Posts by MBA

MBA_bound

Oct 24, 2012

Writing Feedback / Nation should attempt to regulate school curriculum - one for all students [NEW]

"A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum"

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation above 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 those examples shape your position.

There are two main problems with the recommendation. The first is the idea that a nation should attempt to regulate school curriculum. The second is that should this regulation be successful, there should only be one curriculum for all students.

Anyone who has worked with special needs students understands that there are certain concepts which are incomprehensible to these students. For this reason, they cannot be expected to undertake the same curriculum as typical students. This reason uncovers a problem with the claim that countries should mandate the same curriculum for all students. By assuming that all students are capable of following the same curriculum, the author of the claim has missed a significant portion of the student population--students with special needs. Students attending alternative schools are another example of those who cannot [possibly] follow the same curriculum as the general population.

Another assumption the argument seems to make is that all students are preparing to enter college. This is not the case. Many children view high-school as the last stage of their formal education. A vocational curriculum (focusing on practical skills valuable in a career within the workforce) would be better suited for these students than the curriculum designed for students who do plan to enter University.

So far we have three curriculums (one for special needs students, one for vocational students, one for pre-University students) a nation would have to regulate, if it felt the need to regulate curriculums. In addition to belying the idea that a single curriculum should be allowed, this brings up another question. Should the national government try to strictly control school curriculum (whether one curriculum or several)? I don't think so. Not only would it encounter the problems discussed earlier (having to manage multiple curriculums for different groups), it would undoubtedly face resistance from parents who disagree with the curriculum. I believe parents and students should have the right to choose private or home schooling over public school. Education gained in a parochial school or (especially) at home is different from that obtained in a governmentally-funded school. As with the special needs students, it would be impossible to expect all such (private or home schooled) students to follow the same curriculum as typical students.

The final reason which weakens the claim is the fact that each region of a nation has different interests and different notions of education. This is particularly true in larger, more diverse countries. For this reason, I feel that local governments should have considerable autonomy when it comes to education. For example, in the United States, the states (not the federal government) are able to standardize curriculum in public schools, and county and parish governments have additional discretion in running their local schools. In my opinion, when this model is adhered to (local governments controlling different curriculums for different types of public schools, and citizens having the right to administer alternative methods of education, if they so choose), students have the best chance of succeeding--in whatever path they choose after their secondary schooling is complete.

MBA_bound

Oct 24, 2012

Writing Feedback / Apartment Vs House; depends on individual financial status and areas of comfort [2]

Living in an apartment undoubtedly has many advantages. First of all, it is cheaper to rent or buy an apartment than a house. Secondly, due to their limited sizes, cleaning and maintaining apartments do not require much time or effort. For instance, many apartments do not have staircases, and not having to regularly clean these eliminates a difficult house chore. Thirdly, living in an apartment is much more secure, as neighbors are closer and thus more able to help in case of emergency. In addition, people might permit their children to play in the complex garden with other neighbors' children, since the gate to the garden provides security.

On the other hand, living in a house has its own advantages, in particular for wealthier people. To start with, house-dwellers enjoy more privacy, because of their isolation from near inhabitants. Moreover, the additional rooms provided by houses make space for special activities such as physical fitness or entertainment (e.g., music and dance). Some homes even have room for a special place devoted to religious observations, like prayers or ritual activities. Furthermore, living in house gives those with gardening as a hobby the ability to practice and enjoy planting in their leisure time.

In conclusion, living in either an apartment or a house depends on individual financial status and expectations of comfort. In my point of view, living in apartment has much greater benefit, especially since it reduces some of the financial stress in today's life.

MBA_bound

Oct 24, 2012

Writing Feedback / This is my GRE awa practice essay - advance Thanks for Review [2]

All in all, pretty solid grammar wise and some great word choices (exaggerated, libertine, digress) I would do a few things to smooth out the flow. Also, 'flinch' is not a noun, as you used it. First and last names should be capitalized.

Concerning content:
You have a great reason for disagreeing with the claim (scandals are not useful since they are inflated by media, which often creates new problems) and a solid example. You also mention that the issues which cause scandals should not be of concern to individuals. That may be true, but the idea is to discuss whether scandals are useful in focusing our attention on problems or not. You address supporters of the claim and say that the Wikileaks scandal was mostly false. Even so, did it cause the public to focus attention on the problem of government corruption?

I would suggest trying to focus more on the claim, to add more reasons and to fully analyze all reasons.

It is no doubt that scandals lay huge impacts on our thoughts, but scandals can't be credited with forcing us to focus on our real problems, solely because of this. Yes, scandals focus our attention on some problems, but many of these problems are contrived (i.e., the problems are unnecessary for that situation).

Many scandals involve celebrities; and most common among these are sex scandals. Though the public gets deeply and emotionally involved in these scandals (often partly due to the media), these scandals have nothing to do with lives of common man. Outcomes and results of such scandals are usually very dramatic, which is exaggerated further by the media to increase their particular ratings (e.g., TRP or GRP for television).

Moreover, most of these scandals are fake--problems caused by the scandals and not the actual root problems. Take for example, the recent Tiger Wood woods scandal. Tiger Woods was found guilty of being a libertine. Is this a serious problem for the public to focus on? In my opinion this is a completely personal situation. Focusing on such irrelevant things will make matters worse. It's very possible that fans of Tiger Woods had the wrong message delivered to them.

Supporters of the claim may give as an example the Wikileaks scandal, planned by Julian Assange to focus the public on national corruption. In reality their is no genuine proof of these scandals to be true. In fact, most of these scandals were later found to be part of a plot to undermine ruling federal governments.

Scandals don't focus on actual problems of society, they instead digress the public from the actual problems faced by "everyday man." Most of these scandals are deliberate in nature, promulgated by media people to attract public attention. Thus, scandals do nothing positive and only serve to increase media's revenue.

MBA_bound

Oct 21, 2012

Writing Feedback / Critique practice GRE "Analyze an Argument"(head of household) [2]

Hello, I'm preparing for the GRE and am especially struggling with the Analytical Writing session. The prompts just don't give me enough information to work with, and the 30 minute timeline is pretty annoying as well. I'll try to get input on several of my practice argument/issue analyses. Response to Analyze an Issue should focus on persuasive writing; Analyze an Argument on analytical writing. Both should demonstrate critical thinking. I appreciate any help, particularly on the substance of the essay and organization of ideas (not as concerned with grammar). Here's the first:

To get a better sense of the recreational needs of the community, the Teeburg Town Board sent a questionnaire addressed to the "head of household" in every home in the town. The board asked a series of questions designed to zero in on residents' recreational preferences, in hopes of finding three they might fund in the upcoming year. The board was gratified to get a reasonable return rate of nearly 40 percent of all questionnaires. Based on that response. the hoard recommended that the following top vote getters be added to the town budget: a snowmobile trail, a skeet-shooting range. and a putting green.

Critique the reasoning used in the argument presented above by examining assumptions, assessing evidence, or suggesting ways to make the argument stronger or easier to evaluate.

While the Teeburg Town board is on the right track (gaining residents' input), there are several problems with their approach. More of the population should be included in this interest-gathering initiative. Also, recreational preferences and changes to the budget are unrelated issues. The board should ask directly for approval of budget changes.

In addressing the questionnaire to the "head of household" of each home, the board is limiting participation from the other members of the family. Specifically, children will probably have little to no input in answering such a questionnaire. Since the younger citizens of Teeburg also have recreational needs, their wishes should be taken into account. One way of doing this is by distributing questionnaires [aimed at students] to teachers of local schools and having them tally the students' preferences. To include everyone in the younger generation, these should be passed out at both public and private schools, primary and secondary, and even colleges and universities.

One underlying assumption is that Teeburg will be able to fund the three choices. However, even if the board believes that the initial implementation will be covered under the current budget, they should consider the future costs of maintaining such recreational facilities. Putting greens, for example, generally require tremendous effort and money to be kept up to par. And this might cause taxes to be raised in the future, something that few residents want.

Another way the board might gauge resident preferences is by observing existing recreational facilities and deciding which contribute the most to the residents. By observing how frequently a park is visited, for example, and comparing that with attendance rates at the town swimming pool, the board can see which types of activities residents are actually engaging in. The expansion funds could then be used at improving or expanding existing facilities, if needed.

Lastly, before adding any items to the town budget, the board should publicize the potential change and collect feedback from area residents. This does not need to be a formal election, but might include a notice in the local newspaper, town hall meetings, and appearances on TV and radio by board representatives. The board may find that residents are actually opposed to adding the top 3 vote-getters to the budget. The board cannot imply that facilities for such activities are wanted by residents, even if the same people choose these activities as their personal favorites.

The board should augment their current data with input from other demographic sectors. And by observing how existing recreational facilities are being used [and whether or not they could use the funding], the board can obtain a better sense of the community's recreational needs. Further, any changes to the budget must be extensively publicized before these changes are made; since residents ultimately fund the budget, they should have direct input on how it is spent [the board cannot make inferences for them].