GRE Issue Essay Evaluation - Please rate my essay

[thorne]

Truly appreciated! Really need some advice on how to write a superb essay

Topic:

Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.

Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

Essay:

While it is not entirely unreasonable to have long term leaders and visionaries, the benefit of installing mechanisms to limit the duration of power is not entirely absent either. To impose a restriction of five years does include an element of impetuosity, but that does not imply that we should lift all constraints.

Long term leaders can surely bring benefits. For example, many infrastructure projects take decades to pay off, let alone five years. If leaders can only maintain power for five years, there is no incentive for leaders to take initiatives. However, a length constraint does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that no roads or dams can be built. For example, in the U.S., after Franklin Roussevelt, a president can only serve for eight years. However, the interstate highway system was built under Dwight Eisenhower. The U.S. also landed a man on the moon for the first time under the Kennedy Administration. Therefore, the right answer is not to all or nothing, but find the goldilocks zone in which a good temporal constraint can be found.

On the other hand, having new leaderships once in a while brings benefits as well, as George Washington willingly gave up his leadership after two terms. A new leadership prevents the centralization of power. If a leader were offered a lifetime role, there is no reason for him or her not to abuse such power. On the other hand, he or she could inject his or her followers into the administration or system. Even worse, people within the administration would naturally turn themselves into the leadership’s slaves, for the unbridled power that the leaders possess. For example, in communist China, when Mao Zedong ruled and commanded the nation, diversity of opinions was barely existent. Worse, raising objections or disagreement would entail lifetime imprisonment and even death. The result was a long term decline of the national economy and persistent poverty, as initiatives to reform were scant and always rejected under the unchecked power of Mao.

The claim also invokes the need for revitalization. Many projects are long-term in nature, such as infrastructure, but new ideas and perspectives are often needed, even on those long term projects. Nokia was not able to innovate and catch up with the smartphone revolution, walking dismally into its demise. However, companies such as Apple and Google were keen on innovation. At Google and Apple, leadership roles are constantly changing and they are quick to grab talented individuals, as they understand the need to revitalize their companies. In this fast spaced world, change is the only constant. As competition becomes more fierce and companies are fighting show demonstrate their new products on the stage every now and then, new leaders are needed to provide unconventional and perspicacious insights.

The claim is extreme and inflexible in imposing a five year constraint and neglects certain aspects of long-term planning. However, the answer is not the remove all constraints and introduce unchecked power. Finding the right temporal length is the key, as we can see how the lack of innovation and revitalization and the unchekced power of a dictator could introduce more harm than good. Therefore, the claim to limit power is sound and reasonable, but needs to be nuanced to include flexibility.