Some people think that children should obey rules or do what their parents and teachers want them to do, but others think that children who are controlled too much cannot deal with problems well by themselves in adulthood. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It may be open to debate whether children should obey rules or behave precisely as their parents and teachers expect. Some believe in obedience, while others fear excessive control on children will erode their problem-solving ability in adulthood. In this essay, I will outline the essential arguments of both sides and come up with my own opinion.
Advocates of strict upbringing build their point of view on the well-established theory that good manners are not developed by nature but by nurture. Innocent, energetic as children are, they cannot automatically grow into persons of great refinement. For this purpose, rules are introduced and children are brought up to polish their behavior accordingly.
Yet that raises concerns that they will grapple with a variety of problems when they grow up. Docility involves being comfortable with existing rules, recommendations or even warnings, but the keys to successful problem solving do not necessarily fall into these boxes. When creativity is required, as is often the case in adult life, they will find themselves mired in confusion.
Personally, I take on the pro side. It is noteworthy that even the most gifted children are not mentally developed yet, which means they do not have sound judgment and strong self discipline. Unshackled by rules or teachings, they are susceptible to temptations.
Admittedly, both sides make sense. Children can only acquire good manners under the guidance of rules, teachers and parents, while their problem-solving ability might be undermined in the process. Despite the disadvantage, I support the idea that they should be placed under control, since it helps them navigate childhood without yielding to lures.
I would more appreciate it if you score my essay.
childhood under supervision
It may be open to debate whether children should obey rules or behave precisely as their parents and teachers expect. Some believe in obedience, while others fear excessive control on children will erode their problem-solving ability in adulthood. In this essay, I will outline the essential arguments of both sides and come up with my own opinion.
Advocates of strict upbringing build their point of view on the well-established theory that good manners are not developed by nature but by nurture. Innocent, energetic as children are, they cannot automatically grow into persons of great refinement. For this purpose, rules are introduced and children are brought up to polish their behavior accordingly.
Yet that raises concerns that they will grapple with a variety of problems when they grow up. Docility involves being comfortable with existing rules, recommendations or even warnings, but the keys to successful problem solving do not necessarily fall into these boxes. When creativity is required, as is often the case in adult life, they will find themselves mired in confusion.
Personally, I take on the pro side. It is noteworthy that even the most gifted children are not mentally developed yet, which means they do not have sound judgment and strong self discipline. Unshackled by rules or teachings, they are susceptible to temptations.
Admittedly, both sides make sense. Children can only acquire good manners under the guidance of rules, teachers and parents, while their problem-solving ability might be undermined in the process. Despite the disadvantage, I support the idea that they should be placed under control, since it helps them navigate childhood without yielding to lures.
I would more appreciate it if you score my essay.
