#Issue 8/111/149#
In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
A 5-year upper limit for any leadership in any field is definitely not a wise policy for us to implement. Since it could easily lead to chaotic management and lack of persistence on long-term strategies.
It is not to say that we should embrace dictatorship. Democracy undoubtedly has its superiority over autocracy in politics. It limits the power of ruling class, conciliates contentions inside society, protects civil rights, especially the rights of minorities. Meanwhile dictatorship often incur dangerous abusolutism, unilateralism and inevitably ensueing corruption and low-efficiency, even disastrous conflagration. History has taught us lessons so many times in agonizing way, it seems a truism to champion our election system with term limitation.
However, it doesn't justify us that we should extrapolate our democratic regime from politics to every other aspects. Take commercial business for example.Often times, a strong, consistent leadership is crucial to success for commercial enterprises and companies. The rise of the empire of Microsoft probably would happen if they fired Bill Gates years ago. Apple fired their founding leader Steve Jobs only to realize it was a big mistake and hired him back later. The million dollar salaries are paid for a reason to the CEOs in silicon valley: they are crucial to the industy. If you have a astute talent in your business organization, you certainly want to provide him/her an optimized circumstance for them to excel, and that include not only a important position but also continuous support.
Moreover, five years is still a rather short timeframe even our society is constantly changing in a fast pace. Five years ago, artificial inteligence is something most people unheard of, while today it's the hottest topic for both professional researchers and daily news. Had a change of leadership diverted the direction of AI investors and researchers to another area, we might not be able to witness such impressive technology breakthrough. The vicissitude of management would serve as a benefactor by no means in such cases.
In addition, the substitution of leadership is a process that brings extra costs with itself. Billions of dollars burnt away for presidential compaign, we couldn't help but think these money could have been used for people's welfare. If that is acceptable price for a quadrennial national event, to smaller entities like companies and institutions, there still will be meaningful internal attrition if they implement a similar system.
Hence we draw the conclusion that the five-year stint for leadership of any field is nothing but a ideal policy to be taken. In politics and goverment, sure yes, every other areas, heck no.
#Issue 37#
Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Anecdotes of child prodigies are always fascinating. When we talk about the superb musical talent of young Mozart with all kinds of admiration, how he magically composes compelling melodies that like a virtuoso with years of devotion in music, and later myriad of enduring masterpieces, it's quite natural for us to voraciously seek the next Mozart among us. We find them and set up the perfect environment for them, so that they can grow and then shine, that is exactly how geniuses emerge, right? Well, the answer may not be that simple.
The recommendation that we should try to identify those children with special talents and provide training for them as early as possible based on two plausible assupmtions: one is that we have the ability to identify children with special talents at an early age; two is that we should do so and train them with some sort of specialized regime which to them is more helpful than the average education they supposedly get. We will enumerate the fallacies of each of them later.
It is irreputable that how aptly we learn and master some certain skills correlates with the earliness we begin learning in that area. Abundance of cogition studies has verified that thesis. Children grow up in bilingual family have an edge at learning either language of their parent. "Perfect pitch" or absolute pitch, the rare ability to identify a given note without the help of a reference note, often demontrates at age before 8 or never. There is no doubt that we should exploit this advatage of learning early. And those with special talents, like Mozart and Terence Tao, we as adults will find the best instructors at all cost.
However, these "child prodigies" are as scarce as unicorns. Mozart borned in a music family, Terence Tao's mother is math teacher, for those unluck ones without such "star detectives" at proximity, should we mobilize social resources to find them? Hire experts with tax money to find the golden needles in the haystack? Or do census test for everyone, but by what criteria? Either way it costs us money we could have used on improving public education for everyone and that seems far more econonically prudent.
#Issue 4#
Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Living in this information era, our daily life is pervasive with scandals. Journalism is the industry that feed on people's attention, and those astute editors surely comprehend the most efficient way to lure their prey—explosive headlines. Politicians, ahtletes, show business celebrities, their affairs travel at lightspeed through mass media to our web-browsers and chitchats. There is no doubt that scandals have the ability to hold our attention, at least for a short period, while it is over-exaggerated to put scandal on a dominant position, especially when comparing with speakers and reformers, at the important work of arousing public concerns to forward social progress.
Due to its attention-driven nature, scandals are frivolous. Tabloids may be competently tell anecdotes related to sex and drug, yet almost never evoke our interests in in-depth discussion around social issues we confront. Most of the time, nobody really takes scandals seriously at the first place for the following reasons: one, the sources of information are unreliable, sometimes even irresponsibly made-up. Two, the topics are focused on personal life which are normally trivial. Three, scandals are cheap and everywhere, so we tend to ignore them.
Nonetheless, one may argue that some major scandals did elicit broad concern, and the strong public opinion formed pressure great enough to precipitate social reforms. From Watergate decades ago to Facebook data leak recently, we actually witnessed a bunch of cases where scandals served as catalysts initiating social changings. It is reasonable for journalists to take credit for exposing the severity of underlying issues with their reportage.
However, we should never forget the truth that, at the fundamental level, it is the speakers and reformers of last few centuries shaped the frame of our society today. Without them risking their lives promulgating their ideas against slavery, sexism, racism, comparatively minor issues such as privacy problem wouldn't even be discussed as an urgency. It is simply preposterous to imagine a situation where some scandals could substitute the critical role Dr. Martin Luther King played during the civil rights movement.
Indeed, media then were incomparable to today's scale, and scandals were far less influential if not able to spread national-wide. But they are intrinsically related to what we have already seen as "misconduct", thus they will always subject to our prejudice. We definitely could use some help from sapient speakers and reformers to correct our unavoidable bias and reflect on what we have taken as granted. Scandals are completely ineffectual on that regard.
To sum it up, the statement that claims scandals are more useful at drawing public concerns on social issues than speakers and reformers is highly misleading and unacceptable.
#Issue 6/14/96/116#
A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
#Outline# intro - bads: interest and motivation competition concern sense of freedom and responsibility goods: acquire necessary skills comraderie and friendship
As a Chinese student, same curriculum is exactly what my contemporaries and I have been followed for many years since elementary school. I find this system with some fundamental flaws and it needs reform, if not revolution, urgently. Not only from my personal experience, but also for good reasons: it encourages competition among peers instead of motivation by genuine interests in learning itself. And it is against students' freedom thus fails to cultivate a sense of responsibility.
As the idiom says, "interests are best teachers." Truly, one who has ever enjoyed learning something with full passion and energy, even for a fleeting moment, will understand the power of interests. Mozart loves music, Euler loves mathematics, they probably wouldn't be remembered the way today we remember them if we force them to study, say medicine and history. This is the problem with a standarized curriculum, it could not possibily suit every student. It is true that everyone has to learn something they don't genuily enjoy like self-restraint, time management and such. But a standarized curriculum means we have to average out on every subject we considered as relevant for a student while only mildly concentrate on some major subjects like mathematics and English. Which means a student has to put up everything he/she dislikes without focusing on what he/she likes the most. Ineluctably, the learning becomes passive and teaching inefficient for we overlook disparate individual references.
Moreover, the same curriculum leads to direct competition. Since everyone studies the same subjects, every one is placed under the same evaluation system and easily compared with each other. The students doing well at all subjects will be favored by teachers and set up as examples by parents while the rest of students either try hard to catch up or just give up. This direct competition could cause unhealthy influence to those still in the growing process. We see a plethora of cases in which high school students get mental diseases like anxiety, depression or ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) because of sheer amount of pressure from the competetition they are facing daily.
On top of that, students will lose the chance to learn about responsibility. By choosing the subjects they learn, students get chance to exercise their free will. This is vital for them to actively participate in planning their own education and life. If they don't get to decide, they certainly don't need to be responsible for the consequences. It will always be reasonable for them to blame parents, schools, even society if they don't perform well in education because everything about education is merely abstraction arbitrarily imposed by adults. Often, something seemingly ideal to us is not engaging to them at all.
Of course, a uniform curriculum undeniably has its merits. Some knowledge is necessary for everyone in modern society such as basic mathematics. A uniform curriculum will make sure everyone meets the requirement. Besides that, it builds connections among peers for they will have more things in common. But these merits are insignificant compared to the major inherent defects - our education system should respect student's personal inclination and cultivate sense of responsibility while maintain the competition at a healthy level. A standardized national curriculum for every student fails in that regard.
#Expansion# ardent promote/stimulate interest/curiosity seizing attention virtuous cycle self-efficacy elicit queries self-regulatory skill calibrate complexity devote sufficient time academic difficulties or perceptual disabilities energized invigorated captivated enthralled Interest pulls us toward the new, the edgy, the exotic.
How the Power of Interest Drives Learning https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/32503/how-the-power-of-interest-drives-learning
Tailoring Education to Students’ Interests https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/08/23/spending-too-much-time-and-money-on-education/tailoring-education-to-students-interests-14
#Issue 16/50/86/114/115/139#
- Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Outline: bads: 1.errantic 2.ambivalent 3.principle value goods: direct voice
In a modern democratic society, public opinion is crucial to politicians and government. It clearly demonstrates the performance of the excutives. Everybody whining means officials bungling, while everyone smiling means government on the right path. Since it tightly linked to votes, politicians certainly won't dismiss the disaffection of their constituents. However, public opion can only serve as one important factor, but not the golden standard, in policy making. Judicious legislators and political leaders should know it is unwise to follow the "people's will" blindly.
For one thing, public opnion is short-sighted and errantic. Most of the general public merely consider social issues from their personal perspective, which is usually quite narrow. Often, they don't see society as a whole, rather, they focus on their immediate interests so much that it is impossible for them to generate unbiased perception. Take Germany accepting Syrian refugees for example. Many local residents feel the refugees' coming will disturb their peaceful lives and comlain that their government helps foreigners while putting its own people at take. It takes an open-mind combining some education background to realize the potential these Middle-Easterns could bring —— young labor to invigorate the economy of this country with such low born-rate.
Besides, public opinion is ambivalent. It is wrong to take public opinion as something monolithic. On the contrary, it is consisting of diversified social groups. The opinion among them is very disparate, sometimes even inimical to each other. From the policy-maker's view, one can not expect to satisfy them all. Sacrafice has to be made and it is a tough job to decide the priority. This is the reason why we need the elites to deliberate for days after days, months after months to devise the best plan for our society.
Nonetheless, public opinion should be respected for it is the direct voice from our people. It reflects their sincere desire and repulsion. And it is the ultimate purpose for government to achieve public welfare. But it dosn't justify to direct our government and policies. Policy-making requires more cauciousness and contemplation and should be done from a broad scope and long-term view. Since it can be such a conundrum, political principle is vital for those at the top positions. Their principle derives from years, if not decades, of work and study. It is the pith of their experience, the value they hold true for a life time. The time they lose it is normally the time they begin to corrupt which is the last thing we hope to see.
In conclusion, we should value public opion, but it is far from a reliable source in policy-making, let alone our political learders abandoning their invaluable principle.