(^_^) Lớp học tiếng Anh Mrs.THUY_ED (Tầng 30) (^_^)(Update thông tin mới trang 1 và trang cuối - Chủ

chị ơi chị gửi mail cho em nữa nhé, mail của em là huongntt237@gmail.com.
số dd của em là 0977447132
thanks chị nhìu nhìu ^^

chị ơi! dạo này chị vẫn khoẻ chứ! em sang đây được 2 tuần rồi nhưng vẫn nhớ đi học tiếng anh lắm!
em xem lịch khai gia?ng chị post rô?i! chị ơi em đăng ký lớp IELTS E40 nhé! vâfn thơ?i gian cuf! May quá! đúng đợt em vư?a vê?! Muốn đi học đê? thi lắm ru?i chị ạ! Em ơ? bên na?y vâfn chép ba?i cu?a chị đê?u đê?u! phâ?n speaking em vâfn copy xuống va? chuâ?n bị, tiếc la? không có chị ho?i nưfa thôi!hichic...
handout chị phát cho Trung thi? chị photo thêm cho em 1 ba?n nhé! Trung nó sef scan gư?i cho em! tiếc la? phâ?n nghe ma? chị mới burn thi? em sef không có! nhưng phâ?n reading va? writing em sef cố gắng đọc...đê? vê? học co?n theo kịp các bạn trong lớp mới
em ca?m ơn chị nhiê?u nhiê?u!
Đợt vừa rồi sinh nhật chị mà em ko biết!hichic...E35 tổ chức gì mà vui thế chị? tiếc là em không được tham gia...huhu
Happy belated birthday to you! Best wishes for you...
em Ha?

Em muốn đăng ký học lớp E40 ( buổi thứ 2 & thứ 5)
Chị gửi tài liệu cho em vào: dangninh1001@gmail.com giup e nhé
K bít học phí rư thế nào nhỉ?
Thank chị

Uh, chị cũng nhắc em suốt mà, mọi người còn trêu là Hà bay sang Thailand xem s.. show rồi he he!
Chị photo cho em mà, em ghi lại chính xác lớp em định join vào lại, rồi ngày học lựa chọn cho chị nhé, lớp IELTS tới khả năng sẽ full nhanh lắm nên chị cần em book 1 slot chắc chắn. Tiện thể, nếu em chat với Mr.An thì hỏi lun xem tình hình hắn ntn hộ chị nhé. Chúc em có nhiều niềm vui mới, về kể lại cho chị nghe nhé,năm tới em bé lớn tí nữa chị cũng cho nó sang chơi cho bít (à, bé con nhà chị trộm vía biết nói "Nhớ mệ" rồi nhé - đó là tin tức update nhất đấy )

Bài đọc lớp E35:
Pop stars today enjoy a style of living which was once the prerogative only of Royalty. Wherever they go, people turn out in their thousands to greet them. The crowds go wild trying to catch a brief glimpse of their smiling, colourfully ?" dressed idols. The stars are transported in their chauffeur ?" driven Rolls ?" Royces, private helicopters of executive aeroplanes. They are surrounded by a permanent entourage of managers, press ?" agents and bodyguards. Photographs of them appear regularly in the press and all their comings and goings are reported, for, like Royalty, pop stars are news. If they enjoy many of the privileges of Royalty, they certainly share many of the inconveniences as well. It is dangerous for them to make unscheduled appearances in public. They must be constantly shielded from the adoring crowds which idolise them. They are no longer private individuals, but public property. The financial rewards they receive for this sacrifice cannot be calculated, for their rate of pay are astronomical.
And why not? Society has always rewarded its top entertainers lavishly. The great days of Hollywood have become legendary: famous stars enjoyed fame, wealth and adulation on an unprecedented scale. By today?Ts standards, the excess of Hollywood do not seem quite so spectacular. A single gramophone record nowadays may earn much more in royalties than the films of the past ever did. The competition for the title ?oTop of the Pops? is fierce, but the rewards are truly colossal.
It is only right that the stars should be paid in this way. Don?Tt the top men in industry earn enormous salaries for the services they perform to their companies and their countries? Pop stars earn vast sums in foreign currency ?" often more than large industrial concerns ?" and the taxman can only be grateful for their massive annual contribution to the Exchequer. So who could begrudge them their rewards?
It?Ts all very well for people in humdrum jobs to moan about the successes and rewards of others. People who make envious remarks should remember that the most famous stars represent only the tip of the iceberg. For every famous star, there are hundreds of others struggling to earn a living. A man working in a steady job and looking forward to a pension at the end of it has no right to expect very high rewards. He has chosen security and peace of mind, so there will always be a limit to what he can earn. But a man who attempts to become a star is taking enormous risks. He knows at the outset that only a handful of competitors ever get to the very top. He knows that years of concentrated effort may be rewarded with complete failure. But he knows too, that the rewards for success are very high indeed: they are the recompense for the huge risks involved and if he achieves them, he has certainly earned them. That?Ts the essence of private enterprise.

TELEVISION IS DOING IRREPARABLE HARM
Yes, but what did we use to do before there was television? How often we hear statements like this! Television hasnâ?Tt been with us all that long, but we are already beginning to forget what the world was like without it. Before we admitted the one â?" eyed monster into our homes, we never found it difficult to occupy our spare time. We used to enjoy civilized pleasures. For instance, we used to have hobbies, we used to entertain our friends and be entertained by them, we used to go outside for our amusements to theatres, cinemas, restaurants and sporting events. We even used to read books and listen to music and broadcast talks occasionally. All that belongs to the past. Now all our free time is regulated by the â?ogoogle boxâ?.
We rush home or gulf down our meals to be in time for this or that programme. We have even given up sitting at the table and having a leisurely evening meal, exchanging the news of the day. A sandwich and a glass of beer will do anything, providing it doesnâ?Tt interfere with the programme. The monster demands and obtains absolute silence and attention. If any member of the family dares to open his mouth during a programme, he is quickly silenced.
Whole generations are growing up addicted to the telly. Food is left uneaten, homework undone and sleep is lost. The telly is a universal pacifier. It is now standard practice for mother to keep the children quiet by putting them in the living room and turning on the set. It doesnâ?Tt matter that the children will watch rubbishy commercials or spectacles of sadism and violence â?" so long as they are quiet.
There is a limit to the amount of creative talent available in the world. Every day, television consumes vast quantities of creative work. That is why most of the programmes are so bad: it is impossible to keep pace with the demand and maintain high standards as well. When millions watch the same programmes the whole world becomes a village, and society is reduced to the con***ions which obtain in preliterate communities. We become utterly dependent on the two primitive media of communication: pictures and the spoken word. Television encourages passive employment. We become content with second â?" hand experiences. It is so easy to sit our armchairs watching others working. Little by little, television cuts us off from the real world. We get so lazy, we choose to spend a fine day in semidarkness, glued to our sets, rather than go out into the world itself. Television may be a splendid medium of communication, but it prevents us from communicating with each other. We only become aware how totally irrelevant television is to real living when we spend a holiday by the sea or in the mountains, with each far away from civilization. In quiet, natural surroundings, we quickly discover how little we miss the hypnotic tyranny of King Telly.

EXAMINATIONS EXERT A PERNICIOUS INFLUENCE ON EDUCATION
We might marvel at the progress made in every field of study, but the methods of testing a person?Ts knowledge and ability remain as primitive as ever they were. It really is extraordinary that after all these years, educationists have still failed to devise anything more efficient and reliable than examinations. For all the pious claim that examinations test what you know, it is common knowledge that they more often do the exact opposite. They may be a good means of testing memory, or the knack of working rapidly under extreme pressure, but they can tell you nothing about a person?Ts true ability and aptitude.
As anxiety- makers, examinations are second to none. That is because so much depends on them. They are the mark of success or failure in our society. Your whole future may be decided in one fateful day. It doesn?Tt matter that you weren?Tt feeling well, or that your mother died. Little things like that don?Tt count: the exam goes on. No one can give his best when he is in mortal terror, or after a sleepless night, yet this is precisely what the examination system expects him to do. The moment a child begins school, he enters a world of vicious competition where success and failure are clearly defined and measured. Can we wonder at the increasing number of ?odrop ?" outs?: young people who are written off as utter failures before they have even embarked on a career? Can we be surprised at the suicide rate among students?
A good education should, among other things, train you to think for yourself. The examination system does anything but that. What has to be learnt is rigidly laid down by a syllabus, so the student is encouraged to memorise. Examinations do not motivate a student to read widely, but to restrict his reading; they do not enable him to seek more and more knowledge, but induce cramming. They lower the standards of teaching, for they deprive the teacher of all freedom. Teachers themselves are often judged by examination results and instead of teaching their subjects, they are reduced to training their subjects and their students in exam techniques which they despise. The most successful candidates are not always the best trained in the technique of working under duress.
The results on which so much depends are often nothing more than a subjective assessment by some anonymous examiner. Examiners are only human. They get tired and hungry; they make mistakes. Yet they have to mark stacks of hastily ?" scrawled scripts in a limited amount of time. They work under the same sort of pressure as the candidates. And their word carries weight. After a judgê?Ts decision you have a right of appeal, but not after an examiner?Ts. There must surely be many simpler and more effective ways of assessing a person?Ts true abilities. Is it cynical *****ggest that examinations are merely a profitable business for the institutions that run them? This is what it boils down to in the last analysis. The best comment on the system is this illiterate message recently scrawled on a wall : ?oI were a teenage drop ?" out and now I are a teenage millionairê?.

WORLD GOVERNMENTS SHOULD CONDUCT SERIOUS CAMPAIGNS AGAINST SMOKING
If you smoke and you still don?Tt believe that therê?Ts a definite link between smoking and bronchial trouble, heart disease and lung cancer, then you are certainly deceiving yourself. No one will accuse you of hypocrisy. Let us just say that you are suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking. This needn?Tt make you too uncomfortable because you are in good company. Whenever the subject of smoking and health is raised the governments of most countries hear no evil, see no evil and smell no evil. Admittedly, a few governments have taken timid measures. In Britain, for instance, cigarette advertising has been banned on television. The conscience of the nation is appeased, while the population continues to puff its way to smoky, cancerous death.
You don?Tt have to look very far to find out why the official reactions to medical findings have been so lukewarm. The answer is simply money. Tobacco is a wonderful commo***y to tax. It?Ts almost like a tax on our daily bread. In tax revenue alone, the government of Britain collects enough from smokers to pay for its entire educational facilities. So while the authorities point out ever so discreetly that smoking may, conceivably, be harmful, it doesn?Tt do to shout too loudly about it.
This is surely the most short ?" sighted policy you could imagine. While money is eagerly collected in vast sums with one hand, it is paid out in increasingly vaster sums with the other. Enormous amounts are spent on cancer research and on efforts to cure people suffering from the disease. Countless valuable lives are lost. In the long run, there is no doubt that everybody would be much better ?" off if smoking were banned altogether.
Of course, we are not ready for such drastic action. But if the governments of the world were honestly concerned about the welfare of their peoples, you?Td think they?Td conduct aggressive anti ?" smoking campaigns. Far from it! The tobacco industry is allowed to spend staggering sums on advertising. Its advertising is as insidious as it is dishonest. We are never shown pictures of real smokers coughing up their lungs early in the morning. That would never do. The advertisements always depict virile, clean ?" shaven young men. They suggest it is manly to smoke, even positively healthy! Smoking is associated with the great open- air, life, with beautiful girls, true love and togetherness. What utter nonsense!
For a start, governments could begin by banning all cigarette and tobacco advertising and should then conduct anti ?" smoking advertising campaigns of their own. Smoking should be banned in all public places like theatres, cinemas and restaurants. Great efforts should be made to inform young people especially of the dire consequences of taking up the habit. A horrific warning ?" say, a picture of a death?Ts head-should be included in every packet of cigarettes that is sold. As individuals we are certainly weak, but if governments acted honestly and courageously, they could protect us from ourselves.

VICIOUS AND DANGEROUS SPORTS SHOULD BE BANNED BY LAW
When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, itâ?Ts amazing how little we have made developed in other respects. We may speak contemptuously of the poor old Romans because they relished the orgies of slaughter that went on in their arenas. We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them condescendingly because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified? Are we any less bloodthirsty? Why do boxing matches for instance, attract such universal interest? Donâ?Tt the spectators who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remain as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungry lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of sophisticated arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago; sports which are quite as barbarous as, say, public hangings or bear â?" baiting.
It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bull â?" fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch two men batter each other to pulp in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Let us not deceive ourselves. Any talk of â?othe sporting spiritâ? is sheer hypocrisy. People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Spectators are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is front page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointed because they have been deprived of the exquisite pleasure of witnessing prolonged torture and violence.
Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilised. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally â?" admittedly with little success. But at least we are no longer tolerate the sight madmen copped up in cages of public floggings or any of the countless other barbaric practices which were common in the past. Prisons are no longer the grim forbidding places they used to be. Social welfare systems are in operation in many parts of the world. Big efforts are being made to distribute wealth fairly. These changes have come about not because human beings have suddenly and unaccountably improved, but because positive steps were taken to change the law. The law is the biggest instrument of social change that we have and it may exert great civilising influence. If we banned dangerous and violent sports, we would be moving one step further to improving mankind. We would recognise that violence is degrading and unworthy of human beings.

Let us suppose that you are in the position of a parent. Would you allow your children to read any book they wanted to without first checking its contents? Would you take your children to see any film without first finding out whether it is suitable for them? If your answer to these questions is ?oyes?, then you are either extremely permissive, or just plain irresponsible. If your answer is ?onô?, then you are exercising your right as a parent to protect your children from what you consider to be undesirable influences. In other words, by acting as a censor yourself, you are admitting that there is a strong case to censorship.
Now, of course, you will say that it is one thing to exercise censorship where children are concerned and quite another to do the same for adults. Children need protection and it is the parents?T responsibility to provide it. But what about adults? Aren?Tt they old enough to decide what is good for them? The answer is that many adults are, but don?Tt make the mistake of thinking that all adults are like yourself. Censorship is for the good of society as a whole. Highly civilized people might find it possible to live amicably together without laws of any kind: they would just rely on good sense to solve their problems. But imagine ?" what chaos there would be if we lived in a society without laws! Like the law, censorship contributes to the common good.
Some people think that it is disgraceful that a censor should interfere with works of art. Who is this person, they say, to ban this great book or cut that great film? No one can set himself up as a superior being. But we must remember two things. Firstly, where genuine works of art are concerned, modern censors are extremely liberal in their views- often far more liberal than a large section of the public. Artistic merit is something which censors clearly recognize. And secondly, we must bear in mind that the great proportion of books, plays and films which come before the censor are very fat from being ?oworks of art?.
When discussing censorship, therefore, we should not confine our attention to great masterpieces, but should consider the vast numbers of publications and films which make up the bulk of the entertainment industry. When censorship laws are relaxed, unscrupulous people are given a license to produce virtually anything in the name of ?oart?. There is an increasing tendency to equate ?oartistic? with ?opornographic?. The vast market for pornography would rapidly be exploited. One of the great things that censorship does is to prevent certain people from making fat profits by corrupting the minds of others. To argue in favour of absolute freedom is to argue in favour of anarchy. Society would really be the poorer if it deprived itself of the wise counsel and the restraining influence which a censor provides.