their goals. Some were handicapped by the conditions of life under which they were born from their first breath of air to the last beat of their heart, entangled in a cruel reality, fighting for every piece of bread in order to keep living just to be able to go on fighting .
Some like their inherited position of life, others do not. Some conform it, others rebel. Some fight for equality, others for a higher status to be more equal than the others .
All men cannot be equal. Not each of us want to have the same conditions of life, opportunities or privileges as the others, some want better ones. Some want to be rich. The some money from the rich, give it to the poor and then we all shall be equal and happy. But there will always be someone who will wish to have more money, to be more equal .
Some want to have social power. Give more civil rights to the oppressed, restrict the influence of the powerful and we again shall be equal. But shall we be powerful? Over what and, most of all, over whom shall we exert our power? Here comes the need of unequality. There have to be oppressed to make the others feel powerful. Moreover, being influential and having power is not easy as it seems .
All men cannot be equal. That is just an utopia. A beautiful dream cherished in the hearts of generations of men throughout the centuries. Our life is based on inequality. Society, even nature is based on inequality. Some say that life is a jungle. In the jungle one cannot afford themselves to be weak and unfit. If one is not strong enough, they simply perish. The stronger need the weaker to live on them. It is the best that survive. The most equal one. There should be death to secure life. There is life owing to inequality. Inequality produces the fittest, the ones who survive .
It makes the world turn and the social system work .
Inequality is recognized and accepted by men. What else is the evolutionary theory about the survival of the fittest than a rejection of equality. If all were equal who would have survived.? All of us?
Still men are fighting for equality. The idea of it lies in the foundation of one of the most powerful social ideologies - socialism. And its realization proved that even among equal there are some that are more equal. It is inevitable .
|
021_BRFF1068.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
The society we live in establish patterns which well-succeed people should follow, otherwise they seem impossible to reach. People have to work, to study, to go to the supermarket, to pay the bills and at the same time, they have to be the most efficacious professional, the kindest parents, the most regardful spouse and so on. Moreover, all these stuff has to be often changed, updated and renewed. For women, these obligations can be a little more stressful. In the past, women could fulfill all professional requirements when they got to the market. In some cases, as they were considered inferior, these new workers had to be better than the average. Unfortunately, prejudice brought this behavior to current days. Nowadays, .many women have shown a unbelievable efficiency in order to keep their posts, especially the chief posts. Moreover the conquer of the right of having a carrier did not liberated women from the housewifery duties. These unrewarded job can be as tiring as their profession or even more than it. As a soften policy to ease up all these pressure, the Brazilian government allows women retire five years before man .
Despite of all these efforts, another question comes up: the woman's role in kids education. Many kids are brought up currently without constant presence of their parents. Absence in fathers case is acceptable because most of the fathers role is to provide family. However there is a belief in which the absence of the mother could be harmful for children. Mothers absence should not be connected to lack of affection. Carrier does not overcome mothers role therefore, it does not destroy the link between mother and child. Even because only the quality of the free time both spend together can measure the strength of this link. In many cases, this is a really hard chore, because lots of women have to provide their kids by themselves. In fact, what is really harmful for kids is lack of attention from mother and from father due to their unsubstitutable role in growth and education .
Beliefs like these are part of a great range of concepts which comes in and goes out throughout minds that constitute our society. Sexism is a kind of prejudice which is neither too weak to be ignored nor too strong to complaint about it. Prejudice does not favor women or men, both just have to deal with the limitations it puts in their lives. Thus, female behavior and beauty patterns, that are practically impossible to follow, are everywhere. Maybe, nobody can get rid of the judgements that can be made based on them. They can make a woman lose her job, her marriage and sometimes, her health if she did not fit in the exigencies of these patterns, which demands on extreme beauty and eternal youth. Thus far, to things can happen: some women just get depressed while others submit themselves to plastic surgeries, treatments, diets that not rarely put their health in danger. Everything in order to follow an unwise pattern of beauty and behavior .
Probably, women obey these patterns lead by the education they received before, which sometimes sustain focus on obeying and submission. Young girls growth is plot in a imaginary world in does not incentive the development of decisions or the ways to solve problems. They are just made to believe the charming prince will come and save the princess then all problems are solved. At the same time, boys are brought up with different point of views, such as make decisions and take the control of the situation. Notwithstanding the fact that nowadays, kids are having more wise kinds of education a lot of concepts about education related to boys and girls should be revised .
An individual item that really deserves to be revised are the laws related to abortion in Brazil. Illegal and bad-succeed abortion is related to the main cause of dying of poor women in the northern state of Bahia. In So Paulo it takes the third place. The Brazilian health system and laws gives a woman all the support if she wants to get pregnant and have this baby. However, if she does not want have this baby due to a great range of reasons, her rights just end up left in the lurch. Then, she might apply herself to become part of the figures shown before .
The presented until this point just try to elicit that if female conquers have started to do harm, some of them ought to be revised, renewed or updated. And It also must to be realized that lots of these conquers are not enough anymore .
|
022_BRMG1110.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
This issue carries an important meaning if we consider that dreaming and imagination are embodied in human nature. There are different opinions about it, for example, some people think that technology has improved our imagination. This essay will consider that dreaming and imagination have decreased in front of the advance of technology and industrialization and therefore our skills related to those aspects have been damaged .
Dreaming carries a great deal of importance in human nature. If we consider that technology and industrialization have reduced our power of dreaming, we can say that our nature has been damaged. Dreaming is concerning more about the future than about the past and that is why human nature has lost most of its creative power. Without dreaming there is no prospect of future, and then people live just for the present, clung to the boundaries of a world without dreams. And dreams play an indispensable role in our lives, since they give us reasons for living and fighting for our plans. Furthermore, dreaming teaches us to be resolute in our actions, to pursue our objectives .
When it concerns imagination, technology and industrialization have decreased this power belonged to the human nature. Nowadays we have on the Internet everything we need without any effort; this fact contributes to the self-indulgence and to the shortage of imagination. People nowadays do not need to be creative since they have at hand everything. Instead of creating things, they look for on the Internet .
Both dreaming and imagination have an important role in our lives, they go together well and increase our power to create and improve things. Without them human nature is limited to works already done, leaving no room for creation. We need them, inasmuch as we need to be creative in the work environment; there is no success without the effort to bring into light new ideas and dreams. And once technology and industrialization have reduced our power to do things by ourselves, we can consider that, beyond the benefits which both of them have brought to humanity, they have as well brought damages. The capacity of dreaming has been reduced, the power of imagination has been trimmed. The losses with the advent of technology and industrialization play out in full view of humanity. We live on technology and industrialization, not leaving room for dreamers and creators .
In conclusion, if it is true that technology and industrialization have brought benefits to humanity, it is also true that both of them have brought jeopardies which have limited the human nature, i.e., we are losing our power of dreaming and our capacity for imagination. The consequences can be dangerous, since we have people focused on the present without caring about their future, since we have people with the power of imagination reduced, losing thus their ability to create things. We live nowadays on the edge of human nature, we need to be conscious of what damages technology and industrialization have brought to us in order to improve ourselves and shun a collapse in our nature .
|
023_BRMG1116.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
Going to university is most peoples dream and they rely on this opportunity to get a great job and to be well succeeded in their professional lives. At first, there is the dilemma of choosing the right career. After a long and hard way, the course is chosen, but the university is not. Then it is time to select the university among a range of options. When this is done, the next step is to study as hard as someone can to do the entrance examinations. Unfortunately, after all this effort, the student can get frustrated when the university does not live up to his expectations. It usually happens not only because of a badly structured pedagogical plan, but also because of the lack of opportunities to get experience before graduating .
The excitement of going to college makes the student feels full of energy to start learning about everything. He attends seminars, takes part in special projects, and spends lots of time in the library. But, after some time, he finds that some difficult and essential subjects were very superficially studied, whereas a lot of time was spent on less complex topics. A deeper analysis of specific contents would make him more familiar with the field. In addition to this defective time management, it is also common to conclude at the end of the course that if some subjects had been studied before others, it would have been easier to learn the whole thing. The order the subjects are taken interferes the way the student learn. An effective pedagogical plan is crucial to have a god quality learning process .
If a bad academic structure is combined with no opportunities for real practice, things can get even worse. When a student keeps studying, but there is no chance to see in loco how things really work, it will probably be very difficult for him to become a good professional. By the time a student finishes college, he must be ready, at least, to perform fundamental practices of his occupation. Otherwise he will be an intern with a college degree for a long time before getting more confident. Every student must have opportunities to deal with real situations in a daily basis, especially from the second half of the course on .
It is known that a lot of renowned universities have helped hundreds of thousands of students to develop their knowledge and become excellent professionals. However, on the other hand, it is also possible to find poorly structured universities that keep on forming professionals who are not well prepared for the market force due to too much theory and too little practice. Students spend their time, money and energy in a four, five or even six-year course in order to get a good job and keep on improving their skills. Thus, there should be a very rigorous government inspection to guarantee a minimum level of excellence in education, so that there would not be a great difference in terms of knowledge and practice when comparing graduates from different educational institutions .
|
024_BRMG1119.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
Most university degrees are theorical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value .
I think that there are a lot of universities that don't make the necessary role that is to prepare the profissional to enter to job market. The students begin in the school with a dream. They believe that they will go out the school with a profession and they will gain a lot of much money .
Sometimes, the parents will not buy important things to their family to put their sons in the better schools. They believe that the study would be the solution to all problems. Sometimes the student can stay disappointed. Unfortunatelly, we live in a society where a lot of people still think that the certificate is more important than all others things in the life. I don't think that the study is not important but I think that it is not vital .
Today, there are a lot of Universities graduating people, but there are not enough work to every these people. The graduation will not help people to get a work. There are a lot of people that know how to embroider, to sew, people that work in the field planting our food. There are millions of people that know to do many kinds of works that are very important to our life even not being in the universities curriculum .
without never have been in a university. But, as long as the certificate more important, these people don't have the value that they deserve .
The teacher besides not being valorized, is still a good example of how the learning university is rather theorical. When we go out the school, we think that we are ready to teach our students. We think that it will be easy because we are profissional, we have our certificate .
But the frustration is big, when we begining our work. We are alone in front of the class with fourty different pupils. Each one with different personality, different knowledge. This moment, you realize that we don't know to do this. Which procedure take? The university don't teach us what to do in front of situations that will appear. Each situation is unique and we have to be resolved. This situation could happen in all jobs, because surprises always happen and especially when we work with humans .
In the university we have opportunity to learn some subjects as Methodology, Sociology, Psychology that can help us to live better together with other people and to do a new graduation in future. The university can offer us a base and a part of knowledge, but is necessary we will continue to learn a few more every day and we will adquire the experience only with time .
But we can not say that the university certificate is not important. Despite the university do not prepare us for the real world, it can help us . I think that depend of us. If we will have interest in learningand work it is sure that we can be excellent profissionals .
|
025_BRMG1120.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
Which person has not seen another one acting inappropriately in his or her professional area? It is very common to see professionals doing wrong things in their jobs, although these people have studied in university courses. Getting a degree in most of the universities .
does not mean a person has learnt everything necessary about how to act and work in the real world .
In the educational area, for instance, it might be said that each student should give their best to get as much as possible from the academic world he or she is into. Many people claim there are different kinds of students and for that reason there are different types of professionals. It is claimed that some students are more interesting in learning; other ones simply have a medium development throughout the under-graduation period. However, even the best student of a class may not have everything he or she needs to put the abilities learnt inside class into practice if the university chosen by that student is not qualified enough. It is possible to see some teachers, or even professors, who do not have any didactics at all. Even though they have got a teaching degree, and have also had teaching method classes, their way of teaching seems not to match the students way of learning. Some universities, who form these teachers or professors, are not capable of offering a good quality teaching course. They do not research enough; neither they are open to the modern discoveries about different didactics .
It can be stated that the practical experience is only gotten through a lot of years in one specific profession. However, universities should be the places where real life is reproduced. Still making use of the same example, the courses involving teaching degrees, should consider, for instance, amid many other issues, the inclusion of people with audio disabilities. Unfortunately, many universities are not taking them into consideration. An under-graduate student may learn how to teach, however he or she might not learn the sign language, neither might they learn about the importance of having this minority of people in the same class as people who are able to hear normally. And when these students graduate and face real world in schools, they are not prepared to treat these special people. And this is not something one can get only through professional experience. Actually, before having had any contact with a def student, a teacher should be ready to work, knowing how to deal with the necessities of his or her special student .
In conclusion, there are few universities that can really prepare students for the real life of society needs. As it is difficult to change institutions like a university, a student should realize the importance of his or her graduation according to real world, and chose the best universities to ingress. The educational area is a good parameter to notice that even if a person has got a degree in a university, it is not enough for him or her to be prepared to face the practical world of the professional chosen by him or her. But if there were a bigger involvement between theoretical and practical world, it should reach all types of courses in the universities .
|
026_BRMG1279.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
Since the beginning of the humanity history, at least the history that is studied at the schools along the country, we can clearly notice that we live on a constant fight for power. Much of what is behind this power is related to money, and naturally who has money, has power as well .
We have learned that in the old Rome, they fought for land, the more land they conquered the more people they had under their control and as a consequence the Empire got bigger and bigger spreading the race of Cesar, as much as they could, around the world. Jesus knew what was behind a simple coin which represents money and power so that he showed that it wasn't what he was searching, in the contrary, he wanted to leave the money for those whom wanted to fight for that, to whom were willing to die for that, to the false people who search power and control behind richness and that's why he spread love as a way of life. Unfortunately it was the ruin of his life but fortunately because of his death and his reasons he is still remembered today and I'd say forever .
Behind a slogan of a pure race, Hitler convinced millions of Germans to kill and if it were possible, to exterminate completely from the world the race of the Jewish. Isn't it a big coincidence that they were one of the richest people in the world?, couldn't he support all Germany alive by taking the Jewish money and richness during his war? His plan was quite simple. He convinced his people that their race was superior, the Jewish were inferior so they needed to be exterminated, of course and consequently Germany would keep their money. This money would keep them in the war and they would end up victorious on an episode that is considered one of the most tragical, violent, bloody, sad and so on, in our history and what was behind all this pain, the bloody money. The amount of money in gold deposited in the swiss bank with the suastic is something incredible. Will it be delivered to their real owners? This is what is planned, we just hope that they don't fight again for this to happen .
In the middle east they have been fighting for at least 2,000 years. Though it's said that it's an ideological fight, power is behind their ideal as well. They can't put up with each other's ideal and so they kill each other but it happens that the most powerfull submits the others and who is the most powerfull?, the one who got more money. Again we see episodes of suffering because of money .
Here in Brazil we live with it every day. People kill for less than a hundred real. Killers have different prices according to who they are going to murder. We hear on the news everyday cases of people who fools the others to get some money, sometimes the other is even a brother, a father, or a close relative of the person who is being fooled. I myself heard a report where the person said on the to the other who he had fooled; "I'm sorry to have done this to you, but we have to do it to live". The person in case had bought a car by the newspaper but never received the car or the money back .
Money can change (as drugs do) the personality of a person. The riches want to get more rich, no matter what they have to do in order to it. They've got good salaries but even thus they risk their integrity and steal public money even to eat. We see doctors who don't assist serious pacients because they don't have money to pay. A good example for this is when we see on the TV people collecting money to save a person or a child on an important surgery .
Perfect would be when people are developed enough to create a society where money doesn't exist. There was a time when it happened. A long time ago people exchanged services, benefits and material goods without the presence of money .
If you needed a doctor, you just went to a doctor, if you needed food, you picked it up on the nearest grocery but of course you would be responsible for any kind of service. I guess this society is each time more difficult to happen because of the presence of the money. The powerful people got so powerful that they would not agree with this proposition and then, more war for peace. That's way I totally agree that "money is the root of all evil".
|
027_BRMG1295.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
Recently, a research about the television was done in the United States of America. It discovered that most of people spend hours of their lives watching television. Men watch television about forty hours a week and women about twenty. It means that men watch television almost six hours a day and women more than two hours .
People, around the world, need the television, and if they need even a little bit of this every day, they are dependents. It became a "drug" in their lives and it's gonna be proved here. The television is accompanying the people's way of life since its invention (1928).
When the industry of "media" discovered the power of this means of communication, it began to use the television to rebuild people's way of thinking, creating shows, soup operas, novels, movies, etc. and commercials in-between that have told watchers what to do, what to wear, and who to be ever since .
The more the television became fashion the more people went to the market to purchase the way of life it preaches. But the sad part of this is that people have done so, more and more unconsciously .
Nowadays the TV has became inseparable part of our lives, and generation after generation has born in the TV era, thus we no longer judge its use anymore, although we should, especially for our children. We have grown up taught by the TV set and we have never stopped just a bit to think if these things showed off in TV are respectable and decent to help building our children's personality .
Most of these children of yesterday are us today, and the reader shall agree with this: that nobody notices how much TV is inserted in this society context, and it appears like a conjunctive tissue to fill the holes of the main tissue of our lifetimes, and, as it was told here in the beginning, alarming amounts of time have been spent in front of the TV set, therefore, two important things have emerged from this: the former is that our way of life hasn't been doing so fine, the major part of our society, the masses, has been put into forced laziness situations (unemployment, poverty, general discouragement) that end up substituted by something; and the latter is that all the things one uses tp skip from these "forced situations" (not to face life) are called drugs, and TV watching fits it. So, the television's become a drug; an opium of masses that dopes everybody to have not to face the reality, while it recreates an "would-be reality" to please the watcher. When the watcher is already addicted it starts to suck him/her, inducting her/him to spend money, time, space of his/her life...! It can be qualified as a very powerful and hazardous drug, but nobody realizes it! The worst drug is the one that is used and present without revealing its real identity. Let's see the drinking, for instance, even everybody knows it is addictive, it conquered a certain acceptance and tolerance even by the law, so it's found all around normally. The TV is much worse, because the society doesn't even calls it a drug, perhaps because it's been suiting all of its purposes .
So, meanwhile the television keeps destroying whole homes by "re-formatting" the time which people should get together into a lazy seat on the sofa, with no talking not to interfere with the "video-dialogue", we may let here a question in the air: wouldn't these sexual and violent behaviour of our youth nowadays a consequence of letting our children be taught by TV instead of us?
|
028_BRRS1024.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
Our society has changed over the last centuries and thanks to the science technology development and industrialisation we have a better standard of living. Consequently people have become more materialistic and have forgotten the basic principles to live happily. Therefore there has never been a place for dreaming in our society as today and people are more interested in reading and imagining how the perfect world would be .
In our modern world people don't have much time to spend as they like. Our lives are unquestionably better if we take in consideration the material standard of living but most of our time is spent in a stressful way. The process of modernization has affected the lives of individuals and it could be affecting positively if modern society were interested in abating poverty, inequality and ignorance, for example. However, it's not our main concern. The number of hours worked is gradually increasing because people are interested in making money to spend as the elite dictates. Unfortunately most individuals don't set value on remarkable things and getting new appliances in the market and paying for unnecessary surgeries are the present concerns .
Despite the several achievements human beings agree that some aspects of the ancient societies were better than ours. Because of it there is the surprising fact that people want to bring back the looks of the past by reading about them. They are interested in documentaries and movies about primitive tribes, the old civilizations and also by alternative life styles too. It makes us conclude that human beings have become dreamers in order to compensate our sad reality .
Authors who have written self-help books are famous and also the imaginative ones who make people believe in a world where everything is great. Everybody knows it's not a way of changing the society but it's certainly much easier to imagine the ideal world than to make it comes true. Being attracted by an utopia is a way of forgetting the civilization problems. Hence, the science technology and the industrialization have attracted peoples attention to literatures which give them the opportunity to dream .
Once many are looking for another type of life it make us believe that people are becoming aware of the fact that not everything is okay and that its the time to the world undergo change. The first important step is to realize that there are problems which we have already done. We are definitely getting closer and closer to the answer to our difficulties. Imagining is not the answer but it's comforting to know that human being have not lost their faiths that better days will come and continuous to dream .
|
029_BRRS1028.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
There are few topics so much linked to modernity and our contemporary tradition as the discussion of the role of women in society. Throughout the years, the feminists struggled against the domination of patriarchal models imposed on women, many times fighting as fiercely as they could to have their voices heard. Harsh, biting positioning and attitudes of these women have been regarded as a step back for the building of a relationship of equality among sexes. Many people truly believe feminists as a groups have done more harm then good to the cause. However, one can draw their own conclusions by observing how far the fight for fairness has advanced and the achievements of women since the movement started to grow in power, despite some minor misunderstandings on their way .
One does not need to be a History expert to get in contact with the conditions under which women had been kept in traditional society; a brief look at history books or novels is enough to bring to the mind of the contemporary female the mistreatment and disregard towards women. The first feminists lived through the hardest conditions for a male dominated society could never be possibly open to dialogue and changes. It is easy to find historical examples of legendary feminine characters who directly raised their voices against the submission and limitations imposed to them and were severely punished and scolded. Women who dared to confront the patterns often received unsympathetic to say the least treatment. No wonder then, feminists at the very beginning of their organization as a movement had to take extreme actions not only to protect themselves from the rebukes of society, but also to create a sort of power that allowed them to be heard .
The achievements of feminists are visible. Every woman that is allowed to write, choose a partner, decide whether to have children or not, drive, work and go to college should keep in mind that none of these freedoms came to them out of waiting and passive action. It is true that feminism brought with it natural risks of extremism and ideas that deviated from the original purposes proposed by the first feminists; on the other hand, it also made possible for women to advance so much that many should think it as a necessary evil, if so .
Through a modern perspective, many have criticized the movement of feminism for its excessive combativeness against males and their straight tolerance. The image of a bitter, unloved, unwomanly woman stridently bashing men and everything slightly masculine is probably the image that prevails for many people every time feminism is brought into question. As it hold true for some representatives of the groups, it is certainly not this grumpy female who is the best portray of the movement which gained respect and rights for women all over the world. This stereotype of a hysterical feminist activist contributes very little to the real amplitude of the achievements feminists had to offer society. Many women sacrificed a good deal of their personal lives and concerns to the greater good .
Even if some of the most combative feminists really contributed to create an atmosphere of competition and inequality sometimes even hostility between men and women, it can be tranquility taken as a mild pitfall on the long path of struggles courageous feminist activists took for the good of all women all around the globe. In a nutshell, there are undoubtedly those who affirm feminists had done more harm than good to the cause; nonetheless, a careful observer can refuse this affirmation by taking a look at the long list of realizations performed by these women at the cost of their private lives and interests .
|
030_BRRS1036.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
Unlike people tend to believe, the Feminist Movement has existed since biblical times. The Old Testament mentions that the five daughters of a man who had died claimed for their right to his inheritance instead of their uncle. They claimed Why should the name of our father be omitted from among his family because he had no sons? Give us a possession among our fathers brother. Thousands of years have passed and the struggles have been persistent. Women are still establishing their position within society. But at what cost?
It is unquestionable that the Womens Movement contributed a great deal to strengthen women's rights. Before the rise
of the movement women were not aloud to elect or be elected in local elections. Moreover, they had no right to own any property: it would belong either to their father or to their husband. Some were not allowed to work or wear pants because that would be inappropriate behavior for a lady .
However, being entitled to the same rights as men was not enough to the feminists, who claim that not only should women have the same rights, but also no gender differences should be considered at all. Having the same rights is not a synonym for behaving or being equal. It should only mean that these differences will not be used as excuses to discriminate one another .
As a result of this lack of boundaries, the Womens Movement did not consider the inner differences that exist between man and woman. Science has already proved that the males brain works and reacts in a distinct way from the females. And instead of valuing and developing what each gender has of best, the movement tries to ignore genetics .
Therefore, women assumed many male jobs in order to prove their capability while man made no efforts to take on female responsibilities. It generated three main consequences to the modern woman. The first one is the postponement of motherhood, which can lead to infertility and increase the probability of abnormalities in the fetuss formation. The second result is full-time jobs: women not only work regularly but also have to take care of their homes and children, most of the time with no help from their partners. It raises stress levels, and, consequently, the occurrence of illnesses and also creates tensions within the relationship between the woman and her family. Finally, it created a contingent of well-succeeded single women. Most men are not ready to date women more powerful than them and with better salaries than theirs. Even considering this kind of sexist behavior, the problems still persist: women do not want to remain single but they just can not find a partner .
In short, the Feminist Movement has done a great job in relation to women's rights. But we should reflect on the results of some of its claims, as some of them did more harm than good to women. Instead of accusing Harvard's president Lawrence Summers of being sexist, the movement should analyze the ideas behind his words. It should keep defending women but also take into consideration that gender differences are innate and can be better exploited so as to act on their own behalf .
|
031_BRRS1045.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song, "Money is the root of all evil"
In a capitalist society, where money is the fuel responsible for the functioning of this big engine, it is not surprising that it is also the main cause of all violence, and even in general terms, that money is the root of all evil, as it is said in the old song. People are moved by the goal of earning more and more money, many times, regardless what they may have to do in order to achieve it. This way, money has become the reason for evil in small as well as in large proportions. From robbery to war, evil has been mostly caused by peoples eagerness in pursuit of money either direct or indirectly .
It is broadly known by anyone who lives in a big city and it is obviously the main filling of newspapers, radio and television broadcasts, that violence has been largely motivated by economic reasons. What is worth mentioning is that not only upper or middle class citizens are victims of violence because of money, but that low class citizens suffer with the same kind of violence as well. Evil may assault poor people in the form of robbery, for instance, from which not even they are free of. Among the poor, robbery mostly happens at buses and at the dangerous streets of their equally poor neighborhood. These citizens have their already few and hard earned belongings such as watches, mobile phones, shoes and engagement rings taken away from them by robbers who most of the times sell the robbed belongings with the exclusive intention of getting money to buy drugs for their own use. But it is true that there are also robbers who commit small crimes as a means of providing food and other kind of essential things to their families, what is not an excuse, but yet, seems to be much more reasonable. The type of violence that usually assaults the rich, on the other hand, involves the suppression of larger amounts of money through the breaking into houses and kidnappings, for instance. It does not matter if it happens to the poor or to the rich. The fact is that these are all violent actions that involve serious psychological terror and may end up causing trauma in the name of money .
Turning the spotlight to a much bigger proportion we can discuss the cases of evil deeds being directed by the leaders of whole nations aiming at the destruction of other nations. The word is war. It does not matter the excuse officially presented. It does not matter if it is said to be a war against terrorism or in the name of God. We can always identify economic interest behind such excuses. In a capitalist world, economic power is what defines the power of a nation. Worldwide leaders of nations try hard to increase the power of that nation they rule, and some get to the extreme point of starting wars and killing masses of innocent people in order to gain power .
In summary, we can conclude that living in a capitalist society represents a strong reason for money being responsible for so many evil acts. Violence is broadly caused, in different proportions, due to peoples blind pursue for power and as a consequence, for what determines ones power in a capitalist world, that is money .
|
032_BRRS1048.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
This line was said by the American singer and songwriter Billy Corgan in one of his songs with his band The Smashing Pumpkins. Many times, this is the exact feeling that people have in relation to the modern world in which we are living nowadays. It seems that our world sucks our time, our pleasures, our capacity to think and analyse information since it all comes in such a fast way. And that is the reason that makes so many people wonder where the dreams fit in our rushed lives .
However, if on one hand it is possible to see people simply taken aback by the speed and modernity of our times and forgeting about their own lives and dreams, on the other hand, this is exactly what some other people need to trigger their imagination. One thing is for sure: modernity is coming as a rocket and cannot be changed. So, why not make the best of it? This positive philosophy is what moves people to use their creativity at the most. These people have the ability to take something that is seen as negative by the majority of people and turn it into something not only good, but creative, hopeful and imaginative .
I think I fit in this second category of people: the optmistics. I strongly disagree with the statement that affirms that there is no longer place for dreaming and imagination. There is certainly room for both in our lives, even though they may be rushed as previously mentioned. But you have to find room in yourself to dream and imagine, and many are those who just cannot do it very well. It is necessary to forget about the outside world and look inside for a while, as if you were making a pause of everything else that doent concern you and your dreams. Dreams are what make people move on with their lives. If it wasn't for that, where would we find reason to keep on going on? Where would we find motivation not to give up?
Fortunately, many people are just like me: dreamers. In my opinion, it is almost impossible not to dream. Some dreams are totally unrealistic and their dreamers know that they will never come true. But even these dreams are good for us, we use our imagination, develop our creativity and even laugh with the absurds that we wish. Some other dreams are totally possible to become reality. They may not be easy to achieve, but if you go for it and fight for your wishes they might come true .
It might seem a little crazy from my part, but I really believe that even the world in which we live the world that is blamed for our lack of dreams just got where it is now because somebody dreamed of it. All the scientic experiments and technological devices that are totally common today, didn't exist before and have only become alive because somebody used his/her imagination, and struggled to make them real. So, to sum up, dreams are what make the world goes round and is something that is inside us, something that we just can't deny. Even if the world doesn't allow us much time to dream, we always find a way to do it!
|
033_BRSM1348.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
When the word feminism appeared, people experienced a different reality - considering the fact it happened during the nineteenth century in the United Kingdom and the United States. The consequences of the movements which have taken place back at that time have really caused changes and what we currently have is actually a completely different world, but the question is: has it changed for the best?
In fact, for a long period of time mens and women's roles were very well defined and now people are going through a huge role change. Even though this change is not as global as it could be, its worldwide influence can be easily observed. In Japan, the group (wether a family or a society as a whole) is greater than the individual and this means a particular woman must follow the old rules based on Confucianism and Buddhism both combined with the military class, which is basically look upon her husband as if he were heaven itself. On the other hand, in South Africa, divorced men claim maintenance payments for their children from their former wives .
Feminism is concerned with gender difference, and its discourse aims at equal rights. In a general way, when it comes to the Western society, it is possible to say that feminists goals are gradually being achieved. It is soon to say if the consequences of the theoretical equality of genders is good or bad for the society, but the reactions that happened so far show that this is a controversial subject. Before the revolution, it was easy to define mens and women's responsibilities men were the hunters, gatherers and providers and women, as the care-givers, took care of the children, of the house and, of course, of the husband. Today there are fathers in charge of the housework and mothers providing the financial sources .
It is important to consider that both women and men can benefit from taking on more than one single traditional social role, and that there is quite a bit of research to prove it they show that multiple roles can be beneficial. The researchers have found that employment was associated with health improvement for both single and married women who had positive attitudes towards their jobs. Likewise, men who held multiple roles also had better health researches have shown that multiple roles do improve physical and phychological health .
However, a routine that includes work, home, children and husband doesn't seem to be that easy. The studies and theories about the subject don't really mention the quality and the results a life with multiple roles has. Children education is another controversial issue and the problem with it starts at home. If a child doesn't have available parents, bad consequences will come, sooner or later. And if you don't have enough time to dedicate to your job and to focus on your career because you are taking care of your children, how far will you be able to go professionally? If you work too much and, when you are not working you are taking care of your children, how will you be able to keep a good relationship with your husband? Then, you have a mutiple role life - but with what kind of results? After all, are you really equal to men? And the most important thing: By living the supposed equal life, will you have time to actually live?
|
034_BRSM1351.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
Since the word was first used in English to describe the mobilization for women's suffrage in Europe and the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and even before that, when the term was still not in use, feminism has been one of the most controversial topics for discussion in modern society. It attracts, both the sheer passion of those who advocate for it and the repulse of those who are against it. But most people speak of it without fully understanding what feminism is and what are the implications it has had upon women's lives. Men and women, who deny the importance of feminism, and, at times, even consider it to have done more harm to the cause of women than good, say that what the political movement has mainly brought to women is not more freedom of choice or better opportunities in the workplace, but rather, it has taken women away from the house, not giving them any choice of staying in and taking care of their families without being undermined by modern thinking. Furthermore, feminism has deprived women from their most important characteristics and has been turning them into the men they never wanted to be .
Those who advocate the feminist thinking, on the other hand, believe that feminism, as a social and political movement, has been the most successful, and even only one to achieve its goals in the 20th century. Feminism, indeed, has proved itself as a powerful opinion former, and its ideals have been gaining space in mainstream culture every day. Women and men who have never even studied the feminist agenda are, and have been, passing forward its ideological thinking, having understood that both genders are equal and can take part in the same social, economical and political activities, as opposed to the understanding of the past generations, which considers women and men to have different roles that should be respected and not surpassed .
In conclusion, there certainly is always going to be discussions as to whether feminism has brought any kind of improvement in women's lives and made them freer and more complete as human beings, but, the fact is that, being able to discuss such matters and to defy the roles that were once set for women and men is, itself, an evidence that women, and men, have benefited from the struggle that feminists have put since their beginning as upper-class Suffragettes until their present as police officers, carpenters, doctors, executives, academics and even Presidents .
|
035_BRSM1369.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
Money is the way we use to buy a lot of things today, like food and drink, but also plesure, entretaning and good moments in travels arround the world. It was made just for it, to be the highway to change things that we have in other things that we want. Without it we would need to transport cows to a change point and get some corn. The question is, with the power that a lot of money bring in our capitalist world, could we simply have anything if we had enough money?
First of all, the kinds of things that we can buy are not just simple things that we need or substantial things to change our lives. These things we are talking about are mostly a representation of status nowadays. We can define it as eccentricity or any other word, but it is something that, in its most, looks like a selfish, meaningless way to show oneself. In addition, we can directly relate eccentricity with fame too. So, the famous and rich start a movement to spend their fortune in nonsense actions .
Some says that eccentricity is related with geniality too. For exemple, Edith Sitwell, the British poet and daughter of the eccentric Sir George Sitwell, 4th Baronet, of Renishaw Hall, wrote: "Eccentricity is not, as some would believe, a form of madness. It is often a kind of innocent pride, and the man of genius and the aristocrat are frequently regarded as eccentrics because genius and aristocrat are entirely unafraid of and uninfluenced by the opinions and vagaries of the crowd." For sure, Edith Sitmell has her point, if you consider that Albert Einstein was used to picking up discarded cigarette butts off the street in order to circumvent his doctor's ban on buying tobacco for his pipe, piloting his sailboat on windless days, but nowadays, eccentricity became a instrument to rich and famous just strive for attention. In particular, we can describe rock bands like Nirvana and Guns and Roses, known for destroying most of their instruments or their own hotel rooms just for fun .
On the other hand, not everything is lost. We still have many people that use their money in a good way, such as Paul David Hewson, Mr. Bono Vox, known for his cause and philosophy to help people around the world. Just like him, we have others, like Madonna, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, celebrities that do not use it to travel to the moon and call for pizza. They conscious of their status and use this on their side .
In conclusion, we cannot say that the way money and status are used today is only a matter of point of view and justify any act, or that money can buy anything, but we can see that the values of some are not on the right direction. If the capitalist system is not fair with everyone, we do not need someone burning their money in something stupid or selfish. We need more people worried about important causes and about others .
|
036_BRSM1372.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
It is a common saying that money is the root of all evil. According to the Random House Dictionary of Proverbs and Sayings, the phrase first appeared in English circa 1000 A.D. The saying originated in the New Testament. For the love of money is the root of all evil. Timothy, 6:10.
It's obviously one of those sayings that has as great deal of staying power, having been around for two thousand years and still going strong. But how fair is it to blame all evil, or even any evil, on a medium of exchange?
Maybe, it would be a much more accurate statement to say that the root of most evil is man's desire for status; either greed to increase ones status, or jealousy over losing in the status game to others. Money is the most obvious measure of ones status, so it's easy to confuse the two, but they are certainly not the same thing .
It's easy to point to many evils committed for the sake of status in which money wasn't involved at all, for example, in sports competitions, jealousy in relationships, and rivalry with relatives, Those situations have nothing to do with money, but everything to do with status and the need to be more successful then others .
Idealists wonder why we can't live in a world where everyone is equal, and therefore where there is no greed or jealousy resulting from status differences. Unfortunately, they overlook the fact that our desire to have higher status than others is part of our human nature, and nothing can change it. The goal of communism was that an economic system would be created where no one would be rich or poor, where everyone would have equal wealth. The problem is that such a system is impossible. Mans desire to rise ahead of others is too strong, and money is not the only thing that man competes over. And because all men are not equal in ability and other characteristics, no matter what the playing field is, some will rise ahead and others will fall behind, and those who are behind will feel intense jealousy, even if the competition is about something other than money .
Desire for money is a good thing when people play by the rules, and when their desire for money and status results in better ways of doing business and in inventions that help people and that make the world a better place. Desire for money and status is only bad when people do bad things in order to obtain what they desire .
|
037_BRSM1377.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
The time when a university degree could guarantee one a better job is long gone. In today's world, not only has it become ordinary to all of those who are seeking a position in the market, it does not prepare those who do find one to the kind of work they are going to perform. As a degree became a prerequisite to enter the job market, universities all over the world started creating courses to all fields, including those that did not necessarily require a 4-year curriculum .
To start with, the syllabi of the universities courses are rather theoretical. Therefore, students who dedicate years of their lives being prepared for the career ahead of them find themselves ill-equipped when facing the world outside campus. Coping with the new reality is often a better preparation for the work itself than having all the knowledge involved in a particular area, but no practical experience. No sooner does one leave university than they realize that. Furthermore, much of the content learned in universities is irrelevant, while the process of learning it nurtures a plethora of attitudes and behaviors which are directly contrasting to what appears to be needed in real life .
On the other hand, there are many courses that are vital for one to perform their job properly. Careers such as medicine and advocacy have constantly been developed in order to adapt to new practices in their areas. These courses really prepare their students for their work, as all the theoretical knowledge passed to them during their years of study is an essential element in their careers. What is more, the acquaintance of theories and the familiarity with the foundations of the field contribute to the improvement of area itself, as these new highly-educated professionals will become the architects of the courses curriculum tomorrow .
Taking everything into consideration, one can say that university degrees are overrated. If they do not prepare their students to the job market, why are they so prized? Managers and directors in all areas give more credit to a university degree than to a highly-experienced professional, but little do they consider that the latter has more tools to efficiently perform his tasks. While universities do not start considering these matters, their students will continue to learn about work at work, and about life by living it, as Charles Handy, an educator with many years experience in business and public services, once said. And he adds: We could do more to make sure that the process of education had more in common with the processes of living and working as they are today, so that the shock of reality is less cruel .
|
038_BRSS1344.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
Like is writing on the Bible, in the New Testament, and people says because of thousand years of common sense, money is the root of all evil. But, if we start to thinking about that, even the Catholic people, the phrase does not make sense .
How fair is it to resume all evil on gold, silver, salt, coins, or any other medium of exchange? Money is just one way of get things. The problem begins in man's desire for power and status. Probably, if they rethink about that phrase, it will be the root of most evil is the man's vanity. One should never expect the Bible to be consistent, and sure enough, it isn't when it comes to evil. One of the very first acts of evil committed in the Bible has nothing to do with money. In the Book of Genesis, Cain kills his brother Abel because he is jealous that Abels offering to God was better received than his own. He is jealous that Abel has achieved higher status or power than him .
While the Catholic Church created this common sense around the money, the Protestants interpretation of Bible, and the human History, is money is the solution for all evil. This thought was and still is the base on all development of industrialized countries that did not punish who have worked to join money, or have had ambitions of growth social and financial since the old time .
And today, are the developed nations maintain this thinking without any trouble? No. Idealists wonder why we can't live in a world where everyone is equal, and therefore where there is no greed or jealousy resulting from status differences. Unfortunately, they overlook the fact that our desire to have higher status than others is part of our human nature, and nothing can change it .
Greed for money may be a good thing when people play by the rules, and when their desire for money and status results in better ways of doing their business or in inventions that help people and that make the world a better place. Desire for money and status is only bad when people do bad things in order to obtain what they desire, without think in the other people. And even then, it's not greed that's really bad, but the person who's doing the bad things who's bad .
The goal of communism was that an economic system would be created where no one would be rich or poor, where everyone would have equal wealth. The problem is that such a system is impossible. Mans desire to rise ahead of others is too strong, and money is not the only thing that man competes over. And because all men are not equal in ability and other characteristics, no matter what the playing field is, some will rise ahead and others will fall behind, and those who are behind will feel intense jealousy, even if the competition is about something other than money. The goal of a just government should not be to punish people for being successful in obtaining money, but to create rules to ensure that competition for money results in good for society .
On the contrary like the old song says, Money is the root of all evil / Won't contaminate myself with it / Take it away, take it away, take it away, take this though away, and do what is right, to you, to your neighbor and to humanity as a whole .
|
039_BRSS1345.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
One of the most popular main of communication nowadays is television. There is one in each house in the occident and now it has been arrived in the orient too. Children grow up seeing its programming and it is forming character of many, surpassing until the education obtained in school. This occurs because of many factors and maybe there are no more possibilities to revert this situation .
Marx once said that religion was the opium of masses, but today it is no longer truth, because a greater opium has risen in our society, the television. He couldn't imagine so strong instrument of control in his time; he has only determined the manner how this control functions, but it can be applied not only to religion but to all kind of control and television is the most relevant and common instrument nowadays. It's that what well talk about in this text .
Parents use television like a babysitter. They goes to work and lead their children to school and after that, the children stay home alone with nothing to do beyond to watch television. Or parents stay home with them, but they are not interested in having any activity with theirs suns, so the TV is the easier way to solve the problem. All the programs in any part of the day are very interesting, attracting attention of the children but have no profundity neither are important or educative. The children passes all day watching TV, they learn that to read is a boring duty and become victims of the system of control .
Today there are many adults that have grown up in this kind of TV education. They are problematic, presenting problems in communication and socialization; they don't like their jobs and many of them are unhappy. Besides, they are absolutely abstracted and don't have interest in politics, economy or culture. They are only guided by the mass, following and believing exactly in what they see in television the new music of the moment, the new season of their favorite TV series, the manipulated and limited news of the newscast. They are zombies of the system, exactly like they are meant to be .
Matrix is a movie trilogy that represents well this alienation of reality. All the human beings are controlled by a computer program that makes they think they are exactly what they want to be. They are used by the system like batteries to make the world of machines functions. It is a representation of control that really exists in our society, but in a more veiled way but so harmful as the example .
By the way, there are very important questions that have been done and in which answers we have to think about: Who makes television to do what it does? Why can anyone want a thing like that? In the real matrix, we-batteries are used to make what functions? If anyone could know the answers for that, he certainly would be out of the manipulated mass and would become a manipulator too .
|
040_BRSS1346.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
Nowadays, we live in a world where people are totally dependent on modern facilities. These facilities have began to be introduced in our society from industrialization which allowed a great improvement on the life of people .
This progress brought with it a great change in economy, politic, science and society in general, but mainly in culture. People became fascinated to the progress of technology and then, so many inventions like telephone, computer, microwave, etc, transformed the life of people. All these changes came to improving the living conditions of population but they caused an acceleration of time. Nowadays, everything is so much faster and the velocity of information makes people have rapid access to facts which are happening around the world. Add to that the globalization is also a result of this all transformation .
There are no doubts that inventions allowed a great development of the society but what did happen to feelings? What did happen to dreams? What did happen to imagination? Well, people are so much worried to acquire more and more material products, they are working in an uncontrolled way to get so much money to buy too expensive houses, last generation cars, last generation cell phones, high power computers, notebooks, etc, and the scientists works to make the best technologic discovery of the century. Anyway, people are living to get things, material things, but they are forgetting to live a real life .
So, I think it is a wrong way to live. In my opinion, they are loosing the essence of life because all efforts are concentrated to technologic searches and natural values are in a second level. But, where are dreams and imagination? They are also concentrated to build an artificial world. It is obvious that there are exceptions but now population is thinking in an individual way. They are destroying nature in name of progress and scientists don't mind with the consequences of scientific researches .
In the university, there are some courses that are considered theoretical and because of that they have less importance than the technological courses. It is a portrait of being thought. The courses that prepare students to think or the courses that claim imagination not application or courses don't prepare people for the real life, these courses do not have the same relevance than the others because the world needs the great technological discoveries and not only people that are thinking about the matters of society .
One day, I read in the internet that the human imagination is what will allow us to control science and technology for human needs and I agreed with that, because nowadays we are more needs than dreams. Everything what we want, we easily get, everything is on our hand. By the way, science and technology exist to provide these needs and then, dreams are easily achieved. Because of that the life looses sense. So, it is also necessary to cultivate our soul. I think it is necessary to give more importance to relationships, nature and human beings. It is necessary to use our imagination to make something good to our animals, ours plants, our planet and human beings. It is a dream that can be get through science, technology and also imagination .
Anyway, we are living in a modern and industrialized world and it is impossible ignore science, technology and industrialization because they are part of our lives. We must use them to supply our human needs but we must use our imagination and dreams to feed our souls .
|
041_CNUK1005.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
As a university student, when I entered the university and chose my major, I found a phenomenon that some subjects offered are theoretical, which caused the students' complaints. They think the theoretical courses are not only boring and difficult to learn but also less practical. The present would needs people with practical skills and knowledge to solve the problem in their work. Moreover, when they apply for a job, they stuck in a dilemma situation: they possess the diploma or a degree requested, but they haven't experience or lack adequate practical ability .
We are now entering a brand new era, a completely new stage in its history. The new century is a time of advanced scientific and technological knowledge. As the rapid development of science and technology, there are rapid changes in all aspects of our life, even the value concept. Today is a era quite different from the time when those writers, poets and artists were highly respected. They most desired and hot professions are president of big company, CEO, manager, engineers, doctors, and so on .
So when the students choose their major, their parents also approve them to choose some hot majors, so that they can easily find a decent job, make a comfortable life or even make a fortune .
However, there are also some people agree that superficially some theoretical courses have no practical value, but without the theoretical knowledge, one cannot develop overall. But we should know everyone has limited time and energy, therefore it is impossible and unwise to emphasize too much on some theoretical subjects. We have to face the reality, we should remember a worthy saying: "the survival of the fittest." The heavy pressure from the job market forces us to put our limited time and energy into practical courses. If we don't adopt ourselves to the development of our society, we will be eliminated in the fierce competition .
When we were children, our parents often told that if you don't study hard you will be a unuseful person. So they toiled everything to support our life and education. They send us to the school and hope us can get good education and will find a good job in the future. That's their plain dream, but what we will see? A student study three or four years in the university, after graduating he find that it really hard to find a decent job, and the knowledge he acquired in the university is not as useful as they expected. In contrary we may find some people without high degree but they have high practical ability and skills, they really like a duck in the water when they apply for a job. Education aims to arm people with more knowledge so that adds to their competitioners in their future career and enables them to live better. If the education is the university don't follow the development of our society and the courses offered are too theoretical but less practical, we dare say the education just decorate our life but give us nothing .
Things are always changing, with the passage of time, some major are not to be in great demand. We your generation should keep pace with the latest advance of science and technology. Here I'd like to mention another thing - teaching material. Not long ago a friend of mine talked about his university life, he said, in his first class in the university the professor told the students that the subject was not only boring (because it was a theoretical course) but also what they would study was the research result of fifty years ago. He felt very angry and asked the professor a question " Why should we learn this subject, we come here is to learn the up-to-date knowledge, not such useful rubbish. When I heard this, I felt very sorry. The school administrators have to know what is in need in the labor maket and then decide which courses they should offered to the students. I still remember a passage which said " We'd not educate children only for the purpose of educating them; our purpose is to fit them for life." That 's really true .
When I talked here, I think of our education system. It has to improve. Education is key to strength of a country. In long-term, the school cultivate the young generation not only enable them live better but also cultivate more talents for our country. It is the high time to pay more attention to this issue and do something for it .
|
042_CNUK1029.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Should military service be compulsory in your country or should the army of your country consist of only professional soldiers? Discuss.
China is a nation which has the traditions of unity and strivation. According to the law, every chinese citizen has the duty and responsibility to serve for the army when the nation is in danger of being threatened by other nations, in danger of losing the sovereign and territorial integrity. For us, military service should be compulsory .
When you look through chinese history books or when you call on at chinese history museums or martyr monuments, you will get to know many chinese citizens who lived in the tumultuary age were willing to join the military service in order that they could drive the intruders out .
Maybe you will remember the father of the nation, Mr Sun Yu-Xian. In his time, the government of the Qing Dynasty was a puppet. It was under the control of other contries. As many other patriots, he joined the military service and managed to overturn the governance Qing Dynastywith great efforts accompanied by other fellows. Eventually the Democracy government came into being under the guidance of him. It made a good foundation for the complete liberty of China .
Also, chairman Mao Ze Dong, one of the founders of the People's Republic of China. In his age, the situation in China was worse than before. Several countries such as Britain, France, Japan etc had been longing to split China into pieces or to under their fully control. At that time, he followed the call of the country and served for the army without hesitation. He and other revolutionary people tried ways to relief China out of bad situations. Finally they succeedeed in having resisted the invading forces and having put down the domestic war and having founded the new China .
If we don't have the principle of impulsory military force how comes the achievements today .
Nowadays, the world structure has greatly changed. Though we live in a peaceful age, cold war is still existent. We don't know when another war will begin. Also recently, the news about terrorist attacks can constantly strike on us. We should be courteous .
In order to defend on ourselves, we need the army which consists of only professional soldiers. They are the main force on this matter. Only can they know how to operate the equipments well. Only can they be good at the strategy in that crucial time. But from the combat capacity point of view, owning the professional soldiers is not enough. We also need up-to-date weapons and equipements to improve the quality of the army as a whole. They can reflect the comprehensive national force and economic power of the country. They are also connected with the GDP and scientechnological level. Take the U.S.A. as an example .
Both the economic power and comprehensive national force of the country are on the top of the world. These advantages will contribute to the combat capacity of himself. It is possible for him to spend large funds and high-technology on manufacturing up-to-date weapons and equipments. It is possible for him to train the professional soldiers to become more capable and more competent. It could be fully manifested from the Iraq War .
For Chinese army, it is the same. It needs strong combat capacity and it also need more competent professional soldiers, which will contribute to our construction .
Since the reform and opening up, great changes have taken place in China. The economic power and comprehensive national force are better and better. We need a peaceful environment in the course of modernization. We should have the army which consists of only professional soldiers to keep the safety of the country. At the same time, we, every chinese citizen should be ready to join the military service to keep fence for the revival of our great country .
|
043_CNUK1042.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
In my opinion, feminists definitely have done a little bit more harm to the women who are now living in a world filled with heavy workload and under severe atmosphere. Some of them even have no time to take special care of their children. Probably, some feminists for such compromise will defeat me. However, in the view of my point, the world is combined by two parts: the hard one and the soft one, the former is male, and the latter is female who has gentle but great power to create the beauty world .
Traditionally, especially in East, woman used to be categorized to the part that could do nothing but give a birth to a baby or weave something at home. They have quite low status in the society; some of them even cannot eat at a table with their husband. Accordingly, in order to get higher status, female have been battling for quite a long time to obtain the same status with male until today. Of course, female is equal to the man, and they should have same right as man has. Nevertheless, nowadays, feminist go too far from the "right", they worked as a man, drink as a man, and some of them even refused to have a baby. Actually, it will do harm to such crazy female .
Over the world, the basis of a steady society is family. Consisted via male, female and children, such a complete family is able to do favour for the society. Over wise, lots of feminists believe in that the family could do nothing but destroy a gifted woman. So they suggest woman go out to work day by night, abandon the right to have a baby, even wear as a man. That's not the equal right! Man play his role in this world, woman does as well. Female have hundreds of ways to express their ability, not only on hard working. In Japanese, most of woman, who hold bachelor or above degree, will not go out to work after having a baby; they draw all attention on the family and children. Children could be taken special care during their growing period. When they come back home, mama could give them a cup of hot chocolate instead of cold dinner; when they are ill, mama is able to stay with them instead of working in a company for a large project. Certainly, woman will be respected for their contribution .
Both male and female are playing a critical role today via various ways. Father teaches us how to know the realistic world, and mother teaches us how to love others. Either of them is so important when everybody grows up. Feminists would like us to ignore the gender, and each woman should have a hard and cold hart to conflict in this serious world. However, achievement is not only formal working, and real "right" indicates that we should have right time, right place, and right lift-style. We should root our dreams and life in a warmer solid. Feminists, please be gentle!
|
044_CNUK1049.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
As the development of society all over the world, more and more people from developed and developing countries tend to go to universities and get various degrees. However, there is an opposite opinion that university degrees are theoretical and of little value .
Although universities degrees seem to be of little value in the real world, they are still very important for most people. In general, the effect of university degrees can be divided into two main parts .
In fact, university is an important place to teach people basic knowledge in the academic fields, meanwhile, it is not easy to pass all the courses and get university degrees at last. There are five processes that you can take control of in your strategy for getting a good degree, which are: wanting to learn, needing to learning, learning by doing, feedback and making sense of what you are learning. First of all, from hard study people can learn to capitalize on teaching-learning situations smartly by making the most of lectures, small-group tutorials, seminars, studio work, field work, laboratory work and group work, which will be used as basic skills to be in charge of how to treat with work in real world in future. Furthermore, a lot of essays, reports, peer assessment, self-assessment, research projects, presentations and work placements may make people intelligent to contribute to the overall quality and classification of their degree. So the situation in the real world is. One more thing, in society, more people seem to be suffering from stress. Being a student has its own stresses as well. However, while at university many students can manage their stress levels as possible as they can by many scientific methods, which are analysing the causes, making lists to save somebody cluttering their mind, and trying counselling. It is definite that it will be made use of the real world. In addition, people can gain more basic skills used in the real world through attending to university programmes because of doing plenty of extra work that can stimulate their specific experiences, such as doing some investigations in depth. For example, people can develop their interpersonal skills that are highly valued by employers while at university. The reason is that university as a small society reflects the real one. What's more important. As we know, most university degrees could be seen as main factors to apply for their jobs. This is a reason for the recent condition that more and more people go to study at university. It is also a realistic thing in the modern society that high university degrees symbolise as high techniques in some specific fields. It can be said that university degrees can be seen as a strong competitive strength to compete in future .
However, universities degrees have a few problems. The most significant one is that people may not have a chance to get a lot of experiences for their specific fields .
According to the above discussion, it can be easily found that university degrees have both advantages and disadvantages. It can be believed that a few disadvantages can be solved in the future, even if there are a few disadvantages .
|
045_CNUK1051.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder.
In most countries, capital punishment is carried out in the murder and some other very serious crimes. However, in latest years, somebody argues that if it is the best and the most humanism way to punish such a crimes. In their views, when you use the capital punishment to punish the murderers, you just kill another people, no more meanings than that. If you keep the murderer alive and execute the life sentence, you can make him to work in the prison for the left of his life, through such a punishment, he or she can do something good to the society. In their opinion, this way is both good to the society and the criminal as well and there's a fact that some countries or some parts of a country have abandoned the capital punishment. So, they advocated that should not be carried out. Unfortunately, nothing could be more misleading than that. In my view, as long as the serious crimes exit in our society, capital punishment should not be abandoned. The following are several reasons to support my opinion .
First of all, Executing of capital punishment is fair to the victim. Somebody says that just kill the murderer is not humanism enough; I think it's totally wrong. They killed other people, if depriving their life does not punish them, is it fair to the victim? Of course not, the life is the basic human right, nobody can deprive it just at his or her pleasure .
Besides, Capital punishment helps to decrease the crime rate and achieve a more peaceful social surrounding. It is common sense that human being fear of death, if everybody could realize the consequence of the serious crimes, they will take it into a second thought, and a lot of horrible deed behaviors could be prevented. The reducing of the crime rate will result in more peaceful surrounding .
Furthermore, keeping the capital punishment could upgrade the public's moral standard. The aim of capital punishment I feel is not just kill people who killed another one, is not just an eye for an eye, the true meaning of it should be educate the people what is good and what is bad, it makes the sense that everybody's life is important and could not be invaded. By doing that, each one in our society will regard other's life as precious as his or her own, love other people then care for other people, this the reason why the public's moral standard could be enhanced .
The above-mentioned points can clearly show you why the punishment is still indispensable. It is fair to the victim and their relatives, it helps to make a peaceful society and it upgrade the people's moral standard. Although it is important, on the neutral basis, I do not advocate the abuse of the death sentence, if some power wants to use capital punishment to achieve their bad intention, it should be absolutely given up. As a conclusion, if we can use the capital punishment properly, it helps to make our society more peaceful and orderly .
|
046_CNUK1090.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder.
In the modern century, many countries have the capital punishment in the legal system which is contoversial in the world. It is because the capital is cruel fine and many people said that if should be carried out. Although many countries abolish the capital punishment, it still survives in some countries. People would like to illustrate the capital punishment by looking at justice and equality to victims, to prevent the voilent crimes, an inhumanity punishment and a good fine to murder. This essay will be to explain and discuss the capital punishment applied in law and utilize the US and China to do examples. People can look at about execution in their society conditional .
The capital punishment is more equality and fair to the victims who are harmed or killed by murder. If someone is killed by murder, the murder has not got a heavy punishment. Many people think it is very unfair. Therefore, if someone support the capital punishment, it is rational to the murder cases. For example, China and US enfores the capital punishment in some murder cases. The aims are to gain revenge to victims or their relations .
The capital punishment enforced in the law which can prevent the violent or serious crimes to happen. It is because the execution can be more efficiency to stop the serious crimes such as murder assault, drugs problem or terrorism. In addition, in the criminal psychological, the capital penalty appear in the law which can help someone to stop the crimes to happen and it can threaten criminals to decrease .
Although the capital punishment seems to be very reasonable in the legal system, it is not true because the capital punishment is an inhumanity penalty to the criminal. The execution, in US, it is to kill someone with an instrument which injects poison to death. In China, if someone had a conviction a sentence, which is the capital punishment. It is shot to death. The government sometimes show this punishment in the news, which is terrible, savage and justies to the criminal. In addition, some execution cases is charged to make mistake but the criminal is punished. Form this show, Is the capital punishment really suitable for all of murder cases? Is it fair? All of sentences are true or reasonible for them. Nobody can answer that .
At last, someone said the capital punishment is a good solution to have a heavy punishment to some criminal who are imprisonment for life. Some countries can remove the death-warrant which change the life imprisonment. As a result of some criminals have not got any freedom in their life. If the excution is used, it is maybe more suitable to the criminal .
In conclusion, the capital punishment is an inveteracy in some countries. It is very difficult to escape the execution, which is very useful in the law. The capital punishment can be justice and equality to victims, prevent the voilent crimes, a inhumanity penalty and a suitable fine to murder or criminal. In the future, if the victim or victim's relatives decide the capital punishment be applied to the criminal, it is maybe better as result for the victim or their relatives .
|
047_CNUK1105.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder.
Human life is valuable and unique to everyone. Now one can decide when a person dies. Murder is a kind of most serious crime ' commonly ' around us. Everyone should be protected by the law and those murder should receive their appropriate punishment. However, should we send the murders to death in all kinds of murder cases? Life is valuable, so is there any contradiction to what we said above?
Capital punishment is not really applied to many countries which is bounded by law. It is a punishment that sends the criminals by hanging, injecting poisonous materials into the body or by using electricity. No matter what way is used, it is also horrible to the criminal. Therefore, before we decide if we should carry out the capital punishment, we should know clearly about what are the reasons to do so. Also, are there any other alternatives to replace it?
Undoubtedly, the death penalty is really threatened to the public. It is a good signal to threaten people not to the serious crimes. However most cases of murder may not be a ' well planned ' crimes. The murder may commit the crime unconsciously. Most of the murders may kill a person when they were in a condition of uncontrolling. It could not be denied that the criminals really felt guilty because of their unconscious decision. Moreover, murder is a case that difficult to be investigated. It may not be rared to find a case that was really determinated wrongly. Therefore if we sent the criminal to death, we might do something wrong and which is no return! Although there might be some ways for the criminals to appeal, it's still difficult to convict the judge to believe since in fact the case was determinated before. Besides, those cases with really evidence to prove the criminal is not guilty .
People may argue that since the murders killed people. It is fair to punish them by the capital punishment. However, is ' life replaces life ' is meaningful? In fact, sending the criminals to life sentience has been destrive their life freedom. They have no right to do what they want, besides receive orders in the prison. Actually, if the murders were punished for their who life time in the prison, the public has been protected. There are some restrictions to apply to the life penality if the capital punishment is abandoned. The reason for this is to gurentee the safety of the public .
In short, I think all people's life are valuable and important. The people being killed are pity and depressing to their families. However, killing the murder is just the same cases of ' murder'. Life is also being destrived. Moreover, we should let people admit their faults and give them chance to change. Human life is unreplaceable, we should not carry out the capital punishment because of ' fairness' to those were killed .
|
048_CNUK1115.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Should military service be compulsory in your country or should the army of your country consist of only professional soldiers? Discuss.
In china, the PLA was consisted of only professional soldiers. But in many other countries, military service is compulsory and every citizen will have to proform as a soldier for several years. especially young university students. And in my opinion. military service should be compulsory .
There are several reasons why I think so. First, China, as the largest country of East Asia, had the widest borderline. To keep the whole borderline safe is not an easy thing. It need a large military force to be on duty all the time. But the soldiers sent to a certain place may not be familiar with the environment. Even they are professional soldiers, they may probably meet some troubles. If military service was compulsory, the border line can then be guarded by soldiers selected from local people who were familiar with local environment. And they can certainly do the job better than soliers from other places . .
Second, nowadays' young man are lack of life experience. They often care little about others and lack of discipline. Some of them even had never had any hardship and always waste things. Although Chinese government forced every university student to have a month's military training, it had little effect. People can't be changed in only a month. Comparing to these young man. those who had joined the army and serviced as professional soldiers are much more disciplinal and energetic .
So just imagine that if all the youngsters will have to serve in the military for several years, will it still be so many problems about youngster?
Third, although the world is peace now, it still has the possibility of breaking out a war. And after so many years of disarmament, china's present military forces may not be enough for a war. But if military service was compulsory, those people who bad had military training can form a great military force at any time. That means almost every citizen can be the part of resistance to the invasion. Such things had happened once during the Second World War, when the Japanese army invaded China. At that time, almost everyone: soldiers, guerrillas and even citizens fought against the Japanese invader. And everyone may know that we won the war and defeated Japanese invader successfully .
Forth, armies formed by professional soldiers often developed slowly. Because every soldier had the same training and this made them always thought and acted in the same way. For this "the army had few good commanders and new tactics. This will cause the army losing the ability of fighting. Now the PLA was starting a
revolution, "trying to avoid such situation. In fact, I think the best and easiest solution is to let military service be compulsory .
Although letting military service be compulsory has so many advantages, it also has disadvantages comparing to forming the army consist of professional soldiers .
For example: more money is needed to train soldiers, and soldiers may not as good as professional ones. But after all, make military service be compulsory can do good to not only the army "but the education as well. That's why I choose it .
|
049_CNUK1137.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Should military service be compulsory in your country or should the army of your country consist of only professional soldiers? Discuss.
Should military service be compulsory in my country or should the army consist of only professional soldiers? It raises me deep thinking of the formidable military service image .
In my opinion, not only should the military service be compulsory but also the soldiers in the army of my country ought to be professional. Army is part of the main strength of our country, whose members, the soldiers are required to be the most honest defenders of our country and our people. Professional soldiers play a very important role in our country, by doing their utmost to resist the invasion and be ready to sacrifice for our motherland .
In my country, soldiers are all selected strictly from all over the country, and then get professional training which makes them into qualified professional soldiers. However, considering China's whole national conditions, it is not good enough just to have professional soldiers .
In the first place, China has such a large population than other countries' that it needs a great formidable army to protect the country and the people. There are a great number of teenagers who have not continue to study in school nor to find a job, roaming in big cities or the countryside. Maybe they will come up with crimes which do great harm to the society. They drop up their study maybe because their poor family or because they themselves do not want to obey the rules in life. To some extent, in spite of their misdeeds, such guys are not so bad for they have sturdy bodies, tough personalities, which indicate that they can be fit for professional soldiers. Therefore, compulsory military service can help the country avoid the lost of talent and have better control of the society, by gathering all the possible strength to form a firm army system .
What's more, compulsory military service will do good to the education system. Once the policy that military service should be compulsory is carried out, the situation will be different. If a guy reaches the age of serving in the army, he must make a choice that whether to go on study or to have a job or just to join the army as the rules require as long as his body condition is qualified. In that case, the rebel guys are forced to make decisions to be a soldier or a student or a worker. In this way, guys need not be a member of the military service unless they continue their study or work. They will stay at school and have to learn. Education system is to influenced by the compulsory military service. Instead of roaming in the society, the guys will find their real direction of life. Thus, it is obvious to see the good that compulsory military service does to the education system .
The last but not the least, compulsory military service does not only mean guys should join the army at proper age, but also requires professional soldiers in the army. Professional soldiers should have good health first, and must acquire sufficient knowledge, keeping the pace with the fast changing world. Nowadays, the army system is much advanced with hi-tech equipment which provide soldiers excellent training environment. For example, the guys of our hometown who got professional training in the army are no doubt taken pride in by the people. They return home as both professional soldiers for our country and for themselves in life. The smart minds and tough personalities which are further developed in the army enable them to bravely face and cope with the difficulties they meet in life. They hold quite optimistic attitudes to life. In the long run, compulsory military service can play an important role in developing a person's personality into more optimistic and tougher form .
In a word, it is obvious that compulsory military service of my country should be compulsory and the army should consist of professional soldiers, for that will well improve the army system and benefit the society security control and the education system, even help develop the quality of people's mind .
|
050_CNUK1138.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder.
For many years, capital punishment has been discussed whether it should be abolished. My answer is certainly "No". Murderers are cruel. And they are usually referred to the violent thugs. They should be sentenced to death. What they put them do put them beyond the pale of humanity. They are not humans and, therefore, they cannot expect to be treated as human beings. They must be made to see the error of their ways, and the only way of doing that is the capital punishment .
Murderers whose motive is money should not get off lightly. The professional killer who would not think twice about using his cosh or crowbar to attack and batter some harmless lady to death in order to rob her meager life-savings. It is absolutely wrong to think professional killer are insane and need hospital treatment, The only thing that is the most suitable to treat him is to punish him the same as the pitying old lady was suffered. Maybe it is too cruel, but it is quite necessary. Criminals must be made to see the consequences of their crimes . "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is the very basis of justice .
Capital punishment used to be a major deterrent. It made the violent robber think twice before pulling the trigger. It gave the cold-blooded poisoner something to ponder about while he was shaking up or serving his arsenic cocktail. It protected the most vulnerable members of society, young children, from sex-maniacs. It is horrifying to think that the criminal can literally get away with murder. Therefore, we cannot abolish this punishment,
Of course some people claim that it is ruthless to punish the murderers by the cosh or hanging. But had the thugs had thought that it was too heartless to the innocent people before they committed the evils. It is not the proper thing they need to worry about. Executing by shooting, hanging or injecting the poison are more humane than the other penalties at present imposed. Thanks to the modem methods the capital punishment is quick and painless. It is only the agitators who campaign against the death penalty who say it is cruel. The reality is that it is a kindness to the murderers. Far better to be shot or hanged than to suffer the slow torture of life imprisonment which is in any case a burden on the long-suffering tax payer.. it is also inevitable that some people are always willing to hold liberal views at the expense of others. It is always fashionable to pose as the defender of the under-dog. So long as you, personally, remain unaffected .
We all know that "life sentence" does not mean what it says. It is only a nominal sentence. It leaves a chance for the criminal to escape. After ten years or so of "good conduct" the most desperate villain is free to return to society where he will live very comfortably, on the proceeds of his crime, or he will go on committing offences until he is caught again. In no time at all, the murderer will be released. How can ordinary people feel safe knowing that there are murderers on the prowl and probably seeking their next victim?
Only the capital punishment can ensure that people can sleep safely in their beds. So, there should never be suspension of capital punishment .
|
051_CNUK1149.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder.
Capital punishment is the harshest form of punishment enforced in the world today. Whoever violates the law should be sentenced, by either serving himself in prison or being given a death penalty. Consequently, it's quite clear that criminals who had committed murder should face the executions for their evil deeds .
However, death penalty strikes some people as too cruel, and it is believed that it shouldn't always be carried out to deprive the murder of his life so easily. Therefore, capital punishment becomes a difficult issue in discussion and there are many different opinions about it, especially in America, where human rights are highly respected and capital punishment has already been abolished in some states .
Anyway, it is always true that everything in the world cannot be defined exactly as right or wrong, so we should be objective toward an issue, and look at it all-roundly. And it is the same with the view that whether capital punishment should be carried out in all cases in murder .
Generally speaking, capital punishment should be carried out in most of the cases in murder. First of all, it's obvious that punishments are made to punish those criminals and to prevent crimes, and would positively give a potential pause in the thought process of the murderer, using fear as an incentive for preventing recurrence. The harshest punishment for murder will set up an alarm for those potential criminals. If only they value their lives, they would not commit murder so carelessly .
Besides, once a person is proved guilty of murder, he should be sentenced to death, because justice must be served. Only placing murderers in prison isn't a tough enough punishment, since in jail they would have a possible chance for parole. But they actually did kill someone, and they should pay for it life for life. What's more, for the sake of the security of the whole society, we have to be some kind of inhuman or cruel to sentence those murderers to death, so that justice is served by executing them. They deserve it. They have caused much grievance to the family and friends of the victim, and execution seems like the only way that justice can be served. And only in this way, would the punishment fit the crime and would the victims' family and society get some comfort from the grievance and recover from the resentment .
However, things are not so absolute. When we return to the "nature" of the crime committed, there are some cases in which the murder has some reason to be excused. For example, he might be arguing with someone when he suddenly flied to rage, and beat that person to death without control. Actually, he didn't intend to do so, but in such a circumstance, he was out of ration; after the tragedy happened, he had regretted to death .
Similarly, there are many other possible cases that people killed someone by accident. They are not guilt in nature, but made some terrible mistakes - against their will. They don not seem to be that detestable to be executed just because of their offence through negligence. Some punishment in jail is enough to them, since he has already been condemned by the society, suffered great pain in his heart, and served himself in prison as punishment. He was taught to know that one should control his temper however bad the situation is. Provide the family of the victim and the society consent to forgiving the murderer, he can be given the chance of being good again .
Overall, capital punishment is an effective approach to punish murderers and prevent crimes furthermore. It should be carried out to protect the security of the society, and to hold the justice firmly, but there can be some exceptions. When the case of murder is special and when the murderer is pitied and forgiven by the society, the justice and the jury can make their decision by taking into consideration the circumstances, and try to avoid using the capital punishment .
|
052_CNUK1184.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder.
As you know, thousands of people would lose their lives everyday for lots of different reasons. Some are die of disease, some are die of the old age. Some are die from traffic accident, some are murdered, and so on .
However, we can avoid so many person lose their lives. Reasons of disease, accident and age that are can't control but we can stop the murder cases raising. We can protect the right of life. We can also forbidden the unfair matters happen by rules .
Even though, in the society, there are still so many reasons that make someone to kill a person. Take money for example, someone will lose himself, will lose the humanity, just in order to get more money. They just think about themselves, they just want to enjoy the life without any effort, they just want to get but giving. In a word, they are selfish. They are harmful to every member of society. Once they are arrested, they will be capital punished. That's no doubt. And no one will feel pity about that. People even will say that, " That's the result they ask for."
Besides the money, under the seduction of the power, murder becomes more and more common between two different governments or two organizations. In some foreign countries, many political leaders were murdered, just because their political opinions go against their own. Here, we can't tell which side is right or which side is wrong, but we are sure that, " To kill a person or more just in order to build a new peace government, just in order to bring the fortune to people, all of these is not humane. It is even an excuse to clear the way for his own benefit. This case is also unacceptable. What's worst, this kind of case usually is abused by the whole world .
However, there is another kind of murder, which still needs discussion for the punishment. Why does it need discussion though it is illegal? Here, I will show the background to you. A cadre oppress the people with his power, and get much extra money from the people, who make the people live under a terrible sutuation. The people do nothing to him though they hate him very much. As days past by, this ill-treat makes people feel terrible. Finally, someone can't stand for him any longer and kill him. Well, he did a good job for people. And he would be praised by the people. But, from another point of view, he breaks the role, his behavior is illegal, he should be punished by the judge. In fact, the dead man is really not a good cadre, but maybe is a good husband or a good father. As his death, his families may go crazy, and couldn't live on normally. In another word, the murderer also did harm to people. Why do the people will agree to kill the cadre? Why do they will surport the murderer? That's because these people don't know much about the rules, and they don't know how to use the rules to protect themselves until they can't turn back .
According to this example, we can see that no matter for what reason, once you break the rule, you must be punished. If not, this world will become disorder, the life will be at danger all the time, the whole human being will stop developing. At least, human being will die out from the world. From that case, we also found a serous problem, that is, " so many people are lack of knowledge about rules." I think, that's the reason why so many people break the rules .
So, in order to keep the world peace, we must learn the rule and we must use the rule to protect ourselves. Besides, we insist that we will go on to punish the murder strictly no matter for what reason they kill a person .
|
053_CNUK2008.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
Why do people want to go to universities? Some people might say university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. Well, in my point of view, people who said that might not be educated in university in their life. I admit that preparation for entering the real world is not enough for students in universities. But think about that, why those people with university degrees are easier to get a job? Doing degrees in university has both advantages and disadvantages .
The advantage of doing a degree in university is obvious. Why those companies want graduator of university? Because those people already have been educated in a high standard although in a very theoretical way. But theoretical does not necessary mean useless, instead, it is the experience of those people learned before, which can help university students preventing making the same mistake. Theoretical knowledge is totally not a bad thing. Let us compare to what happens in the real life, think about our driving lessons. I believe that pupils read awful a lot about how to drive before putting their hands on the steering wheel. Just like university degrees, they must pass the paper work like theory test then take a road test. People said that students get too much theoretical knowledge than practise. I do not think it is the weakness part of university education. Studying theory knowledge is the best way to prepare the coming challenge in the real life. The preparation to entering the real world is not just study theory test as well. As we are all university students, we know there is huge amount of research or business enterprise and all sorts of activity in the university campus. Within university you can meet lot of different people as well, just like the real world, people are coming from all over the country or even from different nations. What a chance to study different things! In the real world, we probably do not have those sorts of chance. So in my point of view, I think university is the best place to do preparation to entering the real world .
Of course, doing theory studying without doing practise is useless. In some university, it does happen which means when students enter into the society, it might cost them more time than others to be fit where they will be .
Anyway, I am a university student right now. I benefit from being a university student a lot and will be in my whole life .
I
|
054_CNUK2017.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder.
Nowadays whether the capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder is a controversial issue. Some people believe that the murderer should be seriously punished by the capital punishment, while others hold the opposite opinion. As for me, I vote for the latter .
There are numerous reasons to support my point of view and I would like to list some of them as follows:
One of the first primary reasons is that the murders can be turned into useful persons if they were sentenced lightly. There is no denying that they have a harmful effect on the society and public, however, I do think everyone is kind and decent when he or she was born. Maybe sometimes they are forced to do that, therefore, they should be given the opportunities to correct what they have done. If they are killed by the capital punishment, it is true that they will not gain any chances. That reminds me of a TV programme which was shown a few months ago in my own country. There was a youth who had robbed and killed a taxi driver after drinking. At first, he should be sentenced by the capital punishment two years later. After entering the prison, he did not lose the confidence of his life. On the contrary, he tried his best to correct himself and did very well in all of the things. Maybe you cannot imagine, he even learned the courses relating to accounting by himself and got the diploma in the final examination. Due to his efforts, he has been lightened for his crime. Now although he is still in the prison, he has continued to do his best as well as his studies. From this example, we can easily see it is not necessary to sentence all the murders into a capital punishment .
The other main reason is that everyone has the right of living. So I do not think the murders must pay for what they had done with their lives. I maintain that the murders can be taught and trained by the appropriate approach. They may be changed and after they enter into the society, they can devote themselves doing many things that are beneficial .
However, as everything has its light and dark sides, we must admit that some murders who had extremely impact to the society and public should be carried out by the capital punishment. For example, they had been given some opportunities once. So I claim that the judge should distinguish the details and then make a suitable sentence .
From what I have mentioned above, I think that capital punishment should not be carried in all cases for murder .
|
055_CNUK2032.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
With the development of economics and technology, people are more focusing on their own rights, power and freedom. In this modern society, women are becoming more and more important than before in many areas. They gradually have the equal status with men. While some people thought it was feminism and feminists had done more harm to the cause of women than good. It is unfair opinion. I am strongly against this kind of ridiculous thought. I support women could have enough freedom and the same right as men. I will illustrate four reasons to strengthen my idea .
The first point which is also a basic one is that women had a sad story of the past. As it is known to all that women's status was much lower than men's. They had no chance to be educated, go out like men and no freedom. They were thought they were weak and prejudiced. It is seemed that men control them and they were just like their husbands' slaves. Men thought the reason why women lived is that they need to bore children for men's families, especially in old China. It was a common phenomenon that women stayed at home to take care of their children and the whole family. They lost themselves. They had no freedom and any right in daily life and communication. So women who lived in the past were poor and symphsized. They had huge disaster which should have the same rights as men. Time is changing, the female should have chances to be treated and recognized as the same as the male .
Secondly feminists show the equal relationship between females and male. They do not harm to the cause of women but good. It is not wrong for women to own their freedom and power, there are some advantages displayed. Firstly feminism reflects that women have waken up. It helps women be more confident. They will notice actually they can do what they want to do and even something they never considered before they could do both housework and jobs as well. Women will be respected as well by good achievements what they received .
In addition, many careers need women such as teachers, nursery, caring and sellings. Women are careful and patient. They do better than men. Thirdly, feminists brought the great challenges to males. Male feel engineering and law. This kind of pressure helps men work harder than before. They thought they were men so that they should be better than female otherwise they will feel uncomfortable and lose face .
|
056_CNUK3065.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder.
Suppose you are shopping in a supermarket, when you have chosen a lot of things and gone to pay in the cashier, will you feel fair and comfortable if the staff tells you that no matter what you buy, you have to pay at the same price? Can you imagine you have to pay $100 for only a cheese cake? Similarly, if all kinds of murders are punished in the same way - capital punishment. It will be a kind of misuse of punishment and the laws will lose its real meaning - to protect every body's right and freedom justicely. There are various kinds of murders in the world, such as serial murdering, slaughtering, bringing other people to death, etc. Accordingly, we should set down the relevant laws to punish a guy who breaks in the same extreme way. If so, it will be a tragedy for a civilized society, and also for the equalization of laws .
Moreover, although some people hold it is as general truth that to punish these bad guys heavily can largely reduce the crimes by giving a signal to those potential criminals, things are going to the reverse. On one hand, the "real" killer will try to escape and even kill more because he knows that it makes no difference for him to increase the number of victims to 2 or 20. The result is the same. On the other hand, people who kill someone by mistake dare not to confess his guilty in the police station. Because the judge will not listen to his explanation, but also focus on the fact - someone is killed. So capital punishment should be exercised. Hence, no one will admit his behaviors. All they want to do is to hide themselves in order not to be arrested by police. Consequently, the whole society will become a mass .
Furthermore, for any human society it is not a wise way to prevent crimes from happening by setting up cruel punishment methods. Crimes do not exist at the every beginning, but happen unwillingly in most of the cases. As a result, the legistrational institutions should try to strengthen the constiousness of laws in public. And the society should provide sufficient resolving methods to its people, to help them get out of difficult situations both financially and mentally. Thus, less crimes will happen and the whole society can be peaceful in a real meaning .
|
057_CNUK4002.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder.
ln the modern century, many countries have the capital punishment in the
legal system which is
contoversial in the world. lt is because the capital is a cruel sentence
and many people said that if should be carried out. Although many
countries abolish capital punishment, it still survives in some
countries. People would like to illustrate the capital punishment by
looking at justice and equality to victims, to prevent the voilent crimes,
an inhumanity punishment and a good threatment to murder. This essay will
be to explain and discuss the capital punishment applied in law and
utilize the US and China to do examples. People can look at about
execution in their society .
The capital punishment is more equality and fair to the victims who are
harmed or killed by murder. lf
someone is killed by murder, the murder has not got a heavy punishment .
Many people think it is very unfair. Therefore, if someone supports
capital punishment, it is rational to the murder cases. For example,
China and US enfores the capital punishment in some murder cases. The aims
are to gain revenge to victims or their relations .
The capital punishment enforced in the law which can prevent the violent
or serious crimes to
happen. lt is because the execution can be more efficiency to stop the
serious crimes such as murder, assault, drugs problem or terrorism.ln
addition, in the criminal psychological, the capital penalty appear in the
law which can help the crimes to stop or happen and it can threaten
criminals to decrease .
Although the capital punishment seems to be very reasonable in the legal
system, it is not true
because the capital punishment is an inhumane penalty to the criminal. The
execution, in US, it is to kill someone with an instrument which injects
poison to death. ln China, if someone had a conviction a sentence, which
is the capital punishment, he is shot to death. The government sometimes
show this punishment in the news, which is terrible, savage and justice to
the criminal. ln addition, some execution cases is charged to make mistake
but the criminal is punished. Form this show, ls the capital punishment
really suitable for all of murder cases? ls it fair? All of sentences are
true or reasonible for them. Nobody can answer that .
Eventually, someone said the capital punishment is a good solution to
have a heavy punishment to
some criminals who are imprisoned for life. Some countries' the head of
state can amnesty the death convict, and the death-warrants change the
life imprisonment, for examples, Hong Kong a. lt is very common although
there is the execution in the law. As a result of some criminals have not
got any freedom in their life, it is more cruel threatment. lf the
excution is used , it is maybe more suitable to the criminal .
ln conclusion, the capital punishment is an rootedness in some countries .
lt is very difficult to escape
the execution, which is very useful in the law. The capital punishment can
be justice and equality to victims, prevent the voilent crimes , a
inhumane penalty and a suitable punishment to murder or criminal. ln the
future, if the victim or victim's relatives decide the capital punishment
be applied to the criminal, it is maybe better as result for the victim or
their relatives .
|
058_CNUK4011.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
Feminists, belonging to the most arguable issues in nowadays, play a core
role of job - dividing and social status' forming. Those who support the
equality of male and female believe that feminists are good for women,
while others insist that what feminists have done to women is definitely
more harmful. The argument has been continued for several decades. Along
with the researches of the scientists, new evidences are revealed to give
the latter one stronger proves. Following are the details of this issue .
To begin with, feminists do have given female more chances to prove their
capabilities and creativities. In many working circumstances, women are
playing more important roles than men, or at least equal to men. However,
scientists claimed that there have been too much more working stresses
put on women resulting in the unharmonious between family members and
home violence. According to Jerry Z Muller (2003), nearly 30 percent
women are facing home violence or quarrels with family members result
from too strong working pressure, which all come from the ideas of
feminists. Dr. Muller said that women are the most significant elements
of a specify family, whose hormone are secreted to keep everything they
may concern into a certain balance, to reduce potential quarrels. The
more attentions women pay to their job, the less they spend to their
family members. What the feminists done is already harmful to women in the
passed decades .
More over, another important difference between men and women is the
strength differences. Women's abilities of heavy work are less than
men's. This phenomenon results from the different amount of water
contained in blood of men and women, the latter contains more than about
15 percent as well as that of men, reducing the oxygen delivering
capability of female. So, it is not strange that men are more suitable to
carry heavy things. Hence, it is too arbitrary to carry out feminists
without concerning the differences between male and female, even though
men and women belong to the same species .
In addition, it is obviously that women are easier to feel tied than men .
It is proved by Mr. Muller that there are more red cells in men's blood
(about 20 percent higher) than that of women's. Since red cells' duty is
to supply the oxygen to the body cells, less red cell inducing women are
easy to get tire in general times. Appropriate concerns about the
different situations between men and women are good to improve the
efficiency of the latter's .
To sum up, though men and women are both human being, they are still quite
different from each other, not only as individuals, but also as two
different genders, which lead to the unlikely job adaptations and family
maintenances. What feminists did in the passed several decades is
definitely too arbitrary to reduce the inappropriate situations that the
majority of female were facing. Although everything has both sides, the
pros and corns, which is just like a coin gets two sides, each one-sided
view is not justified enough, what feminists have done to female is still
more harmful in the course of women than good .
|
059_CNUK4012.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
Admittedly, universities and colleges are academic institutions, and they
are designed to teach students theories mostly. We can not get work
experience from university. Theories that we learn in university are not
enough for us to succeed in our future life. However, it does not mean that
university degrees are valueless; on the contrary, they are extremely
essential, because they indicate that we have learned things we have to
know and our personal quality has reached a much higher standard .
As is known to all, theories we learn in university are core knoeledges
that our forefathers summed up from experience. They are priceless and of
great value, and we must obtain. It will be easier task to keep theories in
memory first then practise in the social world .
As far as I am concern, What matters most we get from university is that we
know how to learn, which is vital for us to succeed in the future. There are
so many things we have to learn on our own while climbing career
ladder. Therefore, I think it is quite necessary we enter the university and
get a degree .
Many students begin to live an independent life after entering the
university. We can not live with our parents, with our sisters and brothers
lifelong. We have to come out, live independently and live our own
life-That is what life is. Universities provides us a chance to live
independently. While we are preparing to get a university degree, we are
learning beng independent. In this aspect, we may say university degrees are
of high value .
After entering into the university, students get along with
teachers, classmates and roomates; we also begin to make new friends. Each of
us is a social unit; it is our duty to get on well with others-this is a
life skill. Students become more polite, more considerate and more patient
after one year or two years' life in university. we have got that everyone
is a unit and everyone has his\her own idea. We should repect them. It is
obvious that university is a good place to learn this social skill .
Studying in university, we always see differences we never seen before. We
broaden our mind and vision here, and become knoeledgeable and sapient
gradually. We have got our own ideas; we can identify what is right what is
wrong. we know what we should do and what we shuld not .
perhaps university degrees do not value themselves very much; but beyond
degrees, we can really get a lot of things of great value. Therefore, I do
not agree the idea given at the beginning of my essay. University degrees
are extremely important and we ought to work hard to gain the entry into
university, and also take every effort to perform better in university .
|
060_CNUK4013.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
NA
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder.
This essay will discuss that whether all the cases of murder need to be
published as capital punishment or not. In my opinion, not all of the
cases of murder need to be capital punished. I will give you two cases to
show you why I think so. One is unter the heavy stress, people murder,
the other one is under emergency situation. Nowadays, the law prescribes
murderer need to be taken the capital punishment. Sometimes, murderer
needs to be understood why they kill the man. Some reasons I think people
ought to understand. If you were her or him, what you could do? So, in
the court, judger ought to know the situation, make decision what to do is
right or not. For example, I saw a message in the newspaper, it said, a
man lived with his three children, a daughter and two sons, and his wife .
This man liked drink, usually being a drunker, and he had a bad temper .
After drinking, he always beat his children, the women in order to protect
her children, always be beat, the neighbour always headed the noise came
from their home. However, the women had stood for a long time. One day,
after drunk, he came home, but he wanted to rape his daughter, his wife
saw that, she could not bear it, with the long times torture, she killed
his husband. In this case, judger need to consider her situation, under
this stress, what she needed to do, and she killed a bad man, no benefit
for the society, but had harm for the children and women, so in this case,
the women ought to free, she totally do not need to be punished by the
capital punishment. Another case is if the people under the emergency,
they killed the people, but after that, they ask the policeman actively,
so I think in that situation, people do not be punished by capital
punishment. If two people fight with each other, one people did not very
care about the other one, he or she did not mean to kill the other side,
after that, he or she asked the policemen voluntary, then told the
policemen what had happened, and he or she was not mean to kill other
people, only fight to each other. Under this situation, I think judger
need to consider this problem in another view. At least, the murderer
does not need to be punished by the capital punishment. Only putting he
or she into the prision for many years is enough, do not need to have his
or her life, let him or her alive, and make him or her does more
contribution to the community. To sum up, this essay discussed whether
murderer need to be capital punished or not. In the two cases, the
murderer did not need to be punished by the capital punishment. One is
under the heavy stress, and other one is under the emergency, they did not
to be punished by the capital punishment .
|
061_CZKR1003.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: All armies should consist entirely of professional soldiers: there is no value in a system of military service
In this rational world where almost everybody seems to think rationally especially about things concerning money 1 have sudendly found that people act highly irrationally if they have non-professional army. Every professional army draws a big sum of money from national gross product. And what about non-professionai armies? If they have every single year new men. And they are not trained and prepared to work with military hardware as the professional soldiers. They can easily cause a great damage or misfortune . 1 know several cases when a soldier injured or even killed his colleague because he did not know how to operate his gun properly. What a luck we do not have nuclear weapons. Military service lasts for one year now . 1 think that in such a short time period soidiers are not able to acquire habits how to do their job correctly . 1 think if they were professionais they would not need as much money as they do now .
But the question of money is also closely connected with the time that the young men have to spend in their military service. All of them have just finished theîr studies, their training for their future jobs which they want to do ali their lifes. They have been trained, they have been prepared, they are ready and they have to fullfill their honourable duty - to lost at least one year in some nonsense institution that is calied army. lf you are for example cîvil engineer you will spend the year listenning to some orders instead of projecting new buildings, bridges, etc. After this year you will forget a great part of your université knowledge. If you wants to run your own business and you a great idea, you almost have the money you need and it is the right time for you to start you have to put it off till next year and it is usually late. And the same goes for any other occupations - teachers, carpenters, doctors, artists, bricklayers .
And the worst problem with military service have the young marrîages with children. Some of them got married during their studies at université. They do not usually have their own fiat and their have to live together with their mothers and fathers-in-law. Terrible. They do not have enough money because he or she or both of them have just graduated. They cannot find a job. Their child is often ill. Mother usually stays at home with the kid at least for a year or two. And in such a situation father has to do his military service. Of course, he can ask for deferment. He can get a deferment for a couple of years. And the government promises that in such cases father will be placed near the family, not further than 20 kilomètres away from their hometowns. But ib 1 know a family where the husband is more than 200 kilomètres far from home. Their military service lasts only for five months. What can they learn in such a short period? The officers often know it and so the soldîers just spend 5 months killing their time by reading books or lying on the beds and doing nothing. What is the reason of taking away the head of family? The only person that is able to earn some money. Well, the family gets a smala amount of money from government but it is only minimum of living standart .
So I say: "Let"s stop the military service. And what more. Let's dismiss the army at all."
|
062_CZKR1005.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
The human imagination has been till now the most perfect and unbeaten computer of the world. After all brainwashing by computer games, video, TV and mass advertising it can't be replaced by any computer or robot .
Really? Is it really still true? I remember a sci-fi story which I've read several years ago. A lonely woman, operator, by chance got acqainted with a man by phone. Their phone-calls became more frequent and the woman thought that she had finally fond someone, she would like to stay with, someone who understands her and accepts her. What was strange was that the man always avoided meeting her and he didn't even want what he looked like. The curiousity and the desire to see her beloved made the woman search for his phone number. What a shock it was to find out that her friend was a computer!
The present science and technology have accomplished so incredible things that we could even hardly dream about several years ago. Scientists experiment with so delacate materials as the genetic information and brain cells are. Don't they fear that once they'll reach the top, they'll have created a perfect robot which will be not just a perfect copy of human body but also a copy of human feellings and ideas?
Some people say that in our modern warld there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. But on the other hand there is exactly the same number of people who thing just the opposite. They realize very well the danger which goes along with the technical progress. They try to draw our attention to it and fight against it with their own means .
Arts have always been a way of a balance and resistance to modern world. Artists have been expressing their opinions towards science and technology. Apart from a few euforic periods when they glorified them they usually warn against them. Take Jules Verne as an example. How many of his utopic visions have come true! Certainly many sci-fi writers could have become the prophets of modern era .
Remember how many poets wrote ethusiastic poems about technical civilizations. And what conclusions did they arrived at in the end of their work? They usually glorified the nature and natural life of people far away from the technical world .
Why are present people becoming more and more interested in ancient myths, philosophy and religoin of the Orient? Perhaps it's the archetypal need of man to whom modern science failed to answer the most crucial question of human existence, the need return to the very beginnings when the white was white and the black was black .
Look at the present film production. What makes a commercial film successfull? The story which is put into an interesting setting somewhere in the Universe, exotic country, ancient history or unexisted world of fairy-tales, shortly in the environment which we can hardly know and which incites our imagination, But this presentation and imposition of some topics could be risky because the choice of topics for dreaming is limited. If kids are attacked by dinosaurus, turtles and Barbies from all directions their imagination is preset. The children aren't able to choose the right for them. Their parents should protect them from pressure. I know that it isn't easy to persuade children with quite a high level of technical education that the magic carpet and wand existe. But they also long for romantic stories. If some classic film fairy-tele appears in cinemas it's always a box-office draw .
You needn't be a fanatic freudian to understand that human creativity and taste have their roots in the early childhood or what you learn in the childhood accompan you for whole your life .
But there is another problem. Can arts protect themselves from the influence of science and technology? We know that already exist computer programmes which are able to write books and draw pictures themselves. Could happen that the most important element in arts - the man - will be useless?
Now let me quote several words from I-t'ing: "We can't loose what really belongs to us even if we threw it away."
We have strive to protect the most important assets we have - our mind. Once it could be stollen to us .
|
063_CZKR1007.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
"Feminists have helped women to be free and independent but they have made them unhappy". This has been repeated in American media for last several years. Such hints have appeared in Czech press too, though feminist movement has not influenced our society much yet. Susan Faludi writes about this phenomenon in her book "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women". She says that many women do not want to call themselves feminists, though they think women's movement is still neccessary. Faludi claims it is not feminists but the continuous campaign of the White House, press and Hollywood against feminism, who are to be blamed for women's unhapiness. Who is right the, Faludi or media?
Nothing in life is so simple. The answer is much complicated and the causes of the problem lie deep in our minds. People of the end of the 20th century are used to systematic thinking. The flow of information is overwhelming and we are afraid of the complexity of the world. That's why we need to put everything in a group: works of arts, , people, their opinions, ideas. Everything has to be classified, everything has to be clear. If you say something that is considered a feminist idea, then you are proclaimed a feminist. If you say something against feminists, you are proclaimed sexist. Never mind what your doings are; what other people think you are - that is what matters most. This systematizing the world brings people relief; they believe they have beaten the complicated and hardly understandable world. But the result is not so pleasing: we do not understand one another .
Why don't we understand one another even when we use the same words? We speak in categories and classes when we discuss a problem. But everybody has a slightly different idea of the same category or class and eventually we do not speak about the problem but about what we mean by our words .
We can use a metaphor to describe this incident: we buy wine according to the label on the bottle (without being able to tell the difference), and also we do not discuss the quality of wine but the brand of it .
As far as feminism is concerned, the result of such attitude is blaming feminists for women's unhapiness. What is actually feminism. It came into being in 19th century when women were totally dependent on men, could not vote and work. Suffragettes are also classified as feminists (this women's movement at the turn of the century became famous for its agressivity), as well as other movements in the 30s or 60s, some of them very radical. S. Faludi says that during the feminist revolution in the 70s feminism was understood as an effort to bring women the same rights that men have always used. Carola Biedermannova; a Czech feminist answers the same question this way: "Feminism is making women's economic, political and social rights work in real life." Those definitions are the same as one definition in Webster's dictionary: "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." But definition 2 says that feminism is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes .
Well, what do we mean when we say someone is a feminist? Does that mean that he or she fights for women's rights or that he or she only believes in the equality of the sexes? We cannot blame a group of people for something when we don't even know who belongs to this group .
No, it is not feminist's fault that some women are unhappy. It is obvious that women needed their movement because they were not socially free. Now they are or at least they can e. If they are unhappy, it is neither feminists' nor anti-feminists fault. The reason is in them and in all of us who cannot get rid of the old view of woman. Our attitude towards woman does not accord her new position in society. But this is not a political problem, it is a problem of human culture, a problem of bad communication .
We should strive for making our communication work again. It is no use to contemplate whether someone fits to a certain category, either feminist or sexist. We should rather try to listen to what he tells us and how we can help him. Then we will understand one another .
|
064_CZKR1009.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
Money - for one a big trouble for another a possibility to buy almost everything. Since it has been established money became a need for all people .
Money is a reward for our work, money can be a theme of a novel or a film, sometimes money is also a scale of somebody's success or station and unfortunately money can be a reason of a crime. You can hate it you can also condemn it but you must have it because you need it. Where is the mistake? In money, man, in human society, in economy or in government? I do not know and I also do not now any solution because I can not imagine a society without money yet - it was only a communistic Utopia. Money is still needed to assess results of human work but I think that society should lead each person to arrange his or her own scale where not money but morale is in the first place, where human life has the greatest value, where love and human honour can not be bought for money .
Money is important in our contemporary society but it is not the most important thing. Who says that money is not weighty he or she is a dreamer. Without money you unfortunately can not buy meals, clothes, books, car, house, flowers or a small thing which makes you pleasant. I thing that money can make one independent. You need not live in a stereotype, you need not be worried about your job, salary, accounts and debts. You can take holiday everywhere, you have much more opportunities how to spend your leisure time. But you can not buy love, health, friends or feelings .
Who affirms that money is the most important thing he or she is an agnistic person without possibility to feel something or believe in something or somebody, he or she became a slave of money and he or she would de everything to have it. People like this exist all over the world. They can kill because of money, they can steal and rob, they sell drubs to young people, they organise prostitution, they do business with arms and weapons, they blackmail others, there is a coruption in this world - this is that evil because of money; Why does it exist? I do not know why but I mean that the evil is not money - this is only reason - the evil is in people .
But I believe that people can overcome it. They have to improve relationships among them, they should regard each other, they should not avoid feelings, they should educated their children in love and in morale and in respect of our life and life of other people, they should teach their children to find the real beauty in small, common, everyday things. They should believe in something. People should not measure a person according to his or her money, they should find inside them because not that one who has the most money must be the best but the one with the great personality .
|
065_CZPR2001.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
I will try to prove this statement by giving an example of the law of Domestic Violance, which is often regarded to be a great success of the feminist movement. During my visit to the U. S. this fall, I had a chance to experience an interesting situation concerning the law of Domestic Violance. I will tell you a story, which didn't happen to me. I heard it from a person, whom it happened and I know this person rather well. The law of Domestic Violance (understand in California because I think that each state has a slightly different one) may be a good way to get rid of an uncomfortable husband. All of this happened about 2-3 months ago. A wife together with her boyfriend, a former wrestling champion, arranged a plan how to fire her husband from their common residence. As several times before, the wife provoked her husband by cutting by a pair of scissors his credit cards, which arrived in the afternoon mail. To defend her I have to add that these credit cards were common for both of the wife and the husband and that she didn't want to be a part of them. They had several quarrels about it before. So, the husband started to yell at her just in time when her boyfriend was approaching the door with a not too well acted friendly smile . "How are you, guys, doing ? I was just passing, so I thought ...", he tried to explane. But soon he changed his tone of voice because the wife told him : "Nick, he hit me and held me under my neck !", she pretended. Her boyfriend, twenty years older than she is, but still in a good shape after many years of his wrestling career, started to tremble with anger . "You, get out of here or I'll kill you. I used to kill people for four bucks during the war in Vietnam, you know ! ", he threatened. He was getting more and more nervous. So, the husband didn't hesitate a minute. He left the house immediately without saying a single word. He didn't want to get hurt or provoke that silly old man. After he left, they called the police together and reported that the husband hit the face of his wife and held her neck. The restraining order has been signed by the judge that the husband can't get closer than 100 feet distance to his own house. What a terrible surprise it was for the husband, when he returned home the next day. The door lock was changed and nobody was at home. So he went to his wife's boyfriend's house to get the keys. He thought that his son might have been playing there. He didn't know about the restraining order. His idea was to take some things from his home and move to his friend's house before things come to order again. But what happened was really a painfull shock. His 12 year old son, manipulated by his mother and "uncle Nick" shut the door in front of his father's face and called the police. The restraining order was valid for the boyfriend's house also. The disappointed husband and father was lucky to escape. He couldn't believe what had happened to him. He remembered the days he spent with his son. There weren't many because he worked hard 7 days a week. He remembered how he was buying his new house, all the things he bought to equip it ... What happened to him doesn't happen twice in life. Now there was no possibility for him to return home. There was really no save area in the whole situation. This story seems unbelievable but the worst thing about it is that it happened " in accordance with the law ". Practically, he couldn't appeal against the judges decision. He didn't have any witnesses, while Nick would say or do anything to gain the wife's liking. He could have hired a lawyer to represent him in a case but with all the charges etc. He decided to let things go by their natural way. Such a case would cost him a lot of money. Actually, with the law as it is, he didn't have a chance to succeed, anyway .
|
066_CZPR2008.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the end of the 20th century, he would replace religion with television. It would be interesting to have Marx in late 20th century. Maybe, he wouldn't replace religion with television. Maybe, he would say that the religion, hand in hand, with television is the opium of the masses. Television and religion don't compete each with other, they cooperate to form the ideal conforming, consuming, religious T. V. addict. One can watch T. V. during one Sunday morning and can find all the things he or she needs: T. V. preachers keep telling you what to believe in, what is a sin (don't forget that also not paying taxes is a sin!), what is good and evil, what will happen after your death . .. Then we have a short commercial break and they let us know what to buy, they let us know that life is funny and easy when you know how to spend your money. Don't worry if you have no friends to talk to: you can talk about T. V. programmes on hot lines advertized during commercial breaks. Commercials are propably the biggest evil because one can hardly avoid watching them, especially, when they are in the middle of the movie. It is also difficult to turn on the T. V., when the chosen programme starts, just in time to see the titles and at time to avoid commercials. Besides their omnipresency, the second danger is their artificial presentation of reality. At the beginning we usually see desperate person deeply in troubles but, fortunatelly, there is a product able to solve his or her troubles and brighten his or her world, which is after using this particular product suddenly full of nice, often young, but always successful, smiling people. Who cares about reality ? Definitely not producers. How does it effect the thinking of people who are not able to see the borders between T. V. fiction and real life ? Are children clever enough to realize that that nice, artificial world is not a reality ? Taking this into consideration commercials focused on children are the worst kind of blackmailing. Parents are those, who are able to earn and therefore spend money, but children are exploited to squeeze their parents' money. Everybody should be able to decide what he wants to spend money on and when a child doesn't know the value of money, it doesn't mean that it can be used for increasing one's profit. Fortunately, there are not only commercials on T. V., but also programmes with some educational impacts and valuable films, theatre perfomances and it is also the source of news (hardly an independent source, but still quite accessible). Key to the using a television as a source of valuable entertainment and of education lays in a creating of certain public taste. In some cases religion can also sometimes help someone when becaming the source of comprehensive approaches towards eternal questions, but we should keep in mind what reality is and we still should keep aloof - not to be addicted on these two opiums, because every addict is a slave of his drug .
|
067_CZPR2013.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
Money is the root of the evil Does it mean that the evil was born when money became the medium of payment ? No. The evil was there - in people. Money just gave much more possibilities to grew up human vices such as jealousy, greediness, and envy. Money came and society began to differ. People began to make money and to differ from each other. They began to distinguish as for how heavy money - bag they had. Money - market was born. It gave the possibility for such a inborn feature as a rivality is. Money makers began to look for whichever - good or bad - way of geeting money. Everything had to get its money form and such a relative value was getting to be the only value that people accepted. Everything, every work, everyone is touched by money, is valued by money that became the most important value one meets on the way to the real thing, the work and the human being. Of course, people want to compare, to have knowledge of facts so that they do this through their money form of value. But they often forget that it is just a relative value given today, tomorrow it is different. It is not possible to rely on it. Fortunately, a lot of people consider money form as the only value. It causes blindness - stupidity and simplicity. It is comfortable to live for money. People like money, want money and are dependent on it. One cannot have a bread without money. People are dependent on society they live in. Miloš Forman said that money gives him freedom. Does it mean freedom in the society ? I think so. One needs money to be free in ones society, to enjoy ones life. One can eat whatever, buy whatever, travel wherever, see whichever performance or movie one wants. Simply - to be happy and free. While people short of money have to check and divide their money among many things they need, want and they would like. So that they have to realize prices, compare them and count and count. To be in a dictatorship of money. When people loose their freedom as for money, it is really the evil thing. Secondly, it becomes the sense of life. It is very simple and stupid. It is dangerous too. People who in a hunt for money are loosing them are near to loosing their lives. But the evil is in people, money just caused confussion in us, in values we have, in society we live in .
|
068_CZPR2016.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value.
Out of non-representative sample of all pupils from basic schools one third - the same amount of boys and girls - wanted to study university. I am speaking about CSSR according to research of 1989. Parents of all children that have been observed considered practical reasons to have influenced them . ' Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. Does it follow that the one third of these children was interested in practical aspects of university adducation and either didn't know about or mind it's not preparing for the ' real world ' ? Sounds strange. So something is wrong? Had parents known about their children's fault and warned them university had neither practical value nor it was preparation for the ' real world ' ? How to explain that only 30% of pupils with excellent school achievements and low-adducated parents are going to study school preparing for university and 60% specialized schoools ? With children doing as well in school and having one parent with university degree at least, the proportion is right opossite. After the first research was over 57% of observed children was accepted to study secondary schools. That makes approach to university possible . 38% of scholars claimed they would attempt to study for university degree. Have parents known about little value of university degrees ? Or didn't they want to ' close the door ' before their children mature and decide themselves wether to study or not ? Did they ask only secondary adducation for their children ? Or weren't they interested in ' real world ' of their children and desired only practical advantage they hoped degree was giving ? ' They are therefore of a very little value . ' Are they of a value ? Don't they - university degrees - rather constitute values ? ' They are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world . ' But they prepare \ theoretical \ attitudes. These change the real world. Thes even change the world that is not real now : these prepare the world for future generation - people without any attitudes, not knowing what is to be attituted to. According to responses of children from working - class families, one quarter of them thought the best way to ' life success ' is to be workful - have frinds - be conflictless. To be workful - adducated and specialized was being chosen as the right way to ' life success ' by children of highly qualified specialists . 60% of pupils haven ' t chosen being skilfull in something as the right way to life success : 40% refused adducation as way to life success. Only one fifth have chosen both. Of these children who expressed the highest adducational aspirations, one third didn ' t consider adducation important for life success. One half of children with this aspiration did not consider being skilful in something more than the others important for life success. How to explain it? They expect university will not prepare them for practical life? Is it the reason why they have chosen to study for degree ? And what happened than was the missunderstanding between these two generations ? Most parents thought their child's decission to study university to have been chosen for practical aspects? Or isn ' t the question wether to study for degree influenced by thinking about ways to life success at all ? Do children think about life success ? Is there any selfevaluation required? Teachers recommend 80% of children of higly adducated parents and 30% of children of unqolified workers to study on secondary schools. Doesn't the idea of the way to life success - even when there is no adducation or qualification required - cancel the decission to study for degree ?
|
069_CZPR2020.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
. If he was alive at the end of 20th century, he would replace religion with television. As I do not like Karl Marx, I must say he was right in some cases and some parts of his ideology. For example his theory of socialism was very different from its later version presented and provided by Lenin or Stalin and their followers in many countries. I do not want to say that I would like to live in Marx's socialism. However it could be good and progressive in the middle of l9th century, today it is old - fashioned and step back. But strightly towards the main topic - television. Even when there are some similarities between the influence of the religion (by my oppinion more correctly the " church " as an institution) and television I do not think both things are something like opium. Surely, it can be used to manipulate with people as we could see on the examples of so called brainwashing sects last time in Switzerland and Canada in October l994 (as for religion) or on the example of state - controlled and censored televisions in totalitarian countries (as for television). But there are also many differences between religion and television. In the past, churches (of any religion) were very strong, centralized, effective organizations, systems that couyld achieve nearly everything they wanted to. What about television now ? Each television (TV station) is also very well organized system, but there are hundreds or thousands of such and all together they make an unbelievable mixture with nearly no common purpose or target (except earning money). And spectators can choose. I should say some of them are sometimes frustrated from their opportunity of choices. They do not know what to choose. There is noone to tell them what to choose or how to choose. Someone tries to catch everything and another one becomes to be depended on television. But not all. It is not problem of the masses. There are also a lot of people who are TV abstainers. The main problem of television I see in its influence on children and youth. There is no doubt that television works sometimes as opium. Some children are able to watch TV all the day. There are of course many educational programms and TV helps to improve knowledge, but on the other hand also damages imagination of children, their own activity, independent thinking and shows the world in the different way than it really is . (i. e. increasing number of programms showing violence or cruel scenes . ). Many children then do not know, they can not distinguish between reality and fiction, they think everything shown in TV is normal and it belongs to life . (To kill a man on the street just because he had coat colour I did not like, it is normal. TV heroes do that, don't they Mom ? ). Children watch television for many reasons: it is very funny, it entertains sometimes it isw adventurous and mainly it is very easy. Just push the button and sit or lay or what else. Many parents do not have enough time for their children and they often say: " Oh, be quiet, be good, go and watch TV. " Then television becomes to be the only thing that educates the child (if it is young, later of course thereis also school - but as I can say from my short practise - two years - of teaching at elementray school, during the school breaks children very often talk mainly about what was on Tv yesterday, what is today or which new film they have on video . ). Is there any chance to stop the evolution of Homo televisionis growing from younger and youger generations ? We know about some, some new things will have to be prepared and thought. We will have to pay more attention to the personal contact with the child during the process of education. More attention and cooperation from parents, teachers and other adults. We can not educate children just through TV screen or other machines. New methods of education should be invented, more involving programms for youth (I do not mean TV programms), another types of entertainment. And entertainment is the main thing that children demand. I am not sure we can solve the problem with ways we use today. It is similar to teh problem with opium or other drugs. Legalize it ? Abolish ? Reduce ? Fight against it ? No, something completely, completely new. There is a time for new Einstein or for new J. A. Comenius. Prague 22th November l994
|
070_CZPR2029.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
It has been so long since people used to read poetry as an entertainment, since they used to go to the opera instead of going to the cinema as it happens today, it has been so long since people knew the names of the writers, painters and composers of their time, both the famous and the condemned. Nowadays there are computers, videos, CD players, cameras etc., nowadays there is a new and modern world here. We all know the great differences between the life at presence and the life let us say hundred years ago. We know that the time has been changing and that it has been changing fast. We have the things we could not have before but on the other hand we don't have things we could have before. We no longer travel by carriages and I don't think we ever will and we don't invite our friends for the evenings of poetry reading. That all means the time is different but does it also mean that the man is different as well? It's true that the man is different but still he is the human with his desires and expectations, with his griefs and pains. He is still the man full of dreams and imagination. Some people say there is no place for dreaming and imagination in our contemporary world but their arguments are rather weak. They usually say that we are enslaved by the mass culture and omnipresent modernization or (it's another frequent point of view) that imagination and mainly dreaming belong to the age of romanticism and it is, after all, gone. It means that only a few romantic souls could be still dreaming in this time and that imagination (according to what people think) is for the artists who we can simply call fools. But this is a wrong idea. We have to realize that there are specific things in this world which can be hardly destroyed by any technology, science or even politics. Imagination and dreaming are such specific things. If you are once born with it nothing can change it. So the problem is not that there is no place for imagination or that there even are no imaginative people but that there is a very bad acceptance of imagination. I mean that many people create something in their minds but often there is no way for them to realize it. I speak mainly about those cases where the imagination is concerned with fine art and literature. And why? Because for example poetry does not make any money. And so we should not say that there is no place for dreaming and imagination but that today it is no time for it. We don't need no place for dreams, no place for imagination, we all have one: our minds. But we do need to find some way to make our dreams come true. We know it was always difficult but maybe in our time it is difficult little more. Who cares about pictures, sculptures, music, poetry? Who goes to the theatre more often than to the cinema? Who cares about imagination?... It is too difficult to think about those strange things one's mind can create. It is too boring. Sometimes it is too old fashioned, sometimes it is too modern. After all we have much easier ways to entertain ourselves. It is so pleasant just to sit and watch TV where there is no end to fighting - we don't have to think so much. We are tired. We have to work because we have to make money. We need money and comfortable easy living. No imagination, there is no time for it. There is no audience .
|
071_CZPR3009.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
A definition of feminism stated in dictionaries is usually very simple and sounds very innocent: the principle that women should have the same rights and chances as men. This principle must be definitely considered as justified and rightful. Nevertheless not many people (especially not men) imagine exactly the above termed principle under the word "feminism". The bulk of the worldwide population would defined it rather as "some sort of furious activities practised by over-ambitious females". They imagine angry, rattled women marching through the streets, yelling "We do hate men!" the question is if such an opinion can be or should be contradicted and accused as wrong misleading or simplified .
All the main slogans proclaimed by feminism, i.e. radical feminism, because only this branch of the movement expresses itself aloud enough, those main slogans advise women not to get "enslaved" by marriage", not to become "factories for producing children", not to let men use them as toys to play with... Such ideas might be not only unpleasant for both men and reasonable women but they might be also extramely dangerous for the growing up generation .
Girls are as intelligent as boys but we cannot ignore the fact that the two sexes have different inborn qualities. It is a fact! Boys are rather rational, girls more emotional, boys are usually more ambitious or wilder than girls, who are very often placid and modest as far as their career is concerned. Everybody would agree that both girls and boys - or men and women, if you want - should have the same right and opportunity in employment and education but at the same time even the radical feminists must see that there is a certain number of girls who will be perfectly satisfied as housewives or taking only part-time jobs which will leave them enough time to look after their families, their husbands and children. And thereis no reason to blame the girls for following this traditional female role-model, no reason to call them "slaves" and to prevent them from their choice. Of course, not all young women will be satisfied with this social role. Despite of that they will be able to divide their interests between their professional and family life in most cases without any problem. There is something unnatural in the feminists'vision of a "househusband" or a highly career orientated woman .
Feminists advise not to have children. Why? Don't the feminists see what power it is hidden in the ability of giving birth to a child? Females are not "factories for producing children", their bodies are ingenious, strong as also many male gynecologists state, they are able of something very special and inimitable. Why should women get rid of such an honourable status?
Are women just men's toys? Another nonsense. Every real man, even the toughest one, becomes soft as wax when dealing with a charming, i.e. real woman. Men would never admit it and feminists don't want to see it but it is a lady who governs her cavalier'life. And her power is in concealing the fact and being aware of this fact at the same time .
Feminists and their generally known activities seem not to fight women's discrimination to win equality for women against men, more likely they strive to be like men. Women should stay women. The original idea of feminism is undoubtedly right but the reality is very different. If real women don't stop feminists from their interfering in time we could have to face a very weird war soon - women versus men!
|
072_CZPR3013.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
Money is an important part of our life. Human beeing stands on the existence of money. Everyone needs money to satisfy his own necessity. Money produces evil among all people in spite of proverb: "All is not gold that glitters." Same people have the only aim - to get money no matter how .
Money determines social position in society. High class is represented mostly by businessmen or employees of American firms. American firms offer to their employees high wages but they must submit everything to their job. Their families and children have nearly everything they want but they lose their fathers and their family life is missing. At that time children are influenced by their friends very much. So there is a dangerous of gambling, alcohol, drugs etc .
Gambling is important problem among young people. Gamblers need a lot of money to play games. They are dependent on the games in a while. They spend all their money and still need them. They are able to do everything to gain money for the games. Children often steal money at home. Dependance on gambling is something like dependance on drugs so gamblers are also treated in medical institutions .
Crime is connected mostly with money. Thefts, robberies, murders are realized especially because of money . "Appetite comes with eating" so crime is spread more and more because some people wants still more and more money. They are able to risk possibility to get in prison but their yearn for money is stronger. For example gangs, which are interested in stealing cars, have been increasing. We can ask why? The answer is that they have a large sum of money from this. It is unbelievable that someone can exchange a part of his life in prison for money. Even if they do not hesitate to use violence or murder anyone only for money .
Everyone is used to live in his living standart. Importance of having money we feel especially when we have not them enought. In this case we started to think up how money gets. People imagine that money can fulfill all their dreams. Actually it is truee but not at all. When you have a large amount of money you can buy everything, but you can not buy true friends, health, love of your wife, your husband or your children. By public opinion research in Czech republic, where people were asked to their value of life, we have known interesting things. In these years people's opinions have been changed. Importance of possessive has increased and overtook importance of education and hobbies. Result from this research is unpleasant not only for me. The people are not interested in education or hobbies but mostly in money. It never mind what a man does but the main thing is how much money he earns .
All people need money, it is natural. But important is how much they are able to sacrifice for money. Children suffer from their parents' work because they are all time in their job. Children having enough money can start with gambling. Then they need money more and more so they are able to commit a crime. People's oppinions have been changed in consequence of reaching money. Somebody has the only value which is money. Where a lot of money is, evil exists. Money and evil were and will exist. We must try to put it down .
|
073_CZPR3023.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
What role does money play in human life? We can hear in words of one old song:" Money is the root of all evil". On the other hand a lot of people are persuaded that money assures happiness. I think it is not possible to characterize money in general. There are many points of view from which money can be looked on. I found three of them the most important : money as an essential part of life, money as a means how to make life happier and easier and money as temptation to the sin .
Money as a condition of human existence in today society has also the great influence on human freedom. The word " freedom" has different meaning than it had in the history. Man is free if he is not dependent on anybody. To be independent means to have enough money to be able to live. To live independently means to do whatever one wants to do and what is not against the law. Money assures that. If you have money you can buy whatever you want, you can travel wherever you want, you can realize your plans. To be financially independent means not to be afraid of what you will have for dinner tomorrow. The feeling of material security is the necessary condition for effective human activity. Everybody is aware of the value of money and does his best to have it enough. The quotation "He who says money has no sense for human life does not mean his money but money of the others" perfectly expresses human mentality. Money decides what place you take in the society. Money motivates people to work hard to have higher income .
Money has the power to make human life easier and more pleasant. It can even change life into paradise. This all depends on who treats the money. If people treat money in common sense it can help them to realize their dreams and to reach happiness. Everybody has different ideas on what happiness is. It can be a new car, travelling or a lot of pets. For somebody to feel happy means to help the others who need money more than the owner. By the human acts of donating money to the poor and sick people many human lives were saved .
Finally, negative human qualities can change money into the disaster. Money is the leading power of the world. People do anything to have money. Even though they can fairly work in classical way they prefer to earn money in various simplier ways - they steal, hazard with their and other's life even kill each other. Blind with the vision of wealth and better future they can not see the results of their acts - baffled fates of innocent people, baffled fates of themselves. Money works as a drug. If such a people feel how sweet it is to have money they want to have it all the time and they do everything for it. They steal and kill again and again. These people do not live normal life. They are victims of money. Not money is the root of all evil. The root of all evil is bad man with his negative qualities. Money serves as a means how to realise the evil. Money causes many disasters in family life. Because of money a perfect family can change into the pack of wolfs. Family tragedies are often caused by the question of inheritance. Children kill their parents, younger brother kills the older one, wife kills her husband. This all prove how strong position money has in human life. It has so big power that it can break the relations between the closest friends. Because of money the wars start. Because of money people do not live naturally. To gain money one has to learn to dissimilate, to trick, to lie. The lack of money causes human suffering even death. The example of this evil expresses the situation in the developing countries. Thousands of people die during one day because of famine which is caused by the poorness of the country .
Through ages mankind is characterized by the human qualities which were given to it by God. Positive qualities make the good and negative ones make the evil. Both together make the reality of life. This world has no chance to get rid of any of them. They are like energy - still constant only changing the forms. As I have mentioned money can not be characterized in general. The money in the hands of a wicked man causes the evil. An intelligent man, who knows what the real human values are, spends money in the positive way. So, money can not be characterized as a good or bad thing. It is just means by which we realize our life and fate .
|
074_CZPR3057.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value.
Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value .
We can deal with this topic from various points of view. The first point of view could be an analysis of the assumptions contained in the title of the essay The statement contains three questionable assumptions, namely that most university degrees are in fact theoretical that even if they are theoretical they do not prepare students for the real world and they are therefore of very little value. Let us have a look at these 3 points in turn .
- It is of course a big generalization to say that most university degrees are theoretical - that they are only theoretical and have no practical content. Such a statement ignores the vast body of vocational qualifications designed to train people for particular careers mainly in scientific engineering, medical fields. etc. Many such courses include periods of practical experience in industry, hospitals or other appropriate areas. The courses must of course contain theory as well. A doctor must know how the human body works in order to cure his patient. A civil engineer must understand laws of physics before he can design a bridge. Therefore students are given special lectures on appropriate disciplines concerning their fields of study but they also have to spend a certain time in practice where they are supposed to make themselves acquainted with their future profession. For ex. students of Medicine have to spend some time in hospitals where they are thought practical things - they are thought "how to treat a human body in practice". They are sent from one ward to another to be able to cure all the human diseases and later they can decide what they will want to deal with. They can choose their specialization .
- I do not know what is student teaching like in other countries but that is true that a period of student teaching is strictly limited in our country .
In my opinion students of the disciplines mentioned above should spend more time dealing with practical things .
- Many university degree courses are not of this kind however. Those concerned with arts subjects and some very theoretical sciences might be at first sight labelled "theoretical". Knowledge of medierval history or works of literature might be considered to be of no practical value. However in such courses of study students are essentially doing practical things - reading, researching, analysing, writing etc .
- This brings us cocnveniently to the second statement that such courses do not prepare students for the real world. It is arguable that if students are doing practical things even whilst studying subjects of a more academic nature they are acquiring skills and developing their power of intellect and understanding. These skills can indeed be of value in many walks of life not least business and public service especially when the information technology explosion of the 20 th century bombards us all with increasing data, information, statistics etc. In this case our theoretical degree could be of help for our comprehension of such demanding scientific and business fields. The students who has followed a so-called "theoretical" course of study can be well equipped to deal with this .
- This conclusion brings us to the last of the three assumptions, in that "the theoretical course of study cannot be of any practical value". The theoretical course of study can indeed be of practical value as it is mentioned above. However to confine ourselves to a definition of "practical value" means to condemn ourselves to a utilitarian view of life. Study of arts, history, literature, music etc. adds to the richness beauty and fulfilment of life and must surely provide value. These aspects are as much part of the real world as a routine of day to day living .
- Now let us look at the second point of view. It could be named "the role of university education in society". Society should have an understanding for a general role of university education. Such a type of education should be absolutely different from other types of higher education. Universities should help their students in developing their power of logical reasoning. A university graduate should be able to solve various problems but he should especially have a courage to admit that different problems exist in different types of society. He is supposed to be self-contained after his graduation of the last year of university. He is expected to be able to orientate in various kinds of literature and theory .
It is necessary to maintain an independence and sovereignity of universities. It would be regrettable if universities dealt just with disciplines and subjects that are convenient for practical purposes. It is possible to say that cooperation of universities and practical sphere is necessary and inevitable but an independence and sovereignity of universities must be saved at the same time .
|
075_CZPR3061.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science technology and industralization, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. But I do not think so. The mankind civilization could not reach its now-a-days standard without dreaming and imagination. Our dreaming and imagination are being fulfilled every day. So we can fly by planes, sail by liners and submarines, we discovered new lands, we are still finding new worlds in the universe. We have large cities where millions of people live together .
Let's make retrospective outlook on our lives. When we were children, we dreamt about fairies, witches, princes, princesses, dragons and all these creatures from the fairy-tale world. We were imagining how it would be wonderful to be like they were, to live in their world. But time flew and we got older. We started to perceive the real world where no creature from the fairy-tale lived. I started to understand my life as a neverending row of problems. To live means to solve these problems less or more sucessfully .
And when hard moments of our lives come, we dream about easy childhood how careless it was. We try to imagine the world without problems. But it is not like this, so we must keep on trying to create it according to our dreams .
After finishing the school studies we meet problem how to find a good and well paid job. Everybody wants to feel that his work is needful and makes sense. Everybody, I hope, does not like to work just for himself, man wants to earn money to feed his wife and children. This is our dream to have a nice and happy family. We all remember the time when we first fell in love. When the first love came away and we felt so dissapointed the dream that we maybe would find new love and new meaning of life kept us " alive ".
I also dreamt about man who would be my partner for the rest of my life and who would be father of my children. As a child I wanted a prince, of course. Then I met several men, but my heart was beating as usually. Now I am married it means I found him. I can say I am happy. He is the same like in my dreams. He is clever, gentle, tall man with blue eyes and salt and pepper hair [ even if he is twenty five ]. We started to build our own world. He works in insurance and I hope that I start my teaching in this autumn, finally. We are on the very beginning of our lives we are talking about it every day, but not only about the way we want to live. We are also talking about those little important things such as f. e. the colour of furniture and carpet in our future bedroom, because now we live in a lodging .
We cannot get rid of our dreaming and imagination because it is just inside us and it helps us to live and makes our life more beautiful .
|
076_CZPR4020.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
People certainly need something to believe in any time, but I would probably not compare religion to television in this way .
Some kind of religion was an important part of people's life from the very beginning of human existence. It went through a plenty of changes and it had a plenty of various rites, myths, legends and beliefs. But still in each of these variants religion was trying to answer people's questions about things like being, life, truth, death and so on; and it was trying to help the people to find the right way in solving their problems, it was giving them some certain hope of a better life, justice and retribution .
Television, on the contrary, gives none of these. Television is just a means for entertaining but nowadays it certainly is the opium of the masses. People spend hours and hours watching TV, usually they even do not care what is on the programm, but they still have to have their TV set on .
Even much worse, maybe, is the situation of the children. They have no other source of fun when their parents are at work. They come home from school and there is nobody to take care of them and to play with them. They are bored and the easiest thing to do is to watch TV. It souds like a horror that the children nowadays nearly do not read books at all .
Here appears, of course, the usual question the violence on TV and its influence on children. I think everybody would agree that there are some programms which children should not watch, like horrors, psychological horrors, films about disastres, erotical films and so on. These films are usually presented late at night, so this is not the main problem. The main problem is, that the violence has spread all over the TV programm, and in many cases we can find a lot of brutality and violence even in films for children. Some of these films, or even more cartoons, are simply based on presenting violence as a way of solving problems; and the children, who are not really able to distinguish strictly between fantasy and reality, absorb this message deeply and use violence in real life as the easiest way of getting out from a difficult situation .
Television, like religion, can show the people some models of social behaviour and ways of solving difficult situations, but the main difference is that religion, in each of its various forms, was trying to show the way which was considered as right and just in the society, it was showing the good examples to be followed, and every misbehaviour or crime was punished. Religion had a great influence on people, but it was an influence in a good sense .
I can not agree with Marx then, who said religion was the opium of the masses, because opium can never be good; but I agree that television is the opium like that, although it can never replace religion .
|
077_CZPU1011.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
Do feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good ? It is not easy to argue not. Women now complete half or more of the places in law and medical schools. The salary gap between men and women is disappearing fast. Women are gradually doing their way into the top ranks of business and public life. At
home, middle class fathers took cooperating with great enthusiasm. Public intolerance for violent, sexist behavior is widespread. Crimes against women are taken seriously and punished .
So what ' s to do next? A lot of .
The most stricking women ' s issue of today is the situation of single women and their children. Sixty per cent of them live below the poverty line. They have a big call on our social resources .
These women and children need several kinds of help. First, we have to make divorce to cost more for fathers and to cost less for mothers. Divorce usually lowers everyone's standard of living, but it hits mothers and children much harder. Fathers should be made to pay .
The current debate about who ought to pay taxes on child support money is a ' red herring'. The real issue is, that about 40 per cent of fathers pay irregularly or not at all. Many methods of enforcing compliance come to mind. Someone has to support the children : better the fathers than the taxpayers. And while we are at it, there is a need for a complete overhaul of the runious adversarial way in which custody and support issues are negotiated .
Second, single women have to be discouraged from having children. Several hundred thousand dollars on TV commercials tellin men, it is wrong to hit woman is being spent. One wishes it would spend the same amount telling young girls it is wrong to get pregnant. Children of never married mothers fare worse than children of divorce, because they stay poorer longer. It is time for feminists to admit that having a child without a husband is usually a recipe for poverty, and to acknowledge that a child's right for a decent standard of living is more important than a woman's right to choose how and when to be a mother. Issues of morality, double sexual standards and the responsibilities of men are all interesting, but out of point. The point is to help young women to avoid bad outcomes for themselves and their children .
Third, there is a need for more accountability from the whole array of women's services - especially shelters and rape crisis centres - to ensure that they are actually helping their clients, instead of fighting destructive civil wars over strange issues of race and class. All money spent on racism training should be immediately diverted to help people in need. The money spent on racism training alone would probably fund another two or three women's shelters .
Fourth, reward of employers who are trying to create family-friendly workplaces should be encouraged and publicised. Experiments with flextime, telecommuting and family leaves are more important for women than all the sexual-harassment policies have been ever written. A business needn't be rich to try these things. It must be creative and thoughtful.now the profits are on, family policies are creeping back into the radar screen .
Fifth, do they need more women in positions of power and influance? The more there are, the more certain it is that women's and family issues will be aired. That is why women still need fund raising to make sure more women are elected to public office. That is why women should keep holding companies accountable for recruiting women into their boards and into senior managment .
A few matters are not on this agenda. They include legislated affirmative action and pay-equity programs, zero-tolerance sexual harassment codes, universal day care, condemnation of new reproductive technologies, fight against pornography and few more. Women's groups have wasted much time and money on these issues, which are marginal for women's well-being and are being conected with bad and ideological baggage .
There were days when sensible women and men from all the spectrum of opinion and belief united for real, progressive and thoughtful work for change. Could it happen again ?
|
078_CZPU1012.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
Money is the root of all evil. Symbolicaly taken, yes it is .
First we must define what money is and what it means to people It is a sibstitute for property. Money itself doesn ' t worth anything as well as gold and other precious materials. And property in fact ensures the life. And the desire to survive is the basic and strongest instinct of any being , including people. In adition to this , in the animals world the power is based on physical abilities, while in the human world the power depends on finantial possibilities, on the amount of wealth. It is an endless process, a circle in fact. People will do anything for money - it will give them power - power to make other people to do something - for money of course. And we are back again , because people will do anything for money .
People are imprisoned in this circulation of money and there is no way out. People, who try to escape will just dig through into another cell. I mean the area of religion or education .
Their hierarchy of their qualities is shifted some way. It is different in many ways, some would say it is more derveloped, less primitive, but the basic function is the same. I. e. these prisoners also desire to be more powerfol than the rest is .
Human nature is to own things that will make their life easier and more pleasant. Looking at the problem from the historical view we can hardly find the breakpoint - the first use of money and it is even more difficult to date when the people in primitive societies started to diferentiate according to their wealth. the first properties were probably a female partner and a piece of land. these two basic possessions can be observed also in the animals world and they in fact are the basis of all fights. It is not correct to say t they are the root of all evil because it ¡is only natural law. But a few thousand years later there came different properties such as a shelter, a primitive weapon and finaly the most important thing - the fire. Fire is the first sign of civilisation plays an important role in the human society developement. The group who had lost their fire could hardly survive. And the desire to survive is the strongest instinct. Thats why here start the fights and here starts the evil. And because Man is thinking and developing creature he brought the evil to extraordinary perfectness. He invented money that can substitute any thing .
Some would say that you can t buy love which is at least a subject of discussion. The only thing that is absolutely out of the power of money is time. People howewer rich they are, are getting old and they never can buy their youth again. Some would say that getting old, weak, the ilnesses etc. is evil that hasn't been caused by money and the statement wouldn't be true but the process of living and dying is only natural and we cannot consider it evil. Evil is just a product of human mind and activity - the wrong side of his inteligence. There cannot be evil among animals, what seems to be cruel and bad to us is never a product of selfishness, envy and hatred but only natural law of life and love of life as well .
So we can agree. Yes, money is really the root of all evil, it causes all fights and struggles. But on the other hand these are part of human charakteristics and the same power ( i. e. the desire to know, to own and to rule ) that causes all the evil is the engine of all progress and civilisation. And it will go forward whatever we want or do. So it is necessary to build up a system that would minimalise this evil .
|
079_CZUN1006.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title:: All armies should consist entirely of professional soldiers: there is no value in a system of military service
I am a woman. I do not have to go to an army and spend there twelve months .
Twelve months of doing nothing. You earn no money besides a few hundred crowns of soldiers'pay. If you have a family or some property like a flat that must be paid monthly than you have a problem. In our republic these problems are still not solved. I have a personal experience with it. I am 22 and my boyfriend serves in military service as same as many other boys of his age that have no serious reason why not to be there. He has a new flat. He could not allow regretting it because problems are not only in an army resort but also with housing shortage. His mother pays the rent. She is single and must support his younger brother that stills studies. Our government pays a half of the amount but what if his mother could not have been able to pay? Czech republic is preparing to enter NATO. Our army must answer certain requests. This requires money. Money that is needed in every resort and army is not the most important one. It appears in many regiments. This is why my boyfriend spends a useless year in his regiment. He is doing nothing there. He learns nothing new, nothing that will help him in case of an attack. In my opinion, a meaning of an army is to protect people and country that are attacked. Young men who are made to go to Czech military service are about 18 or 19 years old and they spend a year of their lives there and they are to learn a basic knowledge about weapons, strategy and about how to behave in critical situation. I want to believe that in most of the regiments it already works this way. In the regiment where my boyfriend serves it is still going the old way. Soldiers from this regiment are to keep guard over oil-tanks. They keep guarding and keep guarding and doing nothing else. I cannot help myself but I thing it is really a restless year. Nevertheless, I believe that in today's world it is necessary to have a professional army as same as a military service. People should know how to protect themselves and homes and families. Although you can object that in our times only one bomb can be enough to destroy everything and the only thing that remains is the hope. But I guess that it is always better to feel prepared. I did not think like that a few months ago. I believed is a safe place to live where people sometimes do fight but that these conflicts are so far from our country that they cannot influence our lives. Later on I found out that our Earth is a very small place where any step even the smallest one influences events that follow. Conflicts that take place ex-Yugoslavia, in Iraqi or between Israel and Palestine or in some African states are not that far. They are also our business. Since the time when I started to watch TV news more carefully I am still more and more afraid about what can happen. I feel like if people are standing on the edge and now they must decide which way to go. Fights, wars and other conflicts just waste time and the time are not inexhaustible. I think that solving these problems is a priority. Countries that are rich must try to help those poor ones that can be easy spoils for aggressive countries. That is why I think that at least men must be prepared because we must show that we are. able to protect our selves. I wish I were more optimistic. Even though I am not a religious person I believe in some higher power that is above us and follows us. We must help our selves alone. Our lives are in our hands .
|
080_CZUN1010.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
When television was born in the early 20 s, new era of life started to develop. At the beginning only rich people owned TV sets as it was very expensive. At that time broadcasting took only several hours a day, but it was enough for people who eagerly sat in front of " telly" and watched programmes which were presented. It was like a miracle for them to have TV at home because they knew the screen only from cinema. No matter if it was news programme or a film people watched the programme with enthusiasm and expectation. Gradually more people could afford a TV set. Those who were not still able to buy " the miracle" began to visit their friends to watch a programme. It obviously became a special event. As the technological progress continued, the broadcasting got longer and the programmes were better. Regardless the age, viewers looked forward to daily programmes. Everybody found his or her favourite programme. TV started with one or two channel broadcasting and later expanded the offer. That fact drew attention of more and more viewers and more TV sets were bought. Broadcasting in black and white changed into coloured, mono was replaced by stereo sound. At one time nearly every family had their own TV.
In the present time when satellite receiver and video player are used there are cases in which people become addicted to watching TV. They watch television right after they come from school or work and stop being interested in what they were before. In consequence of that people don t go to theatres, cinemas or other cultural and sport events so often. Real sportsmen become passive sportsmen. Significant time on TV is taken by commercials. It is very often a favourite talking point. People talk about funny, crazy or awkward advertisements. They even try to imitate them. On the other hand we should not forget to mention the good influence of watching TV but only if a viewer chooses a certain programme and watches for limited time. No doubt there are programmes which are educational and especially children can broaden their minds. Competitions are one of the most favourite programmes which reguest knowledge. Another popular programmes which are much appreciated by viewers of all ages are programmes about nature. Particularly people from towns are eager for that kind of production. News programmes have also much attention as the viewers learn about their country and the whole world. Sport events draw attention of men in particular. There is a very positive feature, thanks to science and technology, that enables to deaf people to watch TV. Special programmes are provided with subtitles or sign-language. Hopefully every viewer, even the serious one, is able to choose a programme, ranging from education, entertainment, films to music and sport, that will satisfy him. There is also a great number of TV series that people all around the world are crazy about and when the certain programme starts the fans leave other activity and stick around TV. On the other hand viewers are influenced by broadcasting in negative way it concerns especially the young generation. The worst are violent and brutal films which evoke similar behaviour and the youngsters become dangerous to their surroundings .
All in all, television is very important in our life. It depends if we will make use of it or will become slaves of that mass media .
|
081_DBAN1016.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B1+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
In six months time the incredible student life will be over again for some people .
They will set foot in the real world and start working in the field of their studies, at least that is what they hope for .
But will these students find work immediately and will it be in the right field, meaning will they get a function according to their training?
Recent statistics show that the unemployment figure in Belgium has dropped slightly, compared to A992-1993. This, however, does not mean that whenever a person graduates he is offered a job right a way. The tendency nowadays in Belfium is that the majority of gradautes have to wait for about six months before they are hired under the [Quotation] (a governmental initiative helping young people to find a job).
In many cases they are fired after six months and have to start all over again .
This of course is a very annoying situation, but what, to me, is even more annoying, is the fact that "experience" is always required .
Just fold the newspaper open and take a look at job advertisements; you will rarely find an add where a person with no experience qualifies the prospect .
My question then is, "how can a just graduated, fresh ex-student, have experience"?
Let us look at the translators/interpreting section for example. It seems that most colleges or universities for translators and interpreters are not familiar with the situation of apprenticeships, contrary to the hotelmanagement section, where students can go abroad for four months and work in hotels .
Future social workers and nurses also have to work in their branch for a certain period and are evaluated then .
Would it not be better for all colleges and universities to introduce these apprenticeships, so that students are already aware of what they are getting into, instead of just throwing them to the wolves when they graduate?
Now we have come to the issue of doing exams in order to pas. For some courses the situation of permanent evaluation already exists, but for most subjects you still have to take an exam .
Is this a fair system?
In my opinion it is not, because you are evaluated on two or three questions taken from a book of maybe threehundred pages. If you are lucky you can answer these questions. If not, too bad, then you are nicely invited to take your exam again in September, even though you knew the rest of your book perfectly well .
In my opinion apprenticeships and permanent evaluation are the perfect solution; you are judged by experts in the field, who can keep an eye on you all day, whereas at college or university a professor has to spread his or her time over 20 students or more .
The conclusion we can only make is that universities and colleges really have to take action to reform these situations, not today but yesterday .
|
082_DBAN1017.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
The latest years it has become very difficult to find a job. It is often even moredifficult to find a job if you have a university degree than if you have a lower one. Is this because most university degrees are theoretical and therefore do not prepare students enough for the real world?
It is true that people who are for example a plumber or a technician do not need a university diploma and they can often find a job after they have finished their secondary school. These people are indeed trained to practise a certain profession and most of the time they have to do a work placement during their training .
People who have a university degree, on the other hand, have almost or no practise during their education, the only thing they have are a lot of books or courses they have to know by heart. Unfortunately, students at a university also do not do a work placement in their last year .
I think it is a pity that most university education do not have a work placement for their students in their last year, but if that really is not possible, I think the students themselves shoud have to prepare for the real world. There are several ways to do so .
In the first place, the students can prepare by acquiring knowledge about all kinds of things. During their student days, they should read a lot of books, newspapers and magazines. That way they learn a lot about politics, economics, culture and so on. The school can not learn you all these things, but you need to have a general knowledge if you want to become a part of the real world .
Secondly, the students should insert a work placement themselves. They can, for example, go studying at a university in another country for one year, take a course abroad for a month during the holidays or do a holiday job in a company. By doing a holiday job they learn what real life is all about, they get to know life in a company and moreover they earn some money .
In the third place, I think that students should not only learn their books and courses by heart because they have to know the material for the exams, but they should really try to see the importance of all the things they learn for later life. Unfortunately, some students keep studying only for the exams and do not see the importance of a general knowledge .
To conclude, I agree that university degrees are too theoretical and therefore they do not prepare students enough for the real world. But university degrees are not at all of little value if the students themselves complement their studies with some general knowledge, a course abroad or a vacation job. Besides, in my opinion, one of the characteristics of a university degree is that the people who have it are independent people, who are, with or without a lot of practical training, very ready for the real world .
|
083_DBAN1019.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
Religion is the opium for the masses. According to Feuerbach, humanity cannot find salvation unless religion is abolished. Marx did not share his opinion. He claimed religion to be the opium form the masses. If he had lived nowadays, he would have replaced religion by television .
People have a need to be entertained. Religion used to be a form of entertainment, when belief was still strong and people went to church every day. Nowadays, television takes over this role. Instead of spending our evenings outdoors, we prefer to sit in front of our TV-set, switch off our brains and watch whatever programme we are offered. Therefore we could call television the babysitter for adults, and certainly for the elderly people. They often are lonely, but, like every human being, need some kind of conversation now and again. That is why they really need a TV-set .
Another obvious similarity between religion and television is the fact that they address us on the same level; namely that of a thirteen-year old kid. This may sound pretty rude, but it is true! If television stations raised their level, people would be unable to follow and would not longer pay attention to it. Television once again took over the part of religion: giving uncomplicated answers to complex questions. Everything men did not understand, used to be attributed to the gods. But men became smarter and found more logical answers to those matters that were not to be understood. Technology grew and created its own god; it was called television and it was invented for the same purpose as religion: to keep the mass stupid and tomake sure that people do not think .
During the inquisition, too many innocents were killed because the catholic Church suspected them to be devil-worshipers. It was a time where everyone distrusted everyone, only because the Church wanted them to .
Television has this very same, frightening power to manipulated people and to mobilize them. Just think of the images some years ago of the Ethiopian children. Suddenly, everyone was ready to give donations and to dedicate themselves to help the poor and the hungry. But now, at this very moment, the situation has not changed and still hundreds of people die in Ethiopia every day. Another example: Americans used tothink the Chinese were creepy little men, not to be trusted, evil, etc... But then television showed their very president Nixon shaking hands with Mao, and all of a sudden, the Chinese were very wise men with an ancient and important culture. This proves that TV can really influence people, whether it is good or bad, just like any religion .
Religion reshapes reality the way it wants it to be. Who is stupid enough to believe that Jesus actually walked on the water, or fed hundreds of people with only five loaves of bread and two fish? Well, those converted to Catholicism could believe this because it says so in the Bible. Television too recasts reality. What impression of a report on famine remains, if it is interrupted every ten minutes by commercials that show us all the best food in the world. No one will believe in the end that famine is possible! All the important facts that can be transmitted become faint due to a permanent fragmentation of those very facts .
It is obvious that nowadays Marx would replace religion by television. All the similarities are there, and less people go to church, while more and more television sets are being sold. And why would one go to church, if he can, every Sunday morning, attend cabled Mass? Opium from the masses, remember?
|
084_DBAN1032.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
In our society , religion used to be very important for the people. In the older days, almost everyone believed in God. God used to be their source of inspiration, their support. In those days, people were religious, not only because they really believe, but also because it was a moral tradition and obligation for them to believe in God. Otherwise they feared to be pointed at by their neighbours and friends .
Peole went to church every Sunday. They used to pray a lot. For instance, when there was a thunderstorm, people prayed for the thunderstorm to go away. They also prayed before dinner to thank God for their meal .
Nowadays, those aspects are more or less gone. People do not go to church that often anymore. A lot of people want to believe that they are good christians. They baptize their children when born; they do their first and solemn communion; they marry in church; but actually you only see them twice a year in church: at Easter and with Christmas .
To come back to the aspect of marriage: when people got married in the older days, it was [Quotation] . So it was an important step in life. Nowadays, marriage is still important, but if it does not work out, people do not hesitate to get a divorce. Divorce is not such a taboo anymore. It seems as if you can get a divorce every day .
Of course, in this essay, I deal with some aspects of christianity. I do not say that this phenomenon occurs in every religion. These days, you still have a few strong religions e.g. the Islam and Buddhism .
It is possible that the weakening of christianity can be attributed to evolution, and especially to the advent of the television. This medium has an enormous influence on people. It is like opium for the masses but in another way. This is not the case with television. The good thing about television is that it provides us information: documentaries,... but also things that happen around the world. So in fact, it replaces the radio. But, unfortunately, television also has a bad influence. On television, you can see a lot of violence. May be that is one of the reasons why violence has increased during the last years. Violence on television also has an influence on children. They want to imitate people on television because they are not aware of what is right or wrong. In this way accidents happen. I think that television replaces in one way or the other our religion. But this phenomenon is therefore not so good. Violence has always existed in our society but still it has increased a lot and I think that is partly due to the television .
|
085_DBAN2005.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
In this essay I would like to talk about the negative aspects of money. Money causes a lot of trouble in the world: robberies, envy, damage to the environment etc.. Also war and politics go together with money. Money is often considered as the key to all doors, but on the other hand we all know the saying: [Quotation] . Let's have a look on its role in society and the negative consequences .
Money plays an important role these days. Even children are already confronted with the value of money. When you ask a child what he or she wants to become when it's grown up, you often get the answer: "rich". The importance of money is taught at a very young age and it doesn't leave our mind. Money is also considered to be equal to power. Someone who is rich, is powerful and when you are poor, you have nothing to say. So then you have the problem of classdifferences: upper class with power and lower class with no power. Already in early ages we saw this phenomenon. Money has always been a problem and it always will be. This is a very materialistic world, people think in a very materialistic way and there is nothing you can do about it .
Because of this material world and the importance of money, new problems keep arising. First of all there is robbery .
Everyday, if we have a look in the newspapers, we read about robbery: people who are violently being robbed, banks that get unwanted visitors who want all the money that doesn't belong to them, and also shops are confronted with this problem .
So why do people steal? Easy. Because they don't have any money and money is something you cannot live without. If you want to survive you need money. Of course not only poor people go stealing. A lot of people steal because they are envious or they get a kick by doing it .
Secondly, there is the problem of drugs. We all know that it costs quite a lot of money to buy drugs. Not all the addicts can afford this, so the only solution is robbery. But that's not the only problem. Drugs have one meaning, namely the big chiefs who earn fortunes by selling it. They are only interested in one thing: making as much money as possible and they don't care about all the misery that goes along with it: addicted people, overdoses, family problems etc.. The mere thing they want is to get rich .
Another issue is the environment. Why is the existence of several animals threatened? Easy. Because of money of course. Take the example of the elephants. The only reason why they are slaughtered are the ivory tusks. Ivory is sold for enormous amounts of money. Another example are the seals that are beaten to death because of their fur, which is used for coats and such. Then there are the Japanese who are fervent whale catchers. They don't just eat the whale fish. Some stuff in their brains is used for cosmetics and also "amber" in their intestines, is very very expensive. If they keep on hunting, there'll probably be no whale to catch in a couple of years .
But they don't think about that. All these people don't care about the fact that they are destroying nature. They only look at the reward they will get for their efforts, namely - yes - money, lots of money .
There are a number of other areas in which money is involved. Think about kidnapping. Sometimes there's a whole affair involved in a kidnapping case, which is not meant for the public to know about. But the main point is again money, large amounts of money, like in the Anthony De Clerck affair .
Also politics (Agusta affair) and war have to do with this evil thing .
So I don't think you can come up with positive aspects of money. It's easy if you have it, you can buy whatever you want. If people are willing then third world coutries can be given food, material etrc. to survive. But most of these countries are in trouble because of a corrupt government. Look at Mobutu: his people were starving, but he preferred to build an expensive palace or bridge, rather than to feed his country .
In fact you can look at this as a circle: one thing causes another. There's nothing you can do about it, unfortunately. People will always want money. This idea maybe isn't so bad itself, but it is a pity we have to pay a price for it .
|
086_DBAN2006.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
A long time ago, a family, or even a whole village, gathered at night to spend their evenings together after a hard day's work. They made music and danced; they told stories and the children played games. When it got dark, everyone (or almost everyone) went to sleep to get a good night's rest before starting another day's work early in the morning. In the winter people didn't go out very much; they spent the evenings close to the fireside, the women knitting and sewing, the men smoking their pipes or carving a toy out of wood .
When electric light was invented, people tended to stay at home more often and to stay up later. They took advantage of the fact that they could enjoy the light as long as they wanted. They still spent the evenings in family, but started doing other things: playing cards or other party games, reading a book or the paper if they could read, listening to the radio when that was invented, etc... People in the villages tended to spend less and less time in each other's company, and in the cities this situation was even worse (because cities are more often than not, less social than cosy little villages).
When television was invented and the greater part of the population could afford it, it got to be a new and very easy way to entertain oneself: after a hard day's work in a factory or somewhere else, most people were too tired to do anything and it was very easy to just sit down, put your feet up and let someone turn on the telly .
That is when television industry started producing all kinds of series and shows that would go down easily and that don't ask for a lot of effort on the part of the public. This practice started in America (like many other things, good or bad, do) and spread around the world. And it continues up to this very day, except for the fact that it has all become even more sophisticated and less primitive in a lot of areas .
An incredible number of soap series, some more successful than others, have been created with the sole purpose of entertaining people. Some of these series are of a higher quality than oters, but these aren't always the most successful ones; they often don't last longer than one season .
Almost every single one of these series is based on the same ideas: a group of people, mostly a family, in a particular place, and a number of problems and intrigues, very often because of love affairs or money, that these people have to deal with .
The remarkable thing is that most people don't seem to get sick and tired of seeing the same things happening over and over again. But then again, most people love to stick their nose in other people's affairs, and that is exactly what they can do in those series .
Soap series and game shows seem to appeal to all people all over the world. Even in Third World countries, where people hardly ahve any money, they often have a television set, even if only one for a whole village. And you can then see those people, gathered in a hut, very attentively watching ' Dallas' or ' Dynasty ' or another flashy, glamorous series that the country's television company could buy cheaply. It nevertheless seems a bit illogical and ironic that those people seem to be able to afford a television set and at the same time have got almost nothing to eat .
In short, nowadays many people spend their evenings in front of their television set, without talking(=communicating) at all. And if there still is someone who dares to comment upon something that happens on TV, he/she is told to 'shut up, I am trying to watch that film!'
Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was still alive at the end of the twentieth century, he would probably change his opinion and say that now television is the opium of the masses .
|
087_DBAN2032.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
In Belgium, we have to make a distinction between university and HOBU (higher education on academic level). The difference between these two is the HOBU is a bit more practical. Still, a lot of theory is taught to get a wide knowledge of the world. When you want to become an interpreter, for example, you go to HOBU. You have to make a lot of translations; this is the practical side. But you also get a lot of theoretical courses, for example, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, sociology... The problem today is, especially for university students, that they only have had theoretical courses. They have a big knowledge but they did not get on-the-job training. They do not know how to use their knowledge in practice .
But why is this such a big proglem?
Well, nowadays, employers always want to engage someone with an adequate certificate. But more important is that the applicant has experience. He should have worked, for example, in the same kind of company before, or he should at least have done a work placement in the same branch .
For those who graduated as a teacher or those who have studied German or Ramance Philology it is not such a big problem because they are obliged to do a teaching practice .
for the others, on the other hand, who just graduated, it is very difficult to find a job. there is a lot of unemployment and people who are experienced, often older people, are favoured. That is why I think that university degrees are a bit useless . (but not at all of very little value). It is the experience that counts .
What can we do about it?
Universities and colleges (HOBU) should give their students the possibility to do a work placement but only for those who are interested. It should not be obligatory. In that way the students could do that work placement and write a report about it. And maybe they could write a thesis about that term of probation. If they are looking for a job later, they would not have many problems because they have experience. It is even possible that they can stay with the company they have worked with. Besides, it would also be a good thing for companies because they do not have to pay these workforces. I think this would be a much better kind of instruction than writing a pure theoretical thesis. We must though not neglect theoretical instruction. Practice and theory should go side by side .
|
088_DBAN2033.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
How sad but true this is! Money and power, science technology and economy, industrialisation and education are the things that really matter in our society. Nowadays dreaming and imagination are becoming more and more second-rate. Our priorities seem to have gone through some changes .
Power, money, technology... are the criteria for 'success' in life and for just being heard and respected. Without success you are nothing in this society. what is striking is, that we seem to have forgotten what it means to be truly happy. We confuse success with happiness. No doubt happiness cannot possibly be obtained without dreams and imagination, without feelings and emotions. Nowadays everything is insensitive, cold, unfeeling..., which is a big problem in our society. There is this fight for survival, everybody on its own in the big bad world. Feelings are inconvenient, superfluous in all aspects of life. They are considered to be the ' things' that hold you back. This is especially the case in business, which is no doubt a dominant factor in our society . ' Business is business' has become a common notion. There is no place for compation, charity, the same way that there is no place for dreaming and imagination. It all boils down to making a profit, productivity, accomplishment .
There is also a lack of time for dreaming, imagination and plain creativity. Our days are carefully planned and more than filled (the rush of daily life). Sure, we still dream but almost only at night, unconscious of it. by the time we have woken up we have forgotten all about it. It does not interest us anymore, we have other things on our minds like work, school, appointments...money, money, money. People get caught in this mill of things and do not see any way out .
Imagination and dreaming are a form of freedom where natural boundaries are exceeded. In our imagination we bare our souls, either conscious or not, with its desires, fears and creative possibilities. Imaginaiton is an introspective tool. We are in a world then where our minds take a broad sweep, where it is not relevant whether or not something is realised, or if problems are solved or created. Imagination is also not something we can force upon ourselves. But it is a necessity for humans to be whole. It is one of the things that distinguishes us from other living creatures .
The negligence of the importance of dreaming and imagination is prevalent at all ages. Even toys nowadays do not leave much to imagination. The more complicated, artificial (supplied with technical devices) the better. Children do not really play anymore. They are no longer creative. They are handed these ' revolutionary ' toys or just put in front of the television in order to keep them busy. This is very passive without the development of the personality or the mind .
People in general spend a considerable amount of time watching TV, which is at the expense of other leisure activities. It has also been proven that TV steals time which would otherwise have been spend on imagination. TV is an ' easy ' medium which requires little mental effort. This leads to a passive ' let you entertain me'-attitude which undermines the willingness to think something up ourselves. TV also undermines the ability to focus your attention on something for quite a long time, which is needed for imagination. TV leads to over-excitement, impulsive thinking, a reduction of attention and restless behaviour. This is also determined by the kind of programmes we watch . ' Kind ' programmes leave our imagination undisturbed. Programmes with much violence and action, however, are adverse on our imagination .
It is really a shame, that we seem to choose for a life without imagination or dreaming. Is happiness not to be found in our minds and hearts rather than in material things, our bank account...? Chateaubriand once said that true happiness is to be found in little things, that if it costs much it is not of the right kind. Our priorities and values in life have changed. We need scientific arguments, proof before we believe in something. We are all very much involved in trying to make something of our lives without really living, experiencing it. We do not seem to care about dreaming and imagination because we believe that it does not provide us with something. Or is this my ' imagination'?
|
089_DBAN2034.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
Nowadays, it seems as if money is the most important thing on earth. A lot of people already have a full-time job, but they still go out working in the evenings. And all for one reason: money .
People have become too materialistic anyway. I certainly have to admit that it can be handy to be rich: you can buy everything you want; washing machines, dishwashers, CD-players, video's, cars, or what so ever .
But if you ask me, money isn't the key to happiness at all. I think money offers you more dis - than advantages .
If you become rich, the danger exists that you become more and more egoïstic. But another problem is that rich people can become extremely powerful, especially because they can afford everything. An example of this was Saddam Houssein, the offender of the Gulf War. That man was so rich, that he even didn't know how much he possessed. But because of his large amounts of money, he was able to put pressure on the whole world and he was frightened by everybody. So, you see: money is the root of all evil .
It also has to be very difficult to have a relation, if you are rich. You always have to wonder whether your partner loves you or just your money. And who are your real friends? You always have to doubt about this sorts of things. Other persons may also have this problem, but money certainly makes things more complicated .
Rich people often want more and more money. They would do anything to become richer .
Therefore, it doesn't have to surprise you that riche people can become criminals. they betray other people and even grow richer. I think it is very dreadful that a lot of people don't see the little but so beautiful things in life anymore. They don't see the flowers and the trees and the bees anymore. They are only occupied with themselves .
And what's far more terrible, is that those rich people are respected by the others. They believe that those people have to know a lot, because they are that rich. Well, they are wrong. Cleverness doesn't have anything to do with money at all. Although those rich ones also know this, they often discriminate other people. Sometimes, they behave like they were God .
So far, I have described the rich people as egoïstic. But this certainly doesn't mean that this is a general statement .
Rich people, who want to share their money with others; people, who want to give money to charity funds or what so ever... Well, they are OK. You may have lots of money, as long as you stay simple, you're on the good way .
But I wouldn't like to be in the place of these people either. Having a lot of money also has its consequences .
It isn't the first time, a rich man is kidnapped. You also have to be more frightened on the street. Because people are able to see whether you are rich or not .
For all these reasons, I believe, it's much better to stay simple. If you ask me, you'll enjoy life much more!!!!!
|
090_DBAN2042.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
People who agree with this statement generally believe that the only board woment are fit for is the drain-board. Whereas others will get annoyed just reading the title. They argue that women have to be radical in their approach to become the equal of the men. We are getting there, yet maybe a little bit too slow .
This brings us to the question:"What does feminism really stands for?" the women's movement aspires to improve the position of the woman in the cultural, economic, social, and political field. Assuming naturally that women are considered less important than men. There were two feministic avalanches: On the one hand there was one that started at the end of the nineteenth century, and on the other hand a feministic avalanch began in the late sixties .
The ideology of the Women's Liberation Movement has three main tendencies: Firstly there is the reformative or "civil rights"-feminism. They strive for the granting of equal rights to women. In other words women emancipation .
Secondly we have radical feminism or women's liberation, they want to do away with the standards, values and patterns of behaviour that continue to make women inferior to men. Finally there is also socialistic feminism. They aim at the liberation of women linked to the struggle against the inequality between the social classes. These three tendencies all strive after equality, liberation, emancipation, etc. on the cultural, economic, social and political area. The cultural position of the women has won more and more prestige the last few years. Painters, writers, actrices, singers, models, ..., they all obtained a certain Hollywood status. A lot of them are the symbols of emancipated and liberated women. they can even be considered to be superior where models (and other areas) are concerned .
On the contrary, the married women's social position in society has not changed much. Women are still doing the housework and taking care of the children, even though they may have a job. But unmarried and divorced women are now becoming more independed. Two tendencies can be noted: A lot of women want to have a career of some kind so that they get out once in a while and not be financially depended on their life partner. They still have to fight twice as hard to achieve the same goal than a man. Some men though choose to be houseman while their wifes go out to work. The above-mentioned is still a taboo that has to be broken. To conclude we can say that the social position is "gradually" improving .
Finally, there is the women's political position. More and more women are interested in politics and want to go into politics. The last few years we have seen an increse in women politicians. Some parties see it as a new kind of political propaganda to put women in important positions, but they still form less than ten percent of all the politicians. So the increase in women politicians should be strongly encouraged .
To conclude, the Women's Liberation Movement strives for equal rights, liberation and emancipation. They not only want it in the social, economic, cultural field, but also in the political field. All women, even men, should devote themselves to this necessity. So that the the only board women are fit for is NOT the dran-board .
|
091_DBAN2050.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
Money, money; money... The keyword of our modern society. When you ask someone about his greatest dream he probably will answer you: [Quotation] . People attach great importance to material wealth. When they don't have all of this they think they're poor and that their life is meaningless. They are unhappy and unsatisfied. Manu people want to lead a life of luxury without doing a thing, they don't want to tire themselves out with working all day. They aren't motivated anymore to do their job .
One of the reasons people get divorced is that they spend all their money on beautiful, material things; they buy expensive clothes, they go on holiday, buy a new car,... And suddenly they realize that they don't have enough money to continue to live like that. They can not adapt to that more "normal life", they're unsatisfied and they leave each other .
Three or four decades ago, people were pleased when they got a roof over their head and the opportunity to feed their children and themselves. They thanked God the war had come to an end. Little presents brought real happiness, real appreciation in to the house .
Nowadays, children aren't grateful anymore when they get heaps of expensive playthings like computer games, little cars remote control, doll's houses, Barbie yachts,...
The enormous desire for money has resulted in robbery and burglary. When they can't or won't pay for the thing they want, they just steal it. The terrifying thing is that not only poor, I mean very poor streetpeople steal but also the rich, who can afford it, don't think nothing of it. They just want more and more, they never have enough, whereas streetpeople have to steal in order to have something to eat. To some, stealing is an obsession; they can't stop it anymore .
How many haven't become bankrupt because of gambling in casinoes or fun-fairs? They too were addicted to money but it got them into a miserable life. Result: they enter the world of alcoholism and drugs .
Another shocking thing is that their doesn't seem to exist kindness among friends anymore. In the past, almost everybody was prepared to extend help for free to friends and relatives. It was normal, it obvious. This statement doesn't hold anymore. People see money everywhere. They hardly help each other .
A final sad situation has to do with "money business" It very oftens happens today that people are bribed by others to obtain what that other really wants. What terrifies me is that judicial authorities are given thousands of Belgian franks to defend a case in favour of a person who, may be, is guilty of murder, of robbery or who has commited forgery. He goes free and will probably commit the same crime again .
People aren't honest with each other. They lie, they cheat, they steal... And all this because of money, only for the image. As the saying goes: [Quotation] .
|
092_DBAN3017.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
In this essay I seek to demonstrate that it is only thanks to several feminist movements in modern Western civilization that men and women have, at least theoretically, equal rights .
Feminist or women's movements advocate same rights and chances for men and women. They try to change the present system to give women equality with men, especially in the cultural, economic and juridical areas .
These movements also want traditional role patterns to be broken down. in my opinion, many feminists grossly oversimplify these traditional role patterns when they reduce them to a matter of social convention. The difference between men and women is basically natural, it is not merely culturally, i.e. artificially, determined. In primitive life, man's natural superior strength provided protection to women, particularly while they were in the final stages of their pregnancy. This of course does not mean women are inferior to men. Political equality for every human being, man or woman, black or white, is desirable and necessary. In this context the concept "gender" is often used . "Gender" is the sex which nature has imposed upon us, it is unchangeable, we must accept it .
The problem is that women are often regarded as deviating from the male norm. It is only thanks to several great women and their accompanying movements that this norm is not as rigid anymore as it used to be. The first important feminist was the Romantic Mary Wollstonecraft, mother of Mary Shelley and author of ' A Vindication of the Rights of Woman'. Romanticism was a reaction against the preceding Enlightenment. An important idea of the Romantics was freedom of the individual, so freedom of the female individual as well .
At the beginning of the twentieth century, a group of women caused upheaval by chaining themselves to important buildings. These women called themselves ' Suffragettes': they fought for suffrage, i.e. the right to vote, for women. But the agitations did not have an immediate success. It was not until a few decades later their aim was achieved. Since then every grown-up woman has been able to vote .
Contemporary feminism developed from the postwar generation of the Sixties. From now on women occupy important positions in political, academic, cultural and economic business life. To exemplify this I only mention Margaret Thatcher, Simone de Beauvoir and Madonna .
But I do not want to give a rosy picture of how things really are. It is a fact that in everyday life men are still higher up on the social scale. For doing exactly the same job as their male colleagues, women often get paid less. The typical roles expected of women, such as staying home to take care of the children, are still taken for granted by many .
I conclude that women are still not politically equal to men, in spite of the various movements fighting for this cause. But I fear equality for all people is utopian: there will always be some who think they are superior to others .
I end with John Lennon's pun, being such an accurate rendering of reality: [Quotation]
|
093_DBAN3029.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television
I must say that I never really agreed with Marx's pronouncement upon religion, but the new version is in my opinion undoubtedly true .
Particularly commercial television companies are cramming us with the most ridiculous and irritating games, soaps and commercials. Ratings prevail over making good television, and companies that do want to make interesting programmes cannot cope with the competition and have to follow the line to survive .
Some television companies broadcast 24 hours a day, so why would you go out and have a walk or some exercise if there's a good movie on TV, why would you go to a football match if you can follow it, live of course, on the little screen in front of you? Who cares if there isn't a live atmosphere in your living-room, if you have can have a better view on the game?
And than there's this other little screen: the computer, which is maybe even worse. Children, from 6 years onwards, no longer play with Legosets or dolls, they prefer electric toys and of course a real computer with lots of games. Every toy manufacturer knows it is bad for the children's eyes and so, but all these little lights and sounds are so fascinating that children want it. Everything which requires a little imagination seems to be oppressed .
It's hard to find something that isn't done by computer nowadays, and it doesn't stop either. Some people already have the ' luxury ' of not having to go to their office to work. No, they can stay at home and do everything there on their own computer, which is connected with the main one in the office .
Soon, even shopping will be possible by computer, you just order what you want to have by typing it on the screen, it is transmitted to the computer of the shop, and it's delivered within a few hours. To put it in other words: it seems to be that everything is done to keep everybody in his comfortable seat (all day, if possible), with the result that people become afraid of one another, they become apathetic zombies who adore their TVset in the way they used to adore a god (for which there isn't any time left anymore). Wouldn't all this be a perfect scenario for a sequel to George Orwell's "1984"? I really believe that this particular future image is what we're heading for if we continue in the way we're doing now. It wouldn't be that hard for an ' evil force', as it is called, to brainstorm people by means of what they see on television. I wonder what Marx would say if he would be alive ...
A very little minority of people refuse to cooperate in all this by not buying a TV or a computer, simply on principle. I believe that one should have great respect for them. As a matter of fact they might be the only ones that are not (yet?) infected with one of the worst diseases of the 20th century .
|
094_DBAN3034.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
It should be noted that one can be a feminist without feeling affinity for the wave of feminist ideas from the sixties upto now. In expressing their ideas through the years about equal rights for women, the feminists forgot the most important points: the basic principles and the basic differences between women and men. Feminists were so eager for result that they diregarded these basic points .
The basic principles of feminism, the things that are really important for women to achieve are equal wages for equal work, equal possibilities in education and upbringing and excellent crèches and nursery schools. As long as these principles have not been attained, time must not be wasted on other, less important things. But as this is hard, unpleasant and unrewarding work, women prefer to sit down and chat about how ' bad ' men are instead of working on these socio-economic injustices .
With many feminists one recognizes a certain intolerance for people not agreeing with their ideas. But, as said before, one can be a feminist without agreeing with the ideas of the mass of feminists. A lot of the present feminism is modern preaching of what is permitted and what is not. If some women stay home and look after the children rather than go out into the hard life of business, they should be able to. Isn't it the right of every man or woman to be what he or she wants to be? Feminism mustn't put pressure on women. The present tendency is that a woman should be ashamed of preferring to stay home. The pressure before feminism ( [Quotation] ) has now turned into a pressure the other way around .
This is not to say it was better before. The good thing about feminism is that it gives women the courage to have an own identity. They can have own lives now. A woman is no longer dependent on a man .
That women should be represented in parliament is in itself a good idea. But they shouldn't be forced into it. If there are few women in parliament now, it partly depends on the fact that they are not ready for it yet. They will get there eventually .
In a marriage the partners should give each other the freedom to have their own lives. For a man to give his wife this possibility, he does not need feminism. This freedom of choice should be the basic idea of marriage .
In this discussion the feminists forgot something else, the basic differences between women and men. In Dutch this is nicely expressed in the words [Quotation] and [Quotation] . [Quotation] relates to laws and wages etc. In that respect man and women are equal . [Quotation] has to do with the fact that men and women will never be the same. In this way men and women are not equal .
The conclusion is that women should be able to choose and decide what they like best. They shouldn't be obstructed in any way. And perhaps we should let men be able to choose too?
|
095_DBAN3037.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
Our society is said to be severely influenced by technology. Nowadays this influence is becoming so big that there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. This is mainly due to the fact that new technologies, such as virtual reality and interactive television, are being developped irresponsibly. With all this new technology, man does no longer have to think for himself, everything is done for him. You could say that these developments are all very good for mankind, but the problem is that man does no longer think, period .
In the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, people had to work so hard, just to keep themselves and their families alive, that there was no time left for dreaming or imagination. But then came technology, because of machines the work became much lighter, people could go on holiday once in a while and had plenty of time to fantasize and dream. In this respect technology has been a blessing for mankind. However this ' blessing ' has now taken on such proportions that for some people it becomes almost impossible to think and dream freely. Technology can be used to stimulate people, to make them form their own opinions, but all too often it is used to impose the opinions and convictions of the people who are in control, on people who are using the technology. From this viewpoint our world is beginning to resemble the worl that Orwell described in "1984", a society that is controlled by a few people who have all the means to manipulate other people in such a way that creativity and fantasy become impossible. If however our technology and media are used in a responsible, "well thoughout" manner, they will stimulate people to think, give them time to do something else than make money, so that free imagination and dreaming become possible .
There is a second danger connected with this technology. Nowadays it is becoming so strong that you can create your own personal reality with it (the so-called ' virtual reality ' technology). This means that people can create their private universe, in which they control everything, with a computer. This ' virtual reality ' gives so much power to fantasy and imagination that it can become very confusing. The user of this technology could take this fictive world for the real world and suffer a severe shock when he's brought back into the reality, and even worse, he could decide to live the most important part of his life in this ' fictive ' reality and live the life of a vegetable in our reality .
In short one could say that technology has certainly been a blessing for mankind. There should, however, be some control on it, too often man is abused by technology. It's high time to do something about the morbid growth of technology and to try and seek for a system that protects society and its members .
|
096_DBAN3042.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil'
It has been said before that money is the root of all evil. Surely not all evil is due to money, but the far-reaching harm that is being done to individuals in our world has to be attributed to capitalism. The system has undoubtedly influenced human behaviour at the end of this millennium: capitalism has added greatly to the all encompassing paralysis of the world. This essay focuses not only on the influence of capitalism on the individual, but also on the artist and on art itself .
In the closing years of the 20th century the individual person finds himself surrounded by unnecessary misery and gross inequality. Our community does not take the individuals integrity into account. According to Ludien Goldman, a famous literary critic, it was the so-called new look capitalism that killed the intrinsic value of the individual. When at the beginning of this century the capital concentrated itself around a select number of entrepreneurs, the free trade turned into an economy of monopolies and trusts. In this new economic sustem, the individual had lost its central position. Unlike the 19th century liberalism, the new look capitalism did not allow individuals to take part in big business. As a result, passivity grew .
Consumption is one of the key-words in the capitalists dictionary. People are urged in various ways to buy products that can improve their standard of living, so that after a while those redundant products become indispensable. Riches alone make no man happy, although we live in a world in which wealth seems to be the initial goal of life. Consequently, a lot of people are blinded by the considerations of career and personal profit .
Now how does capitalism affect the artist? The artist, too, is an individual and for that reason has to be protected. He must be given full spatio-temporal freedom to exploit his creativity and genius in order to produce Art. The artist must keep his independency, although he is still part of a society - whether he likes it or not. This society however may not prevent him from expressing his thoughts freely and making hiw own choices .
Theoretically, capitalism gives people this freedom to choose. I have to disagree with this definition. This is the kind of statement that implies that the homeless in e.g. New York City are somehow being homeless of their own volition. In the capitalist system, if you have no money, you have no choice, and capitalism defines freedom as choice .
To conclude this short essay, I'll briefly touch upon the capitalist view of the relationship between art and commerce. I will not discuss the contents of Art. The central simplicity of capitalism is that if something makes a profit then it must be good. This kind of reasoning may do when we talk about hamburgers, or refrigerators, but not when we discuss art. Hundreds of books have been written on the criterions for art, but it is sure that sales potential can never be the sole criterion for art. Therefore I say that capitalism is threatening Art .
|
097_DBAN3050.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
Feminism is the political belief that women should have the same rights, power and opportunities that men have. The women's movement wants to improve the situation of women in political, economic, social and cultural respects. In these fields women have always been discriminated against .
Besides historical periods in which the position of women was relatively good, as in ancient Egypt and Rome, there were periods in which their situation was moderate or even bad, as in ancient Greece. During the Renaissance women led a comparitively good life and they were given a freer hand. From then on we see woman's position worsen .
In the eighteenth and nineteenth century the rich woman was forced to stay home doing really nothing, while the lower class woman had to work her fingers to the bone for little money. In this climate the first feminist protest was born .
If we compare the position of a woman in 1994 to that of her nineteenth century counterpart, we can conclude that feminists have already taken quite a step on the long way towards emancipation .
Today the right to vote seems self-evident to us. If women were disfranchised (almost) everybody would scream blue murder. Nevertheless, suffrage for women is a relatively recent phenomenon. In Britain women were given the vote for the first time in 1928 and the Belgian women could enter their votes only after the Second World War. In America, which did not used to be renowned as particularly kind to blacks, black men could go to the polls before white women enjoyed that same right. And countries like Belgium and the United States claimed to be democracies ...
In spite of obtaining suffrage, women's contribution to the political life has stayed strikingly more modest than men's. Yet we can see an evolution in the good direction. More and more political parties try to have an equal number of male and female candidates on their lists. Also the number of elected women seems to be increasing .
Emancipation of women needs more than changing laws. Feminists also react against behaviour patterns that continue the discrimination against women. They try to get rid of the steretoype of the woman as a mother, housewife and sex object .
The ideas of feminism are winning ground. Nowadays a lot of men take responsibility in the upbringing of the children and in the household .
Feminists have done a lot of good to the cause of women. But when I see how women are ' abused ' in publicity for water, soap, aspirins, light products and cars for big fellows, I think there is still a long way to go .
|
098_DBAN3053.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C1
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
Many people have a very negative idea of the women's liberation movement and have a lot of prejudices against it. They imagine that feminists are egoistic, ugly, frustrated, lesbian women. And the thought that feminism has done more harm than good to the cause of women often comes to their minds. However, if it hadn't been for some strong women who enchained this emancipation movement, how would have been the women's situation today ? Would we have a right to vote? And what about going to university or having a job ? If we have a look at the feminist movement from its beginning until now, it becomes clear that many positive changes have taken place thanks to feminists. One should also keep in mind that the present feminist movement is not one coherent organisation. There are several groups, all having their own views, own theories and own goals. The media often focalises on the most striking groups, on those feminists who attract attention by their radical actions, actions that are not always approved of by everybody. In this way some people may have a one-sided and negative view on feminism .
in the 19 th Century the first women's organisations arose. During this first period of feminism the women's liberation movement sought equal rights for women, regarding work, education and politics. The marriage articles ( a divorce was almost impossible at the time) and the laws concerning prostitution had to be altered. They also demanded information on contraception and of course a right to vote. In 1870 British wives got the right for property. In 1919 they were allowed to run for Parliament . Not until 1928 they got the right to vote, after a long strife of the suffragettes, Other countries followed this example .
This was just the beginning. In the 1960's a new sort of feminism showed up in the U.S.. A second period of feminism had dawned. From now on the women's liberation movement concentrated more on the women and less on political rights. The idea that women not only have to strife after the granting of equal rights ( women's emancipation but also after the abolition af the behaviour and thinking patterns that discriminated against women ( liberation ) gained more and more interest. These "new" feminists wanted to change the prevailing stereotypes of women as weak, passive and dependant individuals who are less rational and more emotional than men. Their goal was to obtain more freedom for women to work and an equal responsability for men and women in the houshold. They criticised the emphasis on women as objects of sexual desire in society. They wanted to broaden the selfawareness of women and the opportunities to the point of equality with men. Also the advancement of women's participation in political decision making and other areas of public life was important .
The U.S. declared 1975 as International Women's Year. Conscious-raising groups, women studies, pubs for women, houses for women, magazines for women ... originated. Things we consider now as self-evident. Still, the women's liberation movement meets a lot of resistance among men as well as women .
The diversity of the movement may cause some problems. All those different groups, all those disagreements and quarrels among feminists often make a bad impression on outsiders. It is difficult to put all these bits and pieces together. And of course not all parts are acceptable. On the other hand, because of the complexity of the women's situation today, it is perhaps not so bad that different groups try to handle tings in their own way. In general you could discern three groups (with fundamental differences): the middle-of-the-road feminists, the socialists and the radical feminists. The first group considers the structure of society as the oppressor of women. The social feminists mean that capitalism is the cause of the inequality. According to the third group, man is the oppressor, so women have to disengage themselves of the male society and they have to create a society of their own .
With this brief sketch of the development of the women's liberation movement and some of its achievements, I think that it is clear that some of the negative opinions on feminists are unfounded. Thanks to the feminist movement the women's place in society has approved. Many things (like the right to vote, magazines for women...) that we now find self-evident, didn't exist two centuries ago. The women's emancipation movement has done some great things but there is still a long way to go. We are unaware of the way in which some of our thoughts confirm the traditional patterns of men and women. The way in which we act and think has a lot to do with messages and examples we get from our birth on, unconscious. And it is difficult to change the unconscious things .
|
099_DBAN3065.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value.
Some people believe that university education is theoretical and therefore does not prepare students for the real world. In their view, the only knowledge universities give you is bookish knowledge, which you can hardly use in your future post. Hardly any attention is paid to the practical side of the education .
To a certain extent I agree with this-conviction. How many times do you find a company offering a job in an ad that doesn't ask for someone ' with experience's Not very often, I'm afraid. The reason why companies strongly insist on experienced people is probably that they have had bad experiences with newly graduated employees. I can easily imagine that companies prefer people with a lot of practical knowledge in their pockets. But where ever are students supposed to get those practical skills? In my opinion, university education is remiss in this respect .
To make these statements more concrete and to the point, I'll confine myself to philological trainings, like Germanic languages. Graduate teachers are not prepared for the hard world of education. They don't know how to quiet down a shouting and unruly class or which teaching method to use in order to get the best results. In short, they are not able to cope with certain practical problems. For no one has ever familiarized them with the practical side of the teaching job .
Too many people think that a teacher's task is to walk into the classroom, give his lesson and leave the classroom again. But there is so much more to it than meets the eye! If there is no order in the classroom, it's really not easy to teach. In view of such a situation, I think that a course in pedagogics would be of use to any teacher-to-be, for teaching also involves ' upbringing'. A teacher helps a young person to grow into a balanced and independent adult .
But not only students of philology who want a future in education need practical skills. Those who go for journalism or economics could use these skills as well. Most graduates of philology have never studied any economics in their whole lives, whereas they really should have a notion of it if they want to work in a company .
Seeing that students of philology go different ways after their education, I suggest the following adjustments of the university educational system. During the last year of any philological training, optional courses should be provided in education, journalism, economics, ... . Each student should decide for himself what his future plans are and select a course in accordance with those plans. Pedagogics, business economics, social skills, statistics and technical jargon should be some of the optional courses. In my view, it's extremely important that those courses should focus on practice. They should enable students to put their bookish theory into practice and to specialize in those things they will really need in their future jobs .
That way, university degrees will stand for high theoretical ànd practical knowledge .
Apparently universities are willing to do something about it. They want to introduce an extra teacher training year after philological trainings. But unfortunately the Minister of Education Luc Van den Bossche doesn't agree to this proposal. He is prepared to contribute his mite though, by offering the universities extra subsidy. It's a step in the right direction, but there is more to be done .
Comparing a university education with a secondary teacher training, lower level, you'll see a world of difference. Yet, students from university as well as from teachers' training college end up in the same boat when they choose for education! The difference: secondary teachers lower level are competent at writing on the blackboard, oral expression, preparing a lesson, ... . Moreover, they know everything about the educational system, which can't be said about university students .
In fine, universities could learn a lot from teachers' training colleges as far as the practical aspect is concerned. I think it would be a good thing to bring about a mixture of both types. As a consequence, some university studies might last a year longer, but that's the price we'll have to pay for a university degree with real value!
|
100_DBAN3073.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
B2+
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?
In our age we are used to it that everything is done for us, instead of by us. For everything we have some kind of machine, or we have someone else do it for us. It seems people have lost their imagination, their ingenuity. Is this really so ?
Art, for instance, is a skill for which imagination is a central necessity. There are still lots of people going to art schools or performing some art or another. A lot of resourcefulness is definately required, because after 2000 years of civilisation it is very hard to be original, to become a bright star in the over-crowded sky. It's not only harder now than in former days , but also different, because the medium of art has changed ; not yet a century ago, people used to sit down and consume lots of poetry and prose, and now books are more or less replaced by television and movies, and in the near future we'll have interactive television and visual reality. A change of medium also requires a change in thinking. To make television programs, or to direct a movie involves a complete new kind of ingenuity. Because of new technologies, people are forced to invent new forms of art, they have to adapt. industrialisation gives new forms of imagination .
Industrialisation and resourcefulness also go together the other way around : without the dreams of some strange inventors, very handy discoveries would probably not have been made... Nowadays we can travel easily from one continent to another, but this wouldn't have been true if two brothers hadn't dreamed about flying like a bird in the sky. We wouldn't even have known America if in the 15th century someone didn't have a crazy idea to sail in another direction than usually! It is true that nowadays it seems that for every question there is a computer to answer it, and for every default a machine to fix it, but there are still far more unsolvable problems than ways to solve them. People will always search and search, and sometimes great discoveries will be made by pure scientific means only, but, there will always be dreaming inventors that from time to time find something very useful also .
We hear people complain that today's children don't know what imagination is anymore, because everything is ready-made . " In former days children only got a box of building blocks, and they were able to make whole cities out of it, but then came Lego, which made it easier, and now you can buy complete prebuilt toy houses and cars", older people say. Is this true ? Yes, it is. Does it mean that children's imagination is not stimulated anymore ? No, it doesn't. Children simply use their ingenuity in other fields. Instead of thinking about how to build a house, they will invent stories of people living in the houses. Give a six-year-old a game to play on the computer, and he will find out how to play it faster than any adult. Children's creativity and skill are not gone, they have simply shifted to another field .
Today's world is ruled by technology, science and industry. Sometimes it seems these let no room for dreams and imagination, but if you look closer, these important parts of human life are still there, only in another form than before the age of television and computers .
|
101_FIAB1005.txt
|
en
|
icle500
|
document-level
|
learner
|
C2
|
CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)
|
Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good
The feminist movement, the one we know today, began sometime in the 1960s, with women demanding their rights to jobs, political power, abortion and over all, the right to decide for themselves. They wanted to take women "out of the kitchens and nurseries", to the fields of life where they could make an impact. The feminists were regarded with suspicion by the general public, and disliked for their pushy way of doing things (demonstrations etc.) They were "not feminine", but still made themselves known as the feminists .
The feminists began a wave of sexual liberation and gave women a different status in society. What good there came out of it was that women lended their skills, talents, and intelligence to a world that much needed it, and the picture of women being stupid and uncapable of thinking was removed quite successfully. But on the way, lots of things were done wrongly. The view of the feminists as being slightly masculine, wearing trousers and heavy boots, changed radically in the eighties. Madonna and Cher came along as representatives for the "new" feminism - mini skirts and net stockings were the new power tools for these daring and outspoken women that no one stepped on who would not ruefully regret it later. The new prototype was that of an independent woman with her own career, with (or preferable without) children, with lots of affairs, (AIDS changed the trend in the mid-eighties) with lots of money and with lots of "go" in her. And of course she had to be stunningly beautiful and sexy, using all her wiles to get what she wanted, balancing successfully upon her black stiletto heels. This is largely the picture that has remained until this day .
I really believe feminism has done more wrong than good to the women in our society. Equality is a good thing, as far as one can take it without intruding on the identity of the men. Women have had, and still have, a tremendous workload that can seem really unfair at times, and the men clearly need to realise that their help is needed in household chores, in raising the children etc. What I feel has gone wrong is that the "new territory" we have gained has left some of us worse off than before. Lots of unhappy children have left in the wake of working parents, lots of men have left their homes when they felt no longer needed, and many women have suffered stress and burn-outs without understanding why. Another thing I think is wrong is that the feminists have wanted to make feminists out of every woman. Those who chose not to work, chose to be home with the children, were regarded with contempt. Housewives are "suppressed", "slaves to the men", "have no will of their own". Though one of the aims of feminism seems to be "liberation of the true self" everyone had to be liberated the same way, otherwise it was not acceptable .
Feminism has gone too far. The extremists use abortion as a contraceptive as acceptable as the Pill, and concepts of what is right and wrong is blurred by the vision of self-realisation at any cost. The new feminists are in many cases traitors of "true" feminism. The way to gain respect and equality is seldom to step on someone else, in this case the men and anyone else opposing the cause. That is, in my opinion, feminism today, and I am not exactly proud of it .
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.