Students study better in a single-gender classroom.

Do you agree or disagree?

There can be no doubt that the topic of gender in the classroom is one which deserves some analysis. It

is the opinion of this writer that the weight of evidence tips the scales towards those who believe that

single-gender classrooms are superior to those which are mixed-gender.

Central to this issue is the point that single-sex classrooms cause fewer distractions. As should be self-

evident, boys and girls often want to get each other’s attention during class time. This is due to the fact

that their hormones are controlling their behavior. As a result, the teacher has a harder time managing

and instructing the class.

Participation is another essential element of this case. According to the United Nations Commission on

Educational Development, mixed-gender classrooms see 20% less male and 30% less female

participation than single-gendered classrooms do. The explanation for this is that if they make a mistake

in front of the other gender, it will be particularly embarrassing. It should also be mentioned that most

teachers report the quality of the participation to be lower as well.

A final consideration is that each gender learns differently. It cannot be denied that both genders do

better using different learning techniques. Furthermore, one should acknowledge that these methods

don’t just work better for one gender but also hurt the other gender’s learning experience. Because of

this, it is impossible to cater to one gender without negatively influencing the other.

Thus it can be seen that single-sex classrooms have less problems in terms of distractions, participation

and teaching methods. Therefore, there is ample evidence to conclude that students are better off

learning with only their own gender.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There can be no doubt that the topic of why to get an education is one which deserves some analysis. It

is the opinion of this writer that the weight of evidence tips the scales towards those who believe that

education is not primarily to prepare for employment, despite some reservations.

Central to this issue is the point that most employees did not study for the field they work in. According

to the US Department of Labor, a mere 10% of workers hold a degree which is directly related to their

area of expertise. This state of affairs stems from a convergence of circumstances, including a lack of

relevant programs and changing career paths. In this manner, few students will end up using their

knowledge from school in their careers.

The idea that education is a chance for discovery is also of decisive importance. It deserves to be

acknowledged that many students may not have decided what career they want to follow by the time

they enter university. This can be attributed to the fact that they have not had the opportunity to

experience a wide variety of fields yet. Under these conditions, it is not hard to see why it is better for

students to explore their options rather than focusing on a single field.

There is, however, room for discussion in the sense that some professions clearly require specialized

education before being employed. It cannot be denied that some white-collar careers, professions such

as doctors and lawyers, to name but two, require an enormous amount of specialized knowledge in

order to do. This state of affairs stands in contradiction to most other jobs where it is probably

preferable to learn on the job.

Thus it can be seen that the needs of specialized careers are outweighed by the drawbacks that most

students face selecting a career during education. Therefore there should be ample evidence to

conclude that most students should defer their career choice until after college.
Many students who study overseas have significant problems adapting to their new living environment.
What causes these difficulties and what can be done to reduce them?

There can be no doubt that the topic of the difficulties that students have living overseas is one which

deserves some analysis. Although this scenario has resulted from culture shock and loneliness, hope can

be found in the form of government programs.

The most notable factor of having problems adapting to life in another country is culture shock. The

explanation for this is that most cultures are very different from one another. For this reason, students

may feel uncomfortable and worried about correct behavior in the new environment. Not only can this

affect their private lives, but also their educational experiences.

The feeling of loneliness should also be taken into account. It is beyond a doubt that moving away from

loved ones can make a student feel isolated. One should also note that many students will also be

without fellow countrymen to socialize with. As a consequence, they will not have a support network to

lean on in difficult times.

In order to rectify this situation, there needs to be a policy of government sponsored support programs.

It is clear to all observers that governments need to fund programs to better integrate students into the

local culture. This is supported by a recent study by the Ministry of education in Finland which indicated

that 75% of foreign students who participated in such programs continued to their second year. In

contrast with this, those that didn’t participate only returned at a rate of 50%.

Thus it can be see that the difficulties of living overseas are the outcome of culture shock and loneliness.

Therefore, there is ample evidence to conclude that government programs are urgently needed.
Some people think that young adults need to be given the freedom to make decisions regarding their
career paths. There are others who say they should defer to the wishes of their parents in planning their
futures.

Discuss both points of view and give your opinion

The realm of who should decide a younger person’s career is one which there is a fair degree of

controversy. It is the opinion of this writer that the weight of evidence tips the scales towards those

who believe that young people should be left to make their own choices.

Those who champion letting the student decide point to the fact that they know their own passions. It is

of paramount importance to understand that following our passion is the key to happiness in our

careers. One likewise must not neglect to mention that work in a field which one feels passionate about

improves your chance of being successful. This is supported by a recent study by the US Department of

Labor which indicated that workers in a job they were passionate about earned 20% more money than

those who weren’t passionate.

There is an alternative point of view, which holds that students should follow their parents’ advice. The

rationale for this is based on the idea that parents have more experience regarding the workforce.

Accordingly, their children should follow their parent’s wisdom rather than follow their own dreams. An

associated consideration is that the parents should have a say if they are the ones paying for the tuition.

This writer supports the former opinion on the grounds that it is the child’s life. It is clear to all observers

that the parents will not be the one who will be doing the work. Not only will the child have to do the

job but they will also rely on it for finding personal satisfaction. It is for this reason that it is crucial for

the child to have the final say regarding how they will spend their professional lives.

Thus it can be seen that a parent’s experience is outweighed by their child’s passion and the fact that

the child will have to live with the career. Therefore, there is ample evidence to conclude that children

should be allowed to choose their own career path.

What are the disadvantages of this development?

To what extent should administrators control how technology is used on campus?

The realm of technology in the classroom is one in which there is a fair degree of controversy. It is the

opinion of this writer that the weight of evidence tips the scales towards those who believe that school

administrations should strictly regulate its use within the facilities.

Those who champion technology for teaching point to the convenience of accessing information. It

deserves to be acknowledged that being able to look up anything during a class can be very beneficial. In

this context, it is not hard to understand why teachers would want to be able to use the internet to

support their lessons. In a similar vein, it can help students prepare their assignments.

There is an alternative point of view which holds that technology can be highly distracting. The

regrettable actuality is that the non-academic functions of technology are far more attractive to

students then the educational ones. This can be attributed to the attention grabbing and addictive

nature of many modern apps aimed at youths. A clear-cut example of this would be social media such as

Facebook which notifies the user of every time something happens on their feed.

On the question of controlling the use of technology in the classroom, this writer takes the view that

administrators should severely limit how much students can access technology. It is beyond a doubt that

students will abuse whatever access to technology they are allowed. As a consequence, their studies will

suffer. Thus a plan of blocking troublesome applications from school networks is a sound course of

action.

Thus it can be seen that the benefits of technology in the classroom are outweighed by the drawbacks.

Therefore, there is ample evidence to conclude that restricting access to technology in the school is

advisable.