Let various boards maintain their autonomy in preparing curriculum

The issue whether all the students of a country must study a common curriculum until they enter college is a debatable one. On one hand a common curriculum ensures unformity in both academic and co-curricular development while on the other hand forcing various educational boards to conform to a fixed pattern questions their autonomy. After a full analysis, I partially concur with the argument.

Requiring students to study a fixed curriculum has certain benefits. For one it ensures that each and every student is equal in terms of academic and co-curricular development by the time they reach college. This ensures a level playing field for all college bound students. Under status quo students from smaller towns and cities do not get the same level of education as do students from larger metros .A standardized national curriculum will hence eliminate this bias.

A nationalized curriculm will also help create the most optimized curriculm for students. A nationalized curriculum can be created by chossing the best subjects from across all the education boards. Hence the all round development of students will also be achieved. For example certain boards may have an academically intensive curriculum with no emphasis on sports or extra curricular activities. A nationalized curriculum will ensure that students across various boards will have the best possible development on all fronts.

A nationalized curriculum will also create a level playing field for admissions to various professional courses. Since all the students have studied the same subjects, with the same difficulty level they can be graded relative to each other with respect to their GPA's. Under status quo normalization of scores of students from various boards takes place to arrive at a scaled score.

However there are a few pitfalls associated with this proposed measure. For one, more advanced boards may not want to temper their curriculums. For example the international baccalaurate(IB) lays emphasis on rigorous curriculm.If the IB board had to reduce the workload of its curriclum to be on par with other non rigorous state boards, the value of attaing an IB diploma would serously diminish.

Another shortcoming of this measure is seen in countries like India which is a country of multiple languages and traditions. For example the education board in one state would want its students to study the local dialect. The education board in another state may want students to study thier local language. Hence maintaing a common ground would be indeed very difficult

Hence in conclusion both sides of the argument have their fair share of pros and cons. While a common syllabus will ensure parity on both academic and co-curricular fronts and ensure proper and fair comparison of students it may not be feasible due to the shortcomings mentioned. A country should therefore continue to let various boards maintain thier autonomy in preparing their curriculum but should set guidelines for boards with less intensive curriculum. This will ensure that they too strengthen their curriculum and ensure competence among all students of the nation

This is a gre issue.Can someone please grade me out of 6 Thanks

This is either a 3 or a 4. It's a perfect split.

If the right readers were to get it, you'd score a four.

The mechanical quality of your writing (grammar, syntax, punctuation, vocabulary, and usage) is a four, maybe even a five.

However, there are far more important factors than these. The biggest problem is that this essay is very repetitive. That will turn a four or a five into a three in no time.

This looks to be right around 500 words, but you could have written about 350 words without sacrificing any content at all.

Well.... I do not have adequate knowledge about grading essays and I believe it depends on the type of exam, task etc. However, I feel you write very well and I particularly like the introduction.


I too feel your essay a bit too longer. If this is apratice essay for GRe or similar task, you need to be careful with time management too.

thanks jkjeremy for the valuable insight
any tips on how to make this a 5 or 6 essay?
what exactly am i lacking?

thanks dumi for the kind words

I think I've given you the most important tip I can give.

Tonight when I have more time I'll try to go into more detail.

Our country is developing and step by step becomes a civilization country where the vast majority of people are educated. It is the reason for why our lives are more and more safe and the number of crimes decrease rapidly now. Therefore, keeping capital punishment is unnecessary.

The fact that a large number of people believe the death penalty is an essential factor to reduce violence and keep our society secure. However, the recent research of scientists point out "having no relation between the rate of crime and the death penalty". Indeed, when a person commits crime he does not think carefully which punishment he will be received, hence the capital punishment does not have the effect to stop a person commits crime. American is a clear example. In American having a lot of criminals received "the worst punishment", but American is also the country has the highest rate of crime.

Moreover, elimination is not the main purpose of punishment; the punishment should fit the crime. In my opinion, toleration is the best way to make a secure society and to reduce the crime. In some situations when we are so quick to convict someone of a crime without verification. They will be under sentence of death; this action makes negative impacts on society. On the other hands, the life imprisonment is the suitable punishment for criminals who commit serious offences. It is not only show the toleration society but also help them fixing their mistakes.

To sum up, I strongly recommend that we should reject the death penalty because it is not effective to make safe for our society. Additionally, without capital punishment people will fell the toleration of law.