The government spends about $220 million a year supporting museums and galleries in the UK and a similar amount subsidizing the visual and performing arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. To what extent do you agree or disagree? - ielts Essay

The government spends about $220 million a year supporting museums and galleries in the  UK and a similar amount subsidizing the visual and performing arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. To what extent do you agree or disagree?  

With British government allocating substantial money to assist various activities connected to art and culture, critics and advocates of this move have been at poles. The sceptics, quote that finances for such an activity must be sourced from private individuals and admirers, while the supporters feel this allocation is important.

Museums and galleries are fascinating and true communicators of the past of a civilization, as they store genuine artefacts, manuscripts and work of thinkers, etc., of diverse eras of past; and provide visitors a thorough first hand interactive experience, which would be remembered for a long time to come in the future. But these establishments require huge a financial outlay and long term planning, which can be taken care of effectively as a collective responsibility, and government, being the head of the social and political set-up in a country, can only shoulder this responsibility, and render whatever assistance, including financial, possible.

Similarly, performing arts of all kinds are manifestations of wisdom, ethics and ways of life of a community and a nation, that have evolved over the centuries. Preserving and proliferating, can be a stupendous and expensive task that may involve a colossal harmonizing effort on part of the society – that sans any bias towards any particular form of art, and is affordable for common citizens. This can be effectively achieved with help of subsidy and government intervention.

The detractors, however, vehemently defend their view by lobbying that the valuable money of tax-payers should not be channelized into a realm that has few enthusiasts. The money, instead, could be used into more critical areas, like upgrading infrastructure; improving facilities, offered to the citizens, and revitalizing the economy.

I personally feel that government must always take care of social endeavours that involve preserving art and culture.

Some people say that cities are a better place for children to grow up in, while others believe countryside is the right choice. Discuss both views; give your own opinion and examples. - Ielts Essay

Some people say that cities are a better place for children to grow up in, while others believe countryside is the right choice. Discuss both views; give your own opinion and examples.  

 

Ielts Essay - Upbringing city or village 

Rearing children has always been considered to be an arduous process, and many have been trying to find ways to ensure a good upbringing. This has triggered a debate over the impact of surroundings on growth of young individuals, as some feel villages offer better settings for such a task, while others vouch for urban surroundings.

Juveniles being brought up in urban areas enjoy a sizeable benefit over their rural counterparts since the former afford everything, that modern lifestyle requires: easy access to quality education facilities, right from schools, universities, libraries and other educational locations: museums and exhibition halls, to world class recreational parks and facilities, like cinemas, discotheques, local parks in the areas of residences. Similarly, a sumptuous dose of exposure to an array of quality infrastructure, like internet, is rendered to growing minds that proves to be quite handy when it comes to learning about various aspects of life.

It is generally believed, most of innovations and development have originated from the cities, and the ones growing up in urbanized locations enjoy access to an unparalleled abundance of opportunities that influence their future course of action. In other words, being brought up in cities makes one more organized and objective in approach, and off course smart enough to identify and grab chances coming their way.

Nevertheless, growing up in a rural setting stimulates a strong sense of community among the children. The countryside offer pollution free surroundings and healthy lifestyle: young ones do not squaner their time indoors, but instead participate in sports and outdoor activities. It has been observed that those reared in rural areas enjoy a robust physical health. Moreover, they also learn to survive within the given resources, unlike their counterparts who are demanding in their approach.  

To conclude, even though both, growing up in villages and cities offer distinct advantages, urban locales offer better opportunities for the future progress and lets the upcoming generation establish themselves successfully. 

Some people believe that children in schools should learn how advertisements motivate us to buy things. Do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion. - #IeltsIelytsEssay

Some people believe that children in schools should learn how advertisements motivate us to buy things. Do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion.

 

Ielts Essay _ Should schools teach children about ill-effects of Ads?

The explosive growth in the advertisements targeting the children, who today have an unsupervised access to these through a variety of kid specific media, has prompted some to suggest about schools shouldering the responsibility of teaching kids about how adverts persuade people to buy.

It is quite easy for tender minds to get carried away by ads, parents should supervise and educate their kids about this, but, unfortunately parents do not seem to have time to enlighten the kids about the ill-effects of the misleading content the ads carry. Schools, on other hand, are all equipped with necessary environment and framework, like qualified teaching faculty – that understands the kids, and can use various strategies to impart and foster knowledge; and tools needed to help kids pick up important hints about various domains of paramount importance. 

Moreover, the schools are vested with the responsibility of fostering cognitive skills of the children and helping them grow up as rational adults, so if the kids could learn about this aspect at schools, they would be well versed about making choices judiciously and not falling prey to the luring techniques of the publicity campaigns.

Despite several people vouching for schools taking up the job of teaching young minds to recognize the evil designs behind the adverts, many find it quite amusing. How could a formal tuition, which is overwhelmingly focused on the academic progress of the kids, take up such a domain? Knowledge about the alluring ways of the advertisements can only be had through practical experience and observations, which can never be had in a controlled environment, with limited exposure. This would also affect the quality of the school curriculum adversely. 

In the nutshell, idea of kids learning about luring methods of ads is amusing and quite impractical.

Should long-term job-seekers in receipt of government benefits be made to do voluntary work so that they give something back to the community? - Ielts Essay

Should long-term job-seekers in receipt of government benefits be made to do voluntary work so that they give something back to the community?

 

Ielts Essay - Volunteer Work for Employment Benefits 

Governments, in many countries that maintain a social security network, are mulling a policy to make unemployed people, receiving government grants, to offer services in unpaid jobs and voluntary services. This concept has both takers and critics with their individual opinions to support their arguments.

 Unemployed people enjoying government support should be made to do voluntary jobs. This would help in convincing the tax payers that they are not being cheated by the government, and that their hard earned money is not being channelized to support unproductive inhabitants. Moreover, this arrangement will help recipients of unemployment privileges, to give something back to the society, in lieu of support they receive, and also aid in government saving money otherwise spent on paying the salaries to workers on those locations. This could also rule out any chance of complacency on account of unemployed people not being able to locate suitable job, and, in turn, help in determining the alternative areas where gainful employment could be taken up. Furthermore, it may also help in keeping the unemployed away from taking up crime, as a way to spend free time.

Nevertheless, the concept is in for critical assessment, as it may affect unemployed psychologically.  Most of the times, it has been observed that people who lose, or have to quit, their jobs, is not due to their mistake, the prevalent economic conditions decide the fate of employment. Making them work for free may rob them of the self esteem – a professional working as voluntary is generally not a welcome idea.

To conclude, I feel voluntary work in lieu of unemployment is a good way of paying back to the society for support. All the criticism can be easily overlooked in favor larger public interest, this, in fact, will assist such people too.

 

More and more qualified people are moving from poor to rich countries to fill vacancies in specialist areas like engineering, computing and medicine. Some people believe that by encouraging the movement of such people, rich countries are stealing from poor countries. Others feel that this is only part of the natural movement of workers around the world. Give your opinion.

More and more qualified people are moving from poor to rich countries to fill vacancies in specialist areas like engineering, computing and medicine. Some people believe that by encouraging the movement of such people, rich countries are stealing from poor countries. Others feel that this is only part of the natural movement of workers around the world. Give your opinion.

 

Ielts - MIgration of Skills 

One of the most common trends being noticed across the world is migration of skilled labor, from developing nations, to various affluent countries. This trend has come for some severe criticism from various quarters with some even going to extent of terming this as stealing of skills despite some insisting that this is a natural phenomenon. 

The fact of elite countries robbing poor nations, of their skilled labor, is accentuated by skilled immigration programs being hosted by several countries. Several nations, in an attempt to populate their domestic labor pools with adequately trained people, host attractive skills migration programs to lure qualified tradesmen and professionals from all over the world, majorly the developing nations. To make the offers more attractive, the governments offer several sops, like allowing professionals to be accompanied by their families; granting them permanent residence to enable them to enjoy all the privileges at par with the nationals.

But, the charges leveled by the critics of this movement makes little sense, as the people with qualifications and illustrious track records, on their side,  are highly mobile. Such professionals and specialized tradesmen feel moving to richer destinations in search of greener pastures – better remunerations and progressive careers – is their fundamental right.

Besides the highly mobile professionals, already employed, there are numerous others with qualifications in engineering, medicine and IT, who are either unemployed or do not have jobs to match their skill sets, in their countries of origins since the most of impoverished countries lack necessary infrastructure and resources to generate employment for these people. These people have no option but to look for employment in elite economies.

In the nutshell, the charge of rich countries robbing poor countries of their skilled manpower is baseless, and quite fickle.

Many people believe that women make better parents than men and that is why they have the greater role in raising children in most societies. Others claim that men are just as good as women at parenting. - Ielts Essay

Many people believe that women make better parents than men and that is why they have the greater role in raising children in most societies. Others claim that men are just as good as women at parenting.

Ielts Essay - Who's a Good Parent Men or Women?

When it comes to deciding about who has the potential to be better at parenting, women, as per some conservationists, seem to be miles ahead of their men counterparts, but recent changes in the social roles have forced the social experts to look at this issue once again, with a new perspective.

Modern concept of parenting challenges the supremacy of women, in terms of rearing the children. Fathers, although traditionally have been known to don the roles of social coaches, helping to forge social relations, and emotional guides, teaching the children to deal with emotions – even scary sometimes, they have started performing even those duties, like changing diapers, with an equal finesse.

However, conventional definitions of roles of men and women, in a family, have existed ever since humans evolved on this planet, as hunters and food gatherers. Men were, more or less, concerned with looking for food, while women, donning the roles of rearing children. This role set has continued down the centuries, and perhaps also found its mention in many religious scriptures across the world. Many orthodox societies also define it as a law of nature, where women have been designated to take care of children.

Moreover, various psychological explanations also illustrate why women enjoy an upper hand, in the realm of parenting, over men. They are better equipped with setoff emotions and control mechanism that make them stand apart. Females use a mix of emotions, aggression and strategies to educate, play, monitor and control juveniles. Youngsters quite often find it easier to connect with their mothers since the latter happen to be the first teachers who communicate with kids through linguistics and affection.

In the nutshell, even though both the perspectives hold great substance in their own virtue, I feel that both genders have similar expertise when it comes to rearing offpsring, especially in the modern times.   

Some people think it would be a good idea of schools to teach every young person how to be a good parent. To what extent do agree or disagree? - Ielts Essay

Some people think it would be a good idea of schools to teach every young person how to be a good parent. To what extent do agree or disagree?

 

Ielts Essay - Teaching Parenting to kids a Good Idea? 

Since ages, parenting has been a trivial subject for many. Several experts think that it would worthwhile if young ones could be coached about the art of parenting even though there are others who think quite differently.

While attending formal tuitions, young learners are at an age when they are inquisitive and zestful, and whatever skills about parenting are imparted, as a part of formal tuitions, can guarantee building up a strong foundation for a well informed adult life, of which parenting is a part.   Moreover, training about parenting could come in handy at a time when moms and dads cannot devote time for fostering basic skills in their wards. The skills of managing kids are generally grasped by kids by observing their parents, which is not possible these days. The coaching about parenting, about being a good parent, at schools could fill up this gap.

However, the schools are already overburdened with the responsibility of training students in domains that are of paramount importance for the kids. Including such non challenging subjects would actually lead to degradation of quality of syllabus being imparted. This would eventually transform the whole concept of schooling have around unwarranted consequences

Besides this, learning about the skills or being a good parent can wait for later time since minds of children are tender and not adapted to learning about intricacies of a realm as complex as parenting. Even though parenting needs fathers and mothers to follow certain practices, this art cannot be taught. This skill generally involves learning by forging and managing intimate relationships.  In other words, rearing kids is principally learnt, by people involved, from practical experiences.

In the nutshell, I personally feel that parenting is surely not a subject to be included in the syllabus of academics.