I have been very busy recently but should have more free time in February. If you have posted any essays that you want me to check and I have missed them, just repost them AS A FRESH THREAD.
David
Repost your essays if you want me to check them
-
David.IELTS.Examiner
- IELTS Examiner
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 4:34 am
Re: Repost your essays if you want me to check them
Hello, I am preparing for the exam and I just want to see how good I do in writing, would you assest this writing,plz?
Thanks
Young people are supposed to get a proffesion in a stage of thier life that they can build up thier future study and life on in. For some people it is better if parents specify thier profession as long as they are experienced in life and know what is better for thier childrens' life, while others are disagree with this idea.
In my opinion it is true that parents are mature and have experiences to help thier children to a better life but still this does not mean that they can not decide the profession for thier children; because a profession firstly needs interest if somone is not interested in a field they will not be succesful.
Children must be free in choosing the field of study based on thier interests regards of thier academic ability in order to build a healthier future carrier even for countries. In most of the developed country people are enjoying thier job since they are doing thier fream jobs while in a country like mine because students are nit free to choose thier field of interest most people are feeling bored with thier daily jobs and this does nit help development.
History can prove this also, when there are a lot of scholar in different fields that have been free for thier field of studies and this lead them to be successful.
In general I agree with the statement that children should be free for thier future carrier for a better society in the future.
shagii92
Thanks
Young people are supposed to get a proffesion in a stage of thier life that they can build up thier future study and life on in. For some people it is better if parents specify thier profession as long as they are experienced in life and know what is better for thier childrens' life, while others are disagree with this idea.
In my opinion it is true that parents are mature and have experiences to help thier children to a better life but still this does not mean that they can not decide the profession for thier children; because a profession firstly needs interest if somone is not interested in a field they will not be succesful.
Children must be free in choosing the field of study based on thier interests regards of thier academic ability in order to build a healthier future carrier even for countries. In most of the developed country people are enjoying thier job since they are doing thier fream jobs while in a country like mine because students are nit free to choose thier field of interest most people are feeling bored with thier daily jobs and this does nit help development.
History can prove this also, when there are a lot of scholar in different fields that have been free for thier field of studies and this lead them to be successful.
In general I agree with the statement that children should be free for thier future carrier for a better society in the future.
shagii92
-
wangyue6662010
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:49 pm
Re: Repost your essays if you want me to check them
David.IELTS.Examiner wrote:I have been very busy recently but should have more free time in February. If you have posted any essays that you want me to check and I have missed them, just repost them AS A FRESH THREAD.
David
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
altinbek11
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:32 am
Re: Repost your essays if you want me to check them
Some people believe that university education should only be offered to those who can pay for their own courses and the government should not be expected to fund higher education. What extent do you agree?
State spending on a higher education nationwide continues to be a controversial debate. It is considered by some that university tuition should be paid by students, however, in my opinion, the government should invest in the education of youngsters because that will pave the way for young people and contribute to the development of the country.
The opponents to the government financial assistance to students highlight that government should give high priority to social problems such as lack of infrastructure, unemployment and implement the projects that could generate employment and boost the economy in short-term. In consequence of these, families be able to shoulder the responsibility of university tuition expenses.
However, the education system is the main institute that maintains the development and the fabric of society. In the case of developed countries, a university and college education is free for all, and scholars point out that the education rate and a percentage of citizens who have higher education degree were one of the main factors that impact the development of the countries. Furthermore, subsidizing universities will be a worthwhile investment for any country in long-term because it can decrease the poverty, in fact, it is evident that the majority of poor people hadn't had further education. Second, if the government doesn’t have the policy to support students, they will be in a lack of human resources, and it might lead to an economic instability or force them to outsource the labor force from overseas.
In conclusion, investment in education is acknowledged by qualified experts as a high-profit investment because through education every individual can solve their problems and contributes to the social development so that we need to consider the long-term effects of this investment.
State spending on a higher education nationwide continues to be a controversial debate. It is considered by some that university tuition should be paid by students, however, in my opinion, the government should invest in the education of youngsters because that will pave the way for young people and contribute to the development of the country.
The opponents to the government financial assistance to students highlight that government should give high priority to social problems such as lack of infrastructure, unemployment and implement the projects that could generate employment and boost the economy in short-term. In consequence of these, families be able to shoulder the responsibility of university tuition expenses.
However, the education system is the main institute that maintains the development and the fabric of society. In the case of developed countries, a university and college education is free for all, and scholars point out that the education rate and a percentage of citizens who have higher education degree were one of the main factors that impact the development of the countries. Furthermore, subsidizing universities will be a worthwhile investment for any country in long-term because it can decrease the poverty, in fact, it is evident that the majority of poor people hadn't had further education. Second, if the government doesn’t have the policy to support students, they will be in a lack of human resources, and it might lead to an economic instability or force them to outsource the labor force from overseas.
In conclusion, investment in education is acknowledged by qualified experts as a high-profit investment because through education every individual can solve their problems and contributes to the social development so that we need to consider the long-term effects of this investment.
Re: RE: Re: Repost your essays if you want me to check them
amazing!altinbek11 wrote:Some people believe that university education should only be offered to those who can pay for their own courses and the government should not be expected to fund higher education. What extent do you agree?
State spending on a higher education nationwide continues to be a controversial debate. It is considered by some that university tuition should be paid by students, however, in my opinion, the government should invest in the education of youngsters because that will pave the way for young people and contribute to the development of the country.
The opponents to the government financial assistance to students highlight that government should give high priority to social problems such as lack of infrastructure, unemployment and implement the projects that could generate employment and boost the economy in short-term. In consequence of these, families be able to shoulder the responsibility of university tuition expenses.
However, the education system is the main institute that maintains the development and the fabric of society. In the case of developed countries, a university and college education is free for all, and scholars point out that the education rate and a percentage of citizens who have higher education degree were one of the main factors that impact the development of the countries. Furthermore, subsidizing universities will be a worthwhile investment for any country in long-term because it can decrease the poverty, in fact, it is evident that the majority of poor people hadn't had further education. Second, if the government doesn’t have the policy to support students, they will be in a lack of human resources, and it might lead to an economic instability or force them to outsource the labor force from overseas.
In conclusion, investment in education is acknowledged by qualified experts as a high-profit investment because through education every individual can solve their problems and contributes to the social development so that we need to consider the long-term effects of this investment.
Sent from my SM-N920C using Tapatalk
Re: Repost your essays if you want me to check them
Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
In some countries, governments decide to spend money in railways, others invest in roads. Personally, I think that is better to spend resources in railroads for a few reasons I will expose in the further paragraphs.
First of all, assuming we are talking about modern trains, I think that railways are a better option to spend money on because it leads to the alternative to use of trains instead of cars. In addition, using trains over cars helps with decontamination, and contamination is a major issue nowadays that every government should be worried about. For example, I live in Chile, whose capital city, Santiago, is one of the most contaminated cities over the world. During the last 5 or 6 years, government has been investing in reactivate old railways and it has helped to reduce contamination. Moreover, this investment gives citizens a responsible message, that the government worries about them and future generations.
Secondly, I believe that is cheaper for everyone to use trains rather than cars, and more railroads may promote the use of trains. Using a car carries a lot of expences with it: maintenence, fuel, parking, tolls, among others. On the other hand, using trains may be expensive, but nothing compared with car usage. For instance, here in Chile, a one-way trip to Temuco, that is 660 km. away from Santiago, may cost between 50.000 and 70.000 Chilean pesos depending on the type of car. And a train ticket cost between 30.000 and 40.000, a lot cheaper.
As a conclusion, I think governments should spend their money in railways instead of roads mainly for two reasons. Firstly, it encourages people to leave cars at home and use trains promoting decontamination, and it also gives citizens a cheaper way of transportation.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
In some countries, governments decide to spend money in railways, others invest in roads. Personally, I think that is better to spend resources in railroads for a few reasons I will expose in the further paragraphs.
First of all, assuming we are talking about modern trains, I think that railways are a better option to spend money on because it leads to the alternative to use of trains instead of cars. In addition, using trains over cars helps with decontamination, and contamination is a major issue nowadays that every government should be worried about. For example, I live in Chile, whose capital city, Santiago, is one of the most contaminated cities over the world. During the last 5 or 6 years, government has been investing in reactivate old railways and it has helped to reduce contamination. Moreover, this investment gives citizens a responsible message, that the government worries about them and future generations.
Secondly, I believe that is cheaper for everyone to use trains rather than cars, and more railroads may promote the use of trains. Using a car carries a lot of expences with it: maintenence, fuel, parking, tolls, among others. On the other hand, using trains may be expensive, but nothing compared with car usage. For instance, here in Chile, a one-way trip to Temuco, that is 660 km. away from Santiago, may cost between 50.000 and 70.000 Chilean pesos depending on the type of car. And a train ticket cost between 30.000 and 40.000, a lot cheaper.
As a conclusion, I think governments should spend their money in railways instead of roads mainly for two reasons. Firstly, it encourages people to leave cars at home and use trains promoting decontamination, and it also gives citizens a cheaper way of transportation.