Topic 64 Self-employed vs. Employed

Although the idea of owning a business is an exciting and admirable one, it is not always a realistic option (реальный вариант), especially for a new graduate like me. On the contrary, I would like to work for someone else after my graduation. The reasons for my view go as follows.

The most obvious reason is that I can learn plenty of practical business and administrative knowledge as an employee. If I were given the opportunity to work at an outstanding company such as Mckinsey & Company or IBM, I certainly would absorb its first hand management skills accumulated for years. I would also benefit greatly from its various valuable training programs. With the help like that I can avoid many unnecessary trials and failures that may be involved in my own business path.

Another positive aspect of working for someone else lies in the development of my broader social contact network. As I just step into adult society, I am still timid (робок) and lack of communication skills. Working for others will offer me opportunities to get access to all kinds of clients, customers, and employers. Undoubtedly, adequate exposure to them (адекватный контакт с ними) will teach me how to communicate with one another, how to deal with socializing problems, and how to establish my own personal social network.

Moreover, working for an employer, to some extent, can build up nice personalities that are essential for my future career. As we all understand, management knowledge itself does not lead to success without a combination of broad social network and nice personality. Working with colleague helps me to cultivate nice (задатки) dispositions-cooperative, responsible, caring for others, outgoing (общительный), etc.

All in all, working for an employer suits my situation perfectly. Therefore, from what has been discussed above, I would rather choose to be an employee and prepare myself in all fields, if possible, for my future self-employed.

Topic 65 Should a city preserve or destroy its historic buildings?

The issue here is whether old, historic buildings in a city should be preserved or

replaced by modern buildings. In my opinion, buildings of historical value

should definitely be protected rather than destroyed. I base my point of view on

following reasons.

Firstly, each historical building is precious property of human being. Like an

antic, the value of an old building cannot be measured by money. We will lose

those valuable historical buildings permanently if we don't preserve them. Once

a historical building is destroyed, we can never restore it; even if it is restored

to its original look, the new building is only a fake replica; the historical value

will never come back to us.

Secondly, a historic building always represents history and has educational

functions. Each one of them can tell us a story. For example, some buildings

are evidences of foreign invasion, others are signs of various religions existed

in past decades. People nowadays can always obtain historic or cultural

information through visiting these old buildings and sites. Although we can

learn the past from books, pictures and by visiting museums, nothing can

compare with the actual historical buildings themselves, which can bring vivid

educational material to us.

Thirdly, historical buildings are a symbol of a city and a valuable tourist

resource; therefore a city cannot go without historical buildings. Beijing is

represented by the Forbidden City, the Summer Palace, which are all historical

relics. It is hard to imagine that someday the City of Beijing decides that all

these buildings should be destroyed and modern buildings be built on their sites.

Because those historical relics and buildings are too important to the city and

can generate profound tourist income. A city will benefit more by protecting its

historic buildings than by replacing them with modern buildings.

For all reasons given above, I will strongly suggest a city municipal should

preserve the old, historic buildings.