The intellectual benefits of attending a university - advice my second GRE issue

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.

Very true. But why should this be harder to gain on one's own than at a university? Your next sentence doesn't answer this question, btw. It merely asserts the truth of your position.


Students can do this at university, too. In fact, the whole idea of taking a major is that one can exclude a whole range of subjects one dislikes to focus intensely on one that is interesting.


Again, you might want to explain how schools are specialized in this, and what about them would make them better at it than one would be on one's own.

Your essay is actually quite well-written and thoughtful. You just need to state explicitly many of the things you seem to be assuming.

This essay is very strong. I like the examples and the arguments, especially Faraday/Maxwell. Your prepositions are better. Here's a punctuation error:


This is a comma splice. You've spliced together two complete sentences with a comma, rather than separating them with a period or joining them with a semi-colon. To fix it, change the comma after "facts" to a period or a semi-colon.

Thank you for your insightful advice!
I realized that many subtexts which I took for granted had been omitted, thus my argument was undermined.
Though I major in physics which has very high standards for logical thinking, I really appreciate your critical thinking and I learnt someting important about in from you.

How do you develop that ability? I'm really curious and eager to know.

One way to develop your critical thinking skills is to read widely and, um, critically. Keep a journal in which you log your thoughts about what you read. (Make it a blog, and you will get even more stimulation from responding to comments.) You will find that, in forcing yourself to put your thoughts on paper (or in type), you will uncover any gaps or weaknesses in your thinking.

Thank you Simone.
I think schools in my country concern less about these teaching skills like critic thinking and problem solving-the life skills termed by Americans. We are actually developing these skills through learning mathematics, physics and history, but that is considered a by-product.

What a deficiency in our school system.

In the United States, math and physics go by the wayside. Most adults have only the dimmest conception of history. And, if the intellectual level of debate surrounding Presidential campaigns (e.g.,"Why isn't he wearing a flag pin?!") is any guide, our public schools aren't doing a very good job of teaching critical thinking either.

Actually, the notion that U.S. schools suck is something of myth, I was reading recently. Middle-class and upper-class American students apparently tend to do roughly as well as students from countries with much better reputations when it comes to the quality of their educational systems, such as, say, Japan. The averages only sound so bad in the news reports because the numbers used always include lower-class students from inner city ghettos and other areas that America has given up on. I have no way of verifying the source, unfortunately, so maybe someone here knows if this is actually true.

In the United States, public schools are funded by local property taxes, not federal or even state taxes. Hence, schools in one neighborhood may have computers in every classroom while schools just around the corner have an insufficient number of torn-up twenty-year-old textbooks. Accordingly, scores on standardized tests correlate most strongly with parental income than with any other variable, including race. Also accordingly, more affluent students go to better schools: Their public schools are better and they can go to private schools if they choose. Poor and working class students are out of luck.

If we are talking about U.S. public schools in general, we can't just skim the scores from the best-funded ones and compare those. We have to look at them all or at a representative sample, including the wretchedly under-funded schools in both urban and rural poor and working class areas.

My experience, as someone who has taught first-year students at both a top-tier state university and a university primarily serving students from low-income neighborhoods, is that students from lower income areas are much less well prepared for college. But -- and this is key -- even the students coming from good schools seem to me woefully ignorant of history.

Another factor: Local funding = local control. That's how local school boards in several areas have gutted biology and other science courses due to fears that their children will be taught evolution. Thus it is possible to go to a quite well funded high school and learn next to nothing about biology.

EF_Simone
"Thus it is possible to go to a quite well funded high school and learn next to nothing about biology."

I have read some essays about the differences between public and private schools. But hasn't America applied a national curriculum,i.e. some core courses every school must teach? If not, how can America achieve it aim of equal opportunity through education?

You have a nice flow and make your argument well. Your vocabulary is quite strong as well. There are small errors with grammar. English is such a difficult language! I think that it takes time and practice to develop an ear for the language. Most native speakers instinctively know when something doesn't sound right.

Alas, it is late here and I must go to bed before I make myself sick. I'll come back tomorrow and point out some of the errors.

Thank you, Notoman. I'm eager to known the where my essay sounds alien to native speakers.

Here are the parts that I thought sounded a little awkward. I am nit picking here. I am nit picking because your English is so good and I know that you want to improve it even more.


One is one of those words that has several different meaning in English. In this sentence, it is a little confusing. It would clarify things in the reader's mind if you were to substitute person for one here.


His interested field is awkward here. The English-speaking mind is programmed to picture the field being interested. What is it that the field finds so interesting? You could just say his field or the field that he is interested in.


This is a comma splice because the two parts of this sentence could stand alone as their own sentences. You could fix that by putting a semicolon or a period after the word brevity. The last part of this sentence doesn't quite flow like a native speaker would write it. We might say something like: for girls, it is equally difficult or perhaps even more so. OR Girls struggle with self-guided learning as well. There are some teachers/professors who don't like the use of he as a gender-neutral pronoun. I have gotten in the habit of restructuring my sentences to avoid the use all together! You could do that here as well if you wanted to: Even the most diligent students will skim through what does not interest them, and, more or less, neglect what they find tedious.


We have had political correctness drilled into us in the US and students here generally don't include stereotypes in their formal papers. Although girls score lower on standardized tests in math (and higher in reading and writing), it would still be considered a stereotype to say that girls dislike math. You could reword this to just say students who dislike math. Get rid of is a pretty casual statement in English. Not the best one for an essay. When it comes to teach themselves is also awkward. It is written like it is teaching themselves. If you were to add the word time in front of to, the sentence would read much better. The new sentence could be something like: Many student dislike math and are likely to avoid it when it comes time to teach themselves.

Speaking of time, my break is just about over and I need to get back to work. I'll come back later and nit pick some more. (Unless you'd rather me keep my snotty-nosed opinions to myself).

Many thanks to you, Noto.
I find out the word interested is used to modify a person rather than a thing.
Your suggestions are very helpful in polishing my language.

Yes, interested is used to modify a person rather than a thing. When you use it with a thing, it seems to personify that object--giving it human characteristics that you most likely don't intend.

Your English is *very* good. English is such a difficult language and very few native speaker ever really master it (I am still working at it myself). Here are a few more for you before I retire for the night:


Yes, this is a little difficult. You are assuming that your reader knows who Faraday is. You might want to introduce him just a little. Michael Faraday, an 19th century physicist, is one example of how disregarding a mathematical education can be detrimental.


You need to either say led him to many great discoveries or led him to many of the greatest discoveries. The difference here (I think!) is that in the first phrase, great is an adjective modifying the noun discoveries while in the second greatest discoveries acts as a complete noun that requires and article (the). Dang. I don't think that I explained it well. It might be just one of those things that native speakers know because it "sounds right" to them.


Whoa! This is a long sentence. You'd be better off breaking it into two. Late should be later. It is another one of those that I don't know why we would use later here instead of late, we just would. It should also be an intricate picture. Because the article is being used before a word that starts with a vowel, you need an instead of a. ... a force FIELD ... nor could he go FAR enough. Or you could say just FURTHER without the word enough. If I were to rewrite this part, I'd probably go with something like: In his later years, he had some initial ideas about the relationship between magnetism and electricity and even formed an intricate picture of a force field, but Faraday lacked the mathematical knowledge to impart his surrealistic concepts to his colleagues. Not understanding the math required to develop his theories kept him from going further.

I hope that my corrections help instead of confusing you more.

Well, America could always adopt key aspects of the Japanese model. So, nothing after elementary school compulsory, and tuition fees for all students, even in public schools. My point was that the comparison of school systems should probably involve more than merely looking at average test scores, which is how the media tends to report on the issue.


At the risk of creating a a completely off-topic digression, I'm curious what history exactly they are ignorant of. All history? World history? American history? Recent American history? I would have thought that students from good schools would at least have learned about such things as the American Civil War, the two World Wars, the Cold War, the Vietnam War (history is really only a series of wars, it occurs to me). Maybe something about the Great Depression, the New Deal, Reaganism. Of course, it isn't surprising that history would have fallen out of favor. Historical facts and figures can be easily looked up online, so don't really need to be memorized anymore. As to the importance of knowing history in some wider sense, I can't think of a single historical narrative that hasn't been so challenged that any neophyte listening to the various versions wouldn't conclude that its all a matter of what one wants to believe anyway.

Thank you, Noto.
I can understand the difference between great discoveries and the greatest discoveries.
Your revision of the sentence is really great.