学位英语作文范文

杨春老师的四篇写作9分（满分）范文

Money and success

The notion of success holds different meanings for different people and groups. Such meanings have changed and evolved over time. Actually, many propose that possessing an abundance of money implies success. However, this view is rendered obsolete in the minds of those individuals who hold that one's success cannot be measured strictly by money.

Material possession has been traditionally accepted as the measurement of one's success or social status. When we initially refer to someone, we routinely mention how much money he owns and thereby believe this individual to be quite successful if he is wealthy. In addition to this perpetuated concept, owning a lot of money is typically related to one's work ability and thus some people may simply consider money as a prime measurement of one's success.

However, this view has changed recently since many people have come to recognize that money in many cases cannot bring about happiness, health and success. A more precise, contemporaneous definition of success means doing the things one perceives are valuable to themselves and beneficial for others. The winner of the Nobel Prize for peace may think he is has achieved success although he is rewarded little financial benefit. A person who loves animals and makes an effort to save animals that are on a path of extinction may think he has gained success although he may have expended all of his money on his career.

Another individual may define success as being able to make artistic masterpieces that can be accepted by public. As a composer, success is having his work praised by adoring fans and who help cause the work to be bought the world over. Similarly, holding an exhibition in a famous art gallery may connote success for a painter.

People adhere to various concepts defining success. Money surely cannot be the only measurement of success. Acquiring true happiness in life and attaining success means having the freedom and capability of doing that which you enjoy and believing it to be valuable.

Computers - will they replace teachers?

With the present wide use of computers, in the course of teaching, more and more teachers are in favour of using computers as an aid in teaching their students or in appropriating the latest information from the Internet. However, I am not a believer in the argument that computers may in the future take the place of teachers in teaching students.

Firstly, the creators of any education program and software need to be teachers or workers in the education system, or programmers who had previously worked in education. Therefore, although students may learn knowledge by computer, the skills and ideas ultimately emanate from the teaching staff.

Secondly, while the computer may offer a correct answer or explanation to

students, the comprehension capability of every student varies from student to student, making it is impossible for the computer to offer an explanation catered to a student’s particular level of understanding. However, the teacher is able to undertake this task, as he or she possesses expertise in teaching. For example, when a teacher discovers that many students cannot understand professional knowledge, he or she may offer explanatory examples. The computer, however, may only analyze a question in terms of a simple right or wrong response.

Finally, the teachers are invariably responsible for carrying a dual role. Most teachers act as not only an educator, but also a kind of father or mother-figure in taking care of students in school. The teacher is able to assist parents in solving a child’s mental problems other than imparting daily knowledge. The computer, which is purely an algorithmic electronic device, cannot hope to assist in this regard. In summary, the computer may not play a major role in education in comparison to the benefits of a teacher bestows. However, it is critical that teachers improve their old teaching modes by using computers at some level of educational teaching.

Nature or Nurture?

While many individuals complain that they are not sufficiently clever to succeed in life, I firmly believe that personality and development are decided more by education and training after birth than any given gene.

To begin with, environment is a determining factor of one's personality. One

may think that personality is already shaped once a baby is born, but in fact there are many contributing factors. The baby, for instance, would most likely be pessimistic if he or she lived in a poor family, where the baby always received punishment from his parents. His view of life would be very different from another individual who lived happily in a perfect nurturing family with encouragement and psychological support from his parents.

Further, education after birth plays a significantly role in one's development. Education, which helps children develop their thinking and accumulate their knowledge, is a deciding factor of one's success. For example, a high-school level person commonly may not to the extent of a person who has received an university education. This is not only because of the greater breadth of knowledge acquired, but also due to a more critical and focused way of thinking that is imparted and refined during ones senior education. A wolf child, to offer another instance, due to a deficiency of education by contact with human beings, could hardly live in our society or self-develop.

Admittedly, nature, decided by the genes given by one's parents, also affects one's personality and development. One can clearly find differences among younger kids in their learning ability, which could prove the importance of genes in this regard. However, when compared with other factors after birth, the role genes play in one's personality and development may not be particularly significant. Not all genius will inevitably be successful, and similarly not all great men are genius in their childhood. Therefore, I hold that environment and education after birth weigh heavier than nature in regard to one's personality and development.

Compete or cooperate?

Both competition and cooperation play a large role in the advancement of society, both in business and non-business areas. Competition forces people to improve their products or services, and hence benefits the recipients of these products or services. Cooperation, however, plays an even more important role in development of individuals and the society as a whole, because it drastically increases the scale of these improvements. Working in groups and teams far increases the productivity of individuals. Thus, I firmly believe children should be taught to cooperate rather than to compete.

First of all, cooperation is an important skill in the future life of all children. They will need to live with other people throughout their life, since they will not study alone, work alone, nor spend their leisure time alone. If they do not know how to cooperate with their classmates, their colleagues, and other family members, then they will lose the chance to live happily. Thus, cooperation skills should be taught before they grow up to face serious problems living with others.

Furthermore, cooperation is a significant contributing factor to the development of society. While competition generally ends in a win-lose result, cooperation advocates that one plus one is larger than two, three or even a larger number. For example, the competition of two business firms would ultimately lead to the result that one becomes stronger and the other fails and goes out of business. However, if they cooperate with each other successfully, they may group together to form an enterprise larger than the mere sum of the two. The more

successful cooperation there is, the better the society develops. Thus, cooperation should be taught to children, because eventually they will be the executives of important corporations.

Admittedly, competition also plays a significant role in many areas. Stressed by the competition, individuals and organizations have to struggle to survive, and so they are forced to make improvements and develop.

However, in comparison, cooperation is more effective in helping individuals and societies to develop, because it benefits not only individuals, but also society as a whole. The reality is that children should be taught both, but if forced to choose only one, parents should undoubtedly teach their kids to cooperate rather than to compete