TOPIC agree or disagree? Universities spend money on improving facilities (labs and general requirements) better than hiring famous teachers.
There is a hotly debated issue over whether universities should spend money on improving facilities is more than hiring famous teachers, and this topic can be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. Some people tend to prefer that schools should invest in renewing facilities, while other seem to believe that famous teachers is more conducive to students. After deeply pondering over this issue, I develop my own perspective as well. I favor the former; that is, I prefer to spend money on improving facilities.
The first and foremost reason lies in an inevitable fact that the more advanced facilities we have, the more chances we can increase our knowledge. For example, library is a good place for students to study or research. They can concentrate on the subjects with a tranquil ambience; also, there are a lot of references for students to utilize. With this convenient and versatile facility, students can improve their learning condition. Therefore, we can commence to agree that certain facilities are beneficial to students.
Moreover, another equally crucial aspect is that students are not always staying in classrooms. They have numerous activities in school. Consider a circumstance in which a student who is a member of jazz ensemble in their school. He must need a better auditorium for him to have an extraordinary performance. With this distinguished performance, the student would acquire an unforgettable and valuable experience burring deeply in his mind. Hence, from this case, we are capable of stating that students would prefer school to spending on improving facilities.
Admittedly, on the other hand, there might be some people proclaiming that schools should spend money on hiring prestigious teachers because they can impart their students well. However, according to my limited understanding, I just doubt the credibility of that saying owing to its imprudence. A student is good or not do not depend on whether he has a good teacher but is decided by his effort on study. It is useless to hire a super famous teacher to teach those who behaviors as sluggards.
Based on the reasons demonstrate above, I believe that improving facilities is the best way for school because the advantages of this are relatively greater than that of the other. In other words, students can procure more advantages from better facilities. It is not to say, of course, that other points of view are completely without merit. Still, I an firmly convinced that the reasons I have proposed in favor of my sentiment are much more tenable and cogent.
Question: when we write agree or disagree in the issue, can I use consent/assent/concur to replace "agree"; and use dissent/reject//discord to replace "disagree"?
I am not sure whether their might be some subtle differences between these words.
There is a hotly debated issue over whether universities should spend money on improving facilities is more than hiring famous teachers, and this topic can be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. Some people tend to prefer that schools should invest in renewing facilities, while other seem to believe that famous teachers is more conducive to students. After deeply pondering over this issue, I develop my own perspective as well. I favor the former; that is, I prefer to spend money on improving facilities.
The first and foremost reason lies in an inevitable fact that the more advanced facilities we have, the more chances we can increase our knowledge. For example, library is a good place for students to study or research. They can concentrate on the subjects with a tranquil ambience; also, there are a lot of references for students to utilize. With this convenient and versatile facility, students can improve their learning condition. Therefore, we can commence to agree that certain facilities are beneficial to students.
Moreover, another equally crucial aspect is that students are not always staying in classrooms. They have numerous activities in school. Consider a circumstance in which a student who is a member of jazz ensemble in their school. He must need a better auditorium for him to have an extraordinary performance. With this distinguished performance, the student would acquire an unforgettable and valuable experience burring deeply in his mind. Hence, from this case, we are capable of stating that students would prefer school to spending on improving facilities.
Admittedly, on the other hand, there might be some people proclaiming that schools should spend money on hiring prestigious teachers because they can impart their students well. However, according to my limited understanding, I just doubt the credibility of that saying owing to its imprudence. A student is good or not do not depend on whether he has a good teacher but is decided by his effort on study. It is useless to hire a super famous teacher to teach those who behaviors as sluggards.
Based on the reasons demonstrate above, I believe that improving facilities is the best way for school because the advantages of this are relatively greater than that of the other. In other words, students can procure more advantages from better facilities. It is not to say, of course, that other points of view are completely without merit. Still, I an firmly convinced that the reasons I have proposed in favor of my sentiment are much more tenable and cogent.
Question: when we write agree or disagree in the issue, can I use consent/assent/concur to replace "agree"; and use dissent/reject//discord to replace "disagree"?
I am not sure whether their might be some subtle differences between these words.
