madison007 Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 Thanks so much for your help! Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction. In our society, it can be said that “technology makes the world go round.” Daily, we are confronted with a wide array of new and innovative communication technologies; from blackberries and iPhones, to facebook and email, the possibilities are endless. The convenience of being able to chat with friends, while surfing the net, or working, causes less inclination to interact in person because it would require more time and energy. Major phone companies, including Fido and Rogers, have developed “free texting” phone plans, enabling Americans to avoid the use of human interaction when it is simply easier to send a “text”. However, communication technology does not always reduce the quality of human interactions; when communicating with long distance friends or relatives, communicating via network applications such as Facebook may be the only method of keeping in touch. Facebook was invented by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004, and it is free and very accessible to people all over the world. This networking tool allows users to share photos, send gifts, and even chat online. In the case of long distance relationships, communication technology actually serves to increase the quality of human interaction by providing a more accessible and less expensive medium in which to communicate. An important aspect of understanding the advancements in communication technology is being able to accept the flaws and appreciate the benefits. Regarding relationships between friends or relatives that live relatively close to each other, communication technology can often hinder the quality of human interaction because it is easier to send a text while multitasking rather than arrange a date to talk in person. Alternately, in the case of long distance relatives and friends, the advancement of accessible technology has served to strengthen the quality of human interaction since people are more readily able to “stay in touch.” Communication technology can greatly benefit a long distance relationship, while strongly obstructing a close distance relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibismaximus Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 Thanks for looking at this Sameer... Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction. Todays solutions in communications create the problems of tommorrow. While this is a cliche, perhaps the problems of tommorrow are already upon us now. The quality of human interaction has been degraded from human contact, sharing experiences and even hearing each others voice, to beeps and computer prompts. This is particularly true for our current communication dilemma in the developped world where individuals are equipped with smart phones that enable the user to email, text, surf the internet, and lastly use it as a telephone. Take for example the online social networking internet site Facebook. This web forum "connects" family, friends and old friend and acquaintances. However, is it really connecting people? The ability of someone to log on through a portable device to Facebook, at any instant, has degraded human interaction to vitual post it notes. Facebook, prompts you when it is someones birthday so you can leave a message on the birthday recipients wall. This has taken the place, or someone thinking about a loved ones birthday, buying a card, writing a thoughtful note, buying a stamp and mailing it. Sure, the though was there, but the quality of interaction has been degraded from a personal card to a generic post. Modern advancements in communication have also lead to an ease of communication, and an accesibility of communication never seen before. The advances of modern voice over internet protocol (VOIP) such as Skype has drastically reduced the cost of telephone calls internationally. This abdvanced method of communication, enables humans to connect over great distances where physically sharing a moment is not possible. Take for example an immigrant to Canada who has left their friends and families in another country. It can be a lonely and intimidating experience to be in a new country trying to make ends meet and develop a new life. With VOIP and very little cost, the new immigrant would be able to communicate with their family back in their home country. Skype will allow the user to call out to a landline phone, so the recipient of the call does not need to have internet. This communication advancement, benefits the quality of human interaction where it is not possible to physically share a moment with a loved one. Advancements in communications in developped countries have degraded the quality of human contact and sharing experiences with one another to text messages and vitual post-it notes. When individual live in the same city, modern communication tools such as Facebook has connected individuals in a lifeless virtual way, robbing individual to genuinely share a laugh together. These technologies would be better suited to arrange a plan to book time together, instead of share a virtual thought. The advancement of modern technology can also have the potential to do good, it can break down the barriers of distance to enable loved one to communicate over long distances, and for a fraction of the cost. Advanced communication technologies should be reserved for situations where distance or other methods are not viable to communicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 This prompt is from a practice test, my MCAT is in a few days so any help in my writing would be appreciated! Thank you for your time! Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses One of the primary philosophies that businesses go by is to maximize profit through minimal costs. Hence, as profit is derived from product or service sales to consumers, businesses employ various strategies including marketing tactics in order to increase their sales. Marketing tactics often work by understanding the needs and wants of their consumers and using this knowledge to their advantage by tailoring their marketing strategies to these desires. Knowing that consumers are prone to succumb to marketing strategies that particularly appeal to them is critical to the success of a business. The tobacco industry giant Marlboro works by this rationale. Cigarettes are not a primary need yet they derive their success largely from enticing advertisements showcasing the image that smoking portrays. As men are statistically inclined to smoking more than women, Marlboro advertisements frequently portray an individual who smokes as being macho and appealing. That is, they take advantage of the fact that the majority of men, their primary consumers, desire a very strong and masculine appeal. Hence, the success of Marlboro as a tobacco business can be attributed to their use of this weakness among their consumers. However, it is not always the case that businesses simply rely on using their consumers' weaknesses to their advantage. Some businesses, especially those who are involved in producing primary necessities, need not rely on marketing strategies to continue enjoying their success in the industry. Fuel companies, such as Shell, do not need a detailed understanding of the needs and wants of their consumers in order for them to have an increase in fuel sales. At present, there are very limited advertisements by Shell in mass media. This implies that they are not tapping into consumer's desires for fuel as a source of profits. Yet, they have been in the industry for decades now and continue to expand to various countries. Therefore, the success of Shell as a business is not brought about by taking advantage of their consumer's weaknesses. All in all, what determines whether or not businesses take advantage of consumers' weaknesses in order to succeed is the nature of the business itself - whether the service or product they offer is considered to be a primary necessity in society. Cigarettes, as shown in the case of Marlboro, are not basic goods and therefore the company needs to exert extra effort in increasing product sales. This amounts to them needing to have a firm understanding of their consumers and using this knowledge into their benefit precisely by releasing advertisements that appeal to their consumers' weaknesses. On the other hand, when the business is involved in selling basic goods such as fuel, then inevitably consumers will patronize their products whether or not they position their business strategies into tapping consumer's weaknesses. Hence, these types of businesses continue to be successful by virtue of society's need for what they offer. Hi anna8, Hope this reaches you in time. This essay was structured well and hit the three tasks in a unified, coherent way, and your resolution principle was spot on. I would only suggest being careful about you use of the word “their” and “them” – try to use the names of the people you’re talking about to avoid confusion (i.e. Marketing tactics often work by understanding the needs and wants of their consumers and using this knowledge to their advantage by tailoring their marketing strategies to these desires. Knowing that consumers are prone to succumb to marketing strategies that particularly appeal to them is critical to the success of a business. <- notice how one could lose track of who the “their”’s and “them”’s refer to). Also be sure to clearly state what you are defining in task 1 (i.e. state that you are defining what “consumer’s weaknesses” are). Also, although your examples are good, your example for task 2 could have been more specific. Score: 5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 Hi, I think my essay may have gotten lost in all the posts, but here it is again. Thought I did pretty good on it since it was an easy prompt In business, it takes money to make money. Describe a specific situation in business where it might not take money to make money. Discuss what you think determines when it takes money to make money in business and when it does not. In the world of business, a business is an organization that has the intention of optimizing its profits by providing a service or product and money often plays a huge role. Any business that starts from the ground-up requires an investment. This investment generally comes in the form of money because of its versatility nature. Money can be used to provide the necessary business supplies, hire employees and cover the costs of manufactoring or distribution. Only when the business is established or have found its niche, an area where the business excel, can the business expect to see a profit. This monetary profit could've not have been achieved without the original monetary investment. This process can be seen with Apple's Iphone franchise. Apple's decision to enter the telecommunication field at such a late period, where many companies such as Sony and Samsung have established, meant that Apple would face tough competition. As a result, Apple needed to find its niche in the market and felt that the only way it could accomplish this was to find money into its research and development team. Apple spent billions of dollars developing the Iphone's user friendly interface, including the touchscreen capabilities. When the Iphone was released into the market, it became a huge success that led to an enormous profit. It was clear for Apple that it took money to create a product that could be marketed and produce a profit. However, the busines world does not solely require one to invest money in order to make money. Many business entrepeneurs who are successful make money because of their valuable skills. These skills that are so unique, makes them one of a kind that they can themself market to make money. In the entertainment business world, many wealthy actors start their career by polishing their acting skills. Take Johnny Depp as an example. When he first started in the early 90's, he didn't have any money whatsoever. What he did have was a skill not everyone else had, a natural ability to act. This valuable skill allowed him to secure motion picture roles such as Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Carribean. His compensation for this role was in the millions because he was the only actor who could accurately portray this character. In this case, Johnny Depp didnt' have any money to make money, he had a skill. What determines whether it takes money to make money in a business and when it doesn't comes comes down to whether the business field of discussion. A business that invovles developing, distributing and marketing a product such as the Apple Iphone, doesn't solely depend on one person's skills. Instead, it requires an investment of money to cover the costs necessary to run the business. This original investment led to a development of a product that created an enourmous income. For a business such as in entertainment, skills plays a more important role in income than monetary investment. Johnny Depp, made his fortune by utilizing his acting skills and not by any money. Therefore, it is what the business emphasizes that determines whether money is needed or not to make money. Hello anto12e, sorry I missed yours. Hope this helps. This essay was successful overall. I thought your arguments were sound and your resolution was good. However your second example may have been stronger if you talked about a company in the same industry being successful for a different reason other than spending money. This would have been stronger since you are comparing two different approaches in the same field. In any case your essay was still successful. Try to spend a couple extra minutes proofreading for sentence structure and grammar. Score: 5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoughER Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 DRASTIC ACTION IS SOMETIMES THE ONLY WAY TO BRING ABOUT POLITICAL CHANGE Through-out history, certain events brought on by politics can be marked as significant on a global scale, and thereby be recognized as drastic action. These actions help to promote political change in a nation by supporting positive movement in the directions of social and economic needs. The final take-down of the Axis military in World War II by the Allied forces is an example of when drastic action was taken in order to install political change. By dismantling the Axis military, Hitler's dictatorship and Third Reich crumbled. The overthrown German government, whose use of the nation's resources was expendible to a great extent, now had the chance to recover from its ordeal. By completely dismembering the ruling government, war-torn Germany had the opportunity to recover its economy (though over many years), as well, restore its social order, and instill overall political change. Although the drastic action of WWII was necessary to bring political change to Germany, it is not always neccessary. The passing of the Canadian Health Care Act of 1984, is a perfect example of how a large, global event is not necessary to see political change in a nation. By using tax dollars, the Canadian government is able to fund a health care system where treatment for a large range of medical problems is free. This system has allowed for society the freedom free healthcare, and contrary to popular belief, has been able to be sustained within the economy. So unlike the acts in war, drastic action was not necessary for the Canadian Health Care Act to be passed in order to instill political change. When deciding if drastic action is the only way to bring about political change, a dichotomy must be considered. When a nation is facing obstacles which extend through the main party of government, the use of national resources, and unnecessary destruction of human lives, drastic action, like war, is necessary in bringing about political change. This was seen in the overthrowing of the German dictatorship in 1945. However, when a nation is faced with an obstacle which does not directly descend through the ruling party, the extensive use of national resources, and most importantly the arbitrary termination of lives, drastic action may not be needed to infer political change. The passing and continuing of the Canadian Health Care Act is an example of political change that was not brought on by a signficant and global event. Thank you! I was also wondering how many more weeks will you be grading prompts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darknebula Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 Hi Sameer. Thanks so much for helping us out! It would be great if you could provide me some feedback and a score on this prompt. Since this is my first WS attempt, it took me 50 minutes to write! The more people rely on computers, the more people become alienated from one another. Advancements in technology have given mankind the gift, or the nuisance, as some might argue, called computer. Advocates of the computer's technological miracles might argue that it has transformed this world into a "global village". Thoughts of a village should evoke feelings of warmth and love blossoming among a close-knit community where people know & help each other. But a keen observer will notice that the village the computer has produced is not quite the same. Computers have spread like a plague into peoples' homes and offices in the past few decades. Their widespread use has come at a cost to modern societies. Computer users tend to spend more time staring at a computer screen than at the faces of their loved ones. The more time people devote to computers, whether for justified reasons or not, the more they cut down on quality time with family and friends. Moreoever, many people have found a source of entertainment in the computer.Thanks to Youtube, the the living room TV is no longer needed as much. Youtube has stolen the time one might have spent watching TV with his/her loved ones. Computer has minimized opporunties for interactions with other people in social settings. It engrosses its users into a world of its own where they tend to be unconscious of their surroundings. Enter a students' lounge or a cafeteria at a university in off-peak hours and you will likely not see a very social scene. People with laptops on their laps, typing away constantly with their eyes glued to their screens will seldom take the opportunity to introduce themsleves or talk about the wheather or about thier upcoming exams. They are also very likely to feel bothered by your attempt to initate a conversation with them. It can hence be arugued that increased reliance on computers may produce behaviours that are not very conducive to harbouring social interactions among people and thus people can become alienated from one another. But to claim that computers always alienate people from one another would be questionable. Despite reducing physical and verbal communication with others, computers do offer oppurtunities for virtual interactions. For instance, social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have had dramatic effects on peoples' social lives. Such sites have provided a way to stay in touch with family and friends, whether nearby or far away, very effectively. Knwoing how a freind is feeling or what he is doing or where he is going on his vacation is just a click away. Chatting services with video call and webcam features have made connecting and communicating with other people feel almost real. Email has provided a fast and efficient alterntive to paper mail. Not only can one cherish existing relationships with people, he also has numerous oppurtunites to create new ones through the internet. Therefore, it is reasonale to argue that computers might promote social interaction rather than eliminating it in some situations. One might then ask what determines whether computers promote or inhibit social interactions? The answer is not very simple. It depends on the specific situation, preferances, and intent of the user. A self-employed single man with no family members or friends living in a studio apartment will likely find that Facebook is great to fulfill his social needs. He can find a whole new community throught the internet and get to know all sorts of people and stay connected with them. Children of a busy businessman or software engineer on the other hand might feel that computer is stealing their quality time with their father. Parents of a teenager might feel that their son loves his Facebook friends more than them. Regardgless of the situation however, the intent of the user can play a great role. If one decides to create a balance between family/freinds and computer time, he will likely not get alienated from anyone. If he however values computer gaming or internet browsing more than people, he will be more prone to social alienation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medschoolhopeful10 Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 Hi Sameer, this is another WS i've written from a practice mcat. Thanks again for your feedback! ------ Only those politicians who have learned the art of compromise can achieve their political goals. The job of a politician frequently involves initiating new policies and legislation in many different fields, from business and the economy to health care and education. During the process, politicians, whether they be mayors of a city or presidents of a country, often have to communicate with other politicians and opposing political parties with different viewpoints in order to ensure new policies are in all citizens' best interests. Therefore compromise, or the act of negotiating, is a vital tool for a politician to be successful in instating new policies and ideas to achieve their political goals. An example of a politician who needed to use the art of compromise to achieve their political goals is United States President Barack Obama. When President Obama first took office in 2009, one of his first plans was for health care reform. His new legislation involved making the US government play a bigger role in providing health care insurance to Americans. In order for this new health care legislation to pass, President Obama needed to greatly compromise on certain key aspects in order to have opposing politicians agree to the changes. In this case, since the changes to health care proposed by President Obama's health care reform were very controversial, he needed to use the art of compromise to great effect in order to achieve his political goal of health care reform. Although in many instances compromise is necessary for a politician to achieve their political goals, it is not always the case that compromise is necessary. We can again look to US President Obama for an example. Following the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama was successful in passing a temporary moratorium on drilling of new marine oil wells. In this case, because of the drastic affects caused by the oil spill on the environment and on the livelihood of many residents of states bordering the gulf, President Obama was not faced with as much opposition as the temporary moratorium was deemed necessary. Therefore, in this case, compromise was not vital for him to achieve his political goal. It is true that politicians who are skilled in the art of compromise are usually successful in achieving their political goals, but it can also be the case that compromise is not always necessary. Whether a politician requires compromise to achieve their goal usually depends on how controversial is a new policy. In the case of his controversial policies on health care reform, President Obama was required to skillfully compromise with other politicians in order to pass his new legislation. However, in the case of the moratorium on the drilling of new oil wells, compromise was not a necessary factor for him to pass the new policy. Therefore, although it is important for a political to be skilled in the art of compromise, it is not always the case that compromise is necessary to bring about political success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
answerjl Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Hi Sameer, this is from a practice test. Thanks for the feedback. Any suggestions for a better resolution? Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the press should not be required to present both sides of an issue. Discuss what you think determines whether the press should be responsible for presenting both sides of an issue. The power of the press reaches far beyond viewers of the news and readers of the newspaper. The media such as televsion, internet and newspaper have a responsibility to provide the public with a thorough view of relevant topics. This includes providing both the pros and cons of a specific topic. The media should provide individuals with two sides of an argument to allow the individual to make their own choice. For instance, the topic of the legalization of marijuana has been in debate in Canada. Television news teams have given the public knowledge of both the advantages and disadvantages of the legalization of marijuana. This information on both sides of the argument allows Canadians to make an informed decision on whether or not they support the decriminalization of the drug. In this case concerning Canadian law, the press should be held accountable for presenting both sides of the issue. The legal issue of marijuana has shown that the press should present both sides of an argument in most situations. In specific instances, however, the press should not be required to two sides of an issue. In many cases, television news reports offer medical advice to viewers based in recent scientific findings.For example, CityTv has reported that second-hand smoke is detrimental to health and can cause lung cancer. This health care information is provided to viewers and they are advised to limit the exposure to second hand smoke. CityTv is not required to report the advantages of second-hand smoke because it is clearly a threat to health. With respect to dispensing relevant health information, the media should not be responsible for presenting both sides of the issue. It is not immediately clear when the press should be responsible for presenting both sides of a specific topic. However, the press should be accountable for reporting two sides of an argument except in cases where healthcare advice is given. The legalization of marijuana represents a topic concerning Canadian law where both the advantages and disadvantages should be reported to help citizens make an informed decision. The report on the dangers of second-hand smoke represents a situation where the media advises viewers on health, and should not be forced to present both sides of the topic. In situations where health advice is given by the press, two sides of the argument is not neccessary, while in other cases, the media should be responsible for presenting both opinions of an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkelton Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Hey Sameer, I'm writing my MCAT again this week. I got a 'P' last year and I never really focused on studying for the written, so this time around I'm trying to get some feedback. Thank you very much in advance for your time. Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. The ability of a business to thrive in today's economic conditions is sometimes reflective of the motives of those businesses. Most businesses in today's world owe a large portion of their success to the ability to exploit the weaknesses of their consumers. Private health care providers are prime examples of businesses that thrive on the ability to take advantage of a consumer's weakness. Every person in this world should be entitled the right to health care, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Sadly, this is not the reality in parts of the world where economic conditions are so bad that basic necessities such as food and water cannot even be met, let alone health care. It is even more disheartening when there are developed nations that do not provide the right of heath care for all its citizens. Private health care providers are able to turn what should be a basic necessity into a multi-billion dollar industry by exploiting the fact that its citizens need health care and will pay for it if it is not available elsewhere for free. Alternatively, there are some businesses, though not many, that are able to thrive and persist for many years, without exploiting it's consumers. Non-governmental organization and not-for-profit organizations can be considered businesses that are able to succeed and provide much good for the world, without taking advantage of it's consumers. Organizations such as Doctors without Borders, is able to succeed and provide health care for many people who are not as privileged in our world without taking advantage of consumers, as its driving engine is fueled by the generous donations of people and various other organizations around the world. The need for a business to take advantage of consumers' weaknesses can usually be directly linked to the motives of that business. A business such as a not-for-profit organization, Doctors Without Borders, is sharply contrasting to the capitalistic, cut-throat private health industry. Though both business have a central aim, which is to provide health care, they go about achieving this goal by different means due to the nature of their motives. One is motivated by profits, while the other is motivated by the humanitarian need to provide help to those who cannot help themselves. Ultimately, the motives behind achieving the goal will determine whether a business will or will not exploit the weaknesses of it's consumers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Education makes everyone equal. Every person in this world is in their own way unique and different from those that are around them. Though this is a great sentiment, it does not provide much information as to who would be more more qualified in the job market. Individual differences allow us to stand out from one another, but there still exists a standard by which we can be compared to those around us. Education seems to be a the standard used in job market, as there is always a minimum requirement of a certain level of education in order to be qualified to even apply for a specific employment opportunity. In this sense, education tends to make us all equal, as it allows everyone to be of a certain caliber and it allows the employer to ensure that all candidates are of the same competency. Individuals who decide to follow medicine as their chosen career path, must adhere to all of the minimum requirements that are necessary in order to proceed to the next steps in their career path. Requirements such as pre-requisite courses and completion of a standardized test, ensure that all candidates have the same amount of background knowledge. In the application process, our education has made us all equal, whether or not we proceed through the application process, is further determined by those unique differences that we have. Although education generally makes everyone equal, differences in the education itself can be a cause for discrepancy. An educational institutions reputation usually affects the quality of the education that is provided. Highly reputable institutions tend to adhere to more rigorous standards, as they must uphold their reputation by attracting only the best and the brightest to their institutions. On the other hand, institutions that are not very reputable, may have lower standards and allow students who may not be as qualified to enroll and complete their education if they have the financial means to do so. This ends up creating a large discrepancy in graduates who come out of various institutions holding various degrees. Students from some institutions may hold the same degree as students from other less reputable institutions, but this does not necessarily mean that they are equal. This is a common problem in the medical field, when a nation that has a high standard of health care, must allow students who are internationally-trained the opportunity to practice in that nation. In most cases, in the general job market, education tends to be the basic standard for determining whether a group of applicants are equally competent and able to potentially do the job. In this case, education does seem to make everyone equal. Nonetheless, in highly-trained professions, this principle cannot be blindly applied as there may be a certain standard that is required, and differences in the standard of education may not allow all candidates to be regarded as equal. Ultimately, it is the education itself, and perhaps the career path chosen that determines whether or not everyone is equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shin Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Hey Sameer, Here are another couple of prompts I wrote about. Thank you. "To master technology is to become enslaved by it." The exponentially improvment of technology is an amazing thing. It seems to have overtaken the evolutionary process, which has been driving our species forward. It is said that the speed of computers doubles every 5 years. At the same time, computers are getting increasingly smaller every year. This seems to have occured without fail since the invention of the computer over 30 years ago. Technology has and always will be created to aid and assist mankind. However, too much of a good thing eventually becomes a bad thing. That is to say, when technology is overly relied upon one becomes enslaved by it. To master technology refers to becoming extremely profficient at using technology. An example of this can be seen in the internet literate culture in the developed world. Especially now with the huge boom of smart phones, such as the iPhone, android phones and blackberry phones, we are witness to a generation of people who find it difficult to disconnect from technology. In recent years there have been more and more complaints of spouses who seem more absent from relationships and unable to disconnect from their mobile devices, which constantly stimulate them with internet news, media and communication with internet social networks. It truly seems that some people are enslaved by this technology. At a social dinner with friends, one can often find that some friends constantly have their noses buried in their devices rather than participate directly in the social event that is occuring right in front of them. In these cases, the smart phones are having a negative impact on the users social lives, taking away from their real life sociability and replacing it with a virtual one. In these cases, although the users wish to participate in such social events, they can not give their full attention because they are constantly pulled back to their smart phones. However, it is not always the case that when one masters technology does one get enslaved by it. Technology is and always will be a tool for our use. If used properly, technology can free and liberate us. Technology can open the door for new opportunities. As shown by the boom of the internet and the recent rise in the dotcom industry, our society has and is mastering the internet. Through the dotcom industries rise, many websites have been created that, when used properly, open the doors to new opportunities. There are now a plethora of travel websites, which make traveling to new and exotic locations easier than it ever has been. There are dating websites, which allow people otherwise too busy with their jobs to have the freedom and flexability to find a partner to date. There are job searching websites like workopolis that help people find a job that is the right fit for them and also for employers to find the right employee. These examples of the internet are liberating. No longer are people confined by their geography, or work situation. With the use of these technologies, people are free to expand themselves beyond where they may have without these technologies. In conlusion, it was discussed that an over use of technology such as the pervasion of smart phones in all aspects of a users life, can enslave the user who has mastered that technology. However, we also see that this is not always the case. Some users who have mastered technology such as in the use of websites to find new careers, are actually liberated by the use and mastery of technology. The distinction is in the users themselves and how they use technology. If one allows technology to override all aspects of one's life, then technology has the ability to enslave. However, in moderation, technology can be liberating. All good things can become bad things in excess. This is true for technology. -------------------------------------------- "The primary concern of the government should be the well-being of its citizens" In modern societies citizens tolerate taxes because there is a understanding that although it may be a burden, it is going toward a body larger than individuals that is working toward the well-being of its citizens. In a democratic society, it is the citizens who elect governments and the tax dollars of the citizens that fund the government. For this reason, it should be a main concern of the government to ensure the well-being of the citizens. Well-being refers to what citizens want as well the safety and health of citizens. In most well functioning democratic governments, this is true. So much that peoples in government office are often referred to as civil servants, who work for citizens. An example of the government's main concern being for the citizens is the response of South Korea (as well as the United Nations) after an attack on a South Korean vessel by a North Korean Torpedo. Earlier this year, investigations concluded North Korea fired at and sunk a South Korean vessel killing the crew members aboard the ship, which was situated in near the North and South Korean boarder. In response to this, South Korea has increased its military vigilance as well as preparing and practicing war maneuvers with US military. In doing so, South Korea is preparing to defend itself from the North if war breaks out. The effect of these actions is to defend the citizens of the country. However, it is not always the case that a government can ensure the well-being of all its citizens. In some instances, a government action or inaction will negatively affect some of its citizens while postively affecting other citizens. In some cases, it is impossible to ensure the well-being of all citizens. In these cases, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the rights of all citizens are being respected. For instance, recently a judge in California over ruled proposition 8, which denied recognizing homosexual marital union. In doing so, the citizens who voted in the proposition were furious, fearing that homosexual marriage would threaten the social fabric. However, the gay community was delighted in this triumph. The judge justified his actions citing the proposition was unconstitutional and imposed on the rights of gay people. In this example we see that the government was unable to ensure the well-being of all its citizens. However, the government ensure to uphold the rights of its citizens, even if it was the minority that was being respresented. In the case of proposition 8, it seemed that the majority of voters (who were not gay), were imposing rules on gay citizens (who were a minority). This is similar to the majority of people not wanting to give black people a vote 40 years ago. However, in both instances the rights of the minorities over ruled the demands of the majority. In conclusion we can see that the primary concern for a government should be the well-being of its citizens. For instance to protect them from a neighboring, war nation. However, it is not always the case where the government can look out for the well being of all citizens. In some instances the well-being of some citizens precludes the well-being of others. In these instances, the government has a responsibility to uphold the rights of all citizens. Even if upholding the rights of all citizens means representing the minority of citizens rather than the majority. --------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blain_therapist Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Hey! Thank you so much for doing this. You are an awesome person to volunteer to pour through these essays. I got a 29M last year, and was held back from med school because of my writing score. I think length was a problem with the essays I wrote, i believe they were quite short. Anyways, thanks a bunch! -Cory (Finished this with 4 minutes to spare for editing) "Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news." The general consensus of canadians has been that they prefer their news source to be unbiased and completely fact based. This should be the goal of every news cooperation who wants to provide accurate and unpolluted information to the public. The Canadian Broadcasting Cooperation exemplifies this ideal in their newscasting programs on radio and television. This company is run by Canadian tax dollars and is expected to be providing the highest quality news service available. It has become the most trusted news source in Canada because it provides the raw information, and allows the citizens to take that information and interpret it as they see fit. This is a sign of respect for the public which helps make the relationship between the CBC and Canadians so strong. This is contrasted by the much criticized FOX news in America. While this station is attacked for its non-objective far-right leaning views, it still has a very large and loyal following.Why is this? Why do people continue to follow a news station that is not giving them just the facts or giving them the right to be able to interpret all of the available information as they see fit? There lies an important distinction between CBC and FOX news that explains this phenomenon. The target audience of these two stations is very different, not only in their political leanings, but also what they want out of the news. While FOX is giving an unbalanced news report, with selective information, it is also reinforcing the ideals of the people who subscribe to such a station. Viewers of FOX are not just watching the news for “the news”, but they are also watching it for rightward leaning criticisms. FOX viewers understand this, and US citizens who want a fair and balanced news report will not subscribe to such a station. FOX does not hide its political leanings, which is a very important distinction between CBC and FOX. It is important that stations such as FOX make it clear where they are coming from. CBC,on the other hand, advertises itself as “the most trusted news in Canada”. The target audience for CBC is supposed to be anyone in the country who wants the facts. The self identifiers of these companies make clear statements that FOX may be un-objective, and the CBC strives to be objective. It is the openness of these news sources that make their very different reporting styles both valid in their own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoteny Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Hi Sameer. Thanks for looking through the essays. I wrote a couple more, if you could look at them that'd be great. bare with any historical inaccuracies Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer’s weaknesses In the history of business, there have been several companies that have achieved great success (whether it be in terms of gross profit or sheer expansion of the business itself) by taking advantage of their consumers' weaknesses. These businesses make use of the principle of supply and demand to the fullest, especially when it comes to goods and services that their consumers require and cannot go without. In these cases, the businesses are aware that they are producing essential products and thus they can charge whatever prices they want, knowing that consumers will have no choice but to buy them. This exemplifies the power of the business and the weakness of the consumer. By monopolizing such necessities, business can play upon consumer weakness to achieve financial success. In the South Indian state of Kerala during the 1970's, there was a period of intense flooding due to excessive monsoon rainfall in the region. The rainwater damaged freshwater wells and caused iron to seep into the groundwater tables, leading to a lack of drinking water for many of the state's residents. At the time, a small water company called Bharat Lakes (B.L) was able to supply enough drinking water to the residents, although at two to three times the regular cost. In this time of need, many people were forced to buy the water and B.L achieved record profits, which allowed it to expand and become one of India's largest bottled water producers today. However, there are many cases in which a business does not need to take advantage of a consumer's weakness in order to succeed. If the product that the business is making is creative, innovative and generally useful, then it will attract many consumers. These consumers may not necessarily need the product, but may end up purchasing the product anyway due to its functionality and/or appeal. A prime example of this is the success of the touchscreen handheld organizers made by Palm and other companies. Although these products are not essential for many consumers, they are still popular because they provide a comfortable, innovative method of organizing and scheduling that was otherwise done by paper and pencil. In this case, Palm has managed to succeed by appealing to the "wants" of consumers, as opposed to their "needs". To conclude, it is evident that businesses may succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses, although this is not the only route to success. As with the case of Bharat Lakes, when a business is producing an item that is a necessity, it has the ability to mark-up prices and gain extra profit because consumers are forced to buy them. In this sense, the business holds power over the consumre and is taking advantage of the consumers' weakness. However, success can also be achieved by appealing to the consumers' "wants" as opposed to their "needs". This is exactly what Palm did, by creating a innovative, useful product. Education makes everyone equal In a world that is made up of people from different cultures, backgrounds and upbringings, education can be one unifying factor that makes everyone equal. However, this statement is valid only if one defines what exactly is meant by "equal". Does "equal" refer to being economically equal? Socially equal? Racially equal? Considering the value of education from a purely economic standpoint, it is easy to see that education does put people on a level playing field. Going to school provides all students with certain skills and knowledge that can be used in a job situation or in another professional program. Most professions rely on prior education so that employees have a decent knowledge base upon which to build. In modern times, the necessity of education has become so widespread that those without education are considered unequal. Consider the case of Seymour Schulich, a self-made Canadian billionaire with a personal fortune of over 2 billion dollars. Mr. Schulich graduated from university with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry and attempted to enter the world of corporate finance without much prior background. Not surprisingly, he was denied from all the positions he applied to, as he was not considered equal to other candidates, all of whom possessed at least a Masters-level degree. In order to overcome this, Schulich went back to school and pursued an MBA (Masters in Business Administration), which put him on a level playing field with other job candidates. Soon after, Schulich entered a real-estate business, which enabled him to achieve his astounding financial success. This example shows that without education, one may not be considered equal in the economic world. From a social standpoint, there are many cases where no amount of education will make a person equal to another. In many countries, women are viewed as inferior to men and do not have hope to achieve the same social status, regardless of their education. This social disparity is very evident in the eastern world, where traditional values are commonly upheld. Take the case of Benazir Bhuto, a western educated, female Pakistani politician who ran for the Prime Minister position in 2007. Bhuto was well-spoken, smart and well-educated, however, she was looked upon with disdain by many fundamentalist Pakistani groups. These people felt that she was not an equal adversary to the male candidates for the position, as she was a female. During her campaign, she was assassinated by one such fundamentalist group, something which would have unlikely have happened had she been a male. This shows the great social disparity that even education cannot overcome. It is important to look at both social and economic standpoints before saying that education makes everyone equal. From a purely economic standpoint, education may be a necessity to put potential job candidates on a level playing field. Without an education, these candidates may be considered inferior and may lose out on the position (as happened with Mr. Schulich). However, pursuing further educaiton can remedy this. From a social standpoint, there are cases in which no amount of education can overcome certain social disparities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Thank you so much for doing this! The primary goal of every business should be to maximize profit. The fitness of a business organization in a market is often measured by its ability to make profits. A business which cannot produce profit is "unfit" in the ever-competitive market and has no choice but to shut down eventually. Therefore, profit maximization must be the goal of every business organization. Dr. D. Drummond, a former chief economist of TD Canada Trust, once noted, "A business which does not aim to maximize profits can only perish." His saying was transparently illustrated by the fate of Samsung Motors. Samsung Group, one of the largest conglomerates in Asia, embarked on automobile productions in 1999. Since its beginning, Samsung Motors mainly concentrated on increasing its sales share in the automobile market, rather than maximizing its profits. The company had sold its automobiles at a significantly lower price than its competitors, resulting in very low profit margin per sale. Even before its first birthday, Samsung Motors had piled huge deficits for the its parent company, Samsung Group. In 2000, Samsung Group's owner, Lee Kun-hee decided to forfeit his endeavor in automobile industry and sell Samsung Motors to its French competitor, Renault. It is clearly exemplified, through the brief life of Samsung Motors, that the primary goal of a business should be to its maximize profits. However, certain organizations should not aim to maximize their profits. Non-profit business organizations (NPO), such as Doctors Without Borders, are a very different breed of business organizations than companies like Samsung Motors. A NPO's fitness is not measured by its profits, but its ability to aid people in need. Initially, Doctors Without Borders was established by a group of French doctors who were alerted by the deprivation of medical products and services in developing nations. Currently, the organization provides, in addition to medical services, sanitized water and food, medicinal drugs, and health education in developing countries, without charge. Its primary objective should be to provide its free good and services to as many people as possible in the less fortunate part of the world. A profit-centered goal in a NPO, such as Doctors Without Borders, is unmatched with its benevolent functions. Clearly, for certain businesses, profit maximization should not be its primary goal. Whether or not the primary goal of a business should be to maximize profit depends on the nature of the business. If the business an industrial organization which competes with companies which produce similar goods and services, its primary objective should to be maximize its profits. As in the example of Samsung Motors, a primary objective other than profit maximization would eventually result in failure of the organization. However, some businesses center their production of goods and services around benevolence. NPOs, such as Doctors Without Borders, distribute their free goods and services. Therefore, these business organizations cannot and must not aim to maximize their profits. Clearly, profit maximization is the key in survival for many businesses, but not for every business. Although, in the world of business, profit remains the most prominent examination of a company's fitness, however, not all company's fitness can be measured by the amount of profits. Hello Slimy, I have some concern over your resolution principle here. You state that some businesses should maximize profit, while others should not (depending on whether the business is in a competitive market or is a non-profit business). Although this is valid, you should always aim to come up with broad criteria that can be applied in more than one situation. This resolution is rather narrow because it leaves out a great deal of other situations (i.e. a company that is in a competitive market place, but provides a very specific, highly specialised product. Profit maximization might hinder quality of the product, which would be detrimental since clients expect a high degree of quality for such specialised products). Aim for specificity in your examples, but broadness in your resolution. Score: 4.5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Thank you so much for reading this over. This is my first essay I have written so any feedback would be appreciated! Thanks. Environment concerns should outweigh economic concerns in society’s decision making. Describe a specific situation in which environmental concerns might not justifiably take priority over economic concerns. Discuss what you think determines whether environmental or economic concerns should have priority. When Canadians are asked an open-ended list of top factors the country is facing today, the economy is always near the top of the list while environmental concerns seldom break the top five issues mentioned. For most people, economic concerns are a top-mind concern and therefore carry more political weight. The economy is found to largely control countless decisions at all scales, from the individual level right up to the federal level. Though, usually pushed to the way side, environmental concerns are considered by many to be of equal concern if not outweigh those of the economy. The old saying, you don’t know what you have until it’s gone is quite applicable. Most will argue that the long lasting effects on the environment are detrimental and irreversible. For instance, the government of Canada has recently ceased their development within the boreal forests in order to protect the survival of the woodland caribou. Recently, the caribou have become a politically important topic since much of their land has been destroyed due to the pressures of mining, logging and oil developments in the surrounding areas. Though economics would rather see development and the industry importance prevail, Environment Canada decided to hold off development to allow for the population of caribou to grow and further expand. Clearly particular countries are concerned for the diversity loss within the environment that has increased over the years and place this above the rising profit concerns in today’s recent economic downturns. Though some will argue that environmental concerns are above all else, it is just as easy to find individuals as well as groups willing to put economic concerns above those of the environmental type. The economy is a basis for driving our country’s wealth as well as our standing within the global community, its influence in decisions cannot be overlooked. This is evident through many government decisions such as cutting down parts of the rain forest in Brazil to head way for the wood cutting industry and farm lands. Though concerns were raised over ecosystem disruption and diversity and speciation loss, the choice was ultimately made to further maximize profit. The creation of these additional farming lands brought considerable money into Brazil, allowing them to create more jobs for their population and the logging industry allowed them to become international traders exporting their goods with United States and Europe. Brazil ultimately was able to further their economical situation as well as status within the world. Evidently, in this case, environmental concerns should not be its primary goal since this would defeat the country's main goal, profit maximization. Although governmental decisions within Canada do seem to be preferring a direction that may protect the environment, with focus on the diversity and habitat loss, there is no denying that on a world scale, other less developed countries system preferential weigh economic concerns over that of environmental. Every decision made at the governmental level is weighed against all the possible outcomes. For a completely developed country, economic concerns are always going to be part of the top concerns but so too are the environmental concerns. Being from a good economic standpoint, these countries are able to put more focus on developing their environmental concerns usually found further down on priorities. In comparison, those countries fighting to improve their economic status more heavily on their economic concerns. The overall decision between economics and environmental concerns are therefore based on the country’s economic stand status. Hi Forever21, Your essay addressed the three tasks but I would comment that you should spend more time planning your essay, as it seemed like you were coming up with ideas on the fly. If you are already spending time planning, perhaps try to take a more concise, simplified approach when you start writing: present only one major idea per paragraph, and only one component idea per sentence. Some of your sentences are convoluted and your paragraph structure is off. Tighten up your writing for better marks. In terms of examples and arguments your essay was successful, but try to be even more specific in your examples: offering some details about the particular situations you mention would bolster your arguments. Your resolution principle was good however you should clearly state it earlier on in the last paragraph so that the grader will recognize your resolution immediately. Score: 4.5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Hi Sameer, thanks a lot for doing this, it's really generous of you. I've actually been lurking this forum for a while and made an account just to get some feedback on my essays. Anyways, here's my prompt: Education comes not from books but from practical experience. If one is to succeed in the modern world, it is crucial that he/she receives adequate training through education. There are multiple forms of education that serve to prepare individuals in various circumstances. When one is learning from practical experience, he/she directly engages in activities related to their prospective careers, while when gaining an education from "books," he/she is said to gain a theoretical understanding of a topic or concept without carrying out any of the activities or tasks pertaining to what they are learning. In order to effectively educate someone, that is to ensure they are able to succeed in the work force by performing their required tasks efficiently, it is essential that that person gains practical experience in that area. Only with practical experience will that individual be able to successfully enter the work-force with a working knowledge of what is expected of them. For instance, upon entering college in pursuit of becoming a nurse, one is expected to gain practical experience in the health care field. Without this experience, that individual is unlikely to be able to efficiently work in that setting without practice in the activities a nurse is expected to complete. Tasks such as measuring blood pressure, heart rates, changing catheters would seem overly difficult without any practical experience. However, in some instances the role of education is not to prepare someone to enter the work-force, but rather to offer society a standard of knowledge shared by the population. The population on a whole is expected to have completed high school, and to that effect society maintains a minimal standard of education. In most cases however, courses in high school seldom offer practical experience to the students. For instance, a chemistry class in high school might offer the student a basic understanding of some chemistry principles through learning from "books". The fact that no practical experience is given to that student does not hinder his/her education, as the primary goal of the high school is to simply provide the students with knowledge pertaining to chemistry, and not to prepare the student for a career in chemistry. How does one determine when education is most beneficial from books, or from practical experience? The primary goals of the educational institution needs to be taken into considering when deciding whether or not practical experience is more beneficial than books. If the educational institution serves to ready the students for entering the work force, then education through practical experience will be most beneficial to that student. As can be seen with the nurse, who would benefit most from actually training to carry out the tasks he/she will likely have to do in his/her job. In other cases, where the goal of the educational institution is to provide a body of knowledge to its students with no intention in training them to carry out tasks that would be found in their prospective jobs, providing education through practical experience would not yield more benefits than providing one through experience. Hello MoMed, Overall your essay was good as you hit the three tasks and had a good overall structure. However, you will have to provide more specific examples for a better score. Both of your examples are hypothetical situations in which the prompt may or may not occur - you should be providing examples of actual situations that have occurred in order to strengthen your argument and maximize your score. Your second example is a bit inaccurate, since most high school chemistry programs do include laboratory work. Make sure the examples you pick are really illustrative of your arguments. Score: 4/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Thanks for doing this Sameer. Crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. Describe a specific situation in which a crime committed by an individual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government. Discuss what you think determines whether or not crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. Hobbes proposed that man and government are binded by a social contract. If man were to break a law, then he has broken the contract with the government, and vice versa. As a result, in most cases, if an individual breaks a certain law and the government were to break that same law, there should be no difference in the treatment of the citizen, versus the treatment of the government. Both the government or the citizen have broken the law, and that amounts to them having committed a crime. For example. take the serial killer Ted Bundy and the Nazi government. Both committed the crime of murder, even though Bundy killed women and the Nazi government killed Jewish people. In this case, both the indivdual and the government broke the same law, and both acts were judged to be crimes. However, there are times when even if the same law is broken, the act should only be considred a crime if committed by an individual. This is often the case when the government is attempting to gain valuable intelligence or prevent someone from getting harmed. Take for example, the case of a terrorist cell in England. The English government authorized the use of wire tapping of the cell's house. The information that was gained was used to save the lives of numerous individuals. If an individual was to wiretap a house, it would be considered a crime. In this case the government's act should not be considered a crime as it performed the act of wiretapping with the intention of saving innocent lives. What should eventually determine whether or not crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments, should be whether or not the act committed by the government was done in order to benefit the greater good. In the case of the Nazi goverment, their atrocious acts were not done for the greater good of its people, but out of hatred for a group of their society. As a result, their actions should be considered a crime. In the case of the wiretapping, the government did so in order to benefit the people. As a result, it should be the intention behind the act that determines if a crime commiteed by an individual should be considered a crime if done so by a government. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- A good movie usually teaches a moral lesson. Describe a specific situation in which a good movie might not teach a moral lesson. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the quality of a movie depends upon its ability to teach a moral lesson. A movie is a powerful form of media that is often used to tell a story. Often times, the story told by the movie contains a deeper, meaningful lesson that the wirter would like to portray to his audience. In fact, many critics will often judge a movie by the depth of its plot; that is, the movies ability to show the audience it has lesson it wishes to teach. For example, many critics regard "Lion King" as one of the better movies made. The reason is because "The Lion King" does more than just entertains, it teaches. Many individuals have enjoyed the movie for its plot, and have also drawn moral lessons from the actions and experiences of the characters. However, there are times when a good movie does not have to teach, but merely entertain. In these cases, the movie will often be one that seeks to thrill and excite its audience. For example, take the movie "Saw". Many would be hard pressed to find any moral lessons from the characters or the plot of the movie, which deals with a maniac getting individuals to kill themselves. Despite the lack of the moral lesson, "Saw" has proved to be one of the more succesful movie franchises, and many critics and audiences would regard it as a good movie. What ultimately decides whether or not the quality of a movie depends upon its ability to teach a moral lesson is the genre of the movie. The genre of the the "Lion King" is a children's cartoon. The most successful children's cartoons are often the ones which entertain the young viewers, but also to teach them some basic moral principles. The genre of "Saw" on the other hand, is a horror movie. The most successful horror movies are meant to thrill and scare their audiences, not to teach moral lessons. As a result, it is the genre of the movie that determines whether or not the quality of the movie is dependant on the movies ability to teach morals. Hey there sarup, Great essay. You hit all the major points and provided a very clear, concise treatment of this prompt. Your examples were specific, relevant, and your resolution was right on point. Good job! The only thing I would suggest is to include just a few more lines discussing the relevance of your examples, just to be sure the grader really gets you. Score: 5.5/6 Another good one. Here however I would suggest that you give a bit more detail in your first example (i.e. how The Lion King taught a moral lesson, what it was, etc.). Also be careful of colloquial language - try to stick to one tone throughout your essay. Again, try to add more discussion of the relevance of your examples. Score: 5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Hey Thanks a lot for doing this, here are two essays that I've written (2nd and 3rd time trying), I've noticed a lot of rambling and repetition as I find out I never have time to proofread my work after I am done so this is all raw with the 30 min. time limit. Creativity flourishes best in circumstances where freedom of speech is openly permitted. Creativity is an integral attribute to any type of discussion between people. To first understand the value of creativity, one must first understand the value of varying opinions. Let us first define creativity as the presentation of many different opinions by people which have equal value. As well, freedom of speech can be regarded as people being able to present their ideas and opinions vocally in front of others who are part of the discussion. Typically, creativity does flourish best in circumstances where freedom of speech is openly permitted because different people have different opinions. In situations where brainstorming is crucial, people have different perspectives and opinions on how a situation should be run. A great example of this is an undergraduate group project that consists of about 5 - 7 people coming up with presentation ideas for an anatomy presentation. Topics such as how to present and what topics to include need creativity involved. In this case, freedom of speech where all group members contribute can provide many different ideas that can be used, and therefore creativity flourishes in this circumstance. In a group size such as this, most people feel more comfortable speaking their opinion as many studies have shown the majority of people have trouble with public speaking. Therefore, this is a prime example of when freedom of speech results in creativity as its best. However, there may be some instances where freedom of speech is not the best route to obtaining creativity. In a group such as a middle school class of 30 coming up with a skit to be presented to the rest of the school, there are those who don't feel quite as comfortable sharing their opinion in front of so many people. In this way, creativity may be stifled by those who are not afraid of public speaking and present first to the rest of the class population. Although freedom of speech is openly permitted in this case, the small group of good public speakers may potentially influence the rest of the class and some opinions may never be presented. An idea of how creativity may flourish best in this case would not be to have freedom of speech openly permitted, but to have each student in the class write down their own ideas and opinions about how the skit should be presented. This gives a more equal opportunity for all varying opinions to presented where creativity is better shown. In this case, the medium of having to write down opinions instead of vocally presenting their opinions show that creativity flourish better than with freedom of speech. So how does one know when freedom of speech should be openly permitted to encourage creativity flourishing at its best. The circumstances differ in a small group from a large group. In the small group as seen in the anatomy group example is that diverse opinions are important for creativity at its best, but most people feel more comfortable in a smaller group to present their opinions. In a larger group circumstance, many people may feel embarrassed to present their opinion in danger of others disagreeing with them as well as the problem of public speaking. In a large group, creativity may be better achieved through a medium such as the example of writing down ideas in the class skit example. One must remember, however that in either circumstance, different opinions should be equally valued, which is the heart of creativity. The essential concern of a democracy must be the protection of human rights. When one first thinks of human rights, food, shelter, and health care are usually the first three things attributed to it. These three things can be seen as needs for basic human survival. The basis of democracy relies on the idea of equality for every human being regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Therefore, the essential concern of democracy should be to protect human rights. An example of the protection of human rights is those who are out of work and on welfare. The purpose of welfare in a democratic society is to help those who are deficient in basic needs of survival. This eventually links to the idea of protection of human rights. People who are on welfare or unemployment insurance typically have little to no income to support their living needs and the idea of equality from democracy calls for those who are more fortunate to help these people. This is realized in the form of tax payer's money which eventually lends itself into the form of a welfare cheque. Most modern democratic nations and societies have some sort of regulation in helping those who are in need of help and this, therefore, is evidence that protection of human rights should be an essential concern of democracy. However, times in which the protection of human rights may not be the essential concern of democracy is becoming more prevalent in the modern society. Ever since the time of 9/11, the attack on the twin towers in New York, security has been heightened at airports, and all other border securities. Some of these heightened security measures seen in many democratic nations across the globe may be a violation of human rights. A prime example of this is the recent ban on veil covering face wear in public in the country of France. France is a democratic nation but the lower courts has recently passed such a law which may be in violation of the protection of human rights. The French Council of State has indicated that this may be indeed a violation of the freedom of expression and religion against women wearing Burqas (a full face covering veil) practicing their religion. The reason behind this ban was security issues in identifying suspects involved in terrorism. Clearly, this example shows that security is of a higher concern than the protection of human rights in the French democracy. So, when can one say that the essential concern of democracy must be the protection of human rights? For generations, it seems that for policies involving every day living should indeed be the essential concern as people should be entitled to their basic human rights. However, this line is blurred in modern times with the concern of security. Heightened security has seemingly been more and more of a concern for democracy than protection of some human rights as seen in the ban of face covering veil in France. From recent observations, there may be sufficient reason that this blurry line should be crossed when other rights of human beings are threatened. Therefore, general every day living typically relents itself to the protection of human rights, yet in times of when security is needed, some protection of those rights may have to be given up. Hello imagination07, I have a concern with the way you’ve interpreted this prompt: you state that “free speech” is being able to speak freely in front of others, however I believe the prompt is talking about the social right to free speech, i.e. that right granted to all citizens under the constitution/charter etc. Your interpretation thus limits your discussion to matters of individual creativity in a specific circumstances (i.e. group work in school) rather than the broader social discussion of creativity in society. You will often find that prompts can present either a very specific argument, or a broader social commentary – I would suggest discussing the broader implications of the prompt as this will get you the highest score. In terms of time, you might buy some extra time by being less verbose in your descriptions of examples. The grader does not usually need excess amounts of detail about the examples in order to understand them. Try to be more concise in your description of examples, and leave more room for discussing the relevance of the examples to your arguments. In terms of examples, remember that in order to score well you have to provide specific examples of actual situations that have occurred that support and refute the prompt, not hypotheticals. Hypothetical examples will limit you to a 4.5 at best, despite good writing otherwise. Score: 3.5-4/6 <- I’m not sure if an AAMC grader would consider this discussion adequate because you don’t comment on the right to free speech in general Again, try to save some time by being less verbose. You agree that some of your sentences are rather lengthy and repetitive so try to pace yourself as you write and be aware of your sentences as you go. Your arguments and resolution principle were good here however your example for task 1 should be more specific. Score: 4.5/6 P.S. check out Prep101’s free study aids posted at http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44117 and at http://www.prep101.com/mcat/study_aids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Hi Sameer,Thank you for grading my first essay. Here is a second one, I hope to have a improved somewhat. Thank you for doing this. Prompt: In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. Describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen A democracy is stated as a “government of the people, and for the people”, the people representing the ordinary citizens of the nation. It is a form of government where people choose their political representatives directly via elections or indirectly when their chosen candidate elects another official, normally at the federal level. When people directly choose their representatives, the chosen politician has a very high probablity of being one among the masses. For instance, in constituency in Scarborough which comprises highly of minority ethnic groups, majority being an asian community elected Raymond Cho as their councilor, who himself has asian ethnicity. This is quite clear in the sense that people would want to chose someone as their representative, who can closely associate with them and daily requirements and problems. However, when the politician is chosen at a federal level, where people cannot directly vote for them the chances of resemblance with the ordinary citizen decrease. A striking example of this is the yesteryear president of India Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam, who did not only belong to minority religious group but also was a highly educated physicist. This stands in contrast to the largely uneducated or undereducated citizens of the nation. But Dr. Kalam’s term at the office was highly appreciated by all and was offered a extra term to serve, which he declined. He although did not resemble the ordinary citizen but was easily able to relate to them and think about reforms for benefiting them. Therefore, if the politician bears a resemblance to the ordinary citizen or not depends on the process through which he is elected in a democracy. If an election is direct people will tend to elect a candidate who they think can close relate to their needs and the politician will likely bear a resemblance with the voters. If, however, the politician is elected indirectly the chances of resemblance with the voter decreases, and the candidate who can best act towards the benefit of the nation and its people is elected into power. Hi S B, Overall your writing is good but I feel you could have offered a deeper examination of the topic. The issue of direct vs. Indirect election seems a bit narrow as even in a direct election, people may choose someone that doesn’t necessarily resemble them but does represent them (for various reasons you could discuss). Try to go more in-depth for more marks. Also I would suggest avoiding the use of local examples – AAMC graders will not be able to appreciate the ethnic diversity of Scarborough, ON. Try to use more generally recognizeable examples. Score: 4.5/6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendo Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Hi Sameer, My MCAT is on Thursday, so this is my last chance for WS feedback. Any tips you can offer will be greatly appreciated! Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies. As our world grows and develops, technology has become an increasingly important device within our society. Contrasted with our world in previous centuries, modern society operates in a completely different manner than past generations. While on a large time-scale these changes appear to increase efficiency and improve the overall functionality of the world, when analyzed on a smaller timescale such as within a few decades, these rapid changes can pose serious problems and often alienate many individuals. For example, consider in the mid-1990s when home-computer technology became widespread and the use of emails widely replaced the previous format of manual paper mailing. On the surface, these advancements seem to have simplified interpersonal communication and be entirely positive, but at the same time many older citizens who had lived their entire lives using the older mailing format became alienated and confused with the new technologies. As a result, they were then forced to attempt to learn an entirely new skill set just to function and exist within modern society. Effectively, even though email development signified rapid and dramatic technological advancements in communication methods, it equally exemplifies the newfound confusion and complications associated with adapting to technological progress. This being said, there are times when progress can in fact manage to bring mainly positive benefits and a net simplification. When we examine social laws and constructs, and their advancement over recent decades, we can see that many radical changes have been enacted. Most significantly, in the 1970's human rights movement, the concept of racial equity within North America was revolutionized. Individuals who were previously criticized and alienated for their racial identity began to be accepted and positively integrated into society, effectively dissipating the social complications associated with prior laws. In this situation, we can see that the social progress that occurred in the 1970s managed to reduce social complexity and have a net positive impact on society, effectively simplifying more than it complicated. In addition, these social laws were integrated into society gradually, giving older and existing citizens ample time to acclimate to the changes. A comparison between the two scenarios yields the conclusion that the nature of the progress itself dictates what kind of impact the advancement will have on society, and the magnitude of any negative complications that may accompany the positive progress. If the progress is rapid and technologically-based, then past experience has shown us that it is likely for the fast changes to alienate many older and existing citizens, effectively creating equal amounts of, if not more, complexity within society that it's intended simplifications. However, if the progress is based around social laws and beliefs, and the change becomes integrated into society gradually, then all members of society are able to gradually adjust to the new changes, thereby leaving no one alienated or excluded in the new order, and effectively simplifying society and the world with little accompanying complications. __________________________________________________________ Laws cannot change social values. In today's modern world, despite the many various laws that have been introduced in recent decades, only a select handful of them have actually managed to change social values and the public opinion. As a whole, new laws are usually created in order to restrict negative behaviour that has become too abundant within society. This implies that at the time of development for a law, the widespread public opinion on the issue is completely opposite to the perspective of the new law, resulting in widespread disparity between newly imposed legal regulations and social values. No matter how much effort is put into enforcing the law, in most cases the social belief on the issue cannot be changed that easily, and the public opinion will remain in opposition to the law. A longstanding example of this is the predominance of underage alcohol consumption in North American culture. While for many years the government has strictly prohibited these behaviours and enacted laws to prevent such events, no decline in the occurrence of underage drinking has been observed. This implies that social pressure to engage in the behaviour severely outweighs the legal consequences outlined for defying the applicable law, and that no amount of legal enforcement will change the social belief prevalent among teenagers with regards to alcohol consumption. This being said, there are some times when the introduction of a new law can in fact change pre-established social value. An excellent example of this can be seen in Canadian culture, with the introduction of anti-racism and equality laws in the mid-twentieth century to restrict negative social behaviour towards First Nations individuals. The introduction of these laws did not only restrict and penalize and negative behaviour that occurred towards citizens of First Nations descent, but they also managed to kickstart a gradual social change resulting in a widespread acceptance and integration of First Nations culture into modern Canadian society. From this, we can see that it is in fact possible for a law to change the public opinion and widespread belief, it is difficult to accomplish, but it can be done. One of the main reasons why this law was so successful in enacting social change was that there was a large portion of the Canadian population, mainly those who were in fact of First Nations ancestry, backing the law and placing a large social pressure on it's acceptance and integration. The key difference in determining whether or not a new law has the power and the potential to enact social change and alter social value depends primary on whether or not there is a backing social pressure for the law itself. If the law is strongly opposed by the public, much like the case of underage alcohol consumption, almost all social pressure is working in opposition to the law, thereby ensuring it's limited success or effectiveness. However, in the case of racial equity laws in Canada, there was a large social pressure arguing in favour of the law and pushing for it's public acceptance. This extra power and social force supporting the law effectively ensures its integration, and it's ability to eventually change social values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diu12345 Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Hey Sameer, thanks for your input for my last essay. Here is another one, the example is a little bit bs..but hopefully I made it work...THANKS, really appreciate your comments. Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. Through the lens of history, we often observe many regulations our federal government enforce on private enterprises. Some of these regulations ensure that ordinary citizens are properly treated with fair services instead of being taken advantage of by giant corporations. In this context, necessary services must be understood as regular citizens’ dependence on private companies to carry a certain lifestyle. Take the case of the Canadian pharmaceutical budget cut, when many pharmacists’ salary was cut to lower drug costs for average citizens. Pharmaceutical distributors such as Shoppers Drug Mart, along with pharmacists, have been complaint by many individuals to charge an obscene amount of money for distributing drugs to citizens. As a result, government stepped in to lower the distribution costs and was praised in doing so. By capping the maximum distribution charge, the government is regulating private enterprises that are serving citizens. On the other hand, there are certain situations in which government should not be responsible for introducing regulations to service-providing corporations. For example, Rogers corporations—Canadian telecommunication company—outsource many of their services in the customer relation department to India. Although many citizens complain that such a move will decrease the amount of jobs to Canadians, the Canadian government did not intervene because not only do companies have legal rights to hire members from other countries, interventions between India and Canada will be problematic. Some other examples of outsourcing are seen in the famous clothing companies Nike. Since there are no global regulations on outsourcing, the government cannot be held responsible for not regulating service-providing companies like Rogers. Nevertheless, there are some elements of truth that government should regulate companies that many citizens depend on for their services. It is fair to expect the government to stand up for their citizens when they are being taken advantage by giant corporations like Shoppers Drug Mart: by lowering the distribution fee, the Canadian government provided justice to their citizens. However, in cases of international diplomacy, as seen in Rogers Corporation outsourcing services to India, there should not be any expectation on the government to intervene. This is because global regulations are difficult to achieve and international diplomacy is often a delicate process. Governments, therefore, should only regulate companies’ policies unless international diplomacy is involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imagination07 Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Hey Sameer, thanks so much for the tips for my last 2 essays, here's another one, hopefully I cleaned it up a bit more and not repeating myself so much. It was actually quite hard to think of a synthesis and an antithesis example, hopefully it doesn't fare too badly. In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. A democratic society draws images of a politician elected into power by a general population consisting of ordinary citizens. Typically, the ordinary citizens are more willing to vote for someone who they can connect with in some way. An ordinary citizen would follow the tradition of family values, good education, and good relationships with others. Of course, that idea of a citizen voting for someone similar to them can be extrapolated to their own beliefs, race, age, etc. The recently elected president of the United States, Barrack Obama, embodies many of the traits an ordinary citizen sees themselves relating to, such as a good relationship with his wife and children, strongholded on the foundation of solid family values. Obama also has a good educational background which allows him to be in a position to be a good politician and leader of a nation. In addition, he also had an appeal to the younger generation as well as the black community where a high percentage of those two groups voted him into power. It can be clearly seen, that ordinary citizens want a politician who resembles them to represent them in government. However, although ordinary citizens most of the time are complacent with a politician in the government who is similar to them, there are times when the population wants someone who is different. This idea emerges to the surface when change is needed and when a strong leader who stands out from the rest of the public is preferred. An ordinary citizen will cry out for change, yet is not willing to take action to implement the change. This is when someone who is willing to act on the impulse of initiating change becomes elected into power. An example would be Elijah Harper, an aboriginal politician from Manitoba who began the downfall of the Meech Lake Accord by abstaining his vote, causing the deadline to pass and ultimately crumble. The accord contained many implications that would disfavoured the aboriginal peoples community, and this politician was willing to act in a drastic measure to prevent it from passing. Other politicians who did not support the accord eventually followed suit shortly after in voting against it. Elijah Harper is now seen as a successful politician who was willing to take the leap of faith, something an ordinary citizen would be hesitant to do to protect those who elected him, and also respected for his courage and determination. So when can one determine if a successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen or not? The distinction can be made by contrasting how ordinary citizens vote based on the politician's social background or their willingness to take unorthodox measures in support of the people who voted them into power. In Barrack Obama's case, many ordinary citizens voted him into power because they wanted representation to be closely aligned with their beliefs and values. In the second case of Elijah Harper, he became a well respected and successful politician not primarily based upon his social background, but his willingness to take extreme action in order to stand against an accord he felt was unfair, something many citizens would cry out against, but not willing to actually do anything. From this, one can see that citizens weigh politicians differently based on how similar they are to themselves, or how willing they are to take action for something they believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbara Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Hey Sameer, thanks for marking these essays. The more people rely on computers, the more people become alienated from one another. Technological advancements with computers in recent times has allowed for them to become more than just tools used in businesses to make their workers more efficient. With today's computers, users can not only engage in business oriented tasks such as word processing, but users can also find a myriad of programs that can provide hours of entertainment. As a result, computers are becoming an integral part of society. While computers may seem to make the lives of their users much easier, a side effect of such technological advancements includes the disconnection of people due to reduced face to face interaction, more commonly known as alienation. People may find themselves alienated from others due to the ability of a computer to provide one with hours of entertainment and the ability of computers to communicate quickly. Instead of phoning others in a business office, one may now send a quick email, thereby reducing the need of human interaction. Instead of going out to a theatre to watch a movie, one may now quickly download one from programs such as iTunes and watch it whenever it is convenient. The computer has now become a viable and popular option for entertainment and communication and it reduces the time people spend with others. While the computer can alienate people from one another due to its ability to its communication and entertainment applications, some computer programs actually allow for people to connect with one another in ways that were previously not possible. The popular social networking website, Facebook, allows for its users to add friends and communicate with them in many ways including instant messaging, sharing videos and photos, and organizing events. Facebook allows for people to add friends from across the world and in some cases, it allows for one to find old acquaintances with relative ease, a task that previously took much time and effort. In this case, a computer application brings people together rather than separating them apart. The use of computers has grown drastically in the past two decades and its uses are still growing today. Many computer programs, such as email or the ability to download popular media, reduce the need for interaction with people causing those users to become alienated from others; however, some applications, such as Facebook, allow for increased social interaction between users. The ability for the computer to alienate people from one another depends greatly on the purpose in which the computer is used. It is based on the intent of the individual whether or not the computer is used to alienate people or to bring people together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imagination07 Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Thanks so much for doing this! Here's another two from a practice exam! The primary goal of every business is to maximize profits. The fact that a goal of every business is to make money cannot be disputed. The purpose of starting or investing in a business is making profit, and often times, this is the primary goal. Originally, the Tim Horton's chain of stores was a coffee shop that sold donuts, cookies, and other pastries to the general public. As well as it did financially, there were also many other chains of stores that offered similar goods, such as Starbucks, Second Cup, and Country Style to name a few. As time went on, the Tim Horton's management decided to add many items to the menu such as sandwiches and soups in order to attract more people. It then became a place where people would not just grab breakfast, but lunch and dinner as well! Just recently, some Tim Horton’s stores in Ontario have added the American famous Coldstone icecream to their menu. Clearly, this points to the primary goal of maximizing profit by offering a larger variety of goods for people to spend money on. Just like Tim Horton's, many changes made to existing businesses have the primary motive of attracting more customers in order to maximize profits. Although the goal of a business is always to make profit, sometimes it is not the primary goal. An example of this are some specialty stores that offer products which are not widely available. An example of this is the Figure Skating Boutique in Toronto, the only one of its kind that sells figure skates and other related attire in the city. Although one of their goals may be to make profit, their primary goal is to fulfill the need of skaters in the city by offering skating merchandise they cannot find anywhere else in the vicinity. The store is also filled with knowledgeable people involved in the sport, ready to help and offer services to the customers. The common thread between all businesses is to offer goods or services available for purchase to customers. In exchange for their products or services, they make profit through this mechanism of supply and demand. Often times, the goal a business is to maximize profit, which is usually seen in cases where there are competing businesses offering similar products and services. As seen in the Tim Horton's example, there are many other similar businesses out there to compete with their earning potential. This leads to the incorporation of new goods which would eventually attract more customers and ultimately turn into more profit. However, some businesses do not have much competition, and these specialty businesses offer goods and services that are in demand by a group of people, but not widely available. The specialty store of selling figure skates is limited to only one store in all of Toronto, and therefore, their primary goal is not to make profit, but to fill a need in a certain group of customers. In the end, profit is the key to a successful business, yet it is not the only determining factor for survival. Advancement in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction. Gone are the days of love letters and fanciful poems, modern times have given the society the convenience of communication technology. The cell phones such as the Blackberry and Iphone are now so prevalent that they have become the primary mode of communication. The quality of human interaction has been drained from face-to-face interaction between people into screen-to-screen communication. This has ultimately lead to a decrease in exposure of human contact, resulting in the quality of human interaction suffering. An example of this is back before advanced communication technology was invented, sending a friend a birthday card would consist of thoughtfully writing a birthday wish customized with stickers and coloured pens. With the modern convenience of e-mail, this has not turned into a robotic ceremony of sending cookie cutter birthday e-cards with a few clicks of the mouse taking less than a minute. It is evident in the above example that the time spent in communicating to a friend through a message has decreased and thus, the quality of human interaction has followed suit. However, not all advancements in communication technology is harmful to the quality of human interaction. Take the very same tools that may have reduced the caused human interaction to suffer and extending it across the globe; it is seen to have an opposite effect. The similar mediums of e-mail, cell phones, facebook, and other online social websites are what connects friends or perhaps even partners together when separated by long distances. There is little opportunity for the parties involved to meet face-to-face, so the only other alternative is to communicate through modern communication technology which was not available in the past. Instead of waiting weeks for a letter to arrive, all it takes is a click of a button to send a wedding invitation to a friend half way across the globe. Husbands who have to travel away to work can still keep in touch much more frequently than in the past with their wives the method of webcamming. All that can be said is that the quality of human interaction has actually improved in these cases where in the past, without the technology, those same relationships would have suffered. So it is quite clear there are different instances where advancement in modern technology can either reduce or enhance the quality of human interaction. In short distance relationships where face-to-face interaction is a viable option that most communication technology has caused a decrease in the quality of human interaction. On the other hand, these same devices have enhanced the quality of human interaction between long-distance relationships as seen with the example of the webcam. It is important then, to distinguish that advancement in communication technology is not a bad or good thing in itself, but how it is used depending on the circumstances. With short distance relationships, it may cause human interaction to suffer, but enhances human interaction between people separated by long distances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anto12e Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. Describe a specific situation in which a crime committed by an individual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government. Discuss what you think determines whether or not crimes committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments A crime is a wrongful act performed by an entity. This entity is indistinguishable in terms of the law. A person who performs the crime is just as punishable by law as a similar crime committed by an organization or government. This is the definition of a true judicial system. A system where the act itself is the determinant of a crime and not the entity. Therefore crimes that are committed by inviduals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments. For example, if an individual tortures another individual during a time of war to uncover sensitive information, his act is considered a crime based on the rules outlined by the Geneva Convetions. This act of torturing is also considered a crime if a government performs it. Most notably done by the United States of America recently during in Iraq. Numerous reports by local officials and soldieres revealed that the USA military used torture as a means of uncovering sensitive information from local citizens. As a result, those military officials who were responsible for the tortures where put to trial. The act of torture itself, regardless of the entity who performed it, was considered a crime by the eyes of the Law. However, sometimes a crime that is committed by an individual might not be perceived as the same when it is performed by a government. This is especially true when the reason to perform the crime is supported by the people that the government represents. When USA announced war on Iraq, it was obvious that there would be cases of death due to the warfare. However, these deaths were not considered a crime because they were supported by the Americans. The Americans who were devastated by the attack on the World Trade Center ( which was linked to terroist group in Iraq) wanted payback in the form of an invasion. They supported the government and felt that anything that was conducted, including crime, was necessary. On the other hand, if an individual were to commit a murder base solely on his own support his act would be considered a crime. In a case like this it shows that a crime committed by an invidual might not be considered a crime when committed by a government. Whether a crime committed by individuals should also be considered crimes when committed by governments is determined by the issues surrounding the act. When an act is performed, there are many factors that must take into control. If a global treaty exists that clearly outlined what was considered a crime, then a government or an individual who performed it is acting wrongfully. If the act Highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which highly selective universities would not be more beneficial to society. Discuss what you think determines whether or not highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities. A university is an educational instutition that is designed to further develop inviduals so that they are able to contribute to society in meaningful ways. This would benefit society by increasing the economy and the workforce. However the costs to maintain a university is substantial and is often subsidized by the community. The community often sees this subsidization as an investment because the students who graduate have the potential to be able to contribute back into society. This potential that a student has is often correlated with their academic successes or their community involvement. Therefore a university that is highly selective of its students are more beneficial to society than those who are less selective because it selects students who have a higher potential from those who do not. For example, University of Toronto, is argubably one of the most prestigious university in Canada. It therefore is highly selective of who it wants to admit to the instution. Students are often selected by their academic successes and community involvement. As a result the university is able to develop individuals are are seen to be successful. This selection criteria has led to many reknown graduates who are able to benefit society such as the prime minister Stephen Harper. In this case, the investment that the community has provided to the university has produced a graduate who has clearly provided benefits to a society. If however, the university was less selective, candidates who the community "invested" in may not contribute to society and thus affect society in a non-beneficial way. However, sometimes a university that is highly selective may foster an atmosphere of competition that can create graduates who damage society. Again, the University of Toronto has numerous programs that are highly selective of its students, such as the Law program. This has led to students who are forced to compete with each other for admission to the program. The students develop a sense of competition where they may only help themself rather than others, the society, thus damaging society. They may also cheat on tests and assignments so that they could obtain higher marks. These attitudes may lead the path to lower morals in their job. Thus, it would lower the potential these graduate would be able to contribute to society. In this case, a highly selective university is detrimental to society than a less selective university. Whther or not highly selective universities are more beneficial to society than less selective universities depend on the degree of selectivity. A university that is extremely selective in its students can create an atmosphere that negatively affects its students. The students may be pushed to do unquestionable acts in order to gain acceptance. These acts may hinder their educational development in such a way that they are unable to contribute to society in meaingful ways. A university that is selective, yet isn't impossible, is able to select students who are greater potential to contribute to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madison007 Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Thank you for your feedback! Education serves to restrict the human mind rather than to free it. Describe a specific situation in which education frees the human mind. Discuss what you think determines when education restricts the human mind and when it frees it. “Knowledge is power” and the main purpose of education is to instil in its students an extensive database of knowledge. However, in the school system subjects are often objective with little room for imagination and creativity. Students are often criticized for “thinking outside the box” and praised on academic success which depends solely on memorization of facts and acceptance of rules. Regarding the topic of creationism, many public schools were introducing the theme of intelligence design into their biology curriculum as part of their discussion on evolution. However, this has been widely controversial as the theory of intelligence design directly contradicts creationism and many religious views. Currently, the teaching of intelligence design is banned in public schools across America, and although this may ease controversy, it is also preventing students from learning about this topic from both sides of the debate. Out of fear that students may begin to question their religion, education restricts the teaching of such subject matter. Although it is possible for the objectivity of some education systems to restrain the human mind, many educational subjects are also able to broaden the human mind. Many common school subjects, such as mathematics and art, are free from controversy and can provide students with an immense amount of knowledge. It is through education that students are able to learn about the successes and failures of past scholars, and use the knowledge of others in developing their own ideas. In many public school curriculums, art is offered from the lower grades to the higher grades and is deemed as necessary in encouraging creativity and imagination. By studying works of Picasso and Van Gogh, as well as drawing techniques, such as pointillism and shading, students are able to learn about famous techniques, while still having their abstract works be encouraged. One must regard education critically; although education may restrict the human mind by not teaching controversial topics within the school system, education can also provide students with essential tools to their development. In the case of controversial topics, students must understand that education may be hindering their unbiased knowledge of such topics and they must take the initiative to seek knowledge about such topics elsewhere. Other knowledge that is relatively free from controversy and shared in the curriculum should be embraced and seen as a way of broadening the horizons of one’s mind. In order to receive the most out of education, it is important to be able to distinguish between when the mind is being restricted and when the mind is being nurtured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.