PearlZhang

Prompt: “The purpose of higher education is to prepare student for the future, but Classen students are at a serious disadvantage in the competition for post-college employment due to the University’s burdensome breadth requirements. Classen’s job placement rate is substantially lower than placement rates of many top-rated schools. Classen students would be more attractive to employers if they had more time to take advanced courses in their specialty rather than being required to spend fifteen percent of their time at Classen taking courses outside of their subject area. We demand, therefore, that the University abandon or drastically cut back on its breadth requirements.” The authors demand that breadth requirement in Classen University be cut based on evidence that university graduates from the university are disadvantaged from employment and lower job placement rate. They also make assumptions in their argument, namely on purpose of higher education as to prepare students for their future and breadth requirement cuts students’ time in other forms of education e.g. placement and advanced course. It could be possible that Classen University may have to listen to students' opinions and cut its breadth courses, but this argument is not strong enough to support such claim. First of all, it is arguable that whether the aim of higher education is to prepare for students' future. To different people, the meaning of education could be vastly different, ranging from finding a stable job, pursuing their dream to contemplating their life goals in a formalized education environment. So, key figures are missing on actually what proportion of Classen University students agree with the aim of higher education mentioned in the paragraph i.e. preparation of students for their future. Even if student do agree with the statement, they may not necessarily link their conception of future with job prospects. Future can be defined more broadly as personal development or more specifically tied with a position in a company. The definition of future should be defined in a clearer manner to generate useful discussion. Moreover, the key evidence provided is sometimes flawed and weak to support the writer's argument. For example, it does not explicitly explain why breadth requirement lowers the college's post-college employment rate. Breadth requirement, as stated in the passage, only occupies 15% of the course hours. A substantial 75% is spent on professional training, be it introductory or advanced training. It needs to be investigated whether 75% of time is enough for training and education in the students' specialized area. Placements can also be sought during summer and Christmas holidays. Additional part-time jobs can also be an option for acquiring work experience. Breadth requirement and placement are not mutually exclusive. Also, the request for more time on advanced courses follows from the observation that placement rate of Classen University is lower than other top-ranked schools. It should be stressed that internships and formal lessons teach students very different set of skills. Students are trained to work with teammates, finish a certain assigned task on time and follow deadlines independently in internships. But for classes and other form of education offered in universities, the knowledge and skills acquired are rather academic and theoretical. These may not be directly applied and translated in jobs, so companies may not favour students taking more advanced courses with whom of similar competence.

The flow is very coherent and the ideas are clear and apt for the argument. But you can work on the intro a bit more, for example by summarizing the argument in question: The author argues that use of beaches should be charged and he based this argument on mainly three assumptions, beach is the major attraction for tourists, replenishing the sand can preserve local buildings on the beach and preservation of architecture boosts tourist industry. And then you can say additional evidence is needed to support each of the above assumptions. Also, some extra evidence may also be needed e.g. popularity of beaches/ buildings in the area to tourists, cause of erosion - is it artificial as assumed by the author or is it natural, so that it is nearly impossible for us to avoid even if we impose a surcharge on people visiting, usage of beaches (more by local or tourists).

All major flaws in the original essay were addressed but some worth a bit more discussion. As the prompt tells you to explain how extra evidence can weaken/ strengthen the argument, I think you can elaborate a bit more on that. For the first point, you can conclude by saying that if the complaints of viewers stem from the proportion of national news to weather/ local news, it surely supports the author's argument. If not, other reasons for viewers' complaints should be investigated. I know it sounds a bit repetitive, but just makes it more coherent. Some other evidence can also be sought e.g. if there is any policy changes in the company in the time being that may affect viewers' attitude (has the TV host been changed?), how many complaints did the company receive during the period (it only mentions that most of the complaints are concerned with the national/ local news proportion but the number of complaints can actually drop, making the complaints less valid in terms of population), viewing rates of the season compared to the last. Overall, the structure and idea of your essay are very clear and direct, but a bit more elaboration may be needed.

Your ideas are great but they don’t link from one to another coherently, from my perspective. Like in the first paragraph, after saying that scandal is action of a few, you immediately mention that is draws public attention to specific issues. The two points are very different – one concerns the doer/ performer of action and another is about the consequences. Maybe you can try using ‘guiding words’ (not sure what’s its formal name) e.g. moreover, on the other hand. The same happens to the second paragraph – I get your point: short-term issues draw attention and allude to more fundamental flaws. But you start by saying that scandals draw people’s attention to fundamental issue followed by its emphasis on immediate problems. I don’t see the connection there at first. I think it’d be better to say scandals make people aware of the short-terms flaws, AND THEN explain how does it lead to people’s realization of the primary causes. I like your metaphor of scandals to vaccine, which makes your argument more vivid. But it would be clearer if you conclude the paragraph with a more direct statement e.g. ‘Scandals cure the root of the problem while minor changes brought by speakers only deal with the surface/ manifestations of a far deeper issue.’ Side note: I am not sure about your attack on reformists though, because they can bring structural and fundamental changes to society as well.

Issue Prompt: “Question Authority. Only by questioning accepted wisdom can we advance our understanding of the world.” Thank you if have clicked into the page to read my essay. It won’t take you long to comment a little bit:) I am most concerned with the strength of my argument and evidence i.e. whether the evidence is good enough to support my essay. Authority that is established today may once be perceived as unorthodoxy and wrong. Take Galileo's theory on revolution of planets around the sun as an example, he was jailed and punished to death by his belief. But today, this is understood as the general truth and corroborated by calculations and observations. However, if he did not question the church's assumption of the earth as the center of the universe, it would have taken many more years before approaching a more sound and solid understanding of the world outside our planet earth. Moreover, quantum physics challenges classical physics such as Newton mechanics, but it explains microscopic view of molecules and atoms that classical theories could not. From these scientific developments, we see that authority is not impeccable because it is set, have established for long or used by many, but because of its ability to explain many if not all the phenomenon we observe. When our observation contradicts what is predicted from a theorem, we should start to explore alternative explanations and investigate the legitimacy of existing doctrine. From here, science propagates and flourishes to satisfy our relentless curiosity of the world. However, some may argue that if certain rules are already there to guide our behaviors and understanding, it is merely a waste of time to look into the issue and ask questions. Time is spent more effectively to investigate questions that are never answered by current knowledge. They could argue that, rather than questioning the existence of bacteria and virus, we should endeavor and concentrate our effort in curing AIDS. However, our social and political system show us that continuing skepticism on current situation leads to more just and fair society we may have never envisioned. For instance, people in Roman times lived happily under monarchy and citizens of China have survived years of leadership under an emperor and changing dynasties. But this kind of seemingly competent reign did not impede our pursuit of a more democratic society. Because under monarchy and emperors, some never get to voice their opinions and their interests are never adequately represented in governmental policy. When we question the fundamental principle and rationale of established authority, we begin to see what is truly right and wrong of it. Principles are not correct just because we take it for granted, but because of the mindset it reflects. Last but not least, questioning current belief advances our development in science, politics, social systems and many more aspects I have not yet mentioned. Effort is needed to determine which established protocol should be questioned and which should be kept.Issue Prompt: “Question Authority. Only by questioning accepted wisdom can we advance our understanding of the world.”