What does the professor mean? Is it reasonable?

Generally speaking, it can be judged that what the professor said should be: study hard and make more money in the future. From a certain media, the professor said: Young people study to make money, and money will dominate everything in the future.

In the comment area, people support students and criticize professors, but what I want to ask is, is the professor wrong?

Not for money, but for what?

Society itself is a utilitarian society, full of interests everywhere. Money and no money are completely different worlds. If the professor's statement belongs to bad values, what kind of values are correct?

Let's just say, what is the effort for? I thought it was just to make money. Looking for a job depends on salary. No one said to find a job with a monthly salary of 1500, and then hide in a dark room to eat instant noodles, facing the mobile phone: for the sake of faith, you can't be corrupted by money.

Nowadays, most young people are rushing for a living, buying a house and a car, and paying off their mortgage and car loan.

Buying a house should also consider the school district. Considering these educational resources, the better the school district, the higher the house price. The old people at home need money to support and treat diseases. If they want better medical resources, better medical resources are more expensive.

A while ago, the epidemic prevention was just released, and many elderly people entered the ICU after getting sick. Knowing a few friends, the elderly at home spend tens of thousands of dollars a day, and those who have no money at home can only resign themselves to fate. At this moment, if you have no money, you will die. It's that simple. It seems that it didn't take long for everyone to forget it so quickly.

Living in this society, everything costs money, so breathing costs nothing, but when you are sick, breathing costs money.

What people should consider is how to get money. The simplest and most direct way is to read more books, study hard, get into a good university, improve your academic qualifications, and then either start your own business or find a good job, so that you can earn money.

Don't say that learning is not important, and company recruitment also depends on academic qualifications. There are still a few people who can make money without education, and there are more people with high education, and few of them are not doing well. I chatted with a classmate during the Spring Festival and told me that they were all masters of 985/2 1 1. The salary in the company can't be better, so what are you doing in that company? Still making money.

Learning is to make money, which is written in the textbook. The school will instill in you a sentence: knowledge changes fate, and learning makes the future.

This is obvious. Only by studying hard can we change our destiny and have a future.

How did fate change? Make money and achieve a class leap. People are divided into three classes, and the rich and the poor are different people. Rich people live in villas and drive luxury cars, and children go to aristocratic schools. Where are the people who have no money? In order to buy a house, I have to work hard, worry about my livelihood, rack my brains for the problem of children's school district, and try my best.

The vast majority of young people have no background and come from ordinary families. Don't you have to work hard to make money if you want to achieve a class leap? Study hard and improve yourself. What about those who have no education? You need to learn more and improve your ability to earn money.

To put it simply, it is true that studying hard is to live well in the future. This is not a wrong value, as long as you have this money, the source is legal, you don't commit a crime, you have no conscience, and the money is clean. This is the correct value. From this perspective, there is nothing wrong.

Efforts to make money do not conflict with the rise of China.

Students say that we study not for money, but for the rise of China. Is there a conflict between the two? No. Not only is it not, but it is also very suitable.

How does a country rise? The representative of the rise is prosperity. How to become rich and strong? Still have money, no money, no rise, no money and no prosperity. In a place like Afghanistan, poverty is tinkling. He said that he has risen and become rich. Can you believe it? I don't believe it.

The prosperity and rise of a country is supported by the economy, and both infrastructure and people's livelihood need money. You can't do anything without money.

The prosperity of the country is reflected in the people, that is, the people are rich and have a rich life. Ordinary people have no money. You said that the country is rich and strong, that's a lie. Ordinary people can only consume when they have money, and only when they consume can they stimulate the economy. The country can only do things when it has tax money.

The 9 1 1 incident of that year was also an economic account. The twin towers of the World Trade Center were bombed, the capitalist world center was attacked, a large amount of capital was lost, and the stock market evaporated a large amount of funds instantly, which indirectly led to the subsequent economic crisis. What did George W. Bush do at that time? Call on ordinary people to buy a house and a car. This approach is to find ways to stimulate the economy, make the country's economy recover, and counter the economic blow caused by bin Laden's attack.

As an ordinary person, the best way to love the country is to make more money and spend more. There is no other way. You have no money, your salary is not enough to pay taxes, and then you call you patriotic and want to make the country rise and revive. Isn't this nonsense?

If there is no money, we can talk about the rest. It's all empty talk. It's all fake. It costs money to buy a car, drive a car, decorate a house, send children to school, eat and drink Lazar. Making money is the most fundamental way of life. Everything everyone does is to make money. Earn more money and pay more taxes. This is the way to love your country. This is the easiest way for ordinary people to make the country rise.

Being rich, from a personal point of view, makes you live a better life and be responsible for your family. From the public's point of view, wealth can promote the national economic development. As myself, all I have to do is make money hard, and the money comes from the right way.

It's hard to tell who is right or wrong between what the professor said and what the students said. I just want to say that students are naive and netizens are naive. Everyone stands at the moral high ground to attack, and opening their mouths is the righteousness. I want to ask: How much is your family worth?

What did that sentence say? Empty talk about wrong country, hard work and prosperity.

Finally, add a word, many people clamor for great pressure in life every day, and then sneer at making money. Isn't this a typical lazy person who doesn't make progress?