Rosine
TruckersForMe Participant TruckersForMe Participant

Your Replies

  • Rosine
    University: UIC
    Nationality: China
    March 11, 2020 at 12:48 am

    This is the modified version:
    Some universities hold the view of gender equality in every subject. Although it is important to emphasize gender-balanced in social life, I would argue that a modest adjustment of severely imbalanced courses would be practical.

    Gender equality can foster technological development and encourage the young generation to make great success. In general, females have unequal opportunities in certain professions, such as engineering and information technology. It is the traditional stereotype holding that men are superior to women in these fields. However, the different gender would see the world in opposite ways. Women would become fresh blood in male-dominated fields and provide creative ideas, which can further industrial developments. If societies establish a more gender-balanced workforce, young people will try to break the gender stereotype. As a consequence, they can have more opportunities to make great achievements and gain social approval.

    I agree with adjusting gender-imbalanced subjects, but a rigid 50/50 gender balance may be unnecessary. Sudden and strict gender equality would have to reduce the number of a specific gender of students. As a result, universities would lose a certain number of motivated and qualified students in some particular fields. At the same time, some students may have to enroll in those majors where they would find no enthusiasm. Imagining that a certain number of students cannot choose their favorite majors, it may be meaningless to study in universities. Therefore, there would be a waste of time and resources for both students and universities.

    In conclusion, gender equality can promote industrial development and inspire ambitious college students. We may also notice that the rigid gender balance would sometimes be superfluous.

    Rosine
    University: UIC
    Nationality: China
    March 5, 2020 at 1:29 am

    This is the modified version:

    Some universities hold the view of gender equality in every course. Although it is important to emphasize gender-balanced in social life, I would argue that a modest adjustment of severe-imbalanced courses would be practical.

    Gender equality can foster technological development and encourage the young generation. In general, females have inequal opportunities in certain professions, such as engineering and information technology. It is the traditional stereotype which holds that men are superior to women in these fields. However, the different gender would see the world in opposite ways. Female would become new blood and provide creative ideas in male-dominated fields, which can further industrial developments. Establishing a more gender-balanced workforce, young people will follow and break the gender stereotype. As a consequence, they can have more opportunities to make great achievements and gain social approval.

    I agree with adjusting gender-imbalanced subjects, but a rigid 50/50 gender balance may be unnecessary. Sudden and strict gender equality would have to reduce the number of one specific gender of students. As a result, universities would lose a certain number of motivated and qualified students in some particular fields. At the same time, some students may have to enroll in those majors where they would find no enthusiasm. Imagining that a certain number of students cannot choose their favorite majors, it may be meaningless to study further in universities. In consequence, there would be a waste of time and resources for both students and universities.

    In conclusion, gender equality can promote industrial development and inspire ambitious college students. We may also notice that the rigid gender balance would sometimes be superfluous.

    Rosine
    University: UIC
    Nationality: China
    March 4, 2020 at 12:39 am

    This is the modified version:

    People’s life expectancy is increasing in many countries, possibly because of the improvements in technology. Although older people can contribute to society, I would argue that the aging population has negative impacts on society.

    Imposing a burden on taxpayers is one of the problems associated with a higher proportion of senor citizens. Generally, medical needs and costs would increase in people’s last years of life. That is to say governments would have to establish the Social Security System, which can provide adequate medical services. The dominant way of achieving this is to set a higher income tax rate for working people.

    The slow pace of work is another adverse impact as the number of senor workers grows. In general, the working efficiency and the ability to accept new technologies would decline with age. That’s because many older workers hold conservative views on modern innovations, such as electronic payments and online meetings. If they postpone retirement, they will influence companies’ productivity and even the whole economy.

    On the other hand, many people consider senior citizens as valuable assets to society. Most elderly have gained rich experience and established appropriate ways to act towards others. Therefore, they can act as consultants or good role models for those who just entered the society. For example, companies can set up the Employee Training Plan with senior workers representing instructors.

    In conclusion, the expansion of life expectancy has imposed a lot of strain on health care and made the workforce more stressful. It will influence the economy, although we can take full advantage of senior citizens’ wisdom.

    Rosine
    University: UIC
    Nationality: China
    February 27, 2020 at 2:02 am

    This is the modified version:

    Some people argue that children should always obey rules at home and school. It is true that strict discipline is sometimes essential, but I would argue that it would have a negative impact on children’s development.

    Some people are strong advocates of making rules for children. They believe that the dominant purposes of setting rules are to help children form good habits and establish a sense of responsibility. Children are normally unaware of the consequences of their inappropriate behaviors. By establishing rules, they can form a better understanding of how to behave in an acceptable way. For instance, by learning how to greet others, children can enhance the consciousness of respecting others. In addition, rules can also prevent children from misconducts, such as cheating in exams and interrupting teachers during classes.

    Opponents, however, believe that rules sometimes impede the development of children’s problem-solving abilities. Children may lose some significant skills such as time management, stress control, and emergency response. As a result, they would have trouble coping with sophisticated situations in society. For example, if children were incapable of managing time, they would fail to meet the various professional demands during adulthood.

    In my view, rigid rules can stifle children’s creativity and imagination. To avoid parental punishment for disobedience, children may only stick to rules without expressing new ideas or feelings. However, rules only provide standards for handling a range of puzzles without considering special cases. One cannot figure out all problems utilizing only one way. Imaging that if all children write essays with the same methods, they are impossible to think out of the box to come up with creative ideas.

    The puzzles in the real world are complex, and children cannot tackle them without integrated skills.

    Rosine
    University: UIC
    Nationality: China
    February 25, 2020 at 2:34 am

    This one is the modified version:

    Some people argue that children should always obey rules at home and school. Strict discipline is sometimes essential, but I would argue that it would have a negative impact on children’s development.

    The dominant purposes of setting rules are to help children form good habits and establish a sense of responsibility. Children are normally not aware of the consequences of their inappropriate behaviors. By setting rules, they can have a better understanding of how to behave in an acceptable way. For instance, they can learn how to greet others, which would enhance a sense of responsibility for respecting others.

    Opponents, however, believe that rules sometimes restrict children’s problem-solving abilities. They may lose some all-round skills like time management, stress control, and emergency response capability. As a result, they would have trouble coping with sophisticated situations in real society. For example, if children are not capable of managing time, they may not meet the various demands of work during adulthood.

    In my view, strict rules can stifle children’s creativity and imagination. To avoid parents’ punishment for disobeying rules, children dare not express new ideas. Generally, rules provide standards for handling a range of puzzles. However, one cannot figure out problems utilizing only one way. Imaging that if all children write essays with the same method, they are impossible to think out of the box to come up with creative ideas.

    The puzzles in real world is quite more complex, and children cannot tackle them without integrating skills.

    Rosine
    University: UIC
    Nationality: China
    February 25, 2020 at 1:05 am

    Some people argue that children should always obey rules at home and school. Strict discipline is sometimes essential, but I would argue that it would have a negative impact on children’s development.

    The dominant purposes of setting rules are to help children form good habits and establish a sense of responsibility. Children are normally not aware of the consequences of their inappropriate behaviors. By setting rules, they can have a better understanding of how to behave in an acceptable way. For instance, they can learn how to greet others, which would enhance a sense of responsibility for respecting others.

    Opponents, however, believe that rules sometimes restrict children’s problem-solving abilities. They may lose some all-round skills like time management, stress control, and emergency response capability. As a result, they would have trouble coping with sophisticated situations in real society. For example, if children are not capable of managing time, they may not meet the various demands of work during adulthood.

    In my view, strict rules can stifle children’s creativity and imagination. To avoid parents’ punishment on disobeying rules, children dare not express new ideas. Generally, rules provide standards for handling a range of puzzles. However, one cannot figure out all problems utilizing only one way. Imaging that if children write essays with the same method, they are impossible to think out of the box to come up with creative ideas.

    The puzzles in real world is quite more complex, and children cannot tackle them without integrating skills.