Yuanli Pei

Please help to comment on my essay. Thanks very much Topic: To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. My response: Should a public official maintain the highest ethical and moral standards in order to be an effective leader? The speak claims so. As far as I am concerned, having recognized that the highest ethical and moral standards refer to commonly-valued virtues such as honesty and integrity, I strongly agree with the speaker's claim. The chief reason why I agree with the speaker’s claim is that maintaining highest ethical and moral standards is crucial for a public official to not only make contribution to the country but also create more opportunities to demonstrate his political abilities. First, an honest and righteous political leader can easily gain the public’s support. Consequently, it is highly possible that the average people in the country would like to obey laws and rules and actively carry out his political policies. As a result, he will have great chance to maintain a stable society thereby becoming an effective leader. Furthermore, benefited from the public support brought about by his maintenance of ethical and moral standards, he might win more opportunities in his political life to fully display his political abilities. Therefore, maintaining the highest ethical and moral standards contributes to the society as well as to the public official himself. Those who disagree with my point of view might propose cases wherein political leaders, who although have sexual affairs which goes beyond the moral standards as people claimed, had served the country well. I do not deny that such examples indeed exist. The founding father, Tomas Jefferson, who had been involved in affairs with his Black slavery servant, comes to my mind. This point of view, however, fails to distinguish personal misbehaviors with those violations of highest moral standards. Indisputably, he has made a mistake that is emotionally, perhaps morally as people alleged, unacceptable to others. But, if you think further, his sexual misbehavior is not so much a violation against the highest moral and ethical standards as an action destroying the public's ideal image of political leaders. In short, by maintaining the highest ethical and moral standards, a political leader will be highly possible to effectively serve his country. Besides, it also benefits the leader's political life. Therefore, it is essential for a political leader to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards.

Thanks very much!!

Hello! Please help to comment on my response to the following topic. Any response is appreciated! Thanks~ Topic: Educators should take students' interests into account when planning the content of the courses they teach. Instruction: 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. My response: The recommendation suggests that students’ interest should be taken into account when planning the content of courses they teach. In my opinion, as long as teachers can thoroughly teach the systematic knowledge to students, it is a good way for them to take into account students’ interests when planning the content of courses. Yet a good teacher should be capable enough to make all the parts of his course appealing to students. Admittedly, catering for student’s interests can make a course more preferable and attract students’ attention, thus enhancing teaching efficiency. It is commonly acknowledged that interest is the eternal force for learning. If students’ interests are included when educators plan courses content, teaching process has a great chance to be enhanced. Suppose a certain content of a course is very appealing to students. On one hand, with great interests, students are more likely to actively participate in listening and discussion in classes, thus obtaining knowledge more rapidly and effectively. On the other hand, by receiving positive response in the class, teachers themselves can feel a sense of self-respect and self-esteem, which, in turn, promotes their initiative in teaching, thus forming a benign circle between teaching and learning. But, in contrast, if a course is not attractive, boring classes depress students as well as teachers and are eventually detrimental to the teaching process. Hence, proper attention to students’ interests in planning courses contributes greatly to teaching process. Yet too much attention on student’s interests might threaten the integrity of knowledge. Teachers, with systematic knowledge in their own specialty, can be expected to distinguish those important parts of content in their courses from those minor ones. But students themselves, lack an overview of the courses and their major field of study, cannot. They may only pay attention to minor parts of the courses while neglecting the important ones. If teachers lay too much stress on students’ interests, it is highly possible that they have to omit some parts of the courses because that are unlikely interesting. But, in fact, these parts should have been thoroughly stressed and are of great importance for students’ future study. If things like this happen, they are unaware of some important or even basic knowledge of this course, even though students have enjoyed the class. In that case, not only the integrity of the class has been threatened, but also students themselves become unfortunate victims. Besides, this recommendation has overestimated teachers’ effectiveness in predicting student’s interests in the courses contend as well as undercut their capacities in making their course more appealing to students. Generally, teachers themselves are not able to determine which parts of courses are more attractive to their students. Even though they can partly based on their previously teaching experience, it is still difficult for them to accurately distinguish those so-called interesting parts from those boring parts to future students until the whole courses are finished. Moreover, the information I have collected these years leads me to believe that good educators are expected to be capable enough to make every part of their course appealing to students. I have encountered many good educators whose course are very appealing and they are frank about the fact that they did not particularly take students’ interests into account when planning the content of their courses. If all teachers are capable to such an extent, then students interests pales in comparison with the importance of knowledge. In conclusion, while certain attention to students’ interests in planning courses is beneficial to teaching process, undue emphasis may be detrimental to the integrity of knowledge. And good educators should be capable enough to make all the content of theirs courses appealing to students.

Thanks for sharing!

Hi, Here is one piece of my response to an ISSUE topic of the GRE revised test. Any comment is appreciated! Thanks very much! Topic: Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. Instruction: Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. RESPONSE: It is true that some people have spent many years studying in one area but they end up with failure. In light of this situation, some people claim that educational institutions, with the responsibility to lead students to success, should dissuade them from pursuing fields of such study. However, in my opinion, the responsibility of education is to cultivate students’ interests and develop their learning skills, not to dissuade them from pursuing certain studying subjects. As far as I am concerned, whether one could succeed in one area depends heavily on his interests and professional knowledge, both of which are gained at school. Thus, educational institutions are responsible for teaching professional knowledge and cultivating students’ interests. Suppose a school provides good teachers and sufficient studying resources. Usually, good teachers, instead of just telling knowledge, demonstrate conclusion to students, and inspire students. They also know how to elicit students' energy in learning. Then, educated by such good teachers, combined with good studying environments, students attending such a school have a great chance to develop their interests and enhance their learning skills. Eventually, motivated by great interests and equipped with solid professional knowledge, they are high likely to success in their studying fields. This is true in nearly all fields of study. Hence, to educational institutions, it is not a "persuading" or "dissuading" thing. Rather, it is a matter of “teaching” and "cultivating". In challenging my point of view, one might argue that students, with different personalities, may respond differently to the same teaching strategy. In other words, it is possible that even if the educational institutions provide students the best teachers and the most advanced educational equipments, there is still a possibility that they finally fail in these areas. I do agree that such cases exist. However, according to my observation, the main reason underlying these failures is that education institutions failed to curtailing teaching methods in accordance with students’ studying habits. Hence, it is still a question of “teaching” and “cultivating”, not ”persuading” or “dissuading”. In conclusion, educational institutions are responsible for teaching. If they fail, students pay the price. Therefore, we should focus our attention on the way we teach, not the study fields that students are pursuing.