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.

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.

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'.

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. :)

Your essay is highly comprehensible. Sentence structure is varied. Overall very good. I found this sentence " it is not necessary for works of art to be understandable for it to contain merit- however it must be thought or emotion provoking" repeated too often in almost the same tone and structure. Look here: ---------------------------- For a work of art to have merit, it does not necessarily have to be understandable, however it must be intriguing or thought provoking. Simply because a piece of work is understandable does not mean it is art. Indeed, many blockbuster movies are extremely easy to comprehend,... ---------------------------- The bold and the italic sentences are your two separate claims. You followed the latter with little elaboration but failed to follow the first. It could have gone like: For a work of art to have merit, it does not necessarily have to be understandable, however it must be intriguing or thought provoking. Many great paintings and movies are very obscure to most people but yet are considered a great piece of art, by virtue of their thought provoking nature. On the flip side, Simply because a piece of work is understandable does not mean it is art. Indeed, many blockbuster movies are extremely easy to comprehend,... And I think you failed to point out the case in which: A piece is art and is understandable by most people. These cases are exactly what the writer had in mind when making the claim that good art is understandable by all. You need to show these cases, then debunk them, or agree with them. And you lack a more general concluding sentence. While popular blockbuster movies are understandable, they are not thought provoking such as Pollock's paintings, which are not easily understood but stimulates emotions. ------------------------------------------------------------------- This conclusion makes it appear that your whole essay was concerned with discussing blockbuster movies and Pollock's painting. Like: While understandability gives some credit to the arts, It is actually the art's ability to stimulate emotions that play the major role in deciding whether an art deserves merit or not. Maybe you deserve 4.5 Would you please rate my essay too. (It is in this same form in another thread. Look for the thread started by "thecritic". :)

This. But if your standard really don't suffer in longer essays, I don't think they will be annoyed. Why don't you show us your 800+ essay?

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.