I've just finished moderating an intake's work for Practical English. The previous lecturer, who has since left our employment, gave a rather interesting topic as the students' writing assignment "Religion is the opium of today's society": Do you agree or disagree?
I have no problems with the question since the lecturer had her roots in sociology and is probably very interested to invite a discussion of the Marxian statement. However, when such a question is handed to a youth of 17-18 years of age (without any prior guidance or exposure to the background OR the context of the statement) the result was a personal attack on specific religious practices and a misguided discussion on terrorism and mass suicides. It's funny (haha-funny, not strange-funny) that such a serious question are discussed in a simplistic & non-objective manner. And it would definitely need an essay beyound 300 words to discuss the merits of that (deceptively) simple statement.
I would say that's a difficult thing to teach.. about how to argue objectively and avoid personal or emotional attacks. One other thing that struck me was how a student readily deduces a conclusion without having ALL (or at least MOST of) the facts disclosed. There is indeed a danger there, when our future leaders do not perceive these issues with depth and strength of character.
Maybe I'm having too high an expectation on them? Well, shouldn't I? They should be able to think for themselves and make valid arguments based on facts. An advice that's repeatedly hammered into their brains but the effect of which remains a mystery till today.
Maybe I'm getting a little old & conservative. There was a joke once that you know that you're getting old when your sentences start with "In my time.." haha.. Some of my sentences DO start with that phrase, especially when speaking to my kids regarding the virtues of being frugal yada yada yada..
Oh well, here's a toast to old age.. and wisdom (I hope)..!