It is better to be underrated by people than to be overrated by them.
Assignment: What are your thoughts on the statement above? Do you agree or disagree with the writer's assertion? Compose an essay in which you express your views on this topic. Your essay may support, refute, or qualify the view expressed in the statement. What you write, however, must be relevant to the topic under discussion. Additionally, you must support your viewpoint, indicating your reasoning and providing examples based on your studies and/or experience.
It is inevitable that one feels the need to conform to others' expectations, in whatever work they are doing. In society we live in, everyone is in perpetual examination. It is only fair that people demand to be judged based on merit, the skills they actually have. Outward appearance, first impression, however, can make someone being underrated or overrated. Although one may not want to be underrated, for me it is still better than to be overrated.
Being overrated, people are bound to disappoint people when they do not meet the expected demands. Not only that, when people are overrated, they might also feel complacent with their work, false-believing that they are satisfied with what they do and when they fail, they have to cope with such disappointment in themselves and also others. Contrastingly, being underrated channels the idea that people will be surprised in a good way. When one is underrated, he can strive to become better, to prove others wrong and reveal his full potential, and should it fail, there is nothing to lose.
In our daily lives, it is not uncommon to see how a new employee might be underrated when he first enters the enterprise. In fact, being underrated by his colleagues and his boss might become an advantage for him to progress. If he makes any mistakes, there will be less severity or criticism, so it is nothing-to-lose case, but if he does work that is good, he will be complimented because everyone will be astonished of how well he performs his job.
Going back to historical evidence, in France of the eighteenth century, there were social classes which were strictly divided: the noble, the bourgeoisie and the poor peasants or the proletariat. The noble and bourgeoisie underrated the proletariat, never cared about the poor and thought the poor could never do anything. The apathy and depreciation from their part gave the poor ability of emancipating from the tyrannical authority. If they had been overrated by those in power, French revolution would not have taken place.
In conclusion, being underrated gives advantage for one to prove others they are wrong. It allows people to see the quality within, not what it appears to be. After all, it is what I believe, that one need not to appear the best, but be the best.