Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'greprep'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Comment Card
    • Announcements
  • The Cafe
    • City Guide
    • IHOG: International House of Grads
    • The Lobby
  • Applying to Graduate School
    • The April 15th is this week! Freak-out forum.
    • Applications
    • Questions and Answers
    • Waiting it Out
    • Decisions, Decisions
    • The Bank
  • Grad School Life
    • Meet and Greet
    • Officially Grads
    • Coursework, Advising, and Exams
    • Research
    • Teaching
    • Writing, Presenting and Publishing
    • Jobs
  • The Menu
    • Applied Sciences & Mathematics
    • Arts
    • Humanities
    • Interdisciplinary Studies
    • Life Sciences
    • Physical Sciences
    • Professional Programs
    • Social Sciences

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL









Found 2 results

  1. A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. //Issue essay The issue presented is that the same curriculum should be enforced through a country for all students till they join a college . I agree with the issue at hand to a reasonable extent but not completely . The reasons for which I agree with the issue to an extent is mentioned below. The first reason is that many nations currently follow an academic system where different curriculum are available and some are better than the other. They are better in the sense that they cover different topics and topics are covered more in depth thus giving their students an edge over students of other curriculum . This will eventually create disparity between students of different curriculum when it comes to graduation level education . The students who were part of the easier curriculum would find it difficult when the bar is raised up at the college level .I believe if as the issue proposes a single nationwide curriculum is implemented till the college level , then all students will be given a fair chance . Additionally another reason is that when a nation has many different curriculum , some of them will incur a higher education cost than the other . Let's say a country has three different boards of education with their own curriculum X, Y , Z. Now assume that Y is the government board and is hence the fee is more economic . The other two boards being non governmental , their fee would vary from institution to institution and will definitely be more expensive than Y board's fee . This will now take away an opportunity from poor students who cannot afford to study in private board's institutions . They will have no choice than to settle . On the other hand , if a single board is present then the fee will be standard and will not vary from institute to institute and since the single board will be a government board it will be economic . On the contrary the main flaw with the nationwide curriculum is that it is extremely probable that the level of education would be lowered in comparison to many of the other curriculum during the multiple curriculum scheme. This level is very essential to the future of the students, if set too low then they will be not able to compete globally and if set too high many students will fall back and have no other choice than to repeat a year or so. In conclusion I would like to state that a single nationwide scheme has it's advantages and flaws . In order for it to be successfully implemented it is essential that a plan made be made to deal with a situation when the bar is set high then the students who fall back should have more options , for example they should be allowed to drop out of a few courses .
  2. Hi! I have a BA in Political Sciences, and I'm interested in pursuing an MPP/MPA, for two reasons: (1) I'm extremely interested in public policy development and analysis and (2) I wish to strengthen my quantitative skills. I'm sorry to say that while my undergraduate education was very proficient in qualitative development, it completely lacked a quantitative formation (the only quantitative courses I was required to take was a basic algebra and a statistic for social sciences intro course). I had a good math foundation in HS (algebra and trigonometry, statistics, probability, geometry and pre-calculus), but it has been more than eight years since I last touched a math book - it could be said that the scraps of knowledge I retained do me more bad than good, since I get a "feeling" of what I should be doing, but it only frustrates me to be unable to remember the basic concepts of how to do any exercise. I took the GRE last November after 2 weeks of study (I was overconfident/ignorant back then of the current status of my quant skills) and got a 144Q score (18th percentile). For the purpose of this post, assume I, as a test taker, have zero quantitative knowledge. If you all could be so kind, would you help me answer these questions? How much time should I take to prepare for the GRE? (I have read recommendations from 3 months to 1 year, but all for people with a math foundation) Where should I start? Should I even try to undertake the learning of all required quant skills? Is it a good time investment? Realistically, how much of an increase could I hope to achieve? (10 points = 154?, 15 points = 159?, 20 points = 164?) What resources should I use? I am considering using Khan Academy, Manhattan Prep Strategy Guides (2nd Edition), and if needed, Magoosh 6 month plan. Is there any guide for the math learner - not only the GRE-taking skills - that you could recommend? Can you recommend a study plan? I come from a cultural background that doesn't put any emphasis on quantitative skills or standardized testing (the majority of graduate students from local universities lack the skills to make them competitive in an international setting), and I didn't understood how following my recommended curriculum in college would affect my competitiveness for grad school. Apart from my lack of quant skills, my profile is competitive: I won an elite national scholarship (USA), have a 3.8 uGPA (3.9 major), have more than 2.5 years of WE in non-profits (poverty alleviation, community development and organizing and coalition building), and have strong LOR's (Ivy League grads, my state's ex-Secretary of State, etc.). I don't want to allow the thought that I can't be competitive enough to get admitted - and do well! - in grad school take hold of me. Thank you for taking the time to read this and, hopefully, provide me with some answers!
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.