Search the Community

Hi everyone, Could someone rate and provide feedback on my issue essay? The topic is from the ETS issue pool. 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. In the world of globalisation and amalgam of eclectic cultures, there are a lot of courses available in universities for the students to study. Needless to say, with freedom of choice to pursue these courses comes the limitation of whether one will be able to succeed to study and make a living out of it. Educational institutions should deter students from opting for courses in which they’re unlikely to succeed, because of factors pertaining to efforts and opportunity cost. A student’s diligence and efforts more or less determine the grades, and in a way how he’ll be succeeding in that field. Moreover, if the student decides to switch fields, or wishes to delve into a new unorthodox and challenging path, the chance of failure is relatively less as compared to someone who is frivolous and remiss. For instance, Chetan Bhagat, a renowned novelist, comes from an engineering and a management background, graduating from the top schools of India with stellar grades. His persistence in whatever field he wanted to get into led him to his pedestal of success. Though top Indian universities only focus on a major theme: IITs and IIMs emphasising on engineering and management respectively, if he had an opportunity to shift to a major apart from engineering, he would have a good chance at succeeding. Therefore, someone having bad grades would be a clear indication that it wouldn’t be prudent to allow him to change his field of study, since he won’t be able to put in the required efforts to make a difference. Even if the person has a good academic record, this shouldn’t be a reason for him to be allowed to change majors. The future is full of uncertainty, and establishing a good financial background at the earliest would help the person live a life without stress. The opportunity cost in the future associated with changing majors should be considered, since it could happen that the chances of succeeding in it are negligible. A good example would be the art of filming. For someone to major in Computer Science would be a wise call currently because of the abundance of job opportunities. However, if someone makes a decision to shift to filming, just because of the “coolness” factor, or maybe in an attempt to mimic his favourite director, it’s not going to be a good decision. The ratio of people succeeding in computer science and getting a good paying job to the total graduates far exceeds the ratio for filming. Thus, with a foresight of the future, if universities allow students to change into unorthodox majors, then it wouldn’t a solid economic foundation of the nation, since a lot of people living stressful lives would hamper the development of the country. Someone could say that one should always study things according to their call, because happiness and emotional stability is the most important thing. However, the importance of having a good financial stability far exceeds the requirements of satisfying emotions, since even if someone is unhappy, he or she can use the ability to spend money on things so that you can improve your life in different ways possible. Thus, this concludes that educational institutions shouldn’t allow students to take up fields of study in which they’re unlikely to succeed.

Dear Friends and GRE Experts, I am preparing for GRE and this is my 6th attempt to write a GRE essay (different topics each time). This is an issue topic given on official GRE website. I would request you to have a look on the essay and grade it upon convenience and availability of time. Thank You. Sincerely, NickyGRE. Actual GRE Issue Prompt: As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 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. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In this issue, the author presents a very interesting present-world scenario in which the ease of technology engenders concern of lack of natural human capability of thinking and logical rasoning. Although there are few possible exceptions to the issue presented, I agree with the statement in general. The supportive examples are described in following paragraphs. As an analogy, industrial revolution took place in around 1850. The work of human workers and human labour was delegated to machines. The majority of hand-woven cloths were gradually started being made by automated machines and as a result, the human skills and proficiency in woving clothes got deteriorated. Today, despite the fact that some clothes are still woven by hand, it is really hard to find a skillful worker in that profession. Same holds true for manufacturing pottery, writing books with calligraphy and so on and so forth. Similarly, the 20th and 21st centuries witnessed some break-through technological innovations, starting right from the invention of first computer, the 'Eniac'. Today, the computers are used just not to solve complex mathematical and astronomical problems, but also to simulate human brain and its thinking process. In past two decades, the cutting edge developmment in the field of artifical intelligence and machine learning has proved that the days are not far away when computers, just like every other business they are employed into, would also think on behalf of their creators or mankind in general. Computers would employ logical reasoning and arrive to a conclusion for every given problem they would encounter. This of course, will have a detrimental effect on humans as humans would prefer more and more intellectual burden to be given to the computers and they (humans), instead of taking any iniciative to apply their own brains, would simply live a dull life. However, there is one unavoidable compulsion that stays even after unbelievable technological innovations is that, there is always a demand for the creator himself. In other words, there is always someone required to develop these technologies, to innovate new and more complex arithmetic algorithms that can be dumped into computers and to remove possible errors in algorithms already fed into them. This would also give lucrative professional scope to possible computer engineers given that most of other humans will tend to avoid such intellectual burden. Hence, this field of developing new technology to make computers think more logically would indeed demand more intellectual contribution from humans and in that way, it would prevent the situation that entire humankind gets badly affected by lack of the ability to think. In conclusion, except for such few exceptions, as people rely more and more on technological innovations to solve their daily problems and think on their behalf, the ability of humans will gradually deteriorate in general. We, as a responsible and aware individuals, must act consciously to indulge overselves into bare minimum intellectual tasks to avoid such scenario at individual level. Above is response typed in actual test conditions: 487 words