jh.essay 31032009

Some people argue that the fittest and strongest individuals and teams can achieve the greatest success in sports. However, others think the success depends on much the mental attitude.Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Response:

What's the source of victory? Is the absolute power? Or the belief for victories? For instance, who will win a sports championship? Some people think the key to win the prize is strongest athletic abilities, another believe that the people who is confident of victory will win the golden medal finally.

The foundation of victories is the strong athletic abilities. A person will win nothing if he or she is not competent for this kind of sports. Tge NBA star, Michael Jordan will not won 6 championship rings if he couldn't shot and score whenever he want. Likewise, the football star Robbert Baggio would not lead his team into the final game of 94' world cup if he don't know how to kick the ball. That's the reason why schools or universities teach us knowledge instead of how to deal with a particular problem.

A man without belief for victories can not win anything even if he is the strongest person in the world. What a person could win if he want nothing? The belief is the motivation for wining. Michael Jordan said that he always dreamed for wining championship rings when he was asked why he could do such great things. When the reporters asked David Beckham who is a famous football star in this world what's his feeling about wining for Englan, he said that it's a forever dream for him to win represent as a member of England football team. Dream for wining is the common action for all the great athletes.

With strong athletic abilities and the belief for wining, a person could win anything. In my opinion, these are the two conditions for wining. If there is any one missed, wining is day dream at all.

chb.essay.03312009

Some people think that children should begin their formal education at a very early age and should spend most of their time on school studies. Others believe that young children should spend most of their time playing. Compare these two views. Which view do you agree with? Why?

In determining whether children should spend most of their time playing or be involved in the education, we must exam one anther’s differences, as well as examining the essential of the education and social needs.

Children manifest differences in various forms of hobbies, reactions, emotions even crying. Some of them are mature earlier than others, some of them are gifted of quick minded, and some are especially talent. Study or play, which for better or worse is mostly dependent on the diversity of these children. If they are too young to learn, how can you bear them get up early on every morning, sustain heavy bags and look at playground in eager eyes? If they are very interested in the cartoon books, your Andersen’s stories can not meet their needs, why not send them to school to get a systematic education?

In addition, not every child destined to be a scientist. According to a British research that early age of playing can open up mind for children, made them know more and learn quicker in later study. An early age study certainly makes advantages in the competitive world for chances to peers. But the discrimination, isolation because of lacking friendship, unrespectable have more chances happen in the younger group. Education is far more than a means to pass years of exams. It can also be engaging, enjoyable and fulfilling itself. For most of the people it provides a way to express themselves in future.

In sum, whether choose study at an early age is a decision best left to children’s nature instincts. If you can not decide, ask some professions or teachers for further advice. We can and should promote competence and genius of our children by way of a balance approach.

chb：03302009

Some people prefer to live in a small town. Others prefer to live in a big city. Which place would you prefer to live in?
Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.

Our life has benefit from advanced technology and business a lot now. More and more people prefer to live in a quite small town in stead of a noise big city. They can obtain all the necessary daily used things and search the internet for what they are interested in. However, compared to live in a small town all my life, I still like living in the big city. For although the troublesome traffic jam will happen on the way late to work, city life give out more opportunities and improve our life in many aspects.

The first thing into consideration is my career development. As I am major in accounting and financing the best place for a job is developed big city with large quantities of commercial trading. It is true the competitive market comes along with high pressure, but a great sense of achievement will make up for it. And most of the higher education institution is in big cities. Learning is always a schedule for everyone in lifetime.

Secondly, our children get better education in big cities. Finer teaching resources, good facilities and enough environment influence to understand the world. If you want take your children have a trip in vacations, big city certainly provides the best transportation to outside. Not to mention the medical care and hospital services, kids and old need them.

Clearly, city life is leading fashion. a great many leisure places and entertainment-related businesses vying for our attention. We can go to cafeteria everyday, theaters every weekend, skating ignoring the seasons. In addition, we stay ahead on technology, get more done in less time, use the newest laptop and cell phone. Our life become convenient and you will enjoy being a fashionisda.

Therefore, live in a big city is my best choice. It is not to mean dislike the peaceful life in town or never worried about the installments, but a meant to a proper way of living style. Enjoy what you do everyday. Wherever you live, live healthy.

chb：03292009

Some people believe that university students should be required to attend classes. Others believe that going to classes should be optional for students. Which point of view do you agree with? Use specific reasons and details to explain your answer

Give the option to university students for attending classes freely, admittedly, is helpful for one’s instincts and interesting development. In most of the situations, however, following the nature driving force to study would be neither wise nor sensible. The behavior of attending classes would be replaced by some unimportant situation at hand. Time would be wasted by less self-discipline.

First of all, choosing go to classes often results to absent from classes. Everyone experience slothfulness from time to time, such as having a good sleep in the morning, playing computer games late into the night, enjoying shopping all day, and so forth. People who act however they pleased without thinking about consequences, may delay their classes and fall behind the others. A survey indicated that about 80% of the students who failed the exams didn’t attend classes regularly; yet the behavior of free choice destructs the teaching. And in dealing with the self-development, optional class in not necessarily in one’s own best interesting.

Secondly, choosing go to classes often amounts to impulsive over-satisfaction and irrational arrogance. The variety information one gets in classes is not similar to other places. One could be excellent in chemical but could not cooperate with others can not to be an outstanding chemist. Overestimate self ability, especially without regard to social world, might set obstacle in future life.

Third, university is a place to master specified knowledge. The courses iare scientifically designed by experts. How can one gain systematic knowledge if don’t go different part of it? In this respect, go to classes makes sense.

In conclusion, university students should be required to attend classes. For self-discipline can not as effective as regulations. A litter constrain on one’s personality is good for professional growth.

jh.essay 30032009

Your school demands that you wear a school uniform ,What's your opinion? And give reasons.


Response:

Whether wearing uniforms depend on the teaching aim of a school. Uniforms mean discipline. Therefore, students of a school must put on their uniforms if this school focuses on training people with strict displine, such as soldiers. But, it's no use wearing the uniforms when we study at a school which aims at developing individual characters of students.


There are many ways to teach students displines. Students could be educated displines in classrom, in group activities, in tournament, etc. That is, students could learn displines from every situations which they need to cooperation with the others. So the displines do not need to be trained by uniforms. Actually, the uniforms is not the specific for antagonistic psychology. Humanistic care is more powerful than uniforms.


Uniforms eliminates not only the wealthy gap among students but also the chances to show students' unique qualities. Some schools believe that uniforms could fill the poverty gap among students, but the culture of uniforms could also eliminate the individuality showed by different styles of dresses. It's dangerous because the desires to attract the gaze of people are repressed, and the school will not know when this repression will break out, and in what way.

As the unified symbol, uniforms could help school in restraining students, but it might go into reverse if schools are not willing to training soilders. Allowing students choose what they expect to wearing will not breach any displine but provide them more chances to show their individuality.

by J.H

jh.essay 29032009

It is often said that the subject taught in school are too academic in orientation and that it would be more useful for children to learn about practical matters such as home management,work and interpersonal skils. To what extent do you agree?

Response:

When people graduate from a school or university, they always complain that they have learned much more academic knowledge instead of practical skills, so that they can not adapt themselves into the industrial conditions. Frankly, it's ture that school teach us less skills, but, on the contrary, the aim of a school or university is not to train a technology worker but a person with certain knowledge which could helps himself or herself to select his or her own future.

Academic knowledge is the foundation of thinking. When we are considering the world or faced a problem, we will try to think and find an approriate way. We cannot adjust our thinking to the real problem with a certain skill, because one skill is normally used for dealing with a particular kind of questions. Therefore, we need some foundation knowledge to decide which skill we shall use and modify the detail of this skill to solve the problem easily. Without academic knowledge, we will not know why the skill is that skill, we will not know why a skill could be used to solve a problem correctly but another wrongly.

It's the application methods not skills need to be taught at all. Definitely, academic knowledge is far way from the practical skills. That means, people used to know little about how to apply their knowledge to their works. So, maybe a school should teach more methods which will help in linking theories with practice. Skills are some processes which are formed during utilizing knowledge skilledly. So it's can not be taught.

People is used to grumble at school or university and complain that they can't learn some useful when they are students. However, the school or university taught them already. Acadamic knowledge is the universal truth which could be used in every context. What they must do is to adjust their known a little when they are faced some problems.

by J.H

chb:03282009

Always telling the truth is the most important consideration in any relationship. Do you agree or disagree?

When you take part in any relationship with someone, what will be the most important consideration? Is it money, Interesting, free space, or something else? I tend to agree with the claim in the top line that always telling the truth is the fundamental element of setup a good relationship. Common examples related to kinship and friendship serve as an apt basis for my agreement.

To begin with, kinship connected by blood, marriage or adoption. People who are involved in it have a close interest or have similarity in nature. Telling truth is necessary to help family members know each other. The parents can guide their litter child when they know he punished by tutor for didn’t finish homework. Understanding what has happen and give out the right suggestion can be very helpful in eliminating the mistakes. And the reaction form your family help you establish the courage to face troubles. The process of tell and listen contributes to love and beloved.

Another key role, which telling truth plays, is in friendship. No one wants to have a friend who lies to you. A great many problems do result from the distrusts. Have you ever seen the broken up between friends? There is no bigger error than betray. No truth no friendship. In The Secret Garden, the two friends share the secret and enjoy their sharing. Truth strengthens the meaning of friends.
Of course, white lie is comfortable sometimes, but the truth will come out to the end. Face it and solve it is the only proper way to live happily in the running world. We would be better off in the long run relationship if we tell the truth and treat people wholeheartedly.

jh.essay 03272009

Have newspapers become a medium of the past or do they still play an important role in people's lives?

response:

Along with the rapid development of internet, information is spreaded far more fast and widely to people than ever before. Recently, a famous newspaper company built up in American a century ago annonced that they had decided to swtich to a online publish company and close the traditional paper publication department. Therefore, people wonder whether traditional newspapers become outdate. Is it still playing an important role in our lives?

It's definitely not a effective way to spread news or information with papers. As a well-established industry, traditional publishing business has a intact system for publishing newspapers. Because of this, it costs a lot, money and time, in the process of producing a newspaper, such as  materials sourcing, typesetting, transporting, selling, etc. People have to pay for an newspaper with stale news. On the contrary, people will get the newest information withouth any payment, because it's very easy to publish an news on website.

At the same time, it's still the most convenient way to read news in the papers. Differ from getting information from internet, people can enjoy stories and comments without electricity. And an newspaper is easily carried by any people. However, the lightest device which could be connected to internet today is weighted more than 100 grams, and this device could not continue working more than 20 hours. 

In additon, newspaper is hardly harmful to human beings. It's well known that any device with wireless commucation abilities will creates a risk of harm to human health because of radio emissions. And, it's not a healthy life style to work with a computer for long period because that the display device and computer circuitries will cause radiation injury as well. By comparison, the side effects caused by newspapers are negligible.

As a whole new kind of intermedium, Internet bring more convenience to us in our daily lives. It has brought people much closer. But the emergence of Internet means not traditional medium, such as newspapers, will disappear in our lives. We can still find a lot of we need from them.

By J.H

chb.essay 03272009

Recent financial crisis makes some people thinking that the science of finance declined, but the others suggest that it's the time to show the power of science of finance. What do you think of?

Response:
A worldwide criticism often heard these days is that the financial instrument is wrongly used in the monetary market. The famous 1850 build Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc became quick bankrupted, the stock fall to the lowest part in the history; the unemployment increased sharply…almost the whole nation loss confident in the financial crisis. However, the circumstances permit more secure and stable financial instrument to be used under the supervision of the government and IMF. And some people firmly believe the value of the financial will certainly bring the opportunity for lenders.

As far as I am involved, the global crisis coursed by the development of the financial instrument has a long time impact of the economic slump. Although the government stimulus efforts will help maintain the 8 percent economic growth, it needs at least 4years to recover from the crisis. People can live without stocks but they can’t live without houses. Thinking about the soaring price of the flats, do you really want the financial institution operate your money like put water in the sponge?

Secondly, financial instrument has a close relationship with the accounting scandal. Only two months after Bernard Madoff’ s case, Sir R. A. Stanford has sued by SEC for corrupting eight million dollars which made another huge loss of banks and invertors. It is must be known that market is decided by the demand not the financial products. More focus should be paid on the capital market in order to create an economic growth not a numerical growth.

Admittedly the financial instruments have played an important role in the past decades and earned a very high value in the capital market. The post-crisis is still really unpredictable. The value of the financial need time to justify.

by CHB