Bài Tập Trắc Nghiệm Chuyên Đề: Đọc hiểu: thông tin không được nhắc đến (Tiếng Anh Lớp 10, 11, 12)

We are living through a boom in greenwashing – the strategic use of comforting environmental claims to disguise business-as-usual pollution. Picture a chief executive whose company emits millions of tonnes of CO₂. Genuine decarbonisation would require bruising boardroom discussions, huge capital outlays, and a complete redesign of the firm’s model. Far easier is to hire a creative agency to plaster products with labels such as “carbon-neutral” or “ret-zero,” calming critics, investors; and even eco-conscious children while emissions continue unsolved. This tactic meets consumers at every turn. Airline websites promise guilt-free flights, petrol pumps boast zero-impact fuel, and even supermarket bacon is marketed as net-zero. Advertising trickery is ancient, yet today’s greenwashing – the practice of deliberately covering ongoing pollution in eco-friendly language – has flourished only recently. The expression surfaced in the 1980s amid oil spills and growing climate science, but the real explosion has come as public anxiety over global heating and biodiversity loss has intensified. Faced with mounting scrutiny, many boards prefer glossy PR to structural reform. Such corporate sleight of hand has become so pervasive that regulators in Europe and the United States are scrambling to tighten rules on environmental claims, yet enforcement still lags behind marketing creativity. The fossil-fuel sector exemplifies the issue. After decades covertly sowing doubt about climate science, oil and gas giants have grasped that direct denial is reputationally toxic. They have therefore swapped their denial tactics for a “green” paint-sprayer, trumpeting token investments in renewables while expanding drilling. Why does this matter? Greenwashing and climate denial share a core objective: to postpone the emission cuts urgently required to avert climate breakdown. Whereas denial invites opposition, greenwashing kills the public into believing problems are already solved. Under this collective illusion, pressure on high-emitting firms evaporates and the radical decisions needed to transform energy, transport, and food systems are delayed indefinitely. Greenwashing thus acts as a soothing lullaby, leading society toward ecological ruin with a tune of comforting half-truths. Exposing this deception is essential if clichés are to be replaced by real, measurable emission cuts.

The concept of project farming, where farmers come together to collaborate on large-scale agricultural projects, has gained significant traction, and modern technology keeps this collaboration on track. Advanced technologies such as GPS, sensors, drones, and data analytics are used to optimise agricultural practices. Additionally, the collected real-time data on soil conditions, weather patterns, and plant growth enables farmers to accelerate the decision-making process that maximises productivity while minimising resource wastage. GPS technology allows farmers to precisely map out their fields and create customised planting plans. This ensures that seeds are sown at optimal locations based on soil characteristics and previous yield data. By avoiding areas with poor fertility, farmers can increase their overall crop yield. Camera traps provide advance warnings of insects, so farmers do not have to treat the whole field. This, therefore, helps curb chemical runoff and save money for every party involved in the project. Technology also plays a vital role in optimising irrigation practices for sustainable agriculture. Specialised equipment reports dryness hour by hour, and weather apps forecast rain for the week ahead. Automated valves give each zone exactly the water it needs and pause when clouds are approaching. This cuts pumping costs and protects groundwater while keeping the crop healthy. On dry continents, such savings keep projects economically viable. The digital trail does not stop at the farm gate. Cloud platforms let project farmers, processors, and truck drivers input harvest weights, storage temperatures, and delivery times the moment they change; while blockchain records freeze each entry so customers can trust it. Analytic tools combine seasons of records to forecast demand, spot price opportunities, and mark weak points in the workflow. This allows project farmers to anticipate market demand, exploit resource allocation, and plan for potential challenges.

We often have stereotypical images of rockers as rebellious, classical music fans as quiet and modest, and lovers of rap as loquacious and outgoing. But is it really true that our musical tastes reveal our personality? According to a recent research from a university in Edinburgh, it is. Professor North, one of the researchers, says that people often express their identity through the kind of music they listen to, the kind of clothes they wear and their hobbies and interests. So, it is not surprising that people’s taste in music says something about their personality. The researchers interviewed more than 36,000 participants from around the world, asked them about their musical tastes, and gave them personality tests. But did the research prove that our stereotypical images are right? Here are some of the results: (1) lovers of indie music are not very confident, gentle or hard-working, but they are very creative; (2) country and western fans are hard-working and not shy; (3) rap fans are outgoing and confident; (4) fans of pop songs are not creative, but are hard-working, gentle and outgoing; and (5) the best fans to be are soul fans, because they are creative, confident, outgoing and gentle. Perhaps the most surprising result was that classical music fans and heavy metal fans have very similar personalities. People think of heavy metal fans as being very sad and unhappy. But like classical fans, they are in fact easy-going and creative, and not very outgoing. Professor North also says that the results explain why so many people are good friends with people who like the same music. Heavy metal fans in Sweden have more in common with heavy metal fans in Brazil than with, say, Swedish fans of pop. The results also explain that, since music is likely to be closely connected to our personalities, some of us are very passionate about what we listen to. However, the research does not say what people who listen to lots of different types of music are like. Perhaps they are perfectly balanced. So, what does your music say about you?

“Have smartphones destroyed a generation?” Jean Twenge - a psychology professor at San Diego State University - asked in her controversial book, Gen. In the book, she argues that those born after 1995 are facing “a mental-health crisis”, and she believes it can be linked to growing up with their noses pressed against a screen. Her newest study provides more support for that connection, showing that teens who spent more than an hour or two a day interacting with their gadgets were less happy on average than those who had more face time with others. Twenge’s conclusions have come up against criticism in the past. Some have accused her work of oversimplifying or overlooking data that may tell a slightly different story. Twenge recognises that her study suggests only a link between screen use and psychological well-being. A possible explanation is that kids are running to their screens to escape from the things in life that are making them unhappy. However, the surveys can’t say whether screen time directly changes teens’ mental health, the research states. Philanthropist Melinda Gates, whose three children were also born after 1995, wrote in The Washington Post, “phones and apps aren’t good or bad by themselves, but for adolescents who don’t yet have the emotional tools to overcome life’s problems, they can aggravate the difficulties of growing up.” At the same time, she said, kids are learning on their devices and connecting in novel ways. Other studies have explored the connection between social media and isolation and how “likes” activate the brain’s reward centre. Some analyses have found that moderate use of these technologies is not harmful in itself and can even improve children’s social skills and build emotional strength. There is no doubt that people are spending more time on these devices and that technology is having a major impact on kids and adults alike. “These are really important devices that have changed our lives in so many ways, not just for the worse but for the better,” said Amanda Lenhart, deputy director of the Better Life Lab at New America. But the latest research “is looking straight at technology and wanting it to be the scapegoat.”

A recent survey into how teenagers in a Southeast Asian country spend their free time has come up with what some people regard as a surprising finding: many of those surveyed reported that they would rather stay at home and do things indoors than go out and experience real-life adventures. One in four teenagers surveyed believed that online experiences were as fulfilling as real life, and more than half were actually afraid of trying new experiences. When asked about their most memorable experience over the previous ten months, nearly 30% of boys said “playing a new video game”, while 10% of all teenagers said it was watching a new TV series. On asking for more detailed information, researchers found that 20% of boys and 22% of girls said they had never had a real-life adventure. It would be easy to blame technological advances for these findings. After all, today’s teenagers have many more indoor activities to choose from than did their parents. About half a century ago, children were expected to spend more of their free time outside. But researchers do not put the blame wholly on technology. To members of older generations, these findings are worrying, because it means that young people increasingly rely on virtual reality and are consequently missing out on real outdoor activities such as mountain climbing, kayaking, etc., which have always been regarded as both enjoyable and character-building. The surveyed adults said they thought today’s youth were more protected than they had been when they were growing up. Giving examples of this protection, more than half said they would not let their teenage children hitchhike or go on holiday without an adult. Seven in ten said they would not even allow teenagers to get into a taxi on their own. It is not clear whether adults believe the world is more dangerous than it used to be or whether they do not trust today’s youngsters to look after themselves.

Device-centred communication has become almost universal over the past twenty years. More than three quarters of people in the world now own a mobile device, and more than half communicate via social networking. It is now hard to imagine a world without mobile devices consisting of such things as mobile phones, laptops and tablets. They allow us to stay in touch with a large network of friends, no matter where they are. But many experts say that communicating with a device is nothing like talking with someone in person. “Body language, eye contact and tone of voice can tell us so much,” psychologist Mary Peters says. “And none of those exist on a device. Even video chat removes many subtle clues.” We don’t know to what extent these technologies will permanently change the way people interact. People will always want to meet up with others in small and large groups. Indeed, it is fair to say that social media makes it easier than ever before for people to organise social events. However, there is still a danger that device-centred communication may have a negative long-term impact on the way people interact with each other on a day-to-day basis. We must not, therefore, lose sight of the need to focus on the actual people around us, and remember that they deserve our real – not virtual – attention. The idea of a culture where people always have a screen between them sounds a bit funny, because deep understanding comes when we see the reactions on other people’s faces.

A recent survey into how teenagers in a Southeast Asian country spend their free time has come up with what some people regard as a surprising finding: many of those surveyed reported that they would rather stay at home and do things indoors than go out and experience real-life adventures. One in four teenagers surveyed believed that online experiences were as fulfilling as real life, and more than half were actually afraid of trying new experiences. When asked about their most memorable experience over the previous ten months, nearly 30% of boys said “playing a new video game”, while 10% of all teenagers said it was watching a new TV series. On asking for more detailed information, researchers found that 20% of boys and 22% of girls said they had never had a real-life adventure. It would be easy to blame technological advances for these findings. After all, today’s teenagers have many more indoor activities to choose from than did their parents. About half a century ago, children were expected to spend more of their free time outside. But researchers do not put the blame wholly on technology. To members of older generations, these findings are worrying, because it means that young people increasingly rely on virtual reality and are consequently missing out on real outdoor activities such as mountain climbing, kayaking, etc., which have always been regarded as both enjoyable and character-building. The surveyed adults said they thought today’s youth were more protected than they had been when they were growing up. Giving examples of this protection, more than half said they would not let their teenage children hitchhike or go on holiday without an adult. Seven in ten said they would not even allow teenagers to get into a taxi on their own. It is not clear whether adults believe the world is more dangerous than it used to be or whether they do not trust today’s youngsters to look after themselves.

Machines already perform a lot of tasks that were usually done by humans, such as building cars, doing complex calculations, and even marking exam papers. But now it seems that ever more intelligent machines are straying into areas where we never envisaged they would go. We have always taken pride in having a unique kind of intelligence that machines could never match, one which allows us to think of new ideas and produce creative and artistic works. But it seems that even here, computers are lining up to compete with us. Machines can easily be trained to do the physical work of producing art. About ten years ago, a painting robot known as e-David was created at a university in Germany. And recently in New York, the painting ‘Portrait of Edmond de Belamy’ has been auctioned for nearly half a million dollars. What made it a bit unusual was that the idea, and the image itself, was produced entirely by a computer. A group of young French artists gave instructions to the computer, aiming simply to show that computers can be creative. Some artists are now working with computers to produce a new kind of art. Computer-generated works of art are certainly interesting, and make us think about the limits of what machines can and cannot do. But not everyone would accept that they qualify as art. Some enthusiasts would argue they do, and the collectors willing to pay high prices for these works would suggest there is definitely a market for computer art. Others, however, would disagree. Many ‘real’ artists would claim that art is an expression of human intelligence and human emotions. More importantly, it is about a desire to communicate with other people. These things, they argue, are part of being human and can never be produced by a machine.

When I saw her name on the screen, it took me right back to the moment she had moved away with her family ten years before. We had been such close friends at primary school. To begin with, she and I had not hit it off, perhaps because we were both timid. We had quickly got over that, though, and as time went on, we had become really good friends, until you almost never saw one of us without the other. And now after so much time apart, there was her name. She had sent me a friend request. I knew she had been living abroad, and her profile picture showed her on the beach. I had been expecting her to look different after ten years. The girl in the photo was the same old Lauren, though. Nowadays, it is easy to find old friends thanks to social networking sites. There are lots of stories about long lost friends getting back in touch after years apart. It was odd because I had been thinking about our friendship too and now here she was! She told me about the place where she had been living for the past ten years, and I told her about things that had happened to me. Before long, the years melted away and we were the same two girls who had spent so much time together. Of course, true friends are loyal and listen to you when you are down. And they are the people you have fun with. But deep down, I realised that the truest friends are those you are most yourself with. And that is something that never changes. That is what Lauren and I learned that day, the day we realised our friendship was so precious and had never really ended in the first place.

When I saw her name on the screen, it took me right back to the moment she had moved away with her family ten years before. We had been such close friends at primary school. To begin with, she and I had not hit it off, perhaps because we were both timid. We had quickly got over that, though, and as time went on, we had become really good friends, until you almost never saw one of us without the other. And now after so much time apart, there was her name. She had sent me a friend request. I knew she had been living abroad, and her profile picture showed her on the beach. I had been expecting her to look different after ten years. The girl in the photo was the same old Lauren, though. Nowadays, it is easy to find old friends thanks to social networking sites. There are lots of stories about long lost friends getting back in touch after years apart. It was odd because I had been thinking about our friendship too and now here she was! She told me about the place where she had been living for the past ten years, and I told her about things that had happened to me. Before long, the years melted away and we were the same two girls who had spent so much time together. Of course, true friends are loyal and listen to you when you are down. And they are the people you have fun with. But deep down, I realised that the truest friends are those you are most yourself with. And that is something that never changes. That is what Lauren and I learned that day, the day we realised our friendship was so precious and had never really ended in the first place.

The concept of traffic-free shopping areas goes back a long time. During the Middle Ages, traffic-free shopping areas were built in Middle Eastern countries to allow people to shop in comfort and, more importantly, safety. As far back as 2000 years ago, road traffic was banned from central Rome during the day to allow for the free movement of pedestrians. The modern, traffic-free shopping street was born in Europe in the 1960s, when both city populations and car ownership increased rapidly. Dirty exhaust from cars and the risks involved in crossing the road were beginning to make shopping an unpleasant and dangerous experience. Many believed the time was right for experimenting with car-free streets, and shopping areas seemed the best place to start. At first, there was resistance from shopkeepers. They argued that people would avoid streets if they were unable to get to them in their cars. When the first streets in Europe were closed to traffic, there were even noisy demonstrations, as many shopkeepers predicted they would lose customers. With the arrival of the traffic-free shopping street, many shops, especially those selling things like clothes, food and smaller luxury items, prospered. Unfortunately, shops selling furniture and larger electrical appliances actually saw their sales drop. Many of these were forced to move elsewhere, away from the city centre.

Machines already perform a lot of tasks that were usually done by humans, such as building cars, doing complex calculations, and even marking exam papers. But now it seems that ever more intelligent machines are straying into areas where we never envisaged they would go. We have always taken pride in having a unique kind of intelligence that machines could never match, one which allows us to think of new ideas and produce creative and artistic works. But it seems that even here, computers are lining up to compete with us. Machines can easily be trained to do the physical work of producing art. About ten years ago, a painting robot known as e-David was created at a university in Germany. And recently in New York, the painting ‘Portrait of Edmond de Belamy’ has been auctioned for nearly half a million dollars. What made it a bit unusual was that the idea, and the image itself, was produced entirely by a computer. A group of young French artists gave instructions to the computer, aiming simply to show that computers can be creative. Some artists are now working with computers to produce a new kind of art. Computer-generated works of art are certainly interesting, and make us think about the limits of what machines can and cannot do. But not everyone would accept that they qualify as art. Some enthusiasts would argue they do, and the collectors willing to pay high prices for these works would suggest there is definitely a market for computer art. Others, however, would disagree. Many ‘real’ artists would claim that art is an expression of human intelligence and human emotions. More importantly, it is about a desire to communicate with other people. These things, they argue, are part of being human and can never be produced by a machine.

Today, text-messaging has probably become young people’s most common form of communication. Some teachers think that because of this, young people are not writing correctly at school. They fear that once students get used to it, they will find it hard to switch back to using correct grammar and spelling. How did things begin this way?

It all began with e-mail, online chat rooms, and games. Then step by step young people made sentences, phrases and words shorter. As text-messaging continued to become popular, people invented more and more words. Today, it is like a real language with its own grammar and vocabulary. The growth of text-messaging has raised an important question: As students become fluent in text-messaging, do their writing skills suffer?

People have different ideas about the effects of text-messaging on students’ writing skills. Some say that students are losing the ability to write long, correct sentences. Others say that text-messaging is having a good effect on the language students use in their schoolwork. It shows that they are creative and good at expressing themselves. And if students can keep the two systems separate - one for text-messaging and one for school - this will help students appreciate reading and writing more.

Some people suggest that one way to reduce the bad effects of text-messaging is to find ways to use technology as a positive learning tool. For example, students can be allowed to type their assignments in a cell phone message and send them to their teachers, but they must type correctly. In this way, students are using the technology that they are familiar with to communicate in a form of language suitable for schoolwork. It shows students that text-messaging is fine for social communication, but correct grammar and spelling are necessary for communication in school.

“I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970,” says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives “off-grid” – unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. “There are times when the grid blacks out,” he says. “I really like the security of having my own electricity company.” Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. “It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels,” says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. “And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves.” Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydropower. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21st century lifestyle: “I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it,” says Perez. “There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity.” Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

I have not paid a single electricity bill since the year 1970, says Richard Perez with noticeable glee. He can afford to be smug. He lives off-grid - unconnected to the power grid and the water, gas and sewerage supplies that most people in the world rely on. He generates his own electricity, sources his own water and deals with his own waste disposal - and he prefers it that way. There are times when the grid blacks out, he says. I really like the security of having my own electricity company. Perez is not alone. Once the preserve of mavericks, hippies and survivalists, there are now approximately 200,000 off-grid households in the United States of America, a figure that Perez says has been increasing by a third every year for the past decade. For all of the people who live off-grid, self-sufficiency means guilt-free energy consumption and peace of mind. It feels brilliant to make use of clean, free energy that is not from fossil fuels, says Suzanne Galant, a writer who lives off-grid in a rural area in Wales. And if something goes wrong, we can fix it ourselves. Now even urbanites are seeing the appeal of generating some if not all of their own power needs. So is energy freedom an eco pipe-dream or the ultimate good life? Well, there is only one way to find out: begin to explore the possibilities of solar, wind or hydro power. But unless you live on a sunny, south-facing hillside with access to a nearby river or stream, that might prove prohibitively expensive! There is no doubt that being off-grid has its problems, and it is not always the cheapest way to get the energy you need. Even so, pioneers like Perez have proved that it can be done, and without giving up a 21-century lifestyle: I have got five personal computers, two laser scanners, two fridge-freezers, a microwave, a convection oven, vacuum cleaners - you name it, says Perez There is an external beam antenna on the roof for the phone and a satellite dish for an Internet connection. I have got 70 kWh in batteries that could last me five days. I have too much electricity. Too much electricity and no more bills. That has got to be worth aiming for.

Most of us have taken a selfie at one time or another, be it a photo of ourselves in a beautiful place, during a performance by our favourite band, or on a memorable night out with friends. But today, more and more people are putting their lives at risk in an attempt to get the most shocking pictures to share on social media. In several cases, this action has had disastrous consequences. Take, for example, the Spaniard who was killed by a bull while he was taking a selfie during the annual bull run in a village near his hometown, or the Singaporean tourist who died when he fell from cliffs on the coast of Bali. Such incidents have led to the death toll from selfie-related incidents reaching double figures for the first time in 2015, overtaking the number of victims of shark attacks. Despite the risks, social media is full of pictures featuring near misses that could have been fatal under other circumstances. Under the caption 'Most dangerous selfie ever', a woman posing at a stadium can be seen narrowly avoiding being hit in the head by a baseball approaching her. Yet the photo has received thousands of 'likes', and the comments below it suggest that this behaviour is something to be admired. In response to the increasing threat posed by the selfie, the authorities have started to take action. The Russian Interior Ministry, for instance, has launched a public education campaign advising selfie-takers against balancing on dangerous surfaces or posing with their pets, among other things. But if instructions like this are really necessary, then perhaps it is about time we asked ourselves which is more important, a 'like' or a life?

One day, a middle-aged man asked a taxi to take him to see Chelsea play Arsenal at football. He told the driver 'Stamford Bridge', the name of Chelsea's stadium, but he was delivered instead to the village of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire. Of course, he missed the match. What had happened? With the Sat-Nay system in place, the driver in this story felt he did not need to know where he was going. He confidently outsourced the job of knowing this information to the Sat-Nav. Using an Internet search engine takes a broadband user less than a second. And with smartphones at hand, people will be online almost all of the time. The same could be true of university education. Today, the average student seems not to value general knowledge. If asked a factual question, they will usually click on a search engine without a second thought. Actually knowing the fact and committing it to memory does not seem to be an issue, it's the ease with which we can look it up. However, general knowledge has never been something that you acquire formally. Instead, we pick it up from all sorts of sources as we go along, often absorbing facts without realising. The question remains, then: is the Internet threatening general knowledge? When I put that to Moira Jones, expert in designing IQ tests, she referred me to the story of the Egyptian god Thoth. It goes like this: Thoth offers writing as a gift to the king of Egypt, declaring it an 'elixir of memory and wisdom.' But the king is horrified, and tells him: 'This invention will induce forgetfulness in the souls of those who have learned it, because they will not need to exercise their memories, being able to rely on what is written.' Who wants to be a millionaire finalist David Swift, responding to the same question, recognises that there was a problem of young people saying: 'I don't need to know that', but he is far more excited about the educational potential of the Internet. 'There is so much more information out there, giving people opportunities to boost their general knowledge.' After all, the Internet might just help us to forget more and more. But meanwhile, the continuing popularity of quizzes and game-shows shows us that general knowledge is strong enough to remain.

For over 300 years since its appearance in Britain in 1621, newspapers were written and read by only a tiny minority. In 1896, a new newspaper was produced in large numbers and at such low prices that ordinary people could buy it on every street corner, and it was an instant success. The Daily Mail, which is still running today, was the mother of the modern tabloid, and the beginning of a whole new subculture in the British press. Today more than twice as many tabloids are sold than the so-called “quality press” titles such as The Times or The Guardian. Originally, the word tabloid referred to the size and format. But today, for most people, the word tabloid has nothing to do with shape and size. What makes a tabloid a tabloid is content, and above all, style. Tabloids follow a special formula: they report the news, but only certain kinds. Tabloids dedicate most of their pages to stories about celebrities. This involves photographing them in embarrassing situations, gossiping about their private lives and generally making them look a bit silly. However, the tabloids are not simply an irritation for celebrities; they are also a vehicle for self-promotion. Though they have millions of devoted readers, tabloids are also widely criticised in Britain. They are accused of being sensationalist, in bad taste, and of having no ethical standards in their reporting and “researching” methods. They may tap celebrities’ phones or even break into their houses just to get a story. When criticised, the tabloids state that the public has a right to know about everything, but celebrities have no rights to privacy at all. So why does Britain, which has access to the best press agencies and the highest journalistic standards, consume tabloids like chocolate? Maybe the reason is that we have enough news on the television, the radio and in the quality newspapers. Tabloids are not actually about news at all; tabloids are just about gossip. And when it comes to gossip, what matters is not what is true or what is kind, but what is entertaining and what is funny. The more in bad taste a story is, the funnier it seems. And bad taste is what the British tabloids have made into an art.

The first impressions are rather menacing. Visitors must sign in and show identification before being allowed into the building. Such tight security gives one the feeling of entering a prison or some other dangerous place. But what a deceptive first impression! Manhattan Comprehensive Night High School may be the friendliest, most caring institution in all of New York City. A school of last resort for many of its students, it is their best chance to turn their lives around, and make friends in the process. Manhattan Comp, as it is called, is the first full-time night high school in America. High school is compulsory until the age of sixteen in America, but many students drop out, either before or after they reach sixteen, and before receiving their high school diplomas. Until now, night education programmes for dropouts only provided the basics and then awarded an equivalency certificate. But now, Manhattan Comp offers the total high school experience, complete with a “lunch” break, physical education and clubs. The students receive an academic diploma, which they say is more helpful in getting a job than an equivalency certificate. More than sixty percent of Manhattan Comp's students go on to college. Most of the school's 450 students have either been expelled from or dropped out of other high schools. Some have been in two or three schools before this one. What seems to make this school work for these hard-to-place students is the staff and, most importantly, the principal. All students call him Howard. As he walks through the building, he greets students by name, asks about their families or jobs and jokes with them about the lack of variety in the school cafeteria. Most students at Manhattan Comp are between eighteen and twenty-two years old. You must be at least seventeen to enrol. The classes run from 5 to 11 p.m., Mondays through Thursdays, with all-day enrichment programmes on Sundays which explore topics like playwriting art and video production. School terms are ten weeks long, which gives students the opportunity to take time off for family matters or jobs. Most students already have some academic credits from previous schools, so instead of the normal four years in high school, they spend between six months and two years at Manhattan Comp.