This is my fist try...need some help and advice. 5/27 is the date to fight with GRE QQ Thanks!
topic:A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the recommendation 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 these examples shape your
position.
----------------------
Determining whether students have to study the same national curriculum until they enter college could be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. According to the statement, it seems to be somewhat a pithy aphorism full of wisdom and meditation at the first glance, but further reflection leads me to the discordant position.
The first and foremost reason lies in a facet people have to ponder over that every students has his or her owned personality and interest. Some students might be more enthusiastic in society, while others might be more zealous to science. If a nation require all of the students to learn the same thing-the same national curriculum-the country would probably limit students' development of their interest. For example, if a nation reduces the science experiment time in order to increase more time for national curriculum, many students would lose their chance to contact with science, and then stop to be a person who has tended to be a scientist since they were young, and the number of students in major of science in college would decrease. Therefore, under this circumstance, I do not agree with this recommendation.
Admittedly, to some extent, the claim has its own advantages. If all of one nation's students learn the same information of the nation, it is easier for the country to manage its compatriots. Because all the students learn the same things, their ethnic ideology will be more compatible. Nevertheless, the peremptory statement ignores the materials of the national curriculum. When we take the materials-the contents, historical description, value of the nation-into account, an abundance of flaws of the assertion emerges. For instance, once some students found that the government deceive them by amending some truth of history in order to enhance their national recognition, these students would start to suspect whether the nation is good or not. As a result, we cannot make a conclusion until we solve these omitted variables.
To sum up, rational people know that things in the real world are rarely black and white but usually involve shades of gray. Based on the reasons demonstrated above, I do not assent to the statement that all of the students have to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. It is not to say, of course, that the recommendation is completely without credibility. Still, I am firmly convinced that broader scrutiny is needed to reinforce the validity of this statement.
topic:A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the recommendation 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 these examples shape your
position.
----------------------
Determining whether students have to study the same national curriculum until they enter college could be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. According to the statement, it seems to be somewhat a pithy aphorism full of wisdom and meditation at the first glance, but further reflection leads me to the discordant position.
The first and foremost reason lies in a facet people have to ponder over that every students has his or her owned personality and interest. Some students might be more enthusiastic in society, while others might be more zealous to science. If a nation require all of the students to learn the same thing-the same national curriculum-the country would probably limit students' development of their interest. For example, if a nation reduces the science experiment time in order to increase more time for national curriculum, many students would lose their chance to contact with science, and then stop to be a person who has tended to be a scientist since they were young, and the number of students in major of science in college would decrease. Therefore, under this circumstance, I do not agree with this recommendation.
Admittedly, to some extent, the claim has its own advantages. If all of one nation's students learn the same information of the nation, it is easier for the country to manage its compatriots. Because all the students learn the same things, their ethnic ideology will be more compatible. Nevertheless, the peremptory statement ignores the materials of the national curriculum. When we take the materials-the contents, historical description, value of the nation-into account, an abundance of flaws of the assertion emerges. For instance, once some students found that the government deceive them by amending some truth of history in order to enhance their national recognition, these students would start to suspect whether the nation is good or not. As a result, we cannot make a conclusion until we solve these omitted variables.
To sum up, rational people know that things in the real world are rarely black and white but usually involve shades of gray. Based on the reasons demonstrated above, I do not assent to the statement that all of the students have to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. It is not to say, of course, that the recommendation is completely without credibility. Still, I am firmly convinced that broader scrutiny is needed to reinforce the validity of this statement.