IELTSNetwork.com

It has been way too long since we last held an essay writing contest.

Don't miss this chance!

The rules are very simple. All you need to do is write a response to the following essay question in 40 minutes or less and post it as a reply to this thread.

I will be providing band estimates and feedback to all submissions.

Our essay contest question is:

In some cultures, children are expected to follow very strict rules of behaviour. In other cultures, children are allowed to do almost anything they want. What are the merits of each opinion? What is your position on the matter? Include relevant examples in your response.

This is a plausible Academic or General Task 2 question.

I am looking forward to reading your responses.

Good luck with your writing!

Well, there is no denying in the factor that upbringing plays an important role in children life. In every different cultures, parents have there unique ways of bringing up the child. Some parents try to control their kids by strict discipline , while others try to provide more and more freedom and ignore there indecent behaviour. Both ways have there own impacts on children life in there foreseeable future.
First of all, parents who believe to enforced strict rules on their infants at early stage of there life are fully aware of the future beneficial impacts. After all, they had experience and they can understand situations way better then there children. These rules might look difficult in beginning, but eventually become habits and help child in grooming there personality and social skills. For example, there are many famous enterprenures, scientists and other professional in this world who gave all the credit of there success to there parents disciplined upbringing.Moreover, it would not only help the kids to become successful person, but also turn them into we'll-behaved and benelvant individual.
While, there are some people who don't believe in imposing rules on there children in early stage of life. They let there kids to do whatever they want and ignore there mistakes as well. It can lead to a good mental and physical growth of child. When children have no pressure at all, they can independently choose there career. They can be more creative and innovative in there life. Thus they can help society with there innovative ideas and new thoughts.
In the conclusion, after analysing both different ways of children upbringing, I would say both ways can be helpful in the childhood, but in a limited way. Neither children should be subjected to over discipline that they can't even enjoy there childhood, nor too much freedom so it would not spoil them in there foreseeable future.

Nowadays, in some parts of the world it is believed that kids should follow every strict rule without having the right of any objection. While in other countries, children are let to do almost whatever they want.
In my opinion, both theories have as much negatives as positives.
I think, that a good example for the first type of counties are India and China, where following the tradition and showing you respect is everything. In this way, these people save their believes, their folklore, and themselves as a nation. Their learn the youth of discipline how to respect the adults and their wisdom as well. On the other hand, the respect is not something that you should achieve whit ages, but something that you work for. Due to, for instance there are fathers that beat up or even rape their own kids. In this way, they damage their darlings lives and after that they want respect. I think, it is absurd.
This lead us to the next type of countries, where kids have the right to do almost everything they want. This is how these children grow up open minded and adapt easily to different social terms and conditions, which is an extremely good thing. The disadvantage here, is that these children are less disciplined and they are tend to not follow the rules, which leads to chaos.
In this way, it can be concluded that we should always search for the balance. We should show respect, but to those who deserve it. We have to follow the rules, but we should not let them lock us in a cage.

It is true that are various ways of upbringing children. The cultures differ in this aspect,based upon underlying geographical area of the world.
Let us examine both ways, lenient and strict method.The views of different societies reflect their countries customs and rituals. For example,in India it is culture to touch the feet of elders showing them immence respect. It is part of Indian culture to be quite in front of elders and not to raise one's voice in front of them. Whereas if children are allowed to do whatever they want,the respect and peace which the elders deserve,might even lead to dispute,disruption of a family.
Some people believe that children are future of tomorrow,it is important for them to take their own decisions,be able to express their views in order to be more independent and confident adults. However,there should always be guidance from adults to show them,the benefits and drawbacks of their actions/decisions.For example a teenager,might have access to illicit drugs,but whether he/she chooses to use it,depends on the guidance given by elders.
The debate can go on,between restricting children or giving them full freedom. Another point that can be said against the statement of giving full freedom is that children are naive,inexperienced in life,their acts cannot therefore be in full wisdom,either beneficial to themselves and to the society at large. Nevertheless,putting strict restrictions can lead to psychosocial disorders,such as fear of society,introvert behaviour.In the terminology of psychiatrists it's called 'social phobia'.
In conclusion,there are pros and cons of giving full freedom to children,hence there should be a balance between the two extremes.

There are societies where the children must to follow very strict rules of conduct, which tell them what to have to do in every situation and if these normatives are not respected, there generally is a serious penalty for the children. In opposition, there are others cultures instead where the children can do practically they want to do, and there is not punishment because wrong actions. Each of this kinds of societies have some benefices for the growth and education of the children, thus this essay will discuss some of this positives consequences of both kinds of societies.

In strict cultures there are many rules of behavior for the children. They have to accept this types exigencies because there are strong punishments if they had not. These children grow in a secure environment where they know exactly which things are good or bad. However, some these children could feel dominated for this kind strict society. For instance, in some Asian countries, strong rules are imputed for the children, like a long time for the study without healthy pauses, the children can not choose the subject in accordance to their like. Therefore they almost have not freedom for any actions, then when this kids growth some of they trait to left the country or fight for their freedom rights.

In other hand, there are culture where the children have the liberty to do anything, there are not rules of behavior nor penalty actions. They grow discovering the world in complete freedom, with the possibilities of try new actions without apprehensiveness because some disapprove answer from their parent. Many people might think that is the paradise for a boy or girl but actually they could have some problem after their childhood period. Some specialist psychologists say this children could become frustrated and unadapted adults, because they always did that they wanted do, but as an adult now they must to follow the rules, which every society have.

In resume, this two totally opposite societies have some merits but also they have disadvantages for the children and the society in which this children grow. I prefer a culture in between of these extreme positions, where the children have clear rules of behavior but also have the freedom to choose and discovery the world.

Every family has its own way to educate children. Undeniable, there are many factors that influence parents to choose one approach over others, such as religion, customs, and culture. In some countries parents give their children the freedom to behave according to their attitudes, while in other countries they impose rules to their children and strict behaviour codes. Before providing my opinion, I will discuss both the point of view.

One the one hand, for some cultures children should grow without any restrictions or rules. According to some parents, a strict behaviour code inhibits children to fulfil their passions and develop their self-confidence. In contrast, children should be exposed to the reality around them, even if they might broke some rules, in order to further and develop their cognitive skills, like abstraction, logic and creativity. For example, in Western societies, children are accostumated to do whatever they want, even at schools, and parents always justify their behaviours because their age is free from punishment. Additionally, according to them, being too much authoritarian with children would cause them serious mental problems, such as anxiety, insomnia and frustration.

One the other hand, for others rules are essential in childern’s upbringing. Only with strict behaviour codes children would learn how to respect adults, behave in public, and lastly build a solid career in the future. According to these parents, children necessity rules to recognise the parent’s role and understand what is good or bad in their life. For instance in Asian counties like Japan children are forced to follow certain rules, which teach them the value of work and the importance of sacrifices to attain their goals. Moreover, rules would provide children with a better understanding of the work-environment they will experience in future.

In my opinion, one approach is not better than the other, but we must find a compromise between the two. Rules are paramount in children’s growing process, as help them to become more successful and respectful person. However, giving children the possibility to act as they decide, would benefits them both psychologically and socially.

All in all, being a child is an opportunity that does not came a second time. Parents should consider carefully the way to educate children, and their possible consequences.

Graziana Interlandi

please let me know

Academic type of response

In most western countries, children are not restricted with preferences of engaging in activities; whereas, from the majority of Chinese’s perspectives, children are supposed to follow a number of established disciplinary measures for guiding their behaviour. However, I believe that neither of the opinions are completely unflawed and it is more appropriate to distribute a reasonable amount of freedom to children’s development.

As far as many western educationists are concerned, it can develop children’s full potentials of creativity by allowing them to conduct almost anything they want. For instance, with the assistance of productive ideas, technology can be continuously updated in the long term. In addition, when children are not lawed with strict rules of behaviour, there is a tendency that they can find their personal interests more effortlessly. This will be of great benefits for children in building up their future career.

In contrast, most Chinese experts consider applying strict disciplinary measures as a systematic approach to guiding children in self-control. As long as they meet the standardised criteria, undoubtedly, it is very unlikely for children to go wild without taking possible consequences into account. As a result of such educational plan, most children will be brought up well-behaved.

From my point of view, it is essential to remain sceptical of both approaches. As children are hardly abided by strong rules of behaviour, western style of behavioural teaching can also result in higher instances of juvenile crimes such as drug abuse and violence. Likewise, children who grow up in the environment of strict regulations and control can easily lose their ability of innovation, even though the outcomes these children provide are often within satisfactions. Therefore, I strongly think that a combination of both western and Chinese measures is the most comprehensive.

Many thanks for reviewing my essay!

Culture to culture, it is different that the way children are brought up. In some cultures, such as in India, youngsters have to adhere to the strict rules of behavior, whereas in many others they have full freedom. It is believed that both these cultures have its own positives which will be discussed in this essay.

Following the compulsory rules will convert the young people to be responsible and respectful adults. A perfect example is Mr. Amitab Bachan, 'The star of the millennium' who is respected throughout the world. He clearly mentioned in his biography that those childhood lessons helped him to reach the success by being responsible to his duties and respectful to others. Thus, it is clear that following these rigid rule system acts as highly beneficial to the society. Therefore, some cultures follow this point of view.

At the same time, liberty leads to creativity and self-reliance. Take Canada, for instance, where teenagers are given a certain amount of freedom to chose the subject which the child want to study such as music and drawing. This leads to better creative works from the student to be successful in the studies as well as successful throughout the career. Since the parents don't have a role in the studies, the unprotected child become self reliant to complete his select subjects. As seen, many creative and independent child blossoms in the culture that follows this set of rules which are considered as positive outlook.

In summary, the child develops a unique character corresponding to the environment which the child grows. Imposing strict rules of behavior and setting up free culture and extreme opposites. I believe that the lessons must be taught by giving room for freedom. It is rightly said that 'Give respect and take respect'.

Delvy

Children are potential sculptors of the world’s future and they have been raised in many different ways in different countries. Western cultures allow children to behave at their own will while eastern cultures restrict children with many different rules and regulations. While it can be argued that strict guidance on children let them grow systematically, these strict restrictions are not conducive to learning from experience and innovation. These two aspects will be analyzed in detail.

First, it is important that children of any age are exposed to a bit of the real world; otherwise, they will become weak members of future societies. For example, a stereotyped child cannot possibly get out of their thinking box; if parents’ rule is that these children should not fight in any place at any time, they will not be able to deal with bullying peers. Only if that child has some kind of free thinking, will they be able to stand up for themselves. Therefore, it is apparent that some kind of freedom is needed for any child of any age.

In addition, innovation comes from free thinking and observing the environment and children need to be exposed to these types of ground where they can grow. Take for example, brilliant children of the western world where several innovators have been produced. If a child is not used to thinking out of the box and observing the horizon, it is unlikely that that child become a successful sculptor of the world’s future. For this reason, children need to go beyond parents’ and teachers’ guidance and see the world by themselves.

For all these reasons, it is obvious that children need to be nurtured with freedom of thought and behavior to build a better world. So, a certain level of freedom is preferable to strict guidance when it comes to raising children and letting them lead the world. It will hopefully be realized by parents and educators the world over of this era.

Childhood is the precious part in one’s life which has to be cherished. However, only at this age that anybody’s learning potential is at the highest. So, different Cultures have different styles of upbringing their children from very strict on one extreme to let them live freely without any restrictions on the other. Each system has their own backing to substantiate their position which will be discussed here to arrive at a decision.

On one side, the culture which impose strict rules think that inculcating good behaviour at young age will shape them as a responsible citizen in future. Take Japanese culture as an example. Children of Japanese descent are taught of character, behaviour and personal hygiene during their formative years and this has nurtured them as well disciplined adults even at the time of adverse natural calamities. It is obvious from this example how a strict education shapes a child into a responsible individual which will bring peace and prosperity to a nation.

On the other side, some cultures leave freely their children to pursue their own interest which brings them happiness. Most of the western countries belong to this school of behaviour shaping. These nations believe that each one is different and restricting their behaviour at young age will affect their freedom and interest. As a result, their full potential is not appreciated which might be a loss to their country. It is clear from this why a child should not be restricted when they grow.

Thus , it seems that both sides of behaviour modifications of young children have their own advantages. However, it is generally agreed that children should be allowed to live freely but with few restrictions when their habits go beyond the socially acceptable norms. So a child who has grown in an environment with moderate rules will evolve as a responsible, talented and an enthusiastic adult.

Different countries have different cultures. On one side, children expect to adhere to stringent rules of behaviour, on the other hand, children are given freedom to do whatever they prefer. In this essay, I will discuss on the advantages of each argument and my view on it.

Firstly, it is agreed that most of the children grown up in a strict family, behave very well and possess with a strong self-discipline. They listen and follow to every instruction given by their parents and ultimately, they become an obedient child in the eye of their parents. As long as the children adhere closely to the rules, they are protected from making mistake. This culture is practice by family particularly from Asian countries, for instance, Japan. Japanese parent guide their children in a very strict manner and as a result, children are shy, seldom express their view in the family and afraid to make mistake.

Alternatively, it is totally different in western countries such as United States of America where children are free to think and act with no control by their parent. In addition, parent gives them freedom and power to decide on almost everything on their own. This explains why children in western countries are more proactive, creative and confidence. They are trained to be independent and control on their own life. Furthermore, as they are allow go through the process of thinking, analyzing and deciding, it will eventually strengthen and build up their ability to apply these essential skills in the future.

In conclusion, no doubt it is important for the children to follow rules as it is a guide to act in the right manner but at the same time, it would be more beneficial to the children if parents provide them freedom to think and act according to their will. On another perspective, although freedom does bring advantages to the children but is should not be excessive as it may expose children to the danger since they are still young. So, in my view it would be good for the children to act freely within a controllable manner.

There are widely differing views on the issues of whether children should learn restricted behaviour or they should allow to do any thing.In this case,some people believe that they are not allowed to follow all behaviour ,whereas other people feel that they should be allowed to learn anything.Both of these have own advantages.

First of all, parents who teach their children some restrict behaviour may know its consequences because they have had enough experience on it.It is an indisputable fact that when people try to do anything without having enough experience, they may suffer lots of confusion.Likewise, when parents allow their children to learn certain behaviour,at the beginning of this it looks quiet conservative,but in later life they realise the result of it. Another further benefit of restriction behaviour is that there is no chance for them to entail worse bebaviour as their parents teach them some strict rules of behaviour. In addition to that, they get respect from others at any situations of their lives because of strict behaviour.

On the other hand,in many parts of the world,children are allowed to learn all thing.It is generally acceptable fact that parents who teach their children all behaviour at their formative years can get enormous facilities when they become adults.Furthermore,it is crucial to survive in the competitive world because they have to react badly in the worst situations ,and they have to act as an honest person when the situation is good.Another advantage of learning anything is that they can compare the differences between right and wrong ,so they can choose the best one for their lives.

In conclusion, in my opinion,I would like to say that children should be permitted to learn all thing that are essential for their lives by their parents which would be much more beneficial to survive in the world.

Now-a-days children behavior is a big challenge in society, different cultures have different opinions to grown their children based on their tradition and religion. if you see overall all cultures are trying to give good people to society. Every culture has its own system and process to teach their children.

As per my experience most of the cultures in asian countries follow the strict rules to teach their children. For example if we consider hindu or islamic or christian cultures are trying to teach good behavior to their children. They want to respect their religion and tradition. As per their tradition children have to respect elders and follow their parents. Many parents want to see their children in a good position for that they put some strict rules on their children. They force the children concentrate more time on education. Even children don't have interest on education, parents forcefully send to them to the schools. Some times it may be good for children future, other wise it will be negative impact on children. Most of the parents try to concentrate on their children behavior. if the children are able to follow their parents they may have good life in future. it would be really helpful to society.

As per my knowledge in western countries, most of the parents give freedom to their children. They don't want to put stress on their children. Parents or teachers try to teach good behavior to their children. specially parents don't want to follow them. They leave the children as per their wish. Most of the children are allowed to do whatever they want, because of this freedom there might be a possibility of spoil their lives such as addict to the bad habits like taking drugs, alcohol and smoking. Many of the children are trying to start earning money in the earlier ages. So they try to live how they want, parents are not control them once they started their individual life.

In conclusion giving or not giving complete freedom is not good for the children. Parents and teachers have to monitor the children to put them in a right direction till they become major. They can think in a matured level once they become major.

The proper ways of raising children have long been hot topics to parents around the world. Different cultures have distinctively different styles of behaving young people. Some cultures embrace giving children the right to do anything while others place strict rules for them to follow. Both styles will be assessed before a reasonable conclusion can be drawn.

On one hand, some cultures free their children from restrictions because they believe this practice will help their kids find their true passion for life. For instance, American young people tend to engage in a wider variety of extra-curriculum activities that they are truly into than their Chinese peers. Hence it is clear that with fewer rules, American teenagers are able to live a more passionate life compared to Chinese teenagers. Consequently, it is justified that many cultures provide their children the freedom of action since this helps them find their true passion for life.

On the other hand, many other cultures argue that by employing the rules, their children are actually protected from making certain mistakes that cannot be undone. Take China for instance, young people in this country have a lower rate of drug use than that in the U.S. This is mostly likely due to the stricter rules Chinese parents have for their children, as drug addition is incredibly difficult to correct. As a result, it is clear why some cultures value the practices of restricting their children’s behaviours for preventing them from making irreversible mistakes.

In summary, both styles of giving the kids complete freedom and no freedom have strong support. Nevertheless, I reason that children should follow orders from adults since their judgments are often too poor to protect them from engaging in activities that could result in serious consequences such as drug use. As such, it is recommended that parents and teachers should have reasonable written or spoken regulations in place for the children to adopt in all cultures.

Childhood is the most crucial time period in human life. This is the time when one inhibits good and bad habits and that remains almost in their whole life. It is certainly true that children grown under elder’s guidance pre-dominantly do well as compared to others who get freedom from the starting of their life. There are both positive and negative sides of guided and non-guided upbringings.

A parent is the first source with whom a child interacts and gains certain cultural customs and rules. The way parents deal with their children from the starting literally shapes their life. In many Asian countries like India, parents play an important role in deciding their children future both professionally and personally such as career and marriage decisions respectively. Therefore, India is rich in producing more doctors and engineers etc. as compared to western countries. Even the divorce rate is lesser here as compared to other countries.

On the other hand, In western culture, parents supports their children to explore any educational option of their own choice and motivates them in whatever career option they want to go for instead of pushing and forcing them to become personality of their choice. That is why people in countries like US and UK today really do well in research events and produces unique products like iPhone and tablets etc. and remains competitive in the market always.

To conclude this, I strongly believe that children upbringing must be done by giving them independence in choosing their educational and career options but under proper guidance and experienced intimates. More strict rules and regulations means more chances of turning one to mentally sick patient and therefore, more chances of committing suicides.

Different societies have different sets of rules for children. In some cultures children are required to demonstrate strict protocol. While in others younger generations have more freedom. Both these cultures have their own positive points. In this essay, advantages of both systems will be analysed before a reasoned conclusion is reached.
To begin with, by observing stringent regulations children can learn discipline and self-control, which has paramount importance in their future. To illustrate this, in Indian society most of the parents exercise strict control over their children, this way parents teach their children social values and self-restraint. This abstemiousness shapes children character in a positive manner and helpful for them exercising inculcation. Looking at this, it is understandable why in some societies parents exercise strict rules for their children.
However, in other cultures parents exercise more lenient approach towards younger generations, this way a child can build resilience and become more creative. To illustrate this, in Australia many parents encourage their children to do self-study. This type of atmosphere provides small children more freedom and helps gain more independence, which enhances their vision and self-belief. Therefore, it is clear from above argument why many parents deem the merit of merciful rules for the younger generations.
To sum up, after looking at the benefits of both sides, it is clear that in different environments child gets chances to develop unique characteristic. Having said that, non-strict rule provides an opportunity to develop innovation and suppleness, thus provides more flexibility to children. Consequently, it is more beneficial for the younger generations.

Culture is a part of country's heritage. Along with the current environment culture affects a lot in children's development and growth. In terms of behavioral growth of a child, it is partially good to have strict rules with a bit of relaxation. The topic is discussed comparing a child's growth in strict environment with open or free rules for children.

Children born in family having strict rules, are trended to be quite hardworking and well mannered. For example, children of Chinese or Japanese cultures where karate or other similar activities are common, children are more intelligent and hardworking. Children posses more behavior of being obedient and respect family terms. Therefore, strict rules will reflect positive results in future.

In contract to, where either children are free to do anything or parents do not have control on child's behavior, children end up being immature. For example, by not criticizing on any culture, where children not respecting parents or teachers and bullying other children have a negative impact on their growth and mostly end up with being addicted to drugs or illegal activities. It is also discussed that they face problems with moral and social activities of the community. Therefore, it is better not to give free hand to a child, especially during early age.

In summary, strictness has shown positive as well as negative results, however in long run children bought up with strict rules are quite well mannered to the elders and community members. Therefore, to have strict rules, especially during the early age of a child is much better. Also, it is recommended to involve children in martial arts or similar sports activities, where they are taught to behave and be well organized.

Thanks Ryan for doing this. Here's my essay;

Discipline is one of the most important yet difficult part of child rearing. There is nod doubt it affects their behavior later in life, therefore parents' role of seeing rules and overseeing is critical for children to learn how to function in society. However, the question is how strict it should be and what consequence it brings about to children.

For instance, many Asian countries are know to have very strict rules for children to follow as discipline. Their behavior is controled well and respect other's opinion. These children, however, seem to have less self-esteem because they are constantly being told off about what not to do. Moreover, they tend to lack individuality and creative thinking because doing out of the line was not allowed, therefore they feel confortable following majority.

In contrast, children in many western cultures are raised more freely. As a result, they are more confident and independent. Having said that, there are, of course, downside of this. They can be over-confident and selfish who cannot respect others and rules. They might grow up to net being able to follow social rule.

To summarize, there are advantages and disadvantages in both side and a balance is the key for discipline. However, I personally believe that parents should have strict rules for children because they are the only ones who can tell them what is right and wrong nowadays.

Well, it is obvious that the family cultures play an important role to determine the behavior of children. Each family has their own way rearing their children. In some cultures, children have to flow very strict rules while in some other cultures they are free to do any thing they want.

First , it is generally seem that in most of the eastern countries like Nepal ,India etc. have cultures to educate their children morally . Parents in these countries restrict their children to do bad things and allow only right things to do.In such countries things are classified good and bad according to cultures and children learn to respect elderly people and love younger one. Children are honest and sociable as cultural habits make them to be so. In contrast, children have to practice many norms and ideologies of the society which are found to be bore-some and painful to children in such cultures.

On the other hand, in most of the western countries, parents leave their children freely and they are not prohibited to do any things they want. Children in such countries learn by themselves. Children can think and develop ideas in their own ways and show their creativity by oneself. On the negative side of such cultures , children have likely to fall in bad impacts like robbery, loot , smoking etc as they are not guided by their parents as per religions and cultures.

In conclusion , each of the above statements have their own merits and demerits. It is sure that without certain restrictions children are unable to maintain perfect personalities as the personality is the out put of moral education, honesty, respect , devotion etc. while the complete freedom allow children to do anything according to their desire, whether it is wrong or right. So in my view, complete restriction and complete freedom do not exist in the case of children’s activities and parents must treat their children according to things that they are going to do.

Upbringing of children around the world varies according to the culture and traditions. In many cultures, children are enforced to behave in prompt and well-mannered way. While on the other side, there are many cultures in which children are set free to do whatever they want without any concern. Both the views have their own advantages and they will be weighed prior tho reaching an informed conclusion.
Traditionally, in many countries, such as India, Iran and Pakistan, a large pocket of people believe that it is profoundly important for children to follow a high ranking of manners in their behavior. For example, it is not expected from a pupil to ask question without teacher’s permission during class. These rules instill a sense of respect and duty into a child. Furthermore, children become benevolent and it’s favorable for the possession of culture and traditional values of a country. Thus, it is easy to see why this argument has garnered support from many countries around the world.
On the flip side, in western countries, such as USA and UK, it is believed that it is necessary to grow children in an unrestricted environment. A child brought up in this manner develops a virtue of fearlessness and tends to disclose everything without fear. For instance, a child who is liberal to ask questions in the classroom automatically develops virtue of perceptiveness. Additionally, this freedom also helps juveniles to evoke problem solving skills and innovative ideas. Thus, giving freedom in behavior bring many benefits in many ways.
My own view is that, albeit there are many pros of keeping children unrestricted in their behavior, it is indispensable to inculcate them mere importance of elementary rules and regulations of their behavior. It is felt that a behavioral freedom under the shade of prompt guidance can be favorable for both society as well as children themselves.




Past IELTS
26/10/2013: R-8, L-7.5, S-6.5, W-6
09/11/2013: R-7.5, L-7.5, S-7. W-6.5

Today, two different ways of upbringing can be seen in the world. This can be nowhere clearer than in Western and in some Asian countries, as well as in India. According to one camp, in order to rear a good person, regulations of children’s behavior should be austere, according to other, rules for children’s conduct supposed to be very loose. These arguments will be analyzed prior to coming to a reasoned conclusion.

Historically, in such countries as China and India approval- dependent behaviours are fostered. For instance, education is given high priority in the Indian family irrespective of social class, and children are expected to be “good students” and “sound achievers”, so their moral behavior is strongly encouraged. When looking at this example, there is no doubt that this approach brings up educated and socialized members of society. It is easy to see why this argument has garnered a lot of support in India.

On the other hand, child rearing in western countries have undergone various changes. Take America, for instance, where the upbringing of children became more non-interference. It is argued that this enables children's personalities to develop naturally and that they will learn to be responsible for the mistakes they make, cope with problems, be self-reliant, and store experience. It goes without saying that this point of view has its own pros in cultivating necessary qualities in children. Thus, the western model is difficult to debunk.

After analyzing these two points of view, it is obvious that both ways of child fosterage has their own advantages. However, it is believed that the optimal model of child upbringing is a balanced approach, depending on characteristics of different points like country, conditions of living, age, peculiarities of every child and so on. Without a doubt, the best way to rear an adequate member of society is to take proper account of pros and cons of both approaches and to use them in a balanced way.

Gulya

In todays global world there are still somethings not globalised. Growing up a child is one of them. One child could have raised more flexible while an other one in an another corner of the world treated such as a prisoner.There are absolutely some pros and cons in this two types of approaches.

Children, generally born in eastern countries, may exposed to e huge pressure during their childhood. Their families get between them and all their environment. For instant, a kid who grows up with family pressure get a weak personality.Furthermore, they tend to violence and crime when they become adults. Only relatively affirmative side this method is saving them some possible threats such as drugs and smoking. WHO announced that starting age to drug use and smoke is decrising every year. More and more children become addicted nowadays.

On the other hand, children who raised more flexible are capable to take their own decisions even they are still teenagers.What's more they develop a strong personality thanks to their self confidence. However, according to researches, people whose childhood passes without taking responsibility struggle more than others. For example a newby at work who is never told what to do, could have some troubles with his employer or manager.

In conclusion, childhood is most important period in their lives.Parents should keep an eye on them without making feel them. Neither applying pressure nor setting them free is not a solution. Finding the balance between these two approaches is essential for their adulthood.

Different cultures dictates that children be brought up in different ways: in some countries, children are required to follow certain codes of behaviors, while in other, they are allowed to act in their own way. This essay will look at the advantages of both methods, while proposing that moderation between these two courses of action is the ultimate choice.

In Eastern cultures such as Chinese, children are molded as they grow up. At a young age, they are expected to learn from moral books of the bygone age, the most vital lesson of which is how to be respectful towards their parents. This type of upbringing is seemingly rigid, but its advantage is that it harnesses children in the right way since the beginning, and thus, avoids cases in which children are rebellious and eventually ruined. For instance, a child will spend more time studying, and potentially will earn better grades in school because of the interference of his parents.

Western cultures, conversely, value a freer upbringing. Children are quite independent from their parents since their early years. Parents almost have no say in how a child chooses his or her habits, how he spends his time, or how he dresses. This type of child rearing has multiple merits, including a certain degree of creativity and self-awareness on the children’s part. As a child is free to discover the world and himself, chances are that he will find a talent which he is passionate about, and proliferate in it.

Having considered the positive contribution of the two methods in child rearing, it is concluded that a balance between them is necessary. While children should be allowed absolute freedom in their choices, they are also benefited from rules and timely guidance from their parents.

[Thank you for your consideration, Ryan!]

Differences among cultures are natural . Children behavior differ from one country to another due to religion , tradition and even heritage . The act of behavior and what is right in some countries may be impolite for others contries . Some people think that children must act freely without any restriction on their behavior. However , other people see the opposite , they think that children behavior must be restricted . I think children behaivor must be ristrcted for many reasons ,and the following essay will discuss way.

Allowing children to behave freely have many reasons .According to some people , Children must behave as they like because of their incent thinking . Children growing and part of their learning is to do anything in order to discover the life . Also, Restricting children will develop generations without confidents in their self. Children will behave according to their thinking which will not become dangerous to the public safty . For the prvious resons ,children must act freely .however, the other group think the oppsite ,and the next paragraph will discuss the reasons.

Children behavior must be restricted for many reasons, Firstly, Children must learn polite .They must differ between what is wrong to avoid and what is good except .Thy should distinguish and identify moral manners of their country .The disadvantages of allowing children to behave freely are fundamental basis for any country. For example, it will produce impolite generations, and that may lead to commit crimes, because they used to do anything they like. In addition, they will be ignorant about their heritage, culture and tradition. For these reasons, Children behavior must be restricted.

In conclusion, we discuss the two point of view and both have advantages and disadvantages. Although , allowing children to behave freely some benfits, it has long-term disadvantages that could affect their culture. Also, it will produce impolite generation that will reflex a bad image of their society .

Raising a child is a long life responsibility. Different parents have different attitudes about how to bring up their infants. Some of them prefer to take the control over their children’s act, whereas others are not in favour of putting restrictions or rules on their children’s activities. I agree with the former opinion to some extent, in this essay I will highlight the two points of view and I will explain my angel.
Some parents argue that nowadays, children are exposed to unlimited external factors from schools, media, friends, that might play a negative role on their thinking manner. For instance, the aggressive scenes have turned to be very regular and common in television programmes .and children can be easily affected by this behaviours. Therefor parents want to have a leader role in their children’ s life, so every TV programme, leisure time, sport activity or even friend should be accepted from the parents . The second reason for this believe that they think by being strict , children would grew to be more productive and reliable people, as they know that every act has its consequence so the good work would be promoted while they act badely they might be punished.
On the other hand, the second group has different a contradict idea that children should be free to act and behave without any restrictions .As being an open minded parent may encourage the child to be more creative and to grew up healthily mentaly and physicallyand more independent .
A good example to support their quote, is that one of the innovative way to recognize a talented child in art field, is by enabling the children to draw any painting from their imagination .
As for my part I’m more inclient with restricted nurture, however, a child should have his awn space and the limitations should not be very tight, he should be able to make his decisions and to take their related responsibilities