We offer some kinds of courses. Each course has been designed to help students according to their needs.

    Course 1: High School ESL

    Why not make the most of your time studying in Australia with the help from TIES? We have High School ESL classes each week specifically designed for international students. Tuesday to Friday: 10:00 am to 12:00 am, $25 per hour.

    Course 2: One on One

    If you are interested in some One on One lessons with TIES teachers, we can design a course to meet your needs. One on One lessons can improve your English language skills more quickly and help students who want to take TOEFL. Tuesday to Friday: 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm, $ 80 per hour.

    Course 3: General English

    General English is designed to develop students' basic communication skills in speaking and pronunciation, reading, listening, writing, grammar and vocabulary. Tuesday to Friday: 9:00 am to 11:00 am, $ 288 per week.

    Course 4: Night Classes

    Do you want to improve your English and get the best possible results in your GRE test? We have two night classes each week designed to meet your needs. Tuesday and Thursday evenings: 8:30 pm to 10:30 pm, $60 per day.

    I first met Paul Newman in 1968, when George Roy Hill, the director of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, introduced us in New York City. When the studio didn't want me for the film - it wanted somebody as well known as Paul - he stood up for me. I don't know how many people would have done that; they would have listened to their agents or the studio powers.

    The friendship that grew out of the experience of making that film and The Sting four years later had its root in the fact that although there was an age difference, we both came from a tradition of theater and live TV. We were respectful of craft(技艺)and focused on digging into the characters we were going to play. Both of us had the qualities and virtues that are typical of American actors: humorous, aggressive, and making fun of each other - but always with an underlying affection. Those were also at the core(核心)of our relationship off the screen.

    We shared the brief that if you're fortunate enough to have success, you should put something back - he with his Newman's Own food and his Hole in the Wall camps for kids who are seriously ill, and me with Sundance and the institute and the festival. Paul and I didn't see each other all that regularly, but sharing that brought us together. We supported each other financially and by showing up at events.

    I last saw him a few months ago. He'd been in and out of the hospital. He and I both knew what the deal was, and we didn't talk about it. Ours was a relationship that didn't need a lot of words.

    Here is a record of the discussion about AI (artificial intelligence) conducted by several scientists.

    Scientist A: I would say that we are quite a long way off developing the AI, though I do think it will happen within the next thirty or forty years. We will probably remain in control of technology and it will help us solve many of the world's problems. However, no one really knows what will happen if machines become more intelligent than humans. They may help us, ignore us or destroy us. I tend to believe AI will have a positive influence on our future lives, but whether that is true will be partly up to us.

    Scientists B: I have to admit that the potential consequences of creating something that can match or go beyond human intelligence frighten me. Even now, scientists are teaching computers how to learn on their own. At some point in the near future, their intelligence may well take off and develop at an ever-increasing speed. Human beings evolve biologically very slowly and we could be quickly substituted. In the short term, there is the danger that robots will take over millions of human jobs, creating a large underclass of unemployed people. This could mean large-scale poverty and social unrest. In the long term machines might decide the world would be better without humans.

    Scientists C: I'm a member of the campaign to Stop Killer Robots. Forget the movie image of a terrifying Terminator stamping on human skulls and think of what's happening right now: military machines like drones, gun turrets and sentry robots are already being used to kill with very little human input. The next step will be autonomous “murderbots” following orders but finally deciding who to kill on their own. It seems clear to me that this would be extremely dangerous for humans. We need to be very cautious indeed about what we ask machines to do.

    An idea that started in Seattle's public library has spread throughout America and beyond. The concept is simple: help to build a sense of community in a city by getting everyone to read the same book at the same time.

    In addition to encouraging reading as a pursuit (追求) to be enjoyed by all, the program allows strangers to communicate by discussing the book on the bus, as well as promoting reading as an experience to be shared in families and schools. The idea came from Seattle librarian Nancy Pearl who launched (发起)the "If All of Seattle Read the Same Book" project in 1998. Her original program used author visits, study guides and book discussion groups to bring people together with a book, but the idea has since expanded to many other American cities, and even to Hong Kong.

    In Chicago, the mayor(市长)appeared on television to announce the choice of To Kill a Mockingbird as the first book in the "One Book, One Chicago" program. As a result, reading clubs and neighbourhood groups sprang up around the city. Across the US, stories emerged of parents and children reading to each other at night and strangers chatting away on the bus about plot and character.

    The only problem arose in New York, where local readers could not decide on one book to represent the huge and diverse population. This may show that the idea works best in medium-sized cities or large towns, where a greater sense of unity(一致)can be achieved. Or it may show that New Yorkers rather missed the point, putting all their energy and passion into the choice of the book rather than discussion about a book itself.

    Ultimately as Nancy points out, the level of success is not measured by how many people read a book, but by how many people are enriched by the process or have enjoyed speaking to someone with whom they would not otherwise have shared a word.

The Secret to Happiness

    A new report makes it clear that when it comes to the life satisfaction of UK citizens, the ball is in the government's court. For some time, sensible people have been arguing that governments need to focus less on economic growth and more on the wellbeing（幸福）of citizens. Be careful what you wish for.

    In response to this demand, from 2011 David Cameron instructed the Office for National Statistics to gather data on people's self-reported happiness and life satisfaction. Little practical good has come from this so far, but a new report by George Bangham for the Resolution Foundation is one of the best attempts to make useful sense of the data. He concludes: "The best prospects for policymakers targeting future increases in national wellbeing lie in raising job quality, raising incomes, particularly at the lower end, and policies to improve security in the housing market."

    The age correlation（相关）turns out to be certainly linked to politics, despite the fact that no political party can make a difference to your date of birth. The happiness of pensioners is not just a function of their age, but of policy. On average, 70-year-old boomers today are the most affluent retirees in history, often owning their own homes and in receipt of generous pensions. People of 70 are not going to be as content in 30 or 40 years' time if they are unable to retire, don't own their homes and have small incomes.

    However, there is one respect in which teens and recent retirees are remarkably similar. Compared to other age groups, they tend to inhabit a sweet spot of having high degrees of freedom. The typical 16-year-old has new freedoms without ever having had any serious responsibilities. The typical 70-year-old, having experienced a lifetime of work and family duties, has a very different kind of freedom, one born from relief.

    Besides, it should not surprise us to find that people tend to be happier when they have fewer worries. But this, too, has important political implications. If the government is really interested in raising overall national happiness, it has to make sure as many citizens as possible feel secure in their health, their housing and their incomes. Different states' records in achieving this is one important reason why Nordic countries repeatedly score highly in international life satisfaction surveys and North America underperforms relative to its GDP.

    Whichever way you look at it, there is no escaping the conclusion that increasing wellbeing across society requires joined-up, long-term policy efforts. This is exactly what the Resolution Foundation recommends.

    In a recent series of experiments at the University of California, researchers studied toddlers' thinking about winners and losers, bullies (欺凌) and victims.

    In the first experiment, toddlers (学步儿童) watched a scene in which two puppets (木偶) had conflicting goals: One was crossing a stage from right to left, and the other from left to right. The puppets met in the middle and stopped. Eventually one puppet bowed down and moved aside, letting the other one pass by. Then researchers asked the toddlers which puppet they liked. The result: 20 out of 23 toddlers picked the higher-status puppet — the one that did not bow or move aside. It seems that individuals can gain status for being dominant (占优势的) and toddlers like winners better than losers.

    But then researchers had another question: Do toddlers like winners no matter how they win? So, researchers did another experiment very similar to the one described above. But this time, the conflict ended because one puppet knocked the other down and out of the way. Now when the toddlers were asked who they liked, the results were different: Only 4 out of 23 children liked the winner.

    These data suggest that children already love a winner by the age of 21-31 months. This does not necessarily mean that the preference is inborn: 21 months is enough time to learn a lot of things. But if a preference for winners is something we learn, we appear to learn it quite early.

    Even more interesting, the preference for winners is not absolute. Children in our study did not like a winner who knocked a competitor down. This suggests that already by the age of 21-31 months, children's liking for winners is balanced with other social concerns, including perhaps a general preference for nice or helpful people over aggressive ones.

    In a time when the news is full of stories of public figures who celebrate winning at all costs, these results give us much confidence. Humans understand dominance, but we also expect strong individuals to guide, protect and help others. This feels like good news.