GRE Essay topics

Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.

As Socrates said "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance". Author states here something on similar notes, Government should fund all it's students who cannot afford tuition fee. While I agree with what the author says, but he goes to an extreme thereby creating a rife of holes with this argument. He goes to an extreme saying that university should fund all its students who cannot pay their tuition fee, wouldn't this mean there's false show of income? How will the university cover all its expenses? We have to look at all aspects of the issue before coming to a conclusion. While on the other hand, it's our duty to help the needy. Imparting knowledge to poor is the only way through which we can eradicate illiteracy and poverty. Firstly, it is true that knowledge is to share, it grows as we share. There are many poor people who cannot financially support their child's education. Take an example of a hypothetical poor farmer, he has 3 daughters and 2 sons, and just a bare minimum income to feed and school them. But university is a completely different aspect, how will he arrange for such a huge amount to educate all the five of his brilliant children. Children are the future of nation, they are jewels to be nurtured and polished. Not educating them would be a loss of nation as a whole. So providing them scholarship would the most appropriate way to tackle such situations. Secondly, Illiteracy and porty go hand in hand, if we want to eradicate illiteracy we need to spread education to all the corners of the country. Providing scholarship would open new grounds, the grounds which the unprivileged could only dream of. It would open gates to new minds, the latent minds which could be an asset to the country. For example, a son of a rickshaw driver serves tea at a stall near a well reputed university, wouldn't he be dreaming of attending it? But how would he? He may have brains, the knowledge to cope up with the fast pacing world but money being the prime part of everything how would he arrange all this? Scholarships are the way to go. On the other hand, author goes to an extreme suggesting the universities should fund all its children who cannot afford tuition fee, if it does this, how would it fulfil it's budget requirement? Where will it get the funding from? Would government be willing and able to spend the extra needed amount to accommodate this structural change? We have to analyze a lot all the angles of this problem before coming on to a solution. On the similar note, are all student equally bright and willing to fully utilize the money which the government is spending on them which could be used in thousands of other stuffs like providing shelter to the needy, food to the starving etc. So we'll have to prudently analyze the candidate before providing. In conclusion, we notice that knowledge is the central aspect of society, to progress we need to eradicate illiteracy from the very root it is spawned. Providing scholarship would be the right way to achieve this, but would certainly be a huge burden on the government and society as a whole. So only after carefully analyzing and the needs, aspects of the student we should come on to a final discussion of funding his university education. ducation plays an important role in the overall development of a child. For the harmonious transformation of a student into a responsible citizen, education must be made mandatory at least at the elementary level. To impart education to all, it should be made free at school level. However, making college and university education free may yield adverse results. Students, as they pass high school and reach college are quite grown up and aware of their aptitudes. There may be many who would rather go in for a professional or vocational course. Others may be more interested in business. The ones left out would be genuinely interested in academics. By making university level education free, more and more students would be tempted to get enrolled. This can result in unemployment in future as lesser vacancies would be available for the large number of qualified students. To tackle unemployment, government would have to adopt various methods like entrance exams etc. which are not very reliable in selecting the meritorious and deserving students. Moreover, due to shortage of appropriate posts, the more qualified ones may have to settle down for jobs that do not honor their capabilities and hard work put in for the acquired degrees. This will not only demoralize the overqualified ones, but also distort the image of university education in the eyes of new aspirants. College and university education, if made free, will heavily burden the government financially. It will be not only difficult to provide the best of facilities like good libraries, laboratories, scientific and sports equipments etc. but also challenging to pay the hired staff and faculty. In the wake of lesser salaries, less and less people would be interested in joining the faculty. If the deserving candidates would not be paid justifiably, then there will be deterioration in the quality of education imparted. Making education free at university level may also reduce the standards of education as students may develop a laid back attitude and may not feel the necessity to clear the courses at the earliest. This will further deteriorate the standard of education and create a huge backlog of students for the government to entertain. Apart from the financial difficulty in paying the staff and providing appropriate facilities to the students, there will be yet another challenge for the government to look after the other employment channels. Although education is a must, there are other skills required too in different fields. If all these skills are explored and promoted well, only then can a nation be more independent financially. The works of handicrafts, interior and fashion designing, sports, farming, etc. are just a few to mention that need the government's assistance to flourish to the fullest. To be unbiased towards all streams of talent and employment, the government will be under pressure to make all these trainings free as well. This will be a difficult task to accomplish. Thus, making the university level education free will put a lot of economic strain on the government. Making university and college level education free will be beneficial neither for the government nor for the citizens in the long run. Thus, instead of making the university education free, the government should adopt other ways of channelizing the talents of the youth and also keep a check on private institutions overburdening the students by high fee structure. I partially agree with the statement that government should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition. It goes without saying that government should aid excellent students who cannot pay their tuition because of poverty. In a sense, despite different family economic status, every one has the right to receive higher education for which he or she has already qualified. If all poor students cannot enter college for further study, even though they are talented, society is bound to lose promising talents in the future. On the other hand, without funds from government, wealthier students with poor performance may occupy vacancies that should be filled by those poor but gifted students. As a result, rich students are more likely to get promising jobs than poor ones. Therefore, in long term, it is detrimental to countries for further development since the social mobility will stagnate and country can hardly pick up genuine talents. Admittedly, governments should fund university so as to provide opportunities for poor students, but from my perspective, offering a free university education to any student is a little bit infeasible. This action will put a heavy burden on governments' budget because government may utilize revenues to carry out more urgent projects, such as amelioration of transportation system or construction of public libraries. Thus, a realistic way to handle this dilemma is that government ought to help poor students by paying off one third or half of tuition and let students pay the rest through part-time jobs. Some people may argue that the time spent on part-time jobs can be used in a more meaningful way by students as they can do experiments or read books during this time. It is true that they can get rich knowledge in these ways and consequently become more experienced in certain fields, but doing part-time jobs enable them to learn something they can never obtain from books. Humans are social creatures. Without proper skills of communication and cooperation, a talent is not able to make contributions to society. Therefore, doing part-time is a win-win situation in which poor students can not only earn money for tuition, but also gain some unique experiences. In addition, government can motivate enterprise to donate to universities for the purpose of avoiding heavy pressure on budget. Or colleges can encourage eminent alumni to patronize qualified poor students. A large number of universities in China is an excellent example of this point. Local governments will spend some money for financial aid coupled with local prestigious corporations which patronize students annually. In this way, most impecunious students need not pay any tuition. So, instead of offering a free university education to any student alone, government can take great pains to motivate other enterprises to undertake responsibilities mutually. In conclusion, government should not offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition. On one hand, government can pay some amount of tuition while students can pay the rest through part-time jobs. On the other hand, local enterprises can also patronize students voluntarily.

A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.

Education indeed plays a very vital role in transforming an individual and provides him with basic qualities and adequate skillset which is required by him to led a good life ahead. Framing the national curriculum is a vital task for any nation as the future of students depends on what they have learn from their schools and colleges. The author here presents us with his viewpoint that a nation should require all its students to study the same curriculum irrespective of their interests until they enter college. Keeping the same national curriculum till school level will surely bring out uniformity in the education system and the pattern of grading, schooling and evaluation will be the same throughout. Uniformity and equality for all would be ensured in this case. For example the students studying in rural areas would not face any problems in education and schooling as they would get the same knowledge as compared to the students in big metropolis. They would have the same skillsets, knowledge, and equal opportunities to excel further in life as compared to the other students. For example if introductory course on computers is introduced as mandatory at the school level then all the students across the nation can be benefited, on the contrary to the students getting advantages due to their location and availability of resources. It will enable the nation to ultimately create a strong workforce of students capable of finding a much better future for them. Moreover ensuring a national curriculum would enable students to give only one single entrance test for their future college studies instead of giving several regional entrance tests for appearing to colleges of a particular state. That is the students can compete on a national basis. However there can be a situation where it is economically not possible for the nation to keep the uniformity in national curriculum particularly when the cost of the infrastructure required to support the institutions and the cost to keep the adequate standards of education are not met by the budget of a particular state within the nation. Also, keeping the same national curriculum will leave the students bereft of knowledge about certain subjects which might have been taught only in certain states. For example there may be a social science subject at school level regarding the lifestyles and cultural heritage of a certain state which may not be of that much national importance and if the subject id taught only in that state then ensuring a national curriculum would not take into consideration the importance of that particular subject. Moreover the decision regarding the uniformity of the national curriculum may at times not be in a states favor. For example if many number of students appear to the colleges of a particular state only then the indigenous students of that state would find it difficult to compete with the extra talented crowd of the other states, and thus these students may have to leave their home states to find a college that meets their requirements. Thus this would be an unfair treatment for such students. Thus I would like to conclude that a national curriculum is necessary to ensure a spirit of competition among all the students of the nation but on the same hand a state must have certain regulations to modify the curriculum according to its needs to provide knowledge which cannot be given to the students in case of a national curriculum. But we do not agree that a one-size-fits-all, centrally controlled curriculum for every K-12 subject makes sense for this country or for any other sizable country. Such an approach threatens to close the door on educational innovation, freezing in place an unacceptable status quo and hindering efforts to develop academically rigorous curricula, assessments, and standards that meet the challenges that lie ahead. Because we are deeply committed to improving this country's schools and increasing all students' academic achievement, we cannot support this effort to undermine control of public school curriculum and instruction at the local and state level - the historic locus for effective innovation and reform in education - and transfer control to an elephantine, inside-the-Beltway bureaucracy. Creating a one -size fit all nation controlled curriculum would eradicate what we have strived so hard to create. An approach that encourages educational innovation,

Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.

Education is the most important factor behind the success and over all development of a person. Many countries have a high illiteracy rate making them incompetent in full development. Educational institutes are the driving force behind providing quality education and also honing the various skills of an individual. In a country like India where there are a number of educational institutes with a vast variety of professional courses educational industry has become one of the major industries. I believe that educational institutes have a major responsibility towards the overall success and development of a student in a particular field. They are responsible to provide quality education to nurture the growth of the student and make them an outstanding professional in their field of choice. They have the resources and the knowledge to help the student in the correct path of success and achievement. But i disagree with the argument that educational institutes have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing field of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. It may so happen that a person recognize their potential later in the stage of life and hence if demotivated in the crucial years of college , they may grow to develop low self esteem. The meaning of success is very vast and different from person to person. For some success may mean being rich and monetarily sound, for some it may mean reaching the heights of their creative potential and for some success may mean being socially sound and understanding ones own potential. In India , for example, due to the high poverty rate there are many students who are told from a young age that they are to be the bread earners for the family. This burden to achieve financial stablilty for the family causes many to take up professional courses like engineering and MBBS without much interest so as to be placed good and help to support their family. They may not be brilliant i their field or the brightest mind in their college class but their hunger for money may make them good engineers/ doctors, so to dissuade them from entering a professional life in this field may be a judgmental decision on the part of the educational institute. If a student is dissuaded they may never make an effort to ever try doing something they are not good at and this will lead to deep impact in their all round development. The fear of being discouraged is such that the student may stop even applying their brains to a problem to solve on their own. It is said that a person only learns from their mistakes. No successful human being would have reached to that peak of success without committing a mistake, accepting it, learning from it and making it right the next time. Thus till the time a student is not given an opportunity to explore their potentials they may never be able t achieve success and happiness. Thus educational institutes should not dissuade a student from continuing in the field in which they are likely to not succeed but provide various opportunities and platform of growth so that they realize their potential themselves and learn to become better individuals and citizens. Further, dissuading students from pursuing fields in which they are unlikely to succeed, may encourage students to voluntarily accept their limitations even without trying, and in fact, most people who succeed in any field, have failed many times before their successes.

In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.

Every individual wishes to accomplish great goals in life. Whenever an individual is thinking of achieving great heights he always has someone to look up to for inspiration. We all get inspired in our day to day lives. It is very much possible that when a person aspires to do something remarkable in life he gets influenced by some past achievements. I believe it is very natural on part of an individual to get inspired by the past achievements of people as then only can they create something new and better. Inspiration in ones life keeps that person going and if we do not have inspiration this life would be colorless. Inspiration of any sort makes a person do things which were never thought of. If singers of today were not inspired by the singers of older days they would not be able to create such different and unique melodies. Similarly, if the present generation scientists do not get inspiration from the older generation scientists then these remarkable developments in technology would not have been possible. Inspiration lays foundation for creation of something new or rather it can be said that out of inspiration something new and different is obtained. The achievements of the past are the basis of our present knowledge. Past achievements are like the roots of a tree and if roots are missing how can a tree ever grow or prosper? Past achievements work as a study which could yield outstanding results in the respective fields of research. Theories of the past are used to solve the problems of present. Getting inspired from the past achievement certainly does not mean deadening of individual creativity. Inspiration does not mean copying past achievements rather they help the present generation people to achieve new heights. Getting help from past achievements does not mean that innovation is lost; rather innovation is triggered and a better outcome is achieved. Although is very unlikely that people do not get influenced by past achievements of people. There are people who have done remarkably well on their own without getting inspired by anyone. Such people make a stand and recognition of their own and without the influence of anybody. They become the trendsetters and then they are the basis of inspiration for other people. It is also true that if too much dependence is on past achievements for inspiration then the chances of creating something unusual are lost completely. Therefore, we must look upon our great achievers from past with due respect and get encouraged and inspired but we should not get so influenced that our work has the traces of their work. We must have an individuality of our own. Whatever we create from any inspiration should contain an imprint of our individuality and it should bear our style. It should be so distinctive from the inspired work that they both appear to be separate and not concluded parts of each other.

To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.

For All great civilizations have had a flourishing city. The government/king/queen have been here. To understand most of its people, the way in which it is ruled, we must understand the city. 'Most important characteristics' shows that life outside of a city can still help illuminate the society, but not as much as city life can. Learning centers/colleges/universities are typically in a city. Understanding the intellectual output is key to understanding a society. In post-agrarian societies, most jobs are contained within cities. That is commerce is conducted in the cities. Against Many societies have been agricultural. That society's customs, rituals can only be understood in the context of a rural backdrop. Even a modern society depends on agriculture to sustain it. Surely, to understand the important characteristics of a society, we need to understand the people who live in rural areas. 'Major cities' is a stretch. Even smaller cities can help us understand a society, especially if the culture/values tend to be different in the smaller cities/more rural areas.

Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

In this issue, the author allegation is that the managers and the principals of almost any field should be changed after five years, because he only sees the success for any enterprise in new leaders. I believe this argument is to some extent credible. I agree with the statement insofar as the new leaders are beneficial to their respective enterprises. However, we should bear in mind that experienced leaders role in many of the biggest business in the world is undeniable. First and foremost, in my perspective, the author's claim about the new leader's role in their businesses is acceptable, because, these young leaders are often very motivated and motivation is one of the most important aspects to achieve success in any field of work. In addition, these new leaders are often full of new ideas. Since they have not got stocked in the routine process of work, their mind is fresh and more flexible and therefore, they often seek for new ways of managing the business. Furthermore, a young leader is more up to dated, and is often familiar with the most recent technologies and services around the world, and these characteristics are beneficial for any enterprise. Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons why new leaders are very advantageous to their businesses, those leaders can also pose certain problems of their own. Admittedly, these new leaders are not as experienced as the old managers and as a result, they can make a great deal of wrong decisions. Their inexperienced character also can make them confused in processing many of a manager's tasks, since these jobs are often very complicated and crucial. Besides, these young leaders, based on their age, are more likely to take risks. No one can ever refute that taking risks, is a part of any business and the ability to take risks is very substantiate to approach accomplishments, but this risks should be logically explained. Taking too much risk is not advantageous for any one and it might drown a large company. Finally, we should bear in mind, that the experienced managers and leaders are also play an indispensable role in the process of success in their businesses. An experienced leader is wise enough to take the best decisions in a short time because they have experienced many of these situations during their management. In addition, they might have enough creativity in their business because they have faced different problems and they have overcome them. By and large, I believe that the issue is credible to some extent, but we should not limit the path of success to the new leaders. Different factors can make an enterprise successful, and the leader of that business, is just one of these factors. New leaders are beneficial due to their characteristics and they also have some disadvantages. The experienced leaders are also appreciable and should be respected. And we should use their merit experience in different fields. Maybe the optimum trend in this issue is to combine the fresh mind of a young and the experience of an old manager in order to get the best result. The author here claims that it is necessary to step down the people in power of any organization after a brief period of 5 years because he believes that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. I disagree to the author's claim to a great extent but not completely. The explanation of my stand shall begin with the following question: Had Microsoft been such a huge organization had Bill Gates stepped down after a brief service of 5 years? Well the answer is NO. You look at any well established organization in the world like Apple, Tata Industries, etc, all have had a single leader over the years with the lower level being promoted from time to time. We all know what happened to Apple after Steve Jobs was sacked and what happened after he was reappointed. An age old adage goes as follows: EXPERIENCE IS THE BEST TEACHER. How will one gain experience if he has to abdicate his position after 5 years? An organization excels only if its employees are happy and to achieve this, it takes years to know what it takes to keep them happy. Also, with great power comes great responsibility and to be responsible enough it takes a prolonged interval of time. In case a person has to step down after a term of 5 years and he is at his peak at the time of abdicating, then that might be a heavy loss to the organization. The new successor will have to start from square one and in process learn all the tricks of the trade which will again require some time. Thus, this practice will result into a rise and fall pattern of the company. Just like we say that every coin has two sides, the above practice of prolonged leadership too has its negative consequences. This might result into dictatorship and the demolish of democracy. For example the General Parvez Musharaf of Pakistan withheld is power for over a decade and misused it. Another example of the same was Hitler. Thus, in my view,the surest path to success for any enterprise isn't revitalization through new leadership. In fact, this is the best way to review a diminishing or a crumpling enterprise and not a established business, political or government field.

Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.

Scandals have been a part of almost every field. They involve shocking, immoral or illegal behavior of people which is not approved of in the society. Because of their immoral nature they raise different extreme feelings and reactions amongst people. A scandal is therefore a problem generated in the society which becomes a concern and issue for a larger section of the society. It is correct that we learn by making mistakes. It is only with experience of dealing with difficult situations that a person becomes wiser and practical. The problem forces you to try all the possible solutions and you come up with a permanent and lasting solution. Therefore, there is increased number of chances of not repeating it again. This type of learning that comes by actually committing mistakes lasts longer and you will never forget it. However, if you prepare for a problem that you might face in future, you are not going to pay as much attention to it as you pay to the existing problem. When the problem takes shape of a scandal, there are more people involved and affected by it. The feelings and sentiments of people are affected and finding a solution becomes all the more difficult. It disrupts the peace, law and order of a place. It becomes very important to take control and find a solution of such a situation. Hence it becomes the thing of utmost importance for any leader to bring back the situation of peace and normalcy. This task is also done by reformers and speakers. However, the difference lies in the fact that reformers preach and spread morally and legally correct practices while in a scandal the leader practically struggles to find a solution. It is human nature to give more importance to the existing problems rather than prepare for a problem that you might face in future. Then comes the question, "Is the solution found for an existing problem better than that for a problem that one might face is future?" It may not be easy to answer this because the practicality of a solution is seen only by practicing it. However, the work done by reformers cannot be ignored. It is but for them that a society holds its morals and values. We can then understand that scandals and existing problems are useful for us in a way since they help in focusing our attention more towards the problem and its solution. However, who takes up the responsibility of the situation? Considering that it involves a large number of people, a solution cannot be found out unless all or the majority of people are willing to find a solution and comply by the rules. A leader alone cannot find a permanent solution. Therefore, it depends upon the attitude of the society as a whole to look at the scandal as a common problem and not remain divided over it. This is where a reformer steps in. He unites people by preaching morally correct and good values. It is only by his teachings that a change can be brought in the thinking of people and a lasting solution be found by the authorities. Conclusively, it can be said that the scandals definitely focus our attention towards the problems but a solution to the problem is found only when the attitude of people concerned is reformed. Playing on one's emotions is known to be an effective tactic to seize the publics attention.

Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study.

The ongoing debate about whether a university should require students to take courses only within their fields of study or take extra classes to fulfill graduation requirements is an interesting one. There any many valid arguments to each side and it is not a simple black or white choice when deciding who is right. However, by requiring students to only take courses within their major, it allows for students focus on taking classes that are only applicable to their future careers and allows them to save money in a time where saving money is equally important to a college degree. In many situations, students will finish high school and go on to college with an idea of what they want to do with their life. For students who are in majors such as engineering or the a science field such as chemistry or biology, it is important to for them to stay on top of all of their course work because of the higher number of courses that they must take in order to fulfill the university requirements for a degree. Many of these students knew before they entered college that this would be the case and gladly accepted that challenge, however by requiring students to take extra general education classes to fulfill their diploma requirements seems counter intuitive to a level of education where students are beginning to focus and narrow in on their future career goals. By forcing say a engineering student to take music theory or British literature just simply to fulfill a general education requirement and having that class conflict with a engineering major course seems to prevent these students from coming to college and fully obtaining their goal as quickly as possible. The other aspect to consider is the financial aspect. In many of these situations, the students are under pressure to finish their degree as soon as possible because of many state budget cuts to education which limit the number of classes offered with in their major. Not only does this mean extra classes that students must take and thus more money they have to spend because tuition is usually based on a per unit fee, forcing these extra classes upon can have a longer impact if they are forced to stay longer in college than they originally assumed they would. College already charges an extremely large amount to attend and that already does not take into account the other expenses that students have to pay (such as room and board, food, and books), but adding on extra semester, quarters, or even years because a student had to take general education classes instead of strictly major classes is an unfair system to put a student through. As with any situation though, there are always exceptions to the rule. For one not every student enters college with the same career focus and direction as their peers. Many students will come into college unsure of the direction they want to take and many students who think they know what direction they want to go, end up changing their minds (sometimes multiple times). By requiring students to take classes from a broad range of spectrums, Universities can help students narrow down what career path they may want to follow. Many times students may have a preconceived notion of what a subject may be about and not want to try it, yet by requiring it, they may be able to find themselves in a new class with something they may choose to pursue in the future, something they perhaps never would have considered. There is also something to be said about being able to take higher education classes simply for the benefit of wanting to learn about something that interests you. College allows you to do that and by making it a requirement, it allows students a bigger chance to do that. Overall though, universities that force students to take upwards of 10-12 general education classes just to fulfill a requirement for their diploma seems unfair. When a student comes into college with a specific end game in site, the universities should not hinder their goals by overloading them with extra requirements and instead focus on helping hem obtain their goals as quickly as possible. The time and financial benefits that could be reaped by not requiring students to take these classes could have a direct impact on the success of all students as well as the future communities they intend to help. Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study because many students need the opportunity to figure out what they want to study, multiple courses help make a more well-rounded person, and different courses teach different skills. -Average college student changes majors 7 times - Freshman students may be undecided and need options -Society respects well rounded people - Have some knowledge about many different subjects -I'm an education major, but still need math skills in my job -Chemistry class helps me understand the Anthrax scare that I heard on the news.

As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.

The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human experience over the past century. Surely there has been no time in history where the lived lives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typical day reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute to work in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During the workday, chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer that processes information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving home, family members will be reached through wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurrences could have been inconceivable at the turn of the 19th century. The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the ability for humans to think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previous quandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that without a car, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternate methods of transport, information processing and communication. Technology short circuits this thinking by making the problems obsolete. However, this reliance on technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity that marks the human species. The prior examples reveal that technology allows for convenience. The car, computer and phone all release additional time for people to live more efficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans to think for themselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. For example, the proliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a global scale. With increasing energy demands from emerging markets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation, allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to these complex problems require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and politicians. In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination. Consider how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet has allowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internet portal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed off to the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium Development Goals, based his ideas on emergency care triage techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe. This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope to the future of humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals can now be achieved. Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistorical days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine a world free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox was systematically targeted and eradicated. Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the implementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human imagination. Surely many of us have expressed the following sentiment, or some variation on it, during our daily commutes to work: "People are getting so stupid these days!" Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDA's gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their eyeballs, it's tempting to believe that technology has isolated and infantilized us, essentally transforming us into dependent, conformist morons best equipped to sideswip one another in our SUV's. Furthermore, hanging around with the younger, pre-commute generation, whom tech-savviness seems to have rendered lethal, is even less reassuring. With "Teen People" style trends shooting through the air from tiger-striped PDA to zebra-striped PDA, and with the latest starlet gossip zipping from juicy Blackberry to teeny, turbo-charged cell phone, technology seems to support young people's worst tendencies to follow the crowd. Indeed, they have seemingly evolved into intergalactic conformity police. After all, today's tech-aided teens are, courtesy of authentic, hands-on video games, literally trained to kill; courtesy of chat and instant text messaging, they have their own language; they even have tiny cameras to efficiently photodocument your fashion blunders! Is this adolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp? With all this evidence, it's easy to believe that tech trends and the incorporation of technological wizardry into our everyday lives have served mostly to enforce conformity, promote dependence, heighten comsumerism and materialism, and generally create a culture that values self-absorption and personal entitlement over cooperation and collaboration. However, I argue that we are merely in the inchoate stages of learning to live with technology while still loving one another. After all, even given the examples provided earlier in this essay, it seems clear that technology hasn't impaired our thinking and problem-solving capacities. Certainly it has incapacitated our behavior and manners; certainly our values have taken a severe blow. However, we are inarguably more efficient in our badness these days. We're effective worker bees of ineffectiveness! If technology has so increased our senses of self-efficacy that we can become veritable agents of the awful, virtual CEO's of selfishness, certainly it can be beneficial. Harnessed correctly, technology can improve our ability to think and act for ourselves. The first challenge is to figure out how to provide technology users with some direly-needed direction. In all actuality, I think it is more probable that our bodies will surely deteriorate long before our minds do in any significant amount. Who can't say that technology has made us lazier, but that's the key word, lazy, not stupid. The ever increasing amount of technology that we incorporate into our daily lives makes people think and learn every day, possibly more than ever before. Our abilities to think, learn, philosophize, etc. may even reach limits never dreamed of before by average people. Using technology to solve problems will continue to help us realize our potential as a human race. If you think about it, using technology to solve more complicating problems gives humans a chance to expand their thinking and learning, opening up whole new worlds for many people. Many of these people are glad for the chance to expand their horizons by learning more, going to new places, and trying new things. If it wasn't for the invention of new technological devices, I wouldn't be sitting at this computer trying to philosophize about technology. It would be extremely hard for children in much poorer countries to learn and think for themselves with out the invention of the internet. Think what an impact the printing press, a technologically superior mackine at the time, had on the ability of the human race to learn and think. Right now we are seeing a golden age of technology, using it all the time during our every day lives. When we get up there's instant coffee and the microwave and all these great things that help us get ready for our day. But we aren't allowing our minds to deteriorate by using them, we are only making things easier for ourselves and saving time for other important things in our days. Going off to school or work in our cars instead of a horse and buggy. Think of the brain power and genius that was used to come up with that single invention that has changed the way we move across this globe. Using technology to solve our continually more complicated problems as a human race is definately a good thing. Our ability to think for ourselves isn't deteriorating, it's continuing to grow, moving on to higher though functions and more ingenious ideas. The ability to use what technology we have is an example

People's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making.

The term "behavior" is not quite easy to describe. There exists a plethora of definitions for it according to individual perspectives. But, in general "behavior" means how a person acts or reacts according to the external or internal forces. Human beings being the most intelligent species, have liberty of choice. They think, decide and execute things. People do behave in a way they are brought up. Many external factors such as society, environment, school, peers, families may contribute to their thinking, but it is highly unjustified to say that external factors are solely responsible for the behavior of people. We as human learn, hear and absorb things but eventually it is us who decides what to do. We have free will and we can only account ourselves for our actions. However, there are outside factors that contributes to human behavior. External factors always had impact on humans. History shows many a great or flawed men were a product of these influences. But, eventually it depends on the individual about how and what to do. There are laws, rules and regulations in the society but it depends on the individual whether to abide by those rules or not. For instance, in a particular country there may be a punishment for throwing garbage on the road. A person travelling to that country might not throw garbage being extra cautious about the rules there. But, when he goes to the other country where there are no such rules, he might. In this case, their sense of individual responsibility will come into play. External forces might push people, make them think, realize what needs to be done. In the end it is completely dependent on us to make the decisions. We are our decision-makers and nothing can make us do what we don't want to. There are rules, laws and outer forces that continuously reminds us against doing bad or illegal. But, there are people who break laws, which is evident by the crime rate. So, what are the effects of external forces on such people? They have decided not to let the external forces determine their behavior. Students are continuously told to study well for their bright future. There are students who will let the external forces push them and study well. On the other hand, there are students who will not let the external forces influence them and act according to their will. A thief will steal in spite of the laws in the society. Many argue that their act resulted from poverty, circumstances etc, but it is eventually the thief who makes the decision in spite of the options. A person can only be responsible for his behavior. External forces can play a part, but human beings are the outcome of their own actions. However, the above statement is not entirely without support, it runs contrary to common sense and everyday human actions. So, I firmly believe that our action springs from our free will accords with common sense and everyday experience.

Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive.

This is a very sensitive issue and it is difficult for us to decide the role of governments. There are many issues in this statement that need to be addressed. The first question is whether the actual culture and traditions is in big cities or small towns and villages. The second thing is that whether it is really a government's duty to subsidize cultural traditions. The author claims that governments should ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need to preserve the nation's cultural traditions. However, preserving cultures should not be the single reason to develop major cities. This is not only for preservation of nation's culture but also for the reason of developing the whole society. There is no doubt that major cities are the principal force when constructing a healthy country and their development directly reflects the development of the country. Major cities primarily generate a nation's cultural traditions and makes it famous in the world. However, it is actually towns and villages where cultural traditions originate and are preserved and any government that pays attention to its cultural traditions should neither neglect nor ignore those places. Hence, these small places should receive equal if not more financial support than major cities. The culture and tradition maintained in these places might be much more integrated and purer than in counterpart cities. Therefore, in order to protect their cultural traditions, governments should support tradition-based towns and villages rather than invest a lot to the cities, which have little traditional foundation. If we take the example of Hong Kong, it used to be a small fishing village 150 years ago. After it became the colony of the Great Britain, Hong Kong has developed gradually and has established as a financial center in Asia. Therefore, from its present, nobody can assert that Chinese cultural traditions are generated in Hong Kong. Hong Kong developed completely according to the style of the capitalism country, during the reign of Britain, although the majority of residents were Chinese, who are known for preserving their culture and traditions. The Chinese culture is not preserved in Hong Kong, hence there is no point in providing financial support to Hong Kong just for the culture's sake. However, as it is a major financial and shopping hub, it attracts people from all over the world and it is a great source of revenue for the government. Hence, the government of China has to patronize it to maintain its importance. However, while major cities are the resource of one country's culture, the major part of population in many countries lives in villages. In cities, most people are doing salary-based jobs and in villages, most of the people are farmers. The government of a country has to take care of both the sides to keep balance in society. To construct major cities, the rural places should not be ignored. The cultural traditions are the backbone of a nation and they should be preserved. However, major cities and rural areas should get equal attention from the governments.