Graduate / how important is movitation in applying for Ph.D. program in physics [3]

Besiding describing my coursework and research experience, I'm wondering whether I should metion more about my motivation for pursing a PhD in physics.
I was enrolled in the school of engineering in the first year due to my country's quota policy in university admission, although my career goal is always to to be a physicist. Ranking first in the end of my first year, I transfered to the physics department.

I want to mention this in my personal statement to show my motivation. But it worries me that whether this will cause misunderstanding. As it may make me seem to spend only three years in the physics department, although I took all the courses in physics.

Writing Feedback / Should government withhold information?--A GRE Issue topic [12]

I tried to begin my essay in a more lively way this time but worried about whether it would be regarded informal and unsuitable for GRE. What do you think about it?

Thanks in advance.

Topic: "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

Oh, my God! There are actually thousands of aliens living on our planet. Even though they are just among us under their human-like mechanical or biological bodies, we do not recognize them at all because the government withholds that truth from us. That is what depicted in the Hollywood movie--Man in Black. Despite it is just a science fiction movie, the fact that government always conceals some information from the public is worthy of a deep reflection. In my view, withholding some information from the public is reasonable; however, it cannot be concealed freely. Most information, which is directly relevant to the well-being of the people, should be exposed to the public.

Just as many movies depicted, some information, if revealed to the public, may bring the society in to danger. Let's put away these extreme plots in science fictions: the government concealed the facts of aliens at the same time, "men in black" protected people furtively, thus the citizens living a peaceful life with no idea about the earth was nearly destroyed just a minute ago. In the real world, some information is indeed better not to reveal. Telling the truth is not always helpful; it depends on what the truth is and to whom it is told. For an individual, it is often dangerous to tell your phone number and address to a stranger, so it is the same with the government. For example, military secrets can only be known by a few officials. Only foreign spies want it to be opposed to the public. There are also some details, like the president's travel plan and anti-terrorist strategy, which assassinators and terrorists want to know most, not allowed to be released. This kind of information cannot do or do little good to the well-being of the citizens, but can be used by foreign hostile countries or the anti-society persons. It is rational to hidden these information.

However, if government hides information improperly, it will undermine the democratic system as well as the well-being of the people. For a democratic government, its policy and plans should be based on the opinions of its people. Hiding information for politicians' own purpose is an autocratic behavior which can probably results in the loss of belief in the politicians and even in the government. Consider the Watergate scandal. If President Nixon did not to conceal his role in this scandal but apologized to the public, maybe the people will forgive him and therefore he would not have to leave the White House with shame. It took years for the government to re-gain public trust after the Watergate Scandal. So that is the result of the hiding what should not be hidden. Another recent case happened in China. In 2003, SARS suddenly swept over some of China's southern cities, leaving people and doctors unprepared. Later investigation showed that in fact, this epidemic did not transmit so quickly and suddenly. It was because some local officials withhold the information for the fear of loss of tourism. If this information was immediately revealed to the public, many lives could be saved and there would be less economic losses.

In sum, whether it is right for government to conceal information depends on what kind of information it is. For those which relate close to people's lives, government has no right to conceal it. Besides, I strongly believe that government should always think twice before deciding to conceal a piece of information.

Writing Feedback / "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value" [3]

Topic: "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."

Here is my classmate's essay. I don't agree with his structure. He said the body should consists of three paragraphs: the first about merits of artists, the second about the effect(positive) of critics, the last on the disadvantages of criticism.

In my view, there should be at least a strong paragraph to compare the contributions of the artist and of the critic. But he said that isn't needed.

So we agreed to put this essay here to let you judge it. Thanks in advance.

Art, undoubtedly as one of the most significant contributions that impel the society and history forward, being of as great importance as the science and politics, has a variety of definitions and standards. Just as the old saying goes "there are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes ", every artist, every critic and every audience has his own textbook of art in his mind, different in contents though, but no wrong answers. It is just the diversity that makes the art so resourceful and charming for the art's main aim is to depict the material would and the people's inner world, which are both complicated. Generally speaking, the influence of a work of art usually consisted of labor of both the artist and the critics. And as the father of the art, I think the artist gives more value thing to the society than the critics, who behave live the work of the teacher.

Needless to say, art plays an important role in the development of history as well as society. And their creators, such the painters, musicians, writers, etc can be regarded as elites the same with giants in other aspects. They brought the society so many valuable treasures that you cannot imagine that without their talented works, how our material and spiritual world will be. In addition, some of the works related to politics is a powerful force in the society. In this role, the artist exerted his creativity and enthusiasm to give birth to the immortal masterpieces in order to arouse people in discourage. "The Death of Marat", the famous and meaningful painting drew by France's painter Louis David, woke up the people in dreams and called them on to fight against the dark government. The household song "the Internationale" also operated essentially to make people devoted into the struggle for their deserved rights and freedom. Such examples are countless in the aspect of the literate, for a great number of excellent works are inspiring and encourage people to fight against the hardship, coming from the really world as well as from the mental one. In a word, the artists contribute invaluable treasures to society in a spiritual and cultural way.

However, we should not ignore the effects of the critics. They stay beyond the works and watch them in a thorough and panoramic view. Because of this reason, they can usually distinguish the shortcomings easily. Moreover, an experienced critic can help a confused artist find the best solutions in other angle of thinking for they are usually edified from another's works.

A good and creative artist can not be restricted with the dead standard set by the critics. Since the art is a diversity subject, everyone has his own ways of consideration and styles of creativity, and some opinions from the critics may be quite opposite to the artist's original sketch because the critics and the artist may have different experience and understanding. Further, the critic's opinions may badly circumscribe the artist's creativity, which is the most important and crucial thing in a process of finishing a work. After all, it is the artist, not the critics that designing the work.

Overall, it is the artists that decide what manner his work will manifest and what characters it will demonstrate. But they should not ignore the ideas of the critics, some of which may be rather valuable. Only by adopting the good suggestions and mixing them into their own ideas can they produce remarkable works.

Writing Feedback / The Saluda hospital - Advice for my GRE argument [6]

Here is my GRE argment essay. Please make suggestions about its structure and language. Thanks in advance.

ARGUMENT203 - The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.
"At the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, the average length of a patient's stay is two days; at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, the average patient stay is six days. Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. The Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints about service at the local hospital. Such data indicate that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals."

The arguer suggested that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than that in larger, for-profit hospitals. In order to draw this conclusion, a comparison between two hospitals was provided. One is a nonprofit hospital in Saluda and the other is for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville. Patient's average stay time in the nonprofit hospital is shorter than the other; in addition, the cure rate in nonprofit hospital is twice of the for-profit one. While all these facts seem to prove that the first one is better than the latter, a deep reflection on this argument will point out several flaws that undermine this conclusion.

First, the shorter average stay cannot indicate a better medical service. On the contrary, it is probably resulted from the poorer accommodation; furthermore, patients may leave this nonprofit hospital because it cannot cure their diseases, and maybe they leave for the for-profit hospital. More importantly, the different performance between the two hospitals, i.e. fewer complaints and higher cure rate in the nonprofit hospital, is very possible because they are of different classifications and so they have different types of patients. For example, the nonprofit hospital may aim at common illness like cough and flu, so its patients recover easily and quickly; the for-profit hospital, as stated in the argument, is a large one, so it is more likely to have patients with complex and rare diseases like cancer or TB, thus no wonder it cures less patients and need longer time to do so.

Secondly, the assertion that the nonprofit hospital in Saluda is more economical than the for-profit one in Megaville stands on no obvious evidence. Conversely, it is more likely that the for-profit one is more economical as the arguer pointed out that the Saluda hospital has more employees per patient, so perhaps for each patient more money was paid. Meanwhile, the revenue of a for-profit hospital is directly linked to its efficiency and service, so the assertion--the for-profit hospital is less economical and poorer in service--is very suspicious.

Finally, even if the conditions of these two hospitals are identical in every aspect except that one is nonprofit and the other is for-profit, the conclusion expanded this single case to all other hospitals too arbitrarily. This is only one case happened in a specific place, other areas have different economic and cultural conditions. For instance, in developing countries, local governments or even states can hardly support non-profit hospitals, then how can we expect non-profit hospitals offer better service in these areas?

In sum, the arguer's claim is not convincing without qualifications and further evidence. To make the conclusion more credible, the arguer should limit it in certain places and provide more direct evidence to prove non-profit hospitals' better service and economical performance. By the way, if explanations on why non-profit hospitals can be both more economical and of better quality are presented, the argument can be a truly authentic one.

Writing Feedback / "Who made history"--A difficult GRE Issue topic [9]

Issue 48: "The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."

I had a deep reflection on this topic, however it is still hard to handle. I'm not sure whether I can make myself clear in the following essay. Please make comments.

Thanks in advance.

The relationship between the big shot and the groups of people in history is like that between the switch and the power supply of a machine. If either the switch is turned off or the power is removed, the machine cannot run. It is hard to say one--the switch or the power--contributed more than the other. In history books however, the glory of these prominent few dazzles our eyes, leaving us blind to the great contributions of the mass.

A deep rethink on history reveals that both the famous few and the groups of people are critical to the most significant historical events and trends. Remarkable figures, which were often characterized as bravery, intelligence or persistence, do stand out of the queue; their profound influence owned much to their ability or morality indeed. However, they were not gods or supernatural but simply a human being. How can only two hands change the direction of history? In fact, their power and strength were largely derived from the groups of people--people who believed in them, supported them and would even die for them. Thinking back to American Revolution, everyone must adore George Washington--the father of the United States. Admittedly, he is worth these praise for his great deeds, talent of leadership, more importantly, his virtues. Without him, American might suffer from the British monarchy for more years and might not be such a democratic country. But the brave American soldiers fighting for independence and the many lives that were sacrificed for refusing surrendering to the arbitrary king should not be forgotten. It was them that defeated the British army, won the war and eventually built this great nation. Consider the other famous few, like Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill; they could not change the history without the support of people. We can conclude that though the important roles the famous few played in history are indisputable, they are not likely to make a different without groups of people, whose efforts are equally respectful.

It may appear unfair for history books focusing mostly on the famous few at first; nevertheless, this is quite reasonable from a practical point of view. History (here specifically means the historical accounts we wrote) consists of stories of individuals, not of groups of people. Also, we have not learnt how to write a biography of a group, whose members names can already add up to a book. Even if there is such a book, for example, an encyclopedia filled with descriptions of Washington's soldiers' everyday life in great details, who would like to read it? People like sagas of heroes, not common life. Furthermore, the famous few are the milestones of history, they represents the trends and events. Studying them is a relatively easy and practical way for us to gain a clear idea of how history evolved. This is especially true in the history of science, whose evolvement can be presented by a list of names: Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, and Pythagoras of the ancient Greek who set the fundamental spirits of science; Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo and later Darwin who symbolized the fierce fight between science and religion; Newton, Faraday, Maxwell who established modern scientific principals and the experimental method to test a theory. History can only remember those names of the famous few, while numerous scientists who also devoted their lifetime to science remained unknown. Other scientists or people related to science like teachers, either spread knowledge or transformed theories in to practical use, changed our world. For example, it was the Wright Brothers who invented the plane, but only through thousands of engineers who better the design and much more worker who turned the design into production, planes can come to our common people's lives. But the importance to the event or to our lives, and the importance to history account or study are two different things. In a word, it is history study's nature to emphasis someone who can represent history best.

In sum, the famous few and the groups of people both made our history, yet history writers and scholars concerns more about how to make the historical account clear and attractive. So it is right for our study of history focus on the famous few, still we should not forget the contribution of the unknown mass.

Writing Feedback / The intellectual benefits of attending a university - advice my second GRE issue [17]

Thanks for Simone's advice last time, it's really helpful. I'm careful with prepositions this time, though it's still hard for me not to make mistakes.

Here is my another Issue writing.
Please make suggestions on its grammer, structure, content or anything else.
Thanks in advance.

Issue 39
"The intellectual benefits of attending a university or college are vastly overrated: most people could learn more by studying and reading on their own for four years than by pursuing a university or college degree."

"Learn more" does not simply means having read more books or known more facts, as far as I see, it indicates getting both depth and breadth of knowledge on a specific range of subjects, having mastered a systematic approach to solving unprecedented problems and it also suggests maintaining a rational mind with well-organized knowledge structured by a theoretical frame. From that perspective, a self-educated one can hardly learn more, in this technological advanced society, than those who received a formal education. In fact, each branch of learning has become so complex, especially for science, that the absorption of knowledge is much more difficult without guidance.

The very first obstacle a self-learner has to face is oneself. Even the most diligent student will skim through what does not interest him, and, more or less, neglect what he finds tedious. Thus, he may have a extremely deep knowledge in his interested field but a poor cognition in other fields. I have used "he" here only for brevity, for girls, it is equally the same or perhaps even worse. Since many girls dislike math, they are likely to get rid of math forever when it comes to teach themselves. Consider Faraday as a good example to illustrate what one's disregard of math will lead to. (I'm not sure whether the structure is right here) Faraday never received a formal education, but his instincts led him to many greatest discoveries in physics and chemistry, and he was regarded as one of the best experimentalists. In his late years, he got some initial ideas about the relationship between magnetism and electricity, and even formed a intricate picture of force filed, but as he could not handle mathematics, it was impossible for him to impart his surrealistic picture to other colleagues, nor could he go further enough. Such a genius, like Faraday, could be trapped by a lack of systematic knowledge, which schools are specialized in transferring, how can we suppose to make a difference without a formal education? Faraday was lucky, before long, Maxwell, who was well educated and had a wide knowledge in both mathematics and physics, climbed into his head and transformed his second sight into elegant equations, hence laid the theoretical foundations of electromagnetism. We must know that it is only through Maxwell can the rest of us understand the obscure graph formed in Faraday's mind. Further more, if Faraday were born today, he would not find himself lucky any more, as the volume of knowledge has soared unbelievably since then.

Besides, university or college does not only provide us with a systematically designed curriculum for students to follow, it also offers an atmosphere for studying. How can one study alone for 4 years? Without college pressure, one is more delighted to be entertained than to be educated. In school, there is a competition with peers, which is an incentive to anyone to not being lazy. Also, there is a cooperation, which helps one to learn more efficiently. As a university student, I find myself benefited much from classmates and teachers. They showed me different ways of thinking and helped me solved problems that haunted me. One can easily get stuck without help from others.

Moreover, any university student is required to study and read on his own. That is an important part of higher education. Even for those geniuses who prefer to study on their own, the libraries in universities or colleges can help them learn better. More importantly, professors' advice on what to read can direct them to a much more planar way to success, rather than being lost and wandering in tremendous books and information available today.

Though still not vanished, nowadays, the self-educated genius is becoming rarer and rarer. For the most of us, we learn much more by attending university, where we become well-educated persons equipped with systematic knowledge.

Writing Feedback / "working outside the academic world" - Advice for my GRE issue [2]

Please give me some advice how to improve it.
Thanks in advance

Issue 50:"In order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level, all faculties should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach."

One of the responsibilities for a college or university is to prepare their students well for careers, which include imparting them knowledge, problem-solving skills and values like fidelity to task, etc. However, after stepping out the campus, they often find themselves freshmen again, as the learning related to their work is so little and they have to start all over. Requiring some professors in certain fields to work outside the academic world for a period of time is a way to improve the situation, whereas applying this requirement to all faculties is unrealistic and meaningless.

A working experience off campus in some relevant fields can let professors know what the society needs, thus update the curriculum. For example, Optics, an undergraduate course for most students of science and technology, is often concerned too much about the theories established centuries ago by Fourier, Helmholtz and Maxwell. Admittedly, these are important indeed, but the problem is that this course talks too little about modern progresses such as laser, nonlinear optics and optical communication, all of which are playing a significant role in the modern life and are crucial for many positions in industry. Students are better prepared if they had at lest a general idea of the state of the art in their fields.

Beside the time gap of knowledge, there is a value gap between the academic world and the industrial world, where is the destination of many graduates. In academic world, professors take little care about economic matters: pursue a pure joy in research, finding what is new and creative. In the industrial world, "we need creativities, but only the useful ones", as the President of the Boeing Company said in a speech (and I paraphrase). A novel technic published in the top scientific journals like Science or Nature may have no practical value at all, merely an interesting inspiration like a piece of art. Additionally, colleges and universities train us to become autonomous and be used to think independently, but in real work, teamwork is needed all the time. Being conscious about these differences will lead to changes in all aspects from teaching materials to the way of teaching and of assessment. For instance, school can offer practical courses whose accomplishments are achieved by a group of students. The design of an electronic circuit or a program should be by graded not only by the academic levels but also considering its competitiveness in the real market. In this way, the school's quality of instruction is really improved.

As the old saying goes "extremes are dangerous", I have to mention that the outside working demand for all faculties is unrealistic and irrational. Teachers in some fields like philosophy and classics are not likely to find a job outside schools easily. On the other hand, spending too much time not on the courses they teaching will of course do harm to the quality and continuity of instruction.

Taking both sides of the coin into consideration, teachers, especially department of engineering or electronics, should be encouraged to have a work experience. But it cannot involve into a compulsory requirement.