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.
"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.
