Ejecución: aqui es donde los componentes del CLR empiezan a actuar, cargando el assembly en memoria, revisando su metadata y política de

To further substantiate how globalisation does not destroy culture, we can observe that each society still retains the essence of its own cultural identity, as societies only accept external cultural infl uences based on their own terms. This phenomenon, widely termed as cultural inertia, refl ects how each society tends to resist change when it fi rst occurs. It is in essence a self- protective mechanism that each culture utilises in order to retain its identity even when interacting with others in a globalised world. The unwillingness of cultures to accept external infl uences can be clearly observed in McDonald’s entry into the Hong Kong market. Its entry was fraught with obstacles, as the Hong Kong residents did not take readily to the fast food culture of America, and viewed McDonald’s more as a snack than a complete meal. As such, McDonald’s had to adapt its marketing strategy to fi t the local culture, to the extent of including rice burgers on its menu to provide a dietary option that was more in sync with the local diet of rice as a food staple. The adaptation of McDonald’s in other countries is also evident when we have examples like the Maharaja Mac in India. In all, these examples show how the behaviour of brands, and by extension media broadcasters, is shaped by the diverse cultural groups that they venture into. Far from causing the destruction of culture, globalisation has brought about a unique global cultural scene where each culture manages to retain its individuality even in the face of global cultural movements.

Lastly, globalisation has arguably helped in the propagation of culture by creating a wider awareness and appreciation of various cultures and practices around the world. The increased cultural propagation brought about by globalisation is due to the extensive media network that condenses and makes available information on different places around the globe at one’s fi ngertips. This allows for a greater awareness of individual cultures as various unique cultural rituals are broadcast in documentaries and information of diverse groups are recorded on the Internet. For example, the Songkran Water Festival in Thailand is now a world-famous traditional cultural rite and many tourists fl ock to Thailand to witness this spectacle. Hence, globalisation has, as we can see, developed a wide appreciation of local cultures. In addition, globalisation has made possible the creation, awareness and development of a new global culture. This comprises global cultural movements where certain ideals are spread worldwide, resulting in greater global integration. Examples of this would be the environmentalist movement, which sees various organisations worldwide cooperate to fi nd solutions to environmental issues. Besides that, even corporations can initiate commercial global cultural movements such as the fast food culture propagated largely by McDonald’s and a culture of fi tness and sports training propagated by companies like Nike and Adidas. Whether these cultural movements are all benefi cial are not as important as they are elements of a new global culture made possible by globalisation, which evidently, does promote greater cultural appreciation and development rather than cultural destruction.

Taking a look around today, one observes numerous cultural products and trends that have come about as a result of globalisation. Globalisation, by driving the breakneck evolution of culture, has produced many new exciting prospects for cultural development, including the creation of a new global culture. Every culture around the world, impacted by globalisation, is changing and developing while retaining essential traits that reinforce cultural diversity worldwide. Taking a step back, we can conclude that globalisation is pushing culture forward rather than destroying it.

Marker’s comments:

A persuasive essay that impresses with insightful perspectives and a secure grasp of issues crucial to the topic. It was such a pleasure reading your essay. Excellent work!

Throughout the course of human history, the power of education to empower the disempowered and strengthen the weak has not gone unnoticed. Long hailed as the “great social equaliser”, education has also been described by H.G. Wells as an essential part of society and the human race’s only alternative to “catastrophe”.

In this day and age, however, there is some indication that education – here defi ned as a formal system for the teaching and learning of information and skills (including literacy and numeracy) – has only succeeded in “more inequality”, both in the sense of exacerbating current divides between peoples of different backgrounds, and in the sense of creating new divisions between the educated and the uneducated. This essay will demonstrate that such instances of “more inequality” are due to the unequal implementation of education, rather than education itself, and that education continues to fulfi l its purpose as a social equaliser around the world today.

There is no denying that the enhanced personal ability and social mobility granted to the educated have set them apart from the uneducated; if this were not the case, then the entire concept of education as a mode of empowerment would be null and void. It is no accident that two-thirds of the world’s illiterate are concentrated in eight developing nations, some of which also see the world’s lowest economic growth – such as in Ethiopia and Pakistan. Clearly, the skills imparted to those in well-performing nations have not only improved their lot in life, but bettered the situation of their nations as a whole. With more resources, these nations are then able to invest in better education systems, which further boost their economies, and over time, a divide is created between the rich, educated nations and the uneducated poor.

Within many developed nations, the education system is also designed to bring students who do well to a level of “higher” education: secondary or tertiary as the case may be. And in many cases, it is the rich who are able to afford the best education for their children from a young age, allowing them to easily obtain higher education while the poor are left behind. In this sense, within societies, education also amplifi es existing divides between those who rise quickly through the system, and those who are, economically or otherwise, disadvantaged.

The problem here, though, is one of unequal distribution and implementation of education. If education of the same quality were made accessible to all, in each and every nation around the world, the above situations would not exist: all members of society would be equally empowered to change their socio-economic positions, and to pull their families (and communities) out of their current plight. But this is not logistically possible in today’s world: insuffi cient infrastructure, ineffective legislation and deep-seated ways of life are all obstacles to the equal implementation of formal education around the world.

Taking a broader perspective, this is not to say that improvements have not been made. Within the last century, the world’s literacy rate (defi ned as the percentage of people above 15 who can read and write) has risen to 82%, a fi gure unimaginable even for “developed” European societies in the past. And according to the CIA World Factbook, the world’s school-life expectancy (or, the number of years one can expect to receive formal education) has risen to 11 years, which is higher than in some developed nations today (Singapore’s, for example, is 10.1 years). While the implementation of education has not been perfect thus far, the world is certainly seeing advancements on this front – doubtless a factor for its rising economic performance.

This power of education to create change can be attributed, among education’s many functions, to two main points. Both deal with solving the problem of inequality, and they are, namely, eradicating

Education has resulted in only more inequality. Do you agree?