Some students prefer to study at a small university

Some students prefer to study at a small university. Others prefer to study at a big university. Discuss the advantages of each, indicate which type do you prefer.

Nowadays, in the times of human values, personal development and most notably concurrence, higher education is considered one of the most valuable possessions. Those in pursuit of knowledge are usually to choose from two completely different options – small, usually private universities, and big, mostly public ones. Albeit a considerable number of people having chosen the institution claim to have made the only right decision possible, there are pros and cons of each type of university.

On one hand, those to choose a little university have numerous purposes for that. To begin with, such organizations usually succeed in providing such relevant things as positive atmosphere, technological facilities in enough quantity and especially the individual approach to each student. The importance of last factor can not be humiliated, as it plays a great role in the quality of education given. When the professor knows all his students by face and name, has time for personal interaction with each of them, and is aware of both strong and weak sides of everyone, he is sure to build the lectures and give tasks according to demands and abilities of the every single person in the group. However, small private universities are usually much less recognizable among the employers. In addition, the teachers are considered to be low-paid and therefore of lower professionalism.

Large public universities on the other hand are usually internationally recognized, prestigious and most notably occupying the considerable proportion of the top-100 universities world-wide. The popularity of these establishments, famous for the high-quality education, is rising at an exponential rate, attracting more and more school leavers to the ranks of their students. Therefore, the authorities are as a rule smart enough to enlarge the universities’ infrastructure and student-capaciousness and hence obtain larger profits. Sadly enough, such politics usually have ambivalent consequences. Factually speaking, the society benefits from it to a certain extend – availability of higher education favors the amendment of the community in general and young generation in particular. From a different angle, the increased number of students means less attention from the professors, lack of essential facilities and especially overcrowded noisy groups, resulting in abatement in general educational level. Consequently, albeit possessing good reputation, large universities seem not always to correspond the expectations of education quality given.

Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime and the motivation of committing it should always be taken into account when deciding on punishments.

Nowadays, when crimes are increasing at an exponential rate, those in power are urged to seek the most optimal methods of dealing with this ecumenical hazard. There is an opinion that in order to extinguish the peril and make justice system more efficient, the fixed punishments for each type of crime should be introduced. Albeit a considerable number of people support the idea, I hold on to the contrary point of view for the reasons scrutinized below.

To begin with, one should never judge the book from its cover. In my observation, even murders differ completely accordingly to the circumstances, mental abilities of the assassin and most notably his motivation. One might say that criminal is always the criminal and should be therefore always treated in the same way. However, simple common sense proves that such approach is a flagrant violation of the very underpinnings of democratic and humanistic principles. Can one sentence a girl having injured the attacker in the desperate struggle for life and the serial killer torturing his victim to the same punishment? The answer is obviously no. Thus, I believe that every single case should be carefully contemplated and every convicted – have a chance for an acquittal.

One might say that fixed punishments would reduce the level of crime, as prospective delinquents would know precisely what is waiting for them in case of violation and thereafter be afraid enough not to break the law. However, facts do not support this grandiose theory. It is proved, that in most cases people are thinking of anything excluding the consequences of their actions at the very moment of committing the crime. Thereby, I strongly believe that implementing fixed penalties would not only have no positive impact on the crime pattern but also provoke inveterate criminals to further felonies, however planned carefully enough to get the lightest punishment possible in the worst case of falling into the police’s hands.

Prevention is better than cure. Agree or disagree.

Leading a healthy long life has always been part and parcel of humans’ existence. And although with birth and rise of modern technologies there are less and less incurable diseases left, human’s health is still remaining under the threat of numerous maladies every second. Albeit most of them are easily defeated by modern medicines, everyone would agree that staying in bed due to the sickness even for a day is the least desirable thing ever. Thus, even the physicians are strongly convinced, that preventing the illness is much more effective and rational than curing it, which I completely agree with for the reasons stressed below.

To begin with, healthy lifestyle is something worth craving to lead. In my observation, sticking to a healthy diet, giving up harmful habits and most notably taking up some kind of regular exercises can make the life not only longer but also richer and much more interesting. Strengthened immune system as one of the numerous positive impacts of the sound mode of living on the human’s organism is something to make it highly resistible to all kinds of diseases, and thereafter save a person a lot of time for enjoying the life instead of struggling for recover.

To add further credence to my assertion, an initially healthy person is much more beneficial for the society than a healed one. With the development of viruses, nowadays an infection might live in human’s body long after the person considered oneself healthy enough to interact closely with others. The infectious disease might thereby be easily spread among the community, being caught by those unaware of the peril. Healthy person, on the contrary would neither catch the disease with the help of strong immunity, nor contaminate the others.