Writing Feedback / GRE Sample: "Scientific Fact Invariably Proves to be Inaccurate" [3]

Going through the motions for the GRE. Here's a sample response for the prompt:

"Scientific theories, which most people consider 'fact,' almost invariably prove to be inaccurate. Thus, one should look upon any information described as 'factual' with skepticism since it may well be proven false in the future."

Almost anything, is as much something, as it is nothing. Science has proven a lot of things: that water conducts electricity; planets orbit the sun; even that the world isn't flat -- to name a few. But to hold it in casual disregard, simply because in the past, 'facts' have been inaccurate, is erroneous for a number of reasons.

When Darwin cast off on the Beagle, he did so in the name of religion; to further his religious faith and conviction. He returned a changed man, with a scientific theory -- evolution. Today evolution has seen intense debate, but what it hasn't seen is an absolute explanation for the contrary. Invariably inaccurate? Certainly not. Theologians have even taken to evolution -- seeing its validity -- and have attempted adaptation. Therein, adding veritable weight to the argument for scientific theory, even in a none-scientific field.

In none-scientific theory -- religion, if you will -- plausibility has become progressively arguable. Skepticism runs rampant, resulting in fragmentation and adaptation to what the author claims are 'invariable facts.' These adaptations are a testament to a disintegration of collective skepticism, and an hesitant embrace of objective 'fact.'

However, even in science, there are things that have no explanation. For example, when a gold fish is kept in a curved bowl, its vision becomes skewed. The physiological response is for the fish to adapt to warped reality, and what we'd embrace as skewed, becomes normal for the fish, and vice versa. Why are we right, and the fish wrong? Because objective reality is in the eye of the beholder. This branch of science -- quantum theory -- is constantly in flux, and every time one of its theories is disproved skepticism is laying in wait.

Collectively, theories are just that, theories. Things to be postulated upon, argued over, and most importantly, improved upon. Science certainly is the most progressive field of theory; because when disproof occurs, a better answer is sought, not a justification. 'Facts' will indefinitely be inaccurate as long as humans declare them; but viability stands as scientific theories stalwart defender.

Writing Feedback / An education is a life choice - "Educational institutions vs fields of study" [2]

Going through the GRE prep motions -- self-timed essay writing and the like. Any feedback on the essay I wrote for the following issue prompt would be appreciated.

"Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed."

An institution is just that, an institution -- ran by money, to make money. An education is a life choice; be it sought by recent high school graduates, or those latter life individuals in the pursuit for fulfillment. An educational institution's purpose is to educate, not to arbitrarily cast judgment upon individuals who they deem unfit.

To cast a wide net of un-hasty generalization, no one likes to be told they're not capable of success. At any educational institution, you'll find academic advisors. Each and every one of those advisors salaries is paid in part per student tuition. Should a student pay money to pursue their passion? Or should they pay money, to have someone tell them that they can't? Dissuasion would be nothing short of an uneven exchange.

In business, the consumer is always right. So why would an educational institution -- a business -- get granted the right to tell the student -- the consumer -- what's right for them? It's simple, veiled self-fulfillment. To establish the sought after prestige and perception of academic grandeur, institutions seek to maximize student potential. That doesn't sound so bad, right? Wrong. As paying students, their hands should be guided, not forced.

However, if institutions are paying students; either through specific field-based scholarships or grants, those students should be expected to perform according to the standards in which they were granted. In both cases -- student paid, or institution paid -- the payee shan't shortchange the hand that feeds.

In sum, educational institutions should stick to what their name implies. Hindering goals and pursuits of those attending them needn't be a part. Doing so, is a testament of creative shortsightedness on the educators behalf, and a pitfall for paying students.