gule

No any one to rate this essay??

Please guys do rate this essay!!

Is there anyone to rate this essay? Plz!! World has been integrating in an unprecedented pace. So does the problems of the world; organized crime has been internationalized, money laundering has become international in scope. In short, most of the problems of the world are becoming internationalized thus necessitating for internationalized approaches to their solutions. Some argue that an international university would help and all nations should support the development of such university. However, I am of the opinion that though international university is helpful in various respects, such scheme can be over ambitious given current state of world order. The development of international university is helpful, for most of the current world problems are of international in nature. AIDS, cancer and environmental problems are all threatening problems of our time. They are threat to all human race, where ever they are and to which ever race, color and ethnicity. Thus, a global solutions is necessary to such problems, and establishing international university can be of great help to that end. Global university is also important for it helps reduce international inequality in skill, and also promote understanding across people over the world. One fact that we know is this: this world can't be better place if the current level of international inequality, where some 20% of the world population uses 80% of the world resource and 80% of this planet's human race rely on the remaining 20% of world's resource, is allowed to persist. The development of global university can be helpful in reducing this inequality since it enables developing countries to get the necessary skill to ignite and sustain development. Further, an international university can be of great help in increasing the understanding among different sections of the world community, thus reducing the hatred among different religion and race and promote peace and harmony. However, with current arrangement of world power, it would be foolhardy to expect the development of global university that does all the above listed benefits impartially. World has experienced with many international organizations aimed at coordinating the world community, the prominent of which are the UN, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. We see the UN, which in principle is supposed to be impartial and independent, being toothless dog when it comes to effecting its decision, and under some worst scenario being entirely dominated by few wealthy nations of the world. Worse still with the World Bank and IMF, where they have become virtually a lending institution of one country aimed at spreading the value of one nation. Yet, this doesn't mean the development of a world university is a futile exercise. The upshot of the above paragraph is that the world community should make sure that there shall be no such partiality in the university to be established To sum, the development of international university can be of great help to the world, for most of the challenges of human race have become internationalized. However, history has thought us and is teaching us that such international institution can be dominated by few countries, thus devoying the institution of its international character. World leaders needs to be first assured that there won't be such influence by few before supporting the development of such university.

Plz rate this essay. Does it give sense?

Education invariably imparts a value of questioning and accepting things only after subjecting them to proofs and counter proofs to make sure that the ides or viewes are true to one's knowledge. Some argue that such value does more to harm societal harmoney than promoting it. However, I am of the openion that education actually is the source of strong and unshaky societal harmoney. The value of accpeting only after questining, which most formal education installs into the minds and values of students, is quite crucial in that it enable us to unravel every aspect of our life. It makes us question whther our hatred of some person or race or religion are really founded. It is, for instance through questioning our old age prejudice that we come to know that no race is less than the other, that we come to know that female and male are both equal. Once we put our unfounded prejudices( on which most of the hatred among human race is based) to question, we come to criticize our stand and abondon or modify such hatreds. Ineffect,thus, education promotes societal harmoney. What is more, the kind of societal harmoney that education brings about is actually the most well founded and strong one, for reason is the most unshakable glue that can attach society together as it does some one to his/her principle. On the other hand, societal harmony that comes about with conformity, i.e, without questioning, can be quite shaky and fragile, for it is devoid of the right glue, which is reason. Furthermore, such can be anti societal progress, for conformity means no criticizm and comment for improvement. In a conformist society, what used to be right is right even if it is wrong, and the society will remain in veil of ignorance. It is true that in the process of revising, questioning and evaluating our stand that we may find more convincing reason to hate some other group of individuals more than we used to, which means that education has actually brought about societal disharmony. The beauty of educated or enlightened hatred ,however, is that it doesn't result in violent reaction to the group we hate, but reason based reaction. This is as opposed to "ignorant hatred" where the reaction is often violent, invloving some times mass killing. Thus, even if education bring about friction among society, it is bater to be enlightened hater than to be blind hater! The saving grace to all, however, is that in almost all formal education students are thought the foundations and benefits of societal harmony. They are thought, except in rare types of schools, that tolerance and respect for humanity are the best virtue of human race and the most important attribute that differentiate it from other types of animals. This way, thus, education also promotes societal harmoney. The above analysis indicates that education actually promotes societal harmony than any other thing. It promotes reason based, as opposed to blind acceptance, consencus, which is the base for unshakable harmoney. Thus, the view that education is anti-societal harmony is nothing but just a mere phobia.

Nature has been generous in endowing humanity with endless wants while it is parsimonious in endowing us with resources required to meet all of our needs. The result of this mismatch between human needs and resource availability is that competition over scarce resource has been a fact of life for human race. There is disagreement among people as to whether competition is beneficial or not. Some argue that competition installs a sense of greediness in humanity, thus depriving it one of its important attributes of compassion and hence endangering the social fabric of the society. Others on the other argue that competition generally has much more benefits to offer than its problems. I agree with the view that competition is ultimately more beneficial than detrimental to a society. Healthy competition is a source of efficiency. This is particularly vivid in the area of economy- relating to production, delivery of service and the like. In a market where there are large number of firms competing, the urge to get many customers force the firms to reduce the price and /rise the quality of their products and services. This means, however, that consumers or customers are now getting, for the same or less amount of money, more commodity or service (be it in quality or quantity) than they used to get. Thus, competition in the area of business raises the welfare of the general public. Lack of competition in this area, on the other hand, can inflict immense welfare cost on the society and benefit the monopolist, which are generally small in number. Let me give one example form my own country, where telecommunication is under government monopoly; Private sector is not allowed to enter this business as of yet. In this ara of information, one can understand the role of telecommunication sector in providing such invaluable services like phone, internet and the like, thus reducing communication cost and/or making communication quite easier, and hence attracting foreign direct investment and helping business flourish. The fact that it is a monopoly, however, made this sector's contribution almost null in the country. Telephone bill are not only unbearable as compared to neighboring countries of the same standard of development, but who has allowed the private sector to enter the telecom sector, but also it requires an average of two to three years to get new mobile phone! Not only this, the country's telecom service is quite unresponsive to the needs of its customers; it is take-it-or leave-it business in all aspects. Clearly, if there were competition, this sector would have been efficient and responsive to the needs of the society. Competition is not only the source of efficiency, thus contributing to the improvement of the welfare of society, it is also the source of innovation and invention, the two crcuical element on which the fate of future society is to depend with increasing scarcity of resource and nearly explosive population growth. Where there is competition, competing organs, mainly firms in production sector, look for doing entirely new things or doing existing things at less cost so as to raise the level of their profit. This thus, force them to invent new products so as to cater to new demands of the society, or invent new way of production so as to reduce the cost of production, all of which is generally to benefit human race. The final example where competition is beneficial is in the area of politics, or governance. The fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship is that in the first case the political market is competitive while in the later case the market is monopoly, power is in the hand of the dictator or the despot. In democracy, contending parties provide the best policies to the society in their peaceful competition to get elected. If elected as well, parties in power do all the best things in order to get re-elected, all of which is to the benefits of the society. However, in the case of dictatorship, there is no such incentive, for the power is in hi/her hand, thus indicating how lack of competition in the arena of governance can be quite harmful to the society. This, however, does not mean that competition of any type or level is beneficial to any society. Unhealthy competition among the society can give rise to destruction of one another. However, society needs to put in place mechanisms to reduce unhealthy aspect of competition, while promoting and encouraging healthy competition. To conclude my point, competition helps us keep on the ladder of progression, both in technology, governance and other many activities, thus paving the way for higher level of societal development. However life is also all about competition, and a life without healthy competition can be damn dull.