Is there any chance someone could score my issue essays and provide feedback?

[ALou]

Hello everyone,

 

So I am an Australian Citizen and standardised testing is totally new to me.  I am working my butt off to sit the GRE as part of my Occupational Therapy Doctorate application and hoped I could get an idea on where my two essays would score and any feedback so I can improve. These are the first two I have written and I wrote them under exam conditions. I haven't written an argument yet as I am still trying to get my head around them.

Thank you very much in advance.
 

Issue Essay #1

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.

 

The statement that our reliance on technology is reducing our ability to think for ourselves is a flawed statement due to its broad and generalised nature.   It is better stated that technology can support our thinking, in the case of medical clinical reasoning frameworks.  Or that technology can reduce our ability to think independently in the case of our reliance on spell check, calculators or GPS devices.  However a more accurate overall statement is that depending on the application and the individual, technology has the ability to both foster efficiency and improved thought processes, or it has the ability to hinder and diminish our thinking.

 

Firstly, technological advances in medicine and healthcare include sophisticated clinical reasoning pathways that allow complex support for practitioners' own clinical reasoning processes.  When a patient presents with a complex condition, a practitioners' thinking is fostered through the ability to validate their diagnoses and treatment decisions using software that collaborates thousands of evidence based practice examples to arrive at a series of the best possible management strategies.  In this case the practitioner must still possess their own independent thoughts but they can utilise technology to clarify these thoughts and thus to also learn from the information provided by the clinical reasoning software.  In this case the argument that technology limits our thinking does not hold true.

 

In contrast to the benefits of technology for clinical reasoning, it is easy to see why one may argue that our reliance on technology actually reduces our thinking.  It is becoming more prominent to see children who lack the ability to spell, or perform mental arithmetic.  It is widely believed that because children now grow up with a reliance on technology, be it in the form of spell check or calculators, that they lose, or never develop the ability to think independently of such technology.   Sadly it is examples such as these that may seem more prominent than the examples of the benefits of technology.  Because such examples of reduced thinking may be more visible in today's society it is easy to understand why people may argue that technology reduces our ability for independent thought.  Therefore there is no doubt that examples such as spelling and mental arithmetic actually support the claim that technology is reducing our thinking abilities.

The reality is in fact, that there is no black and white in this argument.  Of course technology if relied upon can limit our independent thought, or perhaps worse yet, stunt its development.  Yet vast examples exist of technology fostering, and furthering our thought processes as well as complex reasoning processes, in the case of medical clinical reasoning technologies.  The challenge for us as individuals is to recognise when technology is furthering our cognitive processes, and when it is actully hindering them.  Once we have recognised the impact of technology on our independent thought it is up to us to evaluate whether the benefits of such technology outweigh the risks.  In the case of children and technology perhaps that responsibility falls with their parent or guardian. 

 

In conclusion the specific type of technology, and the use of that technology largely dictates whether our thought processes are limited or fostered.  The individual and those around them must evaluate the benefits and risks of technology and determine the best outcome for the specific situation.

 

Issue Essay #2

Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

 

The statement is flawed as it fails to account for the individuality of the person and their circumstance.  The argument also fails to highlight what is meant by 'success'.  Certainly there are benefits to the educational institution and the student if the student is dissuaded.  However there are potentially greater benefits from allowing the student to discover and choose their own path and to follow their chosen fields of study even if success does not appear certain.  It is therefore more accurate to state that students should be encouraged to work with staff in a way that fosters their education and what the student views as success, rather than to instantly suggest another field of study.

Certainly dissuading a student, who has a visual impairment, from studying fine arts and instead studying music may seem a more sound choice.  After all that would be focusing on a skill that the student possesses in full, their hearing.  One could argue that by encouraging this student towards what the educational institution deems 'a better fit' the education institution is setting the student up for a more stable study and career path with less rejections and failures, and more confidence in their own abilities.  Yet by trying to foster the most supportive environment for the student, educational institutions may be depriving them of necessary learning and personal development that can only be found through failure and having to try again or work harder at their studies.

The other approach is to encourage students to pursue study in areas they are not likely to succeed in.  This is a challenging concept, and we return to the question, who defines the success?  How can an education institution understand or measure the lengths that a student will go to achieve their studies? Can this really be predicted? Many unlikely stories of university and career success exist.  The university student discussed in the previous paragraph actually went on to study the fine arts, to the concern and discouragement of many staff.  It soon became apparent to her professors that her passion for the arts and her incredible determination to succeed despite her visual impairment far outweighed anything they had though possible.  While one could argue that letting this student pursue this degree was ultimately setting her up for failure, we can never take away from her desire and her right to pursue this path.

In reality the argument should be that educational institutions and students should aim to work together in order to establish the 'best fit' between the students goals, aspirations, and abilities, and the supports that the institution can provide to make these dreams a reality.  In the case of the student with a visual impairment, accessibility supports, increased time for assignments, and special considerations allowed her dream, initially thought to be impossible, to become a reality.

 

In conclusion, the concept of dissuading based on 'success' is highly complex and the focus should be more on discovering a balance between what the institution can offer and what the student strives to achieve.  After all surely when communications between institutions and their students are open then both parties are in an optimised position to support the greatest success.