How many of you have scored 6.5+ ?
I'm thinking of doing an interesting textbook for advanced level students.
Drop a➕
I'm thinking of doing an interesting textbook for advanced level students.
Drop a
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Siroj's notes | IELTS 8.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzU_UrhmCEs
I will share a list of good lexicon for this episode tomorrow
Siroj's notes | IELTS 8.0
I will share a list of good lexicon for this episode tomorrow
Google Docs
videos
Joe Rogan & Jordan Peterson #1208 The schedule you have and the amount of enthusiasm and energy you maintain with the schedule is very remarkable Step on the gas = you have your foot on the gas for 2 solid years now. When you have an opportunity that…
Siroj's notes | IELTS 8.0
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f-9iUsWRwL8ENCB_f67aUsncvWeWYKDp2bBUg3PspEc/edit?usp=sharing
In today's rapidly evolving world, the allocation of time and resources within the education system is a subject of ongoing debate. One such discussion revolves around whether students should dedicate time to studying the science of food and its preparation or focus solely on traditional academic subjects. While some advocate for incorporating culinary arts into the curriculum, I believe that dedicating precious school hours to this topic is a misdirection of resources. Rather, such knowledge should be aqcuired at home or incoporated into the current subjects.
Admittedly, the most compelling reason in favor of teaching food science is that it raises greater nutritional awareness. Students can learn to identify harmful ingredients and understand nutritional labels that can rather be complex for most people. This heightened understanding, in turn, helps them make healthier dietary choices. Contrary to this belief, however, I believe that such knowledge can be obtained through short, targeted courses or personal research without sacrificing limited school hours.
On the other hand, I believe there are valid arguments against making food science a mandatory part of the curriculum. Firstly, school hours are limited. Given this limit, core subjects like mathematics, science, and language should be prioritized over a subject that should be acquired though home education. Such subjects lay the foundations for children’s successful future, preparing them for higher education and competitive job markets. Adding more subjects can overwhelm students and dilute focus on those academic subjects.
Additionally, inclusion of culinary arts would put an excessive strain on school resources. This is because practical food science classes require kitchens, ingredients, and specialized teachers, all of which may not be feasible for all schools, especially in underfunded districts, as they lack resources to implement additional subjects effectively. With only theoretical knowledge taught, students would not make best out of this subject, rendering it ineffective in the long run.
In my opinion, culinary arts should not be included into the school curricula and can rather be mixed with other subjects. Traditionally, cooking and basic nutrition are basic skills that are taught by parents and do not require extensive school education. Thus, including such a subject would – as stated above – be not of good use of students’ precious time and school resources. Instead of a dedicated subject, it can be blended into existing subjects like biology or health education to provide children with necessary information to make informed nutritious decisions.
In conclusion, opinions divide on whether including food science subjects into the curricula. While such a subject may seem to equip students with important nutritional knowledge, this argument is not entirely convincing. I believe that such a subject, while important, should not burden the already packed school curriculum and limited resources of schools. Instead, culinary education should be acquired at home or be included into existing subjects.
Admittedly, the most compelling reason in favor of teaching food science is that it raises greater nutritional awareness. Students can learn to identify harmful ingredients and understand nutritional labels that can rather be complex for most people. This heightened understanding, in turn, helps them make healthier dietary choices. Contrary to this belief, however, I believe that such knowledge can be obtained through short, targeted courses or personal research without sacrificing limited school hours.
On the other hand, I believe there are valid arguments against making food science a mandatory part of the curriculum. Firstly, school hours are limited. Given this limit, core subjects like mathematics, science, and language should be prioritized over a subject that should be acquired though home education. Such subjects lay the foundations for children’s successful future, preparing them for higher education and competitive job markets. Adding more subjects can overwhelm students and dilute focus on those academic subjects.
Additionally, inclusion of culinary arts would put an excessive strain on school resources. This is because practical food science classes require kitchens, ingredients, and specialized teachers, all of which may not be feasible for all schools, especially in underfunded districts, as they lack resources to implement additional subjects effectively. With only theoretical knowledge taught, students would not make best out of this subject, rendering it ineffective in the long run.
In my opinion, culinary arts should not be included into the school curricula and can rather be mixed with other subjects. Traditionally, cooking and basic nutrition are basic skills that are taught by parents and do not require extensive school education. Thus, including such a subject would – as stated above – be not of good use of students’ precious time and school resources. Instead of a dedicated subject, it can be blended into existing subjects like biology or health education to provide children with necessary information to make informed nutritious decisions.
In conclusion, opinions divide on whether including food science subjects into the curricula. While such a subject may seem to equip students with important nutritional knowledge, this argument is not entirely convincing. I believe that such a subject, while important, should not burden the already packed school curriculum and limited resources of schools. Instead, culinary education should be acquired at home or be included into existing subjects.
Highmore also documents, however, some less successful steps in the onward march of domestic machinery. Whatever happened to the gas-powered fridges we were promised in 1946? Or to the Dishmaster a decade later that promised to do “a whole day’s washing up in just three minutes”? Rather more clear is the reason why a 1902 Teasmade failed to catch on: “when the alarm clock triggered the switch, a match was struck, lighting a spirit stove under the kettle”. You don’t have to be a health and safety fanatic to conclude that a bedroom isn’t the ideal place for such a gadget. Equally disturbing to the modern reader is the prewar obsession with children getting fresh air. It was a belief so entrenched that even a voice of dissent merely argued that in winter, “The healthy child only needs about three hours a day in the open air, as long as the day and night nursery windows are always open.” Nowadays, the fresh air obsession has been replaced by irrational fears of horrors outside the home. It’s easier to laugh at the foibles of the past, and Highmore doesn’t always resist a sense of modern superiority, though, for the most part, he’s an engaging and quirky guide, dispensing sociological insights without jargon.