jon_snow

Hello Please, I received this email from a professor concerning my admission results: "Dear John, Thank you for your e-mail. You are being recommended for admissions into our MS program; we do not directly admit students into our PhD program from the bachelor’s degree. Unfortunately, we are not able to offer you an assistantship at this time, but if one becomes available, you will be very competitive for it. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Best regards, Russell Green" What is the best line of action for me, please?

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. Education is the backbone of any nation’s success. Education is responsible for providing the knowledge, skills and training necessary for a nations development. The topic above raises the delicate issue of whether all students below the college level should study the same national curriculum. Indisputably, this policy has its proponents who argue that, students below the college level are not mature enough to take decisions about their educational development. Hence it would serve a nation better to decide one universal curriculum for all students. Notwithstanding the fact that some individuals make wrong educational choices which might affect their future, this occurrence is easily avoided with the aid of good counselling at educational institutions. Therefore, I argue that a nation with the same educational curriculum for all students would be highly detrimental to the development of capable citizens to run the nation. First of all, humans are complex organisms, everyone having disparate interests, dreams and ambitions hence requiring a curriculum to fit these specific needs. I would like to point out that, this variety of interests is key to the holistic development of a nation. After all without diverse ideas it is impossible to solve major life problems. To illustrate, some students may have interest and talents in painting or music, others might have interests in mathematics or science or even history. All these fields together serves as the driving force behind a great nation. A nation cannot be great if everyone were a teacher, or a farmer, rather a good mix of different experts serves for a great nation. In addition, should individuals abandon their interests to follow a national curriculum whether it favours their interests or not? If that is so, this will lead to the loss of numerous hidden talents in a greater of students. Consequently, it is pretty obvious that students be given the opportunity to select a preferable educational curriculum among a variety of curricula. Furthermore, if a singular national curriculum is to be developed, how will it be designed? Specifically, will the curriculum favour a broad based system where a bit of each field is studied or will it be limited to a few fields deemed important? Either ways can be problematic. To illustrate, a student exceptionally good at some fields but poor at others might have his/her educational growth stymied by those unfavorable fields in a broad based system. Conversely, in a limited system, an individual with talents in a field not encompassed in the curriculum might never unearth that talent. Moreover, the cliché, ‘Jack of all trades master of none’, tells us that generalizations never aid in tackling serious problems which require specialization. Admittedly, opposing school of thought argue that students below the college level are too young to make right career decisions. However, the above argument does not constitute a sufficient support to the claim that general national curriculum can ensure better career decisions for an individual. Because the only way one can make better career decisions lies not in the type of curricula but rather in knowledge of oneself and aid from parents, teachers and counselors. In conclusion, an educational system can be likened a sculptor; A good sculptor must know and understand the differences in his raw materials whether wood, clay or marble and sculpt them accordingly to produce a desired end product. As Einstein famously said, “Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid.”

Great Essays. I'm John and i'm also preparing to take the GRE in August. Your essays were good particularly the issue essay. But i Think you can improve your transition a bit. Maybe by starting a paragraph with a transition word like 'First of all', 'To begin with' etc. Also you always repeat the phrase 'For example' you can mix it up a bit by throwing in 'To illustrate', 'Specifically' etc. Finally you could have dropped in this bible quote that states, 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another' to spice the essay. Overall it was good. For the argument essays, you did justice to some fallacies in the prompt. However some fallacies were not exposed very well. To begin with, I feel you could've emphasized some points better. i noticed you introduced a very strong idea in your concluding paragraph. the point that the factors 10 years ago are totally different from the factors currently. Economic factors, Social factors, Technological factors each of these can be used to severely weaken the argument that homes sell faster at Adams than at Fitch. in addition to changing factors we also have changing human tastes. The house sold ten years ago might have been out of taste during that era as opposed to the one he sold last year. Also for the revenue argument, your example about different companies having different price ranges was good but not compelling enough. From my point of view, you could've have dwelt much on the fact that the statistic given was for only last year. To break it down, just by comparing revenues of companies from just one year is not representative enough for one to conclude that a company is better. What if for the past 20 years this is the first time that Adams are experiencing a greater revenue than Fitch. You get my angle. That could've have strongly weakened the argument. Finally, the argument that Adam is better than Fitch based on their number of employees was well weakened by your response. JPPT can you kindly read my issue submission and provide comments to it for me. That will be highly appreciated. Also keep posting more essays I'll read them and provide my thoughts. Thanks

As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. This topic raises the controversial issue of whether the world’s reliance on technology to solve problems leads to the deterioration of humans ability to think for themselves. Indisputably, technology has rendered some portions of the public lazy. Some individuals depend highly on technology in their day-to-day activities and without technology might be stymied in their attempts to solve problems. Notwithstanding the hindrance that absence of technology might pose to solving real life problems, this does not reduce humans ability to think for themselves. Thus, I generally disagree with the opinion that a world without the aid of technology will be a world with more thoughtful humans. Therefore, I argue that the presence of technology rather serves as a booster to the thinking ability of humans; making them more effective and efficient in tackling problems. First of all, technology in the hands of thinking men leads to great strides and leaps in human development. I would like to point out that, considering the era before the advent of sophisticated technology, human development was slow if not at a standstill. However, the dawn of sophisticated technology notably during the 20th-21st century lead to improvement in human creativity and problem solving ability. To illustrate, let us look at the example of a vaccine for polio. Before the availability of technology necessary to develop such a vaccine existed, no one dared to imagine or think about a cure despite the numerous human lives lost to polio. In stark contrast, with the presence of technology, humans thought, dreamt and came up with ideas to work out a vaccine to solve the problem of polio. Consequently, it is pretty obvious that the presence of technology does not reduce the thinking ability of humans Furthermore, technology has vastly improved communication making it possible for great minds at different ends of the globe to share ideas and think together. Specifically, research work in all fields has been vastly improved. Intellects from different origins can publish their ideas and findings on internet based platforms allowing for experts in that field to interact with one another, piece ideas together and solve global problems. Moreover, both common sense and personal experience have told us that the connection of more varying ideas about a particular problem can help overcome that problem swiftly. Hence, all evidence above demonstrates that technology does anything but boost human thinking. Admittedly, opposing school of thought argue that technology makes humans lazy and underuse their thinking faculties. An example being, the use of computers to perform mathematical calculations instead of humans doing it themselves. However, the above argument does not constitute a sufficient support to the claim that humans think less when technology is present. Because most of these calculations performed by computers are mundane and tedious and do not require the creative thinking ability of humans. If anything, they amount to a waste of brainpower on unnecessary calculations. In conclusion, although technology leads to humans avoiding some tasks requiring brainpower; such tasks are usually mundane and do not exhibit higher thinking. In fact, with the aid of technology humans are able to think up and imagine things that during a time of low technology were considered unfathomable.