The first one is for students to discuss - there's a core message or two in there about being honest and being resourceful. The rest are all jokes - I would use either the Monte Python or the 2 Seinfelds but probably not all 3. Seinfeld might lead to some questions like "What's a better way to prepare for an interview?"
The Pursuit of Happyness:
George Costanza getting coached for an interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3AMRHXMfjs&NR=1
And the actual interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B48ZpNcxBL0
Monte Python nonsense:
A question I received:
I am a student at VCU, and Saw some of your information on ESLGO.com,
Could you possible give me some information on ESL online training that would enable me to teach english in vietnam?
Reply
I don't know much about the job market in Vietnam but a face to face TESOL course will always be better received than an online one. You should have no trouble finding a one month course in any major city. I guess you're in Richmond? I don't have any specifics but I'm certain you can find something there.
You could probably find a face to face course in Vietnam though I doubt it would be much cheaper. Maybe even more when you add in the cost of room and board. But they would probably be helpful in finding you a job if it was a decent program.
This is a fairly interesting discussion topic for me, possibly because I used to wrestle in high school. Anyhow, in the Iowa state wrestling tournament a boy chose not to wrestle a girl. To facilitate discussion, their names are Joel Northrup (the boy) and Cassy Herkelman (the girl).
So the following are just a few opinions. You might want to have your students share their own opinions before giving them these which they can analyze and then agree or disagree with. Showing them the following opinions should give them some model language they can use to refine their own personal opinions so they can start using more accurate language.
This has become a fairly major discussion topic in some circles in America and I have heard the following arguments:
Joel's decision is impressive because he gave up a chance at winning the state tournament in order to stand up for his beliefs and values.
Joel's decision implies that Cassey and other girls have no business wrestling on the same mat as boys. It's discriminatory and sends girls a message that they should not play the sport.
Wrestling is a combat sport. Men and women should never compete against each other in combat sports.
Joel's decision makes no sense. If his religion says not to engage women this way shouldn't it also tell him not to roll around with sweaty boys in tights?
If society wants to teach men that they can not use violence against women, how can that same society tell a man that he has to go out on the wrestling mat and try to physically beat a woman by taking away her control over her own body?
He knew before he signed up for wrestling on a public school team that women were allowed to play too. If his self-righteous attitude prevents him from wrestling the opponent he draws like everyone else, he shouldn't be on the wrestling team.
Interesting article here. Obviously a topic for adult students who might have all different kinds of reasons for thinking this is a good or bad policy. A few sample arguments:
Pro: Harm reduction efforts like those outlined above are far more realistic and likely to have some real world impact than continuing to dump time and money into prohibition.
Some education about the risks and ways to reduce them can't hurt. If someone benefits from knowing about the risks of hypothermia or dehydration while using ecstasy then what is the harm?
Con: They don't sound concerned with stopping drug use just that those you use it have some safety tips.
I fail to see the benefit of this. I can't see people going to this and saying, "well, I was going to do ecstasy but it says I have to drink a lot of water so I better hold off on that." Or, "I really want to drink alcohol but this flyer says not to drink and do ecstasy so it convinced me."