|Mothers play key roles in the upbringing of children. But in the recent times both parents are getting busy with professional life. Who in your opinion should take the responsibility of child care now?|
There’s no denying how important a role the mother plays in the upbringing of her children. But torn by modern economics, mothers are leaving home for professional practice, raising the question “who now takes care of the children?” In my belief, though, all efforts to replace the proverbial mother are destined to be futile.
Observing Nature, scientifically or other wise, tells us that being a mother, if it were a social role, is ideally possible by the child bearing female and others may only be nurses or patrons. The physiological and psychological exclusiveness of the mother means all the other social entities and all the greatness of science and civilization can only supplement, and never replace, her part in the upbringing of children. Any one else trying to don her role is simply unnatural.
But of course there is opinion in the contrary also. Modern science flaunts its age old practice of replicating nature and natural processes. Now more than ever humans and their society are evolving frequently against the tide of Nature, and civilization sustains this evolution. Such evolution has also effected the socio-economic distinction of men and women. Now in the industry women are producing as much as men do. So “women are better off in the house” is no longer true.
While such human evolution is true and should morally be supported, going against Mother Nature, when we’re clearly not in a position to, is immoral. Science has not yet found a biological and psycho-social alternative for the natural mother. And while gender equality is great, it never means fusion of the two poles of our species. I don’t believe science never has strived to eliminate sex because it is simply impracticable. So men and women, so uniformly productive as they recently are, don’t have to utilize their worth in the same end of civilization.
If one person, or sex, is naturally gifted to play a special and vital role in the society, it is her duty to thrive in it. I therefore conclude that in a child’s life its mother is irreplaceable, and, hence, it is she who should rear her child.
|Some people prefer to live in small family units, while others think it is better to live in large family groups. Discuss both views and give your opinion?|
There is a controversy over whether people should live in nuclear family or individuals should live in an extended family. This essay discusses both views mentioned above and then I will give my own opinion.
There are several advantages for some individuals to live in a large family group. Firstly, parents can be a role model for their children to look up to through several actions such as taking care of grandparents, which helps their offspring develop a sense of responsibility and respects their family. As a result, living with the elderly helps to create a strong family relationship/ bond. Second, since there are many beloved family members, people can give a helping hand to do housework. For instance, if parents have to finish all of the work obligations, grandparents might help to care for/ look after their grandchildren.
There are a number of factors that some people prefer living in small family units. Firstly, by having more quality/ valuable time to do what people really want to do such as traveling for long distance trip or learning something special, these individuals living in small families could be much freer. For example, children living in an elementary family would be more independent, which plays an important role in their adulthood. In addition, retired people should live far away from their adult children, which reduces the financial burden on young generations/ youngsters. In fact, if the young adults live together with their parents, they will have to shoulder the responsibility to take care of the elderly and their pressure will become heavier.
In conclusion, while living in the large family group can be positive to some extent, I believe that living in a nuclear family can have more benefits.
|Many people believe that women make better parents than men and that is why they have a greater role in raising children in most societies. Others claim that men are just as good as women at parenting. State your point of view.|
It is true that the mother plays a vital role in raising a kid. While some people suppose that women triumphs over men in children upbringing, I would argue that both of them can support the development of their children in equal measure.
On the one hand, the child would receive the best care from his mother. As the mother directly gives birth to a kid, there is an extremely strong bond between them in terms of physical as well as psychological development. The mom in some ways can understand and completely satisfy the needs of her baby even though just hearing his cry. Moreover, the woman always represents the love which is looked for by the kid/child since he was born through his basic instinct. For example, according to some of my university’s researches, the children who were raised under their mother’s love have a higher success rate in their future life than those who did not have, which proves the crucial role of the mother in parenting the children.
However, it is not deniable that the father also creates an enormous contribution to the successful future of the kid. Even though the father does not breast his kid, he educates his child in various aspects which are essential for the development. For example, when I was eight years old, I was taught some invaluable lessons by my lovely dad, which is how to have a strong mind to overcome any obstacles in my life. Based on the gender of the kid, the father would teach them boy-related knowledge or girl-related wisdom which he collected during his lifetime and it definitely supports the kid on the road to future.
In conclusion, in a matter of fully bringing up the children, both genders contribute equally to the fulfillment of this task.
|In recent years, the structure of a family and the role of its members are gradually changing. What kinds of changes can occur? Do you think these changes are positive or negative?|
In the last few decades, there are some modifications in the family structure and the relationship between wives and husbands or between parents and children. I strongly believe that these changes will bring both good and adverse effects to our society.
Firstly, it is clear that the number of members in a family has been decreasing in recent years. Nowadays, a family usually has fewer people than it used to do. For example, in the past, it was not difficult to find extended families with a few generations living together in Viet Nam, however, the nuclear ones are much more popular now. Couples also tend to have one or two children instead of three or more. Equally important, the role of each person in families has significant changes. The wife plays a more important role in the family. A good example is that a lot of women are the backbone of their family by their abilities to earn money, while many men are willing to have responsibilities for taking care of children or doing housework. In some families, both wife and husband would like to pursue their own career, so hiring charwomen is a perfect choice not only to help them do housewifery but also to look after their children.
Apart from that, the generation gap between parents and children has been reducing. It means that children will have a stronger voice to discuss the family’s problem or decisions. In my opinion, all transformations mentioned above could lead to adverse effects as well as positive ones. It is possible that a nuclear family would bring more comfortable living conditions to all members, nevertheless, in the future, children would have to struggle to take care of their parents. Besides, if children are given too many rights or privileges, they probably will be selfish or rude rather than reach a comprehensive development as their parents expect.
In conclusion, there is a variety of changes in the family structure and the responsibility of each member, which can cause positive or downside influences. It is time for all people to recognize these modifications and pay more attention to 434 their family.
Nowadays, factors of an ordinary family are witnessing some steady changes. Some fundamental adjustments of the modern families and the writer’s opinion whether these modifications are beneficial or disadvantageous will be indicated in this essay. In my point of view, there are two main types of changes that occur in family construction.
Initially, the size of the family tends to be tailed off. It is obvious that in the past, a usual family used to consist of at least three generations. However, in modern life, the most prevalent type of family is a nuclear family, which only includes a maximum of two generations: parents and children. Moreover, people apparently give birth less than they did before and the appearances of the childless couples are more frequent. This change has both advantages and disadvantages. By reducing the numbers of offspring, parents are capable of taking care of their children more carefully. Nonetheless, this tendency could disconnect people with their ancestors because they do not have enough opportunities to be close to the previous generations.
Secondly, there is also a dramatic change in the responsibility of each family member to the others. Previously, especially in Eastern society, everyone had to obey everything talked by their parents whatever right or wrong. Nowadays, although every child has duties to respect their parents, they have right to make arguments with their fathers and mothers when they feel doubt with their parents’ statements. This adjustment, of course, is very conducive to the children’s development in the family. However, there are some cases that the children use this right to be rude or offend their parents.
In conclusion, I believe that the mentioned transformations are conducive to family development because their benefits are obvious and cannot be denied, while their detrimental effects are insignificant. Moreover, disastrous impacts also occurred in traditional families, so they can be only attributed to the transition of the modern family.
|Some people say that what children watch influences their behaviour. Others believe the amount of time they spend on television influences their behaviour most. Discuss both views and give your opinion.|
Watching television plays an integral part in the development of children’s understanding as well as their behaviour. Many people think that the content of programmes delivered by channels on TV has negative impacts on youngster’s action while others believe that the most influential factor/effect to the young is the amount of time that they invest in television. From my perspective, both these elements have undesirable influences on children but I would argue that the subject matter/subject/theme/message of programs on television has more disadvantages.
First of all, the amount of time that children spend on television does more harm than good for their behaviour. Firstly, by dint of investing a lot of time on watching television, the young would waste much time while they can use this time to focus on broadening their own knowledge and mastering their vital soft skills. Indeed, by no means can youngsters enhance their level of education performance if they only stay at home to stick their eyes to the television. Secondly, when young people are addicted to watching television, they might put their health in danger. For example, there are a large number of children who spend much time on television facing with several serious mental and physical diseases such as obesity and poor eyesight.
On the other hand, I reckon that children are negatively affected by what they watch on television. In fact, the government cannot filter all information through a variety of social channels so young people may be impacted by the bulk of sexprovocative images and violent videos. For example, by accessing the television programs, a student who comes from America has become a murderer by killing hundreds of people in a town. Moreover, the content of many advertisement programs on television might endanger children’s attention. Undoubtedly, no sooner do young people watch television than they want to own many products, and hence, their parents would meet their demand.
In conclusion, I reaffirm my standpoint that both these problems have several drawbacks for youngster’s behaviour but the content that they watch is more harmful.
|Caring for children is important in any society. Some people believe that all parents should be required to take childcare courses, while others believe that there are other ways for parents to learn how to take care of their children. Discuss both views and give your opinion.|
How to look after children has been a heated topic of concern in modern society. While some think parents should go to attend parenting classes, I am firm of the opinion that parents are able to learn how to properly raise their own child in several other ways.
On the one hand, there are some certain benefits for parents to take childcare courses. Firstly, since parents are taught by well-trained experts, they are fully equipped with valuable knowledge and information. Besides, they also have the opportunities to practice essential caring skills such as changing diapers or calming their babies down. If parents do not take part in childcare courses, they might find it difficult to face these situations. Secondly, when taking part in course, parents also have a chance to meet other parents. This could help them exchange realistic information and give useful advice to each other.
On the other hand, I strongly believe parents can learn how to bring up their children from other sources. The first valuable source is from grandparents who already have much practical experience. It would be easier and more convenient to learn from their loved ones anytime during the day. Additionally, since another useful source is the Internet, parents could learn knowledge from websites or online books. For instance, Vietnamese parents could surf websites such as lamchame.com that contain a reservoir of knowledge about raising children. Consequently, parents are able to have access to various information from different authors, which helps them compare and select the most suitable method for their children.
To conclude, although enrolling in parenting class is beneficial for parents to some extent, I would argue that it is a better option to learn how to take care of their children from other sources.
|Children who grow up in families which are short of money are better prepared with the problems of adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree?|
People have different views on whether children from wealthy (families) or low – income families would cope better with life challenges. While I understand that a materially abundant life may offer some advantages, I would argue that being brought up in poverty-stricken families is usually more beneficial.
On the one hand, there are a variety of reasons why some people advocate nurturing children in comfortable environments. One of the essential elements is that children in wealthy families are undoubtedly provided with better living conditions and learning materials. With the widely available (re)sources of information, these children are likely to achieve better academic achievements than their poorer peers. In addition, children who have prosperous parents often obtain good-quality child minding and after-school childcare; hence, they are allowed to focus completely on their studies and enjoy other extra-curriculum activities.
On the other hand, I believe that being brought up in families which are lack of financial resources would better prepare children for their future. Firstly, junior members in impoverished families are usually educated about the value of money in their formative years, as well as learning how to support their parents in earning money. Therefore, they could engage in diverse activities and be equipped with various life/soft skills that may be extremely useful in their adult lives, such as communication (skills) or problem-solving skills. Secondly, if children are given the chance to interact with the reality from their early stages in life, they could develop strong personalities to overcome adversity in their adulthood, and thus/thereby coping better with the competitive world. For example, a child that grew up in a working-class family and since my childhood I have been cultivating/ cultivated valuable virtues of life like responsibility, endurance, and diligence, which helps me a great deal in leading my adult life.
In conclusion, while it is true that children growing up in wealthy families benefit in some ways, this is by no means that they can be better prepared for life’s challenges than children whose childhood suffers from poverty.
It is universally believed that underprivileged children whose parents have to struggle to meet necessary amenities in daily life may be well equipped with life experience for later adulthood in comparison with those born from affluent families. Although some people suppose that this opinion is unfounded, I totally agree with this because of several reasons.
To begin with, it is indisputable that children who were born and brought up in poor living conditions are more likely to cope with unexpected challenges in the future. Living in the disadvantaged background, youngsters usually suffer from a shortage of food, running water, and access to basic medical services, training them to be stronger to survive even in the extremely harsh conditions. Besides that, children from low socioeconomic status also learnt how to make money from the early stage by polishing shoes or selling small items on streets for passers due to their desire for better education; therefore, they have an opportunity to expose to such a competitive world soon and, in turns, can make a wiser decision as well as value money.
Conversely, it would be more difficult for children from rich families to join in adult life without any assistance and supervision from their parents owing to experience deficiency during childhood. A noticeable consequence of the extreme care is the high likelihood to be getting involved in crimes. The abundant financial support from wealthy parents in combination with the little exposure to dangers in real life may unintendedly lead their children to waste money on habit-forming drugs like tobacco to show off themselves, which is the weakness usually exploited by criminals. Additionally, some children can also become rather arrogant with the view that money is the powerful tool for gaining everything including love and relationships, making them hardly get on well with colleges in workplace, neighbors or even relatives.
In conclusion, I want to reaffirm my view that children living under the poverty line have a better preparedness for future.
|Nowadays, more and more people decide to have children later in their life. What are the reasons? Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?|
In recent years, the decision of young parents to start a family later in life has been becoming increasingly popular. There are a number of reasons behind this point of view and this tendency results in several negative impacts on both family life and society as a whole.
On the one hand, there are two main factors leading to this trend. First of all, rather than embarking their parenthood early, most of the young people consider building their own successful careers as their top priorities. They do not need to split their limited time between working and bringing up their offspring. Therefore, their performance at work and promotion prospect will not be negatively affected. Secondly, delaying giving childbirth allows people to enjoy their time with personal choices and freedom. It may give them countless opportunities to have richer sociable lives or even travel around the world.
On the other hand, deciding to start a family at the later stage in life has several significant consequences in term of both individual families and community. An important concern for family life having to raise a child/for family life with children is likely to be a huge challenge for older parents. It seems not to be easy for the parent to communicate, be related to their child due to a generation gap even though they may have stable socioeconomic status or great experiences and knowledge. Besides, getting pregnant after 35 years of age may carry a certain number of health risks for both mothers and babies. Specifically, older mothers get the higher danger of miscarriage or stillbirth and babies might be at greater risk of having Down’s syndrome.
Consequently, the quality of the future workforce is being seriously impacted. In conclusion, the increasingly popular trend of giving birth later in life results from several factors. Eventually/Subsequently, there could have significant influences on both family life and society at large. 316 words 258
|In many Western countries, there is an increasing number of couples choosing to have no children. What are the advantages and disadvantages to couples having no children?|
Western couples these days have increasingly changed their minds about having children. It is a fact that parenting or not-parenting brings both benefits and drawbacks in many fields of life.
On the one hand, raising/bringing up a child is immensely expensive. A lot of beliefs are held that supporting a child’s life from birth to eighteen years old is beyond their financial ability. Some people initially refuse to give birth because they want to save money for their leisure activities and elder life. Moreover, it is relatively easier for not-parenting to pursue higher in their chosen professions. Also, being a childless couple can let them spend more time together with their partner.
On the other hand, those who have children prove to gain a variety of advantages. Adult children are normally believed to take good care of their parents when they become old. For example, an elderly alone cannot drive to the supermarket and cook for himself. In addition, having no child can make people feel sort of misfits from their fellows who have one. Sometimes children are the ones who can connect their parents together, maintaining well the relationship of couples. In fact, many broken marriages/many marriages being on the brink of divorce are saved thanks to the bond of their kids.
All in all, although being parents can experience the sense of responsibility, childless life help people to live more independent by saving a certain amount of time and money. It can be concluded that each choice brings unique advantages and disadvantages.
|Some people think that children should obey the rules or do what their parents and teachers want them to do. Some people think that children controlled very much cannot deal with problems themselves.|
There are many different views about how parents and teachers should educate children to become productive citizens in the future. While some people adopt a view that children should abide by regulations from their parents and teachers, I believe that tight control would bring negative effects on children.
On the one hand, the obedience of children is necessary to gain a wealthy growth. Children are naïve and pure so they are susceptible/ vulnerable to adverse impacts from the living environment. Parents and teachers; therefore, play an important role in keeping their children away from unacceptable behavior by the strict rules. In other words, the insufficient awareness of the rights and the wrongs would lead to misguided beliefs among children; in this case, children should obey the true spirits of elders’ rules to get proper habits.
On the other hand, I agree with those who believe that children restrained narrowly could not cope with the problems themselves. In fact, it is common that children who are imposed the strict rules and regulations by their parents and teachers are more likely to become sensitive and vulnerable/ introverted people. This is the main trigger which leads to the potential lacking of problem-solving skills and makes inadequate decisions given that when they become adults, they must confront with all affairs by themselves without their parents or instructors. For this reason, parents and teachers should encourage their children to see and touch harsh realities at early ages, instead of acting in accordance with the rules.
In conclusion, despite benefits from complying with the rules and regulations, the elders like parents and teachers should break the tough rules, which might prevent children from to be more confident and determinable in modern societies.
|Some people think that parent should teach children how to be good members of society. Others, however, believe that school is the place to learn this. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.|
It is sometimes argued that children should learn how to be good citizens in school instead of learning from their parents. In my opinion, families would provide a more suitable environment for children to acquire the appropriate behaviors.
On the one hand, schools may have significant advantages in education. Firstly, teachers in schools go through adequate training to be qualified to teach. Moreover, they can also gain better access to academic resources on the society’s principles, rules and values than parents in order to guide students in becoming well – behaved individuals. Secondly, parents need to spend a lot of daily hours on their work, household chores, and other responsibilities, resulting in the lack of time with their children. Meanwhile, teachers’sole responsibility is to focus and developing the right attitude and actions in students, so they are more capable of fulfilling this role. Finally, educational institutions frequently receive formal support from governments, nonprofit organizations, educators and researchers to teach children life values. These resources are valuable to help children to have the wanted direction of development.
On the other hand, it would be extremely beneficial for the children if they are taught how to be good members of society from their parents. One of the key points is that children usually spend time and interact with their parents since their births, hence their characteristics are best known by their parents. Fathers and mothers would be the one who can come up with the most suitable approach on how to train their children and what qualities of good citizens that the children are in need. Furthermore, the strong connection and affection with the children would also assist parents in this lifelong cause. For example, I’ve seen many parents around me actively/constantly equip themselves with materials, skills, and knowledge to educate children. Last but not least, teachers in school often have other students to take care of, therefore they cannot individualize the learning method as well as parents.
In conclusion, while I understand that there are some benefits to this alternative, I strongly believe that parents should take the major role in teaching children how to become responsible individuals in the society.
Educating children is getting more and more important these days. There is an opinion that children should get life lessons from their parents, while the others, including me, strongly believe that schools teach children better. There are several arguments that parents play an important role in teaching children to behave well in society.
First of all, parents are the ones who understand their children better. Since a child was born, parents took care of him and taught him basic lessons such as walking or eating. Therefore, there is a strong connection between parents and children. Whenever a child has a problem, parents are ready to take action immediately to help him solve problems. Secondly, parents are close to their children. Parents are always on their sides and support them as much as they can. Children feel safe to rely on their parents and thus, they will listen and follow their parents’ advice. Last but not least, parents are able to adjust their children’s behavior. Provided that when a child shows bad behavior in public, parents are the ones who have the right to fix their behavior. Besides, they can have some appropriate punishments for their children.
On the other hand, school is a better place to teach children how to be good citizens. To begin with, school is considered as a small community. If children want to be good members of society, they ought to have lessons from society, schools, for example. At school, they have opportunities to interact and communicate with friends and teachers. From these people, they learn a lot about life and experience, because each person has different personality and thoughts. Next, children learn new lessons naturally. Lessons that friends teach a child is more is more practical and closer than parents’ lessons. Children learn new things through conversations with friends and games. Finally, school, in some cases, are more reliable than parents. Some parents these days are so busy that they cannot listen to their children’s problems. Friends are also people who are close to a child so they can help each other better.
To summarize, while parents are vital in teaching children, I believe school is a better place for children to train themselves.
|In recent years, the structure of a family and the role of its members are gradually changing. What kinds of changes can occur? Do you think these changes are positive or negative?|
Over the past decades, the patterns of family life have been greatly diversified. There are some changes regarding its structure and members’ role; and these changes, in my perspective, can be seen as a progress.
There are two main differences in families at present compared to the past. First of all, the structure of nuclear family now can have more than one breadwinner, who is normally the father. It is due to the fact that in a developed world, only a few jobs could guarantee the financial stability of a family, which forces both partners to be the supporters. Secondly, the trend that parents exchange their roles has become more common. As a matter of fact, mothers now are of equal opportunities for education and work, which allows them to pursue their career. As a result, stay-at-home dads, who take a responsibility to take care of the children and household chores, have gained popularity among modern families.
In my opinion, these changes in the family’s structure and parental roles are positive for several reasons. To begin with, that both parents can become breadwinners would stabilize the finance of a family, which not only directly eases the burden that the father has to bear in order to support the family but also enables the mother to chase after her dream job. Additionally, it is an upward step that people are at the liberty to do what they like or what they are good at. In other words, women now could follow their dream and at the same time secure her family financial status.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the changes towards the hierarchy and members’ responsibilities of a family are a positive step to a better world.
|Some people say that what children watch influences their behavior. Others believe the amount of time they spend on television influences their behavior most. Discuss both views and give your opinion.|
Some people think that children’s behavior is affected by the things they see on TV while the opponents of this idea argue that/are convinced that how much time they spend on TV affects/has an impact on the way children act daily. I myself believe that both of these factors influent differently on the ways children behave.
On the first hand, the things young people see might give them the first ideas about what they should do in life. There are two reasons for supporting this statement/argument. Firstly, children do not have enough knowledge about life so they normally tend to mimic unconditionally the actions of adults, which they have encountered before, without any adjustment. For example, a reality show such as “Dad, where we are going?” may influence children in terms of the way they communicate with peers and elder people as well.
Secondly, working parents are so busy earning money that they have little time to talk and guide their boys and girls. Instead of guiding children about social skills, parents often let them learn those by themselves through watching TV. On the other hand, the more children stick their eyes on TV, the more their communication and actions are affected. The first impression of any program may not get the deep impression from audiences but if that content remains for a long time, children tend to think that these actions are the way people communicate with others. Therefore, it might influence the way they act in social life. For instance, watching a huge number of fighting games might cause children to act violently.
In conclusion, while there are so many arguments about the impacts of watching TV on young people’s actions, it seems to me that both the content of programs and the time budget for watching have their effects to a certain extent.
|Young people are often influenced in their behaviors and situations by others in the same age. This is called “peer pressure”. Do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages?|
It is undoubted that there are a lot of arguments about the effect of “peer pressure” on youngsters. From my perspective, this phenomenon can lead to both benefits and drawbacks.
On the one hand, young generations’ being affected by others can bring out some obvious advantages. First, “peer pressure” is (more) likely to help the youngsters (to) effortlessly blend into the new community and alleviate the gravity of social isolation due to/thanks to some similar characteristics and hobbies. Moreover, “peer pressure” can make a valuable contribution to boosting the cooperation and solidarity among students in the learning process through teamwork and discussions. Finally, the young try their best to not only improve themselves but also to achieve an ambition. In this ways, their determination is emphasized.
On the other hand, “peer pressure” also results in some adverse demerits. There is no denying of that the omnipresence of this circumstance would make the young people become more envious and allocate their time and money to keep up with their friends. Some girl students, for instance, squander their tuition on buying a first-class handbag like the one their friends have. Furthermore, it is certainly true that youngsters are bound to find it hard to express their distinction and creativity when they are in a group in which everyone is the same because of being afraid of boycott and abomination.
In conclusion, it seems to me that peer pressure can lead to some significant merits to the young besides (some) inevitable setbacks. As a result, young people should know the best ways to take advantage of this phenomenon.
|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 this. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.|
People have different views about how well older people educate children to become valuable citizens. While some argue that it would be better for children to be disciplined by their parents, I believe that children should be educated how to become respectable/decent citizens at school.
There are various reasons why people believe that parents should teach their children to adopt/develop/build up good manners. Firstly, children are prone to listen to their parents who are powerful in families. For example, children might worry about wrong actions, which leads to their making a decision as to whether they should commit/display such behaviour pattern if they have ever been punished by their parents before. Secondly, children have a close relationship with their parents whom they always count on whenever they meet toughs in their life. Children, therefore, may pour their concern easily into parent’s heart so parents are able to give advice timely, which is one of the most important factors to deter children from becoming perverse. Finally, not only do parents bring their children rights verbally, but also their life behaviors can have profound influences on their children because children tend to imitate actions of older people.
In spite of these arguments, I hold the perception that/I am inclined to argue that schooling would play an essential role in the formation of children’s characters. Except for homes, school is the place children spend the biggest amount of time. Thus, teachers are likely to be second parents to instruct children in being aware of the rights and the wrongs in every walk of life. Admittedly, teachers can be stricter with children than parents given that parents usually spoil their children excessively. Under this circumstance, educating in school is the best solution to build a good personality of children. Moreover, school environment will enable children to either find out their abilities or their desires by attending some recreational physical activities or studying specific subjects; this is beneficial to children in becoming well-rounded individuals in the future.
In conclusion, apart from being primarily responsible for educating children from parents, schools also prevent children from the misguided frame of mind to be productive people in society.