Accessibility into universities

Photo by Vasily Koloda on Unsplash

Both the poor and the rich find the accessibility into university difficult. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that no matter how rich or poor you are , entrance to universities is a hard thing. I am partially agree with that phrase because, there are some universities in the world that any one who pay the course fee can enter to the university and follow the degree paths. On the other hand some standard university entrance are more difficult even if you can pay for the fees.

Nowadays students have more opportunities to get entrance with both private and public universities, because demand for university degrees are higher than before. some people ready to pay any cost for University education due to that demand. Because of that there are more private institutes opened recently those who follow same standards and structures as other recognized universities. For an example there are private institutes that offer degrees same as Harvard university under supervision of the  Harvard. In this case money can break the barriers of the university degrees.

On the Other hand recognition for the main universities degree certificates are much more higher than other institutes those who charge for degree programs. Because of that those who are willing to study in the major universities need to face difficult aptitude tests for entrance.  In this case even if you rich you cant enter to the course if you do not pass the aptitude test you cant study that course. For an example university of colombo in sri lanka only take very limited students for IT degrees. Students need to pass GCE Advanced level with higher marks for enter that university degree due to limited seats. 

In conclusion,  there are barriers to enter standard universities like Harvard because of the competition and demand of the degrees. There are institutes that offer degrees under supervision of the major universities. But the recognition  certificates are lower than major universities. Because of that some times you cant get university degree no matter how much rich you are unless you get a degree from a institutes by paying higher course fee. Therefore I am partially agree with that "Both the poor and the rich find the accessibility into university difficult"

Prevention is better than cure

“Prevention is better than cure”. Researching and treating diseases is too costly so it would be better to invest in preventative measures. To what extent do you agree.

Treat for illnesses and find treatments by doing researches are  too costly. Because of that finding a way to prevent diseases is the best solution. I totally agree with the above phrase "prevention is better than cure". Because researches and treatments are time consuming and also too costly. Definitely there are some side effects will occur because of the treatments and medications.

Even with the modern technological advancements, find treatments for diseases are time consuming and requires huge amount of funds. For an instance, scientists still doing researches for cancers and  many governments and organizations allocate huge budgets for these researches  to buy equipment and built laboratories. But scientist identified the cause to some cancers is unhealthy life styles. Spend healthy life style is the prevention and we do not need that much money to prevent from a cancer. 

On the other hand even if we got the cure, patients have to face side effects of that medications. For an example those who are taking medicine for diabetes will get their kidney damage and after few years they have to find treatments for kidney failures. But we can prevent diabetes by avoiding sugary foods and exercises. 

In conclusion, find treatment for diseases like cancer is costly and time consuming. There are some bad side effects cause by medications such diabetes pills. Therefore, I am totally agree with that invest in preventive measures are convener than treating for a illnesses. So Prevention is better than cure.  

Competition between kids

Parts of the society think that competition between kids is good. Because it motivate children to do their work better.  On the other hand other part think that kids should learn to work with others. Because they should learn to co-operate with others when they become elders.

Motivation is a high factor of the younger’s educational progress. For an example they might get boring without motivation to do their school works. And also  compete with each other get good result for their educational activities. Because of that part of the society think competition is a good thing.

Competition break the harmony between us and it is the human nature . For an example competition will cause to fight between kids and its not a good sign for long term social interaction to them. Harmony is also very good to their adult life to co-operate with others. And too much competition cause to depression. It’s not a good sign that suffer from depression in the young age.  This is why part of the society think that competition is not ideal for kids.

Competition cause to motivation and get high outcome from children’s education. On the other hand no competition cause to build harmony and it will build peace when they go to the society as adults and cause to mental illnesses. I am of the opinion of that there are certain situations that kids should compete with each other as well as in some other situations they should co-operate with each other.

Most appropriate transportation methods in 21st century

Some people believe that walking, cycling, and trains are best options for transportation in 21^st century. Because they are cheap and healthy for them.  Although others believe that they are not appropriate because of uncomfortable and take more time. However I totally agree that foot, bicycle and train are convenient way to travel in this century.  

People think, for their busy life travel options like walking, cycling or trains are not good options. They believe those are cause to late their work. Sometimes walking to long distance is impossible. And they need to ride as quick as possible for their works. And they don’t like to be tired and sweaty.  Walking and cycling are tired things to do and even we have to walk some distance for catch the train. Because of that some people think those are not good options. 

On the other hand there are benefits of transport options like foot, bicycle and train. Those are very cheap option to ride. Those will cause to reduce our transportation cost and save money.  And also these days’ people don’t have time to exercise. Some are go to gym. But if we daily travel by these options no need to do exercise. These options cause to burn our extra calories. That is why some believe walk, cycling, trains are good.   

In conclusion foot, bicycle, and train are slow and uncomfortable. On the other hand they are wallet friendly and healthy. My Opinion is these options are cause to save our money and keep doctors away.   Hence, I totally agree with that foot, bicycle and train are the most appropriate in the 21^st century.