Search the Community

Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. 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: With the drastic improvement in technologies and fields, students are left with wide variety of opportunities to select their fields of study. The development in variety of fields, say, from Agriculture to Nano technology has resulted in significant increase in the number of chances for students to pursue their career. The educational institutions where the students are likely to invest many years to get a profound foundation, holds the responsibility for the success of their students. If we take a deep insight of the present situation, the educational system has attained a great improvement. For example, students are provided with range of options from LED classrooms to Online classes. In addition to educational institutions, Internet also has marked its prominent role in developing students career with its availability of information at any time. However, these facilities are not equally distributed leading to reduced percentage in rate of students success. There are rural areas still where the students could not attend classes in proper classrooms. These are partially addressed by many schemes (including free education and food for everyone) introduced by the great Indian Politician Mr. Kamaraj. Indeed the students of rural areas find it difficult to cope up with the current education system. Hence, in this case, the education is not evenly distributed among students to develop their skills. Additionally, the institutions would not be able to produce their best out of students, if the students undergo the constant change in the place of their study. In addition to these problems, donation has become a serious problem which blocks the students with great talent and much aspirations from pursuing it. On the other hand, it is not only the responsibility of educational institutions to help students achieve their goal, but also the parents'. Since, parents play major role in the growth of their children, they hold an important position in craving the future of their children. Moreover, guiding students to achieve their goal, could possibly refer to their freedom to select their field of success. For instance, What if the great player of Indian cricket team, Mr. Mahendra Singh Dhoni, is stopped from pursuing his career in cricket? Well, we all would have lost good player and his great captaincy today. Thus, the students' success in various fields cannot be determined only by the educational institutions while it has many other aspects to be considered. Thanks in advance.

Hi, I am a new member, making my first post. I would be delighted if some of the people here would help me out with my essay I have written on the analyzing an issue. Please tell me how much it would get out of 6 and any tips to make it better. Thanks in advance! Question: "A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum till 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 specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. Essay: One of the most important concerns of a nation is the education of its children. Many countries follow different policies in this regard, and they all have their pros and cons. The suggested proposal in the question is certainly an interesting one, because it is effecient and promotes equality but also overlooks some pitfalls, and hence may not fulfill its intended purpose. This policy will bring down the cost of education, because the scale of production of books etc.will increase. The nation can also boast of the uniformity of the standard of education that it has. By implementing this program, the nation can claim that a child in any nook and cranny of the country is learning the same things as the rest of the country. However, this proposal has some holes.Firstly, it is not the curriculum but how it is taught that determines how well a child learns a topic. Two children having the same textbook but different teachers can have a world of difference in their level of understanding. Secondly, the proposal fails to account for the regional aspects of the nation in the education of children. A great example of this is languages. It is certainly necessary to learn the national language, but the children should also be able to learn the laguage in the particular part of the nation that he/she resides in. Knowledge of this is going to be of greater practical value to the student. Thirdly, it is important to let children experiment and try out different things while in their youth so as to be able to find out their strangths and weaknesses. A student who wants to pursue History, for example, can only do as much as his curiculum allows him to. Thus,it is important to make sure that students are not churned out of schoold like robots out of facrories, but carefully nurture their individuality as well, which can be done by providing additional courses as extra options.

Hello everyone! I am posting my essay just in case anyone could grade it and-or note any mistakes etc. Btw, english is not my native language. Here is the subject: “People most respect the powerful not when they exercise their power, but when they refrain from exercising it.” Write an essay in which you develop and support a position on the statement above. In writing your essay, you should consider both when the statement may be true and when it may be false. And here is my essay: There is an old Chinese saying that true wisdom lies not when someone knows when to exercise his power for good or evil but when he truly knows when to not act at all. That said, how can anyone determine the correlation of respect and the exercise of power? In the political context, as it is commonly correlated with power, it raises an obscure argument that exercised power inspires respect since its the only way to actually change the flow of things and of course history itself. On the contrary, others would support the notion that true respect comes from the ability to restrain power. After carefully weighting historical facts, it becomes clear that people mostly respect leaders who act and exercise their power. To begin with, the ability to show restrain can engender respect. A bright example that most people have heard of is the trial of Jesus in Pilate's court. Pilate, after carefully examining the facts that were presented he quoted "I wash my hands" implying that he was not in a position to clearly declare any sentence although historians have concluded that he was eager to favour Jesus. Nevertheless, as Jesus was later on sentenced to crucifixion, and since Pilate was the only man who could actually set him free, his stasis and his inability to exercise his power has was the primary reason for losing his respect among the Christian people. On the other hand, one solid example of exercised power relates to a politician named Margaret Thatcher. Also known as the "Iron Lady", she is the longest-serving British Prime minister of the 20th century. Thatcher became a noticeable politician due to her determination to apply really innovative political and economical initiatives that contributed in Britain's recovery during the 80s. It is clear that Thatcher would have not succeed if she was not resolute in exercising her power as a politician, a fact that justifies her great reputation and admiration by British people and a base argument that has granted her a title in the House of Lords. In addition, another luminary persona of the ancient Greek political scene is Pericles, a man with a profound influence on the Athenian society. Referred to as the "first citizen", Pericles has gained his reputation by exercising power to benefit the citizens of Athens. Credited for many positive deeds, like the promotion of arts and Parthenon's construction, his greatest achievement was to exercise his power and declare the Athenean democracy, an act that has changed history and set the foundations of the modern civilization as we know it. He is the brightest example of a man who has gained peoples' respect from wisely exercising his power. To sum up, after considering both sides of the issue, it is inevitably concluded that the exercise of power is mostly respected. The examples aforementioned, clearly show that if the entity in power chooses not to exercise power at all, it is that option itself that makes the entity lose respect. The exercise of power, has created personas that are still admired and respected. Hence, it is not the restraint of power that people most respect, it is the exercise of power that matters most. I can also offer my evaluation to anyone who can help me here :) Thanks in advance!

THE TASK To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. THE WRITING The term "society" came from the Latin word societas, which is used to describe a bond or interaction between parties that are friendly, or at least civil. These interactions are not limited only in communication, but also technology, economy, value, and culture that would create the characteristics of the society. Proponent believe that major cities of the society must be learned in order to figure out important aspects about how a particular society works, while others oppose by claiming big cities as bad references to give a good understanding about the society. I personally think that making a generalization of an entire society based on the sample size as major cities is a little overestimating. People may argue that number of people living in major cities could represent the population as a whole and give the right picture about the characteristics of the society. Statisticians recognize 25 – 30 percent as ideal percentages for a good sample of a population. These criteria are met by many big cities in developing countries like India and Indonesia, where its major cities contributes 28 - 30 percent of populations. Similiary, major cities in developed countries like United States also have the same pattern, United States Census Bureau reports that 3 out of 5 American live in big cities where most of it is populated over 50,000. On the contrary, people reversely claim that major cities fail to reflect society in many points. First, high migrations in big cities encourage people to assimilate, causing huge deviation of its people from people in the rural areas, place where those people originally come from. People in Jakarta have shown that this anomaly could happen in many aspects, including the important ones, like people’s behavior. The urban people in Jakarta will generally show less compassion, yet it does not imply Indonesian is not friendly-type person because most people in the rural will show you otherwise. Second, massive exposure from media like TV, radio, and internet in major cities tend to shift people taste on more popular cultures and deprive traditional cultures, like in arts or architecture. If you see big cities like Padang, Medan, and Surabaya, you might conclude that Indonesians are uniform, regarding their similar taste on architectures and arts throughout cities, even the people maybe enjoy the same music with people from United States or Korea. The truth, however, Indonesians have nearly 2000 styles of architecture and 1,000,000 traditional songs in distinct areas. Popular cultures have settled rich-culture architecture like Gadang House, or genuinely dance like Tor-Tor in nowhere but in rural areas. Third, technology and economy gaps between urban and rural areas are usually bulky, especially in developing countries. Observing big cities like Jakarta, Bandung, and Denpasar alone will misguide you about how prosper and high-technology Indonesian people nowadays, you might also think that Indonesians are no longer agrarian but rely their economy in service sector, just like in United States. In sum, it is clear that studying major cities of a society is not sufficient to give us an understanding about the characteristics of the society, including the important ones. While numbers of people living in the big cities are indeed meet statistics requirement as a sample, diversions of its aspects are too far from the origins, make them not suitable as representations.

Knowledge is a vast ocean of information, facts, hypothesis, assumptions and other innumerable aspects. How does one then become truly learned? By knowing all this knowledge? It is simply impossible for anyone to achieve all the knowledge that is available out there. Thus one is inclined to think that to be truly learned , one must at least specialise in one the aspects among the vast expanse of knowledge. Consider the area of engineering which has so many sub fields ranging from architecture to telecommunication. Each field with its own area of specialisation. Even if one spends his entire lifetime studying all the subjects of engineering, one would not be able to learn all that there is to learn. And this is only regrading engineering when one wants to be aware of arts, he has to learn about differnt works of art, which is grossly impossible. On the other hand one can specialize in a specific area and then become a scholar in that field. This path is feasible as one can gain knowledge in a relatively narrow field of science or arts and then can use this specialized knowledge to render something valuable in his lifetime that can solve some of the problems or challenges faced by the society rather than try to glean knowledge from every field and in the end spend all their resources on learning rather than contributing anything new to any of the field. Also there is very little interdisciplinary aspects for example there is no relevance between medicine and art. Medicine being engaged in the curing of the diseases and illness has very little to do with art that deals with aspects like paintings, music, literature and many more. It is superfluous for a person practising medicine to have knowledge in literature. One might then argue that knowledge of literature will help a medical personnel to write better journals and thesis. However, basic knowledge of English is apt to write about path breaking research done by specialising in that filed Thus in the bulk of the evidence presented above i stand of the view that one does not become truly learned by exploring the broad spectrum of all the aspects of knowledge but rather by advancing in a specialized study and contributing zealously to that field of studyKnowledge is a vast ocean of information, facts, hypothesis, assumptions and other innumerable aspects. How does one then become truly learned? By knowing all this knowledge? It is simply impossible for anyone to achieve all the knowledge that is available out there. Thus one is inclined to think that to be truly learned , one must at least specialise in one the aspects among the vast expanse of knowledge. Consider the area of engineering which has so many sub fields ranging from architecture to telecommunication. Each field with its own area of specialisation. Even if one spends his entire lifetime studying all the subjects of engineering, one would not be able to learn all that there is to learn. And this is only regrading engineering when one wants to be aware of arts, he has to learn about differnt works of art, which is grossly impossible. On the other hand one can specialize in a specific area and then become a scholar in that field. This path is feasible as one can gain knowledge in a relatively narrow field of science or arts and then can use this specialized knowledge to render something valuable in his lifetime that can solve some of the problems or challenges faced by the society rather than try to glean knowledge from every field and in the end spend all their resources on learning rather than contributing anything new to any of the field. Also there is very little interdisciplinary aspects for example there is no relevance between medicine and art. Medicine being engaged in the curing of the diseases and illness has very little to do with art that deals with aspects like paintings, music, literature and many more. It is superfluous for a person practising medicine to have knowledge in literature. One might then argue that knowledge of literature will help a medical personnel to write better journals and thesis. However, basic knowledge of English is apt to write about path breaking research done by specialising in that filed Thus in the bulk of the evidence presented above i stand of the view that one does not become truly learned by exploring the broad spectrum of all the aspects of knowledge but rather by advancing in a specialized study and contributing zealously to that field of study

Issue: A true university education encompasses far more than the narrow, specialized study of a single discipline. Only through exploring the broad spectrum of liberal arts courses can students become truly learned. Knowledge is a vast ocean of information, facts, hypothesis, assumptions and other innumerable aspects. How does one then become truly learned? By knowing all this knowledge? It is simply impossible for anyone to achieve all the knowledge that is available out there. Thus one is inclined to think that to be truly learned , one must at least specialise in one the aspects among the vast expanse of knowledge. Consider the area of engineering which has so many sub fields ranging from architecture to telecommunication. Each field with its own area of specialisation. Even if one spends his entire lifetime studying all the subjects of engineering, one would not be able to learn all that there is to learn. And this is only regrading engineering when one wants to be aware of arts, he has to learn about differnt works of art, which is grossly impossible. On the other hand one can specialize in a specific area and then become a scholar in that field. This path is feasible as one can gain knowledge in a relatively narrow field of science or arts and then can use this specialized knowledge to render something valuable in his lifetime that can solve some of the problems or challenges faced by the society rather than try to glean knowledge from every field and in the end spend all their resources on learning rather than contributing anything new to any of the field. Also there is very little interdisciplinary aspects for example there is no relevance between medicine and art. Medicine being engaged in the curing of the diseases and illness has very little to do with art that deals with aspects like paintings, music, literature and many more. It is superfluous for a person practising medicine to have knowledge in literature. One might then argue that knowledge of literature will help a medical personnel to write better journals and thesis. However, basic knowledge of English is apt to write about path breaking research done by specialising in that filed Thus in the bulk of the evidence presented above i stand of the view that one does not become truly learned by exploring the broad spectrum of all the aspects of knowledge but rather by advancing in a specialized study and contributing zealously to that field of studyKnowledge is a vast ocean of information, facts, hypothesis, assumptions and other innumerable aspects. How does one then become truly learned? By knowing all this knowledge? It is simply impossible for anyone to achieve all the knowledge that is available out there. Thus one is inclined to think that to be truly learned , one must at least specialise in one the aspects among the vast expanse of knowledge. Consider the area of engineering which has so many sub fields ranging from architecture to telecommunication. Each field with its own area of specialisation. Even if one spends his entire lifetime studying all the subjects of engineering, one would not be able to learn all that there is to learn. And this is only regrading engineering when one wants to be aware of arts, he has to learn about differnt works of art, which is grossly impossible. On the other hand one can specialize in a specific area and then become a scholar in that field. This path is feasible as one can gain knowledge in a relatively narrow field of science or arts and then can use this specialized knowledge to render something valuable in his lifetime that can solve some of the problems or challenges faced by the society rather than try to glean knowledge from every field and in the end spend all their resources on learning rather than contributing anything new to any of the field. Also there is very little interdisciplinary aspects for example there is no relevance between medicine and art. Medicine being engaged in the curing of the diseases and illness has very little to do with art that deals with aspects like paintings, music, literature and many more. It is superfluous for a person practising medicine to have knowledge in literature. One might then argue that knowledge of literature will help a medical personnel to write better journals and thesis. However, basic knowledge of English is apt to write about path breaking research done by specialising in that filed Thus in the bulk of the evidence presented above i stand of the view that one does not become truly learned by exploring the broad spectrum of all the aspects of knowledge but rather by advancing in a specialized study and contributing zealously to that field of study

Technology is an inseparable tool in modern life. We have to depend on technological tools and systems for conducting many tasks and for finding solutions to many problems that we face on a daily basis. In other words, life without technology is unimaginable in this era of civilization. Technology is basically some scientific, modern systems or some tools that are developed and designed by humans for the sake of meeting our needs. They cut off the efforts or lengthy procedures that have to be followed to carry out works and saves our time. Technological tool are nothing but the outcome of human thoughts for lessening human efforts to do a work. When we think of a problem, say a mathematical problem which requires a lot of time to solve, we have to think, first of all about the problem and then develop a software or a hardware that is capable of solving that mathematical problem within minutes. In this way our productivity increases as we spend less time on a single problem. But this does not reduce our thinking capability as without the help of the technology we could also solve the problem but much less efficiently and time effectively. In the field of drug discovery, we first of all have to know about the disease, it’s prevalence and manifestations and then go for finding out a suitable remedy for it. Without the use of modern softwares like CADD (Computer Aided Drug Design) etc. it is unthinkable to design a finished drug molecule from a lead compound. So, here we can also see, technology is not hindering our thinking process but is helping to do our task in the best possible way. People are using close circuit camera or surveillance camera to detect and identify any sort of mishaps occurring in a particular place, and these cameras are also technological tool. People felt the necessity of a device that can effectively record the happenings and hence developed it. Here we can also say, technology is helping us but also at the same time it ensures that we think deeply over a matter and find a way to solve it using the essence of technology. To conclude, technology is the result of human thought and effort after he/she finds out a problem and tries to solve it in an effective way. It improves our performances, competency and efficiency but do not deteriorate our thinking capability as without the technological tool, we also might be able to do a lot of work but not that effectively as with the use of it.

Hello and thank you in advance for helping me during this tough journey :) I took my first GRE practice test a few hours before and here comes the analysis of an issue essay of mine, My scores were 690-790 for Quantitative and 300-400 for Verbal part. I am quite new in GRE and that would be also great if you could tell me your toughts about my scores. Does 690-790 mean that I will possibly get a score between 690 and 790? Thus I will probably get a score between 990 and 1190 for the entire exam? Thank you once again for your time and attention, Very best, Ethan A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. The success, life quality and development of a nation depends on many essential factors. Education is one of the priority factors of these factors. If it is needed to consider well-developed countries, it can be easily seen that these countries invest most of their capital and resources on the quality of education. It is important for a nation to do its best to keep the quality of education as high as possible. To achieve this important task, it is important for that nation to have the right strategy for the curriculum. There are many types of potential occupations for the students and many more tend to appear soon. Therefore it is essential to provide variety of the courses for the students. In this way, a nation can have all required workforce for all the work types of the coming future. For instance, if you teach the same courses for all the high school students, they will have a pre-designed way of education which will automatically design their upcoming future career. In stead, these students should have the right of designing their own education and therefore designing their own future. In this way, a nation can meet its new Mozarts and Picassos. Furthermore, World is changing so quickly. The time period, from the elementary school to the college is such a long time. This time period takes more than 10 years. Many innovations, changes and developments can occur about World and life during this time period. When I enter to the high school, I was dreaming of becoming a lawyer in the future. Then when I graduated from the high school, I had so many difficulties to choose the right program to pursue my college education. The reason of this challenge was the variety of the new occupations. Right now, occupations such as social media marketing agents, life coaches, electronic game designers and event managers are very popular. However it is very hard to guess what other occupations will be popular in a few years. In sum, it can be said that to provide the same national curriculum for all the students until their college education is not the right strategy for a nation which wants to develop. This cirriculum should not be only designed by the educators, it should also be designed by the students and even by their families. Each student has its own talents and own features. To reach these talents, they should have the opportunutiy to try different things and to learn different subjects.