Analyse my Essay Isue

[thecritic]

Please analyze and score my essay and provide comments and feedbacks. If you are also preparing for GRE let me know and I can help analyze your essay.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All nations should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.

 

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe the specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

----------------------------------------------------------

While adopting national curriculum has certain benefits, its disadvantages far outweighs its advantages for it to be beneficial to the country. Obviously national curriculum would end the disparity in the quality of different curriculum in different regions and provide all the students an equal opportunity to show their capacity. However, this benefit could be equally achieved by working on improving the quality of each curriculum, rather than adopting the strategy of the national curriculum, which comes with its own disadvantages as discussed below.

 

The greatest advantage of different states and regions having their own curriculum is the possibility of tailoring the curriculum to suit the specific features of that region. Each province has distinct geography, history, culture, tradition and laws. It will be beneficial for the students to learn about these subjects in the context of their own region because the majority of the students will work in the same region where they are educated. So, having knowledge about their work location is much more fruitful than having the surfacial knowledge of only few places of the nation.

 

The other advantage of the decentralized curriculum model is that it gives rise to varieties. In place of only one national curriculum there can be many hundreds of different curriculum each designed my different groups of academics. This gives rise the possibility of the more standard curriculum. For example, if each state of the United States would be making their own curriculum, even if only one state made superb curriculum, the rest of the states can learn from them. If however the national government body were to make the curriculum, the genius academics of the said state wouldn't have a chance to make curriculum at all. That means, decentralizing the curriculum development means providing more academics chance to show their knowledge so that everybody can learn.

 

Although the government may not formally admit, much lobbying can go in curriculum development. For example, some Christian preachers might lobby to include a chapter on Christianity, some environmentalist can lobby for another chapter on global warming, and so on. If there is only one body making the curriculum then there is only one target for lobbying. If some of the lobbies succeed in convincing the body on including their ill-purposed chapter the whole nation might suffer. Same goes with other un-intentional blunders and mistakes in the curriculum. Should the curriculum be decentralized, only a small chunk would be affected. In other words, one should never put all the eggs in one basket.

 

In conclusion, the advantages of tailoring the curriculum to suit the needs of a locality would be lost should be national curriculum be adapted. The mere advantage of uniformity of curriculum and exams cannot provide sufficient justification to shun the advantages of decentralized curriculum discussed so far.

[shaboomshaboom]

Thanks for rating my essay!

 

I'd give your essay a 4.5.

 

It's well structured, and you state your thesis clearly.

 

I think you would lose marks with grammar/sentence structure, because sometimes it gets in the way with understanding your point. For instance: "In conclusion, the advantages of tailoring the curriculum to suit the needs of a locality would be lost should be national curriculum be adapted." -the last part is pretty awkward and confusing. Perhaps you should spend a bit longer editing the essay at the end. A helpful tip in editing is to read it out-loud (although you'll have to do it really quietly during the real GRE:P) -it's easy to catch mistakes that way.

 

Another tip- DON'T USE CLICHES like "one should never put all the eggs in one basket." - you really should avoid using cliches on the GRE essay. Your point about lobbyist interfering with the curriculum was really great and well argued, and really didn't need the cliche.

 

Perhaps you should restate your specific points in the conclusion. Maybe something like "The mere advantage of uniformity of curriculum and exams cannot provide sufficient justification to shun the advantages of decentralized curriculum such as allowing for variety and avoiding issues like lobbyists." -not exactly like that, but it's always good to list your points in the intro and conclusion.

 

Overall, great job:) and good luck on your test!

[thecritic]

Thanks shaboomshaboom for your response.

When is your exam? I think we can co-operate in mutual analysis for some time.

 

And please don't refrain yourself in showing any mistakes/awkwardness/nonsenseness you find. The harsher your criticism, the better. :)

[shaboomshaboom]

It's August 10th- come up so soon :S When is yours?

 

Yes that would be great if we could exchange some more essays for criticism! The whole AW section makes me incredibly nervous, which is silly because it doesn't seem very important compared to the rest of the exam.

[thecritic]

Mine is August 13. Yeah, AW is daunting for me too. It is important I think though. I am into Engineering. Though Quant is what really counts, AW reflects your 'article writing capacity'.

[shaboomshaboom]

In an ideal world, AW shouldn't count for anything. I'm applying for History, which obviously stresses the importance of writing skills. Luckily they don't look so much at the AW, and focus more on the application letter and writing sample.

[thecritic]

Here is my another essay. Would you please do the needful? :)

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Educational institutions should dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.

 

 

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Educational institutions play key role in educating and guiding students in their academic pursuits. However, Educational institutions should not have intrusion in students' right to choose their field of study which will eventually affect their professional career.

 

 

The reason to pursue a certain field of study depends upon interests and enthusiasm. For example, a student who wants to become a great photographer chooses to pursue photography course. However, because he isn't so bright a student, he continually fails to perform well in his college exams. While from the point of view of the institute, it may seem that the student will not be a successful professional photographer even if he finally manages to pass all the exams, that is not an enough reason to deny him the opportunity to pursue his passion. Life is not always about being successful and earning high. Sometimes for many, following their life long passion is more important. The student should be allowed to make his own decision in this case, and the institution shouldn't discourage him in any manner - preferably even encourage him.

 

 

In another case in which, let's say, the student also cares about being successful eventually even if that means leaving and changing fields, the educational institutes cannot still make an informed decision. Take for example the case of Albert Einstein. He was a mediocre or even below average students in his junior years. Educational institutes would have never imagined he would eventually be that great scientist who would change the course of science. If he was dissuaded from science field, he would have never been able to make those great inventions. The fact that Educational Institute cannot predict the future potential of students, coupled with the fact sometimes they can not even correctly evaluate students' current ability, makes it illogical to let the institute decide for the student what he can and cannot do in the future.

 

 

Admittedly, there are some advantages of the influence of institutions on deciding field of study as well. As more and more students are driven by career's future worth rather than inherent interests in those fields, it would beneficial for them if someone could point to them the right direction. For example, many students are attracted to engineerings not because they love the subjects but because of high status and salary associated with being engineers. However, excelling in engineering requires hard-work and some sort of propensity for maths and science. The faculty members can easily identify students who lack those properties and are ruining their academic career. In such condition, it would be for the better of the student to dissuade him from pursuing a seemingly insurmountable objective.

 

 

In conclusion, the educational institute should make a case by case analysis based decision on providing right counseling to the students. While it is beneficial to dissuade poor performing students who chose fields based on its social status, it is equally harmful to dissuade students who are really enthusiastic about their subjects even if they are currently performing poorly.

[thecritic]

Here is my another essay. Shaboom would you please do the needful?

 

----------------------------------------

Educational institutions play key role in educating and guiding students in their academic pursuits. However, Educational institutions should not have intrusion in students' right to choose their field of study which will eventually effect their professional career.

 

 

The reason to pursue a certain field of study depends upon interests and enthusiasm. For example, a student who wants to become a great photographer chooses to pursue photography course. However, because he isn't so bright a student, he continually fails to perform well in his college exams. While from the point of view of the institute, it may seem that the student will not be successful professional photographer even if he finally manages to pass all the exams, that is not an enough reason to deny him the opportunity to pursue his passion. Life is not always about being successful and earning high. Sometimes for many, following their life long passion is more important. The student should be allowed to make his own decission in this case, and the institution shouldn't discourage him in any manner - preferably even encourage him.

 

 

On another case in which, lets say, the student also cares about being successful professional eventually even if that means leaving and changing fields, the educational institutes still cannot make informed decision. Take for example the case of Albert Einstein. He was a mediocre or even below average students in his junior years. Educational institutes would have never imagined he would eventually be that great scientist who would change the course of science. If he was dissuaded from science field, he would have never been able to make those great inventions. The fact that Educational Institute cannot predict the future potential of students, coupled with the fact sometimes they can not even correctly evaluate students' current ability, makes it illogical to let the institute decide for the student what he can and cannot do in the future.

 

 

Admitedly, there are some advantages of the influence of institutions on deciding field of study as well. As more and more students are driven by future career worth of fields rather than inherent interests in those fields, it would beneficial for them if someone could point to them the right direction. For example, many students are attracted to engineerings not because they love the subjects but because of high status and salary associated with being engineers. However, excelling in engineering requires hard-work and some sort of propensity for maths and science. The faculty members can easily identify students who lack those properties and are ruining their acedemic carrer. In such condition, it would be for the better of the student to dissuade him from pursuing seemingly insurmountable objective.

 

 

In conclusion, the educational institute should make case by case analysis based decision in providing right conuselling to the students.

While it is beneficial to dissuade poor performing students who chose fields based on its social status, it is equally harmful to dissuade students who are really enthusiastic about the subjects even if they are currently performing poorly.

 

---------------------------

 

Please don't refrain yourself in pointing out any arkwardness/error/nonsense and any thing that is lacking.

The harsher the criticism, the better. :)

Thanks.

[Dhanshree]

Please rate and analyse issue

 

As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.

 

Now days Technology is everywhere ! people can't survive without mobile,laptops computer.I heard some people are saying ," I can't live without my phone".It's like technology is now basic need after food ,shelter and water.

Technology made our life very easy and simple.It is one of the basic necessity of our daily routine.We can contact ,talk to the people,friends our loved onces via of mobile,chat,video

Chatting,skype.To make large amount of calculations computers calculators are always ready to help.Internet provides us the information from all over the world, increase the depth of our knowledge.People can gain knowledge from all over the world by only sitting at home.Internet banking made life more easier.E-banking, E -school etc lots facilities made life easier.

Somewhere technology made human mind,brain handicap. As things are easily available brain stopped thinking. Our daily lie example in bank people never crosscheck the calculation made by computer sometimes it might be wrong because calculation program is written by human being. People are using technology not for purpose.And these things are easily available on Internet.

Some scientist have mentioned that if people have huge amount of use of technology in there daily life they might be gone through mental or physical disability.

As every coin has two side like that technology has there own pros and cons. Human being have to decide that at what extent we have to use the Technology so it won't effect on life and we can survive easily.