Awt help

[sandin]

HeY guys!

 

 

I am really bad at analytical writing:(. My main reason to join urch forum is to improve in these areas. I have posted and will post some of my ibts. So please if you could help and tell me where to improve and how to improve. Any help is welcome .

[sandin]

"Competition for high grades seriously limits the quality of learning at all levels of education."

 

Today we live in a competitive world. Competition has many advantages, it drives one to work, but on the other hand it creates tension and stress and forces one to do what he is not capable of. Specially, in the field of education students face lots of competition from there fellow mates. Everyone wants to be on the top.

For that one requires high grades. It is quite evident that the motive of students have know become not to gain knowledgde but to score high marks. So, Imore ore less agree with the topic.

 

One would admit that there is a major differnce between good marks and quality marks. Good marks can be obtained if one does well in all the subjects. But as is said that Jack of all trades and master of none, he could not master any particular subject. This is not quality. Quality is to be master of what you know. To acquire quality knowledge one must have an in depth knowledge of the subject. It enables one to have a good understanding of the topic. He would be able to answer questions on this topic on the basis of this conception. He develops a strong foundation of the subject. However, if he does good in only one subject it will not get him good grades in others. In the fight to get to the top students prefer to use shortcuts and tries to know little bit of everything. This gives them good marks but not quality marks. Such students have a restricted domain of knowledge and would only be able to answer questins from this domain. If anything out of this sphere is asked then these students seem helpless.

 

Moreover, it is often seen that a student does well in a subject, say mathematics, where as in others he could not perform well. In such cases inspite of being praised for his talent in mathematics he is criticised for not doing good in other subjects. He is compelled to study these subjects. But if one is not intersested in a subject then no matter how hard he tries he could not exceed his limits. On the other hand if he devotes this time in brushing up his skills of his favourite subject he could become a good mathematician. For example Albert Einstein who was a great physicist, in his school days used to skip his history classes because he was not interested in the subject. He was of the view that there is no sense is studying history. He was very much interested in physics. Therefore, he used to spend most of his time studying his favourite subject. He developed a strong base of that subject and consequently he proved to be a great physicists.

 

However, this does not mean that students should not study other subjects. A substantial amount of knowledge about every subject is necessary. Otherwise it will narrow down their focii. So, he must have basic knowledge about other subjects as well.

 

To conclude, one must remember that nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm. A student must be allowed to pursue what he is interested in. He will be enthusiastic in learning that subject and will ultimately accomplish great heights.

[sandin]

"Important truths begin as outrageous, or at least uncomfortable, attacks upon the accepted wisdom of the time."

 

Humans resist changes. If anything tries to bring a change, human inherently tends to oppose it. This is the law of nature, the law of inertia which states that a body in inertia will continue to be in state of inertia unless some force changes its state. This law can be acceptably applied to human behaviour as well. When a truth defies the accepted doctrines, humans can not not readily acknowledge it. They oppose it. This causes unsteadiness. The level of this unsteadiness depends upon the target people. If the truth holds the people in power as faulty then it is likely to cause more unstability than if the people affected are less powerfull.

One good example is the observation made by Galileo. At that time the people beleived that the Earth is the centre of the universe and other planets including the Sun revolved round the earth. This tenet was widely accepted because it was the belief of the church and the pope, which were the authoritative people that time. But Galilieo had a different stand. He presented his own theory made on observation that the Sun is the centre of the universe and other planets including the Eath revolves around it. This theory blatantly contradicted the pope and the authority. It created a great chaos and was strongly opposed by the pope and hence the people. The Galileo was even held as lunatic for this hypothesis. But eventualliy he was proved to be correct. This example clearly shows how a truth created an upheavel against accepted widom of that era.

Another example can be quoted is of the well known socialist Karl Marx. He was a preacher of communism. He believed in the equality of society and wanted the removal of biasness and injustice. To communicate his ideas he wrote articles in newspaers and journals. His writings unveiled the dark side of the society which was suffering from the brutal effects of inequality. This urged the people to rise and fight against inequality. They started campaigns and demonstration against the government. This was a dauntless attack on the government and created huge amount of unrest. The government tried to crush this movement by banning Karl's writings and outcasting him from the country. But instead of diminishing it supplemented the fire. Consequently it lead to the foundation of modern scciety.

To conclude, like a pebble thrown in the pond causes disturbance in the equanimity of the water by creating waves. If the pond is bigger the disturbance created by the pebble will be more. Similarly the truths causes outrageous impact on the accepted wisdom of an epoch.

[sandin]



"The media—and society in general—mistakenly expect an individual to speak for a particular group, whether or not that individual truly represents the views of the entire group."

 

 

 

Let us illuminate the topic with the saying "The more the alternatives, the more difficult is the choice". Often in our daily lives we are presented with many options and we are required to make a choice. It is possible that no single option fully satisfies our requirements. An option has some favourable properties where as an another other option has some other desired properties. In such a scenario, one will choose to go with one which satisfies his most of the needs. But it can not be completely asserted that the individual is totally satisfied with his choice. He just selected the more obvious option. So I partly agree with the topic.

 

For instance, in a democratic country many political groups exist. These groups have their own agendas. A voter is required to select one of these groups as his representatives. So one has many choices avilable. A person often tends to favour that group whose policies are congruent with his own views. But it may be that some views of the group and the individual do not match. Such as an unemployed individual would be favouring a group because the group includes effective employment measures in its policies where as other group are devoted to some other areas. However that group is also known to be promoting agendas which the individual despise. Despite of his aversion towards some of the policies of the group he choose to go with that group because he can not go with the other. This does not signify that the individual is in complete accordance with the group.

 

However there is other side of the coin as well. It cannot be contended that the media and society wrongly expect a person to speak for a particular group. For example if a leader is selected from a group and the selection is based on voting then it may be that some have voted in favor of the elected participant while others have voted for some other candidate. But after being selected as a leader he is expected to serve the entire group. He should work for the development and benefit of the whole group. He can not favour only those who have voted for him. So, the leader may not be representing the views of entire group but still he is supposed to serve the community as a whole.

 

To conclude, when an individual slecets a group he just make a choice that choice may not completely serve his purpose. On the other hand when group selects a leader then it would not be a mistake to assume that the leader will work for the team.