Search the Community

Question: Some people like to do only what they already do well. Other people prefer to try new things and take risks. Which do you prefer? Use specific reasons and examples to support your choice. People, in general, have different perspectives toward the way they can live their lives, in other words, your lifestyle. Some people think that they will live for once, and for that reason, they decided to choose an adventurous lifestyle. Other people prefer to live ordinarily without taking any risk. Given the choice between the two lifestyles, I would always prefer to live in an adventurous lifestyle. while there are many reasons, I will discuss mt top two in the following essay. Firstly, we only live our life for once, and throughout this journey, we must experience a different type of feelings that come with the new adventures, and these experiences every time will add something new to your personality such as break the fear from something that usually scared you all over your life. Take this or example, when you have the fear of public speaking in front of a huge audience, and to break this fear you decided to participate in an important university speech, to that you will need to learn, search, and practice to achieve this challenge. In other words, trying new things gives you the courage to do it, and helped you to add new skills to your personality. On the other hand, living in an ordinary lifestyle will not add any new experiences in your life, which means the same personality, the same fears, and of course the same skills. Moreover, we live in our present-days in fastly changing world which requires us to change and learn more and more to cope with this development. In addition to that, did you imaging as you get old, what will you remember from your youth? I can tell you, nothing, except the usual things that you get used to doing it day by day. What I mean by this, don't allow yourself to regret your youth, just because you wanted to do what you learned to do. In conclusion, I strongly prefer to live my life on the edge, in an adventurous way rather than regretting my self later.

Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. People Should use technology on their necessity, not to submerge in it to spoil themselves. Thousands of years ago when human first discovered the use of fire that was the first incident of using technology. That invention made them stronger against wild beast, also human used it for cooking. That was the first evidence of using technology to make life easy, but now Technogym is more complicated and creating convoluted lifestyle. For example, the mobile phone was invented with the purpose to have a conversation even on the go. But now people are not using the phone only for talking, but also for gaming, social media, watching videos etc. which make them addicted to it. That makes life complicated instead of easier. Another thing is that people are becoming lazy because of technology. They are now can order food, shopping or buying something from online which inhibit them to go outside. After the discovery of internet Americans become more obese than before. People are now failing to burn minimum calorie they need to fit themselves. The primary purpose of social media was to make people closer to each other even if they can't meet them in real life. Instead of that, people are becoming more isolated and become depressive. There should be no doubt that technology makes life easier, but people should understand that purpose of that technology and should refrain it, from the abuse of that technology. There was a story that a magician taught his son how to drive a broomstick for cleaning home. His son learned spell command incantation, but didn't know how to stop the broomstick. Technology doing, the same thing to humans. Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. People Should use technology on their necessity, not to submerge in it to spoil themselves. Thousands of years ago when human first discovered the use of fire that was the first incident of using technology. That invention made them stronger against wild beast, also human used it for cooking. That was the first evidence of using technology to make life easy, but now Technogym is more complicated and creating convoluted lifestyle. For example, the mobile phone was invented with the purpose to have a conversation even on the go. But now people are not using the phone only for talking, but also for gaming, social media, watching videos etc. which make them addicted to it. That makes life complicated instead of easier. Another thing is that people are becoming lazy because of technology. They are now can order food, shopping or buying something from online which inhibit them to go outside. After the discovery of internet Americans become more obese than before. People are now failing to burn minimum calorie they need to fit themselves. The primary purpose of social media was to make people closer to each other even if they can't meet them in real life. Instead of that, people are becoming more isolated and become depressive. There should be no doubt that technology makes life easier, but people should understand that purpose of that technology and should refrain it, from the abuse of that technology. There was a story that a magician taught his son how to drive a broomstick for cleaning home. His son learned spell command incantation, but didn't know how to stop the broomstick. Technology doing, the same thing to humans.

Is it a very formal event?

I need to purge this anxiety and no one in my life can relate to the econ admission process.

Hi, folks, I am Lisa. an English enthusiast and a high schoolers. I often browse the internet to be wiser in subjects of school and life simultaneously. I am an avid reader and follow many spoken word poets.

Hi, I'm new here. I am a student from mainland China, majoring in international trade. I'll start my graduate life in a month, and I plan to further my study as a Econ Phd in U.S. Thank you for having me.

Question : Some young adults want independence from their parents as soon as possible.Other young adults prefer to live with their families for a longer time. Which of these situations do you think better? Answer : Humans are social beings who cannot live alone and family members are the one who supports people no matter what happens with anyone’s life. Personally, I believe that living with families for a long time has unmatched advantages which can give a head start to achieve ultimate success in life. I feel this way for two main reasons, which I will explore in the following essay. First of all, family members can give you emotional and mental support which you wouldn't find from anyone in your life. Human life is fraught with dangers and everyone has their ups and downs in life. My own experience is a compelling example of this. When i broke up with my girlfriend in my early twenties, I quickly fell into depression. I used to cry a lot, always thinking about suicide and gloomy thoughts. In sum, my emotional and mental state was self-destructing and detrimental for achieving any kinds of success in life. But nothing bad happened and I overcame fear and depression because my family was always there for me. They gave me emotional and mental support which I was in badly need of. Secondly, Living with family has a sweet perk of gaining financial support when needed. Specially, when people are in their young adults phase, taking big projects in hand or investing money in businesses is not uncommon. However, I business taking a loss for some time is not abnormal, in fact, it happens all the time. In this case, People who live with their family can borrow some money from the parents or other family members to keep their business going. For example, my big brother invested a fair sum of money in stock exchange in his twenties. Unfortunately, he had made some bad calls and lost a big chunk of that money. he immediately moved in to live with my parents to lessen some of his living costs and, also borrow some money from my dad to make up for the loss. In conclusion, I strongly believe that living with families for a longer time garner many unparalleled advantages compared to living alone. One reason for my argument is, It can decrease your living costs greatly and will grant you financial support. Another appealing reason is living with families actually prevent people to breakdown from emotional distress as there is always family members with them to support.

Hello everyone. Please help me review my GRE issue, candid feedbacks are appreciated. Thanks. Topic: People's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. My response: A soldier may not disobey orders, but he can choose to avoid hurting innocents. Although external forces have an unquestionable power over our behaviors, we have the ability to decide what should be done in a particular situation, and such ability finally decide who we really are. The statement of the issue did emphasize the effect which environments have on us, however, it neglected the decisive role of individuals' subjective initiative. Therefore, I consider it to be biased. Undoubtedly, people's behavior patterns and believes are strongly influenced by the environment they live in. The common sense of the era shapes their worldviews; the education forms their knowledge base. The Middle Ages in Europe is a great case in point. When Christianity was a dominant religion across Europe, the power of the church was so great that from birth to death, people of this era lived under strict religious disciplines. They built great churches from Oxford, Paris to Rome. They developed sophisticated philosophies and arts in a style of Christianity. At extreme people even burned "witches" alive and start religious wars. The history shows us how irresistible environments can be as to affect people's minds and behaviors, whereas such effects are mostly done in an unconscious way. However, people's own personalities determine how they perform in certain situations. And sometimes the choices people made in the same situation can show a significant difference between good and evil. A decent example is the Schindler's list film. Based on a true story, the film follows a German businessman who saved thousands of Jewish refugees by employing them in his own factory under the eyes of German soldiers during World War II. As a man seeking fortune, Schindler could have several choices. He could either run the business "legally" under the protection of the army and keep his eyes closed, or he could give up and leave the battlefront safely. However, he took up the riskiest option and made a great sacrifice to save the innocents. His behavior was not determined by outer forces, on the contrary, it was his inner conscience that motivates him to stand against external forces. As individuals, we have the discretions of making choices. We take consequences of our choices, and our choices determine what we are. Additionally, when it comes to a person's way of life, his inner disposition plays a more predominant role. We may face similar difficulties during the lifetime, however, how we overcome these difficulties determines the path of our life. For instance, In the English language there're two words referring to the same situation: loneliness and solitude. "loneliness" is the pain of being alone, and "solitude" is the pleasure of being alone. "Loneliness" is the poverty of the spirit, and "solitude" is the richness of the spirit. Most people have to endure some periods without companionship in their life, either because of departures of family members or breakups with lovers. However, how we deal with this situation is decided by ourselves. To immerse into the pain and emptiness of being alone or turn it into the best opportunity one could have to discover new possibilities? It's all of our own making. We cannot resist the influences that external forces have on us, but we're fully free to decide how we react on these influences. This very freedom is the reason we should be responsible for our choices, and it's what makes history interesting, humanity unpredictable, and life worth living.

Hi, I work with doctoral students at one of the top 5 management schools. They seem pretty unhappy and stressed. The professors demand a lot from them, which I know makes their training top notch, but has taken a toll on them (for example, they get sick often). I worry about burn out for them. I am considering applying to management/OB programs next year (micro focus), but am worried about quality of life issues. Do lower ranked schools (like top 25 or top 50) maybe have better quality of life than the top 5, for example? Or do rankings not contribute to this issue? Is there anyway to tell, other than in interviews? Thanks.

Prompt: Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated. Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position. My essay: In the dawn of science, the researchers brought new technology to fight our day to day problem and to make our lives simple. It's technology that made our life simple and gave us the chance and time to debate out its' complication brought into our lives. Technology gave us more chance to flourish. Technology, like e-mail and other means of communication increased our productivity, whereas we had to wait a lot of time in correspondence through mail service. Our daily commute system made the distance irrelevant. We can travel the world in a day. We can do our job by commuting in rails and cars, made our lives easy. Technology gave us the chance to increase the productivity of mills and factories. We're producing more in less time. The farming system is now revolutionized, decreasing the chance of famine and death from hunger. Induction of electricity, made our life easy and simple. Technology increased the quality of life. Technology brought us better treatment and medicine to fight disease. The invention of vaccine, decreased human death. We eradicated lethal diseases like small pox and polio. The invention of anti-biotics made us immune to infections. We're treating cancer and in a quest of finding cure for AIDS. But we already can delay the death of a AIDS patient. The life expectancy has increased. Child and mother death during child birth has decreased. Technology and science solved lots of problem we used to face. But, they also brought new consequences. Like anti-biotics resistances, global warming and wastage of forest land. Use of more sugar and less physical exercise brought obesity and diabetes. Our research in science may bring new solutions and solve the problems we're facing now due to technology. Technology is a boon. Like any other tools it's human who can decide it to use for good and bad. Human research and introduction of technology made our life easy and simple, with better life expectancy.

Hello! I've recently started a PhD program in Applied Economics at a mid ranked public school. Since graduating in 13' with a bachelors in Econ I took Cal 1-3, Linear, and some Stats. Never did I think graduate school would be so difficult! I'm interested hearing whether or not this is typical for other graduate students too? A bit more details: The program has the first semester split into two sections- 1st 8 weeks Math for Econ & Intro Econometrics, 2nd 8 weeks Intro Macro/Micro theory. Spring semester returns to normal 16 week structure covering more Econometrics and Micro Theory. My performance in Math for Econ was less than steller (first taste of test anxiety), Intro to Econometrics was difficult but I believe I was slightly above the mean. I just took my Micro Theory midterm and I believe I will have a good marks. Overall I would say I'm not drowning but I'm definitely not swimming. I believe the difficulty is due to the pace of the program. Does the pace typically get easier or does one adapt? I'm the only nonresident in the cohort (4 state residents and 10 internationals), the entire program has about 40 students (mostly all that remain are internationals), I've only met maybe 3 students from older cohorts. I would like to make life easier on myself and study with other students but most of them seem to keep to themselves or with 1-2 close friends, any advice? I find myself putting in around 14 hours a day on campus (3 hours of class 4 days a week, remainder studying). It seems really crazy but I still really want to be here but I can't imagine how I can keep this up for another 5+ years. Suggestions, tips, experiences, etc welcome.

Hello everyone, What makes an ideal PhD student, aside from rigorous coursework, deep interest in research and a subject, and curiosity? Thank you for your advice!

:question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Playing games teaches us about life. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. :idea: Some people state that playing games can teach us about life. I agree with that statement as long as what is meant by games here refers specifically to educational games and not simply to any kinds of games. As their name implies, educational games are those specifically designed to educate, train, and instill good attitudes and behavior in people who play them. By playing such games, the players are expected to learn lessons which gradually lead them to self-improvement and better attitudes towards life. In my opinion, soccer can serve as an example of a good educational game. It has important characteristics which can teach its players good attitudes towards life such as follows. First, soccer teaches mutual respect. Soccer involves 22 players. If each player doesn’t respect the other players and plays just as he likes it, the game won’t go as expected. Similarly in real life, people should respect each other because without mutual respect, society can be plunged into chaos or anarchy. Second, soccer helps develop team building and good coordination. Soccer involves 2 teams, with each team consisting of 11 players. In order to win, each team has to be cohesive and to apply good coordination and discipline to its members. Each member has to learn what role he plays, how to play it, and what he should or shouldn’t do. A member’s failure to perform well will affect the overall performance of his team. Similarly in real life, each member of society should impose discipline on himself/herself, build good coordination with other members of his/her society, and perform his/her duties well, in order to contribute to the good of his/her society. Third, soccer instills patience and carefulness. Sayings like “haste makes waste” and “think well before doing” apply to soccer. In playing soccer, a player should control and behave himself so as not to take any thoughtless move or action which can result in his team’s bad performance or image. Similarly in real life, everyone has to be patient, careful, and thoughtful, so as not to incur regret or bring shame on himself/herself or his/her society. Fourth, soccer promotes sportsmanship. Every player has to play fairly and in good faith. He has to obey the rules and can’t simply do anything to win. A “good loser” (i.e. one who loses fairly and respectably) should be respected, while a “bad winner” (i.e. one who wins unfairly or by cheating) should be mocked at. Similarly in real life, everyone has to act in accordance with the law and can’t go just as he/she likes it. In conclusion, soccer teaches its players good attitudes towards life, such as those mentioned above. By playing soccer frequently and fairly, the player is expected to realize and internalize its positive characteristics and then apply them to his real life, in order to contribute to his society.