Writing Feedback / Moral and ethical standards and effective leadership--GRE issue [3]

Appreciate your time and consideration very very much. Thanks guys.

"To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."

How to be an effective leader? This is a lasting question for many years. I contend that relatively high moral and ethical standards on community level are necessary. However, on personal level, it is less important.

Community morality and ethic is of great importance for political leaders. Since what political leaders concern is the country and the people, they often think from a view of community. If a president has weak morality for community, he would be possibly aloof to the people. As a result, he would not be supported by the people. In contrast, only if political leaders have high moral and ethical standards for the community, he would be more concerned about the people and the problems and issues which affect them, thereby solving them and create a better society for the people. We would not regard such a leader as an ineffective one.

In the business realm, high moral and ethical standards from a view of community are crucial for business leaders as well. Some may argue that the ultimate goal for business is to make profit maximum, which needs not to pay much attention to morality. However, empirical experience in these years informs us; only creating great profit is far from the business success. As media is becoming more and more influential in contemporary society, their comments on business leaders are able to implement a significant influence on them. However, what medias keep an eye on is not the economic achievements, but the social responsibility--in other words, community morality. Accordingly, business leaders today have to care more about the issue related to morality. They build funds to help poor children and donate money to help the people suffering natural disasters. Such activities help them build a healthy image with high standards of morality and ethic. As a result, their businesses receive the praise from society and achieve business success.

Nonetheless, personal morality is a bit less substantial for both political leaders and business leaders, according to the experience. Consider Bill Clinton, former president of the United States. The news of his sex scandal is almost accessible for every citizen of the US. However, few people would deny his effective leadership. During his political period, American economy had seen a great roar and the unemployment rate was always at a low level. According to a Gallup Poll in 2005, Bill Clinton took the second place of the list of the best presidents in American history. Therefore, personal morality is less important for political leaders.

Turn attention to business leaders, personal morality might be more unimportant for them. Few would focus on their personal life. In addition, at most times, their personal life is a secret for its stuffs and community. Also, I would be hard-pressed to find a business leader's failure that due to personal morality. In a consequence, it is not the focus.

What we need to realize is that commanding leaders to have a highest moral and ethical standards is unnecessary. First, the "highest" is hard be achieved. Each individual, including leaders, is common people and common people would make mistakes. Second, what quality leaders should have is a comprehensive one consisting of the ability of communication, a wide range of knowledge and so on. If they put too much heart on the morality, other qualities would weaken. As a result, they cannot be effective leaders in the end.

In a nut shell, leaders should have a relatively high community morality in the first place and other necessities contribute to effective leaders should not be ignored.

Writing Feedback / The surest indicator of a great nation---GRE Issue [2]

"The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."

There have been many great nations in the history such as the Tang Dynasty in China and the ancient Egypt. At present, the United States is seen as the most substantial country in the world. However, is the general well-being of all people in the country the only criteria to judge a great nation? I contend that the people, governors, artists and scientists should all be concluded as a whole when looking at this question.

To begin with, the welfare of people is very crucial to a great nation. Since people are the main community of a country, if their living standard cannot be guaranteed, few individuals would perhaps consider this country great. I would be hard-pressed to figure out even one great country whose people are in a relatively difficult living circumstance in their era. In contrast, the nations which are much concerned about their populus, providing good welfare to them, are always the great ones in most people's eyes. For instance, we all know that Switzerland do the best in making its people live easier and set up social rules to guarantee the welfare. As a result, it is hard to see beggars on the streets or even an absolute poor person in Switzerland. This is one reason why most people regard this country as the best one in this planet.

However, we should not ignore the contributions for societies made by the political leaders, artists and scientists, whose achievements also impulse the development of a nation to a large extent. First consider the political leaders. The former president of the United State--Abraham Lincoln, eliminated slavery and speeded up the solidarity of the Northern and the Southern of America. It is not exaggerated to say that without Lincoln maybe the contemporary America cannot be so powerful and solid.

Turn attention to the scientists. James Watt was a Scottish inventor and mechanical engineer whose improvements to steam engine were fundamental to the changes brought by the Industrial Revolution both in the Kingdom of Great Britain and the rest of the world. Without his achievements, the UK cannot stand in the teams of world leaders now.

Finally, give consideration to the artists. Although the art works made by them, cannot provide people with money, but what they bring about is the mental treasures, providing the beauty to community. Austria is seen as the center of music as there are many great musicians in this country, such as Mozart and Haydn, whose masterpiece have strong influences to the music all over the world.

In a nut shell, only the well-being of people is not enough to judge a great nation. The accomplishments of the social rulers, artists and scientist should be considered as well. To develop towards a great nation, we should pay much attention to all these aspects.

____________________________________________________________ ________________
Please give some advice. Very appreciate your help.

Writing Feedback / The proper use of public resource--GRE ISSUE Appreciate your advice [4]

Appreciate all tips.

190 "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate -- and, perhaps, even cruel -- when one considers all the potential uses of such money."

I propose that the investment on arts should be supported by governments, insofar as the basic needs for human survival are not threatened to be failingly supplied. By fulfilling the basic needs, human can physically well exist in the world; while by enjoying the benefit brought by art, they can live better.

Admittedly, when the society is disturbed with problems that need to be solved immediately, such as hungry, poverty and invasion by other countries, government should pay more attention to and essentially appropriate funds to help solve these problems. Consider those people having no house to live in and no food for the next meal, how can they be eager to appreciate a masterpiece of Beethoven? What they mainly care about is most likely the existence. After all, as being creatures, art is not the necessity to survival on the earth. Then consider this situation. During the 2nd world war, when the German military trampled on the Warsaw city and streets were teeming with the soldiers equipped with guns, how can the polish people forget their dangerous situation and have a cup of tea with reading a Shakespeare's novel. The existence is always the chief issue of all human beings, and it is the prerequisite of other elements of life.

We should realize that, however, some social problems such as hungry, poverty, unemployment that would always exist. That means, to postpone the art funds by government, if mechanically and rigidly conforming to the principle mentioned in the former paragraph, equals to postpone arts forever. I would be hard-pressed to point out even one society without be suppressed with these problems. Even in the United States, the most powerful country in the world, one can also notice the beggars on the streets and the often high unemployment rate. However, American government never cancels the investment for the art development as it serves for the well-being of human life. Art provides pleasure for the community, according the oldest definition of the function of art, thereby mollifying their feelings, changing their mental conditions to a better extent, which is valid to help them get rid of the bitter and painful. Symphony No. 5 composed by Beethoven, though being not able to prevail against hungry physically, bring hope and inspiring for people to overcome the difficulties through the strong impact it expressed. Romeo and Juliet written by Shakespeare, instead of affording people money, it conveys valuable attitudes towards love and life to readers, which is considered the mental treasures surmounting the material fortune to a large extent.

Besides all discussed before, it is very crucial to put forth ultimate value of art. Art, as everyone who had ever learned art for either a day or a couple of years knows, is not only a way to express the deeper emotion of artists, but also, and more importantly, lies in the depth and width it explores into the internal human nature. Having a quick view of the art history, a multitude of great works played key roles in revealing the human nature. The famous book, <Le Rouge et le Noir> (The Red and the Black) originated by Stendhal, well represented the exploration of complex human mind-affection, revenge, jealousness, and anxiousness--by Stendhal through his vivid description of the characters' love story.

In conclusion, to consider the great value of art, governments should never totally give up the efforts to support art at most events. Because art is not meals and medicines which can save our lives at the emergency, however, it can bring our souls ablution and inspire us fundamentally.

Writing Feedback / The benefit of a global university-- GRE topic, need help [6]

I am a cookie in analytical writing and have little english writing experience before. Please take a close look on this passge, tell me my weakness and give me some advice.

Thanks in advance.

Issue11: "All nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems."

As the technology develops, human beings are now able to enjoy a better life than any other time in the history. However, there are still some rigid social problems such as pollution and wars cannot be completely obviated. Someone suggests that we can establish a global university which aims to training students helpful to solve or dilute these problems. Given consideration to the effectiveness and the feasibility I contend this approach is questionable.

To start my discussion, a question should be answered in the first place: "What the basic causes of the most persistent problems". Having a scrutiny into those problems, I find that the huge gaps in economy between developed countries and developing ones and the inherent culture differences contribute much to the problems. Consider pollution first. As for the developed countries, although they claim that it is responsible for every society and business to prevent environment from gradually being destroyed, the production never stops because in their mind, what they pay most attention to is always the profit. Turn attention to the developing countries. In order to catch up with the developed ones, the governments of these communities invariably regard the economic development as the most substantial. They need speed up the production and make more profits for accumulating capital, with which they can sit aside the developed countries. Next consider the constant conflicts between Israel and Palestine. A few may argue that the cause of this conflict is the issue about national territory. Indeed, this is one of the points. However, few would deny that the distinct differences also play crucial roles. Since they have the different faith, values and even the ethics, misunderstanding and objection is inevitably which ultimately, brings the two group of folks to the road towards wars.

Now that we make clear the root of the problems, the key question should be contemplated; whether to develop a global university can help eliminate or dilute the causes. I take a negative position that it can do little to the goal. Indeed, a global university might attract the eminent students, professor and scholars from every part of this planet, which thus, leads to advantages about the academic communication and the science development, especially benefits those who are from poor countries and cannot receive such a good education before. Nevertheless, the progress in the academic fields cannot be seen equal to the advancement economically. After all, what the graduates can do is a tree to a forest. The development in economy depends on a nation's policy, the original capital storage, and the market circumstance around it. It is presumptuous to rely solely on the better education for solving the problems. Also, the conflict between the Israel and Palestine has a long history with a strong root in it. Given that it is possible that a little number of students from the two cultures can enroll the global university and have a better understanding to another culture. However, is such a small group able to break down the "Berlin Wall" built between the two communities--either of them comprises of millions of people. The only time one can claim that it will work is when the students become the political leader of the both communities, of which the possibility is minor.

It is not only less effective but also impractical to require all nations to participate in the global university plan. Standing along with the poor countries, it will be wise to invest money on the domestic urgent problems. How can people see their peers dying from the poverty with spending money on another unnecessary project? Even if such a university emerges, controversial will arise when it comes to determine the most urgent problem that needs to be solved. Different countries have different views, and they may all insist that the issues which influence themselves are more pressing and should be solved first. Therefore, such a university will cause new problems before it really solve one.

In a nut shell, although the intent of the speaker--solving the universal persistent problems should be supported, the plan of establishing a global university needs more deliberations. By implementing the project blindly, it would probably bring about a waste of wealth and time, and also disappointment to its advocators.