Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'issue gre essay'.
“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. Requiring schools across the national to teach their students the same immersive and well-rounded curriculum will have a net benefit to the educational system in the country. By doing so, the mandate will raise the level of education among the general population, eliminate basis in terms of increased funding for wealthier school districts, and level the playing field for higher education admission. By requiring a national curriculum, the nation can vastly increase the education of the average citizen. There may exist holes within a given curriculum at a school, and moreover, these holes may be widespread throughout a region of the country. This could leave many citizens without the education necessary to go above and beyond in their respective post high school careers. By instituting a curriculum for all schools in the nation to follow, the nation can assure its citizens are prepared for their subsequent endeavors. Furthermore, a mandated national curriculum can expel biases in the general public, and more importantly, potential employers that result from a student coming from a less sufficiently funded school district. Deficits in funding for school districts is a much larger problem that is beyond the scope of the argument, however, requiring all students to be up to par with the same material can work to bring all students to an adequate level of knowledge about a variety of academic fields. Continuing with this notion of raising the level of education of graduating students to the same level, such an initiative would provide students in lower income school districts with a step up to being competitive with the pool of applications into colleges and universities across the country. While there are certainly many other aspects of the college admission process, having all students apply with roughly the same level of knowledge would not only allow admission committees to focus on other areas of a student's application that make them unique, but would also take the load of academic preparedness off the student's shoulders and allow them to focus on those aforementioned areas of their application to distinguish themselves from other applicants. In conclusion, we note the benefits to a nation's education by requiring all students to larn from a national curriculum until entering college. We have illustrated that by doing so, the edcuation level of the nation will raises up to fill any deficits in preparedness for their adult life, biases surrounding school distrcits of lesser funding can be eliminated, and students will be more evenly compared when applying to colleges. [ATTACH]7192[/ATTACH]
TOPIC: As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. The hi-tech revolution is taking path day after day and now this new world that surrounds us become quite terrific. Humans are digitalizing their lives and slowly becoming robots. So relying on technology to solve life problems, expand your knowledge or get in touch with people will deteriorate our ability to think for ourselves. The Millennial generation is losing is ability to unravel difficult situations without the aid of a smartphone: for instance, when losing our path during a sightseeing tour around the city we usually decide to use Google Maps to find back our way while we could easily ask for information. Putting our brain in the hands of an electronic device prevents us from having a conversation with local people or even stimulates our orienteering sense. Moreover, the web is an outstanding resource in order to search for all kinds of information we need. However, according to the Brain Health Statistics Report 2016, it has been studied that reading on books fuel our minds much more than looking at a desktop: one young in three prefer the latter option and it has been forecasted that, once aged, he will have terrible sight problems, too. Finally, living face to face with a machine will decrease our capacity to interconnect and communicate with other people. Kids are so absorbed by their smartphones that they can’t even notice what it is happening around them, forgetting about their friends and family. On the other side, it is necessary to highlight that taking the fair advantage from technology depends on our behaviour: exploiting tech accessories with wisdom could certainly ameliorate our lives but we should be careful not making their usage an addiction. In this sense, it is crucial to educate the new generations on the dangers coming from this new sector, making them develop critical sense with respect to it. In conclusion, following the traditional ways of disentangling hitches and complications of our everyday life will definitely boost our problem solving and communication skills. Our brains are like engines, if we don’t oil them they will rust.
Question: if people in a society should actively question rules imposed by authority or passively accept them? Rules are framed by authorities so as to enforce civility in the society. Though such rules are generally promulgated after required deliberation, there are instances where these rules interfere with an individual's liberty. Therefore it is imperative that we have a society where the rules of the authority can be questioned, resulting in protecting the rights of all individuals. Historically it has been seen that, societies where rules have been thrust on to the people has only invariably led to oppression, and then eventually to insurgence. This brings us to this very important question: if we want our people to abide law because rules have been enforced with an iron hand, or abide it by understanding the social importance of the rules imposed? Historically we have seen that when a populous understands the importance of a set of rules the community in general fares better. It can be asserted that only when people question the necessities of rules, can they better understand the importance of these rules. The abilty to question the necessity of rules helps to hedge the the power exercised by authorities. Hedging the authority of bureaucrats helps maintain balance of power, very important towards precluding any movement of the society towards a dictatorial regime. Another benefit is that, the process of questioning rules keeps people informed about the various happenings in their societies, which is also very essential. Questioning rules can at times bring about undesired effects onto the society: such as revolts against the promulgation of certain rules. This would definitely be absent in a society where rules are accepted passively, and it could be argued that such societies -where several factions have been silenced- work willingly, or unwillingly for the growth of the society. But as evidenced by history years of oppression eventually results in insurgence, breaking the very structure the society had built till now. It can be concluded that, it is important for people to do both: understand, and question the existence of certain rules, both of which can only happen in a society where rules are being actively question by the people.