Some universities hold classes Monday through Thursday, while others holdthem from Monday through Friday. Which do you prefer, and why? v.2

It is supposed that, affluent countries should oblige the shoddier populace with materialistic things like food and edification. The underlying fact is that one gets a tag of poor, by not accumulating wealth or sufficing basic needs to live a good life. In my opinion the government should be responsible to manage their inhabitants of such country. Firstly the concept of being rich and poor has crucial role in the development of an individual or on the whole a nation. Rich can easily afford material things to the needy one, but gradually tumbles down the ability of the poor country to stand alone and develop itself with what resources it has, perhaps which they may not be aware. Another fact is getting one time aid is stress-free task, eventually which is arduous to manage on a long run. To illustrate this, any metro city has an ability to meet the necessity for food, shelter and education of a poor village once or twice, but difficult to meet at daily basis. Further emphasizing it, local authority can meet their requirements, not by demanding help from wealthy, but mere adaptation with the nature and available resources could provide benefits in the long run. By doing so it helps the habitant to enhance their skills and survival tactics. Encourage them in agriculture and animal husbandry, handicrafts et cetera. If an individual will succeed in such activity so does the nation. To conclude, I think rich and poor nations barrier should be removed and leading a contented life rather should be prioritized by the local authority. Education does help but the skills and adaptations of nature also is a sustainable approach to a good life.