Hey, I wrote this essay for an exam i do in the Netherlands. Could anyone please go through and point out any errors and give me some advice?
Thanks in advance !
For many centuries, studying at a university was only destined for the rich and privileged or those who possessed talent. Nowadays however, studying after finishing secondary school, has become much more of a standard. In my country, the Netherlands, the number of youngsters that enroll to universities has significantly increased over the past couple of years. As a result, some studies are demanded far more than they are available. To solve this problem, universities admit students based on a lottery system, in which the average of their secondary school exam achievements determines their chance of admission. However, recently the idea has been raised to replace this current system with an interview of application or an admission exam. In my opinion the current system should be replaced with an admission system that focuses on an individual their capabilities. The aim of this essay is to give arguments that advocate this view.
First of all, I argue that the current lottery system is utterly ineffective. Why would we draw lots when we can specifically look into a person's certificates to get to know their strong and weak sides? If we select people based on their talents rather than on an average of their achievements, we would greatly improve our labour force since everyone would do what they are best at. Moreover, letting someone's fate be determined just by drawing lots does not seem fair to me.
Secondly, we should embrace the fact that when there is a limited amount of places available for a study, competition for these places is a natural consequence. Drawing lots completely removes this consequence since no one really can compete with each other. If we would let people compete for places through admission exams or interviews that test one's capabilities, this will guarantee that the most suitable can be selected.
Lastly, it should be noted that there are a plethora of studies ranging from, for example, astrophysics to philosophy to economy. If a person gets dismissed for a study, it surely is not the end of the world. There are plenty of other options available. Furthermore, if someone gets admitted in this current lottery system, research has found that there is a high chance that they are more likely to drop out of college. This is because the student has not been selected on their adequacy and capabilities, and as a result will face much difficulty and stress.
To summarize, the current lottery system does not take into account who are most capable to be admitted. It should therefore be replaced by a system which puts an emphasis on selecting people based on their capabilities. Then competition will flourish and everyone will find out what they are best at. Eventually, students will be much happier and our labour force much stronger. Should we not have already learned that gambling in the lottery is a waste of time ?
485 words
Thanks in advance !
Stop gambling around !
For many centuries, studying at a university was only destined for the rich and privileged or those who possessed talent. Nowadays however, studying after finishing secondary school, has become much more of a standard. In my country, the Netherlands, the number of youngsters that enroll to universities has significantly increased over the past couple of years. As a result, some studies are demanded far more than they are available. To solve this problem, universities admit students based on a lottery system, in which the average of their secondary school exam achievements determines their chance of admission. However, recently the idea has been raised to replace this current system with an interview of application or an admission exam. In my opinion the current system should be replaced with an admission system that focuses on an individual their capabilities. The aim of this essay is to give arguments that advocate this view.
First of all, I argue that the current lottery system is utterly ineffective. Why would we draw lots when we can specifically look into a person's certificates to get to know their strong and weak sides? If we select people based on their talents rather than on an average of their achievements, we would greatly improve our labour force since everyone would do what they are best at. Moreover, letting someone's fate be determined just by drawing lots does not seem fair to me.
Secondly, we should embrace the fact that when there is a limited amount of places available for a study, competition for these places is a natural consequence. Drawing lots completely removes this consequence since no one really can compete with each other. If we would let people compete for places through admission exams or interviews that test one's capabilities, this will guarantee that the most suitable can be selected.
Lastly, it should be noted that there are a plethora of studies ranging from, for example, astrophysics to philosophy to economy. If a person gets dismissed for a study, it surely is not the end of the world. There are plenty of other options available. Furthermore, if someone gets admitted in this current lottery system, research has found that there is a high chance that they are more likely to drop out of college. This is because the student has not been selected on their adequacy and capabilities, and as a result will face much difficulty and stress.
To summarize, the current lottery system does not take into account who are most capable to be admitted. It should therefore be replaced by a system which puts an emphasis on selecting people based on their capabilities. Then competition will flourish and everyone will find out what they are best at. Eventually, students will be much happier and our labour force much stronger. Should we not have already learned that gambling in the lottery is a waste of time ?
485 words
