Hey guys, I am doing an analytical writing exercise in preparation for the lovely GRE. It will be a timed essay (45 min) and I'm trying to get in as much practice from the published pool of questions. For this essay it's part of the "Present Your Perspective on an Issue Task" and it tests my "critical thinking and analytical writing skills. I need to adequately articulate and support complex ideas, analyze the argument given, and sustain a focused and coherent discussion." -as per the GRE prep book.
Here is the issue that I had to respond to. I typed it in a 45 minute period and on notepad which does not do spell check or grammar checks:
"Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."
Here's my response, any insight in how I can improve is greatly appreciated!
Education differs so much from country to country. Here in the United States (U.S.) we follow a pattern: preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school and college, i.e. Associate's Degree, Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree and a Doctorate Degree. In elementary through high school, students are required to take every subject. And in the first two years of obtaining a Bachelor's degree, most colleges and universities require a list of "Basic Studies" to be completed before continuing on to specialty courses relating to specific degrees. This differs completely from how the education system is set up in the United Kingdom (u.K.) and Europe. Their students are taught on a sliding scale. From middle school and high school, students begin narrowing down classes according to their strengths and intersts. By the time they have graduate high school, they know what they are interested in and the decision to continue on to a higher education and what degree to get is much easier. These are two very different examples of education systems. Is one better than the other? There are benefits and drawbacks to each method, but it seems that the standard education system in the U.S. is more about making money and "putting the time in" to graduate high school and/or finish a Bachelor's Degree. There is not nearly as much emphasis placed on the "quality" of education.
Americans grow up in school starting as young as five years old and graduate high school at 18 years of age. Some continue on into their mid-20s and even 30s obtaining higher education. Society places a lot of emphesis on the need for highly educated people. It has become necessary to have a Bachelor's to even be qualified for most jobs. The need for higher education is not necessarily a bad thing, but as expensive as it is, it makes it a very real impossiblity for a lot of people. It is fortunate that our society has the resources to fund public elementary and high schools for each community, but attending a college or university is still a very big financial hurdle for a lot of people to overcome. The cost of getting a degree is very evident in the rising prices of tuition each year. As expensive as college is, most that can afford it, attend only to get the title itself. It doesn't matter what the degree is in, as long as there is a degree. That in itself shows how little emphasis is placed on the quality and type of education. There is a huge difference in obtaining a degree in Biology versus Psychology versus Engineering, but a lot of employers care more about the fact that it is a degree. If we are paying the price of higher education, why are we required to take "Basic Studies" that include every subject. Does this really make students well-rounded? Or is this a way to tack on two additional years paying for a Bachelor's Degree? Universities in Europe are close to, if not completely, free. This makes education an option for everyone interested. It's too difficult to gain a higher education in our society and when we do, half of the four years for a Bachelor's is spent taking classes that don't pertain to the area of study that a student has chosen. It truly is a money market. If education was truly tailored to each individual's needs, imagine how the quality of education would increase and the quantity of unneccessary classes would decrease. It also needs to become more financially feasible for all students to attend school.
A look at the U.K. and European education system shows us that there is another way of doing this. So many students graduate high school and are at a loss as to what interests them. If there was the ability to narrow down subject matters according to each student's strengths and interests, the student will be at such an advantage exiting their high school career. They will have a better idea if college is even a good idea for their needs and if so, they'll have an idea of what they will want to specialize in. This seems like a much more personalized and succussful way of approaching education.
As of right now, our education system does an adequate job. But that's just it, it's adequate. If a student is paying thousands of dollars, do they not deserve more than an adequate education and the hopes of a job which may have nothing to do with their area of study? Each student is unique in their needs, they pay for a service, they deserve something better. It's time for an educational reform.
Here is the issue that I had to respond to. I typed it in a 45 minute period and on notepad which does not do spell check or grammar checks:
"Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."
Here's my response, any insight in how I can improve is greatly appreciated!
Education differs so much from country to country. Here in the United States (U.S.) we follow a pattern: preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school and college, i.e. Associate's Degree, Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree and a Doctorate Degree. In elementary through high school, students are required to take every subject. And in the first two years of obtaining a Bachelor's degree, most colleges and universities require a list of "Basic Studies" to be completed before continuing on to specialty courses relating to specific degrees. This differs completely from how the education system is set up in the United Kingdom (u.K.) and Europe. Their students are taught on a sliding scale. From middle school and high school, students begin narrowing down classes according to their strengths and intersts. By the time they have graduate high school, they know what they are interested in and the decision to continue on to a higher education and what degree to get is much easier. These are two very different examples of education systems. Is one better than the other? There are benefits and drawbacks to each method, but it seems that the standard education system in the U.S. is more about making money and "putting the time in" to graduate high school and/or finish a Bachelor's Degree. There is not nearly as much emphasis placed on the "quality" of education.
Americans grow up in school starting as young as five years old and graduate high school at 18 years of age. Some continue on into their mid-20s and even 30s obtaining higher education. Society places a lot of emphesis on the need for highly educated people. It has become necessary to have a Bachelor's to even be qualified for most jobs. The need for higher education is not necessarily a bad thing, but as expensive as it is, it makes it a very real impossiblity for a lot of people. It is fortunate that our society has the resources to fund public elementary and high schools for each community, but attending a college or university is still a very big financial hurdle for a lot of people to overcome. The cost of getting a degree is very evident in the rising prices of tuition each year. As expensive as college is, most that can afford it, attend only to get the title itself. It doesn't matter what the degree is in, as long as there is a degree. That in itself shows how little emphasis is placed on the quality and type of education. There is a huge difference in obtaining a degree in Biology versus Psychology versus Engineering, but a lot of employers care more about the fact that it is a degree. If we are paying the price of higher education, why are we required to take "Basic Studies" that include every subject. Does this really make students well-rounded? Or is this a way to tack on two additional years paying for a Bachelor's Degree? Universities in Europe are close to, if not completely, free. This makes education an option for everyone interested. It's too difficult to gain a higher education in our society and when we do, half of the four years for a Bachelor's is spent taking classes that don't pertain to the area of study that a student has chosen. It truly is a money market. If education was truly tailored to each individual's needs, imagine how the quality of education would increase and the quantity of unneccessary classes would decrease. It also needs to become more financially feasible for all students to attend school.
A look at the U.K. and European education system shows us that there is another way of doing this. So many students graduate high school and are at a loss as to what interests them. If there was the ability to narrow down subject matters according to each student's strengths and interests, the student will be at such an advantage exiting their high school career. They will have a better idea if college is even a good idea for their needs and if so, they'll have an idea of what they will want to specialize in. This seems like a much more personalized and succussful way of approaching education.
As of right now, our education system does an adequate job. But that's just it, it's adequate. If a student is paying thousands of dollars, do they not deserve more than an adequate education and the hopes of a job which may have nothing to do with their area of study? Each student is unique in their needs, they pay for a service, they deserve something better. It's time for an educational reform.