谢振礼 托福范文: 成人职训 20181104
TOEFL Independent Writing
China 2018-11-04
Topic:
One of the most challenging problems in modern society is to have the most up-to-date skills for workplace. For solving this, government decides to give all adults over the age of 25 a training course to learn new skills. Do you think it is an effective way to spends its money? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Essay: ielts360toefl@hotmail.com (TOEFL essays 2017-2018 RMB 60 WeChat fangsong1016)
There is a widespread feeling among today’s adults aged over 25 that the workplace is evolving and they have to continually update their skills and training in order to succeed in a career. For that purpose, governments are being asked to spend money. However, opinions differ regarding whether that money is well spent or not to sharpen job skills.
On the one hand, will the government-funded adult training programs be effective, and to what extent? Statistically, a narrow majority of people (aged 25-65) believe that it will be essential for them to get training and develop new skills throughout their work life so that they are able to keep up with changes in the workplace. Even among employed adults who say they have already had the skills and education they need to get ahead in their job, roughly half of them say that they will still need ongoing training throughout their career. Based on these views, adult job training opportunities in modern society are too important to be lost, to both individuals and the wider economy. It is because the potential loss of these opportunities is likely to threaten the future prospects of thousands, even millions of people who may want to retrain as they continue to work beyond retirement age as well as unemployed people who need support to train for a new role. Accordingly, to a large degree, it is an effective way to spend government money on adult job training.
On the other hand, skeptics give reasons why it will not be an effective way to spend public money on training programs for all adults aged over 25. Firstly, often programs fall short of being both interesting and useful, so they are not attractive, and therefore not effective. Secondly, much of this training is, unfortunately, worthless; and, according to a survey, many people have found that this training could not improve employees’ job performance. Thirdly, training without implementation is just an intellectual journey—and most of them would rather go to the movies or play video games for fun. Fourthly, if government decides to restrict attention only to the age group 25-65, which means that training programs exclude the age group 16-24 who are supposed to be enrolled in full-time study but actually many of them are neither studying nor working. That is to say, government should also focus on solving the problem of unemployed youth, not only the problem of those older adults who are in the workplace.
In conclusion, not all adult job training programs sponsored by government can be as successful as expected. Some programs prove to be more effective than others. Perhaps in some cases, money may be well spent or money may be wasted.
