Most people seem to support the notion that whether one is gifted in an area or not has nothing to do with this person's education or training during childhood or even adulthood, and that, instead, what an individual is good at has been actually determined long before their birth by their genes. For several years, there has been a strong debate between this gene-favouring notion and the belief that anyone, regardless of their genes, can make a good sports person or musician provided that they have been properly trained during childhood.
According to some geneticists, it is genes that utterly dictate the talents of each unique individual. What this means is that a child with genes associated with good performance in sports will grow into an extremely talented sports person who can by no means be surpassed by one lacking these particular genes, no matter how well or hard the latter has been training. Is this entirely true, however? Are we merely products of our genes with absolutely no control over the development of our skills?
Recent surveys have shown that genes shape our capabilities only to some extent (52% according to estimates) and that the environment in which a child grows up plays an almost equally important role. In other words, if a child that is not as musically ingenious as Mozart practises hard day and night and is passionate enough about music, it has a good chance of becoming a very gifted musician in the future. Besides, as Thomas Edison had put it, "talent is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration."
Considering all of the above, it is clear to me that both our DNA and upbringing are important factors when it comes to the determination of our talents. Having good genes or genes strongly associated with a talent can give you a kick-start and put you ahead of others, but hard work is also required in order to unlock your full potential. It is also true that sometimes a good environment combined with proper training and lots of effort is sufficient to compensate for what our genetic make-up might be lacking.
It is a well-known fact that the profession of imparting knowledge, which is no other than teaching, generates all other professions. Therefore, there has been a great deal of controversy about the most significant personal attributes that a highly effective educator should have. More specifically, at present there is a strong debate over whether high qualifications, leadership qualities, or an altruistic love for pupils is the one trait that dwarfs all others in significance.
I agree that a teacher should be highly educated and devoted to this professional development through seminars and conventions on modern teaching methods, children's psychology and any other field relevant to his subject matter. In this way, the educator becomes more efficient and accelerates the learning process for the students. It must be admitted that a poorly qualified teacher is usually the first to blame for pupils' poor knowledge. For exampl, an inadequately knowledgeable Math teacher would be unable to answer more advanced questions on mathematic problems and equations, or provide knowledge at high levels.
It is obvious that strong leadership skills are vital for an effective classroom management. The educator should be strict and lenient when he deems fit. He should address any disruptive behaviour and prevent or tackle bullying incidents. To put it another way, if one lacks strong leadership skills, this will ultimately give rise to a chaotic classroom environment with unruly, restless students and hence limited educational input for the whole class.
Taking everything into account, I am inclined to believe that the altruistic love for students is the most important characteristic of a highly effective teacher. Without a doubt, the pure love for teaching and for pupils is reflected in a more pleasant and efficient for them. Striving for high quality in his or her teaching a better understanding of the students' needs are exactly what is needed for the creation of a conducive learning environment and the learners' growth as persons.
Recently, there has been a great deal of controversy about the necessity of the Art class in the school program. It is strongly believed that the other subjects like Mathematics, Science, and Language and Literature are more significant for the pupils' education than Art. That said, I am of the opinion that art-related subjects should not be frowned upon, as they can raise the students' cultural awareness and also lay the foundation for the development of a multitude of skills.
More specifically, through art-related subjects, pupils have the opportunity to learn about the history of art, the art and culture of their country, and to be exposed to foreign culture and works of art. By trying to describe, analyze and even criticize the various works of art, children gradually get used to exploring their environment and broaden their horizons. In addition, they learn to express themselves, their feelings in a more creative way and develop critical thinking skills. Moreover, while working all together as a team though theater plays, music performances and so on, they improve their socializing and communication skills.
Despite these advantages, the opponents of this view maintain that art classes are only a waste of time and therefore students should focus on their mainstream subjects, which, according to them, are more important for their academic and professional achievement. However, I am convinced that if we were to abolish art subjects, students would have not only a monotonous school program, without a pleasant interval from the other core subjects, but would be deprived of the many associated cognitive benefits, too.
Taking all of the above into consideration, it is evident that art opens up children's minds, broadens their horizons and helps them grow as persons. It is imperative that we oppose to the exclusion of art from the school curriculum to ensure that we provide the younger generations with a well-rounded education as this will definitely lead them to find the way to change and make a better world for all of us.
Recently, there has been a great deal of controversy about prohibiting smoking in public places or not. Given that the presence of non-smokers in these places cannot be ignored, I am inclined to believe that a happy medium between the smokers' right to freedom of choice and the non-smokers' right not to be subjected to their fumes could and should be stricken.
Suffice it to say that smoking is harmful to health and definitely linked with respiratory diseases. Scientists constantly try to persuade individuals not only to refrain from smoking, but also to steer clear of second-hand smoke. Obviously, passive smoking is as perilous as smoking. It is proven that when a person smokes, the inhalation of dangerous fumes in his or her body will gradually cause severe defects on the lungs or, worse still, cancer. Therefore, the local authorities in conjunction with the Ministry of Health recently enforced the prohibition of smoking in public areas. Needless to say that smoking must be forbidden in places where children, patients and elderly are present. In fact, individuals should be conscientious when accompanying the aforementioned sections of the population.
On the other hand, prohibition of smoking in public areas may be assumed as violation of human rights. Adult smokers are certainly aware of hazards involved in smoking but their longing for it is a personal matter an immediate consequence of their addiction to nicotine, the highly addictive substance found in tobacco. Additionally, there are the occasional smokers who enjoy smoking a couple of cigarettes only when they attend a pop-rock concert, or when they savor a meal in a music tavern. Bearing especially the last category of smokers in mind, I tend to be in favor of creating a specially designed smoking area particularly in places of entertainment. To my mind, there is no reason to infringe upon somebody's right to light a cigarette in order to indulge himself at a moment of joy.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that smoking is absolutely harmful to health. But as smokers have realized the ever-increasing number of the diseases linked with their habit, they still have the freedom of choice. As far as I am concerned, it is better for both parties to compromise on the installation of smoking areas in some public places, in the high hopes of avoiding imposing fines on citizens solely for exercising their right to freedom of choice, which is by all accounts against what a democratic society encompasses.
Nowadays, a matter of public interest is the appropriate age at which an individual is legally permitted to cast a ballot in elections. Given that this age differs from country to country, this issue has given rise to a great deal of controversy in many societies.
In my view, the ideal age at which someone is probably mentally capable of voting responsibly is that of 21 years old and above. It seems clear to me that a person under the aforementioned age has not developed their critical skills yet. In some countries, including ours - Greece, youngsters at the age of 18 are permitted to vote. To my mind, this section of the population mainly consists of individuals who are impressionable, careless, and impulsive owning to their youth, and this is why it is unacceptable to let them determine the future of a country, as their ultimate decision may be affected by their immaturity. On the other hand, a person at the age of 21 and above, who studies in a university or has a job, is much more likely to keep abreast of current affairs and hence more suited to forming an impartial, sound judgement while selecting the politicians who will represent not only himself but the entire nation. By having knowledge of the job market, he is obviously more efficient to make a wise choice in elections.
As far as I am concerned, the factors that may affect the age limit of voting include: completion of the secondary education, awareness of public affairs and intellectual maturity. As I have already mentioned earlier, acquiring education is vital for all member of the electorate in order to be self-conscious while opting for a party in elections. The intellectual maturity stemming from introspection is an essential factor for a voter. It is quite clear to me that if one does not have these qualities, he will never be able to make a responsible choice in the elections.
All things considered, the population of a country is highly affected by the outcome of the elections. It is crucial for the members of the electorate to vote without illiberality but according to the economic and social issues of their country combined with circumspection of our welfare. To the end, it is my firm belief that the voting age threshold should be raised from 18 to 21 years old.
Recently, a matter of public interest in our civilized world has been whether the exposure of animals in circuses means exploitation and inhumane treatment or not. This matter has given rise to much controversy between the proponents of circuses and animal activists.
It seems to me that performances in circuses are exciting and fabulous. When I was a child, I anticipated attending a show including magicians, dancers, acrobats, and, of course, animals. More specifically, people of all ages benefit from their visit to a circus as they can enjoy this fascinating experience. Therefore, the chance to see from up close a variety of animals doing extraordinary tricks and performing dangerous feats, is indeed, for us all, an amazing spectacle. It goes without saying that our admiration for these animals is unquestionable. Having said that, it must be conceded that families turn up in circuses by no means having the intention to exploit animals or laugh at them.
On the other hand, innocent wild creatures are held captive, deprived of everything that is natural and important to them. For this reason, most of them feel depressed, since they are kept in cramped cages instead of living free in the wild. Particularly wild animals are born to hunt and run long distances following their natural instincts. By default, the practice of captivity means violation of their rights. Unfortunately, not only are animals kept imprisoned, but they also endure unethical and atrocious practices so as to train hard and give a good performance in circuses. More often than not, they live under unhealthy conditions with absence of veterinarian care and are even starved to death when they have stopped being able to meet their trainers' expectations.
In conclusion, wildlife belongs in the wild and not in captivity. It appears to me that such shows exist to offer profit to the circuses' owners and that this practice is stripped of consideration of the animals' dignity and respect to their existence. By all accounts, the participation of animals in circuses is a form of torture, which is a sad truth the fans of circuses - who keep booking seats in the front row of such shows solely for their entertainment - are obviously unaware of. It would be prudent that the exposure of animals there be abolished altogether.
