There has been an ongoing debate about whether unpaid community service should be a obligation part of high school programmes (e.g, working for a charity, improving the neighborhood, or teaching physical activity to youth children). While there are valid arguments on both sideds, I personally believe that working for community at no charge is not helpful for students.
On the one hand, a significant number of people argue that it is important to learn helping other people. The main reason for this is that members who consist of community must do helping poor household as well as neighborhood because they do not know that everyone suddenly can be able to bad position. For example. whoever live for their life may be tuninnng into disabled and in now, more and more majority of individual turned into disabled by accident such as car accidnet or something. While this view may have some merits they are often limited.
On the other hand, I side with those who believe that free servie for community is not better for students. First and foremost, this approach plays a crucial role in preventing physical exploit from society. To be specific, students have to learn earning money in advance and it is more important than learning charity. Furthermore, it can lead to sense of frustrate. There is no one who want to labor at no reward even students. As a result, the long-term drawbacks of this policy far outweigh its benefits.
In conclusion, altough there are legitimate points on both sides, it seems to me that working for community at free cost is not effective for students in terms of capitalism.
I mention this idom that ‘no free lunch’ it means there is no ‘free’ anywhere. Labor must followed reward. Anyway a balanced perspective is required, but the importance of exploit cannot be overlooked.