Nowadays, more people move away from their friends and families for work. Does this development have more advantages or disadvantages?

Nowadays, more people move away from their friends and families for work. Does this development have more advantages or disadvantages?

An increasing number of individuals relocate away from their families and social circles in pursuit of employment opportunities. While some believe this is a positive trend, others are certain that it is marred by several challenges. This essay shall delve deeper into this issue and draw a plausible conclusion.

Undeniably, being physically distant from loved ones can result in feelings of isolation and loneliness, it deprives one of the critical emotional support, especially needed during difficult times as adapting to a new environment without a familiar support system can be mentally draining. In addition, they may miss opportunities to be with their loved ones during important family events and milestones, which can weaken personal relationships over time.

Having said that, work-related relocation offers substantial professional and personal upsides: it allows one to access better career opportunities, better compensation, and exposure to more competitive environments, for such locations offer broader openings that can enhance skills, widening perspectives, and accelerating career progression; and working in a new city, or country, often helps individuals develop independence, resilience, and adaptability.

Furthermore, this mobility can lead to long-term financial and lifestyle improvements, and for many shifting for work can eventually offer improved living standards for their loved ones back home, even if they are geographically distant. A survey by the Sun, when families chose career-led movements, they witnessed overall increased well-being and happiness, owing to enhancements in their disposable incomes, which allowed them to afford better services and goods.

In hindsight, although moving away from friends and family creates emotional difficulties, the rewards clearly eclipse the pitfalls as the opportunities for career growth, personal development, and financial advancement make this a beneficial development overall.

Some people believe that family is more important than friends. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that family is more important than friends. Do you agree or disagree?

Although friends and family have their own significance in life, some give precedence to the latter, making it imperative to evaluate the relevance of this perception. However, I align myself with this, and shall bolster my stand in the following paragraphs.   

To start with, a lobby strongly asserts that the family is permanent and constant. This is to say, parents and siblings stay forever and incessantly, rendering happiness, and a sense of belongingness, unlike others, however close they may be, become associated and get detached going in life many times. Moreover, mothers and fathers lay the foundation of values in their wards: cultural, life, and social, aiding in shaping the persona and future of the younger ones. For example, a recent survey revealed that people render the plinth of principles by imbibing their progeny with cultural and life traditions, thereby supporting their holistic development. 

Similarly, a group of social behaviorists propounds that families afford support, especially during the time of crises. Despite having altercations and arguments, one can find them by their side, whenever the need arises, something others cannot do: one misunderstanding can spoil relationships. Nevertheless, one can always find them close, lending hands whenever it is needed: financially or emotionally. Furthermore, elders act as a beacon of righteous path through guidance, helping one in circumventing the hideous ways; consequently, reaching success with a few errors. To corroborate, in Japan, many seek guidance from their elders before starting a new venture, eliminating the risk and chances of failure, something none can give.

In conclusion, the familial environment is extremely critical, and thus,  holds more relevance than any other relation since parents and siblings are long-lasting, are available during emergencies, and render a solid foundation of values, and invaluable learning.

  

Some people think parents should read or tell stories to their children, others say it is not important and can be replaced by watching TV and movies instead. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people think parents should read or tell stories to their children, others say it is not important and can be replaced by watching TV and movies instead. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Several commentators profess that people should narrate allegories to their wards, while others believe that this practice can be replaced with modern audio-visual  tools. I will analyze both the views in the following paragraphs, and draw a plausible conclusion. 

Some propound that the age-old ritual of fathers and mothers delivering tales to young minds afford umpteen benefits: it enables them to boost relationships and spend some quality time with their offspring, especially in times when overwhelming schedules face working professionals. To exemplify, a research by Ontario Times, revealed that many struggle hard to spare some quality time with their little ones, and the bedtime stories are deemed to be the best way to spend some moments of togetherness in an entertaining way. 

Also, it is a way of rendering the moral values and ethics to young minds by sharing varied fables with them. To corroborate, a child specialist, Dr. Juliet stated that sharing stories with wards is the best way to teach them about ethical values and lessons; youngsters trust their elders more than anyone else, and believe in whatever the latter tells them.

Nevertheless, the skeptics vehemently opine that this tradition  can easily be superseded by technology: concurrent times have witnessed that juveniles today are tech savvy and feel more comfortable with gadgets. Stories  served on TV, and in films, are more appealing for them due to the rich graphic and audio content. For instance, a research conducted by George Brown, revealed that eighty percent of children like to watch cartoon movies, and movies, due to attractive visuals and accompanying sound and music. 

To conclude, undeniably, technology is useful in umpteen ways, but the stories narrated by parents aid in strengthening bonds  between two generations, and an appropriate way to transfer the moral teachings. 

Some people suggest that bringing up children by the whole family including uncles, aunts and grandparents is better, rather than only by parents, but others disagree with this statement. Discuss and give your opinion and examples.

Some people suggest that bringing up children by the whole family including uncles, aunts and grandparents is better, rather than only by parents, but others disagree with this statement. Discuss and give your opinion and examples.

The upbringing of juveniles is a critical aspect of societal growth, and opinions vary on whether it is better managed solely by mothers and fathers, or in the extended family environment, including uncles, aunts and grandparents. Both approaches have merits and challenges, depending on circumstances.

Advocates of extended family involvement emphasize the benefits of diverse guidance and emotional security. Having multiple relatives ensures children receive varied perspectives, enhancing their problem solving abilities and social awareness. For example, grandparents often impart knowledge of culture and values, enriching the understanding of traditions. In addition, shared caregiving responsibilities mitigates stress on parents, enabling them to focus on  work or personal development without neglecting their offspring.  This collaborative effort also strengthens family bonds, providing a solid foundation for young minds to thrive emotionally. 

Conversely, critics argue that too much interference from relatives can lead to conflicting parenting styles. Variance in opinions: discipline, education and lifestyle choices, may create confusion for them and strain family dynamics. For instance, leniency from one member might undermine the structured rules set by parents, potentially encouraging indiscipline. Moreover, reliance on joint family perspectives can occasionally hinder young ones from developing a close, authoritative connection with their primary caregivers, something essential for enriching trust and accountability. When parents take an active role in raising their little ones, they cultivate deep meaningful connections, help foster an environment where youngsters feel comfortable about sharing their problems without fear of criticism, and ensure safeguarding privacy of the young ones.

To recapitulate, a middle ground appears most effective. A harmonious blend of parental authority and occasional involvement for extended family members allows youngsters to thrive under diverse mentorship while maintaining clear boundaries. This approach ensures consistency in upbringing while leveraging the strengths of a broader family network.

In conclusion, while both methods offer unique advantages, combining the strength of parental leadership with the wisdom and support of the relatives provides the optimal environment for nurturing well-rounded, confident individuals prepared to face future challenges.

Some people believe that family is more important than friends. Do you agree and disagree?

 Some people believe that family is more important than friends. Do you agree and disagree?

There has been a controversy on the significance of family over friends. Many believe that family holds more importance than friends, whereas, others oppose this notion. This essay shall critically scrutinise this matter and draw a plausible solution.  

To embark upon the discussion, family plays an essential role in the life of every individual. They render mental and emotional strength,  and support each other during the ups and downs. Besides this, no matter how bad the conflict is, they stay with their loved ones and solve the issues with love and affection. For instance, when one faces financial challenges, their loved ones help them arrange money instantly. Furthermore, parents work hard and sacrifice their dreams for their wards; they would spend each penny for the betterment of their child without thinking twice. 

Nevertheless, the other school of thought professes that friends are like partners in crime, and have a more significant role to play than familial ones. They indulge in activities that one cannot do with their families like going on adventurous trips. On top of that, they can trust and share things with their peers which they cannot share with anyone else: individuals can exchange conversations about the people they are dating with their peers without apprehension. Additionally, they have the tendency of changing the habits of their fellow peers; they take up each other’s habits to lead a better life. 

To conclude, I feel, even though friendships are extremely important when one cannot share stuff with their families, mothers and fathers are exceptionally essential as friends might leave but they would stay through thick and thin when one is in trouble. 

It is generally accepted that families are not as close as they used to be. Give some reasons why this change has happened and suggest how families could be brought closer together. Include any relevant examples from your experience.

 It is generally accepted that families are not as close as they used to be. Give some reasons why this change has happened and suggest how families could be brought closer together. Include any relevant examples from your experience.
You should write at least 250 words.

In the modern era, many families are increasingly drifting apart. This can be ascribed to several reasons. This essay shall critically scrutinise the attributes of this predicament and  suggest some plausible solutions.

To embark upon the discussion, family dynamics have dramatically altered leading to people not staying in touch more often. They are engrossed with work; the work load has increased drastically, leaving them with little time to spend with families. Moreover, technology has become so advanced that they hardly find it necessary to engage with their loved ones; they stay connected with them on social media, and derive updates from each other, not feeling a need to be with them. A majority can seen interacting with the kin purely on social media platforms like Whatsapp despite residing with close vicinity of each other in a city, convincing them that face-to-face meeting are non-essential, and consequently, weakening the emotional links inadvertently 

Having said that, many suggest that this problem can be fixed provided one takes out time from work and spends some moments with their families: striking  a balance between work and  life can render a relief and opportunity to build the broken bridges. Additionally, even though technology allows easy and convenient interaction, efforts should be made to meet each other regularly, and plan outings like picnics, or indulging  in adventurous activities,  and during that tenure disconnecting from technology. For instance, the government of Italy has opened up cafes where mobile phones and gadgets are prohibited, making it essential for visitors to connect with their friends.

To conclude, while the work load has incremented tremendously, and technology has progressed rapidly, causing widening gaps between  relations, it is mandatory to strive to reestablish bonds, and this can be done by active participation with loved ones.

Many parents (mostly women) decide to stay home and take care of the family members instead of going out for work. Some people suggest that they should be paid by the government for doing that. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include examples from your own experience.

Many parents (mostly women) decide to stay home and take care of the family members instead of going out for work. Some people suggest that they should be paid by the government for doing that. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include examples from your own experience.

Yes? Why not what 

• By one of the members leaving their jobs families become vulnerable to financial crisis - by virtue of nuclear families today, there are only two earning hands. Adopting this policy will help families make their ends meet 

• Individuals abandoning their professional dreams for the family should be acknowledged for their sacrifice 

• In a way, they are doing service to society by affording quality upbringing to their wards and taking care of the elderly 

NO? Why not  

• This would turn family relations sour and make them commercial 

• This might provoke those volunteering to ask for similar benefits 

• This is personal prerogative and why should the state be punished for this. 

• This kind of arrangement is likely to send an unwarranted signal to others who might emulate these steps and leave their jobs, posing a burden on the public exchequer 

Extending state grants to those relinquishing their professional ambitions for the sake of affording care to their families, is a suggestion evokes mixed responses, making it imperative to assess both the sides of the coin before delivering a plausible verdict.

The support for this proposal stems from the belief that forgoing the dreams of gaining prominence in occupational domain, and dedicating oneself to serving the family is worthy of being acknowledged; there is hardly anyone prepared to put their desire on the backseat just to rear their children, tend to the elderly, and surrender their financial freedom. Therefore, providing them some financial support would not only act as a consolation but also sustain their expenses.

Having said that, despite this idea looking fascinating to some, implementing it is bound to have severe/extreme ramifications for families, as well as society. Where on one hand, this could undermine the emotional bonding between the family members, which is more influenced by love, and affection, rather than being driven by monetary considerations. One chooses to renounce their progressive careers, for they are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of their little ones, and elderly family members, and adding this materialistic dimension would be an insult to devotion toward the family.

On the other hand, this policy is likely to set wrong precedents for others as they will also become inclined to emulate, and leave their jobs, reducing the numbers contributing to economic productivity, incrementing the burden on tax-payers by virtue of consuming public resources, hampering the prospect for the future development of society.

In hindsight, disputes aside, this kind of a scheme cannot be deemed acceptable owing to the challenges it is likely to pose for the community, and the individuals concerned. Therefore, I fail to concur  with this.

Introduction 1

In times when everyone is engrossed in chasing their career goals, some going against this trend, and relinquishing their professional ambitions for the sake of affording care to their families, but should they be extended state grants, is a million dollar question.

Introduction 2

As per a school of thought those relinquishing their professional ambitions for the sake of affording care to their families, should be extended state grants. Even though this suggestion seems plausible to some, it is bound to create more complications than rendering solutions.

Introduction 3

Some believe that younger family members should be legally responsible for supporting older family members when they become physically, mentally and financially unable to look after themselves.

 Some believe that younger family members should be legally responsible for supporting older family members when they become physically, mentally and financially unable to look after themselves.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Yes

• Parents sacrificed most of their youth for the upbringing of their offspring and showered all their affection on their young ones, but some tend to ignore this fact and abandon their mothers and fathers in their twilight years, when they need it the most 

• The old people invested humongous amounts of savings on fulfilling the needs of their children and even used the money they could have saved for their autumn years; thus, to ensure that  youngsters do not leave them in misery and poverty, they making it a statutory requirement to look after the aging family members, so that sons and daughters do not leave their older 

• family members to fend for themselves ( to live on their own). 

No 

• Family relations are not dependent on legal norms, and installing such a provision will affect the relations - turning them into legal obligation rather than something that is forged with loved - and are bound to be misused

• Many families are not in a state to look after themselves due to their poor economic health: this could impose additional burden on them. 

• These old people paid taxes when they were young, so now when they are old government should be legally responsible for them and not family 

Of late, many have been proposing that those in their twilight years must be looked after by their wards, and this should be enforced as a statute. However, it is necessary to assess the relevance of this proposed arrangement. 

This recommendation finds its grounding in the fast transforming familial, social, and  personal aspirations, brought about by alterations in these structures, owing to which young individuals often walk away from their families, relinquishing their ethical and moral duties, and abandoning their helpless ,and hapless mothers, and fathers, to languish in misery, and poverty, when they are emotionally, physically, and mentally vulnerable. Such a move will force the self-centered young generation to fulfill their responsibility without questions. 

Similarly, when one sacrifices their prime youth, and desires to afford a quality upbringing to their progeny by going out of the way many times, it becomes a virtuous task for the latter to reciprocate for the love, and affection showered upon them, but a growing number are becoming apathetic towards this commitment, making it imperative to enlighten, and persuade them to answer their calls. To corroborate, several countries like India, China, New Zealand, and so forth have started installing such a framework to remind their young generation of the critical task they are neglecting

Nevertheless, there is some skepticism about this planned scheme: this might expose those hailing from poor financial backgrounds to further complications even though this view lacks substance when compared to self-restraint exercised by their elders.  Had the current generation remained attentive towards their obligations, such a law would not have been proposed 

Hence, disputes aside, any criticism leveled against this recommendation should be overlooked in the larger public interest, and to ensure that the aging population is not left to fend for themselves.

Nowadays, more and more people decide to have children later in their life. What do you think are the reasons for this? Do the advantages of the trend outweigh the disadvantages?

 Nowadays more and more people decide to have children later in their life. What do you think are the reasons for this?  Do the advantages of the trend outweigh the disadvantages?

It is commonly observed that the age gap between two generations in families has been incrementing remarkably, which can be attributed to scores of causes. However, it is essential to ascertain whether the benefits of this evolution exceed its shortcomings.

To start with, the most prominent driver of this trend is the growing craving among the couples to spend some time together; foster bonhomie; know each other well; and cultivate maturity to successfully negotiate the daunting task of rearing offspring. Similarly, many have become career-oriented, especially the women, and want to attain professional success before donning the mantle of parenting.

The only brighter side of this vogue is becoming possible for mothers and fathers to lay every imaginable facility and comfort at the disposal of their little ones. Undeniably, as one grows older, they tend to earn occupational proficiency, which brings them better earnings, helping them amass enough wealth to provide for comfortable living that is populated by modern gadgets and decent lifestyles, quality education, and also for exigencies and uncertainties facing youngsters when they advance to higher education.

Nevertheless, the fascinating praise (eulogization) afforded to this evolution fails to convince once the shortfalls are seriously considered: the increasing difference has made things complicated both for the parents and the children; the former are unable to participate in the lives of the latter actively. To add to woes, the older parents are likely to die when their wards are still young, leaving young members feeling lonely and insecure, not having anyone to share their worries and concerns with, and seek guidance from.

Overall, the yearning for independence and occupational accomplishments is fueling this propensity, and extends certain favors, but these surely do not overshadow the cons, it is the other way round instead.

Intro 1: 

Concurrent times have been witnessing a bizarre phenomenon, wherein a growing number of families are postponing the time to have juveniles. This can be attributed to scores of cause, but it is essential to assess whether the benefits of this evolution eclipse the detriments.

Nowadays, more and more people decide to have children later in their life. What do you think are the reasons for this? Do the advantages of the trend outweigh the disadvantages?

Nowadays, more and more people decide to have children later in their life. What do you think are the reasons for this? Do the advantages of the trend outweigh the disadvantages?

It is commonly observed that the age gap between two generations in families has been incrementing remarkably, which can be attributed to scores of causes. However, it is essential to ascertain whether the benefits of this evolution exceed its shortcomings.

To start with, the most prominent driver of this trend is the growing craving among the couples to spend some time together; foster bonhomie; know each other well; and cultivate maturity to successfully negotiate the daunting task of rearing offspring. Similarly, many have become career-oriented, especially the women, and want to attain professional success before donning the mantle of parenting.

The only brighter side of this vogue is becoming possible for mothers and fathers to lay every imaginable facility and comfort at the disposal of their little ones. Undeniably, as one grows older, they tend to earn occupational proficiency, which brings them better earnings, helping them amass enough wealth to provide for comfortable living that is populated by modern gadgets and decent lifestyles, quality education, and also for exigencies and uncertainties facing youngsters when they advance to higher education.

Nevertheless, the fascinating praise (eulogization) afforded to this evolution fails to convince once the shortfalls are seriously considered: the increasing difference has made things complicated both for the parents and the children; the former are unable to participate in the lives of the latter actively. To add to woes, the older parents are likely to die when their wards are still young, leaving young members feeling lonely and insecure, not having anyone to share their worries and concerns with, and seek guidance from.

Overall, the yearning for independence and occupational accomplishments is fueling this propensity, and extends certain favors, but these surely do not overshadow the cons, it is the other way round instead.

Nowadays, it seems that different generations within the family spend less free time doing activities together. Why is that? Is it a positive or negative development?

Nowadays, it seems that different generations within the family spend less free time doing activities together. Why is that? Is it a positive or negative development?

In contemporary times, the trend of different age groups of the same family spending less quality time together has been dramatically evident and can be attributed to several factors. This phenomenal shift is primarily influenced by changing lifestyles, technological advancements and evolving societal dynamics. However, there is an argument whether it is detrimental or non-detrimental development. 

In modern times, family members often have diverse commitments, leaving no free time for joint family activities, contributing to the decline in shared family leisures. Surmounting a list of professional and social obligations seemingly demands exclusive attention, the hectic nature of these schedules often clash with free time of other family members.

Additionally, the pervasive influence of technology plays a crucial role. The popularity of smartphones, social media and online entertainment platforms are often blamed for rendering highly personalized content, ultimately engrossing the consumer of this content beyond a reasonable limit. This individualized consumption of media and entertainment is leading to a lack of motivation or opportunity to engage with family members due to differences in aspirations regarding spending pastime.

Having said that, despite potential benefits, the overall impact of this arrangement leads to weaker familial bonds and relationships are often compromised and undermined. Shared activities contribute to the building of strong familial ties, fostering understanding, and a sense of belonging. Nevertheless, the decline in these common experiences may lead to weakened family connections and a potential loss of support systems that close-knit households often provide.

Overall, while there may be some merits of individual pursuits, the overall impact on family  bonding should be carefully considered. Thus, this is detrimental evolution. Striking a balance between personal and shared tasks is crucial for maintaining strong family connections in the face of evolving societal trends. 

Some people suggest that bringing up children by the whole family including uncles, aunts and grandparents is better, rather than only by parents, but others disagree with this statement. Discuss and give your opinion and examples.

Some people suggest that bringing up children by the whole family including uncles, aunts and grandparents is better, rather than only by parents, but others disagree with this statement. Discuss and give your opinion and examples.

When it comes to comparing rearing juveniles, a fierce debate ensues: some feel this task is best done in the extended family environment; it affords umpteen favorable outcomes, whereas others strongly lean in the favor of nuclear settings.

Those advocating upbringing by the whole family propound that this allows youngsters to establish better bonds with the entire family, and ensure that they embrace a liberal view of things, making them grow more social and receptive by virtue of encountering disparate opinions from diverse age-groups - cousins, grandparents, and relatives, helping youingsters become adaptive and akin to teamwork, contributing to the decision making process: whether it is related to career or financial matters,  aiding in their well-rounded development. Likewise, owing to the presence of the entire family, youngsters face less anxious moments and  anxiety; they have a much broader resource for counseling, allowing them to cruise smoothly through hard times during studies. Also, such an arrangement eases up the burden on working parents, making parenting much easier. 

However, some sections consider mothers and  fathers as the most suitable mechanism for raising little ones: those growing up in such surroundings  develop a sense of independence in formative years, promoting self learning and doing things by oneself, making them grow to have strong mental strength. Similarly, they are less prone to any emotional stigma that any family member or relative might bring to the table. A recent study by Dr. J Potter from Toronto university further indicated that children raised by parents alone stand a much greater chance of becoming a self-made millionaire. 

Therefore, both the settings have distinct benefits to offer in their own way, and it is the individual prerogative to choose any of these environments, but the objective is to ensure a sound rearing to youngsters. 

In Marriages today, some argue that it is the responsibility of both spouses to earn a living for the family. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In Marriages today, some argue that it is the responsibility of both spouses to earn a living for the family. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In contemporary times, one can argue the need of the hour is that both the partners should take up employment to supplement family income. Their opinion is based on strong reasons, but some defy this view and profess that it is not a requirement and that the man should be the bread earner only.

It  is becoming a necessity for both the spouses to earn and put money on the table. This is backed by humongous data that indicates the spiraling cost of living that comprises modern lifestyle, tution fees for the schools and universities, grocery cost, real estate prices and rentals, and so on, mandate that it is better to have two earning hands in a family rather than one, for it can afford a chance to not only meet the current expenditure but also create a buffer for exigencies that may arise unannounced, helping sink in a feeling of financial independence.   

However, a few have a different notion stating that managing a nuclear family with good values is an important process of upbringing families, and to attain that goal it is important that the female partner stays at home to take care of all the needs, and male spouse dons the role of the bread earner. A recent survey done by Aman Nagpal, a Professor of Human Behavior at Toronto University indicates that a majority of families where only men of the house are earning livelihood, admit being happier than others.  

Overall, even though both spouses being in employment can be an added luxury that the family can enjoy, it should not be a necessity. Affairs can be managed better with prudent planning and budgeting, and female married partners looking and managing the home should be the top priority, while men should work.

Modern lifestyles mean that many parents have little time for their children. Many children do not get as much attention from their parents as children did in the past. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Modern lifestyles mean that many parents have little time for their children. Many children do not get as much attention from their parents as children did in the past. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

A  startling trend has surfaced where many, by virtue of being over engaged in their professional and social obligations, are neglecting their wards. This notion, however, is countered by many sections who outrightly reject the existence of any such phenomenon. 

Many commentators concur with the assertion that the youngsters are being neglected by their mothers and fathers. The latter are tied to their work due to the rising expectations of their employers and deteriorating economic conditions, which forces them to remain in their office  cubicles for extended hours, thereby leaving them with little time to focus on their wards. This can be illustrated by citing a study carried out world over to assess the condition of working parents that revealed disturbing details: most were unable to devote even  four hours in a week due to their professional engagement. 

Similarly, most are overwhelmed by the need to stay socially visible to help them expand their social and professional clout. This makes them attend parties, social gatherings and events, to name a few, depriving them of the time which they could have spent with their little ones, and eventually resulting in overlooking the needs of the latter. 

Nevertheless, the other school of thought quashes a former claim. They feel despite not being able to devote time to their chilren frequently, many make it a point to take their sons and daughters on outings, picnics and long vacations at regular intervals, enabling them to spend some quality time with their young ones.

Overall, I partially  subscribe to this idea since, even though most are compelled to fulfill their professional and social duties, they rarely abandon the need to look after their offspring, and use the exploits of their hard work for the merriment of their wards.

Some people say that to benefit the development of a child, the mother and father should take parenting classes. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

 

Some people say that to benefit the development of a child, the mother and father should take parenting classes. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Why should one take parenting classes?

·   So that they can appreciate the intricacies (complexities) involved in a task as complex as child rearing 

·   They can also learn about how to behave, treat and also monitor their wards 

·   How to inspire, encourage, stop and also persuade their young ones without using force or retribution 

·  How to adapt to the changing needs of their children as they grow up 

 Why such a learning, is going to be futile, and hence not required? 

·   Parenting is an art that is grasped by observing and experiencing rather than reading about it in manuals

Several social theorists have started suggesting that to address the changing paradigm of child rearing, couples must enroll for courses in parenting to ensure effective negotiation of this complex task; nevertheless, there are others who feel that such learning will yield little productive outcomes. 

To start with, an army of people is quite enthusiastic about this proposal. Their optimism is based on the assumption that attending such sessions would help the prospective mothers and fathers to inform themselves about the intricacies involved in the task as complex as bringing the young ones up. This would go a long way in helping people to prepare themselves mentally for handling different stages in the life of a child, in other words, they would perform their duties as parents with zeal and keenness instead of harboring remorse.

However, there are others who are quite skeptical about the usefulness of such a practice. In their perspective, child upbringing is more of an art, than it is a science, that can be grasped only by having innate skills and observing others besides devising strategies on the basis of own experiences. Human nature is a complex combination of diverse traits, preferences and attitudes, making it unpredictable and even incomprehensible. This makes the possibility of learning about how to be a  good parent with the help of manuals and lectures, effectively quite bleak. To corroborate, a study carried out by Institute of Psychologists, MIT, reported that training courses in parenting were of little assistance to young parents who had to seek help from their elders to do this job.

Overall, I completely fail to subscribe to this suggestion since I feel rearing a child successfully is only possible if one uses their intellect and draws inspiration from others experienced in this task.