Writing Feedback / GRE: students choose their fields on study based on their long-term career goals [2]

"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.

Educational institutions can never accurately predict whether or not students can succeed in a specific field of study. Hence, they do not have the responsibility the dissuade students from these fields. They only have the responsibility to present their expectations of a qualified student for each field. But such expectations are not the only determinants that justify institutions to dissuade students from pursuing there desired fields of study.

Institutions do have to at least offer some form of guidance and counseling for students who are unsure whether they're qualified for a certain field of study. For instance, instead of dissuading students, institutions such as universities often offer placement and standardized tests that determine whether students meet the minimum requirements or not. But these tests are not obsolete determinants to one's ability to succeed in a particular field, but only help give some idea about the expectations of qualified students. Therefore, I re-emphasize my point that institutions do not have the full responsibility to dissuade students from entering there desired fields of study.

In face, students must make there own reasoned choices about whether they want to study a particular field or not. As students are presented with the school's (i.e. a university) minimum expectations, it is the students' responsibility to choose there desired fields of study even if they do not meet the minimum expectations. While they will suffer from the consequences of failing in their chosen field if they do fail, they will also enjoy the fruits of the success if they do succeed. I offer, as anecdotal evidence, an instance where my university suggested that I avoid engineering due to my low math scores. However, I wanted to design my own career path, which is in engineering. Hence, I insisted on entering engineering and excelled in it, which contradicted my schools expectation.

Moreover, there are many mercurial factors at play in determining whether a student will succeed or not in a particular field. How could educational institutions determine what's best for students? There are no fixed parameters that determines students' eligibility for a particular field. In higher education, freshmen students certainly acquired the expected skills to make their own thorough decisions on what field they want. The university may not put into account the student's passion about the field and whether he's is a persistent student or not. All it has are numbers and grades that are only a small portion of the many factors that determines the eligibility. As previously stated, the university should definitely present its expectations based on their results for the students to consider. But it cannot by no means make definite recommendations to dissuade students from their desired fields based on such results (i.e. grades, standardized tests, etc).

In conclusion, students choose their fields on study based on their long-term career goals. Educational institutions are not capable of considering such factors to determine what's best for students. There are numerous variables at play that only students themselves recognize and hence, make their own legitimate judgments on which field they want to pursue.

Writing Feedback / studying major cities only gives a glimpse on a society... [2]

To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.
Write a response in which you 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.

a nice concise feedback would be appreciated

The argument that undersrtanding the most important characteristics of a society is done by concentrating research on it major cities is short-sighted. While it seems logical to focus on major cities since they have the highest population, such apraoch reduces the entire society into those cities ignoring other smaller cities, rural areas, and towns. I argue against such aproach because it marginalizes other areas in favor of major cities. There are two crucial arguemtns against this approach. First, the assumption that concentrated cities are reflective of a society is incorrect. Hence, whenever research is done on major cities, any conclusions made only reflect those cities, which will ignore all the other variables at play to fully understand a society. Third, if a study is made to improve the socioeconomic status of the citizens, any improvements will only benefit those in the major cities, which may not be so for other smaller cities.

First, the concentration of people in a major city is not a valid argument to conclude the city's reflection of a society. Let's assume a country where 30 percent of its citizens are concentrated in a major city, and the rest of the 70 percent are scattered in rural areas and small towns. Let's say the country wants to conduct a study on citizen's accecibility to minimum services such as education and health care. If the country focuses on the major city with only 30 percent of the population, it ignores the majority of the population, which will make the study flawed and misguided.

continueing on my previous point, let's say the same study in an urban major city is intended to reach for solutions in case the study shows hard accesibility to citizens to minimum services. Solutions maybe building more schools or hospitals or establishing free public tranportation. However, these solutions are not necesarrily effective for rural areas where its citizens may have environmental concerns over establishing more public transportation.

Such approach indicates that only the needs of those who live in major cities are adressed, and the others are discrimiated, which which raises equality isssues. Both citizens in major cities and other areas contribute to the society through civil participation. therefore, they should be equally represented regardless of the geograpohic location.

In conclusion, studying Major cities only gives a glimpse on a society, but never truly represent it.