雅思話題作文范文：上學前是否先工作或旅行一年

　　The seemingly constructive proposal that young people who have just accomplished their high school career should be encouraged to work or travel for one year has been warmly accepted by several educationists on the ground that this policy will really benefit the growth of these young in a long run. But there are also many who oppose the idea, saying that the measure is unnecessary and its advantages can be generated by complimentary means during college. In what follows, I shall discuss the pros and cons of the policy.

　　Those who believe in the measure say that students benefit a lot from travelling or working for a year before their formal university education. First, they can more broadly acquainted themselves with the society, deepen their understanding of the outside world, and thus better coordinate their objectives of learning with the needs of the society. In contrast, by immediate entrance to university they can not steer the direction of their study well and may display a poor combination of the theory with practice. Second, study at high school is really exausting, especially when to win college admission. So it is necessary to grant these children a relatively long period of relaxation or buffer, say, travelling or working for a year, to loosen the chords of their brain, so that when they go back to school later again, they can become completely refreshed and rejuvenated.

　　However, many others hold the opposite opinion that these young children should stick to their usual life course. The first reason they cite is that there is always a proper time in one’s life for doing a proper thing and that the one year is just a golden period for advanced learning, which simply can not afford any squandering. They also cast doubt on the view that the kids can gain social and working experience by questioning what kind of jobs the fledglings can find and what if our universities can offer the same opportunities. They further express their concern that the young, innocent and immature, may go astray and be misled when exposed to a world so trickily alluring. They are worried if the “sophisticated” men could sit still in their classrooms when they come back to the campus.

　　To be frank, I believe we do not need to be so imaginative. The notion of travelling or working for one year before college sounds flashy, but will bring about more troubles than we can control. In my opinion, we may as well perfect our college education systems, for example, by creating more chances for social practice, to achieve the same benefits that the bold measure can contribute.

　　點評：

　　第一段：三句話。第一句話和第二句話以對立的方式表明了關于這一做法的兩種截然不同的觀點。第三句話表示要在下文探討這兩個方面的觀點，引出下文(A+B)。

　　第二段：寫A+ 或者B- ，五句話，其中第一句話為主題句。后面以First和Second為標志，引出了兩大理由，一是A+1，跟現實社會更廣泛進行接觸，增長對于社會的認識，從而更加明確社會需求和自己的學習目標。同時寫了B-1，直接進入大學就讀一是不能很好把握學習方向，也不能很好地將理論與實際相結合。二是A+2，談高中學習相當勞累，工作旅行一年是很好的緩沖。

　　第三段：寫B+或者A-，五句話。第一句話為主題句，表明了反對者的立場，認為應該堅持原來直接上大學的做法。第二句以The first reason引出了B+1，認為高中畢業后那一年是人生學習的黃金時間，同時寫A-1，認為將一年寶貴的學習巔峰時間，用作任何其他用途都是一種浪費。第三句由also一詞引出了對于該做法的質疑，即A-2，高中畢業生出去又能找到什么工作呢?同時提到B+2，難道大學沒有兼職的機會?第四句話由further引出A-3，高中畢業生年紀尚幼，在不成熟時闖入社會，或會誤入歧途，第五句寫A-4，出去工作、旅游一年，心收不回來了，回到大學需要好長時間才能進入學習狀態，貽誤學習。

　　第四段：總結段，提出自己的觀點，三句話，表明自己站在B方，即反對這種異想天開的做法。第一句是topic sentence旗幟鮮明地表明立場，第二句指出這種做法會造成我們難以控制的后果，事實上是一個對A-的大總結，第三句話指出了一種兩全的方法，我們可以在大學增加社會實踐機會，讓直接上大學的學生得到跟停學旅行或工作一年同樣的成長和鍛煉機會。