Search the Community

A nation 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 specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. Response : Curriculum of a school provides the base what education will be provided to a student in that particular school. It is necessary for a country to have same curriculum in schools for better future of a student and nation. When a nation have same curriculum in their schools, it will build a sense of equality in all the students when they enter college. Keeping curriculum same in schools across a nation, it is like making sure that every student is getting same education with no differentiation, with no sense of injustice or inequality based on their social or financial status. This feeling that they have been provided same education in their school as other students or college, ultimately helps in boosting confidence of a person when they enter the college. This also gives a fair chance to all the students for appearing for any higher course after school. It has been found in a survey that when a country has same curriculum across all the schools, youngsters feel more secure in regards to equal chances provided, which if not the case, many a time lead youngsters to wrong path, ultimately harming the country's growth. When same curriculum exists across the country, it also help student to catch up early in the new school if they happen to migrate from one city to another. It is evident countries where curriculum are different in schools, students who change city due to parents jobs or some other reason, are forced to study in class less that they were studying in the old school to catch up with the new school education. This ultimately waste a student's year, using which in near future they could have added some value for the country's progress and their own growth. When a curriculum is different in the school across the country, it keeps a competitive surroundings for a students, as they know they have to pull their socks early to compete with other students who are provided better education as part of their curriculum, ultimately motivating student with less better curriculum, to work hard to achieve higher goals. For a nation to grow it is necessary to have same curriculum for all the students until they enter the college, to make them feel more confident and secure about their future.

A nation 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 and 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. I strongly agree with the given recommendation because it will provide an uniform education to all students of the nation and it can be said that it wiil be fair with all students whether they belong to urban area and rural area of the nation. but sometimes many educators want that it must be different curriculum for all the states of the nation because students also get the knowledge of their religion and their state and if whole curriculum for the country is same they will not be able to learn about their religion and their state. i believe there can be one solution that there must be at least one subject which is elective for students and which deals with the religion and the state from which a particular student belongs. in 2010 NCERT applies same course for all states in India, but after one year they realise that there must be a subject for students which will provide them the knowledge of their state and their city so NCERT ordered states to apply a new book in their curriculum so students get the knowledge of their state. there is also one more thing can come that if a student shifts from one state to another state he can learn about that state easily if he read the book related to that state in which he is shifted. In India thear are 29 states and each state has different language. so i believe state Government should add State language subject in the curriculum of that state because it will help to save the state language and also prepare students to speak state language with old people of the state.

The statement: ""A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college" My Response: The statement of requiring students of a nation to study a national curriculum until they enter college is in response to an maxamize the level of education a society develops. The theory behind this takes on an assumption far too broad to have a successful implentation as each nation varies accross the globe in multiple facets such as environments, resources available to students region dependent, and teacher expertise. In this retort to a national curriculum, we will use Japan as an example, as Japan has a national curriculum already in place. Japan is a country that is about the size of California, which is only 1 state out of 51 in the USA, hence it will act as only a sample size of what a national curriculum would mean in a geographically larger country such as the USA for example. Japan, as small as it is, contains a variety of ecosystems and variances in regional economic productivity which calls for a diverse educational model which is able to meet the needs of regions and specific populations. However, the national curriculum, is arguably failing it's country side and agricultural economics as students flock from rural communities into already dense and highly competitive technological and material hubs such as Tokyo, Osaka, and Sapporo. This is leading to a society in constant competition in the same labor markets where only the best will succeed as others dwindle economically and psychologically.A national curriculum meets only basic needs of a population with a lackluster potential of mediocrity. The national curriculum of Japan requires students whom live thousands of miles, multiple islands, and economies so different fron one another, to study the same topics and same theories day in and day out. The most northern island is Hokkaido which has an economy dominated by agricultural production whereas the main land of Honshu consists of international hubs such as Tokyo, Kyoto, and Osaka. The students in the agricultura land of Hokkaido would benefit from a greater focus on agricultural sciences as they are more likely to have job opportunities in this field. Whereas the students in the international hubs would greatly benefit through honing in on international economics, business, and culture. The rural student is at a disadvantage if they complete their high school education with a lack of knowledge in the immediate job opportunities of their area. The national curriculum takes away the time a student has to take apprenticeship to learn a local trade thus when it comes time to make the decision to become a contributing member to their local economy post-graduation, their skills are not up to par. This then creates a gap between the local economy and the labor force. The student then feels the best option is to move to the nearest metropolitan area and take their chances of success competing against students born in the metropolitan area who have had access and consistent interactions with said economy, business, and culture. This is not to undermine the importance of a diverse educational model, however a region specific model is much better served to strengthen a student bodies chances of success. The rural student may actually have no interest or ability to become a farmer for various reasons, hence one would argue that a region specific educational model is only holding the student down from reaching success in the metropolitan economic system. This may hold true were the teaching approach left only to agricultural studies. However, it is the responsibility of the local teacher and board of education to recognize an approach and implentation of a curriculum which goes above and beyond the local economy through using the local economy. For example, agriculture is the most abundant learning tool available to said student and their peers, thus, it is agriculture which may be used as the foundation of how the students learn and apply their knowledge for immediate feedback. The next step is to take the apprenticeship level of these students and connect them to the technological advancements, the marketing, the reality and potentail for global interconnectivity, and further developments implementing STEM subjects and an interdisciplinary arts. A student who is a master of their local economy, ecosystem, and culture will be able to not only connect to what is beyond but they will be able to innovate what is currently available. The idea of a student mastering what inhabits their daily life has proven to work throughout Japan's history. For example agricultural practices, local crafts, blacksmiths and so on have seen successful throughout generations. So why is it now that these regional specific practices have given way to a national curriculum? The answer is not clear, the answer is muddled with confusion and an economy, culture, and way of life which now lacks diversity. The consequence of this is a population now flocking to large cities and a dwindling countryside population with too small of a labor force. Japan however has a very competent association of teachers who would surely be able to turn this problem around were they given the liberty to create a curriculum, based on an agreable set of standards for the sake of helping a younger generation of teachers learning to maximize the potential of their students. To require a national curricul undermines the brilliance of teachers to adapt to students, current events, local economies, and varience in regions. To potential of non-national curriculums far outweighs the mediocrity of national curriculums. Students who want to have immersive educational experiences will leave the public school system as even the United States experiences with just Statewide curriculums. To have a national curriculum is to funner students into a thinning funnel. The ideal regional and diverse model of education relying on students to be immersed in their surroundings and teachers to apply their expertise is the future of education and an educated society.

A nation 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 specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. This topic raises the question of whether a nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. Indisputably, this would help regulate that all students enter university having studied the same topics. However, it is unreasonable for a single curriculum to be mandated unto all students, regardless of their individual needs. Therefore, I disagree with the statement--having the same national curriculum may be more harmful than helpful in regards to the needs of each student. First of all, the argument does not address what subjects will be included in the national curriculum. Will it include the basic skills such as math and science--and if so, to what extent? It is dubious whether all students will need to know the principles of organic chemistry or astrophysics, and those students who want to pursue such specific fields may not have access to those courses because of the restrictions that accompany such a strict curriculum. Similarly, a national curriculum raises questions relating to language classes--what language of instruction will be chosen to teach? Will there be a foreign language and who will be the one to make that decision? While most classes in the U.S. are taught in English, should English be the national language for instruction for other countries? While English is one of the more global languages and many countries are adopting it as a useful skill for its citizens to learn, there are many other countries who prefer to speak their own language for reasons cultural and social, among others. Moreover, it is likely that some of these smaller countries may lack teachers and faculty available to instruct in a language like English that is not often used for their daily purposes. Moreover, while many people will agree that history is fundamental to the future success of our nations, the topic of whose history will be taught is likely to be a more sensitive topic. American history books have been known to paint its own history in a way that looks favorably upon itself; however, many other nations do not see America in quite the same light. Reflecting briefly upon the tragedies of Pearl Harbor and the consequent Japanese internment camps that arose out of fear and xenophobia, specifically towards those of Japanese heritage, it is safe to say that promoting the U.S. as a great, faultless country is not an idea that Japanese education boards would hope to inculcate in its students. Undoubtedly, the discussion of whose history (and subsequently, those minority groups that are repeatedly overlooked in it) is likely to be a dissonant one that may result in impasse--it is too sore a subject. Lastly, schools should not overlook the needs of their individual students. For instance, is it imperative that students with special needs or disabilities learn under the same curriculum as their peers? Today, many of these students use a specialized curriculum so that individuals can learn at their own pace. To impose a standard national curriculum would be to ignore the needs of this group of students, and would likely garner disapproval from these individuals, their parents, and their current teachers who support this current approach to teaching. Overall, while a united curriculum may be helpful to a specific group of students limited to a specific region, imposing such a curriculum on the entire nation would be far-reaching, and even ignorant to the needs of the smaller minority groups of students. Therefore, nations should consider the needs of each and every student before proposing that a national curriculum is what is best for them.

Hi, Would anyone be willing to grade my GRE essay using the GRE rubric? I would like some constructive feedback on what to improve. This was my first practice essay and writing isn't my strong suit so no need to tell me that my essay isn't the best. I would love if you would be willing to let me know of any pros and cons I didn't think about in regards to answering the prompt. The prompt and my essay response is below. Looking forward to your feedback! Prompt: A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 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. Having a basis of an education is a statement that everyone argues. As a nation, students should not be required to have a universal curriculum until they enter college. Individuality is a characteristic that is highly valued in American society. Why should education be treated any differently? Having the same curriculum across the nation does not benefit a student. If anything, it is crippling them. Each person has a different way of learning and processing information. If we were to implement this national curriculum, it would be a huge disservice to students who are intellectually more advance, and the same could be said for students who are not as intellectual advanced. They would not be getting challenged in their courses or they may not be able to comprehend the material being taught. In addition, they are not getting exposure to the other possibilities. This national curriculum would fail in encompassing all of other areas of interests such as music, art, and theater that education should be exposing them to make them a happier, more successful being in society. On the contrary, having a national curriculum would aid in the fact that everyone would have the same common knowledge when they enter college. The education system would be standardized, and when the time did come to go to college, everyone would be on an equal playing field. A universal education curriculum should not be implemented for students.