1. Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later. Some people think that they are the best people to talk to school students the danger of committing a crime. To what extent do you agree or disagree
There is always a price to pay after breaking the law, and it’s an indispensable part of legal education to let school students know what exactly the consequence is there waiting for a criminal. But who should take the job? When some people say those who have been in prison and now are good citizens should do, I raise both hands in favor.
Though most of us could never imagine how harsh the imprisoned life could be and what kind of life would be after jail, these refreshed citizens do; and as most of us in most of our life have come to the moment of impulse to commit a crime, they have and they are the price-takers of that impulse, for which they, rather than someone else, have a say. To be more specific, while it’s usually an instinct for most of us to stay within the boundary of law and be “good”, it’s a choice for them to do so after all what they have experienced, which is not easy. As far as I know, a number of freed criminals were seized back to imprisonment after failed try of starting a new life, since the social tolerance for these once-convicted person is so little. It would be really educational to let the students know the reasons why these people, weighing the very danger of committing a crime, would maintain so hard a civic life with the slate of sin that might always incur them blames and contempt rather than offend the law again, which seems to be easier for those weak-minded.
Unlike failure in exams, law means real, not just knowledge and words, as the consequence can be life-ruining, and only by these people’s real experience can students be impressed by the price of any choice of delinquency or crime.
2. Reports show that it is increasingly expensive to keep museums open to public. What is the best way to fund them (government, business, individual)?
Most public museums worldwide function mainly based on government funding. However, facing the continuously cost, the sole reliance on the government revenue is barely enough. In my opinion, the optimal solution requires integration of commercial plans and citizens’ diverse forms of contribution.
It is obvious that the stable fiscal allocation should still be the primary source of financial support for public museums. Serving as a main platform to present a city’s cultural identity, preserves its historic heritages and promote its international image, it is justified that museum should be funded by taxpayers’ money. Nevertheless, this does not mean museums should be absolutely free to the public. In fact, the admission can be charged in order to generate an additional income. After all, not visitors are locals. For example, a visit to national museum often is included in the itinerary of a commercial tour package designed by travel agencies for overseas tourists.
Compared with the admission, opening a variety of business within the proximity of the premises might be a more direct strategy to generate more revenue. Selling commodities associated with exhibits, including postcards, books and handicrafts in a souvenir shop is a common approach can be seen in the majority of museums around the world today. Besides, adding catering facilities such as cafes and restaurants could provide extra profits.
What individuals can offer varies from person to person according t their capabilities. Firstly, the donations are not doubt the most straightforward means to contribute. This approach, however, is beyond ordinary people’s abilities due to their limitations in wealth. Participation in some voluntary jobs, such as ticket officer or tour commentators is a more realistic way for most people with a purpose of helping reduce museums’ labor cost.
In conclusion, the best way to fund museums should not be restrained with a single angle. It depends on the combination of adequate government funding, feasible business plans and individuals’ involvement.
3. Some working parents believe childcare centers can provide best care for children, while others think other family members like grandparents can do this job. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
With working occupying the most proportion of people’s life, there exists a heated debate about how to deal with childcare. While some people argue that childcare centers may be an optimal choice for working parents to look after their children, others contend that it may be more proper for relatives to take care of their babies.
On the one hand, childcare centers are professional for taking care of children. It is common that working parents may have insufficient time and energy to take care of their children and then. As professional institute, childcare centers could guarantee that teachers in the center have received training about how to properly treat children. Also, children could learn more knowledge and learn to communicate with peers because there are many other kids there to avoid loneliness of kids.
On the other hand, relatives may raise children more considerately. If kids are taken care of by other family members, then there is nothing about commerce and family members are willing to spend much more money for their nephew or niece, such as buying more qualified food with a balanced diet, which is beneficial to the body development of kids. Besides, objectively, the family tie could be strengthened because family members need to communicate with each other concerning the condition of their joint children.
From my own perspective, neither of these two approaches is perfect. Putting kids in a childcare center has some risks because children may not be taken care of well if there is limited number of teachers with a large amount of children. Raising children by other relatives may also bring a possibility that children will be less intimate with their parents because they are not the role who accompany children for long time. Parents still should allocate sufficient time to pay attention to the development of their children even if they are engaged in working, through which the emotional tie between children and parents could be maintained and children could have more fun with their parents.