Writing for Academic Discussion Agriculture or Business? - rewrite -

Writing Topic: Which type of research center do you think would be more beneficial for your country, agricultural research center or business research center, and why? (public policy)

 

 

☆Let’s Think

1.       How is the present situation of business in Japan? How would a business research center benefit the country? What about an agricultural research center?

2.       In which area does Japan need to research more? Why?

 

 

☆Ideas and Expressions

Agriculture

1.     Japan needs to raise its self-sufficiency, which is said to be 40% but actually 10% according to a professor of Tokyo University, who points out our 100% dependency on China for fertilizers.

 

2.     The self-sufficiency of rice, our staple food, is 100%, but most of the feed grains for meat production such as wheat and corn are imported. Therefore, research on more self-sufficient protein production is necessary.

 

3.     Mechanization, or automation, should also be pursued by upgrading technology to cope with the shrinking and aging agricultural population. The decreasing number of farmhouses should be supported by technological development such as drones designed for pesticide application, robots for picking fruits, and the plant factory, which can produce edible plants without soil all through the year. We can not only sell their produce but also export the technology.

 

4.     It is necessary to find local crops that have enough demands in the global market and make them export crops. Research and development on Japanese crops and potential markets for them should be put forth. At the same time, it is important to get international patents for these crops, as some hybrid products such as a strawberry (Amao) and a grape (Shinemuscat) have been taken out of our country and copied in other countries over the past ten years. Farmers spent a long time, many resources, and much passion on the development of those new species. Claiming patents for them is legitimate and imperative.

 

5.     Humans have not eliminated deaths from starvation in poor countries. Also, population increase, global warming, pollution, and wars can cause more food crises in the near future. Developed countries are required to make more contribution to research on food security such as irrigation, plants more resistant to climate change, and genetically modified crops. Japan can live up to this expectation by continuing to offer our high-level agricultural techniques and technologies.

 

6.     It is true that the problem of low self-sufficiency is the problem of politics and business because the government is prioritizing business over agriculture to cause declining agricultural population. However, approaches to improve the situation by those who are directly involved in farming would be effective and innovative.

 

Business

1.     Japanese economy has been stagnant for decades. Especially, over the last eight years, has slipped from the second to the fifth in the world by GDP.

 

2.     Learning from neighboring countries that have been rapidly growing in business should be prioritized.

 

3.     Market research on specific demands of each country, for instance, will help diversify our exports and stabilize export earnings.

 

4.     Plans for rapid and less painful shift to a sustainable economy are necessary. Public awareness on the environmental issues is high. For instance, 70% of US citizens support green energy. Also, developed countries are expected to shift to a sustainable economy, or environmentally friendly economy. We need to do more research on related areas such as eco-friendly technology businesses.

 

5.     Ideas for more natural and humane economic activities, which ordinary people as well as conscientious intellectuals have conceived probably since the onset of industrialization, should be crystallized.

 

6.     The level of our agricultural research is very high. People from all over the world come to Japan to learn our agriculture and we send experts to countries suffering from food shortage to help develop their farming.

 

 

☆Sample Answer for Ideas and Expressions

Sample A

【Thesis】I would like a new agricultural research center to be built by a university.

【Supporting Details】Japanese agriculture is at a crisis point. It is reported that Japan is most vulnerable in a world food crisis due to its low self-sufficiency. It is estimated that 60 % of the population will starve to death if one happens. The age-old problems of Japanese agriculture are very little farmland primarily caused by failure of politics: aging, weakening functions of farming societies caused by industrialization especially after WWII, and rapidly decreasing numbers of farmers and farmhouses caused by economic policies that did not protect farmers in deflation and globalization. In addition, traditional sustainable agriculture has been destroyed by the introduction of factory style farming, or single crop farming. This trend will accelerate because restrictions on agribusiness have been lifted and free trade agreements have slashed tariffs on agricultural imports.

【Counterargument-treatment】As a country depending on trade, priority on business has been high. In the globalized world, however, it is difficult for Japan to stay competitive because it has little resources, including human resources, and is prone to natural disasters. Rather than dwelling on our past glory, we must face the reality and start seeking ways to at least provide enough food without depending on trades.

【Conclusion】Thus, more agricultural research would be the better choice.

 (216 words)

 

 

Sample B

【Thesis】A business research center would be more beneficial for the economy of my country, Japan.

【Supporting Details】Japan was the second biggest economy in the world for a long time, but now it’s the fifth. Many countries outshine us. In the 1980’s, Japanese companies ranked in the best. People around the world bought our products such as a Toyota car and a Sony music player. We were leading in the semiconductor industry. Neither holds true now. The root cause is the government which has acted against the basic economic theory over the past 35 years; it has reserved redistribution by cutting welfare programs and public services and raising taxes in recession. Now, inequality has risen. Health and social problems have increased. Ignorance has spread so much that nationalism and fascism have risen. Political reform is the urgent issue. At the same time, research center for scientific analysis of our business is needed to detect what has contributed to this rapid downturn of our economy, properties of our business culture that have made us lost in the global competition. 

【Reservation】Research on agriculture is also necessary, but I think business and industry should be prioritized because agricultural improvement works together with technological development, which in turn will develop agriculture.

【Conclusion】Therefore, business research is the pressing matter in the case of my country.

(198 words)

 

 

Write your response in 10 minutes. Show each other your responses. Write down questions or suggestions to each other’s response.

 

 

                                                   DRAFT

 

 

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

Writing for Academic Discussion Universities in 50 years

What are your thoughts on how universities will evolve over the next 50 years?  (education)

 

 

☆Let’s Think

Look at the following points related to recent changes in schools. They can be the hints to see universities in 50 years.

Researches: interdisciplinary researches or collaborated researches across disciplines, researches related to the challenges the humankind face, researches to make the world better

Curriculum: four-year degrees not as a means but as the end or goal, vocational training, internships or on-the-job training, complaints from students that the courses are unrelated to their future jobs

Financial factors for students: high tuitions and student loans, limited scholarships, educational disparity

Schooling: home schooling, online schooling, self-directed learning, international school

Systems: authoritarianism, lack of diversity, gender gap

 

 

☆Hints for Points

1.        Campus will be more democratic, tolerant, and inclusive than now. Patriarchy, misogyny, and authoritarianism will be gone. Diversity will be the norm. Half the professors and students will be females.

 

2.        University education will be more flexible. Instead of the traditional-style lectures and other schoolings, online or hybrid classes will be held more often. School years will be gone. Students can take classes anytime and anywhere, according to their conditions.

 

3.        Technological advancements, especially that of artificial intelligence, will make learning experiences more personalized. People will be able to take courses that match their needs and conditions.

 

4.        In 50 years, climate crisis will force universities to focus on the solutions. They will be integrated into an international institution to tackle the impact of global warming globally and interdisciplinarily.

 

5.        Colleges, or the first four-year part of university, will disappear or become something like amusement parks partly because of diversification of learning styles and partly because of the decline in intelligence of the human race caused by factors such as infectious diseases, pollutions, and dysfunctional society. People with learning abilities and aspirations will directly belong to graduate schools, library archives, museums, research centers, laboratories, and the military.

 

 

☆Sample Answer for Ideas and Expressions

【Thesis】I think universities will be totally commercialized in the future.

【Supporting Details】Due to neoliberalism, governments in the West have been cutting costs of public organizations and institutions. National universities have been merged and they have been required to make profits. Science departments have been prioritized compared to the humanities departments because the former is more commercially profitable than the latter, and applied researches are more funded than fundamental researches for the same reason. The private sector has been involved in funding and researches in universities. Tuitions are 10 to 40 times more expensive than in the 60’s, and student loans, which didn’t exist then, now keep those who graduate in debt until they are in their 50s. The change has been going on for decades and it does not seem to stop. Therefore, it can be expected that universities will be completely for profits in the future.

【Counterargument-treatment】Academia may want to protect the freedom of studies, but it won’t do anything in the end. It has never really resisted any government policies. In the end, universities, including private ones, are subsidized by the government and they have conformed to the status quo, expelling dissenters.

【Conclusion】Unless each citizen becomes aware of the ill effects of neoliberalism and stand up to fight it, public resources, including universities, will be consumed by capitals, which siphon money from the bottom 90% to the top 10%. (230 words)

 

 

Write your response in 10 minutes. Show each other your responses. Write down questions or suggestions to each other’s response.

 

 

                                                   DRAFT

 

 

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                          

 

 

 

Writing for Academic Discussion Is it justifiable to allocate public funds for the arts when there are people in need? - revised -

Writing Topic: Do you think it is justifiable to allocate public funds for the arts when basic needs like food and shelter remain unmet?  (public policy)

 

 

☆Let’s Think

In what ways do artists contribute to society?

 

For reference:

“Art has always been a powerful weapon of the oppressed — Philosopher Viktor Frankl honed his theory that our primary motivation for living as humans is to find meaning while imprisoned in Dachau and other concentration camps for being Jewish. Oscar Wilde wrote “De Profundis” while imprisoned in England for the crime of loving a man. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” while imprisoned for protesting against racist segregation. There is no better means of cultivating understanding and empathy than through art. And for me, there’s no better outlet to convey truth and inspire resistance than the art of the moving image.

 

I believe that one great movie can change the world.”

－ Michael Moore in “From the Rubble Rise 22 Powerful Voices” on michaelmoore.com

 

 

☆Hints for Points

Unjustifiable

・  Around 830 million people were suffering from chronic hunger in 2022. The number of people who suffer from temporary hunger is much larger. They are vulnerable to such factors as war, climate change, disasters, and economic downturns.

・  When one child dies due to poverty every six seconds, it is unacceptable to use resources to support the arts, which we do not necessarily need to survive.

・  Public resources are to support the most vulnerable. Helping the poor should be prioritized.

・  It is unfair to support those who have enough money at the expense of those who live on subsistence.

・  The root cause of poverty is violence like wars and conflicts, and the rich world is complicit in them. It is just hypocritical to be immersed in the arts if they do not work to solve the problem.

・  Although the arts contribute to making a difference in the long run, people in dire situations have no leeway to care for art, and when we know there are such people, it is natural for us to act the same. We must support them as if we were in their situations.

 

Justifiable

・  Art heals our souls and give us hope and power to live. Therefore, people need art especially in hardship.

・  Creating and enjoying the arts are not simply activities in leisure times, but rather fundamental behavior necessary to live as a human being. Prohibiting the arts as corrupt hobby of the wealthy in revolutions led to withering the power of the entire society. This shows that arts are indispensable in people’s lives whether they are starving or not.

・  Society is complex, and for an either-or choice cannot be applied to allocation of public funds for humanitarian aid and the art. Stopping artistic activities won’t save children in Gaza from starvation, cold, and bombing. We should do both arts and actions.

・  Art is used for public education. Many novels and movies, for example, take up or reflect social problems such as depravity of the underclass. They motivate people to work for the disadvantaged.

 

 

☆Sample Answer

【Thesis】Although I enjoy the arts, especially music and movies, I still think that humanity is lost if art is prioritized at the expense of those who suffer. We must not forget about our brothers and sisters suffering from abject poverty.

【Supporting Details】Hundreds of millions of people are starving around the world. Not only disasters and diseases but also conflicts as well as corrupt systems like capitalism keep the most vulnerable people like women, children, old people, and handicapped people without food, clothing, and shelter. When they have some money, they would definitely use it for food, not for the arts. Thus, government resources should be allocated to save them, to eliminate deprivation. That we do not see the poor around us will not exempt us from helping those in need. We are the same humans no matter where we are. Those who are starving are us, and we must put their lives before our hobbies.

【Counterargument-treatment】I understand that art rescues souls of those in depravity. However, people in war zones managing to play movies for children for their mental health or people in ghetto seeking solace in music is one thing, while comparatively wealthy people in safe zones talking about budget allocation is another. It is the obligation of the advantaged to provide help for those who are disadvantaged who cannot provide it for themselves.  

It is meaningless when an art is created turning a blind eye to the predicament of other humans, no matter how beautiful, powerful, or impressive it is,

【Conclusion】Why don’t we first stop exploitation that deprives hundreds of millions of their basic human rights, and then enjoy art after becoming off the hook? (276 words)

 

 

Write your response in 10 minutes. Show each other your responses. Write down questions or suggestions to each other’s response.

 

 

                                                   DRAFT