My Issue Task Essay is Complete BS (Please grade lol)

[Arm457]

Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying.

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.

 

The phenomenon of academic interest is one that wavers with age; few people, on the contrary, have an idea of what exactly excites them at an early age. Individuals who yearn to study Physics, might become inspired by their prerequisite Classics course, and vice-versa. This is why the idea that the student should have the freedom to choose his or her own fields of study is contrary to the university's goal itself, which is to, at first, give the student a fundamental base of knowledge before letting them loose in the academic jungle.

If universities did somehow allow students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying, it would greatly narrow the adventure of being able to search for one's interests, which is as pivotal as finding and studying that interest. Indeed, the search itself holds great virtue. Furthermore, many academic departments are interdisciplinary in nature. Many college students are unprepared to make salient connections between their economics and political history courses in high school. This is why many universities need to "re-train" or "re-route" the minds of their Freshmen class to look at each subject not as a physical stand alone complex, but as an amorphous form of ideas that are shaped and reshaped in a variety of forms as to offer malleability to solve the world's issues.

A university achieves many great things by offering a "common core," or set of classes that each student who wishes to graduate is required to take. First, a common core insures the university that every student moves forward in his or her major with a preconceived set of ideas that are deemed important by that university. This is important because a university will then be able to frame future activities (academic and non-academic) on campus to the benefit of the whole rather than the part. For example, if a university required all first-year students to take an international politics course, and then sponsored a speech by an important Prime Minister afterwards, the university will be able to know that their students are equiped to at least have a basic understanding of the ideas being conveyed by that Prime Minister.

Second, a common core builds unity on campus that might have been absent otherwise. Perhaps at no other time will a student strictly interested in science be able to exchange ideas and concerns with a student strictly interested in law. A common core class could see the students in the aforementioned example come together to forward the interdisciplinary nature that universities uphold as the future of academia.

Giving students in any university immediate control of their academic well-being would not be fruitful under any circumstance. On the contrary, a university's ultimate position is to guide a student, first through a "common core," and then through a (hopefully) reinforced view that their primary academic goals are indeed the ones true to their minds and also their heart. 

 

[Kaimakides]

 

 

The phenomenon of academic interest is one that wavers with age; few people, 1(on the contrary), have an idea of what exactly excites them at an early age. Individuals who yearn to study Physics, might become inspired by their prerequisite Classics course, and vice-versa. 2(This is why the idea that the student should have the freedom to choose his or her own fields of study) is contrary to the university's goal itself, which is to, 3(at first,) give the student a fundamental base of knowledge before letting them loose in the academic jungle. 

 

Hey Arm457, I'll reply to your essay, which I thought was pretty good.

 

1: This phrase in this context is potentially confusing. I returned to the first clause of the sentence to check whether you had implied that many people do have an idea of what they want to study at a young age. After parsing the sentence altogether your meaning is clearer, but the phrase "on the contrary" suggests contrast between your two clauses--a contrast that simply doesn't exist.

 

2: This is very wordy. Try to avoid phrases like "the fact that," "this is why," and "the idea of x." They, and similar phrases, can almost always be cut out, making your writing more concise.

 

3: You probably mean "primarily," or "most importantly," as opposed to first (in succession, in order).

 

 

 

If universities did somehow allow students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying, it would greatly 4(narrow the adventure) of being able to search for one's interests, which is as pivotal as finding and studying that interest. 5(Indeed, the search itself holds great virtue.)6( Furthermore, many academic departments are interdisciplinary in nature.) Many college students are unprepared to make salient connections between their economics and political history courses in high school. This is why many universities need to "re-train" or "re-route" the minds of their Freshmen class to look at each subject not as a 7(physical stand alone complex),8(but as an amorphous form of ideas that are shaped and reshaped in a variety of forms as to offer malleability to solve the world's issues.)

 

4: Your meaning gets across, but you would do better to write dampen, hinder, short-circuit (perhaps too colloquial), cut short, or something to that effect.

5: You make this claim, but don't support it very much. Tell us why the search itself is so important!

6: This is a strong point.

7: I'm not sure how subjects can be considered physical, and the phrase "stand alone complex" is a very strange one. Why not say something like, "Despite the perception of college freshmen, seemingly independent disciplines are often deeply related."

8: Not clear what you mean here. Rewrite.

 

 

A university achieves many great things by offering a "common core," or set of classes that 9(each student who wishes to graduate is required to take.) First, a common core insures the university that every student moves forward in his or her major with a 10(preconceived set of ideas) that are deemed important by that university. This is important because a university will then be able to frame future activities (academic and non-academic) on campus to the benefit of the whole rather than the part. 11(For example, if a university required all first-year students to take an international politics course, and then sponsored a speech by an important Prime Minister afterwards, the university will be able to know that their students are equiped to at least have a basic understanding of the ideas being conveyed by that Prime Minister.)

Second, a common core builds unity on campus that might have been absent otherwise. Perhaps at no other time will a student strictly interested in science be able to exchange ideas and concerns with a student strictly interested in law. A common core class could see the students in the aforementioned example come together to forward the interdisciplinary nature that universities uphold as the future of academia.

9: "That every student much take before graduating," is more concise and leaves out the bit about whether or not students want to graduate. We can take for granted that they do, and in any case it is not relevant to the argument you make. So we can save time and clean up your sentence by omitting it.

10:  "Preconceived" has certain connotations of insularity or obstinance that are not relevant or appropriate here. Best to replace this word with another one.

11: This is an interesting example, but it is weakened by the fact that it is very hypothetical. Sure, the reader might say, if schools regularly invited prime ministers to speak on campus, then the Common Core would be important, but since most schools don't do things like this, lacking a Common Core is not that important. I think it is more effective to frame this point in terms of the opportunities having a Common Core offers to universities. You might say something like: "The Common Core establishes a broad knowledge base that administrators can then capitalize upon. Once they have mastered the fundamentals, students stand to gain more from sponsored intellectual activities such as lectures and speeches outside the classroom, and this in turn enhances community"-- or something like that. This bit at the end about community would then segue into your next point.

 

I hope this was helpful.