Evaluate Mine and I'll Evaluate Yours!

[conscientious]

Governments should offer college and university education free of charge to all students.

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 specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

 

Governments have a responsibility to invest in the education of the population for the benefit of the population. However, it is not necessary nor even a good identity to cover the entire cost of post-secondary education. As in Canada, governments do well to subsidize college and university education to a reasonable portion of the cost.

 

To begin with, relying entirely on government funding is likely to reduce the finances of the schools. Without raising taxes, government budgets everywhere are already very tight without room for a huge additional expense. This means less money to compete with other countries for quantity and quality of professors, courses, and facilities. What good is a free education if the education is sub-par at best? When subsidized by the government, schools have obligation both toward supporting government interests of societal benefit, as well as the capitalistic drive to compete and profit, which drives performance and innovation.

 

Furthermore, the huge additional expense to the government will surely take away from other more universally rewarding beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the investment does not benefit all citizens directly. Many people are not interested nor suited for post-secondary education. Taking away from infrastructure and military, for instance, doesn’t help people without children at post-secondary age who have to put up with the potholes and reduced security. If anything, the free aspect will attract many more students who are not committed or just not a good fit for university or college. This will detract from the serious students. Instead, subsidy tempers the obstacle of cost to make it more reasonable, while still maintaining a cost that acts, in a way, as a test of a student’s dedication.

 

That said, some countries have implemented free post-secondary schooling. Education, after all, is a clear contributor to a country’s economy and GDP. Taking away the barrier of cost allows equal access to all. It is a matter of tradeoff. The United States has some of the most expensive schools, but they are also some of the world’s best schools. When a resource is made accessible to more people through government funding, something has to give, whether it be other services we rely on like infrastructure or the quality of the resource itself, or both.

 

Government certainly has a strong relationship with the country’s schools. That is why most government’s fund elementary and secondary school. But should that extend to post-secondary? It would come at significant cost to the quality of the school as well as the other government services losing funding to compensate. As such, it is a more appropriate approach to subsidize post-secondary education rather than funding it completely. We need higher level thinkers and doers developed by higher level education. Beyond our physical health, our personal and societal quality of life depends on mental aptitude.

[purneshtripathi]

Governments should offer college and university education free of charge to all students.

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 specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

 

Governments have a responsibility to invest in the education of the population for the benefit of the population. However, it is not necessary nor even a good identity to cover the entire cost of post-secondary education. As in Canada, governments do well to subsidize college and university education to a reasonable portion of the cost.

 

To begin with, relying entirely on government funding is likely to reduce the finances of the schools. Without raising taxes, government budgets everywhere are already very tight without room for a huge additional expense. This means less money to compete with other countries for quantity and quality of professors, courses, and facilities. What good is a free education if the education is sub-par at best? When subsidized by the government, schools have obligation both toward supporting government interests of societal benefit, as well as the capitalistic drive to compete and profit, which drives performance and innovation.

 

Furthermore, the huge additional expense to the government will surely take away from other more universally rewarding beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the investment does not benefit all citizens directly. Many people are not interested nor suited for post-secondary education. Taking away from infrastructure and military, for instance, doesn’t help people without children at post-secondary age who have to put up with the potholes and reduced security. If anything, the free aspect will attract many more students who are not committed or just not a good fit for university or college. This will detract from the serious students. Instead, subsidy tempers the obstacle of cost to make it more reasonable, while still maintaining a cost that acts, in a way, as a test of a student’s dedication.

 

That said, some countries have implemented free post-secondary schooling. Education, after all, is a clear contributor to a country’s economy and GDP. Taking away the barrier of cost allows equal access to all. It is a matter of tradeoff. The United States has some of the most expensive schools, but they are also some of the world’s best schools. When a resource is made accessible to more people through government funding, something has to give, whether it be other services we rely on like infrastructure or the quality of the resource itself, or both.

 

Government certainly has a strong relationship with the country’s schools. That is why most government’s fund elementary and secondary school. But should that extend to post-secondary? It would come at significant cost to the quality of the school as well as the other government services losing funding to compensate. As such, it is a more appropriate approach to subsidize post-secondary education rather than funding it completely. We need higher level thinkers and doers developed by higher level education. Beyond our physical health, our personal and societal quality of life depends on mental aptitude.

 

 

I would grade this essay a 4 pointer. (on a scale of 1 to 6)

Although I am not a professional grader but I would like to point out the following problems that I felt with the essay.

 

> Lacks enough examples. In fact, "The United States has some of the most..." is the only example that I found in the text. Although, the statement following the example undergoes the assumption that schools in US are best, because they are expensive. I didn't find that appropriate. In India, there are IITs, which are not the most expensive schools here, but certainly are the best institutions in the country (which happens to be a contradictory example).

 

> The only reason I could not grade this essay a '4.5' is because the GRE grading guidelines clearly state that, in order to be a 4, an essay must have "relevant reasons and/or examples". I found your reasoning to be very good and cogent but due to lack of sufficient examples, I was not able to grade you a 4.5

 

I would be thankful to you, if you could please spare the time to grade mine.

 

I hope that helped. If you find a problem with my scoring tactics, please let me know.

[Holly Spellmann]

Hi there! As a preface I'm just going to say that I'm basing my critique off of the tips from Magoosh.

 

I think that overall your essay has some good ideas and points, it was only slightly detracted from by a couple grammar mistakes (...identity in the first paragraph- typo from idea? Also government's should be governments in the last paragraph)

 

The main thing that I would think could be improved would be the structure in relation to this particular test. It is suggested to take a clear stance. Your argument kind of straddles the fence- but it could easily be slightly changed to fit the format while making the same point.

 

I would include in the hypothesis something that says- no, post secondary education should not be free- since that is your stance. You can then have 2 body paragraphs that state why it would be detrimental to make college free- #1- it takes funding that is not available from maybe more pressing organizations #2- it doesn't benefit everyone- not everyone should go to college. That's just an example, of course pick your 2 strongest points.

 

The third body paragraph can be a "concession point"- acknowledging the other side of the argument. You can qualify your argument by saying how though college should not be free, maybe actions could be taken to reduce the crippling cost- subsidies and the like.

 

I hope this helps. I made kind of the same mistakes on the essay that I made a thread for I think- using this kind of structure strengthens your paper because it clarifies it and makes it totally organized rather than a stream of ideas about the topic.