Writing Feedback / Essay about the way media reports the lives of celebrities than others [5]

The media pay too much attention to the lives and relationships of celebrities such as actors, singers or footballers. They should spend more time reporting the lives of ordinary people instead.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In the age of technology, the lives of famous people are being over-focused while those of the ordinary are rarely covered in the media. However, I partly agree that more time should be spent on the casual lives.

On the one hand, the media is a great tool to attract people's attention so it would be an opportunity for the poor to be on air. There are a number of people whose lives are badly impoverished. Through media, therefore, people are more conscious of their difficulties and give them a hand so that they may have a better life. For instance, " Vuot len chinh minh" is a game show which records how hard the lives of poor people are and makes a chance for them to win a prize by overcoming challenges in my country.

On the other hand, too much attention are paid to the lives of celebrities in order to satisfying people's curiosity. Each of influencers has a plenty of fans who always have a desire to discover their idol's lives. Additionally, the famous usually show up in a flashy appearance so the way they look in daily lives would be a hot theme. "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" is an example of a TV show as it reflects the rich's life, which is full of drama but very luxurious and fascinating

In short, the main role of media is to represent various aspects of society. Therefore, I strongly believe that it is necessary to adjust the proportion of TV programs, whether it is about celebrities or the ordinary people.

Writing Feedback / Learning local history more crucial for pupils than gaining knowledge about the world's past events [3]

It is more important for schoolchildren to learn about local history than world history.

To what extent, argree or disagree ?

In this day and age, it is believed that learning local history is more crucial for pupils than gaining knowledge about the world's past events. To a certain extent, I firmly suppose that these two aspects of history are equally significant.

To begin with, it is true that school students should be taught about national history due to the fact that it is the backbone of any society. More precisely, learning about local history allows students to have a throughout insight into their own cultures and how their countries have evolved over a long period of time. The ancestors, for example, struggled to fight against foreign invaders to maintain sovereign and national freedom. For this reason, local history records their sacrifice, further encouraging patriotism as well as instilling national identities among students

Nevertheless, I strongly opine that it is also worth researching past events around the world. If school students are well-equipped with profound knowledge of world history, they are more likely to shape a well-rounded perspective. To explain this further, the youngsters are capable of learning about the people, the culture of oversea nations previously through world history, facilitating them to have more comprehensive and thorough views about the way in which the world works. For instance, the two world- wars are important historical events that almost schools around the globe include them in the national curriculum.

In conclusion, despite the fact that many people prefer local history to world history. I personally suppose that school students should be provided with both local and international aspects of this subject.

Writing Feedback / A writing about education. Tuition fees for studies [2]

Students have to pay for their studies as it only benefits individuals rather than society.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is thought by some that students have to be in charge of their study on their own as it is only beneficial to them instead of society as a whole. This could be true to a certain extent, I disagree that students are supposed to receive no financial support.

To begin with, it is true that education benefits students as it provides them with both theoretical knowledge as well as necessary skills for their future careers. However, it will be a serious issue for underprivileged students having to be responsible for a huge amount of tution fees. There are those who are talented and clever students but they can not afford their studies due to poor living backgrounds. Therefore, if students are not financially supported, they might have to suffer financial burdens or student loans, which then makes them always think about how to work their way through college. As a result, there will be an increasing number of low-qualified students with bad academic performances owing to the lack of time for studying, further causing society to undergo more losses than benefits.

Nevertheless, society also reaps the merits of giving students the opportunities to pursue higher education. More precisely, universities support students who can do the best of their potential and contribute to the prosperity of the nation. Medical schools, for example, offer scholarships for meritorious candidates, and offer graduation, they will be highly competent doctors who can save many people's lives and serve humanity. Besides, financial aid in terms of studying for students can help alleviate the unemployment rate, further boosting the economic growth thanks to high-qualified labor workforce.

In conclusion, although students are said to pay the cost of their studies as it benefits themselves, I would opine that students learning process more or less has a positive impact on society as a whole.