[Robin]

The exposure of children at an early age is a matter to be contemplated upon, although it is quite impossible to keep little kids away from computer usage in this IT era, the usage time can be shortened to the minimal optimum. I opine that this is crucial because long hours of computer and other gadget usage at an early age will have an negative impact on them. Let us discuss both the positive and negative impacts.

The excessive computer usage in the early childhood corroborates the inactive and immature social life and activities of some children in their later years. In particular, the early childhood is especially important in character formation of the children, spending too much time around gadgets deprive them of the opportunities to interact with the family, friends and nature. Children grow less concerned about the world around them, they rather languish in the virtual reality provided by the computer and gadgets, even though they become adept at the technological sphere, they lose out on the much important learning to be gained from interactions with people, their own experiences and interactions with nature.

The advent of digital age underscores the fact that being adept in computers and related technologies is obviously a necessity to excel in career, as a consequence of which learning to use computers and gadgets at a young age is undoubtedly important. The knowledge in computers opens a vast array of opportunities to learn and also to earn from it, due to which gaining it in early age is advantageous.

To summarize, getting children educated in computers definitely has its own perks, on the other hand excessive exposure of children at an early age to computers is brings more harm than good, thus the computer usage of children at an early age should be restricted to the optimal minimum required for them.

[Robin]

There are certain natural qualities that make women better at childcare than men, but in the modern society where most of the women are educated and are working partners, it becomes a topic of hot debate whether the stereotype of women concentrating more on raising children and men earning for the family should be done away with. I have an opinion that women should take the primary child raising role because of their innate abilities, however the roles could be switched too, based on the situation.

An innate quality that make women better at raising children is their emotional connect with the children and their ability to show love, compassion, empathy and patience. The hormonal characteristics of women make them good at this, while the men show such virtues in lesser scale, they are often hard mannered and doesn’t show much empathy and have much patience. Children in their adolescent years needs to be raised with these virtues, otherwise their character formation may be affected, hence it is evident that many motherless single parent children often grow up to become rude or can have some behavioral issues. Though some men can have this virtues too, or can learn this, but by nature they doesn’t match women on this.

The modern society of today where women are equally empowered as men, or are catching up swiftly, the jobs and sectors which were previously men only are being handled by women successfully, this calls for a paradigm shift in the erstwhile women only sector too, ie. child raising. Men should share more responsibilities in this area, men can help out the in things like playing, giving food, studies, rhymes, storytelling lullabies etc. It is for the family to decide what is better for them considering the job nature and availability of the partners among others.

Overall, it can concluded that even though women are better at raising children when compared to men owing to their natural abilities, the men should show more participation in this considering the job nature and other family situation.

[Robin]

As the world we live today has literally turned into a global village of sorts, at some stage in life we may have to learn a foreign language. There are numerous ways to learn a foreign language, let us discuss the pros and cons of three methods which I find the most effective.

The first and a more direct way is to go live in the country where a foreign language is spoken. By doing this one gets a chance to listen, speak, read and write to the native speakers of the language. This enables one to pickup the language without even learning it consciously. The day by day interactions with native speakers along with our daily chores helps to get the language registered in our sub conscious mind with its grammar and usage patterns. However, there are some let downs too. It may not be always possible to go live in a country when we desire unless we are there for some other purpose and can simultaneously learn the language too. Another downside is that one may develop a local dialect or slang of the area where they choose to live.

The next method would be to hire a private tutor to teach the language. A private tutor can give dedicated attention for the pupil and can easily find the strengths and weakness areas and can change the curriculum accordingly. When compared to a classroom approach, a private tutor is more accessible and attentive and also is a solution for the hesitation of some students to clear the doubts which they might think silly, while in front of whole class. Thus private tuition helps achieve the grasp of the language by getting even the fundamental and basic level to advanced level problems and doubts with the language cleared. But the catch here is that the tutor needs to have enough expertise and right attitude to teach the language effectively. The fees may also be on a higher side than classroom or online training.

Taking lessons as part of a class is effective too. Here the main advantage is that apart from attaining results through the teacher, the learner gets the opportunity to interact with other students too. As the other students also have the same goal of learning the foreign language, these interactions can turn fruitful. A classroom training is also very easy to find nearby. One downside of this approach is that if the number of students in the class is large, the teacher may find it difficult to give attention to each student. Thus some students may not get a chance to identify their weak areas and make improvements.

Overall, there are many ways to learn a new language. Even though living in the country where the language is actually spoken is the best way, it is also least probable one to make happen. Other methods are equally good, the advent of internet also has opened up many innovative possibilities.

[Robin]

Nowadays the children are showing more interest towards the computer games than outdoor activities. In my opinion this is a rather dangerous trend developing. Outdoor activities are always more beneficial for children’s development than playing computer games. Let us discuss why computer games are such a bad alternative to outdoor activities.

As we are becoming dependent on technology since the advent of computers, our recreational activities are also becoming dependent on computers. Children especially is more inclined towards social media rather than actual socializing and computer games than actual physical games. The major part of brain development in humans happen in childhood itself. Childhood is the time when our cognitive, social and emotional skills gets developed, hence it is essential for children of to have interaction with outside world and participate in group recreational activities like arts and sports at this age.

Computer games can never be a substitute for actual outdoor activities. Outdoor activities provide a conducive environment for maintaining good health whereas computer games impact health in an adverse way since it restricts movement and keeps the children glued to their screens. This leads to eye problems, stress, digestion issues, fat accumulation and retarded muscle growth. Since children are more interested in games, they become complacent towards their health. Children becomes addicted to computer games and ignore their studies and lessen the interaction with friends and family. Computer games may be responsible for children’s abysmal performance in school.

In addition to the health problems it creates for children, excessive computer gaming also changes their perception of real world. As children’s minds are malleable, the violent games and the attitude of winning by any means, makes their behavior unsympathetic and non-adjustable to society. The ferocity of the modern games can negatively impact the moral development of a child. Their conscience gets developed in such a way that fighting or killing is viewed as normal and all they care is to defeat the opponent by any means. Furthermore they also find it hard to digest failures and setbacks. It is high time to impose strict censorship and restrictions on computer games for children.

It can be noted that parents, among them working parents in particular, often condone the activities of their children. Since children are more susceptible to certain illnesses than adults are, their physical activities and interaction with outside world are essential for the development of resistance power in their bodies. People getting premature heart diseases and premature diabetes in their young age itself is a common sight today. Turning a blind eye towards this issue will impact our society as a whole.

In conclusion, it is evident that substituting outdoor activities for computer games impacts the mental and physical health of children in a negative way and affects the whole society directly and indirectly. Hence, it is very essential to foster the habit of participating in outdoor activities among the children.

[Robin]

Overpopulation is a serious environmental problem impacting the whole world. Even though overpopulation is a serious issue which demands immediate attention, industrial pollution and indiscriminate fossil fuel usage makes more serious damage to environment.

When the population increases the needs for resources also increases and these resources are consumed from the environment. For example growing population needs more living space, food, drinking water and building materials which can cause a strain on environment. Furthermore overpopulation also results in more wastage and more pollution which degrades the environment. Yet the current picture of our world depicts a different story: the rapidly expanding populations of Africa and Asia do not cause much environmental damage as the industrialized economies like USA and China does. In the advanced economies, the per-capitia consumption of fossil fuels and release of industrial pollutants are also on a higher scale. Thus industrialization and indiscriminate usage of fossil fuels pose a more serious threat to environment.

The governments across the world doesn’t seem to bother much about the seriousness of this issue other than paying lip service. Instead of pragmatic actions some governments resort to radical and shortsighted actions like what China did through “One Child Policy”. Overpopulation should be dealt with spreading awareness among the citizen and educating the masses about its aftereffects. The governments should also turn their immediate attention towards greater ecological threats like industrial pollution, deforestation etc.

In brief, the overpopulation issue along with industrial pollution, deforestation and usage of fossil fuels has to be dealt with quickly without which saving our environment may become a mere delusion.

[Robin]

It seems to be a good strategy for businesses to hire employees who spends their entire lives in the same organisation. Some organisations prefer to have such a recruitment policy considering cost benefit, risk aversement and adaptability issues, but I am of the view that this approach does more harm than good both for the organisation and the employees alike.

The proponents of the policy of hiring employees for lifetime claims several benefits to this approach like the adaptability to the organisation, lower training cost, already known behaviour etc. Let me shed some light into each of these aspects and how could they go wrong.

The training cost would be reduced by hiring employees for lifetime in a scenario where the processes, systems and roles does not change much during their entire career. Apparently it doesn’t seem to be the case in this fast changing world. Most types of jobs are changing character, some jobs are getting entirely phased out while other new types of jobs are getting introduced. Employees who has experience working in other organisations may have already worked with a new technology and often functions as a subject matter expert when the current organisation implements that technology. While implementing a new technology, training the permanent employees in house cannot match the effectiveness of hiring someone who has working experience in the area.

There are also cases where the employees would get reluctant for changes, while the culture of switching jobs where the employees could learn and work on new things makes them more flexible and open to change. Yet it is not advisable to switch jobs frequently because it takes some time to get adapted to the organisation. The employees hired for lifetime scores high in this criteria: they would have already got accustomed with the organisational culture and practices.

While viewing from the employee perspective, many of them find it easy to stay in the same organisation for entire career because they wish to avoid the risk of leaving their comfort zones and stepping into unknown path. Some may have family obligations and proximity in location which compels them to stay in the company for lifetime. Yet if a situation arises that they have to switch jobs, it becomes a painful affair.

There are many more aspects to the question of hiring for lifetime versus hiring for specific project requirement. Even though both approaches have its own pros and cons, I do not find the approach of hiring employees to work for entire lifetime advisable.