Compulsory vaccination is an example of the tyranny of the majority even if it is made by a democratic government. And in a community that praises itself as democratic and respectful to wishes of others it is in no way acceptable that the rights of some get abused by the wishes of others.  John Stuart Mill has set philosophical basics: “the majority… the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power… In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. [1]  The state (or the majority) can only dictate to the individual is if that individual’s actions adversely affect the collective. Therefore the question is ‘what is the purpose of the vaccination?’ if it is to provide individuals with their own protection then autonomy of decision-making and individual liberty should predominate as guiding principles.  Under these circumstances there can be little justification of any coercion on the part of public health officials, in particular the use of mandatory vaccination legislation. If it is more based upon public harm i.e. the more chance of the virus infecting from one human to another then the less this defense can be used. [2]  [1] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999. www.bartleby.com/130/ . 2nd October, 2009, Chapter 1, paragraph 9  [2] University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Medical ethics experts identify, address key issues in H1N1 pandemic, FirstScience News 23rd September 2009  , accessed 05/29/2011


Duty to protect the child  As article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “State parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health services.” [1]  Each year millions of children worldwide die of preventable diseases before the age of five.  The argument presented here is that the state needs to protect the child and immunize him or her from preventable diseases as obviously the child does not have the capabilities at this stage to make informed decisions of their own.  The United Nations Right to Liberty and Security of the Person treaty, article 6.2 supports this view - State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. [2]  It is up to the State to decide if a child is to be immunized, as overall it will be the State who would benefit from having the vast majority of its citizens vaccinated, and it will be the State who will have to pay for any treatment needed to treat a preventable disease. Whilst a child’s parents have to a certain degree the right to decide what is best for their child’s future, poor decision making in this area could result in serious medical issues for the nation. In this extremely important area, the State must have authority over the rights of the parent.  [1] Convention on the Rights of the Child.   [2] Right to Liberty and Security of Person.


Vaccines themselves are expensive to develop in the lab and to mass produce for widespread compulsory vaccination programs. In addition to these upfront costs, organizing compulsory vaccination programs across an entire country can be very complicated and expensive. For instance, mechanisms must be set in place to ensure that the program is indeed compulsory, which means establishing a database of those that have and have not received the vaccine.


It is the state’s duty to protect its community  If an age group is protected, that results in a better health conditions for the whole society.  In an industrialized country such as the USA, those choosing exemption from statutorily compulsory vaccination were 35-times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated persons; in developing countries where these viruses are still endemic, the risk would be considerably higher [1] .  Those who wish to opt-out of vaccination (often on behalf of their children, who have no say in the matter) are classic free riders, hoping to benefit from the more responsible behavior of the rest of society. As it is assumed that most of society see it as a responsibility and a duty to protect others.  After a scare about possible side effects of the MMR jab, in 2008 there was a drop in voluntary vaccinations in a part of London (Lewisham). In that part of London only 64.3 % of children were vaccine and in that year the district accounted one third of all south-east London measles cases. Unless there is a 95 % vaccination, there is a great threat to public health of infection outbreaks. [2] It is therefore the role of the state to understand these issues and possible treats and provide a duty of protection and care, in this case, in the form of immunization.  Another example of the need to protect is also given by the example of voluntary vaccination against the flu, because of its impacts on the whole population is given by Pediatric studies: ”In several studies, results indicated that a 100% vaccination rate among health care personnel in acute care settings triggered a 43% decline in risk of influenza among patients. This decrease appeared even higher — 60% — among nursing home patients.” [3]  So by giving up some of the individuals freedoms and the feeling of duty to protection, the community is much more protected and benefits from the vaccination of the community.  [1] Vaccination Critics & Opponents.   [2] BBC News, Experts warn of measles outbreaks, 03/18/2008  , a  [3] Talbot TR. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol., Two medical societies back mandatory flu vaccination for health care workers , published 2010,  , accessed 05/27/2011  ccessed 05/25/2011


A great deal of health care and prevention of diseases is information and an informed decision. The United Kingdom does not have a system of compulsory health care, but disease outbreaks are still prevented due to the voluntary uptake of immunizations. The pediatrician Miriam Fine-Goulden explains: “The risk of contracting these infections is only so low at present because the voluntary uptake of immunizations has been high enough (in most cases) to reduce the chance of contact with those organisms through the process of herd immunity.” [1]  Also it can be argued that measles, mumps and rubella (one of the diseases vaccine against) are far from harmful. They are relatively minor illnesses [2] . Measles causes a rash and high fever. Mumps causes swollen glands, headache and fever. Rubella is usually mild and can go unnoticed.  Just because medical advance has been made in vaccinations it does not mean that we have to be immunized against every little disease known to man. Bearing in mind the cost of such jabs on the heavily burdened NHS, surely it would be better to not make the MMR jab compulsory. This way we keep parents happy and the NHS budget can be stretched further.  Researches also show that alternative approaches towards diseases such as better nutrition, homeopathy, etc. give very positive results. Healthier populations would not need vaccines to fight a disease. High profits that are now reserved only for the pharmaceutical industry would be spread to other areas of the economy, such as agriculture and the service sector, and more people would gain.  [1] Miriam Fine-Goulden: Should childhood vaccinations be compulsory in the UK ?, University College London,  , accessed 05/29/2011  [2] BBC News, Should the MMR vaccine be compulsory, 03/02/2002,  , accessed 05/29/2011


Compulsory vaccines are a financial relief on the health system  Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5 billion. [1]  Another aspect is also, that productivity rates remain high and less money is earmarked for social and health transfers because people are healthier. This is also supported by a WHO study, that claims: “We calculate that the average percentage increase in income for the children whose immunization coverage increases through will rise from 0.78 per cent in 2005 to 2.39 per cent by 2020. This equates to an increase in annual earnings per child of $14 by 2020. The total increase in income per year once the vaccinated cohort of children start earning will rise from $410 million in 2005 to $1.34 billion by 2020 (at a cost of $638 million in 2005 and $748 million in 2020).” [2] This study based on economic and health indicators is part of the world immunization program GAVI.  [1] Wikipedia. Vaccine Controversy.   [2] David Bloom, David Canning and Mark Weston, The value of immunization, World Economics, July – September 2005  , accessed 05/28/2011


The argument of “bad vaccines” is a very popular one. However, scientifically seen this arguments is flawed in many aspects.  First of all many of the examples used in arguments suggesting vaccination is dangerous and therefore should not be used, is very old. Many refer to examples from the 60s or 70s, which in medicine is highly flawed as science every few years significantly advances, improves the level of knowledge and reduces possible side effects. And even though many believe in the damages caused by vaccines retrospective studies disprove this point:  1. Autism  Scientists at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health's Center for Infection and Immunity and researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Trinity College Dublin, evaluated bowel tissues from 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls) by real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for the presence of measles virus RNA. Samples were analyzed in three laboratories blinded to diagnosis, including one wherein the original findings suggesting a link between measles virus and autism had been reported. [1]  "Our results are inconsistent with a causal role for MMR vaccine as a trigger or exacerbate of either GI difficulties or autism," states Mady Hornig, associate professor of Epidemiology and director of translational research in the Center for Infection and Immunity in the Mailman School, and co-corresponding author of the study. "The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that autism with GI complaints is related to MMR vaccine exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR vaccine and the onset of either GI complaints or autism. [2]  Many parents came to believe that vaccines caused their children's autism because the symptoms of autism appeared after the child received a vaccination. On a psychological level, that assumption and connection makes sense; but on a logical level, it is a clear and common fallacy with a fancy Latin name: post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of it"). They just need someone to blame for the disease of their child. [3]  2. Allergies and vaccines  A recent (2011) study of a German Health Institute concludes that in comparing the occurrence of infections and allergies in vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adolescents. These include bronchitis, eczema, colds, and gastrointestinal infection. The only difference they found is that unvaccinated children and adolescents differ from their vaccinated peers merely in terms of the frequency of vaccine preventable diseases. These include pertussis, mumps, or measles. As expected, the risk of contracting these diseases is substantially lower in vaccinated children and adolescents. [4]  [1] Science Daily, No connection between Measels, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine and Autism, Study suggests 09/05/2008 http ://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145218.htm  [2] Ibid.  [3] Benjamin Radford, Autism and sciences: Why bad Logic Trumps Science, 09/05/2008   [4] Deutsches Aerzteblatt International (2011, March 7). Vaccinated children not at higher risk of infections or allergic diseases, study suggests. ScienceDaily.  , accessed May 28, 2011


The problem with this is that those refusing vaccines on account of this effectively violate the same right for other people if, and when, there is an outbreak of the disease against which the vaccine is protecting.


It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child  Through birth, the child and the parent have a binding agreement that is supported within the society. This agreement involves a set of rights and duties aimed at, and justified by, the welfare of the child. Through that (according to texts from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): parents owe their children an “open future,” understood as one where they become adults capable of choosing their own conception of the good. As custodian, the parent is under a limited obligation to work and organize his or her life around the welfare and development of the child, for the child's sake. Concomitantly, the parent is endowed with a special kind of authority over the child. [1]  It therefore is the courtesy of a parent to decide what the best possible outcome is for a child. If the parent believes the child will be safer and better off in society without being given vaccine it is the parent’s right to decide not to give vaccination to the child.  Also the American Academy of Pediatrics reports, that refusing the immunization might not put children at risk, as long as they live in a well immunized community and can benefit from the “herd immunity”. They state: “Even in a community with high immunization rates, the risk assumed by an unimmunized child is likely to be greater than the risks associated with immunization. However, the risk remains low, and in most cases the parent who refuses immunizations on behalf of his or her child living in a well-immunized community does not place the child at substantial risk of serious harm.” [2]  [1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,  , accessed 05/28/2011  [2] Diekema Douglas, Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children,  , accessed 05/28/2011


Vaccines have severe side effects  Some of the used vaccines may have severe side effects, therefore we should let every individual asses the risk and make choices on his/her own. Besides introducing foreign proteins and even live viruses into the bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative, neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are indigenous to the body. For instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which includes Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and aluminum phosphate, and that's from the Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons: aluminum potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium phosphate. The packet insert for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The packet insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for measles, mumps and rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a mixture of antibiotics. [1]  Evidence also suggests that immunizations damage the immune system itself. By focusing exclusively on increased antibody production, which is only one aspect of the immune process, immunizations isolate dysfunction and allow it to substitute for the entire immune response, because vaccines trick the body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized response. They accomplished what the entire immune system seems to have been evolved to prevent. That is, they place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.  The long-term persistence of viruses and other foreign proteins within the cells of the immune system has been implicated in a number of chronic and degenerative diseases. In 1976 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers university addressed science writers at a seminar of the American Cancer Society, and pointed out the following. "Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. These latent pro viruses could be molecules in search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer." [2]  Vaccines may cause a child who is genetically predisposed to have autism. If the trend of increased Thimerosal in vaccinations correlates so well with the trend of increased autistic diagnoses, there is a link. Thimerosal in vaccinations (which means 'contains mercury') causes autism. Too many times has a child been completely healthy, and then a vaccine containing Thimerosal is injected into the child. The child becomes ill, stops responding visually and verbally, and is then diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.  [1] Roger R. Gervais. Understanding the Vaccine Controversy. Natural MAgainse May/June 1996.   [2] Alex Loglia, Global healing center,  , accessed 28/05/2011


Compulsory vaccination violates the individuals’ right to bodily integrity  In most countries and declarations, one of the most basic human rights is the one to bodily integrity. It sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your body without consent.  The NHS (National Health Service) explains: “You must give your consent (permission) before you receive any type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding to donate your organs after your death. If you refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected.”  This comes from the principle, that if a person has the capacity to consent to treatment and is making an informed decision (based on pros and cons of the treatment), the decision must be respected. The NHS explains further on: “If you have enough capacity and make a voluntary and informed decision to refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected. This applies even if your decision would result in your death, or the death of your unborn child.” [1]  In the case of vaccination this principle should be also applied. Even though we recognize that children are not able to fully comprehend the consequences a refusal would have, the parents should be there to decide on behalf of children over such decisions. The state has no right to stick a needle into a child just because they see fit doing so. It might be contested that in case of life endangering illnesses, the state should override the individuals’ rights. But rejection of vaccinations is not life endangering. So it is the judgment of the individual that is important and should not under any case be violated, just because someone might get an illness that in today’s modern world is easily curable.  [1] National Health Service (NHS), Do I have a right to refuse treatment ?,  , accessed 29/05/2011


An adult vaccine refusal and a parental vaccine refusal are not the same. Parents do not have absolute right to put their child at a risk even if they themselves are willing to accept such a risk for him or herself.  Minors have a right to be protected against infectious diseases and society has the responsibility to ensure welfare of children who may be harmed by their parents’ decisions.  Counseling should form an integral part of any such legislation, as often it is not conviction but laziness of the parents in taking their child to the clinic for immunization or the parents’ inability to make an informed decision. [1]  Also the state has already protected children in cases, when their functioning later as an adult could be compromised due to parental actions. For instance: in order to promote culturally prescribed norms, parents may seek to remove their child from school, or have their daughter undergo clitoridectomy; yet the state may claim that such a decision violates the parents' trustee relationship on grounds that the state has a compelling interest in securing the full citizenship capacities and rights of each of its citizens. As trustee, the parent has a limited right to exclusivity in determining the child's life over the course of childhood, but this determination is to be aimed at shaping the child into (for instance) a productive citizen and community member. [2]  The LSU Law center also explains: “The more difficult problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose immunizations. These groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their neighborhoods, schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the larger community. By providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can defeat the general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons mix with members of the larger community, they will expose those who are susceptible to contagion.” [3]  As seen not to vaccine children can represent a danger for their future, there should be no ultimate power of parents to prevent vaccine jabs.  [1] Lahariya C, Mandatory vaccination: is it the future reality ?, Singapore medical journal (editorial) 2008,  , accessed 05/25/2011  [2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,  , accessed 05/28/2011  [3] Louisiana State University (LSU), Compulsory Immunization,  , accessed 05/29/2011


Correlation is not causation. The fact that a number of individuals with JDs are working in fields unrelated to the law does not, in and of itself, imply that they gained those positions because of a JD. A JD may help, but it has to be factored against the opportunity cost of everything else you could be doing over three years with the tuition money.  A Harvard Law degree might impress the State Department – but spending a year and a half in South Sudan and writing a book on your experiences would impress them far more. A UCLA degree might impress a movie studio, but producing your own movie, or gaining work in the field as a production assistant would likely impress them even more.  The fact is that for every individual with a JD or GDL who occupies a senior position in a non-legal field, there are many more high achieving individuals in similar fields who do not have a JD, a BPTC or an MBAs.


A legal qualification is a gateway to a number of different career paths.  A JD is not simply a gateway to the legal world. Lawyers work as corporate executives, run movie studios, hold political office, and teach academically. Holding the degree will increase your qualifications, and make it far easier to move up the ladder in whatever field you chose to enter even if it is not a legal one.


Side proposition assumes that the European and American economies will eventually improve to the point where the legal sector will begin to grow again. If it does not you may find just as hard to find a job as when you entered Law School.  Furthermore, there is a good chance that you will be in significant debt by the time you have completed your law degree, which will have a major impact on your ability to seek flexible employment within the legal field. It is quite possible that you may be forced to forgo politics or public interest law in favour of higher paying positions in less desirable fields. And if you decide to pursue options outside of the legal field, it is hard to see how there weren’t cheaper ways to spend three years, since going to Law School actively requires you to pay people to keep you unemployed.  Even if you have received scholarships or training contracts, your options may be limited by the conditions of those offers (mandatory public service, work for a specific firm) which will also inhibit your freedom.


Law school helps graduates to think more clearly making them more attractive to other employers.  Law Schools teaches you to “think” more critically, and legal work offers the opportunity to engage in a largely intellectual pursuit with other highly intellectual individuals. Law students are likely to develop a wider range of intellectual skills throughout their careers, and will be better able to transition in to different jobs and different areas of the legal industry if needed. Moreover, the level of enjoyment that individuals derive from their jobs- and thus the nature of the hedonic calculus that they engage in when determining whether a particular job will fully account for their needs- is linked partly to the variety and difficulty of the tasks they must accomplish. Law represents a sustained and engaging intellectual challenge, and a challenge ideally suited to the skills of most humanities graduates.


You need a legal qualification to be a lawyer  A law degree is first and foremost a requirement of being a lawyer. Anyone with any interest in working in the legal field, serving as a judge, or even working in a number of governmental and non-profit fields will quite simply need to attend law school at some point. If you are already a recipient of such a degree, it will increase the opportunities for advancement within your chosen career.


This argument is simultaneously both a truism, and beside the point. While it is true that someone will need a JD in order to become a lawyer, individuals pursuing those degrees need to understand that they are investing a huge sum of money for an opportunity to take a difficult series of examinations, which if you pass, allows you to apply for a job in the legal field. These positions are becoming far harder to find, as each year the number of students graduating from law schools increases, while the number of available positions either shrink or remain static. One has to take account of the entire field and its condition before making a leap.


You will rarely get the chance to interact with those intelligent individuals, either in Law School, where most of your time will be spent in the library, or at a Law Firm, where any discussions will detract from your ability to bill hours. The legal business model effectively incentivizes long-hours, with most of it going to research. You will rarely if ever see a courtroom, unless you work as a public defender and even there you will spend most of your time on research.


Pay in most fields is, to some degree or other, correlated with the cost of entry into that profession or occupation. Because becoming a Lawyer requires up to seven years of education, it does tend to pay more than many other fields. But there are many lawyers who, despite working long hours, do not make vast amounts of money, and there are, furthermore, a dozen part-time associates for every globe-trotting partner at most major firms.  Furthermore, it is unclear how correlated success within Law School is with pay. The highest paid lawyer in America for most of the 1990s and early 2000s went to the University of Mississippi, rather than an Ivy League institution, while software developers and investment bankers regularly make more than lawyers without having to pay exorbitant tuition costs.


Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy.  Law school is a good way to spend your time and wait out the bad economy. By the time a law degree has run its course, the economy will have improved, and you will have a lot more options available, whether you still want to be a lawyer or not. Indeed, the UK based law school BPP has previously advertised its courses as a “recession proof investment”, arguing that returns, in terms of wages, on an individual’s course fees could potentially be greater than equities or risky financial instruments.


Admissions tests such as the LNAT exaggerate small differences in performance  Lawyers are often extremely high paid, and occupy a prestigious position in society. A law degree is key to entry to the top tier of society and high income earners.


These arguments are less compelling if you have the opportunity to attend a top Law School, in which case the sky is the limit in terms of opportunities.  Furthermore, these harms are far from unique to the legal field – they apply to finance and consulting as well, where a good degree with open more doors than a less prestigious one. But individuals still regularly overcome it.  One way they do is by going to prominent local schools. In the United States, prestige matters most in New York and Boston. Outside of the East Coast, many firms prefer graduates who attended local schools since they are likely to be more familiar with the area and more likely to be able to move and find housing and a social network in the area. A UCLA degree will take you as far in Los Angeles as a Georgetown one.


Applicants should of course carefully consider whether or not they actually wish to become lawyers, and afterwards should carefully consider where they wish to enrol. But it is absurd to claim that individuals cannot decide these things for themselves, and the fact is that many individuals do go to Law School with a clear idea of what they want to do, and subsequently enjoy a highly successful experience in the workplace.  In a lot of ways these criticisms are not unique to the legal field. In fact the same argument could be made for Universities, the number of which is driven by demand for a University education and not by the demand of employers for University graduates. Nonetheless, University graduates almost uniformly make more than non-graduates, and a large number of jobs require degrees. No one could conceivably argue that gaining a college education is either not worth it or a mistake.  In addition, many individuals who have graduated from less prestigious schools can benefit enormously from getting another degree from a more prominent institution. At the point at which the choice is between a Master’s degree in an unrelated field or a law degree, a law degree opens up far more opportunities for its recipients.


The debt incurred in the pursuit of a law degree limits options both within the legal industry, and outside of it, by compelling recipients to seek out the highest paying jobs.  Legal Work is a dog-eats dog world. Law students are forced into a competition with each other for valuable internships, and then in turn face a brutal competition for summer associate positions.  Of every ten junior associates hired, one will be lucky to make partner at a major firm, and the rest will often be faced with a career dead-end at 35 or need to switch careers. For those who do make partner, the opportunities to enjoy the benefits will be limited by pressure to work even harder.


Failing a law degree can be extremely costly.  Law School as a choice has to be weighed against its opportunity cost: what else could someone do with three years and $120,000? How might the long term benefits of this activity weigh up against the consequent benefits of time spent at law school?  This is an especially important consideration for those interested in careers outside of the legal profession. Spending some of that tuition subsidizing an internship on Capitol Hill or with a Think Tank or Lobbying firm would be far more likely to lead to later employment in politics than earning a JD and likely offer a politically interested potential law student a far more entertaining and enjoyable experience. Joining the Peace Corp or working for an international non-Profit would both impress the State Department more and be far cheaper than a law degree.


The actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited.  Because of the supply and demand problems, the actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited.  This is not in fact solely due to their actual quality. It is more a consequence of the fact that the legal job market is so bad, that Firms need to use a proxy for removing applicants from the pool without further consideration, and for many, schools work well.  US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia had admitted to not hiring Clerks from outside of the top ten law schools, suggesting that he prefers to trust that the admissions offices at these schools did their job properly. He has maintained this policy despite admitting that it would have prevented the hiring of the best clerk he ever had, who had gone to Ohio State University Law School.  While the qualitative outcomes are massively different, the price differential between second and third tier law schools and their first year counterparts is next to non-existent. To the extent it exists at all, those schools on top tend to be able to offer more financial aid.


A stint at law school is of little value to those who are not pursuing a legal degree, but nonetheless many applicants treat it as a second shot at an Undergraduate degree.  Individuals increasingly treat Law School as a second shot at their Undergraduate degree. Applicants who failed to get into Russell group or Ivy League institutions the first time around compete obsessively to achieve their dreams on “second chance” while many other applicants are suckered into the image of rich, successful, attractive lawyers presented by the media. Many universities in England, including Oxford, have begun to offer accelerated undergraduate law degrees, which are highly appealing to those seeking to improve on grades received in science or humanities oriented degrees.  The result is that a large number of students are not actually thinking about the role that law plays in their communities, or what they want to do with their life, when they apply.  The result is that supply and demand in the Law School sector is not driven by the actual demand for Lawyers but instead by the demand for law school places by applicants who may or may not be interested in actually being lawyers, and may or may not have any idea of what the job entails.  The explosion in the number of Law Schools in the last ten years, and the consequent growth in the number of law school graduates has not been accompanied by significant growth in the legal sector. A large portion of Law School graduates are therefore not only unable to find gainful employment within their chosen field, but prohibited by debt from finding opportunities elsewhere.  Graduate employment has now become a buyer’s market. Law firms are now able to dictate the conditions and pay for first year associates and NQs unchallenged. The demands placed upon young lawyers now range from back-breaking to soul crushing.


It is true that there are opportunities that could stand you in better stead down the road, but those listed by the opposition are both involve a gamble on the same odds as that entailed by a legal career. For every 10 interns in a congressional office or for a lobbying firm, perhaps one gets a job offer. By contrast you will receive a Law Degree if you spend those three years on Law School.  Furthermore, financial aid can be provided for Law School whereas the jobs listed by the opposition would require a large initial investment.


Law School, especially at the elite level is an opportunity to enter an environment where intellect is valued above all else. Whereas in school or university athletic ability or other talents sometimes trumped academics, in the legal world, academic and mental skills are all that matters.  It is therefore an opportunity to succeed or fail on one’s own merits, and to meet others who are equally interested in intellectual or academic pursuits.


Yes history has to be edited as it could not all be taught but that does not mean that these are the bits that should be edited out. Rather as other nations consider these parts of Japanese history important it is all the more important for Japanese students to study them so as to learn why South Korea and China react in this way


All history is edited  To state the obvious there is an immense amount of history. There is much more history than could ever be taught in school. This means there needs to be some way to cut down everything in history into a sensible sized syllabus. There are some obvious ways to cut down history to a manageable length; such as concentrating on the history of the nation, focusing on certain key events, focusing on things of particular importance to today, or sometimes just on things that are considered fun and interesting. In the UK there have been accusations, including by the current education secretary Michael Gove, that British history is neglected in favour of Nazi Germany and the American west – something that then avoids Britain’s less than comfortable imperial past. [1]  It should therefore come as no surprise that Japan does not highlight World War II and in particular the bad parts of that conflict. Does China teach about its invasion of Tibet?  [1] Vasagar, Jeevan, ‘Michael Gove accuses exam system of neglecting British history’, guardian.co.uk, 24 November 2011,


Critical thinking must not be at the expense of objective history that imparts knowledge of what actually happened. We should not assume that teachers will supplement what is in the textbooks with other books or subject them to critical analysis.


Freedom of Speech  The Japanese government is not forcing schools to teach Japanese history in a way that whitewashes the Japanese record in World War II. In Japan the Ministry of Education screens textbooks and when they are approved makes them available. Schools are then allowed to select their textbook from a list of seven or eight textbooks that have been approved both by the ministry. [1] By making this choice schools are exercising their freedom of speech in deciding what should be taught in their classrooms. In the case of the New History Textbook (Atarashii Rekishi Kyokasho) not a single state run junior high school adopted the textbook resulting in a mere 0.03% of junior high school students using the textbook. [2] By contrast China’s textbooks and their misrepresentations are mandatory. [3] This shows that when the Japanese people are given freedom of information on the issue they exercise this right responsibly.  [1] Masalski, Kathleen Woods, ‘Examining the Japanese history textbook controversies’, Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education, November 2001,   [2] ibid  [3] Sneider, Daniel, ‘Divided Memories: History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia’, Nippon.com, 29 April 2012,


This is not and never can be a freedom of speech issue. In this case it is a teacher or school board deciding what others are to be taught so by its very nature even if that individual has freedom of speech the students do not. In a school freedom of speech is limited; students cannot say what they want when they want, and the same is true with freedom of information; they cannot learn what they want when they want. This is because school is to give them a basic grounding in everything they need to know rather than it being a place where the student can pick and choose.


While an official story or creation myth for a nation may be a useful way of binding a nation together and when this is ancient history it is unlikely to cause much harm. However this should not be brought forward into the modern era where much more objective history is necessary.


The goal is to encourage students to think  History is not about learning all history, it is not about learning particular bits of history, it is not even necessarily about learning a nations’ story, rather it is about encouraging students to think critically. It has been regularly shown that stuffing children with facts turns them off a subject instead there should be interaction, discussion, analysing texts from the time and analysing bias. [1]  The space in the textbook devoted to the issues is very limited and therefore what they mention does not matter particularly much. What matters therefore is how the teachers teach the issues as they will have to supplement the textbooks with other works and there is a wide range to choose from. [2] What matters then is how the teachers expand on the issues within the textbook rather than the textbook itself – the textbook could even be useful at studying the subject by providing a source to study bias on WWII.  [1] Savich, Carl, ‘Improving Critical Thinking in History’, Networks, Vol.11, Issue 2, Fall 2009, p.2,   [2] Inkerd, Wes, ‘The Japanese History Textbook issue’, Education in Japan community blog,  accessed 20 August 2012


Nations should be allowed an ‘official story’  To some the idea of a national story may be an anachronism but history is one of the things that bind a country together. As Benedict Anderson argues nations are ‘imagined communities’ as members of that nation will never know most of the members of that community or even hear about them but despite this there is conceived to be a comradeship between its members. [1] The creation of a national story from the history of the nation that helps create that common unit. French historian Ernest Renan went so far as to argue that ‘Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation’. [2]  South Korean President Lee Myung-bak himself has argued “A textbook of modern history should be written in a way that does not hurt our national pride,” when criticising a South Korean textbook’s interpretation of the dividing of Korea. [3] If this is the case it is difficult to see how there can be any objection to Japan using the same principle.  [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, Verso, 17 November 2006, pp.6-7   [2] Renan, Ernest, quoted in ‘Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780’, The Nationalism Project,   [3] Sang-Hun, Choe, ‘Textbooks on Past Offend South Korea’s Conservatives’, The New York Times, 17 November 2008,


No one worries that Britain is going to attempt to recreate its empire because most school children are not taught about it; why should this be any different with Japan? Moreover in the case of the Japanese constitution while a majority of the Japanese public is for changing the constitution they are not for changing Article 9, only 30% of Japanese are in favour of changing it while 59% are against. [1] Such a change is therefore unlikely in the near future.  [1] Wallace, Corey, ‘The Japanese Constitution in 2011’, Japan Security Watch New Pacific Institute, 3 May 2011,


This dispute is obviously not just about teaching ‘facts’. China which complains about the misrepresentation of the Nanjing massacre does not teach about the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. [1]  Of course the facts should be taught but what facts? The New History Textbook at the center of the dispute only has 12 pages on the whole of WWII, if the pictures are taken out there are only 7 pages left, of which three are devoted to the European theatre. [2] It should therefore not come as a surprise that some things are missed out.  It should be noted that a study by Stanford professors Daniel Sneider and Gi-Wook Shin found that the main Japanese history textbooks are the least biased on the Second World War out of textbooks used in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the United States. [3]  [1] Bruhn, Judith, ‘The vital presence of the past’, Free Speech Debate, 7 May 2012,   [2] Inkerd, Wes, ‘The Japanese History Textbook issue’, Education in Japan community blog,  accessed 20 August 2012  [3] Sneider, Daniel, ‘Divided Memories: History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia’, Nippon.com, 29 April 2012,


Excluding these incidents is offensive  It is offensive to the comfort women and the victims of the Nanjing massacre to deny or omit that such horrific events ever happened. For these people it makes a full apology and closure a much more distant prospect. Duk-Sook Choi, a Korean woman conscripted by the Japanese said "My blood pressure shot up, and I couldn't sleep the night I heard the news about the textbooks” and argued "Not mentioning comfort women is tantamount to insulting the women the world over". [1] Similarly in response to what the New Textbook says on the Nanjing massacre survivors argued "Japanese rightists groups distort history and attempt to cover the truth of Nanjing Massacre. This makes me extremely angry". [2]  [1] Kang, K. Connie, ‘Protesters Decry Japan’s New History Textbooks’, Los Angeles Times, 18 April 2001,   [2] ‘Nanjing Massacre Survivors Protest Japan’s Approval of Distorted History Textbook’, People’s Daily, 6 April 2001,


The bad bits need to be taught so we can understand what others think of us  For millions of people around the world Britain is known for its Empire. In Britain itself this is sometimes given a positive spin, as indeed it was by the Victorian empire builders themselves, as opening up the world, bringing education, technology, and eventually democracy. Of course this did happen but those outside Britain are more likely to remember the British empire for its atrocities, for example the invention of concentration camps in the Boer wars; its destroying native cultures such as Australia’s aborigines; or its ruthless forcing of trade on others like in the aftermath of the Opium Wars. Denying one side of this history denies us the possibility of understanding what others think of us. [1] It is often touted that there should be a partnership between India and Britain on the basis of history. [2] But Britain remembers the ‘good’ Empire did while India remembers the ‘bad’.  So is the case with Japan. South Korea and Japan are natural allies; both confronted by a growing China, and aggressive, totalitarian North Korea, both are allies of the United states, and yet they won’t even share intelligence on the North with each other. [3]  [1] Monbiot, George, ‘How Britain Denies its Holocausts’, 27 December 2005,   [2] Buncombe, Andrew, and Grice, Andrew, ‘Cameron hoping to forge new special relationship with visit to India’, The Independent, 26 July 2010,   [3] Cossa, Ralph A., ‘S. Korea-Japan: Time for Outside Mediation?’, The Diplomat, 30 July 2012,


Schools should teach the controversy in history  History lessons in school are not just about providing children with some sanitised version of national history. Instead they are about teaching points that are controversial or relevant to the modern world. Both of which is the case with the issue of comfort women and Japanese imperialist aggression. They must teach why these actions were wrong and why they are now controversial.  If a non-controversial history is taught which glosses over bad actions this may lead to real political results. In Japan there have regularly been suggestions that the constitution should be changed, and in particular that Article 9, the provision that renounces war should be amended or abolished. [1] If the Japanese are not taught about the actions that lead to this provision or are given a distorted view of it then the resulting change in perception would make altering the constitution much more likely. [2] Ultimately this may well be a case of those who ignore [or misrepresent] history are bound to repeat it.  [1] Martin, Craig, ‘Why Japan should amend its war-renouncing Article 9’, The Japan Times, 4 August 2012,   [2] Cooley, Aaron., ‘The Textbook Controversies in Japan: What History is Taught?’, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2003,


Schools should teach facts  Quite simply if a school in Japan is going to teach about World War II then it should include the darker side of the Japanese involvement in the conflict. Japans acts such as the Nanjing bombing and the occupation of Asian countries were horrific and must not be glossed over. Not covering such actions is quite simply misrepresenting the facts through omission.  No one would consider teaching about Nazi Germany without mentioning the horrors it committed. Learning about, for example the road to war may be interesting, and potentially be useful in drawing lessons on how to prevent a war. Appeasement is still regularly used as an analogy in international relations discussion as meeting almost any aggression with negotiations is seen as appeasing the enemy with Munich as the analogy [1] for example in negotiations with North Korea. [2] It is however a pointless exercise if the person learning knows nothing of what happened in the resulting war. Why should they want to draw on the lessons of the failure of appeasement if they do not know about the millions killed and the suffering inflicted?  [1] Dallek, Robert, ‘The Tyranny of Metaphor’, Foreign Policy, November 2010,   [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘Senate Republicans accuse Obama of North Korea ‘appeasement’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 16 March 2012,


It should be enough that students are taught that their countries did bad things as well as good. There is no need to go into every case where a country has done wrong throughout its history. While the use of comfort women was wrong and tragic there is no reason why this should be used as an example of the suffering caused by Japanese imperialism. Students could equally be taught that Japans actions were wrong through highlighting the treatment of Prisoners of War or by showing that it was Japanese aggression that lead to war after war.


The Japanese have no intention of offending South Korea or China with their textbooks and these countries should not be taking offense over such minor issues. While it is regrettable that a tiny minority of students may get a biased view of history from the New History Textbook the actual harm is miniscule. No individuals are directly insulted by a sin of omission, and no one comes to physical harm. Even those who were victims of the Japanese would probably be better off attempting to get formal apologies for the actual crime rather than attacking misrepresentations that will be seen by so few.  For the most part this is an issue whipped up by the two governments who wish to use Japan’s WWII past to try and force concessions today and to direct nationalist ire away from the government. In China according the Edward Friedman, an expert on Chinese nationalism, “anti-Japan nationalism became a great legitimating glue to hold the society together”. [1]  [1] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘Nationalism in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 23 April 2008,


Languages are not the only economically beneficial skills; sciences, law, humanities, creative studies are favourable. However, skills alone are not enough; people with hands-on experience in their field are needed to work a stable economy. It is immoral that a government makes its people take posts using languages that aid the country’s economy and not the individual’s job satisfaction. At the same time in terms of benefits to the economy of their home country those who have studied languages are more likely to work abroad constituting a brain drain.


Workers with advanced language skills increase the competitiveness of the economies they participate in  Languages are extremely beneficial to the economy in two senses. Firstly, language skills improve a job candidate’s chances of selection, which keeps unemployment down. The National Centre for Languages (CILT) reports on its website that “36% of employers recruit people with languages”, “49% of employers are dissatisfied with school leavers’ language skills” and that “95% of London employers think that language skills are important for the London economy”. [1] Secondly, a high number of employees with language skills enhance companies’ abilities to engage in trade and to expand their business abroad, in turn enhancing exports.  [1] CILT The National Centre for Languages, ‘Employers value language skills’, accessed 17 November 2011,


Students should be free to choose to play to their strengths.  Students should have a fundamental freedom of choice when it comes to all but the most necessary subjects. If students want to specialise in for example Science and drop foreign languages in order to be able to do this then they should have this option, a choice which is likely to be beneficial for their chosen career. Students’ progress in their most successful subjects should not be hindered by the burden of language learning. It is not the case that students do not desire to engage in languages because they are lazy, narrow-minded or blinkered. Rather, because they demonstrate real strength in other subjects they do not wish to be constrained in those subjects by ones where they do not excel.  A standard complaint is quoted by Ehrman; “(learning languages) affects (all study) a lot! I’m finding it just depressing to have to study, when my only reason for being here is to meet a requirement…it really annoys me to have to waste my time on this, when I could be learning something I’ll use after graduation…The pressure’s just too much for me!” [1]  Students should be allowed and encouraged to channel all their energy and enthusiasm into the subjects they are best at and most enthusiastic towards.  [1] Ehrman, ‘Understanding Second Language Difficulties’, 1996, p.136


Again, language is not the only skill that government officials are required to possess in order to ensure that a state is able to adequately protect its citizens and its borders from foreign threats. Those with knowledge and experience working in different states of different cultures can use this to enhance knowledge available to the government or officials. People of different backgrounds are also employed in order to gain insight and for this reason a varied skill set of experiences and knowledge can work together in securing a state.


Learning languages promotes understanding of other cultures  To refuse to learn foreign languages is narrow-minded, ignorant and blinkered. Language is a means not only of asserting identity but, more importantly of “heritage culture maintenance”. To refuse to learn a foreign language is to disallow anyone’s culture apart from one’s own to be upheld. When this happens, “the dominant groups force ethnic groups into particular… niches”. [1] This is particularly likely to be a problem in multicultural societies or indeed any society that is not homogeneous. By refusing to learn foreign languages, one refuses to recognise that other cultures even exist.  For this reason learning a foreign language helps to tackle xenophobia. Negative stereotyping is sadly still prevalent in the modern world. “American students in Maine view persons speaking standard French as shorter, less leaderlike (sic), less thoughtful, less intelligent, less honest, less self-confident, less dependable, less generous, less kind, less ambitious, less stable and with less character than English Speakers”. [2] Such stereotypes lead to prejudices, xenophobia and, in extreme cases, hate crime. Learning foreign languages is a good way to combat such prejudices, because the students learn about the foreign culture for themselves, meet and converse with its people, and have a first-hand introduction to a foreign people. This will leave them more open minded towards other cultures so less likely to be xenophobic towards other cultures whose language they have not learnt. As Reynolds explains, “discounting stereotypes involves denying cultural differences” [3] such as the ability to communicate through the same language.  [1] Reynolds, Allan G., Bilingualism, Multiculturalism and Second Language Learning, Lawrence Newbury Publishers, New Jersey, 1990, p.10  [2] Gardner, R.C., Lambert, W.E, Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning, Newbury House Publishers, Massachusetts, 1972, p.99  [3] Reynolds, Allan G., Bilingualism, Multiculturalism and Second Language Learning, Lawrence Newbury Publishers, New Jersey, 1990, p.5


Language acquisition is no less vital than competence in mathematics and english  A high number of students failing to succeed in languages is not a valid reason to make the subject optional. This mentality opens the gate to making English and math options, simply to eradicate the effort of improving pass rates. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reports that in the UK “A quarter of secondary pupils (aged 11 and over) fail to reach their potential in math(s) and a quarter are making insufficient progress in English”. [1] Still, optional English and math is unthinkable; these are core subjects- languages should also be considered as such. Those who want to transfer students energies from foreign languages to English are ignoring the possibility that learning a foreign language may actually be useful for learning the first language. [2] Students failing in core subjects must be helped to improve, not have the subject eradicated.  [1] BBC News, ‘Third of England pupils fail to reach maths potential’, 9 June 2011,   [2] Leons, Eve, Herbert, Christie and Gobbo, Ken. 2009. “Students with Learning Disabilities and AD/HD in the Foreign Language Classroom” Foreign Language Annals 42(1): 42-54.


The overwhelming number of students who struggle with reading and writing in their own language cannot be expected to acquire a second, foreign one. The vast number of students failing to master basic arithmetic and competency in their mother language is to be addressed as a matter of urgency. This is a primary concern for schools, not second language learning.


Learning its target language is not fundamental to embracing any foreign culture. Many people can be very open to foreign cultures without learning their language(s). Indeed it may be necessary for most to keep the two separate. [1] No one can learn every foreign language and many would not have the time to learn more than a few but that should not prevent learning about and enjoying that culture, its music, its art and even in many cases through translation its literature.  If a student is forced to learn a language against his/her will, then the negative stereotype of the target culture will only be strengthened, fuelled by ill feeling and negative experiences. In the words of Albert Einstein, “It is easier to split an atom than break a prejudice” and realistically language learning will not help combat this sad truth.  [1] Erlbaum, ‘Understanding Second Language Difficulties, 1996, p.140


Allowing students to study what they want or what they consider themselves to be good at would be a mistake. The point of education before university is to provide a good broad grounding that provides all the necessary life skills. This has to include harder subjects that would not be the first choice of the students. In the UK it has been suggested that the high pass rate for soft subjects like Media Studies of 98% has helped cause a decline in foreign language learning at A-level (16-18 years old). [1] Scientific research has shown how a second language can aid us past school years, for example the American Association for the advancement of science’s latest research shows the symptoms of alzheimer’s to occur later on in life in those who are bilingual in comparison to those who speak one language. The ability to speak more than one language enables people to communicate better and for longer. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Media Studies. Discuss’, 18 August 2005,   [2] Wheeler, David L., ‘Being Bilingual: Beneficial Workout for the Brain’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 20 February 2011,


It is still a mystery why, as Robert C. Gardner puts it “that some people can learn a second or foreign language so easily and so well and while others, given what seem to be the same opportunities to learn find it almost impossible?” [1] No audio-visual suite, no matter how high tech and expensive, will be able to raise the grades of students who find it impossible to hold the complexity of grammar rules in their heads.  [1] Gardner, R.C., Lambert, W.E, Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning, Newbury House Publishers, Massachusetts, 1972, p. 131


Learning a language is a sign of good diplomacy.  The call for students to learn a foreign language not only stems from economic needs but also from the need of improved security and diplomacy, in particular a better understanding of cultures and languages in order to better understand threats to the state and improved foreign services are needed. [1] In many Anglophone countries even in the role of a diplomat there are worrying numbers who do not have the language skills they need, for example in Canada “only 16% of the 180 foreign service officers who were required to have advanced foreign languages skills for their positions, could speak the needed language.” [2] As a 2007 National Academy of sciences report warns us “the pervasive lack of knowledge of foreign languages and cultures threatens the security of the united states as well as its ability to compete in the global marketplace and produce an unformed citizenry”. [3] Since the increased security post 9/11 the government accountability office (GAO) have reported that there are a shortage of foreign language expertise within the government and for this reason may undermine national security.  Much of the population of mainland Europe go to great lengths to learn foreign languages, especially the dominant English. English speakers should reciprocate the efforts made by their foreign counterparts; Nicolas Sarkozy for example is aiming to make France into a bilingual nation. [4] Across Europe at least 20% of third-level students claim to be proficient in at least two foreign languages. However, in countries where English is a major language, this is not the case; in Ireland, for example the figure is only 5%. [5] In the United States the situation is similar only 31% of US elementary schools and 24% of public schools teach foreign languages. [6] Expecting foreign countries to communicate through dominant English is a lazy and arrogant attitude to language and should not be permitted. Therefore learning languages up to the age of sixteen should be compulsory.  [1] Kollipara, Puneet, ‘Government still trying to catch up on foreign language capabilities’, The Hill, 12 June 2010,   [2] Raj, Althia, ‘Canadian diplomats don’t have necessary foreign language skills’, Toronto Sun, 3 September 2010,   [3] Mary Ellen O’Connell and Janet L. Norwood ed. ‘International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America's Future’ National Academy of Sciences, 2007,   [4] Agence Bretagne Presse, ‘Nicolas Sarkozy veut faire de la France une nation bilingue’, 12 September 2007,   [5] Irish Independent, ‘Only 5 percent at third-level able to speak two foreign languages’, CareersPortal.ie, 16 June 2011,   [6] Washington Times, ‘Analysis: U.S. must strengthen foreign language education’, 26 December 2008


The solution is more teaching of languages not less.  The problems students face when learning languages are the fault of teaching methods, not language ability. Madeline Ehrman observes that the root of this problem is that the “student is “out of sync” with the methodology, the teacher.” Therefore, the antidote is more modern learning styles; “there are some quick fixes that can be made when adaptations are needed”. [1] Languages should not be abandoned when students find them boring rather the curriculum and methods of teaching need to be changed to make the learning more interesting and more relevant. For example students struggle even with their own grammar so an emphasis on making themselves understood rather than correct grammar may be more useful.  [1] Ehrman, Madeline E., Understanding Second Language Difficulties, SAGE Publications, California, 1996. ISBN: 0-7619-0191-4. P.126


This is once again down to the way languages are taught. The quality of teaching needs to be high so that those who struggle more are motivated to overcome this divide. This is also the case with grammar, both learner and teacher need to have patience and be willing to engage. [1] The critical age for learning a language must also be taken into consideration, it is believed by many experts in the field that it is easier for people to learn languages at a very early age, as it greatly improves ones accent and their ability to learn quickly. Thus the gap between those who progress and those who don’t will be greatly reduced if all students had to learn another language starting from an early primary school age.  [1] Gardner, Attitudes and motivation in Second-Language learning, 1972, p.135


A lack of people who could quickly become qualified foreign language teachers is not a problem. There are a high number of unemployed language graduates, many of whom are already engaged in teaching, particularly as private tutors teaching languages. [1]  [1] McElvoy, Anne, ‘The tutor trap: the rise and rise of private lessons’, London Evening Standard, 22 January 2010,


Not everyone will succeed in learning languages even if compulsory.  There are many people who will never excel in languages whether they are forced to learn it or not, and if they are not going to succeed then why waste all the time trying to make them succeed. With learning foreign languages there is a problem of anxiety in the classroom. This is particularly disabling as students must be able to speak up and be heard, usually by the whole class, in order to make progress. This anxiety is likely to be closer to panic than it would be in other subjects. [1] This not only affects those who are anxious but holds back those who are more able.  This will be even more pronounced with dyslexic children. They struggle with the written word and so will necessarily do even worse when studying foreign languages. Yet they can excel in other subjects such as mathematics. [2] It is therefore not sensible to make languages mandatory.  [1] Ehrman, ‘Understanding Second Language Difficulties, 1996, p.149  [2] ‘Dyslexia and Numeracy’,


There is much less need to learn foreign languages for countries where English is the first language.  For those from countries where English is not the first language English is an obvious language to study, it is a language which is useful all over the world, not just in countries where English is the native language because so many people speak it as a second language. There is not the same obvious second language for native English speakers. It is undeniable that English is increasingly a global language; it is the language of technology and global communication. English is likely to be used in a conversation between for example a German Scientist and an Italian Politician. [1] It is therefore being realistic for English speakers to believe that any other language they learn will have less utility than their own.  [1] English Online Learners, ‘English the Global Language’, British Council,


There is a large gap between those who make progress in languages and those who do not.  There is a gulf between people who do make progress in languages and those who do not. Those able in languages struggle to deconstruct the difficult concepts and explain them to learners who cannot understand. Teachers cannot empathise with students who struggle. Expecting students who have great difficulty in learning languages to be able to do so from those who cannot even explain linguistic concepts successfully is far too much to ask. This one reason why in the UK Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) considers language teaching in secondary schools to be weak. [1]  There are similar problems with grammar between those who are bilingual and those who are not. People who are bilingual due to their background do not think in grammar. If they do not know why certain grammatical constructions are used when and why, how is an absolute beginner struggling with languages supposed to understand such grammar rules? [2]  [1] Webb, Lauren, ‘Ofsted reports poor language teaching in UK’, Veritas,   [2] Reynolds, ‘Bilingualism, Multiculturalism and Second Language Learning’, 1990, p.164


In many countries it would not be practical to have foreign languages as mandatory.  It would not always be practical to increase foreign language teaching to being mandatory for all students. In the United Kingdom for example there is a shortage of foreign language teachers already with 73% of Local Education Authorities struggling to find teachers, particularly for Maths and Languages. [1] At the same time in many countries there are worries about their competitiveness in the world due to the success of East Asian countries in education. The PISA tests shows that East Asian countries, particularly China (Shanghai and Hong Kong), South Korea and Singapore far exceed countries where English is the first language in Maths and Science leading to a need to improve those subjects first. [2]  [1] MailOnline, ‘Teacher shortage reaching crisis levels’,   [2] PISA, ‘What Students now and can do: Student Performance In Reading, Mathematics and Science’, OECD, 2009,


While it is undeniable that at the moment English is the most used international language this is not a reason to be complacent. Just because English is currently dominant does not mean it will remain so. In the 18th, 19th and into the 20th Centuries French was the international language and before that Latin was in Europe. It is as likely that the dominance of the English language will decline as that it will continue to increase. Students should be taught other languages to take advantage of changes that may occur within their lifetimes.


Students not exceling in a subject is not a reason for not teaching that subject. Even a basic understanding of another language is useful. Anxiety is something the students will have to work through and may well be affected in other subjects as well, students who are anxious about learning foreign languages will never be willing to attempt to learn them if they are not compulsory at school.


Teachers accept that marking student work is an important part of their job. Well planned homework should not take so long to mark that the rest of their job suffers, and it can inform their understanding of their students, helping them design new activities to engage and stretch them. As for recruitment, although teachers do often work in the evenings, they are not alone in this and they get long holidays to compensate.


Marking homework reduces the amount of time teachers have to prepare good lessons  Irrespective of homework's educational value, marking it takes up much of teachers' time. Australian teachers have complained that 'homework marking can result in four extra hours of work a day and they are rarely rewarded for their effort'.1 This leaves teachers tired and with little time to prepare effective, inspiring lessons. If the lessons aren't to the standard they should be, the point of homework is lost as the students have little to practise in the first place. The heavy workload also puts young graduates off becoming teachers, and so reduces the talent pool from which schools can recruit.  1 Speranza, 2011


The ban on homework could be easily enforced through school inspections  In many countries public schools require regular school inspections to ensure students are receiving a relatively equal level of education. In Britain for example, Ofsted is a public body that exists specifically to inspect public schools.1 A ban on homework would thus not require a level of trust between the state and individual school principals, for state inspectors could very quickly work out whether homework was being given out by asking the children themselves. Children, who don't like homework at the best of times, would not lie.  1 Ofsted, 2011


Homework has not prevented students doing other activities; it takes very little time to complete. Recent American surveys found that most students in the USA spent no more than an hour a night on homework. That suggests there does not seem to be a terrible problem with the amount being set. Furthermore, British studies have shown that 'more children are engaging in sport or cultural activities' than ever before.1 As such, there is no clear evidence to suggest that students are stuck at home doing their homework instead of doing other activities. In addition, concerns over how busy children are suggest that parents need to help their children set priorities so that homework does not take a back seat to school work.  1 BBC News, 2008


Homework is about 'winning' on tests, not learning  Many governments make their schools give students a national test (a test taken by all students of the same age). After the tests, they compare schools and punish the schools and teachers whose students do badly. Because schools and teachers are therefore scared about their students doing poorly, they give them more homework, not in the hope they learn more but simply to do better on the tests.1 As such, homework is not designed to help the student, just their teachers and schools who want them to 'win' the test and make them look good, not learn for the students' own benefit.  1 Sorrentino


Homework has little educational worth, and therefore is a waste of students' time  Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools and some countries don't bother with homework at all, and their results do not seem to suffer from it. Studies show that homework adds nothing to standardised test scores for primary/ elementary pupils. As Alfie Kohn notes, no study has ever found a link between homework and better tests results in elementary school, and there is no reason to believe it is necessary in high school.1 International comparisons of older students have found no positive relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores - students in Japan and Denmark get little homework but score very well on tests.2 If anything, countries with more homework get worse results!  1 Sorrentino , 2011  2 Britt , 2005


Homework has a lot of educational value, the reason it has not shown this is because teachers do not set the right kind of homework or they set the wrong amount of it. Some teachers believe homework is for reviewing material, others think it is better for learning new concepts. The result is 'confusion for students'.1 If the homework was consistent however, and related specifically to what is learnt in the classroom, it would have a great deal of educational value by helping them remember their lessons and increase students' confidence in how much they are learning.  Furthermore, Professor Cooper of Duke University has shown that by the high schools years, there is a strong and positive relationship between homework and how well students do at school. There are two main reasons why this relationship does not appear in elementary school: 1) Elementary school teachers assign homework not so much to enhance learning, but in order to encourage the development of good study skills and time management;2 2) young children have less developed cognitive skills to focus and concentrate on their work.3 Thus, they are more easily distracted from their homework assignments.  1 Strauss, 2006 2 Muhlenbruck, Cooper, Nye, & Lindsey, 2000 3Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001


Setting homework with the intention of encouraging students to do well at tests is beneficial to students as much as it is to teachers and schools. National tests are a way of assessing whether students are at the level they should be, if they do well on the tests, that is a good thing. Therefore, a 'win' for the teachers and schools is also a great deal of learning for the student, the two need not be separated.


Many states do not in fact have a structured school inspection system that could enforce such a ban. The United States, for example, has one of the largest student bodies in the world but the state does not have a formal inspection system that could enforce a ban on homework. Therefore any ban would only prove a recommendation at best, and could not possibly hope to be enforced.  Furthermore, even in those states that do have inspection bodies, the regularity of inspections allows school principals to prepare for their arrival. Students might be forced by their teachers to lie to inspectors, otherwise they would receive even more homework. Furthermore, the school inspections are partly so that they can test the ability of students – therefore teachers are encouraged to give their students homework so that they do better on these inspections.


If homework puts students off learning, then it has been badly planned by the teacher. As Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of Education notes, 'many teachers lack the skills to design homework assignments that help kids learn and don't turn them off to learning' .1 The best homework tasks engage and stretch students, encouraging them to think for themselves and follow through ideas which interest them. Over time, well planned homework can help students develop good habits, such as reading for pleasure or creative writing. The research however suggests that homework is not in fact putting students off learning. Rather studies in Britain indicate that 'most children are happy (and) most are achieving a higher level than before'.2 Homework cannot be blamed for a problem that does not exist. Poor children may indeed lack support to do their homework, but this just means that schools need to do more to provide the help they need.  1 Strauss, 2006 2 BBC News, 2008


Homework reduces the amount of time for students to do other activities  Homework takes a lot of time up. In America, they encourage the '10 minute rule', 10 minutes homework for every grade, meaning that high-school students are all doing more than an hour's worth of homework each night.1 Being young is not just about doing school work every night. It should also about being physically active, exploring the environment through play, doing creative things like music and art, and playing a part in the community. It is also important for young people to build bonds with others, especially family and friends, but homework often squeezes the time available for all these things.  1 Associated Press, 2009


Homework puts students off learning  Homework puts students off learning. Studies have shown that many children find doing homework very stressful, boring and tiring. Often teachers underestimate how long a task will take, or set an unrealistic deadline. Sometimes because a teacher has not explained something new well in class, the homework task is impossible. So children end up paying with their free time for the failings of their teachers. They also suffer punishments if work is done badly or late. After years of bad homework experiences, it is no wonder that many children come to dislike education and switch off, or drop out too early. Teachers in Britain fear that poor children, because they lack the support to do their homework, will be turned off school 1.  1 BBC News, 2008


Homework is a class issue. In school everyone is equal, but at home some people have advantages because of their family background. Middle-class families with books and computers will be able to help their children much more than poorer ones can. This can mean poorer children end up with worse grades and more punishments for undone or badly done homework. David Baker, a researcher, believes too much homework causes parents and children to get angry with each other and argue, destroying the child’s confidence 1. On the other hand pushy parents may even end up doing their kids’ homework for them – cheating and not helping the student learn at all.  1 Britt , 2005


Setting homework does little to develop good study skills. It is hard to check whether the homework students produce is really their own. Some students have always copied off others or got their parents to help them. But today there is so much material available on the internet that teachers can never be sure. It would be better to have a mixture of activities in the classroom which help students to develop a whole range of skills, including independent learning. Furthermore, if teachers want to develop independence in their students, students should be given a choice in the matter of homework. Otherwise, they’re not using their judgement and therefore they aren’t being independent at all 1.  1 Sorrentino , 2011


Homework ensures that students practise what they are taught at school  Having homework also allows students to really fix in their heads work they have done in school. Doing tasks linked to recent lessons helps students strengthen their understanding and become more confident in using new knowledge and skills. For younger children this could be practising reading or multiplication tables. For older ones it might be writing up an experiment, revising for a test and reading in preparation for the next topic. Professor Cooper of Duke University, has found that there is evidence that in elementary school students do better on tests when they do short homework assignments related to the test 1. Students gain confidence from such practise, and that shows when they sit the tests.  1 Strauss, 2006


Homework is an essential part of education, allowing students to learn information beyond that which they are taught at school.  Homework is a vital and valuable part of education. There are only a few hours in each school day – not enough time to cover properly all the subjects children need to study. Setting homework extends study beyond school hours, allowing a wider and deeper education. It also makes the best use of teachers, who can spend lesson time teaching rather than just supervising individual work that could be done at home. Education is about pushing boundaries, and the learning should not stop at the entrance to the classroom – students should take skills learnt in the classroom and apply them at home. Homework allows this to happen, encouraging students to go above and beyond what they do in school. Reading is the best example, students learn how to read at school, but in order to get better, they need to practise and that is best done at home, with the support of parents and at the right pace for the student.


Homework provides a link between child, school and the home  Education is a partnership between the child, the school and the home 1. Homework is one of the main ways in which the student’s family can be involved with their learning. Many parents value the chance to see what their child is studying and to support them in it. It has been described as the ‘window into the school’ for parents, the area in which schools, parents and students interact daily 2. And schools need parents’ support in encouraging students to read at home, to help with the practising of tables, and to give them opportunities to research new topics.  1 Walker, et. al, 2004 2 Gill & Schlossman, 2003


Homework encourages students to work more independently (by themselves)  Homework encourages students to work more independently, as they will have to at college and in their jobs. Everyone needs to develop responsibility and skills in personal organization, working to deadlines, being able to research, etc. If students are always “spoon-fed” topics at school they will never develop study skills and self-discipline for the future. A gradual increase in homework responsibilities over the years allows these skills to develop 1. For instance, to read a novel or complete a research project, there is simply no time at school to do it properly. Students have to act independently and be willing to read or write, knowing that if they struggle, they will have to work through the problem or the difficult words themselves. Diane Ravitch points out that a novel like Jane Eyre cannot be completed if it is not read at home – students have to work through it themselves 2. When given the choice of homework or no homework most students would chose not to do it. But by doing homework they are effectively taught independence in finding their own ways to explain and understand the topic.  1 Bempechat, 2004  2 Ravitch , 2007


Homework is not an essential part of information. If what was to be learnt from homework was that essential, it would not be left to the child to learn on their own and away from school. In fact, many teachers admit to simply setting homework because they are expected to set it, not because they think it will be helpful 1. The best environment for learning is in a classroom, where the student is able to ask for assistance if stuck and the teacher is available to help. .  1 BBC News, 2008


Homework does not ensure that students practise what they are taught at school. Teachers often give pupils the end of the exercise they were doing in class to complete at home, it tends to be the harder questions towards the end of the exercise and if a teacher or a tutor is not present to explain or help then it causes the pupil to doubt their ability. To practise what a student has been taught requires the presence of a teacher or tutor who can guide the student if they get something wrong. Homework, done by the student on their own, offers little support and is only a source of stress. If confused, the student may only come to dislike the topic or subject, which will only further reduce their ability to remember what they were taught.


The facts are against the premise again.  Research does not support the idea that young people who play violent video games have decreased social ability. This is refuted most notably in studies by Anderson and Ford (1986), Winkel et al. (1987), Scott (1995), Ballard and Lineberger (1999), and Jonathan Freedman (2002). More recently, Block and Crain (2007) claim that in a critical paper by Anderson (and his co-author, Bushman), data was improperly calculated and produced fallacious results. Additional meta-analyses (reviews of research that attempt to statistically combine data from multiple studies for more powerful results) by other researchers, such as by Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) and Sherry (2007) have failed to find any causal link between video game violence and aggression, as have recent reviews by the Australian Government (2010) and the US Supreme Court (June, 2011).  The question of whether violent games that only allow violence as a solution to problems could negatively affect young people in subtle ways deserves further study. However, there are many aspects of video games, such as puzzle solving, that are intrinsic parts of even the basest first person shooters. Many first-person shooters themselves require tactical deployment and thinking—all of which are able to stimulate thought in people, albeit in a different manner than negotiation might do. [1] Further, newer military games are more sophisticated, often requiring the player to take one side of a conflict and then the other in different levels of the game, or forcing the player to face moral dilemmas that affect the game’s storyline or outcome.  [1] Freedman, Jonathan L. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. ISBN 0802084257


Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems  Video games of a violent nature tend to fail to offer many solutions to a problem. Most military shooters have no form of negotiation with enemies; players are asked to simply kill as many nameless terrorists as possible. Given this, social interaction problems can be caused because people are presented with problems and then told that they must be solved with violence instead of other methods. In other words, physical violence is portrayed as the first-choice (and often only-choice) solution to a conflict.  This lack of portrayal of alternate solutions can stifle growth of other skills, especially amongst children and adolescents, specifically skills important to making friends and engaging in negotiation in times of conflict or pressure. Further, it encourages children to see people who oppose them as “others,” and thus presents them psychologically as enemies instead of as people who are simply different to the player and thus might have other grievances. This can lead to increases in aggression among players.  This is especially true given the relatively simplistic portrayal of conflicts within areas such as the Middle East and Afghanistan. [1]  [1] "Violent Video Games May Increase Aggression in Some But Not Others, Says New Research". apa.org. American Psychological Association. 27 September 2011.


The facts are strongly against the Proposition’s analysis  The proposition’s arguments fail to stand up in the real world. Several major studies published in The Journal of Adolescent Health, The British Medical Journal and The Lancet (among others) have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and real-life violent behaviour. The Federal Bureau of Investigation found no evidence linking video game use to the massacre at Columbine (or other highly publicized school shootings). [1] There is no evidence to support the idea that people exposed to violent video game (or other violent media content) will then go on to commit crimes. [2]  Further, if violent video games were causing violent behaviour, we would expect to see rates of violent crime increase as games with realistic portrayals of violence became more widely available on popular game consoles. Instead, violent crime has decreased in recent years. Some economists have argued (based on time series modelling) that increased sales of violent video games are associated with decreases in violent crime. [3]  In Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, researchers/authors Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Mental Health and Media refute claims of violent behaviour increase caused by violent video games. The researchers' quantitative and qualitative studies (surveys and focus groups) found that young adolescents view game behaviour as unrelated to real-life actions, and this is why they can enjoy criminal or violent acts in a game that would horrify them in reality. They also found evidence that those relatively few adolescents who did not play video games at all were more at-risk for violent behaviours such as bullying or fighting (although the sample size was too small for statistical significance). The authors speculated that because video game play has gained a central and normative role in the social lives of adolescent boys, a boy who does not play any video games might be socially isolated or rejected.  Finally, although more study is needed, there is some evidence to suggest that violent video games might allow players to get aggressive feelings out of their system (i.e., video game play might have a cathartic effect), in a scenario that does not harm anyone else. [4] , [5] , [6]  [1] O’Toole, Mary Ellen, ‘The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment perspective’, Critical Incident Response Group, www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter  [2] Editorial. Is exposure to media violence a public-health risk? The Lancet, 2008, 371:1137.  [3] Cunningham, Scott, et al., ‘Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime’, 7 April 2011,   [4] Kutner, Lawrence & Cheryl K. Olson. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. Simon and Schuster, 2008  [5] Bensley, Lillian and Juliet Van Eenwyk. Video games and real-life aggression: A review of the literature, Journal of Adolescent Health, 2001, 29:244-257.  [6] Griffiths, Mark. Video games and health. British Medical Journal, 2005, 331:122-123.


Children See Violent Video Games  Whilst it might be agreed that violent video games in the hands of a person who is old enough to see them and be able to understand the context in which the violence is being wrought is acceptable, this may not be true of younger people who acquire games.  Games with violent content are often easily acquired by players too young to purchase them. They may also gain access to them at home from older siblings. Because children do not have fully developed mental faculties yet, and may not clearly separate fantasy from reality, exposure to violent games can have a large impact upon children. This has a greater impact than children seeing films that feature realistic violence because whilst a child might get bored with films owing to the lack of interaction with the medium, this is much less likely to be the case with, for example, a military shooting game, which a child might play over and over  As such, all violent video games should be banned to prevent their acquisition by young children either by accident, or owing to parental ignorance. [1]  [1] Anderson, Craig et al. The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2003, 4:81-110


This is empirically false  Again, the crux of opposition counter-argument is that the evidence in this regard is strongly behind opposition.  In April 2011, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission undercover shopper survey found that video game retailers continue to enforce the ratings by allowing only 13% of underage teenage shoppers to buy M-rated video games, a statistically significant improvement from the 20% purchase rate in 2009. By contrast, underage shoppers purchased R-rated movies 38% of the time, and unrated movies 47% of the time.  Given that children are able to easily access violent content in other visual media, and there is no evidence that video games are more harmful than other media, this argument falls. Further, there is a long tradition of exposing children to extremely violent content in the form of fairy tales.  Further, with greater education regarding the harms of videogames to parents (and with more parents having played video games themselves) many are becoming savvier about appropriate restrictions on their children’s video game play. Given the lack of evidence that video games are clearly or uniquely harmful, but acknowledging society’s interest in protecting vulnerable children, investing in additional parent education is a more logical response than attempting to ban all violent games. [1]  [1] Federal Trade Commission. FTC undercover shopper survey on enforcement of game ratings finds compliance worst for retailers of music CDs and the highest among video game sellers. News release, 20 April 2011.


Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour  Video games exist as an interactive medium. The player has control over their character and many of their character’s actions whereas in a book or movie, the audience does not. This means that the player can become invested emotionally in characters to a greater extent because of the autonomy afforded to each character.  Given that this is true it becomes more difficult to ensure dissociation between the real world and the game world with which the player interacts. With the growing drive towards realism of videogame graphics, game environments are able to look incredibly similar to real life, further blurring the distinction.  If this is the case, then a person who visits violence upon another person within a game universe feels the same emotions as someone who does so within real life, and therefore may be desensitised to real-life violence. Whilst game producers would claim that is not their aim and that their games do not cause this desensitisation, many have been actively pursuing technologies that allow for greater immersion within their game-worlds.  If this is the case then acts of violence may fail to register the same level of shock or revulsion in a person than they usually do. Given that this is true, people who play video games become more able to harm others or less likely to intervene to prevent harm.  In terms of actual evidence, there is very little to back up this analysis. Most studies supporting the concept have been debunked by others. [1]  [1] Anderson, Craig & Bushman, Brad. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 2001, 12: 353-359


Video games teach people to deal with frustrations in the wrong way.  In dealing with frustrations and aggression by using video games as an outlet, players of these games often assume that the problem is gone or dealt with.  This is often not the case, with many sources of frustration being ones which repeat day in and day out.  Given that this is the case, video games prevent people from dealing with the root causes of their problems and thus leave people more susceptible to frustration in the future.  Further, playing back into the first point on proposition, they teach players only one method of dealing with their problems, which is resorting to violence, so should they seek to deal with their frustrations in the real world, often the solutions they do engage with are ones which are suboptimal.


There is a generation gap  Children in this age have grown up with computers and digital media devices where their parents have not. Whilst some parents are able to readily adapt to new technology, there are a large proportion that are unable to do so.  Even if parents have adapted to the digital age, there are still lots of things their children know about that parents simply cannot keep up with. It is entirely feasible for a child to be able to keep the presence of a violent video game hidden from his or her parents through use of the various “Home” menus that all the major games consoles now possess. Further, on the computer, a user can simply Alt+Tab out of any application they are in to avoid detection.  Given there are many ways for children to avoid their parents and given the generation gap, it seems unfair to expect parents to be able to monitor their children in this way.