Task 2 Essay Sample: Education

Some people think that universities should not provide so much theoretical knowledge but give more practical training throughout their courses. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

In the past, a majority of academics have held the opinion that universities should only offer a theoretically-based approach to teaching throughout their courses, as opposed to the more recent trend towards empirical acquisition of knowledge involving more “hands on” experience. Is this the most effective way for students to learn vital academic information while undertaking their degrees? Undoubtedly, advantages and disadvantages of both academic learning styles have to be evaluated.

Firstly, on the one hand, despite being the more traditional educational approach, learning from theory in relevant academic discourses to identify established knowledge allows us to gain a professional insight. For example, students can easily identify facts and opinions from past discourses. In addition, students acquire knowledge more easily when given relative theoretical examples to build upon. For instance, in subjects such as history or sociology, studying textbook examples allows students to unravel complex academic theories which they could expand on. Alternatively, there are some disadvantages for students.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that students could find themselves reading tedious and monotonous academic papers. For instance, university degrees involving the evaluation of numerous ‘long-winded’ academic discourses provide little inspiration for students, discouraging enthusiasm. Obviously, interest can be stimulated through empirical research in class. By this I mean that ‘the human brain learns best by doing’. Although time-consuming, there is no substitute for learning from making mistakes.

 In conclusion, while both approaches have benefits and drawbacks in our ever-changing academic world, I honestly believe that a more practical approach promotes a stronger acquisition of academic knowledge. In spite of the comprehensive nature which theoretical teaching can p

In many countries, sports and exercise classes are replaced with the academic subjects. Discuss the effects of this trend.

Over the past few decades, academic subjects have become increasingly important in this fast-changing information-based society. Nowadays, there has been a growing debate as to whether it would be more effective to replace physical education classes with academic subjects. Despite the importance of sports, I highly believe that it is inevitable and more efficient to focus more on academic subjects for several reasons.

Those who argue that sports and exercise classes are needed in school base their case on the following arguments. First of all, sports are a good way to build character and develop personality. That is, there are necessary for learning about competition, cooperation, and good sportsmanship. In addition, as a majority of children these days are addicted to the Internet, they find it hard to leave their computer.

Consequently, a growing number of children are becoming overweight or obese due to a lack of exercise. So, if schools foster an environment that deprives students of getting a proper physical education, it will have a long-term negative effect on children both mentally and physically. Nevertheless, people should not ignore the fact that devoting more time and energy to academic subjects will benefit students more in the long run. The time devoted to physical education now would be better spent teaching students English. This is because speaking fluent English will give young people an advantage over other college applicants and job seekers in the near future. Besides, science will undoubtedly benefit youth more than physical education as well. The principles learned in science will provide the necessary foundation for solving and difficult problems that are sure to arise in students’ futures.

In summary, there are high hopes that educators and parents exercise wisdom in teaching young generations.

With the pressures on today’s young people to succeed academically, some people believe that non-academic subjects at school (eg: physical education and cookery) should be removed from the syllabus so that children can concentrate wholly on academic subjects. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

What young people should study at school has long been the subject of intense debate and this is a question that certainly does not have one correct answer.

We need to provide young people the best possible chance of doing well at school. In traditional curriculum there is a wide variety of subjects with a mix of academic and nonacademic subjects. In this way a young person is formed with a rounded education. Nonacademic subjects would include sports, cooking, woodwork and metalwork. I believe this is the best form of education. A young person should learn things other than academic subjects. Sport is particularly important. Young people have to learn to love sport so that they can be fit and healthy later in life. If not we will be raising an obese and unfit generation.

I totally understand the point of view that education is so important that students must be pushed as hard as possible to achieve their best. It sounds a good idea to only expose the students to academic subjects as then they can spend all of their school hours on studying areas that will get them into university and good jobs later in life. I just feel a more rounded education would produce a better individual. We must remember too that a lot of people, maybe even most people, aren‛t academically minded and would benefit more from a more vocationally based education. Forcing academic studies onto them would lead to failure and the student leaving school too early.

Therefore I agree that although a wholly academic curriculum would suit and benefit some young people, I believe that for most students non-academic subjects are important inclusions still in today‛s syllabuses

People attend college or university for many defferent reasons (for example, new experiences, career preparation, increased knowledge). Why do you think people attend college or university?

People attend college for a lot of different reasons. I believe that the three most common reasons are to prepare for a career, to have new experiences, and to increase their knowledge of themselves and of the world around them.

Career preparation is probably the primary reason that people attend college. These days, the job market is very competitive. Careers such as information technology will need many new workers in the near future. At college, students can learn new skills for these careers and increase their opportunities for the future. Students also go to college to have new experiences.

For many, it is their first time away from home. At college, they can meet new people from many different places. They can see what life is like in a different city. They can learn to live on their own and take care of themselves without having their family always nearby. college, students have the opportunity to increase their knowledge. As they decide what they want to study, pursue their studies, and interact with their classmates, they learn a lot about themselves. They also, of course, have the opportunity to learn about many subjects in their classes. In addition to the skills and knowledge related to their career, college students also have the chance to take classes in other areas.

For many, this will be their last chance to study different subjects. Colleges offer much more than career preparation. They offer the opportunity to have new experiences and to learn many kinds of things. I think all of these are reasons why people attend college.

Some people believe that a college or university education should be available to all students. Others believe that higher education should be available only to good students. Discuss these views. Which view do you agree with? Explain why.

People learn through their entire lives. They constantly improve their knowledge and develop. I think that a college or university education should be available to all students because every person has the right to choose the way to self-perfection. Bellow I will give some of my reasons to support my position.

First of all, every person should have the chance to get a higher degree, gain new knowledge and experience. However, some people believe that higher education should be available only to good students. I think it is silly. It is like to make unavailable traveling for one who does not have IQ high enough.

Second of all, some young people do not do well at school but they have great personality and ability to learn. They are self-confident, persistent and patient. With these qualities they can get higher grades then their classmates who are talented but lazy. Imagine for example situation when a teenager gets high grades because his or her parents constantly make him or her study and help to do most of the homework. In this case a child does very well at school but I think a college can show the opposite results.

Finally, it is a discrimination against students to make available higher education only for good ones. So, if a student does poor and gets low grades he/she should be sent down. But if a person was never given a chance to try himself/herself at college, what to do in this case?

To sum up, I think that all young people should have the chance to get a higher education. To take or not this chance must be up to them.

As computers are being used more and more in education, there will be soon no role for teachers in the classroom.

There have been immense advances in technology in most aspects of people’s lives, especially in the field of education. Nowadays, an increasing number of students rely on computers to research for information and to produce a perfect paper for school purposes. Others have decided to leave the original way of learning to get knowledge through online schools. These changes in the learning process have brought a special concern regarding the possible decrease of importance of teachers in the classroom.

Some people believe the role of teachers started to fade because computers have been helping some students to progress in their studies quicker than when compared with an original classroom. For example, in the same classroom, students have different intellectual capacities, thus some would be tied to a slow advance in their studies because of others’ incapacity of understanding. In this way, pupils could progress in their acquisition of knowledge at their own pace using computers instead of learning from teachers.

However, the presence of a teacher is essential for students because the human contact influences them in positive ways. Firstly, students realize that they are not dealing with a machine but with a human being who deserves attention and respect. They also learn the importance of studying in group and respect other students, which helps them to improve their social skills. Moreover, teachers are required in the learning process because they acknowledge some student’s deficiencies and help them to solve their problems by repeating the same explanation, giving extra exercises or even suggesting a private tutor.

Hence, students can have a bigger chance not to fail in a subject. In conclusion, the role for teachers in the learning process is still very important and it will continue to be in the future because no machine can replace the human interaction and its consequences

Children are facing more pressures nowadays from academic, social and commercial perspectives. What are the causes?

It is commonly said that today’s children are pressurized as were yesterday’s adults. That’s true in the sense that children are facing harder and harder academic, social and commercial challenges. It is happening simply because of the ever increasing demands of life, from the same perspectives, on humans in general. While it is important that children excel in their age to become successful as adults, they must be shielded from the mounting pressure by maintaining a balance between material and psychological growth.

As the global village becomes more and more competitive everyday, it becomes important for us to prepare for the fight, so to speak, earlier and earlier. This is realized by all, which triggers societies to push their juveniles during their learning stage. The other thing that is contributing to this ever rising pressure on children is the lack institutional opportunities, especially in developing countries. Now, more than ever, children are having to race each other for reaching the privilege of higher education.

While healthy competition is helpful for the psycho-social development of young ones, it is rather unhealthy when the race becomes more prominent than the objective. Of course the objective of children competing against each other ideally is brining the best out of themselves. But, very frequently, a child is compelled to compete for becoming better than the other. In other words, the competition becomes a brawl rather than being a sprint.

To stop such spiteful struggle among our young, we must first establish a sense of camaraderie within all our developmental institutions, such as schools and colleges. Students must contest for academic betterment, not social supremacy. Also, parents should get proactively involved in promoting sportsmanship among learners. They must not allow vile aggressiveness and their own vengefulness in the lives of their children. To sustain such social reformation the government must establish ample alternatives to the traditional route to success.

The conclusion here is simple. The children today are being put into a ‘survival-of-thefittest’ situation much earlier than they must be when they should really be trying to do their best. Such untimely loss of innocence is only going to make civilization more antagonistic. Therefore we must ensure that personal development may be ushered in harmony and not in vile rivalry.

It is better for college students to live far away from home than live at home with their parents. Do you agree or disagree?

It is widely believed that an increasing number of university students have to live separately from their parents. This essay is claimed to support the idea that it would be beneficial for students, as below analysis of its experience enhancement and independence upgrade will be brought out.

To begin with, living independently at a new place provides students experience which helps people more mature, especially for teenagers. This is because youngsters are able to get access multi-cultural environments to learn new lessons in order to enlarge a profound knowledge about the society. Obviously, this happens only when the students commute to a far-off destination. For example, living with other friends in new place certainly provides/ teachers students how to learn and respect the differences between each other, which would never arise in own homes. Apart from that, making new friends gives people a chance to widen their social relationships, being necessary for the foreseeable employment and cooperation opportunities.

Looking from another angle, thanks to a deep understanding about life, children would take much more responsibility for their own lives. Firstly, they will no longer depend on parents as they used to, due to the fact that they have to manage all their routine tasks themselves without any favours, such as washing, cooking and cleaning performance. Secondly, if they are able to perform their tasks effectively, the students’ ability to make decisions about significant issues will be utilized easily in the future, even coming up with initiative ideas.

In conclusion, the students should be given a chance to grow up wisely by studying in distant schools as an environment for development and maturity. However, they should spend sometimes to come back visiting their parents as showing respects and gratitude to their ancestors.

It is neither possible nor useful for a country to provide university places for a high proportion of young people. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The belief that high national education should restrict their number of young students has currently been the subject of increasing concern. Many believe that this would provide an extreme well-qualified population, others find a great deal of unfairness stemming from the suggestion. From my perspective, I am wholly in favor of the former for a number of specific rationales.

On the one hand, welcoming huge quantities of youngsters to universities can grant diverse opportunities for the society. Indeed, unlucky students who failed to achieve the entrance test or poor undergraduates who can barely afford the tuition fees all long for such generosity and acceptance from reputed colleges. Moreover, supporters of this idea claim that universities’ widely opening to the public could solve the problem of unemployment in the country. For example, if degrees are made popular, people will students will not fall behind their study when studying with same-sex students entering big companies and earning a better living, hopefully leading to a prosperous national economy. Therefore, more and more advocates are likely to fight for their rights to attend schools.

Conversely, I would strongly argue that the more young students get acceptances to universities, the less qualified employees are produced. Firstly, society will soon be packed with inexperience and incapable workers if the rate of admission is immensely high. As a matter of fact, quality beats quantities in this case, no corporation would want to hire lots of employees just to sit there and become completely impotent in front of different matters, deals and struggles. This just proves how pivotal is the role of classification play a pivotal role in education. Secondly, attracting a huge number of the youth to universities would increase the facility and other sectors cost. Evidently, when more undergraduates come and study, schools must be built bigger, tremendous budget will be spent on tables as well as chairs and teaching equipment.

To conclude, while allowing a high proportion of young people to universities may appear to be superficially attractive and efficient, thorough consideration on the matter in terms of benefits and values would prove the judiciousness when choosing quantity limitations.

The student who study from the school to university get benefit less and contribute less too, than those of student who go to travel or job and get skills and experience before going high. Do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, in our competitive world, to succeed, knowledge from school and university is not enough. Therefore, the student who study from the school to university get benefit less and contribute less too, than those of student who go to travel or job and get experience and skills before going high. There are two following reasons to prove for my opinion. I call the group of people who study from school to university is group A and the other group is group B.

Firstly, at school and university, what group A gain is almost theory, theory and theory. Of course, theory is very neccessary, however, you can’t do everything with theory. You must have praticeable experience. This is what group A lack very much. Although in the third of forth year at university, group A can be apprentices in some companies, to help them approach their future jobs, they aren’t trained well because of short time. And the real job is still very strange with them. After graduating, without experience, group A can’t accomplish their work perfectly.

On the other hand, it take them time and money to keep up with other experienced ones and may be scorned. Therefore, group A can contribute less than group B who have the most two important things: skills and experience. Secondly, as group A is contribute less, they surely get less benefit. Moreover, many companies which employ people in group A have to train them from the back-ground. These companies take this cost from group A’s salary to get rid of the fact that their employees may leave after being trained to other companies. So, less benefit is unavoidable and certain, Whereas group B are more loyal and effective workers. They also have useful experience and skills. Besides, their education is the same as or even higher than group A. As the result, group B get more benefit absolutely.

In conclusion, I think student should go to travel or job before going high. Therefore, they can’t only have basic knowledge but also skills and experience which are useful for them to get a good job and a brilliant future.

Some students prefer to take a year off between school and university, to work or travel. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

Some school leavers hold the belief that it is beneficial for them to have a year off to travel or work before enrolling in university. Although this trend has both merits and downsides, I would argue that the advantages of this trend are outweighed by the disadvantages.

On the one hand, students received some advantages/ benefits in some aspects during their gap year. Firstly, they could get vital experience to develop working manner. It is necessary for them to apply for part-time jobs which they could work to earn money covering the daily expense as well as support their study at university. Secondly, traveling during a year off is not only help them relax after a year of studying intensively but also improve and enhance their knowledge such as culture and society in other countries. For example, students in the USA and the western countries usually spend a year teaching English for children in some the Asian countries including Viet Nam during their traveling. This is a win-win benefit for both students and local people, in which students would know more about other deep culture and locals could develop additionally a language.

On the other hand, I believe that the drawbacks are more significant than such benefits. The first reason is that student would spend an excessive amount of time on traveling which discourages them from studying causing a negative attitude towards learning later on. Thus, they could not keep up with your studies compared to peers. As a result, they might be less motivated to study further. Another reason is that their temporary work may help them earn much money in the short time. This could lead to a negative influence on their studies because students think that they do not study at a university to make money.

In conclusion, despite several obvious advantages of traveling or working in a gap year, I believe that these are outweighed the disadvantages and students should take this option into consideration before making a decision.

Many young people who leave school hold a negative attitude towards learning. Why does this happen? What are the solutions?

It is true that there is a negative opinion on learning among a majority of young people who drop out of/ graduate from school.

There are numerous reasons behind this phenomenon and measures must be implemented mitigate the consequences. It is reasonable for young people who leave school to dislike learning. The primary cause is schools have failed to enlighten and instill pupils in the true meaning of learning, which is to access the world of knowledge and to become a useful citizen/ individual of society. Instead, this education system only focuses on an exam-driven curriculum, and students are put under pressure of getting high scores. Consequently, they will be discouraged and exhausted after studying intensely, and eventually against learning. In this case, the young have made a reasonable decision to abandon their schools as this form of education does not help learners to acquire knowledge and even cause a negative phenomenon such as cheating to score high marks.

For the reason above, solutions must be taken to address the problem. The top priority is schools have to eliminate score-driven curriculum. Firstly, rather than evaluate/ assess the ability of students through their exam results, teachers should recognize their progress in study. In this way, learners will not have any pressure of scoring high grades, thus, be motivated to achieve knowledge. Secondly, the educational programs also need to be changed/ tailored as what is taught now is mainly about how to get the best scores in exam such as mechanical formulas in Math. Visual aids such as video clips should be added in order to make the lessons more interesting and understandable.

To conclude, that a lot of school leavers are against learning results mainly from the failure of the education system, and several solutions can be implemented to address/ combat the issue.

In some countries, young people are encouraged to work or travel for a year between finishing high school and starting university studies. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages for young people who decide to do this. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

In recent years, it is preferred that student should take a year off from studies to work or travel after completing high school and prior to joining universities and during this period, they tend to work or to travel. Even though this seems to be a noble concept, it still has its own merits and demerits.

On the one hand, taking a year off from studies have plentiful benefits. On the personal level, not only can students travel away far from home to develop their personalities such as independence, self-confidence, and communication, but they also see the world firsthand and enrich their knowledge. On the cultural levels, travelling in this period, it would be easy for young people to experience different customs and cultures like sight-seeing, visiting monuments and tasting new cuisine. Professionally, students can discover their ability, and get a taste of diverse workplaces, which might inspire a possible career interest. In this way, they can also learn best practices from developed countries and successful people to shorten their journey to prosperity.

On the other hand, there are also risks entailed on taking a long break. Academically, the main drawback is that students can get sidetracked from their studies. A year is a long time which discourages students from returning to school due to challenges to continue studying in university. Specifically, Students can lose the good study habits and sense of discipline they had when they were in a formal academic structure. Furthermore, if they begin working, students can be deluded into thinking that they are making an amount of money without studying university, they could lose the benefit of university education and the chance to earn a higher income all their lives.

In conclusion, taking a year-long break or not is an individual decision. Each young people should consider their goals in life carefully and decide on what is the most desirable.

Model 2

It is true that many people prefer to pursue academic studies at universities rather than follow vocational courses. While there are good reasons for this trend, I agree this that we should encourage more people to be qualified as skillful electricians, plumbers or other essential manual workers.

On the one hand, it is reasonable for people to be skeptical of attending trade schools and choose to take academic study instead. It is indisputable fact that vocational training does not offer much flexibility as the work choices are limited. For example, if a person is specially trained to be an electrician, there is little chance for him to switch over to be a plumber. However, a university degree can offer graduates with a wide range of job opportunities. As to say, a graduate of economics can apply for several jobs from accountant to statistician.

On the other hand, there are two important reasons why more workers must be trained in skilled professions such as plumbing or electrical work. Firstly, such workers are vital when new buildings are constructed or when existing buildings have to be renovated or simply maintained. Indeed, in many countries, a permanent maintenance staff of skilled profession is employed in hospitals, schools or museums, ensures the safety of all who use the buildings. Secondly, in some developed countries, there is an imbalance in the economy, resulting in graduate unemployment, while at the same time there is a shortage of skilled manual workers. Therefore, governments in those countries need to ensure extra vocational training provided.

To conclude, despite some drawbacks of taking vocational training courses, people should be encouraged to get a vocational qualification.

Model 3

It is quite common these days for young people in many countries to have a break from studying after graduating from high school. This trend is not restricted to rich students who have the money to travel, but is also evident among poorer students who choose to work and become economically independent for a period of time.

The reasons for this trend may involve the recognition that a young adult who passes directly from school to university is rather restricted in terms of general knowledge and experience of the world. By contrast, those who have spent some time earning a living or traveling to other places have a broader view of life and better personal resources to draw on. They tend to be more independent, which is a very important factor in academic study and research, as well as giving them an advantage in terms of coping with the challenges of student life.

However, there are certainly dangers in taking time off at that important age. Young adults may end up never returning to their studies or finding it difficult to readapt to an academic environment. They may think that it is better to continue in a particular job, or to do something completely different from a university course. But overall, I think this is less likely today, when academic qualifications are essential for getting a reasonable career.

My view is that young people should be encouraged to broaden their horizons. That is the best way for them to get a clear perspective of what they are hoping to do with their lives 3 and why. Students with such a perspective are usually the most effective and motivated ones and taking a year off may be the best way to gain this.

Model 4

High school students face many decisions as they prepare to graduate, including what they are going to do after graduation. Some high school students go directly to college or university after graduation. Others prefer to travel or work for some time before going to university. For those who choose to go college or university after graduation, there are advantages and disadvantages.

One of the big advantages of going directly from high school to college is that you are still in the habit of studying. By going to college after graduation, you do not lose the study skills that you developed during high school. The big disadvantages, however, is that you may not be ready for college. You may not know exactly what you want to study, or you may be more interested in freedom and parties than in your courses. At that age, it is often difficult for students to take on the responsibilities of college.

There are also advantages and disadvantages to working or traveling befor starting college. Working or traveling allows you a better idea of what you want to do with your life. You gain practical experience that helps you define what you want to study. You also are well prepared for the responsibilities of college or university studies. On the other hand, by the time you start college, you will probably have obligations, like a job or spouse, which keep you from focusing on studies. In addition, travelling or working before college may cause you to spend enough time out of school that you forget how to study. The desicion of what to do after hich school graduation can be a difficult one.

Deciding whether to go straight into college or university or take time to work or travel is something that faces every high school student. After thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of both options, the decision should be based on what is best for you.

In some countries, parents expect their children to spend a long time studying both in and after school and have less free time. What are the positive and negative effects on children and society they live in?

Nowadays, the learning of children receives many concerns from people all over the world. It is generally said that some parents want their kids to study more and restrict time for other activities. This idea brings both advantages and disadvantages for not only children but also society they are living.

 It is beneficial for both children and society if students have more time to study than entertain. Indeed, studying hard helps the young gain/ acquire more academic knowledge and skills, which makes them become better and professional. For example, a kid will be good at mathematics if he spends hours in practicing calculating, solving math exercise, or learning mathematical theorems. Moreover, a society having numerous hard-working students receives many advantages. For instance, talents from school in different fields will help to develop a good society. Besides, high growth rate of the educational level means that there will have fewer criminals, therefore, society is getting to be peaceful.

On the other hand, studying too much/ spending time learning excessively brings negative effects to not only children but also society. It is proved that children cannot have comprehensive development if they spend the majority of time on learning. As a result, kids may lack some factors such as physical strength, friendships, social activities and so on. Furthermore, society will lack talent in other fields apart from academic one such as entertainment aspect. Take famous soccer Ronaldo for example, if he did not leave school in early age to pursue his passion for football, the world could lose a talent like him.

In conclusion, studying plays an imperative role to children. However, parents should consider carefully before requiring children to spend more time studying instead of taking part in entertaining as it has both advantages and drawbacks for kids and society

Some people think that introducing new technology can improve people’s quality of life in developing countries. However, others believe that free education should be offered. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

A controversial problem nowadays in developing countries is whether new technology should be implemented to improve the standard of living or to provide government sponsorship for education to all citizens. From my own perspective, technology innovation would bring some benefits for society but I believe that education is the best way to develop the country in the long run.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that technology offers several advantages to human lives. First and foremost, new technology assists humans to solve their work faster and more easily, thus saving their time and effort. Moreover, thanks to robots and modern machines, companies can manufacture a large number of products of diverse types and colors. This contributes to the productivity of industry as well as increasing the gross domestic products of the country.

On the other hand, it seems to me that education should be a government’s priority and they should offer free education for all students. The primary reason is that poor children will have the opportunity to go to a school where they are trained to become well-educated people with bright future ahead. This not only solves personal problems but also bridges the gap between the rich and the poor. In addition, when students can find jobs on their own, the society is more likely to be safer due to the fall of the crime rate. Furthermore, some occupations which play a significant role in country development such as doctors, researchers or engineers require good major knowledge which only education can bring. Finally, today, we live in a modernized era, so people who are trained skillfully can catch up with and utilize new technology effectively.

In conclusion, while some people think technological development can improve the quality of lives, I am convinced that it is important to concentrate on education and make it accessible to all students without any charge.

Disruptive school students have a negative influence on others. Students who a noisy and disobedient should be grouped together and taught separately. Do you agree or disagree?

Model 1

There is no doubt that some students in schools behave badly and their behaviour causes difficulty for others either because it has a negative effect on the group or because ordinary students find it difficult to study with them.

One solution is to take these students away and teach them on their own. However, if we simply have them removed after one or two warnings, we are limiting their educational opportunities because it seems to me that a school which caters for difficult students is a sort of “prison” whatever name you give it and the people who go there may never recover from the experience. This can then cause problems for the wider society.

Perhaps we need to look at why the disruptive students behave badly before we separate them. Disruptive students may be very intelligent and find the classes boring because the work is too easy. Perhaps these students need extra lessons rather than separate lessons. Or perhaps the teachers are uninspiring and this results in behavioural problems so we need better teachers. On the other hand, most students put up with this situation rather than cause trouble, and some people argue that we have to learn to suffer bad teachers and boring situations and that students who can’t learn this lesson need to be taught separately.

So before we condemn the students to a special school, we should look at factors such as the teaching, because once the children have been separated, it is very unlikely that they will be brought back.

Model 2

There is no doubt that pupils with destroyed behaviors cause bad effects on others. The idea that, putting these students together is an effective way to create a favorable learning environment. However, I completely disagree with this point of view.

On the one hand, misbehaving children may pick up the right manners from other good students in the class, especially when they are encouraged to work or do activities in the mixed student’s groups. Separating these children from other students will demotivate and will not give the educational opportunities to change their behaviors. Moreover, forming groups and teaching separately may cause the feeling of the disparity among students resulting in their unhealthy and undesirable thoughts and attitudes.

On the other hand, we need to deeply understand why the disruptive students behave badly to suggest the appropriate solutions before grouping them. They might be very smart and find their classes or lessons boring. Or perhaps the teachers are uninspiring resulting in behavioral problems. Hence, pupils need extra lessons or the experienced teachers. Besides, these children might lose the cozy family, lack love, and care because their parents engross in the business or their parents’ marriage might not be working out well, or could be in a divorce stage. In this situations, pupils need the sharing and helping of psychologists, classmates, and society rather than separating them.

In conclusion, splitting into the different groups and teaching separately may not be the right solution to the problem. Disruptive students should be dealt with love and sharing and care during the process of education.

Many people argue that in order to improve educational quality continuously, students are encouraged to make comments or even criticism on teachers. Other think the respect and discipline in the classroom will disappear. Which opinion do you prefer?

In today’s world, the obscure in schools is improved. Therefore, some people are the advocates of that feedbacks and criticisms on teachers should be given by students, whereas there is a school of thought that this action could bread the lack of respect and regulation in education. From my point of view, I am totally/absolutely convinced (by whole a heart) by the former group because of following reasons.

In terms of teachers, there would be a plenty of benefits for them if students give feedbacks. A primary advantage could be that teachers may recognize the shortcomings of their lectures. Consequently, they would seek a suitable way to enhance the quality of their pedagogical skills. Because of this, the quality of curriculum and performance of lecturers could be improved. In addition, via the criticisms of learners, teachers have the ability to exert an attraction of their lectures. And the interaction between lecturers and learners could facilitate the excitement. In other words, students may pay more attention to lessons if they have a chance to present their individual opinions. As a result, the quality of lectures is promoted effectively.

From student’s perspective, it is useful and meaningful for students to make assessments of teaching methods and attitudes of teachers. An explanation of this is that students have opportunities to assimilate knowledge easily. Through discussions about teaching methods with their teachers, students may be explained by a method being suitable for their acquisition level. As a consequence, they may spend a short time on acquiring knowledge because of aforementioned advantage. Besides, making assessments of teachers can assist in boosting the creativity of students. Because of being allowed to give feedbacks, students would have a face to face conversations with their teachers.

Through these conversations, the arguing ability of students to protect their personal schools of thought is improved. In conclusion, I am strong of opinion that it is worth for students giving assessments for their teachers because this is a positive inclination in modern societies.

Some people think it would be a good idea for schools to teach every young person how to be a good parent. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion? Describe the skills a person needs to be a good parent. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Many people argued that youngsters will get the benefits if they are taught how to become a desired father or mother at schools. I agree with this view for various reasons and suggest some characters that good parents should have.

To begin with, there are a variety of reasons why I believe young people should attend parenting classes at schools. Firstly, it is scientifically proven that parents play a vitally important part in shaping their offspring’ characters later. In other words, good parents will usually build good children. As a result, it will be extremely useful when they enter into the marital life. Secondly, through these classes, children begin to understand deeply how parents have sacrificed for them. Therefore, they will definitely strengthen their parental bond and become more responsible in the family.

In order to become competent parents, some following characters should be considered to learn. Love and affection may be the most important quality for the parents. Loving parents always choose to respect, encourage and nurture their children rather than judge and blame them. They constantly show their love and affection, both verbally and through their behaviors. For example, when their children make an achievement they will quickly offer a praise. Furthermore, being a positive role model for appropriate behavior is more effective than being specific disciplinary measures in raising their children. Children tend to learn through observation and often imitate the behaviors of their parents. Therefore, ideal parents should develop some traits such as kindness, compassion, honesty, tolerance, patience.

In conclusion, it seems to me that youngsters should learn parenting lessons at schools. And some valuable characters in the parents need to have.

Many students find it difficult to concentrate or pay attention at school. What are the reasons? What could be done?

It is challenging for many learners to stay focus in class. This problem can be explained by some reasons and several solutions are proposed to attract the attention of students at school. There are two main reasons why students lose concentration while attending lectures.

One reason is that the lecture talk is not comprehensive and interesting enough to engross the listeners. In another word, the quality of speeches plays a vital role in determining the success of academic sections. For example, if professors only deliver lessons in a theoretical way without giving examples or engaging students to actively give ideas, students will find the lectures tedious. As a result, it will be undoubtedly difficult to engage all learners to participate in class. Another reason is that some disobedient students affect the quality of the lectures by distracting others’ attention with inappropriate behaviours such as making noise or telling jokes during class.

Given the above reasons, measures should be taken to improve learners’ focus at school. Firstly, professors should spend time and effort to enhance the quality of lectures so that they will appeal to learners. By giving more up-to-date practical knowledge and providing more interaction in class, the teachers will obviously draw the attention of all participants to actively join their sessions. For instance, in developed countries such as America or Australia where education meets the high standard, the concentration of learners is not a big issue compared to Asian countries as all lectures are conducted in an exhilarating way with both theories and practical examples. Secondly, teachers should impose disciplines on disobeyed students. Laid-back professors easily make learners distracted from class. By putting enough pressure on pupils, the rating of focus will undeniably improve across all sections.

In conclusion, the problem of students losing concentration at school can be tackled by addressing the root causes with proper solutions.

Teachers used to convey information, but now with wide resources of information, some people think that there is no role for teachers to play in modern education, others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that with a wide variety of information resources available, teachers’ role is eliminated in modern education. While I understand that students nowadays can resort to a diverse range of learning methods, I believe that teachers still play an important part in students’ road to knowledge.

On the one hand, there are a number of reasons to argue/claim that teachers’ role is currently mitigated in students’ learning process. One of the primary causes is that the explosion of information technology has offered learners new ways of education. By learning from different educational websites, applications, and online courses, students are increasingly reducing their reliance on teachers and traditional classrooms. Furthermore, in terms of traditional education, with a considerable number of paper books having been published in recent years, there is an abundance of learning materials for students. This results in a lot of individuals opting for self – learning as well as other trendy educational methods such as homeschooling and non-academic pathways/vocational courses.

On the other hand, I would argue that teachers still take the lead in students’ educational pursuit in various ways. Firstly, in the matrix of information being produced, it is likely that students who are not equipped with information searching and selection skills will be confused. In such cases, the teacher would play the role of an instructor and guide to help students in acquiring relevant knowledge. Secondly, with numerous methods of learning, teachers can utilize diverse online tools to transfer their knowledge and skills to their targeted learners. A good example is massive open online courses, in which teachers digitalize their syllabuses and publish them on the internet in order to provide distance learning for students of all ages and classes. Finally, encouragement and guidance from educators are always crucial in learners’ studying process. Therefore, instead of merely conveying information to students, teachers in the modern world are helping to improve students’ academic achievements more creatively.

In conclusion, while it is true that students no longer depend on their teachers as before, this is by no means the termination of teachers’ responsibility in modern education.

In some countries, more parents are educating their children at home instead of sending them to school. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

It is true that home-schooling has gained enormous popularity among parents. Although several benefits of this tendency could be seen, I would argue that these advantages are eclipsed by considerable drawbacks.

On the one hand, home study presents inevitable merits for children. First of all, they are entitled to a full parental support in terms of mental and physical development. It is due to the fact that young individuals, who stay at home with their parents, are of the healthy living environment which could be seen as an excellent setting for the formation of their characteristics and knowledge at their early ages. Secondly, home is a safer place to avoid unpredictable incidents, car accidents while travelling back and forth every day or school bullying for instance. As a matter of fact, school bullying is a serious problem in many countries whose victims might (have to) suffer from mental illnesses such as constant depression or even autism.

On the other hand, I believe that the aforementioned positive influences could be outweighed by the following demerits. To start with, since children only stay at home with their parents, the lack of chances to communicate with friends and teachers eventually leads to the deterioration in social interaction. As a result, it highly limits not only their social life but also their communication and interpersonal skills which could hinder their future career paths. More importantly, parents are not well-trained specialists in educating children compared to teachers and other staff who have thorough insights into every stage of human learning.

This is to say that they could give inadequate orientations and guidelines for their offspring, which adversely affects on children overall development. In conclusion, even though it is beneficial to educate children at home to some extent, it seems to me that the mentioned downsides are of more/greater significance and should be taken into account.

In developing countries, children in rural communities have less access to education. Some people believe that the problem can be solved by providing more schools and teachers, while others think that the problem can be solved by providing computers and Internet access. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

There is no denying that children who live in remote areas of developing countries have limited access to education. While some people suggest that the obstacle can be resolved by providing computers and internet access, I do personally believe that supplementing schools and teachers is the best solution to deal with it.

On the one hand, providing computers and internet access is brought great chances for children in the rural area to access education. These instruments have facilitated students to connect with the world and therefore broaden their horizons. In addition, with the assistance of the internet, they can participate in online classes regardless of their geographic locations. These courses act as virtual lessons to provide them with knowledge of various subjects. Moreover, whenever they encounter difficulties in searching information, the internet would be a useful tool to help them.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that academic institutions and teachers play an extremely important role in education. Firstly, students are likely to be encouraged to participate in such physical classes which were conducted by well-trained mentors. These experienced teachers instruct lessons face to face and therefore children can absorb knowledge comprehensively. Secondly, schools which have been equipped with sufficient facilities will facilitate kids to understand the lessons perfectly. For instance, science that is an abstract subject for most pupils can be understandable by experiment periods in the school laboratory. Lastly, by attending academic classes, students can interact with tutors who directly explain them difficult points in the lessons. Moreover, those classes stimulate children to fulfill their home assignments and lead them to comprehend the subjects fully.

Having taken the issue into consideration, I once again affirm that providing computers and internet can benefit school children in rural areas. However, supplying academic classes and teachers is a crucial solution to help them access to education.

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of studying abroad.

When the topic of overseas education comes into view, there exists controversy. Some assert that studying abroad is beneficial, whereas opponents of this idea prefer to pursue higher education in their own countries. Personally, I find the advantages of studying in a foreign country outweigh the disadvantages based on various reasons.

Studying abroad offers many benefits. One of them is the multi-cultural environment that students experience. They are able to expand their knowledge on diversity, which makes it easier to work in international companies in the future. Furthermore, overseas education not only cultivates an intercontinental relationship, but also strengthen understanding and respect between different backgrounds. Another notable advantage is the practice of independence for overseas students. Most students travel alone to pursue higher education, therefore, they ought to have self-reliance and responsibility for themselves to maintain a healthy lifestyle. On top of which, they need to be diligent with their studies as well, which is bound to stimulate self-improvement.

On the other hand, overseas studying experience could have some short-comings. Being unfamiliar with the education format is a huge drawback for international students. It requires a certain amount of time for them to get used to the newly introduced learning method, which could put a strain on their results. This could be rather discouraging and stressful to some students who fail to keep up, affecting their mental health. Moreover, having to manage everything on one’s own requires great efforts. As previously mentioned, overseas learners are expected to both meet academic requirements and living arrangement. For young adults, carrying out tasks, such as cooking, doing the laundry, without any help from their families could be quite challenging. Those who are not capable of balancing their education and lifestyle are likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.

On the whole, the essay clearly communicates that there are both advantages and disadvantages to studying abroad. However, in my humble opinion, overseas students could greatly benefit from a foreign studying environment if they are determined to overcome the challenges it brings.

In schools and universities, girls tend to choose arts while boys like science. What are the reasons for this trend and do you think this tendency should be changed?

Nowadays, there are more and more female students enrolling art classes while males tend to opt for science subjects. There exist several obvious reasons behind this tendency and I believe that it should be altered in some circumstances.

First of all, students’ preferences in different classes can be attributed to the requirements in each field. Generally, females with vivid imagination are more likely to take part in art courses, while science subjects such as physics or mathematics need considerable analytical abilities and logical thinking which are among the strengths of male students. Moreover, science-related fields require more physical abilities, concentration than others. For example, to successfully obtain a diploma in a medical course, a person needs to pass many exams including tons of experiments and dissertations to hand in and he or she is also overwhelmed with a lot of assignments within a short amount of time.

However, I am of the opinion that this trend should be slightly changed. First and foremost, some science subjects are more suitable for girls than the opposite sex, which are classes requiring patience and meticulous preparation. Nursery perfectly exemplifies this reason. When a person wants to learn to become a nurse, especially when he or she has to care for the elderly, this person has to be considerate and take heed of even minor things. Furthermore, students should have free choices to choose their future paths. It is evident that nowadays some are learning particular subjects in schools or colleges just because of their parents’ wishes. This may cause resentment and discourage the students’ performances.

In conclusion, the upsurge in the number of males entering science classes along with females’ participation in art fields can be understandable due to the aforementioned reasons and some alternation should be made to this tendency.

More and more students are choosing to study at colleges and universities in a foreign country. Do the benefits of studying abroad outweigh the drawbacks?

It is true that the number of students who choose to study overseas has increased rapidly in the past few years. While there are benefits and drawbacks of studying in a foreign country, I would argue that it has more benefits for the students themselves.

On the one hand, some people believe that the choice of studying abroad have some disadvantages. The first reason is that studying overseas will cost more than studying in the home country. It is necessary for parents to spend more money on airplane tickets, accommodations, foods and clothes, besides tuition fees and insurances. Another reason is that students might be unfamiliar and uncomfortable with the culture, environment, and language of the new country. As a consequence, it might have a negative effect on their mental condition and physical health. For example, most students have problems adjusting to culture shock. This can lead to symptoms such as nausea, frustration, extreme tiredness, confusion, and homesickness.

On the other hand, I believe that studying in another country brings so many positive aspects for the students themselves. Firstly, if students study in a new country, they will have a chance to learn new languages and new cultures. Secondly, students will learn about how to live independently, such as cleaning their own rooms or doing the laundry by themselves. Thirdly, they could make new friends with people from other countries and get familiar with multicultural environments. Lastly, it is a fact that in certain countries, international graduate certificate gives additional values when the students search for jobs.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that the preference of studying in a foreign country has its own benefits and drawbacks. It seems to me that it has more advantages for the students themselves.

Some children think that subjects such as mathematics and philosophy are too difficult for them to study at school, so they should be made optional rather than compulsory. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, an increasing number of students find it difficult in studying mathematics and philosophy. Some people claim that these subjects would rather become optional subjects than the compulsory ones. From my perspective, I suggest that either mathematics or philosophy should remain mandatory for all students.

Mathematics and philosophy are the standing point to majority subjects in school or even almost major in the economy. For instance, physics requires some useful tool of maths which is vectors, integrals, derivates in order to analyze the directions of forces or interpret the acceleration and speed. In addition, many people may argue that mathematics and philosophy are only for people who do science. These subjects are not only for students who love studying science but also for the ones who learn the art. Thanks to the assist of philosophy, people will have the power of reasoning according to the thesis.

Moreover, both of two subjects will strengthen the connection between theory and real-life experience. Many people will capable of linking logically the new concepts with their experience. Thus, their job will be done more efficiently which can lead to a successful career in particular and a whole new future in general. Another beneficial side of math and philosophy is that they help people enhance logical thinking and they have a variety of applications in the students’ future.

Many people argue that in order to improve educational quality, high school students are encouraged to make comments or even criticism on their teachers. Others think it will lead to loss of respect and discipline in the classroom. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is true that finding ways to improve the education system is one of the top priorities of every nation/country.In some cultures, while some people believe that students should be encouraged to give opinion about their teachers, I would argue that this can give rise to lack of respect and discipline in the classroom.

On the one hand, the option to make comments about their teachers is attractive due to several reasons. Firstly, it will help improve the quality of education. For example, if the class is slow, it will be ineffective for teachers to teach so fast that most students fail to retain the information. Without the comments of students, teachers will find it difficult to know whether the speed of the lesson is appropriate for the class, which has a great impact on the quality of the lesson. Moreover, some professors have said that course evaluations help them tremendously improve the course.

On the other hand, I believe that there are several drawbacks of allowing students to give feedback or criticism on their teachers. The main demerit is that some students do not know the limit and respect to their teachers in some situations. As a result, it may lead to the occurrence of bad-behavior such as offending or even insulting their teachers. Additionally, the classroom may be in chaos due to massive numbers of comments. Opinions vary from students to students, and it may be impractical for teachers to work out a way of teaching that satisfies all students.

In conclusion, although the idea of advantageous in some aspect/to some extent, it seems to me that it is better to discourage students to do it.

Some suggest that young people should take a job for a few years between school and university. Discuss what the advantages and disadvantages might be for people who do this.

Having finished high school, a majority of youngsters tend to directly enroll in a recognized university to pursue their future occupation dream. However, the number of those taking a gap year to be employed for a period of time is remarkably increased nowadays. This phenomenon provokes a fierce controversy over the issue of whether adolescents should take a break for a while before continuing their tertiary education. The first advantage of getting a job during this time is to have an adequate time frame to consider satisfactory future major at university. Students with no working experience are thoroughly confused about the selection of their upcoming occupations. Another is that young adults are able to achieve real-life skill set and job experience essential for their later careers during this working period of time. Tackling financial issues is the last benefit investigated in this essay. Not all students are able to afford the university fee for the whole four academic years; therefore; working in the gap year may assist them in dealing with fiscal problems.

Nevertheless, getting a job for a period of time before officially registering to a university may also bring some undesirable influence on adolescents. Firstly, it might be more difficult for them to recall previous fundamental knowledge essential for their entrance exam. Secondly, working without formal qualifications leads to low salary, unsatisfied working environment and being put under pressure. Last but not least, they may later lose their interest in pursuing tertiary education leading to the scarce intellectual workforce.

In conclusion, it is not always a good idea to be recruited after graduating from high school; but it is one of the most effective arrangements for youngsters to consider depending on their authentic financial and study conditions.

Some people believe that teaching children at home is best for a child’s development while others think that it is important for children to go to school. Discuss the advantages of both methods and give your own opinion.

Some people believe that home-schooling is the most critical method for child development of all aspects including physical, intellectual, social, and emotional changes. While there are strong arguments to support this point of view, I would argue that there are more advantages for a child to attend schools.

On the one hand, I understand why people often think that children should be at home and taught by their parents or private tutors. Firstly, children/young children do not need to face the pressure of formal examinations or excessive exercises but progress faster. This is because those who study at home could learn at their own pace as their parents often prepare lessons that are more appropriate to their children’s level. Secondly, the problem of school discipline may be avoided, as young children could enjoy their childhood without negative influences around them. Consequently, their personality would not be negatively shaped because of these effects.

On the other hand, I would side with those who believe that schools will equip children with sufficient knowledge as well as useful social skills. To begin with, pupils would academically and positively compete with their peers because they often want to become the highest achiever in class. As a result, this attitude will foster their competitive spirit which is a golden selling point to have better employment prospects in the future. Furthermore, schools, being a small community of a society, resemble the real world outside more than a single family. Students are more likely to learn how to overcome obstacles such as exam failure or bullying, which eventually helps them to gain more confidence to deal with problems in their life.

In conclusion, it seems to me that going to schools would have more positive impacts on children’s development compare with studying at home.

Model 2

The question of whether young people should be taught at home or at school is rather debatable. Some are of the view that teaching children at home is the most effective for a youngster’s development while others have opposed ideas. I will examine both views before setting out my opinion on the matter.

To begin with, there are a variety of reasons why many parents choose homeschooling as their priority. Firstly, the education system cannot obviously guarantee all students the best academic work. It is due to the fact that each child has diverse characteristics and different learning ability level. This leads to home educational existence which mothers and fathers believe that it is more suitable for their children. Secondly, bullying at school is rather popular nowadays, which probably makes the young people often feel stress and anxiety when going to school. For example, my niece used to not like to go to school simply because she found extremely stressful when meeting a bully boy in her class.

Despite positive aforementioned arguments that homeschooling brings, I strongly believe that teaching at school is farther beneficial for various reasons. Schools encourage the children to socialize with their peers and learn how to cope with gossip, bullying and studying pressure. In addition to this, teachers who are welltrained are willing to help their pupils overcome the obstacles in the study.

More importantly, schools have the valuable academic facilities such as library books, musical instruments and so on, which is always considered more advantages than the home can do. In conclusion, although there are some merits of homeschooling, it seems to me that teaching at school is more outweigh as a whole.

Some people think that all university students should study whatever they like. Others believe that they should only be allowed to study subjects that will be useful in the future, such as those related to science and technology. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.


There are different opinions about how much choices students should be given in selecting university subjects. While some people think that the universities should only offer required courses focusing on science and technology, which are beneficial for the students’ future, I believe that adult learners should be able to choose subjects following their own interests. On the one hand, there are some certain advantages of acquiring knowledge in science and technology courses in terms of both students’ life in particular and the social as well as economic development in general. Firstly, it is widely thought that university courses like medicine, engineering and information technology provide more job opportunities, better salaries, and even higher social status; and therefore bring brighter future for learners who take them. Secondly, technology such as the Internet and digital devices is applied in almost every aspect of modern society, so forcing students into particular technical courses ensures any technological gaps would be handled. Finally, focusing on science and technology studies will accelerate innovations that stimulating the economic growth in the long-run. On the other hand, I would agree with the idea letting college students choose their own courses. It is undeniable that learners will achieve good academic performance when they are passionate about what they are learning. In addition, art talents like Mozart and Picasso would not have emerged if young people are forced to study science-based subjects. Besides, engagement in non-science classes such as arts, music, and drama brings about spiritual values for students in terms of stress relief and overall mental health. Last but not least, learning a wide range of subjects in universities have benefits for any country in dealing with global issues such as global warming that is counted on not only scientists to find out its causes and effects but also activists, artists, and lawyers to improve social awareness. 211 In conclusion, despite the aforementioned advantages of forcing learners into studying science and technology, the students’ life and society, from my perspective, would gain more benefits from allowing young people to select what they want to learn.


Nowadays, universities wonder if they should force their students to learn certain key subjects or not. While this could be beneficial for students, I believe that it will be useful if students only study subjects that they like in university.

 On the one hand, there are a variety of reasons why university students should only study subjects that will be useful in the future. The biggest reason is that this will give students countless opportunities to seek a job with a high salary after graduating from college. For example, in Vietnam, students could get a higher salary if they work as a programmers or scientists after school. Furthermore, particular university subjects such as information technology and physics can provide students with a wealth of knowledge, which they can apply that in creating or studying something that is useful for mankind in the future.

On the other hand, it seems to me that universities should create more spaces for students to study whatever subject they like. Firstly, students who only study their favourite subjects can save a great deal of money. Consequently, they spend it buying books on their subjects in order to master their skills. Take my sister as an example, instead of taking part in all of the classes in her university, she just took a leadership course and bought a lot of books about this subjects to read and now she is working as Linkedin CEO. Secondly, a university that allows students to freely choose their subjects will help develop their strengths if they are not good at logic related subjects so that they can draw inspiration from their favourite subjects.

In conclusion, while forcing students to study subjects that will be useful in the future does have benefits, I strongly believe that university should let their students have the right to learn their own favourite subjects.

Model essay 3

Some people argue that students should choose kinds of subjects as they prefer; however, others believe that they should study subjects suitable for their future purpose. I personally agree with the idea of choosing useful subjects to support their future.

On the one hand, students should be allowed to study whatever they are interested in/keen on from a range of academic disciplines. Firstly, every single student has different strong points so they can study subjects which are suitable with their characteristics and hobbies. Some students, for example, are easily sensitive with music and sound of instruments so that they may be good at musical perspective. Additionally, if universities set a frame of disciplines, students may not expose all of their abilities as well as talents. Secondly, the tuition fee is paid by students so they should have the authorities to decide what they will study.

On the other hand, it seems to me that choosing useful subjects will support young generations more. Students can reach their future target as fast as possible if they only study useful subjects for their future. For instance, if students want to be a researcher, some subjects related to science and technology should support their career. From a personal point of view, studying a number of useful subjects will cover the gap of knowledge and occupation’s skills; as a result, students with high qualification are more likely to find a job with an extremely high salary. Moreover, companies or organizations always favor someone who in-depth knowledge in his/her has chosen field so that graduate students should focus on useful subjects to create their priority.

In conclusion, to a certain point, I would agree that students should study useful subjects to contribute to their success in the future.

Universities and colleges are now offering qualifications through distance learning from the Internet rather than the teachers in the classroom. Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?

The digital development nowadays has some impacts on education in many countries. One of these effects is the approach/pathway people adopt/take/are offered towards higher/further education at the ultimate academic institutions of universities and colleges. These days, some universities have started to open courses online so that students can study from their home. In my opinion, this is an innovation of the education; however, we also need to consider their drawbacks to the university system.

Nobody can deny the convenience of online courses of the university. The first reason to be discussed is that taking online courses is time-saving. Travelling to school does not seem to be an issue to students living nearby but it is a huge deterrent to those who have to spend hours commuting to school. By applying for online courses, students are encouraged to learn the suitable course without worrying about the distance from their house to university. Secondly, online courses provide learners with more flexible time to study. Students can arrange their schedule to make full use of their time and obtain/acquire extensive knowledge in their specialized field while they still have time to relax after studying.

On the other hand, there are negative sides of online courses that also need to be considered. Firstly, this kind of courses limits the directly interact between the students and the classmates. There are other things besides the knowledge that the learners will take after the course, such as communication skill or team-working skill. These soft skills can only be practiced when people actually talk to each other in person. Secondly, everyone is not supposed to have the same ability of self-study, which makes the results can differ among the students. Online courses are a considerably alternative for a well-organized person while it can cause failure for lazy students.

In conclusion, online course is a huge step in the development of education, which can take all advantages of students. However, those who have no motivation to learn by themselves had better apply for courses at the campus because they can receive the encouragement from friends and lecturers there.

Many students find it difficult to concentrate or pay attention at school. What are the reasons? What could be done?

It is true that many students are not able to focus on their lessons at schools (these days). In this essay, I will discuss some causes of the issue and what measures should be implemented.

There are two underlying reasons for this phenomenon. Firstly, some undergraduates have a propensity to develop physically, which allows them to display advanced performance in sports rather than theoretical lessons. For example, Cristiano Ronaldo who is considered as one of the best players around the world in this century has not graduated from high school. As a result, there is an increasing number of physical academies which develop curriculums intensively emphasizing on sports and physical training. Secondly, some students who have scholastic abilities of geniuses often find the syllabuses of schools so tedious. For instance, Bill Gates who established Microsoft- one of the most popular corporations across the globe also has not finished his secondary study.

As long as education systems can understand the reasons contributing to this phenomenon, they can fulfill students’ wants and needs to mitigate this problem. Firstly, providing Gymnastics periods into every school can be an effective measure to satisfy those physically developing students. For example, In Vietnam, this idea has been implemented for many years and that group of students always has exciting moods in these periods. Secondly, educational experts should add some extra parts into the curriculums for remarkably smart students, which is at a higher level of difficulty. This could exert willing attitude to study for those students.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that many students are facing the problem of concentrating in periods due to two aforementioned reasons and some measures should be taken in order to build a stronger workforce in the future.

Some universities offer online courses as an alternative to classes delivered on campus. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

It is true that distance education is now offered for students at some universities as a replacement for classroom learning. Although there exist some disadvantages in this form of studying and teaching, I believe it is a revolutionary learning method.

On the one hand, students at online classes usually lack regular face-to-face contact with teachers and other peers. They have to work on their own and barely have a chance to make friends. Moreover, they cannot compete with each other, which is a benefit of classroom learning that used to motivate students. Consequently, they may underestimate the importance of rivalry and competition in contributing to academic achievement. In addition to that, students using e-learning tend to be procrastinated and have poor time management due to the lack of direct instruction and inspection from teachers. This form of education also requires a great deal of self-discipline and self-motivation to balance their schedules.

On the other hand, studying on the Internet proves to be an effective way to acquire knowledge without going directly to campus. First and foremost, it reduces the amount of time spent on commuting for students as well as providing them with a variety of subjects with lower costs compared to tuition fee in the classroom. This kind of education is of great importance to those who are working in offices but still need a diploma. For example, American Center usually cooperates with prestigious universities to offer online courses for Vietnamese students. Furthermore, the quality of online courses is increasingly enhanced by universities in order to ensure that students can obtain enough knowledge and skills.

In conclusion, despite several demerits which online education may bring to learners, I believe that this form could be seen as an essential step forward and its merits are irrefutable.

Model 2

Online programmes arranged by universities are becoming popular in modern society. In my view, I believe that this trend is considered beneficial to the educational system in several aspects.

The main reasons why studying online on some universities’ websites is a positive trend is that students are able to organize their own timetables which are more flexible than that of traditional courses. For instance, students can work part-time, engage in social activities at day and study at night. Therefore, they finish their bachelor degrees without missing any real-life experience. In addition, online courses from schools empower people from the third world countries to approach modern education. With distance learning on the internet, people around the world will have more opportunities to cultivate knowledge from many prestigious universities in the industrialized nations.

On the other hand, traditional programs might be outdated in the age of fast growing development of technology. The first disadvantage is that students cannot review the lectures and it is inconvenient and uncomfortable to be dependent on a fixed timetable every day. Secondly, the traditional method is inefficient in terms of finance. For example, schools have to pay a considerable amount of money lectors in class instead of making videos online. Another drawback is that some professors have to spend much time on lecturing in class instead of researching and doing practical work to update their courses on the website.

Consequently, online programs are indispensable methods in education. In conclusion, the progress of studying university courses online is considered the positive phenomenon and it will play a crucial role in the prosperity of modern educational system.

Some people think that a sense of competition in children should be encouraged. Others believe that children who are taught to co-operate rather than compete become more useful adults. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Education for children always wonders the question what we should teach a child to strengthen personality and skills for the mature stage in life. People have different points of views that children should be more competitive or cooperative. While a motivation of competition can build good preparation for adult life, I do believe that working in a group is more important.

On the one hand, firstly, competition can be considered as a way to raise up the motivation for children. In some high schools or even primary schools, the compulsory requirement of upgrading academic level in high-quality classes is the highest mark and excellent evaluation on final test each year with a competitive rate equivalent to 5%. Competing to be the best inspires high-flyers to acquire better and unique methods for achieving and conquering new record. Moreover, a sense of competition enhances/boosts/improves the ability to think independently to come over hardship or troubles faced in real life. However, some stressful tests will lead children to depressing emotion when they cannot achieve a better result with high expectation.

On the other hand, some people assert that it is better for children to develop themselves, by the way, to cooperate with others. When they work in a group, knowledge will be shared and lots of innovative ideas will come out/will be come up with. Children can learn from each other to strengthen strong points and address weakness points also. In reality, adult life requires the skills of communication and ability to create a network which regards as the basic foundation for social development. Collaborating with teammates also sharpens management skills and raises responsibility for working and living in the community.

In conclusion, for best preparation for adult life, the more cooperative children are, the better they advance themselves.

Model 2              

There are many arguments on whether children should be taught to co-operate with each other or compete individually. While competitiveness can sometimes be useful in life, I do believe that the ability to co-operate is more vital.

On the one hand, encouraging the spirit of competition in children can give them more motivation. Children may try to work harder to be better than other children in the class if they are given an exercise by their teacher with prizes for a child who finishes first and correctly. This kind of healthy rivalry can help build children’s self-confidence while turning them to be more independent at work and make progress faster. When leaving school, these children may face many situations such as job interviews or promotion where competitiveness is an asset, so they will have the confidence to excel in such circumstances.

On the other hand, the capability to cooperate plays a more important and integral part in children’s adult life. For example, in the workplace, people will need to work in teams, follow their boss’s instructions, supervise and support other new members’ work to finish their team work quickly and excellently. Furthermore, collaborating with other members to finish with their work successfully is much more necessary than winning personally as this helps to build a better attitude for the young towards other people. Therefore, in many countries, exams and ranking systems have been replaced by team assignments which can show children that they gain more from working together.

In conclusion, while I appreciate the benefit of training children to be competitive, I would argue that co-operation is much more useful for them in adult life.

Model 3

Many people think that teaching children competition or cooperation is good for them. While the feeling of competition can be practical in life, I do believe that the ability to collaborate/cooperate with other people is more essential.

On the one hand, it can be said that competition is a great way to make children work harder. For instance, if there are classroom activities which elicit competitiveness among the children, children will be excited and try to outperform their classmates. The competitive feelings among children may help them build self-confidence and become independent staffs in the future. These characteristics will be good for them when they are in competitive situations such as job interviews. Therefore, it is clear that competition is an important aspect that children should be prepared for their adult life.

On the other hand, co-operation can be a crucial element children need to be equipped for their working life. When going to work, they are expected to work in teams and know how to support other members. In addition, teamwork spirit is much more useful than the competitive feeling because it obviously helps children gain more skills and knowledge instead of being winners or losers.

 In conclusion, it is beneficial for children if they are taught to be competitive; however, I do think that co-operation skill is much more useful for them in adult life.

It is important for children to learn the difference between right and wrong at an early age. Punishment is necessary to help them learn this distinction. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? What sort of punishment should parents and teachers be allowed to use to teach good behavior of children?

Imposing punishments to children at the early age is imperative to facilitate their right behavior and to prevent wrongdoing, which is applied by a myriad of parents all around the world. Although it cannot be denied that punishment plays an indispensable role in nurturing a child, not only the combination of punishment and rewarding but also the right sort of punishment should not be taken lightly.

To begin with, Punishment and rewarding should be simultaneously used to ensure the internalization of distinguishing wrong and right behaviors. Since most children are in favor of rewarding not only materially but also mentally, it acts as an incentive for them to behave even better. For example, once being given an applause for having scheduled meal, children aware that good behaviors link to rewarding, consequently, they tend to repeat it afterward. On the other hand, punishments also act as a deterrent to stop children from misbehaviors. By being punished, children internalize what they are not allowed to do, which will deter them from repeating the same inappropriate behaviours.

However, although punishment is vitally important to prevent misdeeds, only light punishment is encouraged to use for early age children. Corporeal punishment and spiritual anguish must be excluded from children’s education since children at an early age are susceptible to severe punishments, causing either mental or physical agony in the long run. In addition, those punishments may even cause pronounced counteraction as the child would become more stubborn and even commit crime at their adolescence. Mild punishments, on the other hand, are conducive for children to realize their fault.

In conclusion, children’s awareness of the distinction between right and wrongdoing is reliant to the combination of slight punishments and rewarding. Having said that, parents and teachers should be careful in imposing punishment in order to ensure the well-being of children.

Model 2

Many people believe that it is the imposition of punishments that would help children think and behave in a rational and appropriate way. From my perspective, this idea is totally justifiable and several forms of punishments can be handed out to achieve the best result.

Reasons for my advocacy of child discipline are varied. Firstly, punishment gives a child a deep insight into the real magnitude of his offence. It is a fact that most children are too innocent and inexperienced to be concerned for possible outcomes of their wrongdoings. Due to this, being let off with just a warning on a daily basis may well induce a child to develop an over-simplistic view towards self – discipline and social orders as he grows up. Punishment is therefore extremely essential to underline the severity of trouble-making behaviors and allow him to have a sense of responsibility towards his own problems. Secondly, immediate punishment has an essential role to play in conditioning children to avoid self-endangerment. This is because young people nowadays are surrounded by all kinds of friends and indecent materials on the Internet that can easily influence their perspectives on life. In this case, discipline acts as a deterrent against the penetration of distorted ways of thinking which have the potential to cause unwanted behaviors.

There are some discipline methods which can be taken to bring about positive changes in children. Deprivation of privileges can function as a warning for minor offences. For instance, if a school student fails to complete her assignments on time, she can be taken away a television privilege as a punishment. Being deprived of what she loves, the girl is less likely to re-offend considering her very own sake. If misconducts are of more severe nature, then grounding is a wondrous alternative. Isolation from the outside world will spare young people more private space to seriously deliberate on their offences and feel a sense of regret. However, time-outs are only workable for those who see that separation from parents and friends is truly a deprivation.

To conclude, disciplinary measures are much advisable for families as it does wonders for children’s sense of responsibility as well as outlooks on the world and life. Accordingly, a variety of disciplines need to be used with wisdom and flexibility in order to bring good results.

Some people say that subjects like arts, music, drama and creative writing are more beneficial to children and therefore they need more of these subjects to be included in the timetable. Do you agree or disagree?


 It is argued that students must be taught more lessons like arts, music, drama and creative writing in their official timetable. While I accept that these subjects have multiple benefits, I believe that only the inborn talents should spend more time on them.

On the one hand, creative subjects are very beneficial to students. One reason is that these lessons not only nurture a love of art in children but also make them more emotional, which is believed to bring individuals a bright future. In fact, some scientists say that people with high emotional quotient have a tendency to be more successful in their career. Furthermore, music, painting, drama, etc are kinds of pleasing recreation. They effectively help learners to relieve stress and pressure from academic subjects.

On the other hand, there are a variety of reasons why we should not set aside more hours to teach arts. Firstly, scheduled lessons have already enhanced both creative ability and academic ability. Therefore, there is no need to break the balance by adding more arts education. Secondly, because not all students are supposed to be artists, they must be given the right to choose what they are interested in. For example, it is a waste of time to ask the deaf-tone to have more music lessons if they are keen on biology and math so as to become a doctor while people having a flair for art can get more professional training from dedicated institutions after school.

 In conclusion, it is certainly true that arts education is very beneficial to all students, but I believe that there is no need to change school curriculum by adding more creative subjects. 277 words


In the modern education, there are many creative subjects added to a timetable for children due to their certain benefits. While some people consider that subjects 143 like arts, music, drama and creative writing should be spent more time in classes, others advocate that these are not necessary. From my point of view, there is no need to increase the duration of classes focusing on those co-curricular subjects.

First of all, while creative subjects like arts, music, drama have their own power such as enriching children’s mental life, stimulating their creativeness and helping them to escape from stresses, academic subjects are believed to be more necessary for children because they provide vital knowledge related to people’s daily life. For example, academic subjects like mathematics, physics, literature, languages or biology help students to know how to calculate, make them understand the natural phenomenons that occur daily and affect human life, teach them how to communicate effectively. Otherwise, the society needs more doctors, engineers, lawyers and workers than singers, actors or composers based on the fact that demands of material life relating to health, accommodation, food, clothes need to be satisfied before fulfilling demands of mental life relating to music, movies, novels and so on.

Furthermore, if co-curricular subjects occupy more time in the timetable of schools, children who are not talented in artistic fields would be put under pressure because well – studying in such those aspects really needs inborn talent. While studying more about music, arts, drama and creative writing tends to be just a waste of time for untalented children, it seems not to be enough for gifted ones to develop their future careers without being trained carefully and professionally in specified institutes. In fact, people are easier to become good doctors, advanced engineers and skillful workers than to become a famous artist like Leonardo De Vinci or a well – known composer like Beethoven just by learning seriously and working hard.

For the reasons mentioned above, I believe that such creative subjects as music, drama, arts should be added to education programs for stimulating children to develop comprehensively but they should not be considered as the crucial subjects which occupy much more time in classes.

It is observed that in many countries, not enough students are choosing to study science subject. What are causes? And what will be effects on society?

People hold myriad concerns about the insufficient number of students, who apply for science subjects in some countries.

There are several reasons for this trend and a number of damaging effects that come along with it. Perhaps the high level of difficulty of these disciplines is mainly giving rise to this phenomenon. Science subjects include vast amounts of knowledge, elusive concepts, and theories, many of which confuse or even frighten students at first glance. Substantially, it requires both intelligence and diligence in students in order to fully comprehend these contents. Another rationale is studying science disciplines is a long-term process that does not offer immediate results. Other subjects, such as music or arts, however, are found to be more attractive for students. Besides, those subjects seem to provide them with more practical benefits, namely increasing their confidence, or expanding their social circles.

Turning to the downside of this growing trend, the scarcity of human resources in the future is perhaps the worst impact on the community. If this happens, those employees with inadequate qualifications will be engaged in high demanding works. As a consequence, it will detrimentally affect the development of science and technology. Furthermore, the staff crisis might result in system corruption among the society, as people would seek for bribing with the aim of acquiring a high position and effortless job.

In conclusion, I believe the root cause of why the majority of students do not prefer science subjects is their superficial vision; And the negative impact of this trend would mainly be the lack of qualified employees that might occur in the future.

Model 2

Recently, there is a lack of learners who choose science as their major. This happens due to several reasons along with negative impacts on the community as a whole.

There are a number of reasons why fewer students select science subjects to pursue. The first reason is that those subjects are too difficult and demanding, which require students to put many efforts into their studies. For example, my friend who is attending a biologic course says that he has to carry out too many experiments and complete many projects, which prevents him from having spare time for himself/ relaxation. As a result, science subjects are less attractive university students than subject related to economics. The second reason is that because there are a few job opportunities available for students who graduate in scientific filed, learners are less more likely to choose those subjects as their major.

Consequently, they tend to choose those subjects that allow them to find/ seek a job more easily. A shortage of students in science fields may lead to several negative impacts. Firstly, as there are fewer learners who decide to follow science careers, there will be a shortage of workforce in these fields. This could result in a smaller number of accomplishments in science and also avoid the enhancement of living standard. For instance, there would be difficult for people to produce newer smartphones with more functions. Secondly, while there is an increasing number of colleague students who study economics, the vacancies in those fields are restricted. Therefore, a huge number of graduates would be unemployed, which increases burdens for society.

In conclusion, the shortage of students selecting science subjects is stemmed from several factors, and this issue might bring about serious drawbacks.

Some people think that parents should teach children how to be good members of society. Others, however, believe that school is the place to learn them. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

People have different views about the best place to teach children to be a good person, in school or at home. While there are some benefits to learn behaviors and attitudes at school, I believe that family plays the main role in children education.

On the one hand, the school can be a good place for children to learn both academic knowledge and social skills, helping them develop fully in terms of mental and physical aspects. It is undeniable that teachers provide from basic to advanced knowledge of all subjects. By doing practices at school, children might establish and improve a wide range of skills such as working independently and collaboratively, presentation skill, the skill of finding and analyzing information. Moreover, the school is a small environment of a very large society where children are taught on how to behave with teachers and other students in socially accepted manners. When they leave school, their knowledge and skills will help them in doing a job well. It can, therefore, be argued that school education should gain more attention from the general public as it fully prepares children with relevant skills useful for their adult life, helping them become good citizens.

On the other hand, it is even more important to prepare for children essential knowledge in many aspects of life which can only be acquired at home. Parents are usually the first teachers who guide their children from the beginning steps. Children learn from their parents’ behaviors and attitudes right after they were born so the family has significant influences on forming their characteristics. For example, my mother often takes part in charity activities because she supposes that she has a huge fortune to have all current degree of success and happiness she wants but thousands of people out there are less lucky. By contrast, there are thousands of people out there are less lucky than she is, and they do not have sufficient food to eat and clothes to wear. Her thoughts instill into my psyche and support me to do as many volunteers work as I can. Life always has challenges and rewards, and parents should be beside and teach their children on how to deal with difficulties.

In conclusion, I understand why people might consider school is the place to teach 133 children to be good individuals of society, but it seems to me that family is a much more important environment to build key characteristics for an adult life.

Many students have to study subjects which they do not like. Some people think this is a complete waste of time. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

It is true that in schools or universities most of the students are obligated to study the subjects that they do not love. While I accept that this is a complete waste of time for some people, I believe that others are ready to spend their time studying all the subjects rather than only concentrating on their favorite subjects.

On the one hand, there are a variety of reasons why people should pursue only the subjects which they are keen on. One reason is that many opportunities are given to those who devote their whole time to sharpening the aspects which they consider more important. A student who does not have outstanding achievements in literature may win the honor prize in a national or even global physical competition. Furthermore, spending time practicing whatever people like in general and studying favourite subjects, in particular, is really intriguing and might be compared with doing a hobby. This could result in mental satisfaction.

On the other hand, students have different reasons when trying to study all compulsory subjects. Firstly, every subject conveys definite knowledge. The more fields people study, the more general competence life they may get. In fact, there have been a great number of students studying at a university which he or she chooses at the same time another university which his or her family wants though he or she does not like at all. Secondly, studying unfavourite subjects could train students patience in order that they might easily overcome unavoidable obstacles in their prospective ages.

In conclusion, it is certainly true that studying unfavourite subjects can be a total waste of time for a large number of schools or universities students but this is by no means the complete wastage of time for every student who always makes great efforts to become perfect people.

Model 2

It is sometimes argued that educational institutions are wasting time when teaching students compulsory academic subjects in which they have little or no interest. While I understand that mandatory disciplines may be associated with several disadvantages, I personally believe that they are usually more beneficial in various ways.

On the one hand, there are a number of reasons why people argue against forcing students to study undesirable subjects. One explanation for that is if a student expresses no enthusiasm or talent in an academic subject, he/she is unlikely to progress in this field of studies. Instead of spending a considerable amount of time to improve his/her score in his unfavorable subjects, that student could focus on acquiring relevant knowledge in the areas that he is genuinely fascinated by. In addition, some academic subjects are proven to have little practical use in later stages of life. For example, advanced physics or chemistry which are compulsory modules in a number of high school syllabuses are rarely applied in an adult’s life unless his profession relates to these subjects.

On the other hand, my view is that students could benefit from studying the subjects that they initially are not in favour of. Firstly, a subject which seems to be unpleasant to handle is possibly useful for a student’s future life. For example, it is unquestionable that common knowledge in mathematics generally plays a necessary role in people’s daily routine, despite the fact that a significant number of students struggle during math classes. Secondly, in this constantly changing modern world, having profound knowledge and skills in various fields will reinforce one’s advantages in the job market and secure better employment afterward. Therefore, a student is advised to not only study in depth but also broaden his knowledge in a wide range of subjects to become a well – rounded person and prepare himself for the severely competitive world.

In conclusion, I believe that although students may find difficulties in studying subjects they do not like, it is necessary to include common knowledge of various disciplines into the educational curriculum.

Some people think that students should get involved in making decisions on how their school should run. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons with relevant examples.

It is widely argued that pupils should be allowed to participate in decision making on how their school should be managed. Personally, I disagree with this point of view because, despite some indisputable benefits, there are some detriments that should be taken into consideration.

On the one hand, learners are entitled to several merits of making their own decisions in school management. Firstly, they are a chance to design the most suitable program for their needs. In other words, students are well aware of their strengths and weaknesses, thus, they could create or include useful activities to alleviate their weaker points. Secondly, young individuals are likely more active in learning’s processes since they have a freedom to raise their voice at school. As a matter of fact, students are often reluctant to learn tedious lessons from textbooks; therefore they could find themselves a way to absorb knowledge effectively by engaging in making study plans and programs, which could result in favorable outcomes.

On the other hand, it is true that youngsters are not professional in management as they are not well-trained specialists in learning and education, thus, their decisions might show adverse impacts or inadequate orientation on the overall development. For instance, some students might favor only particular subjects; hence the negligence of others, in such cases, schooling disciplines and designated programs are of indispensable necessity to strike a balance on their learning. Additionally, educators have thorough insights into every stage of human development and learning. Therefore, they could make better decisions in learning paths for school students.

In conclusion, I personally prefer the current system in which authorities and teachers take a principal responsibility in managing schools.

The subjects and lesson contents are decided by the authorities such as the government. Some people argue that teachers should make the choice. What are the pros and cons of each method, give some solutions?

It is argued that instead of the government, teachers should make a decision on subjects and lesson contents. There are a number of reasons behind this point of view and several solutions should be proposed to make the best choice for this circumstance. Each way has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Firstly, if authorities choose which contents should be included, all schools will follow this regulation and the curriculum will be consistent. However, it may be ineffective and unsuitable due to lacks of concern about student’s demand. On the other hand, it is hard for everyone to accept the teacher’s decision because of the difference in approaches and interpretations even though teachers communicate with students every day and are well aware of which are essential and should be improved.

However, measures must be taken by governments and international bodies to solve this conflict. The first solution would be conducting/carrying out on teachers and collecting information, such as student’s favorite contents, or parts which are hard to understand or methods used to enhance quality. These data will be analyzed and given to government then they will make a decision based on its result. Furthermore, students can express their ideas through a poll at school. This action will help to lobby/examine valid and accurate academic demands and improve the syllabus that children find it hard to understand or boring to learn at school.

In conclusion, it is clear that there are various reasons for the argument about choosing lesson contents and steps need to be taken to tackle this problem.

Model 2

It is widely argued that teachers should take the lead in deciding the disciplines and lesson content in lieu of the government. Each option has various benefits and drawbacks, and steps can be taken to tackle the problem.

There are several reasons for the authoritative bodies to take control of the school curriculum. Firstly, the education system of the whole region or country could be standardized consistently. When the government designs syllabus/course of studies, they can monitor and audit the nation’s teaching quality uncomplicatedly. Secondly, by centralizing the textbook compilation process, the government can support to relieve this burden from schools and teachers. In this case, teachers will be enabled to primarily focus on delivering lessons/academic knowledge of best quality. However, it may be more beneficial for students if teachers are allowed to choose what to teach. One reason is that teachers are the ones who understand their students’ needs and interests, hence they would come up with the most suitable teaching approaches. Another reason is that students in different social groups, ethnics or regions would undoubtedly possess various characteristics. Therefore, it would be ineffective to apply one single curriculum to all students nationwide as a whole.

However, several measures could be taken by the government and educational institutions to tackle this issue. One simple solution would be a combined teaching program with the compulsory subjects designed by the government in accompany with several optional disciplines decided by teachers. In addition, in order to have/offer flexible curriculums that are applicable to students from different backgrounds and geographic areas, teachers should be encouraged to revise and complement the lesson content to a certain extent. This does not only generate more interests to in the students but can also help to keep the curriculum up to date.

 In conclusion, it is clear that each method has a number of advantages and disadvantages, and solutions should be made to propose an appropriate decision.

Some people think that the main purpose of schools is to turn the children into good citizens and workers, rather than to benefit them as individuals. To what extent do you agree or disagree?


Some people reckon that the schools have responsibility for training children to become useful citizens for the society instead of individuals themselves. While I accept that school needs to fulfill their duty of educating good citizens, I believe that the human rights should be respected, like the right of being well-equipped to be whoever the children want to be.

It is undeniable that the main purpose of education in school is turning naïve children into responsible adults whose behaviours and characteristics contribute to the preservation and development of a civilized country. Human is the key actor of society, and the more educated people are, the more civilized and flourishing the communities are. Besides, in developing countries, the labour force is desperately lacking skilled workers who are well-trained in schools. This burden pushes pressure on the school to prepare for children necessary skills and adequate knowledge to meet job market’s demand. Moreover, children spend onethird of their time in schools, there is no other organization but schools have the ability to do this taxing task of the society.

However, humans have their right to choose who to become. A child who wants to be singer cannot be forced to be a manual worker even though there are not enough workers in the labour market. Schools help to nurture good human beings, not to make money machines for the government. Therefore, schools should only provide sufficient information about the real life, and let the children decide what they want to be. Certainly, schools have to show the rules and regulation, the limit of ethics to ensure that the children will not go in the wrong direction which is unacceptable in the society. However, for the things which are not prohibited, the school needs to support them as much as possible to let them be more mature and well-prepared in making decisions for their lives.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that social responsibility of schools is not only building good worker for society but also nurture human beings as it supposed to be.


 There is no doubt that every child in this world should be educated carefully to become a good member society because they are the future of mankind. However, whether the responsibilities to teach them belong to their parents or schools is still argued. Many people advocate that parents play the main role in educating their children while others blame that it is only the role of the schools. This essay offers arguments that parents should be primarily responsible for the education of children.

First of all, it cannot be denied that schools are created to be the official place for educating children and directing them to the general standard of community. Children often spend at least 4 hours a day at school and have many activities in which they interact with their friends under their teacher’s guidance to ensure them to obey the school’s rules. Therefore, school is the ideal place for them to learn what is right and what is wrong in the most natural and fastest way. For example, when a children see all their friends go to sleep in the noon, they tend to fall asleep easier and more voluntarily than when they are at home.

However, I believe that while school plays an important role in educating children to recognize the rights and wrongs, the parents should also take the main responsibilities in shaping their personalities and teach them to be a good citizen. Children are born and grown up day by day besides their parents, so their parents’ characters and behaviors have significant impacts on them. In addition, parents are the people who understand their children the most so they will be able to find the most effective methods to adjust their children’s manners and behaviors. Meanwhile, there is almost no occasion when children spend their all 24 hours a day at school but there are many holidays for children to stay with their families all their time. That is the other reason why they will be affected by their parents more than their teacher or their friends in the school’s life.

In conclusion, the role of the school in educating children to meet the standard of society cannot be denied but it is the parents that should take the main responsibilities to teach them how to become a good member of society.

Model 3

Many people believe that the role of schools should be to provide children the way to be productive members. While this is true to some extent, I also think the objectives of education should be to help children grow as individuals.

On the one hand, schools instill the cultural values that are shared by society. Children can learn what is good, right, fair and wrong through lessons or extracurricular activities. For instance, civics case study which based on the real situations help students approach and solve the problems in complex systems of the social organization then offer them a lot of insights into human behaviors. Furthermore, skills that enable children to succeed in the job market can first be learned in school. Accomplishing different tasks among different subjects improves student’s skill such as time management, team working or performance skill. Children who do not have a chance go to school will not probably perform well.

On the other hand, one significant purpose of schools is to help children discover their potential. School is an ideal environment with a number of subjects and activities, of course, most of them are selected and prepared by professors. In addition, teachers who sometimes have many chances to obverse children every day, they are trained to help children understand their strengths and improve their weaknesses. The teacher can also easily spot students’ talents, help children practice and allow them to do something they are good at or able to choose the subjects that best suit them. So that children can develop confidence as a person.

In conclusion, schools should provide a balanced education program, not only help children become a good member of society but also make them stronger and competitive in all dynamic of life.

Some people do not allow their children to participate in games, sports or competitions unless everyone gets a prize. Others think that children must learn to deal with winning and losing in order to be fully prepared for life. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Some teachers and parents only permit their kids to play or compete when all participants are rewarded; while others accept that the concept of “winner-loser” belongs to a useful experience to be learned. I favour the second viewpoint.

When all kids play and win together, they often feel happier and can build better a sense of teamwork. Moreover, they are more willing to participate in / take part in the next events. However, they are incapable of accepting failure as an inevitable step to success from this failure.

On the other hand, some children who are allowed to experience to be a winner and a loser can find out how to handle the real-life situation better. Certainly, being lost, they would be upset and may refuse to play in the next round. However, such painful experience is necessary for them to grow and learn to overcome the negative emotions of losing. In my viewpoint, the adults should follow the second option. It is essential to coach to their children the game spirit, which is “to play, to enjoy, and to learn.” The children should know how to accept their failure and overcome this feeling. Personally, I often play “hide and seek” with my kids, and observe their changing attitudes. In the beginning, they were not happy when they lost. And then, thanks to coaching and discussion, they understand much better how to improve their skills and strategies, and thus let the deception feelings go. As a result, they grow while playing.

 In brief, although the all-the-time winner has some positive impacts, I am convinced that children should experience the loser’s feeling and learn from it.

Schools should concentrate on teaching students the academic subjects that will be useful for their future careers. Subjects such as music and sports are not useful. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is sometimes argued that schools should remove non-academic subjects such as music and sports from (the educational/its) syllabus so that students will focus on academic fields which are helpful for their professions. While it is true that intellectual subjects are important, I do not believe that fully concentrating on teaching academic subjects at school is a good idea.

Firstly, from the health point of view, non-academic activities are helpful not only for students’ physical health but also their mental health. For instance, after studying and sitting in compulsory classes for the whole morning, it is better for students to do some outdoor or art activities such as dancing, playing basketball to get rid of stress. As a result, their learning ability and concentration in the afternoon will be improved. Focusing only on the academic area is not only harmful to student’s health but also makes their capability decrease.

Secondly, not all of students need to be excellent at academic subjects to achieve success in their future career. For example, there is no point getting A grades unnecessarily in science-related subjects if a person wants to become a singer or a footballer. By encouraging students to engage in extra-curricular activities, schools can bring out their hidden talents in other fields. This will help not only the students but also the society since that creates the diversity of occupation and enhances the division of labour.

In conclusion, I disagree the argument that focusing only on academic subjects is more helpful than non-academic fields for students in developing their future careers.

Model 2

In recent decades, it is believed that schools had better pay less attention to artistic and sports subjects and put more emphasis on academic subjects because of their usefulness. While this thinking is valid to a certain extent, I would argue subjects relating to music and sport could also bring about a number of merits. It is understandable why some advocate the idea of encouraging teachers and students to focus on academic subjects.

To begin with, by spending a great amount of time on learning such knowledge in these subjects, learners would broaden their horizons and achieve good performance on campus. This would act as a precursor to the acquisition of many advanced qualifications, and thus these undergraduates would secure a rewarding job with higher promotion opportunity after their graduation. In addition, if intensive learning in these subjects is processed, those who are going to classes on a daily basis may be equipped with a lot of vital skills, which are easier for them to perform their tasks more effectively at the workplace. As a result, when these individuals are confronted with a myriad of problems, they have a tendency to overcome difficulties effortlessly with their skills they learned at schools.

As well as the academic subjects, subjects like music and sports also offer a range of considerable advantages to the occupational future. In fact, a lot of studies suggest that music classes would be a conductive environment to the enhancement of students’ innovation capability. It is vitally important for the learners to gain this special skill because they would be more likely to generate a wealth of creative methods or solutions which help them to solve many difficult situations at work. In addition to the improvement of the mental process, the boost in pupils’ well-being may be greater when they engage in sports classes. The implication of this is that they would have the ability to be more industrious and show the positive manner towards their workload.

In conclusion, art and physical subjects, as well as academic subjects both, have positive influences on future careers, thus students should hold the balance between these two subjects for the optimum benefits.

Education is not a luxury but a basic human right and as such should be free for everyone irrespective of personal wealth. DO you agree or disagree with the statement.

It is argued that education is a basic human right therefore free tuition fee is very necessary for whoever learners are. In my view, I partly think that this brings many advantages; however, free education has its own limits as the extent to which the merits of a free education are debatable in certain states and circumstances.

On the one hand, free education affects both students and the whole society greatly. For poor families or ones with many children, no tuition fee carries a significant implication because they do not need to force their kids to work instead of studying as well as saving an amount of money for other needs; therefore a whole society may become more civilized and well educated. In addition, free education can attract a lot of foreigners, especially talented people. Taking Germany as an example, this government frees any tuition fee for both local and foreign students, as a result, top brilliant people come here and contribute to this country’s development significantly.

On the other hand, this law triggers a lot of considerable problems for governments and students. Paying tuition fee means that the government must be under a huge economic burden every year and then the development of several fields may be inhibited. For instance, if Vietnam fulfills the law of free education, the government must spend thousands of billion VND annually; while many other basic demands are not responded yet. Besides, free education might make students less responsible for studying or doing activities in school and result in long-term drawbacks.

Finally, I believe that free education is extremely suitable for typical areas or countries but it may create many serious issues for others.

Many people go to university for academic study. More people should be encouraged to do vocational training because there is a lack of qualified workers such as electricians and plumbers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, a large number of people study academic subjects at university instead of attending/taking part in/partaking in vocational training courses. While I accept that a university degree is also essential and beneficial, I totally agree that we should encourage people to become qualified workers such as electricians or plumbers.

There are two important reasons why more vocationally-trained workers are required. Firstly, when buildings are constructed or repaired, a source of electricians, plumbers or other trades are vital. For example, material facilities in some key fields such as hospitals, schools, museums usually need to be expanded or maintained. Having trained workers operate such/those kinds of work can not only ensure the safety of the buildings but also lead to an improvement in the quality of life of the whole community. Secondly, there are too many academic graduates in the same major in some countries every year. Consequently, the proportion of graduate unemployment is increasing significantly each year as well. Therefore, the authorities in those countries need to ensure that extra vocational training is provided.

More people should be encouraged to attend career-oriented courses/on-the-job training to meet society’s needs. The schools should not just focus on exam-driven curriculum which is found to be quite impractical and disheartens/demotivates students when they have low grades. Schools, therefore, must make changes in the curriculum and provide workshops to teach practical skills. Parents should also encourage their children to find out their gifts and explain the good job prospects to inspire them to choose vocational carriers.

In conclusion, I agree that it is essential that we encourage more people to attend vocational training due to the fact that the more qualified workers meet the society’s needs, the more our society can function effectively.

Some people think that schools should reward students who show the best academic results, while others believe that it is more important to reward students who show improvements. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

The idea that, whether academic institutes should award prizes for students on the basis/on the ground of their top-excellent scholastic achievements or improvements, remains a source of controversy. While some individuals say that schools are better off rewarding high score-attaining students, I would argue that it would be preferable to give prizes to ones who make progress throughout intellectual/educational attainment.

On the one hand, there are a number of negative consequences if schools reward learners who obtain the best academic performance. Firstly, ideology about scoring marks as high as possible can oblige learners to aggressively compete against each other due to scores in lieu of the knowledge. For instance, in a subjective circumstance, my peers at university excessively adhere to their study with the purpose of obtaining good marks without any scrutiny about what knowledge they should acquire. Secondly, the most excellent students are likely to receive the majority of the attention and priorities from their teachers. On account of the common tendency to focus on the most outstanding pupils of teachers, potentials of ordinary students are often ignored leading to inequality of opportunity in education.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that schools should award a prize for learners who attempt to improve every day. The first benefit is that it will motivate them to do a more hard-working job to make a plenty of progress in their study. Therefore, it is likely to give an equivalent chance for all students from the poor-performed group to well-performed ones to express their own intellectual ability. Another merit is that the burdensome pressure on learners will be reduced significantly, which can make a major contribution to eliminating negative aspects in examinations. Now that score does not keep holding a crucial part as a decisive factor identifying their ability and non-stop efforts.

In conclusion, it seems to me that it is better to reward students making progress profoundly because of some outstanding points although other people insist on the most excellent students more deserve.

Essay 2

It is a widespread practice that prestigious awards should be given to brilliant pupils. While some individuals say that students with the best score should receive awards, I would argue that it would be better to encourage pupils who are better day by day.

On the one hand, rewarding outstanding students would benefit not only in the present but also in the future. Firstly, in the present, this action would foster the competitive spirit of all students in school to win the award. After this cutthroat competition, excellent pupils could make the most of the awards they received to pursue tertiary education. Moreover, with the tiny number of the best students, each school could allocate their resources to expenditure on priority things such as infrastructure or improve the quality of teachers. Secondly, in the future, these excellent students could achieve a huge success in their careers and become the stars in the world of work. Then perhaps they would return to support their old schools through philanthropic actions as scholarships for next generations.

On the other hand, I believe that it is more beneficial to spur students to be better by awards. Firstly, in short-term, all students would endeavor to be rewarded and never sit on their laurels, even with students who are having the best score in school. It would make a dramatic change in education in which instead of “the best” students, there are only “better” pupils. Secondly, in long-term, this action would enhance the general quality of the whole workforce, which leads to nation’s sustainable economic development.


This is not necessarily wrong but it would sound more natural to me if your main argument were longer than the other one.

In conclusion, it seems to me that rewarding students who reveal their progressive/ceaseless advancement would be better than solely give awards to outstanding students.

Essay 3

It is universally believed that rewards should be presented to students who excel in their study. While this is valid to a certain extent, I contend that rewarding students who make impressive progress is a superior option.

It is understandable why some people advocate rewarding the elite student only. The key rationale is that they have applied themselves in order to achieve the best performance, so it makes sense that their efforts earn them the praises and privileges over those with lesser achievements. However, this thinking is flawed, as it may have an adverse effect on the rest of the students. They would feel overwhelmed by the fact that they can never compete, then gradually become disheartened. As a result, they may be reluctant to study harder, leading to lag behind their peers and the school’s overall performance may be deteriorated.

 Instead of the aforementioned approach, I am of the opinion that not only outstanding students but also those who aspire to get better performance should be rewarded. This would incentivize all to be diligent in their study and promote healthy competition, which would immensely place a positive effect to the school’s progress. My university class is perfectly exemplified. Every time a student gets a higher grade than in the previous exams, they will be praised in front of the whole class. This creates a sense of encouragement for everybody and they will endeavor to study harder.

In conclusion, while there still exist appropriate reasons to support the act of rewarding only the best student, I believe those who show signs of improvement should be encouraged too.

Essay 4

In many countries, rewarding students plays an essential role in the educational system. Some people argue that schools just need to give encouragements to those who could gain the highest scores, but I believe that praising students who show improvements is much more logical.

On the one hand, there are some reasons why most of the schools nowadays prefer giving awards towards pupils having excellent academic performances. Firstly, this approach would make students who have average and bad study results consider the highest achievers as role models to emulate. As a result, the studying environment at schools could become highly competitive and the schoolers would be stimulated to put more efforts into studying in order to achieve high scores. Secondly, the outstanding students that are at some specific subjects could be discovered and their teachers will give them more opportunities to nurture their aptitudes. For example, in Vietnam, many schools often select extraordinary students into extra classes to provide them with more academic and profound knowledge, which enable them to gain high ranking in national competitions.

On the other hand, rewarding pupils who make progress in studying would bring some advantages. The first benefit is that adopting this method could keep normal students from stress and depression when the examination is coming. It is true that children nowadays are under a lot of pressure from studying and being compared with their top classmates. Another advantage is that the number of students who intend to drop out of schools will be reduced significantly. In fact, falling behind with their study makes many pupils feel bored and then, they decide to leave school to earn money. Thus, giving awards when they make a stride in studying is the best way to inspire and motivate them to study harder.

In conclusion, giving rewards to top achievers is reasonable, but I believe that it is much better to give encouragements to those who put their time and efforts into studying in order to gain higher scores.

Some people believe that educating children altogether will benefit them. Others think intelligent children should be taught separately and given special courses. Discuss those two views.

In recent decades, children education has been given higher weight by the general public. Some people believe that it is crucial, beneficial to gather talented students and offer them special courses. However, as every coin has two sides, the pros and cons of this educational philosophy will be discussed in the following essay.

On the one hand, it is not surprising that arranging gifted children with special classes and giving special instruction would bring tremendous interests to producing elite students. The nutrient environment which promotes geniuses’ progress toward success could be provided by this teaching method. In stark contrast, when learning through the ordinary curriculum, the personal development of prodigies are usually hampered. In this effort, talented children could facilitate their learning progress by exchanging knowledge and experience with their same peers.

On the other hand, this teaching method has some drawbacks that should be taken into consideration. In particular, it would foster depression, frustration amongst slow students. Treating differently can drive ordinary students to feel the sense of elimination and worthlessness. As a consequence, low-achievers could cast doubt on their effort which leads to the lower performance and the lower record in school. Furthermore, this arrangement can twist children’s perception of their ability and potentially cause negative effects on their life afterward.

In conclusion, it is a dilemma to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of teaching separately, differently intelligent students. Although this way can bring a nutritious environment to the personal development of high-achievers, the feeling of discrimination and other detrimental results should be taken into account of educators seriously.

Some people think that studying from the past teaches us nothing about today’s life. Others argue that the history is a valued source of information. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

There have been different arguments over the possible impacts of history on the modern society. While many people believe that information from the past has no effect on today’s generation, I would argue that it is reasonable to consider history as a vital source of knowledge in the progression of the humanity.

On the one hand, it is thought that studying history is fruitless as it is merely a set of past events. Firstly, in the ever-changing world, human activities now happen in an entirely different manner compared to the past. Therefore, historical data and experiences appear to play no role in decision making or predicting the future. Secondly, there is no firm evidence for the accuracy of the historical information due to people’s biased judgments and lack of a data storage system. If some information about the historical events were wrong, people would have an incorrect understanding of the past society and culture.

 On the other hand, I would side with those who think that history provides people with an insight into their surroundings. In fact, history is an ongoing process in which people are approaching a better world. For that reason, valuable knowledge from the history could enable individuals to be aware of their unlimited potentials, resulting in more efforts to be made for the sustainable development of the human civilization. Besides, learning from the past could help people to avoid making regretful mistakes. For example, if the US military had thoroughly studied the Vietnam’s history of defending against foreign invasions, they would have called off the Vietnam War, which took the lives of millions of innocent people.

In conclusion, to some extent, although some arguments arise when gaining knowledge about history is likely to bring no value to the society, it seems to me that its ultimate benefits are significant.

Nowadays university education is very expensive. Some people say that universities should reduce their fees, especially for the less fortunate students or those coming from rural areas. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

In two recent decades, the cost of tuitions in universities has increased significantly and people have concerned that students who are less privileged or from rural areas, cannot afford to pursue a university degree / to partake in university courses. I am strongly in favor of the opinion that universities should decrease their fees.

Frist and foremost, education is the basis/foundation of any development of society. There is a direct correlation that the developed countries have high education quality. Especially their universities can create many doctors, scientists, experts in numerous fields. Furthermore, these experts assist their countries with great research, boosting the economy, education, science, medicine, etc. Therefore, every nation needs the highly educated and productive workforce but the high fees at universities prevent the opportunities from reaching all citizens. Besides, students are under great financial pressure, having the less sufficient learning than they are possible. As we know, there are many students who work part-time to pay for the financial charges. Secondly, the governments are trying to reduce the disparities among social classes, enabling us to escape from the period when only elite could study in universities. Therefore, reducing universities frees contributes to reaching equality for humanity.

On the other hand, some people state/agree that reducing fees in universities resemble reducing the value of universities. As the result, universities, perhaps, are becoming less competitive than they used to and the quality of universities does not evolve intensively. Moreover, universities are not able to get a lot of revenue and this definitely has some adverse effect/influence on their operations in particular and economic development in general.

To sum up, the merits of reducing fees in universities outweigh keeping high tuition fees. Therefore, the government should pour much more money into education in the form of scholarships for students.

Schools should not force children to learn a foreign language. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In the educational field, people have different views on the question of whether the foreign language should not be compulsory for children. Personally, while I tend towards this point of view, I also believe that it should be of great necessity for students to acquire another language apart from their mother tongue.

On the one hand, there are various compelling reasons why school children do not need to learn a second language. Firstly, it is non-essential for those who do not have the needs of fulfilling the expectations of studying abroad. As a consequence, it may lead to the counter-productivity in their studies when they are given a sense of compulsion. Another reason is that children may be reluctant in learning without full awareness of the relevance of obligatory school subjects to their presents and future lives. This situation, therefore, may turn into depression, which has an adverse impact on their psychological health.

On the other hand, I believe that learning a new language plays a crucial role in children’s lives. In my opinion, those who begin to learn a foreign language in primary school are usually able to have a good grasp of the new language quickly. Consequently, they rarely find themselves out of their depth. Furthermore, bilingual students are believed to have an advantage over others who only know how to use one language. Specifically, they may have greater learning capability for other disciplines as well.

In conclusion, while it can be unnecessary for children to learn a second language, it seems to me that acquiring a new language should be given a high priority and be advisable for students to make the grade in their studies.

Some people believe that studying at university or college is the best route to a successful career, while others believe that it is better to get a job straight after school. Discuss both views.

Model 1

Nowadays, there has been a growing debate whether it is a better way for young people to continue study at higher education institutions such as college and university or to work after graduating from school in order to achieve early success. While there are benefits to working/ having early employment after high school, there are also good reasons why students should proceed their education further.

On the one hand, working straight after school is attractive for several reasons. Firstly, young people can start making money earlier that those who have to go to university. Therefore, they can afford their own living expenses, become more independent and mature. This advantage also helps them to ease the financial burden for their family. Secondly, those people/ they are more likely to make a faster/ more advanced progress/ fast track to a successful career since they do not have to spend many years in university or college. Instead, this amount of time can be converted to earning working experiences in some specific areas. As a result, they can be more attractive/outstanding to employers who look for employees that have/ those having practical knowledge and skills.

On the other hand, there are many benefits to having higher education after high school graduation. First, universities or colleges prepare/ equip young people with higher-level qualifications, which is what most employers requirement these days/ as a certificate for their abilities and knowledge, which most employers want to ensure/ expect. In addition, as a consequent of globalization, the job/labor market is becoming increasingly demanding and competitive. Thus, it is obvious that candidates with eligible qualifications can open the door/ can easily and securely get access to better employment prospects. Furthermore, university graduates can expect a much higher salary than those without equivalent education. For example, in Vietnam, job seekers who hold degrees in finance or medication are offered impressive salary ranges amount along with other benefits such as paid holidays, insurance and bonus. However, as a matter of fact, those without degrees are not trusted for professional positions; instead, they must start from basic and low-paid tasks to acquire sufficient requirements for the job, not to mention it may be impossible to become a doctor or lawyer without having the 34 relevant degree.

In conclusion, it seems evident that working right after school and getting higher education/ joining the workforce and continuing their education beyond high school level each have their own unique advantages. People should consider their career option and individual preference to make the decision regarding this matter.

Essay 2

Some people have a perspective that a successfully developed career typically requires formal education from attending university or college, while the opponents of this view believe that pupils should apply for jobs after high school graduation. In my considered point of view, I think students should be encouraged to get a job straight after school.

On the one hand, there is a variety of reasons favoring keeping studying at higher education over getting a job. Firstly, students would be comprehensively equipped with fundamental knowledge as well as academically trained to think critically and logically in order that they could manage to take grips with complicated problems which heavily require theoretical base rather than experience. Secondly, (the) learners would be kept updated with new knowledge derived from academic research in their field. It is followed, then leaners would become sufficiently qualified for highly skilled jobs which usually offer a generous salary.

On the other hand, I totally believe that looking for employment also brings many advantages to a pupil. Bill Gates, for instance, has been in the first rank of world billionaires for five successive years although he was a college dropout. Through working, a student (singular) can gain much professional experience, become increasingly competent at the job as well as find out whether the job is suitable for him. Furthermore, he can thoroughly explore not only his strengths to take advantage of, but also weaknesses to overcome with the purpose of improving performance. Therefore, he can figure out for himself the best direction, then make appropriate investments to guarantee a successful career.

In conclusion, people can develop their careers by pursuing higher education as well as gaining experience from jobs. However, I believe that having a job straight after school presents more of advantages over studying at a university.

Model 3

After graduating from high school, students have to choose between seeking a job and pursuing higher education. Some people think that continuing to study at a university or college is the best way to develop the career path, whereas the opponents suppose that getting straight to work is more beneficial.

On the one hand, there are several benefits to start working early. Firstly, if the young have a job immediately after leaving high school, they will be able to earn money and financially support themselves. Subsequently, they become mature enough to live independently and do what they want without being influenced by their parents or others. Secondly, working environment provides great opportunities for the students to gain valuable experience and skills, which considerably contribute to their future success. Finally, gradually taking early steps in professional development may lead young people to their stable lives. For example, school leavers who work hard to get promotions and work their way up to the career ladder are more likely to afford a house, settle down and build their own family very soon.

On the other hand, it is important to approach higher-level education after finishing high school programme. First, there is a wide diversity of jobs in the modern life and many of them require academic qualifications, which can be obtained in the scholastic environment only. In addition, the job market has become more and more competitive and big employers tend to search for highly qualified candidates for job positions in their companies. As a result, people graduated from university or college will have greater chances to be selected by high-ranking recruiters. Such advantage enables them to work for big corporations which offer higher salary level as well as extremely satisfying perks.

In conclusion, it seems evident that both choosing to work after finishing high school and seeking further study each have their own unique advantages.


The question of what pathway leads to a successful career still remains a topic of debate amongst youngsters. While some people suppose that tertiary education is the most optimum selection, others argue job opportunities provide them with better prospects in their future career.

On the one hand, it can be undeniable that university is an official environment where students can acquire formal knowledge. With a team of well-educated teachers and a system of standardized curriculum, it can make sure that students can be trained to become efficient labour force for society. Furthermore, the disciplines at academic institutions help young people raise their awareness of every aspect of their lives. As a result, they would be more mature and ready to confront challenges in the future.

However, it is also plausible to say that entering university is not the sole opportunity in the modern days. The number of students securing a job after high school graduation has been increased considerably recently because of its merits. First, it would be a probation period for them to test whether their expected occupations are suitable for them or not. In case they find them unsatisfied, there are always chance to remake other decisions. Second, the fact shows that there are numerous people who have no interest in studying, however, they have a knack for other certain areas. For example, Bill Gates, who is one of the most well-known billionaires in the world, did not graduate from any well-reputed university, but he has been extremely successful in his business to develop Microsoft operation system.  

In my opinion, if a person was not born with a certain talent, the university would be an easier route for the future preparation. 349 306 words


Upon graduating from school, the younger generation has faced the dilemma of whether they should keep on studying or not. While some people suppose that getting a job right after school is the best choice to obtain well-paid jobs, I would argue that it is better to pursue higher education.

Working straight after school actually appeals to teenagers for several reasons. Firstly, they will have a chance to earn money as soon as possible which is a fundamental condition to live independently. They not only are able to take care of themselves but also support their family. Secondly, they will gain real experience and learn practical skills related to their chosen profession. As a result, people who decide to find a job may progress more quickly than those choosing to continue their studies.

 On the other hand, if employees graduate university, they will have more advantages. In terms of career, a college education helps students to meet higher-level qualifications such as doctor, teacher, lawyer which is impossible for people without a relevant degree. In addition, the job market has become more and more highly competitive and thus, top jobs which are highly paid are usually chased by hundreds of applicants and the employers tend to choose people owning academic qualifications. In fact, in Vietnam, students who graduate university as engineer or bachelor often have an easy time getting a good job.

In conclusion, both finding a work right after school and studying at the university have their own unique advantage; however, I believe that people who choose to continue higher-level studies are guaranteed a more successful career.

University students always focus on one specialist subject, but some people think universities should encourage their students to study a range of subjects in addition to their own subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is true that students in university are now placing much attention on the subjects related to their own future career. However, some critics argue that universities should resort to some measures to have their students study more diverse subjects. In my view, I accept that studying more subjects makes students become more mature to some extent, yet I believe that it is legitimate for them to merely focus on their major subjects.

On the one hand, learning/mastering more subjects bring people more knowledge and a well-rounded perspective of life. It is undeniable that many subjects in the tertiary curriculum are very important in practical terms. For example, History teaches young generations about how their ancestors fought against outside intruders and made sacrifices to protect their motherland and the sovereignty of their nations. Therefore, this subject fosters a sense of patriotism for the students. However, the intense syllabus of universities often makes students feel overwhelmed with a great amount of information to cram in.

On the other hand, in the digital era, people need to be skillful in the major they choose to pursue. It appears indisputable that studying many subjects would distract students from their specialty. Moreover, along with the information explosion, people can easily mitigate their lack of knowledge after graduating from universities. Information is now widely available on the Internet with high accuracy. Besides, encouraging students to focus on some subjects can effectively build up a strong workforce which has the ability to foster general prosperity of a nation.

In conclusion, although some people argue that students should study more subjects, I would side with those who believe it is indispensable for tertiary students to excel in one field of expertise.

Model 2

Despite the fact that the matter of the curriculum of college does not grab a headline as frequently as other issues, it does not mean it is less vital. It is believed that college students should be trained by more multiple subjects rather than only by their specializations. While I accept that this may suit many people, I hold a strong belief that the educational institutions should concentrate instructing only their principal subjects for students.

(We should admit) delivering a wide range of subjects is beneficial in some aspects. First and foremost, by virtue of the awareness acquired from other specializations, students would gain more experience to deal with extensively complicated circumstances after leaving school. It can be seen clearly in the dental education that dental teaching programs instruct the prospective dentists to have an overall view at an interdisciplinary level because their real patients can have other several illnesses affecting negatively to their dentition. Another advantage to taking into account is that students are offered an opportunity to consider their majors again if they feel a great sense of interest in another field of study. Obviously, my classmate can be seen as a true instance when he made the decision to pursue the pharmacy pathway after he had found the pharmacology subject extremely attractive at the first year of dental school.

Having said that, however, I do believe that successful school-leavers are attributed to the teaching measure that focuses on their own subjects. The first reason is that the students who have a good grasp of the core of their major subjects would have an enormous range of possibilities to obtain more favorable employments than who are averagely good at multiple subjects. Apparently, the employers have a tendency to prefer the fresh applicants who possess excellent qualifications in only a certain field, not a variety of fields. Secondly, specialistsubject trained students have priorities to pursue postgraduate programs if they desire, compared to multi-subject ones/their multi-subject counterparts. It is evident that currently there is an increasing number of opportunities to study and research higher degree only valid for those who pose talent backgrounds in their specialized subject.

In the light of these facts, I stay a notion that the teaching method of universities should side with specialization subject rather than a comprehensive range of subjects.

It is more important for schoolchildren to learn about local history than world history. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is an indisputable fact that history plays an essential role in the educational system all over the world. However, children nowadays are getting overwhelmed with a considerable range of historical knowledge; some people, for that reason, believe that students should only focus on local history.

In my opinion, both local and world history ought to be taught on account of tremendous benefits they bring. To begin with, local history is completely a great importance, especially for schoolchildren due to the fact that it is not merely a particular subject at school but the responsibility of every single student for their own country. To put it another way, through history, children are able to establish a national identity which is likely to enhance a sense of patriotism that encourages them to preserve/uphold traditional values.

From another angle, learning global history is truly necessary as well. As a matter of fact, the definition of globalization today is becoming more and more popular, studying world history, therefore, keeps young learners up to date and indeed gives them more opportunities to get exposed to the outside world, which they definitely cannot learn through domestic one. Besides, world history also increases the chances of boosting/improving employment prospects in future career. Take Japanese firms for a typical example, owing to the appreciation of Japanese companies to a deep insight of their culture, it is totally advantageous for employees who acquire a wide knowledge of Japanese history.

In conclusion, both local history and world history are extremely important for students because of their huge pros. Therefore they should be taught widely in the school curriculum.

Model 2

History has played an integral role in the cultural development of most nations in the world. Many advocate that the young should study local history because it is more beneficial than world history. From my perspective, I totally disagree with this idea since both of the local history and the world history are equally essential.

On the one hand, there are some reasons why children need to learn about the local history. One reason is that by virtue of coming up with the national history, youngsters are reminded about resounding and glorious history. For example, in Vietnam, the previous generation has experienced a variety of wars and sacrifice significantly to protect the freedom of this nation. Another reason is that by no means can young people respect the origin and core values which existed thousands of years in their nation if they do not search for local history. Not only might they broaden their own knowledge but they are also inspired to endeavor their best and live up to the expectation of the forefather.

On the other hand, I believe that we should not lessen the emphasis on the world history. Firstly, the globalization trend is growing remarkably so it is logical that the young must have the remarkable understanding of numerous ethnic groups and traditions all over the world. By dint of arming with the broader perspective, people can form the mutual knowledge about the origins and the past development of other nations/countries. Furthermore, many types of research about the global history provide the young with an overview of the relationship among nations and how international historical events happened, such as the liberation of slave and the end of colonialism.

 In conclusion, it is obvious that both local history and world history bring many benefits for studying.

Model 3

Despite the fact that the matter of how to teach history does not grab a headline as frequently as other issues, it does not mean it is less vital. It is commonly believed that domestic history instruction plays a principal role than international history teaching for the students. While I accept that this may suit many people, I hold a strong belief that the two distinct extents of history learning are similar together in the aspect of importance.

We should admit that there is a wide range of reasons why indigenous history is appreciated far more than world history. First and foremost, school kids may feel senses of interest and ease with local history field. Obviously, names of local historical events and figures are frequently surrounding their daily lives, that is to say, they are the street names, street banners, school names, TV programs and so on. This continual/constant repetition of these historical elements could be the facilitator of relieving the challenge of learning domestic history known by less attractive number and text. Secondly, concentrating on indigenous history instruction is the profound contribution to the conservation of native customs and traditional ones. A clear instance is that Vietnamese students are currently welltrained of the glorious victories of ancestors against the invasions of enemies which enhances their patriotism while the emergence of the waves of foreign historical movies.

Having said that, however, I do believe that the task of learning the international history of students could not be undervalued for some reasons. First of all, studying well global history can be one of the implements to become the prospective global-citizen under the effect of the globalization process. Apparently, by virtue of historical awareness at the international scale, the students will be eligible to more successfully adapt in host countries around the world if they have opportunities to work, live or study there. Last but not least, the school children are capable of broadening their academic horizon with respect to the history of the variety of nations rather than only their native nation. It is evident that acquiring the historical lessons enables students to be wisely conscious to which issues are existing in this contemporary situation of the world, such as the conflict in the Middle East and the nuclear weapon crisis in North Korea.

In the light of these facts, while national history is an integral part of the curriculum for pupils, I do believe that learning worldwide history should be recognized as vital as the national one.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Log In

Or with username:

Forgot password?

Don't have an account? Register

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.