大學(xué)生的英語(yǔ)演講三分鐘（精選5篇）

大學(xué)生的英語(yǔ)演講三分鐘 篇1

　　If There Were No After Life

　　whether there's afterlife, the answer has never been the same. the atheists deny after life, believing that our life is no more than from the cradle to the grave. they may care about their illustrious names after death; they may feel attached to the affection of their offspring, but they never lay their hopes on their afterlife. they may also say that good will be rewarded with good, and evil with evil, but they don't really believe any retribution in their after life.

　　however, in the religious world or among the superstitious people, the belief in afterlife is very popular. they do not only believe in afterlife, but thousands of reincarnations as well. in the mysterious world, there are the paradise and the hell, the celestial beings and the gods, the buddha and the bodhisattvas.

　　maybe they really believed it, or maybe they just wanted to make use of people's veneration, the ancient emperors always declared that they were the real dragons, the sons of god, while the royal ministers claimed to be the reincarnations of various constellations. but can the stars reincarnate?

　　many people burn incense and kowtow, do good deeds and strive for virtues, not just for the present, but mainly to let god see their sincerity so as to be reborn into a better afterlife, or to achieve the highest enlightenment after several lives of practice. they do believe in afterlife. but i can't help asking: suppose there were no afterlife, would you still do good deeds and strive for virtues? and if god does not see what you are doing, would you still be so upright and selfless? if you work, not for serving the public and liberating the others, but just for a better afterlife of your own, isn't it a little too selfish? comparing with this kind of believers, those who don't believe in afterlife, but still keep doing good deeds, are the most sincere and honest philanthropists, because they do them not for themselves but for other.

　　you may wonder if i believe in afterlife. my answer is: i know nothing about my previous life, so i dare not make improper comments on afterlife. but i do hope there's afterlife! because our present life is so short that so many things slip away before our proper understanding. i have so many dreams, so many wishes, so many ambitions, as well as so many regrets and concerns. if there were no afterlife, all of them will remain unrealized!

　　i'm not contented with the present commonplace life, i'm very much attached to the affections that should have been mine but have been washed away by the hurrying time, and i yearn for the perfection and maturity if i could start all over again. so believe it or not, i'd rather there were afterlife.

大學(xué)生的英語(yǔ)演講三分鐘 篇2

　　now if all this is true, then why are we getting it so wrong? why are we setting up our schools this way and our workplaces? and why are we making these introverts feel so guilty about wanting to just go off by themselves some of the time? one answer lies deep in our cultural history. western societies, and in particular the u.s., have always favored the man of action over the man of contemplation and “man“ of contemplation. but in america's early days, we lived in what historians call a culture of character, where we still, at that point, valued people for their inner selves and their moral rectitude. and if you look at the self-help books from this era, they all had titles with things like “character, the grandest thing in the world.“ and they featured role models like abraham lincoln who was praised for being modest and unassuming. ralph waldo emerson called him “a man who does not offend by superiority.“

　　but then we hit the 20th century and we entered a new culture that historians call the culture of personality. what happened is we had evolved an agricultural economy to a world of big business. and so suddenly people are moving from small towns to the cities. and instead of working alongside people they've known all their lives, now they are having to prove themselves in a crowd of strangers. so, quite understandably, qualities like magnetism and charisma suddenly come to seem really important. and sure enough, the self-help books change to meet these new needs and they start to have names like “how to win friends and influence people.“ and they feature as their role models really great salesmen. so that's the world we're living in today. that's our cultural inheritance.

　　now none of this is to say that social skills are unimportant, and i'm also not calling for the abolishing of teamwork at all. the same religions who send their sages off to lonely mountain tops also teach us love and trust. and the problems that we are facing today in fields like science and in economics are so vast and so complex that we are going to need armies of people coming together to solve them working together. but i am saying that the more freedom that we give introverts to be themselves, the more likely that they are to come up with their own unique solutions to these problems.

　　so now i'd like to share with you what's in my suitcase today. guess what? books. i have a suitcase full of books. here's margaret atwood, “cat's eye.“ here's a novel by milan kundera. and here's “the guide for the perplexed“ by maimonides. but these are not exactly my books. i brought these books with me because they were written by my grandfather's favorite authors.

大學(xué)生的英語(yǔ)演講三分鐘 篇3

　　Development and the Environment

　　It is undeniable that the worsening environment has become the biggest concern of the present-day world. Land resources are dwindling because of water loss and soil erosion. Waste gases poison the air we breathe. The rivers and lakes are polluted by waste dumped in them from factories. It is probably no exaggeration to say that deterioration of the quality of the environment threatens the existence of mankind itself.

　　Some people are of the opinion that the environmental problem is the price we have to pay for economic development. But I do not think that this argument is valid. After all, what is the point of economic growth if people's lives are adversely alfected by worsening environmental pollution?

　　If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

　　There is plenty of evidence to show that sustainable development can be achieved by balancing economic growth with protection of the environment. The key to achieving this is to make people aware of the seriousness of the problem. Both governments and ordinary citizens should join hands to make this world a better place to live in, not only for ourselves, but also for future generations.

大學(xué)生的英語(yǔ)演講三分鐘 篇4

　　so if you picture the typical classroom nowadays: when i was going to school, we sat in rows. we sat in rows of desks like this, and we did most of our work pretty autonomously. but nowadays, your typical classroom has pods of desks -- four or five or six or seven kids all facing each other. and kids are working in countless group assignments. even in subjects like math and creative writing, which you think would depend on solo flights of thought, kids are now expected to act as committee members. and for the kids who prefer to go off by themselves or just to work alone, those kids are seen as outliers often or, worse, as problem cases. and the vast majority of teachers reports believing that the ideal student is an extrovert as opposed to an introvert, even though introverts actually get better grades and are more knowledgeable, according to research. (laughter)

　　okay, same thing is true in our workplaces. now, most of us work in open plan offices, without walls, where we are subject to the constant noise and gaze of our coworkers. and when it comes to leadership, introverts are routinely passed over for leadership positions, even though introverts tend to be very careful, much less likely to take outsize risks -- which is something we might all favor nowadays. and interesting research by adam grant at the wharton school has found that introverted leaders often deliver better outcomes than extroverts do, because when they are managing proactive employees, they're much more likely to let those employees run with their ideas, whereas an extrovert can, quite unwittingly, get so excited about things that they're putting their own stamp on things, and other people's ideas might not as easily then bubble up to the surface.

　　now in fact, some of our transformative leaders in history have been introverts. i'll give you some examples. eleanor roosevelt, rosa parks, gandhi -- all these peopled described themselves as quiet and soft-spoken and even shy. and they all took the spotlight, even though every bone in their bodies was telling them not to. and this turns out to have a special power all its own, because people could feel that these leaders were at the helm, not because they enjoyed directing others and not out of the pleasure of being looked at; they were there because they had no choice, because they were driven to do what they thought was right.

大學(xué)生的英語(yǔ)演講三分鐘 篇5

　　now of course, this does not mean that we should all stop collaborating -- and case in point, is steve wozniak famously coming together with steve jobs to start apple computer -- but it does mean that solitude matters and that for some people it is the air that they breathe. and in fact, we have known for centuries about the transcendent power of solitude. it's only recently that we've strangely begun to forget it. if you look at most of the world's major religions, you will find seekers -- moses, jesus, buddha, muhammad -- seekers who are going off by themselves alone to the wilderness where they then have profound epiphanies and revelations that they then bring back to the rest of the community. so no wilderness, no revelations.

　　this is no surprise though if you look at the insights of contemporary psychology. it turns out that we can't even be in a group of people without instinctively mirroring, mimicking their opinions. even about seemingly personal and visceral things like who you're attracted to, you will start aping the beliefs of the people around you without even realizing that that's what you're doing.

　　and groups famously follow the opinions of the most dominant or charismatic person in the room, even though there's zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas -- i mean zero. so ... (laughter) you might be following the person with the best ideas, but you might not. and do you really want to leave it up to chance? much better for everybody to go off by themselves, generate their own ideas freed from the distortions of group dynamics, and then come together as a team to talk them through in a well-managed environment and take it from there.