Jump to content

zara-barnes

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

zara-barnes's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

8

Reputation

  1. Better!!! I would still make sure you directly answer the question; "in light of the issues raised above, I am of the opinion that governments should place few, if any, restrictions on science and development; because such restrictions tend to be uninformed and biased." Just stating that government restrictions on science and development tend to be uninformed and biased, does not, in and of itself, mean that they should not occur. Someone else sitting the same exam may argue that the very fact Government representatives are not experts is a good thing; they are removed from the scientific process, have nothing to gain in terms of funding and recognition if something unethical is pushed through, and can take a step back and look objectively at whether just because something can be done, whether it should be done. I agree with, you don't get me wrong, but you have to be aware that your closing statement must directly refer back to the question - because the same piece of evidence that you use against something, someone else may use in favour of something. Just restating that evidence alone is not enough to answer the question. This is your opinion. State it. Defend it. Be explicit. The only thing I would watch in terms of the content of the arguments you made in this essay, is the last sentence. Remember that government is made up of elected representatives, who have sovereignty conferred upon them via the voting mechanism - meaning they represent the will of the majority. Any action that government undertakes is considered to be sanctioned by the majority of the population. The voting mechanism in the US is not perfect, I am not from the US and I am all too aware of how awful their electoral process is, but it is something to bear in mind. If you state that government action does not represent the majority will of the people you either need to justify this claim, or recognise that the marker will presume you do not know how the voting process works and how sovereignty is conferred. A minor error though, and one specific to this essay. This was a much better attempt overall. The only major thing I would see improved, is that the instructions detail you should conclude to what extent you agree or disagree with the statement. It is not asking for a black or white judgement. You do not do this. You very easily could do this, however, by slightly rewording your final sentence. "If there are restrictions to be placed, it should be determined by the scientific community and the majority of the general population." Consider something along the lines of whilst you do not think science should be entirely unregulated, because of ethical concerns, you do not think that Government are the best placed individuals to make such recommendations; as they are non-specialists. Instead, if there are restrictions to be placed, those should be determined by the scientific community as a whole. One final thing, and a more general issue; do not make excuses for yourself. That is not constructive. You may only have thirty minutes to come up with arguments and examples etc. but of all the replies I have written to you so far, I have composed these in around ten minutes. Push yourself harder if you want a better mark, don't make excuses. I wouldn't be replying to you if I was an asshole who didn't care about how well you did or did not perform. I would simply ignore you. Similarly, it is true that you have to pick a side. But picking a side does not mean providing only one side of the argument - if you thought that it did, you have fundamentally misunderstood what the GRE is asking of you. Picking a side means you consider both the proposal in the question, and the counterfactual, and then come to some sort of judgement about which, ultimately, is more important using examples.
  2. I appreciate the kudos, but in terms of the second essay, I would ask you to read what you have written again and ask yourself; have you answered the question? In reality, I think you only managed to begin doing so in your concluding paragraph. I shall ignore the grammatical errors in this case, because I realise that the past few hours are not sufficient time for you to suddenly possess a better grasp of the structure of the English language. "Technology is an insidious ailment that has become pervasive in our society." Beginning with this is a mistake. You have not yet provided any justification for this whatsoever; all this tells the examiner is that you are predisposed to hyperbole, and unsubstantiated claims. Not exactly conducive to performing well in a grad school test... Secondly, immediately after your introduction, in which you describe improvements in transportation technology, you launch into a segue against the ills of social media. Social media, online news platforms etc. all fall under the remit of information communication technology - and you do not once point that out. You conflate technology in general with one specific type of technology, and then discuss the negatives of only that one type of technology. You also do not once mention the positives, especially in regards to online news media - given all the of the arguments you levy against it can also be used to decry print media, and one of the benefits of online news sources, is that it gives access to a wider array of sources than traditional print media. That is not to say the negatives you mention are unfounded - they are good arguments against the prevalence of online communication services and media in our daily lives, and the lack of regulation of content. But it is not a balanced essay. Furthermore, I would worry that you conflate content with the technology itself. Sure, a lack of rigorous journalism and no regulation of online news print is concerning. But that does not assign an inherently negative connotation to the technology supporting the provision of said information. All that tells me is that unregulated information communications technology is a concern. Consider; does the fact that my favourite news site hosts an article saying vaccines are bad mean that web-server technology is bad? No, of course not. It means that the lack of regulations concerning content is a problem. Furthermore, "technology is a massive invasion of privacy", are you still talking about online web-services and social media here? Let me tell you, I really do not think my microwave is a massive invasion of privacy. Or the new SpaceX rocket. Or self-driving cars. Again, you are not specific as to what kinds of technology you are referring to. Even if I assume that you are still talking about web-based ICT technology, I still have not seen an alternative view. Sure, google analytics monitors my social media posts, the websites I view etc. and this information is sold to advertising companies to build a comprehensive portfolio of my online activity. Ask yourself; why? It is, of course, to better target advertisements. Now, is that necessarily a bad thing? I have to say, ten years ago I was a young teen and it rightly annoyed me all of those pop up adds trying to sell me a new car, a home on some fancy estate etc. Why? Because they had literally nothing to do with me or my interests, and were never going to generate click through sales etc. Now I get advertisements telling me when my favourite clothing webstores are having sales, when a journal like the Economist that I read regularly has an offer on subscriptions. The ad I see at least five times a day at the moment? The University of Glasgow's business school. Apparently if I apply now, I'll be given a £1000 scholarship. Much more useful than an advert for some fancy home that I will never be able to afford in today's housing market!! You finally get around to addressing more than just web based ICT technology in your concluding paragraph. Which is silly, quite frankly, as your conclusion is not the place to introduce new ideas. It is where you come to some sort of judgement based on the things you have already discussed. I think the key issue here however, is your concluding sentence; "we must all ask ourselves this, the technology we use is it causing more harm than doing good?" Firstly, why on earth is your conclusion a question? The point of this essay was supposed to be to answer a question. Not to come up with a question that you would rather answer. Furthermore, I am not sure where you got the idea from that a good concluding sentence might be to ask whether technology is doing more harm than good; as that was not the question you were asked. The question you were supposed to be answering was "Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated." Not 'is technology good or bad', 'is technology causing harm'. What the question asks, is for you to consider scenarios in which technology may have made life simpler - i.e. robotic vacuums reducing the time needed to perform domestic tasks, self-driving cars and sat-navs, which are supposed to remove human error from road use, mechanised production equipment for use in factories to simply the production process, development of faster and more convenient air transportation - not only for moving people, but also for the international shipping of goods. I quite like broccoli, the kind I buy in my supermarket is flown in from Spain so I can still enjoy it out of season. What are the alternatives? Where technology has made life more complicated? Sure! Web-based social media platforms are one kind of information technology that has made our lives more complicated! Arguably so are smartphones - which means your boss can always reach you by email even when at home and away from your desktop. Or on vacation. Other complications may arise from those same technologies that confer a benefit in one scenario; I quite like the development of cars. I dislike walking. Unfortunately we now have traffic congestion, and rising pollution levels in major cities - reducing air quality and so our quality of life. Consider; you did not once define technology, and you have again taken a single viewpoint and run with it, only considering the alternatives within your concluding sentence. Even then you have not considered the alternative view of the type of technology you chose to analyse, instead finally getting around to addressing alternatives types of technology and acknowledging they may not possess the same ills as social media. I think what would help you in future essays is to begin with a statement of purpose. Work out what the question is actually asking and write it down. This will force you to focus your answer and your thoughts, rather than letting them run away from you. tl;dr; Great essay on the ills of ICT and web-based media; unfortunately that wasn't the question.
  3. I would check out an English grammar website and make sure you read over some of the more basic rules. This is not intended to be an unkind criticism of your writing, merely, there are several obvious errors and places where the phrasing is awkward and clunky. Secondly, answer the question. Your conclusion says it all really; "universities should make a vast number of electives available for students". This is the closing statement for an essay throughout which you have justified a certain view. Unfortunately, whether or not universities should make a vast number of electives available for students was not the question. The question was Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying. Not, should students only take courses in their major, nor, should the university provide a wide range of electives. My major may be economics, but I took a series of advanced mathematics courses and an elective in economic history because I was interested in studying those. They were outside of my 'major'. However, a course on modern political discourse is outside of my major, was an offered elective, but was something I had no interest in studying. So I didn't. The university did not make me. So what is the counterfactual to the question above? Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying? Well, can you think of a circumstance in which the university should require students to take courses outside of those fields they are interested in studying? Note, no mention of majors is made in the question. What about concerns over merit goods? Students may not place value on certain courses, but the university may feel they know better than an eighteen year old student what is good for them. In this case they can behave paternalistically and require a certain number of core credits. It isn't about studying inside or outside of majors - after all, students can double major, take minors etc. The question is whether or not there is any benefit to forcing students to study things that they are not interested in studying. Perhaps students do not wish to challenge themselves? Perhaps they only wish to study those things they are good at? Perhaps the university wishes to force these students to display a basic competency for many disciplines. Perhaps a basic advanced math component should be mandatory, because those wishing to go on to grad school in a STEM subject or the social sciences must have this, but incoming freshmen may not know that, or may not yet know whether they wish to do so? Perhaps the university wishes to prevent students only taking introductory classes in many disciplines, and graduating with a 4.0 for which they have not had to work very hard. If I was marking the essay my first impression would be that you have some interesting ideas, but had in fact rewritten the question in order to answer the question that you wanted to answer.
  4. If there are any current students of the Universities mentioned above who would be willing to engage in a round of hurt/heal against the others, please list below the reasons I should pick one over the other. I've already got an unconditional admit at Bayreuth that I'll be rejecting, an admit at LMU that I am unsure whether I'll accept, and am waiting to hear from TUM, Bonn and Mannheim. Oh and Tuebingen. But that is for sure a backup. So far I think my preference is for Bonn (Quantitative Economics), Mannheim (Economics), LMU (Economics), TUM (Economics and Policy), Tuebingen (Economics) The math content for me is important, because I want to work as a Quant; and Mannheim's Msc Economics seems to have almost as much maths as Bonn's QE, so I think they're definitely my top two. Though, TUM said they allow students to pick up additional classes without needing to separately apply for a degree program, so I could also technically complete a minor in Mathematics there. My only concerns about TUM and LMU is how expensive Munich is? I have applied for accommodation through the Students Union, but if I am rejected there is no way I can afford to privately rent a room (700 euro a month is more than I pay in London). I was considering driving my brothers camper-van over and living at a camp ground if I can get international insurance, because that honestly seems to be the only reasonable option to keep my rent under 500 euro a month. I don't mind doing this - I've lived out of a camper-van before for months at a time in South America, and it was kind of like being on a permanent holiday. Sucks that I'd have to go to the gym every day to shower, but I could do with upping my gym time from once or twice a week anyway. How do current students there manage? Do you live in the suburbs and bike/get the train in? If so, is this a realistic option? Where in the suburbs should I look?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use