Warning: Illegal string offset 'html' in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php on line 909

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 114

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 127

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 136

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 137

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 141
Sample Essays - HSN forum

Jump to content


Sample Essays


14 replies to this topic

#1 natalie1062

    Good Effort

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Irvine

Posted 29 May 2005 - 03:00 PM

Arguments For and Against Immigration.....

Immigration is a very controversial matter in which many people hold very strong views. It is a major issue in America, particularly in California, Texas and Florida. With the number of immigrants entering the country increasing each year there are very contrasting views on the matter.
Many people hold the argument that immigrants should not be allowed in to the country as most of them are uneducated and unskilled, thus being a drain on the economy. Political refugees from Vietnam and Korea for example are seen as a drain on the health, education and welfare systems. Around one in three fails to complete high school.
Proposition 187 was introduced in 1994. The people of California voted 59% to 41% accept the proposal thus denying over 2million illegal immigrants resident in California access to state welfare, public health and education. However it has not been fully implemented as some argued the it violated peoples constitutional rights and that the state acted illegally by interfering on the federal matter of immigration.
Furthermore, immigrants tend to settle in areas where unemployment is already high causing tension and antagonism. They compete and take the jobs which could be done by native US citizens, then work for lower wages so undercut the wage rates of native born workers leading to their unemployment.
A massive 450,000 immigrants are in jail, on parole or on probation which is very expensive for the economy to keep them - especially when, in some peoples opinion, they shouldn't even be there in the first place.
But, on the other hand, immigration has been said to be a good thing. Immigrants are often willing to do jobs which native Americans are not prepared to do. This way the jobs will be carried out.
Many local politicians and businessmen in the South West states and Texas do not wish the Federal authorities to interfere with their constant supply of cheap labour. Immigrants are prepared to work exceedingly long hours for lower wages so employers make a substantial profit from employing them. Immigrants cannot complain about the way they are treated as many of them are illegal.
Asian American high achievers will go on to make a very valuable contribution to American society and its economy.
The Chairman of the American Federal Reserve Board argued that the single most effective measure that Congress could take to ensure Americas economic expansion would be to 'uncap' its present immigration controls. It is said that immigration is a net benefit to the economy, banning immigration would be a major mistake.
It is often claimed that immigrants are the cause of racial tension. This is not the case, more often than not it is because of the underlying social and economic disadvantages faced by Blacks and Hispanics.
Due to the strong arguments held from both sides of the issue it is very difficult to reach a conclusion. However, if immigration was banned it is questionable what would happen to the vast numbers of ethnic minorities who live in extreme poverty in their native countries, unable to provide for their families.

#2 lanky_182

    Showing Improvement

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Location:Motherwell, Outside Glasgow
  • Interests:Music, gigs, shopping, parties, mates etc
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 May 2005 - 03:09 PM

wow thats excelent! that's very similar to the one i have revised!
go u!



#3 natalie1062

    Good Effort

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Irvine

Posted 29 May 2005 - 03:20 PM

Distrubution Patterns of Main Ethnic Minorities......

African Americans are mainly concentrated in the Southern states; they make up 1/3 of the population of Mississippi and 2/3 of the population of Washington DC. Many African Americans were enslaved in the cotton and tobacco plantations in the southern states, although after emancipation there was a large drive of them toward the industrialised areas of the North Eastern states. So there is also a large African American population in the industrialised areas of Chicago and New York where there were employment prospects.
However, there has been an occurrence of reverse migration back to the south since the 1970's. This is due to a number of socio-economic and political factors including high crime rates, unemployment, racism and poverty in the Northern states.
Over 60% of African Americans live in inner city areas where years of white flight combined with discrimination have resulted in ghettos. African Americans do not readily integrate with whites due to racial tension. When Blacks move into a white community, whites will not tolerate them if they exceed more than 8% of the population. Even more prosperous African Americans live in guilded ghettos as few gain access to the 'vanilla suburbs'.
Hispanics are mostly concentrated in the South and South Western states. Mexican Americans are most likely to be found in the sunbelt states - New Mexico and Texas - as they are so close to the Mexican border. Many Hispanics are attracted to the USA due to better employment prospects and higher living standards. Most of them become farm labourers where they earn less than the minimum wage, but it is still more than they would earn in their own country.
Cubans are mainly resident in Florida, especially Miami. They fled Cuba after Fidel Castro overthrew the dictatorship of General Batista. They were political refugees from their countries communist government. The USA welcomed them as part of its anti-communist stance.
Puerto Ricans tend to be found in New York and New Jersey as that is where their relatives traditionally settled. They arrived in America in order to escape the extreme poverty of their own homes where they worked for minimal wages. The USA and the American Dream were again the attraction to them.

#4 natalie1062

    Good Effort

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Irvine

Posted 29 May 2005 - 03:22 PM

Thanks 182 what do you think of the distribution patterns one? I feel confident writing about it but think iv made it a bit short?


#5 natalie1062

    Good Effort

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Irvine

Posted 29 May 2005 - 03:41 PM

OK now for a healthcare essay dry.gif


Main Challenges Facing the NHS............

When the NHS was established in 1948 it was thought that spending on healthcare would decrease as health improved. But this wasnt the case and, to an extent, the floodgates opened, the NHS became a victim of its own success.
The system was designed to be universal, free at the point of access and comprehensive. Though the system was not universal. There are inequalities in the delivery of health care in different parts of the country due to postcode prescribing - treatments and/or medicines are only available in some parts of the Uk and not others.
The NHS is not free as it was designed to be because nowadays many people are having to pay a substantial amount of money towards dental care, eye care and prescriptions. The Government has also stated that elderly people should contribute towards the cost of their personal care - many pensioners have had to sell their homes in order to do so. Furthermore, some treatments are not available on the NHS such as plastic surgery and fertility treatment so private care has to be financed.
The system is not providing comprehensive medical care as there are gaps in the services. Some patients including the elderly are being refused drugs because they are too expensive. Multiple sclerosis sufferers are often denied the expensive Interferon B drug.
Every year since 1948, real spending on the NHS has increased but many people still claim that it is still grossly underfunded. The NHS can never have enough money and when looking at the issues of the increasing elderly population, the cost of new advanced medical technology and the formation of new medical challenges it is looking worrying. There have also been many ward, hospital closures due to lack of money which interferes with efficiency.
Growing waiting lists are a major issue so the Government has introduced targets in order to try and reduce times. However, targets are often not met.
Staff shortages are a worrying element and, due to the slowing up of the younger generation, medical boards are worried there will not be enough nurses. Low morale is evident among staff and at the top level, surgeons, specialists and doctors are being increasingly attracted to the USA and Australia - the brain drain - where employment prospects appear better.



..............Would this be enough to write?

#6 lanky_182

    Showing Improvement

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Location:Motherwell, Outside Glasgow
  • Interests:Music, gigs, shopping, parties, mates etc
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 May 2005 - 03:44 PM

QUOTE(natalie1062 @ May 29 2005, 03:22 PM)
Thanks 182 what do you think of the distribution patterns one?  I feel confident writing about it but think iv made it a bit short?

View Post



aw should be kool, i rote a short 1 also and got 10/10 for it, as long as you have the main facts and stats you'll be fine
maybe just mention briefly about API's and Indian Americans

#7 natalie1062

    Good Effort

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Irvine

Posted 29 May 2005 - 03:45 PM

yeah good point, what did you write about them?

#8 lanky_182

    Showing Improvement

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Location:Motherwell, Outside Glasgow
  • Interests:Music, gigs, shopping, parties, mates etc
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 May 2005 - 03:48 PM

QUOTE(natalie1062 @ May 29 2005, 03:45 PM)
yeah good point, what did you write about them?

View Post



just wot percentage they make up of teh population and the percentage of them situated eg..
46% in west or wotever just those 2 and u shoudl b efine

#9 natalie1062

    Good Effort

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Irvine

Posted 29 May 2005 - 04:07 PM

thanks a bundle for ur help....does anyone else have any essays they want to post? its good practice!


#10 lipu

    Top of the Class

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Location:Glasgow

Posted 29 May 2005 - 04:23 PM

Here are some from me. I have put them in quoted sections to make them stand out.

What factors can influence the way people vote?
QUOTE
There are various facotrs which can influence the ways that people vote in elections.  Race is one of these factors.  Ethnic Minorities are most likley to vote labour.  It could be argued that Labour is more willing to help Ethnic Minorities than the Conservatives.  However, this trend is changing and more ethnic minorities are voting accoding to their soco-economic Circumstances.  Better off minorities are most likley, now, to vote conservatives whereas, the unskilled are more likley to vote labour.

Socio-economic background is another factor.  Many people would argue that socio-economic background was the main influcen on voting behaviour in the United Kingdom.  For decades most working class people would have voted Labour and most middle class peoplw would vote conservative.  To some extent this may still be true.  However, it is not as clear-cut today as it once was.

Religion is another factor which has an influence on they way in which people vote.  In the past in Scotland, catholics were more likley to vote Labour and prodestants were more likley to vote conservative.  Theorists would argue that this was due to links with Northern Ireland.  The conservatives were called the Conservative and Unionst party, reflecting their wish to keep Northern Irealand (As well as Scotland and Wales) part of teh UK.

Gender is a factor which affects the way people vote.  In the 1992 election, women were more likley to vote conservative.  44% of woman voted conservative compared with 41% of men.  This changed in 1997, when Labour were able to attract moer woman voters.  They were also able to select more woman candidates and 101 female MPs were elcted.  47% of men and 47% of woman voted Labour.

Age can also have an affect on the voting behaviour of teh electorate in teh United Kingdom.  Young people are more likley to vote labour.  It is thought that this comes from the perception that "New Labour" has a more radical edge.  Better-off older people are more likley to vote Conservative.  This may be becase conservatiev votesr are more likley to have a high standard of living and are likley to live longer on average.

people's ideology is another factor which can have an affect on how people vote.  Voters will often vote for parties and candidates who share the same ideas as themselves.  Many people did not vote Labout in the 19980s because they did not share their views on taxation and defence.  Their policies changed and more people wer willing to support them in 1997 and 2001.


Advantages and Disadvantages of First Past The Post (FPTP)
QUOTE
The First past teh Post voting system is used in the United Kingdom to elect members to the Westminster Parliament.  It is also known as teh Simple Majority System.

An advantage of FPTP is that it has been used in the UK for many years.  This would indicate that Brittish Voters and politicians are happy with the system as it stands.  If it were unpopular it would have been changed by now.

Another Advantage is other systems such as the Additional Members system (used in Germany and to elect Mebers to teh Scottish Parliament) are much ,ore complicated and voters are not alwyas certain why representatives have been chosen e.g the Party List MSPs elected through AMS.

A third Advantage is that with FPTP there is a strong link between the voter and the elected representative.  One perosn is elected for each constituencey and this makes it easier for citizens to contact their representative if they have a problem.  Under other systems such as the party List, the Single Transferable Vote and AMS, it is much more difficult to work out who to contact.

FPTP usualy provides one party with an Overall majority which allows it to form a government.  This means that the government can take difficult decisions which may be unpopular.  In 2001, Labour won 413 seats out of 659,  A majority of 167 meant that the Labour Government was able to make difficult decisions and would ensure that parliament would support them.  An example of this was the way in which Tony Blair was able to promise support to teh USA after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

Although there are lost of advantages to FPTP, there are some disadvantages.  One of these is that in each Constituence the winning candidate is not required to obtain 50% or more of the votes cast.  A candidate can usually win a seat with less than 50% of the vote, meaning that more people in the constituencey supported another candidate as opposed to the elected reprentative.

Another disadvantage is that in the UK the FPTP system has resulted in domination by two parties, Labour and Conservative.  They benefit disproportionatley from FPTP.  The current Labour Governement won a third term with only 36.6% of the electorate supporting them, but have got a lot more seats than the conseravtives who came second with 33.2%.

If you are a floating voter in a marginal constituency, your vote will be very important.  A small change in support could mean the different between winning and losing.  In the '97 general election, it was estimated that parties targeted 66,000 floating voters in marginal constituencies whos vote could mean the difference between success and failure.  This can place an awful lot of stress and uncomfort on voters when they come to make their choic.


Hope those two essays help. They were both written in between 15 and 17 minutes. I have one on the causes of food shortages in Africa if anyone wants it.
Law and Management Student
Robert Gordon University

------
George Orwell provided us with a warning, not an Instruction Manual
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little termporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety

Without freedom to offend, freedom of expression ceases to exist

#11 natalie1062

    Good Effort

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Irvine

Posted 29 May 2005 - 04:29 PM

Much appreciated if someone can tell me if the following essay is good enough smile.gif



Arguments for and against private health care................

Many people are completely against the concept of private medicine, believing that they should not need to pay for treatment. However there are others that are perfectly happy to finance their medical costs.
When the NHS was set up in 1948 it was to be collectivist, universal, comprehensive and free at the point of access. Therefore all patients should be treated equally and according to need. However, private medicine is based on the ability to pay. It has created a two-tier health system; private medicine for the well off who seek care for acute conditions and the NHS for the chronically and seriously ill.
When people choose to go private they are, effectively, queue jumping. Private hospitals deal with the easy work, leaving difficult and expensive complaints to the NHS.
Most private hospitals do not have on-site emergency facilities and so, if a crisis develops, patients will have to be treated by the NHS - again shifting the difficult work to the public sector.
The majority of nurses working in the private sector were actually trained by the NHS at public expense. Moreover many of them have special skills such as operating theatre and intensive care skills which are in short supply in the NHS. So basically the NHS pays to train nurses who simply opt for the private sector once they are qualified, leaving the NHS under-staffed and out of pocket.
Evidence suggests that some consultants who work for both sectors seem to favour their private patients and neglect their public ones so private care can interfere with NHS efficiency.
However there are some strong contradictory factors which suggest the private sector is essential.
Private treatment is not just a luxury that only right people can afford. Private patients in the independent sector now represent a cross-section of society through group insurance schemes e.g. union deals have brought firefighters and police officers into group insurance schemes.
Pressure is taken away from the NHS when people turn to private medicine. The NHS receives much needed additional income from private patients who use pay beds.
Private practice allows hospital consultants to receive earnings similar to those they would earn abroad. This helps to stop a brain drain, keeping consultants in the country.
The NHS benefits from private health care; private hospitals and insurance companies have donated pieces of equipment to NHS hospitals to be used by patients from both sectors.
Some types of treatment like cosmetic surgery is only available in the private sector. What would happen if the private sector was abolished?
Private patients still contribute to the running of the NHS through compulsory National Insurance contributions. When people spend their money on private medicine they are adding to the total amount of resources spent on health care.
It would not be practical to abolish the private sector. In some ways it does go against the founding principles of the NHS but it does help in other ways. At least option is there for patients, another quality principle after all was choice.

#12 natalie1062

    Good Effort

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Irvine

Posted 29 May 2005 - 04:32 PM

You really know what you're talking about lipu, thanks those essays are top!

#13 lipu

    Top of the Class

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Location:Glasgow

Posted 29 May 2005 - 04:48 PM

Thanks a lot. Here is my causes of food shortages in Africa Essay.

What are the main causes of food shortage in Africa (excluding the Republic of South Africa)?
QUOTE
There are many causes of food shortages in Africa.  Food shortage is normally caused by a combination of factors and not just one.  One of these factors is war.  War makes it difficult to produce food and to transport it to those who need in.  In countries such as the Sudan, people find it difficult to meet their need for food because of civil war.  The north of Sudan is controlled by the Islamic government which wanst the whole country to follow muslim laws.  However, the south is contolled by christians who do not want to follow the laws of a Religion in which they do not believe in.  War causes food shortages because land mines are planted in areas which could, potentially, be used for farming making it too dangerous and difficult to produce crops.  War also causes food shortages  because the Government soends money on weapons with little kept aside to meet the needs of the people.  In Sudan, little is spent on education or health.  This means that conditions in teh country are unliley to improve and many people will continue to die from preventable diseases.

Debt is another factor.  In the 1970s many African countries were encouraged to take out loans from rich banks in the North - European and North American.  However, this money was not always used to meet the needs of the people.  When interest rates increased, countrues had to pay back much more, which obviously resulted in a fall in expendature on areas like education, health care and transport.  The United Nations estimates that 19,000 children die each day in the developing world as a result of debt.  Some countries are concerned that they will never be able to pay back their loans.

Political Problems also contribute too food shortages.  For Example, in Zimbabwae the Xanu PF party is starving out the rebel supporters of the Move for Democratic Change Party (MDC).  There are also problems of corruption where the government does not distribute food aid to those who most need it.

land ownership is another facor which causes food shortages.  In Africa, land ownership by individuals does not exist to the same exten that it does in other parts of the world.  In the past, kand was owned by the tribe and used by individual farmers.  However, after colonisation, that changed and in many countries the rich took control of the most productive land.  Sudan is a large country but the best use is not made of the land that is available.  Only as small percentage of the available land is used for cultivation.  Also, the government took control of all the land that was not formally registered into state control.  This meant that many farmers no longer had access to land which could be used to grow crops.  The Government of Sudan also allowed Saudia Arabia to use sudanese land for their own crop production.  This again reduces the amount of land available for crop production by the people of sudan.


There are obviously lost of other fators, which you could talk about, but those are the ones I decided to use. Hope that helps.
Law and Management Student
Robert Gordon University

------
George Orwell provided us with a warning, not an Instruction Manual
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little termporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety

Without freedom to offend, freedom of expression ceases to exist

#14 natalie1062

    Good Effort

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Irvine

Posted 29 May 2005 - 05:15 PM

Yet another one... dry.gif


Arguments for and against PFI/PPP.....

Public Private Partnerships are a form of the Private Finance Initiative which was introduced in the 1990's by the Conservatives. Labour were originally against PFI but when they were elected in 1997 they continued it, only rebranding it as PPP whilst making a few changes. Like most policies there are a number of sensitive arguments for and against it.
Supporters say that a good thing about it is that the Government doesn't need to find the money as the private companies will build and maintain the new modern hospitals. This saves them waiting a generation for funds to become available, PPP allows this to take place now.
The Government can then use the money saved in the meantime for other projects. In a way it is like a two for one option as other jobs can be carried out simultaneously, the money is not all caught up in the hospital building project.
New, well equipped modern hospitals can be built now which is essential as there are many major crisis' facing current buildings. There is a real need for them.
Some people say that new hospitals would not be built at all if it was not for PPP. Therefore PPP is thought to lead to a dramatic increase in the quality of public services.
The only way the Government could really afford the new services without PPP would be by increasing taxation which is a big vote loser with the electorate.
It is also supposed to be a cheaper option in the short term.
However, the opposition holds the argument that it will end up more expensive for the Government in the long term and critics say that it is taxpayers that will foot the bill. Interest also has to be paid over the 30year period and it works out dearer than borrowing from the bank.
Private companies end up making big profits from the scheme but many say this is only because they cut corners by using cheaper materials etc to maximise their profits. So new hospitals may be built, but are they built properly and to standard?
It is said to be yet another example of creeping privatisation. Unions such as Unison believe that once private hospitals are owned by private companies, the next step will be private ownership of healthcare itself and the end of the NHS.
The Labour Party Manifesto in 1997 said that they would abolish PFI, but all they did was repackage it.
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary was opened in 2002 to replace the old Royal Infirmary. It is the biggest hospital in the UK with 5000 staff, 900 beds, 25 wards and 24 operating theatres. Lothian Nhs claimed the ERI as the finest modern hospital in the UK.
However the ERI was a subject of controversy due to the number of bed cuts, overspending and delays. The Head of Unison claimed the opening of the ERI was a sad day for the NHS.
When looking logically at the subject though, PPP's have allowed unprecedented numbers of new improved hospitals to be built in order to improve efficiency. Who could possibly be opposed to this?

#15 lipu

    Top of the Class

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Location:Glasgow

Posted 29 May 2005 - 05:27 PM

Your Last essay finishes on a Question. bad idea to put questions in at all in your essay, let alone finisheing with them. I was told by all 3 of my teachers this year than you never put questions into your essays. Give the facts only.
Law and Management Student
Robert Gordon University

------
George Orwell provided us with a warning, not an Instruction Manual
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little termporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety

Without freedom to offend, freedom of expression ceases to exist





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users