Writing Task 2
Governments often spend large sums of money on spectacular displays to celebrate national events of significance. This money could be better spent on improving social conditions in the country.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Model response:
Every country in the world has its own national events. These might be the day independence was achieved, an Armed Forces day, a city birthday or some other special day for the nation. They are all events to celebrate. National events are something special for everybody in every country and it is always good for the citizens to remember what they represent.
However all these different celebrations tend to cost a lot of money to make them spectacular or unforgettable. But spending a lot of money for only a day seems to be wasteful, especially for developing countries such as Indonesia. For example, in Indonesia, we have Independence day, and all the people make their preparations for a celebration for about 2 months in advance. The people always want to make each year’s celebration better than the previous year’s, so every household has to contribute about Rupiah 10,000-20,000 (A$2-A$4) for their neighbourhood celebration. Often the government will contribute money to make the ceremonial more amazing.
As suggested above, such excessive spending is wasteful. The money could better be spent on other social needs to improve education and health services or to alleviate poverty. If every household could spend that Rp.10,000-20,000 every 2 months with the government support it can help increase the budget for education or health.
In conclusion, while it is good to remember or to celebrate national events, the best way is not through a spectacular celebration, but rather through services to make the country better in every way. _ (255 words)
Writing Task 2
Too much education is dangerous. If people receive more education than they need to function in their job, it only breeds dissatisfaction.
Write a report for an educated non-specialist audience for or against the above.
Model response:
Some people may say that education gives people unrealistic ambitions; the law of the market place decrees that not every one can be a managing director. In fact for every boss there must be many more employees, so some countries believe there is very little point in training people for a level of job that they can never hope to achieve. What is more, education is expensive. Therefore over-education is a waste of time and money. Another argument against education would be that students tend to be a disruptive influence on society. Once you encourage people to think for themselves it is difficult to control what they are thinking. It is hardly surprising that students are often found at the forefront of radial organisations.
In spite of the problems of over-education, most countries need a high standard of human resources in to order to compete in the world market. Constantly changing technology means that the workforce has to be flexible and receptive to new ideas in order to be of value to employers. When a person is only trained to perform one job, it is not realistic to expect him or her to adapt to a change in circumstances or an unexpected problem. All this is not to mention the moral questions involved in limiting education. Who has the right to say how much education a person is entitle to? What criteria could be used to decide a level of schooling?
It may be true that a greater level of education tends to make people more radical. However, if society is not going to become static, it mush be prepared to accept new ideas. Therefore they degree of radicalism caused by a high level of education can only serve to make the country more adaptable and better able to withstand social change in the long run. _ (306 words)
Scholarship Announcements 