I. In the first part please state your opinion about your studies and our system of education.(200-250 words)

II. Please answer ONE of the following questions (200-250 words):

1. Mental health problems are believed to be the result of a combination of factors, including age, genetics and environmental factors. One of the most obvious, yet under-recognised factors in the development of major trends in mental health is the role of nutrition. One in four people is likely to experience a mental illness at some point in their life, and the costs of mental ill health to the UK economy are now approaching L100bn a year. ‘You are what you eat'-discuss.

2. In a few years from now you will have another plastic card in your wallet - your carbon card. You will start the year with 1,000 points on it and each time you fill up your car, you put the card in a slot on the pump and it will deduct a few points. Each time you buy an airline ticket, it will cost you a minimum of 100 points. If you fly regularly, you may have to buy more points through the carbon market - but since it is all in the cause of reducing greenhouse gas emissions you do not mind so much. Should you pay as you pollute?

3. The climate has an undeniable effect on the personality and lifestyle of a country's inhabitants. Do you agree with such a statement with reference to Poland?

III. The last part of the examination is dealing with text comprehension.

• Please read the text carefully and then summarize its content, you should try to avoid the original wording of the text (total in 150 words).
  
• You are also asked to relate yourself to the bolded fragment of the text.

In early 1979, people running the UK's top firms earned a decent wedge - around L200,000 in today's money. Enough for a top of the range Jag and a family runabout, a house in the stockbroker belt with a decent bit of a garden, a couple of family holidays a year, and a bit left over for a savings plan. No question, the boys in the boardroom were doing all right for themselves: they earned slightly less than 10 times as much as the average worker on the shop floor. Now scroll forward into the new millennium. It's 2002, the aftermath of the dotcom collapse and the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Wages for those on the shopfloor have gone up but, once inflation has been taken into account, not by a lot. By contrast, the package (which is what it is called these days) for the chief executive has become a lot more generous. Instead of earning a little more than L200,000, the boss of a FTSE 100 company can expect to make about L1.4m a year - 54 times as much as the typical worker. That's enough not just for the home in the stockbroker belt, but a place in the Cotswolds and a weekend retreat in France as well. A couple of Porsches, a BMW and a sporty little Golf for the kids litter the drive and there's a yacht moored on the River Blackwater.

It has to be said that when the creme de la creme of British business shows up at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week they will still be put in the shade by their American counterparts. The annual WEF talkfest in the Swiss Alps is a chance for the great and good of the corporate sector to compare notes. When it comes to comparing notes about executive remuneration there's nothing to touch Uncle Sam. Back in 1980, the ratio of CEO to worker pay in the US was the same as in Britain at the start of the 21st century: 50 to 1. By the end of the boom in the 1990s, it stood at 525 to 1, before falling to 281 to 1 in 2002 following the collapse in share prices.

At the end of the 1970s, the idea that a chief executive in Britain would be earning 54 times as much as one of his workers would have been pretty-much unthinkable, Indeed, the Keynesian post-war settlement had been based on the idea that management and workforce should share the benefits of the good times and both make sacrifices in the bad times. The Thatcher-Reagan revolution put paid to such quaint notions.

The new thinking was that industry needed a spring-clean by a new breed of managers who would improve efficiency, boost sales, raise profits and boost shareholder value. And if these new corporate titans saw their pay go through the roof, so what? These guys were at the cutting edge; they were transforming dysfunctional economies and were worth every penny they got. Such was the philosophy that took root in the Thatcher years. Critics were dismissed with a wave of a hand and the claim that objections to the talented getting rich were the politics of envy.

A study of corporate performance in Britain and the United States takes the argument one step further. It looks at the companies that make up the FTSE 100 index in Britain and the S&P 500 in the US and finds that executive enrichment is rarely justified by improved performance. The analysis suggests that giant-firm CEOs are neither the value-creating heroes. Instead, the group analysis suggests that giant-firm CEOs might be just another averagely ineffectual officer class whose role is to manage events and avoid disaster but not to produce high performance or glorious victory."

Ironically, one of the few firms where the long-run increases in profits did justify the size of the chief executive's pay rises was GlaxoSmithKline, and it was Jean-Pierre Garnier who felt the full force of shareholder anger at the size of his package. For the most part, the study says, CEOs have been "value skimming", making a big show of doing all the things beloved of the management gurus but in reality quietly enriching themselves for mediocre performance. Nice work if you can get it, in other words.