Topic 77. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Boys and girls should attend separate schools.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Boys and girls should attend separate
schools. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Sample topic 1.

Should boys and girls attend separate schools? This question is very arguable. Before rendering
my opinion, let’s consider the advantages for boys and girls to attend separate schools. Since boys
and girls are different in many ways, they have different hobbies and the ways to learn new
things. If they attend separate schools, the education can be more efficient because the school can
teach them differently according to their personalities. But the disadvantages of it is greater.
While boys and girls attend separate schools, there’re few chances for them to communicate with
opposite sexes, which will become a handicap for them to communicate with each other in their
future.

As far as I concerned, boys and girls should not attend separate schools. Among countless reason
one can think of, the first and foremost reason is that people should have experience with opposite
sex when they are in school, because in a society there’re both males and females, people have to
learn how to communicate with the opposite sex, which is a essential factor for people to succeed.

Moreover, people have to learn from opposite sex. For example, while females should learn
braveness from males, males should learn carefulness from females. In addition, in a family, to
learn from opposite sex becomes more important to keep the family harmonious. In addition, the
knowledge of opposite sex is also important, without such knowledge, dealing with the
relationships with opposite sex becomes extremely difficult especially after one’s married.

Finally, as we can see, it’s definitely important for boys and girls to attend schools together, so
that they can learn from each other, communicate with each other and they can know each other
well, which is very valuable for their future.

Sample essay 2.

Nowadays, some may hold the opinion that boys and girls should attend separate schools, others
have a negative attitude. As far as I am concerned, I agree that boys and girls should go to
separate schools. My arguments for this point are listed as follows.

I agree with the statement since single-sex education provide a environment for boys and girls to
concentrate on their study. Research shows that a single-sex school environment can eliminate the
distraction from members of the opposite sex, and therefore is academically beneficial to students.
Girls in an all-female school can establish self-esteem, and avoid the situation faced by young
women in co-ed schools such as struggle to survive emotionally. They will be able to focus more
on their academic curriculum, sometimes specifically designed, and prepare for their future
education and career. The single-sex setting eliminates social distractions and allows for better
concentration on academics.

Another reason why I agree with the above statement is that traditional gender stereotypes are
often reinforced in single-sex academies. Boys tended to be taught in more regimented, traditional
and individualistic fashion and girls in more nurturing, cooperative and open environments. This
will develop their virtue and prepare them for their future roles in the society.

Taking into account of all these factors, we may reach the conclusion that boys and girls should
attend separate schools. Of course, there are also disadvantages of single-gender education, and
simply separating boys and girls does not always improve the quality of education. A lot of efforts
should be made to ensure that a single-gender education system be successful implemented.

Read More →

Topic 76. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Children should begin learning a foreign language as soon as they start school.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Children should begin learning a
foreign language as soon as they start school. Use specific reasons and examples to support your
position.

Sample essay 1.

I think that children should begin to learn a foreign language as soon as they start school. Even
many parents taught their children the foreign language before elementary school. It is obvious
that really necessary.

People can learn a language easily when they are young. Many older people often say that they
are too old to learn a foreign language. They can't remember the words or phrases even after
hundreds of times reciting. It's hard for them in faith, but while it's quite different from the young.
A healthy child has a better and quicker memory, so the new things he learned may not be
forgotten easily with the process of time.

When you go to the primary school, you begin to learn the knowledge from your teachers. Most
of them use their native language while teaching you. If you don't touch the foreign language you
want to learn, the longer you receive the education, the more difficult for you to learn it.More and
more opportunities to speak Chinese will affect on the consequence of foreign language study
directly, unless we start learning it as soon as the school begins.

Another reason for early language study is that the young may dare to talk with foreigners and it's
a very good chance to practice oral skills. As you know, many grown-ups are bashful to talk with
the foreigners, but Grade One or Two students can do so very easily, for they don't care their
grammar or expressions right or not.In fact, neither do the foreigners. If they start to learn a
foreign language as soon as they go to school, they may also talk with each other in it. What a
good chance! It will help a lot, I think.

In a word, learning a foreign language as soon as starting school is helpful and important. It's not a
burden but one of the best ways of learning.
(This is a 5 point essay)

Sample essay 2.

Nowadays, some may hold the opinion that children should begin learning a foreign language as
soon as they start school, but others have a negative attitude that learning a foreign language early
will pose too much pressure on kids and will affect their mother-tongue learning. As far as I am
concerned, I agree that bilingual education should start as early as possible. My arguments for this
point are listed as follows.

I agree with the statement without reservation since children learn second languages quickly than
adults. As we have observed, children can learn languages faster than adults; and immigrant
children translate for their parents who have not learned the language; and that child learners
speak without a foreign accent, whereas this is impossible for adult learners. Therefore the earlier
kids learn a second language, the less difficulties they would meet when they grow up and have to
face a foreign language speaking environment.

Another reason why I agree with the above statement is that I believe that bilingual education can
be fun and stimulate children’s learning interest. Many parents and teachers know how to teach
kids a second language in an interesting way. One of my students told me that, when he was in
kindergarten, every day his mum taught him a few Chinese characters as well as their meaning in
English. As time passed, the kid became keen to learn English. Sometimes he gave mum and dad a
quiz by speaking some English words and asking them what their meaning is.

Bilingual education will not affect the mother-tongue study of children. As we are living in an
environment of pure Chinese conversation and traditional culture, it is impossible for us to give up
our culture and language. Teachers also are trying to arrange the curriculum in a proper way. For
instance, they create an English-speaking environment for children in the morning, and a Chinesespeaking
environment in the afternoon.

Bilingual education has become a trend. No matter we like it or not, future educational
undertakings will become more international, and exchanges between schools throughout the
world will increase. Given this, speaking a common language is important and, to this purpose,
bilingual teaching is an inevitable way.

Read More →

Hidden Tulane Part VI - The LBC's Garden Level

Jammin out at WTUL in the LBC Garden Level

Last week, the Lavin Bernick Center for University Life at Tulane (a.k.a. the LBC) celebrated its 7th birthday! Back in my day at Tulane (when we had to walk uphill both ways) we had the rickety old UC (University Center). The UC received a massive renovation (it was stripped down to the frame) and rebuilt as the incredible energy-efficient structure that you see in the middle of campus today. If you've been on a campus tour, or really on our campus in general, you've definitely seen the LBC. It's the center of life here and contains our Barnes and Noble, food court, Apple store, bank, etc. But what you might not have known about or seen is what goes on downstairs in the LBC, a.k.a. the Garden Level. So this edition of Hidden Tulane will take us on a little mini tour of all the great stuff down there. Oh, and need to check out previous Hidden Tulanes? Check out the Glazer Garden, The Cassatt Courtyard, The Pace-Wilson Glass Blowing Studio, Tulane Hillel, and MARI. Now, let's get down to the Garden Level where a bunch of great stuff goes on downstairs of the LBC. Take a look!

The LBC in all her glory 

Office of Multicultural Affairs- There is always action over at The O! OMA serves as the hub of diverse cultural, social, and intellectual life at Tulane. It is their mission to foster an open and vibrant learning environment that welcomes, respects, and appreciates the histories, traditions, and cultures of traditionally underrepresented student populations. OMA puts on all kinds of great events and supports a number of different campus groups. When I stopped by today, they were fully immersed in a pizza party. Just a regular Wednesday.

Office of Gender and Sexual Diversity- Tulane's an incredibly gay friendly campus- we earned a perfect five star rating from Campus Pride last year, and I can say with 100% confidence that students who affiliate as LGBT will feel welcome and at home here at Tulane, thanks in large part because of OGSD. The Office for Gender and Sexual Diversity (OGSD) works with all members of Tulane University to foster a climate of respect, understanding and appreciation for diverse genders and sexualities, and provides support and leadership development for students who identify as LGBTQIA.

The SOC- Most of Tulane's Student Affairs departments are located on the Garden Level of the LBC. From Greek Affairs to Orientation to Student Programming, it all goes down here. One hub of student life is the Student Organizations Center. The SOC is a great spot to get any kind of work done that students will need for promoting, planning, organizing or really anything to do with student groups on campus. 215 Student Organizations currently use SOC space in some manner- and all are welcome!

Here's our Greek Affairs staff,
Julia and Liz

Greek Affairs- I caught up with Julia and Liz, our Greek Affairs Director and Assistant Director today. They had quite the weekend as over the last week, over 750 Tulane females selected their sorority. Tulane does a deferred rush, which means if you want to join a Greek organization, you don't have to decide on which one, or even if you want to join one at all, until second semester. This gives you plenty of time to get acclimated to life in college and in NOLA before making that decision. The guys will make their recruitment decisions later this week.

City Diner- Also sometimes still referred to as the Rat, City Diner is a late night dining spot on campus that provides food from from 6 pm all the way through till 7 am, ensuring that food is available at Tulane 24 hours per day. If you have a chance to eat at this award winning diner, be sure to get the pancake. Its 16 inches and served in a pizza box. I dare you to eat the whole thing.

mmmm giant pancakes (urbanspoon.com)

Student Media: TUBE, WTUL, The Hullabaloo- All of Tulane student media is also located on the Garden Level of the LBC. Tulane University Broadcasting Entertainment, (TUBE) puts on some great news specials and various clips for our student body. The Hullabaloo is our award-winning newspaper. And WTUL is one of the most popular radio stations in the city. All of these media groups are funded by the school and provide students, starting from day one of freshman year, great ways to get active in our campus media community.

CACTUS- The Community Action Council of Tulane University Students is the oldest community service group at Tulane, and one of the oldest on any college campus. They manage over 40 different service projects each year, and are currently celebrating their 42nd year of providing several community service projects and important awareness events for the Tulane student body. CACTUS supports all student led community service clubs and helps to cultivate relationships and awareness initiatives that meet the needs of our community partners and student volunteers.

Student Government- Tulane USG (Undergraduate Student Government) and ASB (Associated Student Body) are both huge here on campus. Tulane's always been a very active school for all aspects of student government. The majority of student government's meetings and events will take place in the LBC and their offices are located here on the Garden Level. They manage a huge budget and are in charge of some major decision-making here on campus.

Want to see more about the LBC as well as a video of the Garden Level? Check out that stop on our virtual tour here.

One of many OGSD events on campus- Coming Out Day! 

Tulane Studnet leaders and student affairs staff all make their home downstairs in the LBC. 

The hallway of the Garden Level 

All kinds of events goin' down

OMA is always full of laughs. And food too. 

various HQs 

All kinds of supplies at the SOC

Read More →

ABSTRACT ART?

What could be more pointless at this late date than protesting against abstract art? As soon complain about the ballpoint for dislodging the fine fountain pen. Not, by the way, that earlier protests would have landed on less deaf ears. Abstract art is in, and figurative art is seriously imperiled.

There is some hope to be gleaned from the state of music, where the twelve-tone kind seemed to be taking over, only to be nowadays pretty much abandoned. But then music is music and fine arts are fine arts, and it is dangerous trying to find analogies between them. Especially since a great composer like Alban Berg managed to transcend categories almost imperceptibly. Whereas abstract art cannot pretend to be anything else, perhaps not even art.

I can well understand the rise of abstraction: the feeling that painting had already done it all, and what it couldn’t, photography did. Of course, originality remains open to major talent, and no one would mistake a Renoir nude for a Rubens, even though both painters favored chubby women. It is the plethora of lesser artists that has muddied the stream, leaving still other lesser artists wondering what is left.

 A sense of being latecomers prevails for both the artists and their followers, and drives them into something different, however desperate. So a Kandinsky or Mondrian, who could do other things, jump into abstraction. And the same holds for the sculptors. Consider the trajectory from Rodin to David Smith. But there were painters who, bless them, worked between reality and abstraction, and managed to be Nicolas de Stael or Maria Vieira da Silva, and even the kind of abstractionists that still were able to keep a toe in reality, like Pierre Soulages.

But when we come to full-fledged abstraction, I bridle. Several problems present themselves. Anyone genuinely cherishing a work of abstraction and not merely responding to some hype, must find in it something ineffable to respond to. But what if he can’t? Must he take someone else’s word for it? And what if two viewers like the same thing for vastly different reasons? Doesn’t that cast some doubt about

it? Or is art meant to be some kind of Rorschach test, make from it what ever your id wishes?

Another problem is: why should I consider something art if I, a non-artist, could do it just as well? Or if a small child or chimpanzee could do it too?  Any drip can dribble paint, and whether you call it in fancy French tachisme, or in plain Amurrican action painting, why can’t I say it’s spinach and to hell with it?

Thus in the January 10th New York Times there was a color reproduction of a painting by Ellsworth Kelly called “Black Red-Orange,” part of a many-million-dollar request promised to the Philadelphia Art Museum. It is a rectangle whose top third is solid black, and the other thirds something between plain red and orange. Anyone could have daubed it if he lacked the good sense not to bother, or perhaps if he had the good sense to bother, since this pitiful artifact was clearly worth millions.

To me, some of the archenemies are Pollock and Rothko, though of course there are countless others of their persuasion. Nor am I impressed by the usual defense: “Ah, but Pollock knew how to dribble: how many colors, how much of each, how big a canvas.” I would wager that even if he had dribbled entirely differently, or indeed blindfoldedly, the thing would have drawn the same adulation, the same claims for its perfection, as long as the same great name was attached to the work.

I keep repeating something I wrote long ago: the history of art stretches from Anonymous to Untitled, from when only the work mattered and the maker not at all, to when only the signature matters and the work not at all. Hordes of contemporary artists spew out Untitleds, usually appending numbers to them, otherwise not even they would know whether this was Untitled 147 or Untitled 191. This is not the same as when Whistler calls a specific portrait or townscape “Arrangement in Grey and Black” or “Symphony in White,” wishing to call attention to color harmonies, although that too is pretty show-offy.

I personally have some respect for an abstraction by Wols as opposed to one by Franz Kline, but how can I prove to someone with the opposite taste that he is wrong and I am right? And, in any case, I would gladly trade my Wols, if I had one, for a figurative Magritte, Delvaux or Ensor to name only some Belgians. To anyone who says one can no longer be figurative and great. I submit such names as counterproof.

There are in fact any number of ways one can still be figurative and great. Take the alternative universe of Klee that still has recognizable figures and features often comic, irrelevant titles; or the world of impossible juxtapositions, fragmentations, and rearrangements of realities as in Magritte. Or the subtle perversion of Balthus’s provocative Lolitas, langorously effete youths, and demoniac cats—or even the bizarre Balthus cityscapes and off-kilter landscapes that are just real enough.

What I am finally asking here comes down to this: to what standard is a piece of abstract art answerable? By what authority is it proclaimed art? With figurative art, no problem. Even though it may have needed the endorsement of the court, the church, the rich citizens, it had, has, something bigger than that: pleasing the onlookers, whoever they be.

Whether a painting had the delicacy of Raphael, the forcefulness of Michelangelo, the faint mystery of Leonardo, one recognized in it something beyond mere representation of life, though certainly also that. This Lehmbruck or Giacometti may be thinner than life, this Barlach or Lachaise thicker than life, this obese Botero or pockmarked Kokoschka a comment on life, but somewhere behind all these works lurks humanity, however much some aspect of it is over- or underplayed.

There is also originality: no one else has done it quite like this before. There is a temerity behind these works: this Schiele is significantly more tormented than ordinary reality; this assemblage of imaginary beasts and triangular humans in Wilfredo Lam is a comment on the human jungle.

But what does a piece of abstract art have to do with, to say about life; at best I’d have it be a piece of wallpaper, or, stretching it, the blur with which the newborn perceives the world. Or could it be an unreliable view of subatomic particles? Or, more likely, none of the above. But let it be signed Philip Guston or Helen Frankenthaler, and it becomes a respected commodity, like a car signed Cadillac, or a computer signed Mac.

But no matter how signed they are, I refuse a Rothko or Pollock the status of art. I will even reject some phases of Picasso, which I would gladly trade for a Hopper, a Burchfield or a John Singer Sargent. Or, to show how far to the left I will go, I proclaim a fondness for Andre Beaudin (1895-1979). The influence of his master, Juan Gris, that most lyrical cubist, is evident, but this is a cubism lighter, more fluid, with an almost breathable airiness.

As Jacques Lascagne has written, “Beaudin is a painter of pure light as it appears  emerging from the night. His art, in its limpidity never escapes from honest reasoning. It is full of subtle poetry. Whether it takes as its model horses fighting, a horse race, or the varied faces of Paris, or the flight of a bird before an open window, he liberates the universal quality while at the same time adorning the image with the subtlest nuances of the passing moment. With a few simple lines, harmonizing with cold, vivid colors, he depicts the birth of day or its various hours.”

Or here is another source: “Whatever his subject, Beaudin decomposes and recomposes it to suit himself, stripping the world of its external characteristics, its inertia and weight. And replacing them with a subtle, coherent ensemble of line and color. His work also includes tapestries [I have seen and admired them], etchings, lithographs, sculptures, and illustrations for the works of a number of poets.”

I do wish to emphasize that airiness that somehow seems to lift the painting off the canvas, and convey its feeling like that of a cool fruit juice to the parched throat. As Reynold Arnould has written, “These are colors rather murmuring the way a spring emerges from the earth. And they are, also naturally, used sparingly in each work.” Beaudin has become a major, duly rewarded artist, earning the Grand Prix National des Arts in 1962.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Read More →

Topic 75. Some universities require students to take classes in many subjects. Other universities require students to specialize in one subject. Which is better?

Some universities require students to take classes in many subjects. Other universities require
students to specialize in one subject. Which is better? Use specific reasons and examples to
support your answer.

Sample essay 1.

Some universities require students to choose a variety of subjects; others only require students to
specialize in one subject. I deem the first one as the premier choice. Among countless factors,
there are three conspicuous aspects as follows.

The main reason for my propensity that students should take classes in many subjects is that they
can make full use of the abundant resources that a university has to offer. A university has plenty
of educational and research resources. It is a very good idea to make full use of these valuable
assets while studying in the university. The best way to achieve this is to take a variety of subjects
as much as possible. Through learning these courses, a student can get access to knowledge and
resources in different areas. On the contrary, if a student only specializes in one subject, he will
not have a chance to get access to other resources offered by the university.

Another reason can be seen by every person is that by choosing many subjects students can
broaden their knowledge and make a solid foundation for their future concentrated study.
Whatever the student will concentrate on in his senior years in college, it is necessary that he
choose a wide range of subjects to build the knowledge foundation. Take the field of Business
Management for example, the student has to acquire knowledge in writing, accounting, economics
and human resource management before he can successfully start his major concentration study.

The argument I support in the first paragraph is also in a position of advantage because students
can be more adaptable in their future career if they choose a variety of subjects during their
university study. It is obvious that the development of modern society requires people with interdisciplinary
and comprehensive knowledge. If a student chooses a variety of subjects in his
university study, and gained a breath and width of knowledge, he will be more adaptable to the
requirement of the society, and be able to easily adjust to many kinds of jobs. This will benefit his
future career.

In a word, taking into account of all these factors, we may reach the conclusion that students
should take classes in many subjects in a university.

Sample essay 2.

The whole point of my answer is that it is better for universities to require students to specialize in
one subject. It is just what the majors are called for, even though there are a couple of the
advantages of students’ taking classes in many subjects.

It is a more sensible decision that universities require students to specialize in one subject. They
must have known that the depth of a certain subject is infinite while both the students’ energy and
time are limited. It probably tells the truth. Only when a student just specializes in one subject, can
he focus on it. Thus it ensures the students more likely to be a kind of expert in some subject
when they are given the degrees. That is just the purpose of so-called education.

It does not mean that students have not too many classes to attend even if they just specialize one
subject. There are a lot of sub-subjects or divisions of a main subject. The science of journalism,
for example, can include the theories of journalism, the histories of journalism both domestic and
international, the news writing skills, the interview courses and the editorials writing and so on.
The students have to study all of these above course as journalism major. It does mean a lot of
work to do even if students just specialize one subject.

I do not deny there are a couple of advantages for universities to require students to take in many
subjects. One thing, the work places require so-called generalist today. Students who take many
subjects may probably mean the opportunity of meeting that request. Another is that students who
take in many subjects can also help their main subject. Thus probably can help them study what
they are majoring better. Whatever the benefit it will be, however, students taking any other
subjects should not interfere their main target.

In the whole, I thought that universities could allow students to take subjects as many as possible
if their times and energies were available. However, I think that possibility is faint. So I have to
say that it is better for universities just to urge students to specialize in one subject. After all, the
main subject is already a lot of work to cope with, considering the depth and width of one subject.

Read More →