The aim is to apply principles and concepts from a variety of social science disciplines e. Topics include how technology changes relationships, the cumulative advantages and disadvantages associated with technology, digital natives versus digital immigrants, the pace of technological change, changes to the nature of how people learn and think, and the meaning of technology in society.
Those in power should be required to step down…] In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years. 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.
According to me, above policy can have mixed consequences. First of all, the people advocating above policy have one big reason to support it — to make room for new people to join leadership and help in development of the institution. This is an ideology that favors change over stagnancy, irrespective of the results that change might bring.
Surely there is a lot of inexperience, but change can bring freshness in the institution.
On the other hand, if there is a change in authority at a crucial time, it might lead to instability in the system. As the new person comes in with inexperience, he might not be able to handle the pressure very well and end up doing things that prove to be harmful. Whenever a person is in power for some long amount of time, things start to get moulded in a certain way according to him, in the institution.
Be it the way some decisions are processed, or how requests are made, or how the top office handles the issues that effect the institution. In India, say for example, this comes in light very often when there is a leadership change in central government.
There is a shuffling of officers in central level offices as per their compatiblity with the new management. Same goes for political class. Since there is a lot of administrative decisions that are to taken, there is always a chance that people in the top leadership may turn venal.
Since it is the public money that is at stake, change becomes a neccesity to avoid any kind of scams.
This is very much common in contemporary world where we have democracies to rule the country and elections take place once every 5 years.
In educational field, this becomes a neccesity with rapidly changing times. If the top management is not comfortable in changing with the way education is changing nowadays, and is not open to support new ideas, then it is high time risk that is being taken.
This is because the education industry is responsible for moulding young minds. Since kids in recent times remain up to date with the developments taking place outside, If the education remains obsolete, then students might lose interest in it.
It is required for the top level in education department that they should be open to change, and if that is not the case, than there should a change in educational management with time. After discussing all the points, it is safe to apply the policy that there should be a change in change in power in top institutions periodically to maintain sanctity of the institution, and avoid any possibility of venality of the leaders.Breaking News News - get the latest from the Dallas News.
Read it here first. Jan 22, · The House gave final approval to a measure that would fund the federal government for another three weeks, ending a three-day old government shutdown. In Any Field—Business, Politics, Education, Government—Those in Power Should Be Required to Step Down After Five Years.
Practice / example GRE "Issue" essay Uploaded by Nyetochka Response to: "Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. Buy California Government and Politics Today: Calif Gover Polit Today (2_ Read 42 Kindle Store Reviews - tranceformingnlp.com Substantial research now documents the different ways in which the wealthy and the general public view policy issues.
Significant differences between the two groups exist in such areas as tax and budget, trade and globalization, regulation of business, labor, the social safety net, and the overall role of government.