GRE Argument Essay - Please give me some feedback

[dntchem96]

Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by 30 percent. Potential employers, looking at this dramatic rise in grades, believe that grades at Omega are inflated and do not accurately reflect student achievement; as a result, Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should terminate student evaluation of professors.

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

 

The argument claims here that because the professor evaluation procedures have made potentially employers doubting the accuracy of Omega students’ grade, Omega University should cancel student evaluation of professors to help its graduates get better jobs. Nonetheless, stated in this way, the argument lack pieces of evidence that corroborate its reasoning. Primarily, the author fails to exclude other potential factors that may cause Omega graduates to be unsuccessful at getting jobs, and thus, renders the aforementioned predication, invalid.

 

Firstly, the argument asserts without warrants that Omega graduates are not as successful at getting jobs as Alpha graduates only because potential employers do not believe in the integrity of grades at Omega. For one, omega students might not be good at getting jobs as Alpha graduates due to lacking specific qualities that company desires, such as social skills or the ability to work in a team. Therefore, we have no certain insight on the real reason why Omega graduates fail to secure jobs compared to students from Alpha University. Were the author to mention that employers preferred Alpha graduates because they believed in grades at Alpha more than Omega, the argument would have been much more convincing.

 

Secondly, the argument fails to make any justification that Omega Professors assign higher grades to students on account of the professor evaluation procedure. It is possible that Omega Professors has been giving higher marks since the aforementioned procedure was implemented because Omega University has been managing to recruit better students ever since. Furthermore, the evaluation system may have motivated the professors to deliver more inspiring and insightful lectures, which lead to students having better understanding on the subjects and getting more excellent results. The argument would be strengthened if Omega Professors admitted giving higher grades because they were afraid of the students’ evaluation.

 

Thirdly, the argument’s conclusion and reasoning are seemingly conflicting with each other. Based on the author’s reasoning, Omega students will be as auspicious as Alpha students at seizing employments once employers’ faith on Omega grades is resumed, which is achieved by eliminating the evaluation system. Nevertheless, we are not certain whether or not Omega students will secure better jobs. From the argument, the circumstances may be that the number of Omega students getting jobs after graduation is lower than Alpha students. In order to bolster the argument, the author should specify that Omega graduates are not as successful as Alpha alumni in terms of positions and salaries.

 

In conclusion, because the argument does not bring out sufficient reinforcing evidence, it fails to make a persuasive case that Omega students will be able to get better jobs once Omega University terminates student evaluation of professors.