Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[Laura126]

Thanks for your feedback! This was my first writting sample attempt.

 

 

 

In an environment where knowledge is power, educating the population equally can level the playing field for individuals. Provision of educational resources allows equal propagation of information and diminishes disadvatages that can result from unequal distribution of knowledge amoung a community. The effects of a lack of education can be seen in communities amoung the United States. Low income communities with less funding provided for education typically have higher crime rates, and students see less success in future careers. Where educational funding is high, students are typically better prepared for adulthood and are more successful. These inequalities are created by educational differences. It is probable that creating equivalent learning enviromnents would lessen the difference seen between these communities. Another example of the creation of equality through education can be seen non-developed communities in Africa. There are many non-profit organizations whose primary mission is to teach sustainability and family planning. The effort stems from the philosophy that education creates equality. By teaching how to plan sustainable families, among other life lessons, the quality of life for individuals living in developing countries can be greatly improved.

 

 

Education is cricitcal for a success in the later years of life. Children must learn how to tie their shoes, arithmetic, and spelling. Teenagers must learn to drive and how to effectively make decisions. In early adulthood, individuals choose a career path and proceed in specialized education. A person bound to become a lawyer must go to law school, and a future businessman to business school. In post-secondary education, you are surrounded by peers with similar goals and aspirations. In each lecture attended you sit next to your future competition. If education creates equality, then each graduating class should be equally qualified to enter into a career in their related field. This is not so; every student is not equally qualified when they graduate, although they received the same information, attended the same lectures and completed the same projects. Simply learning facts and procedures cannot creat equality among collegues. There are other factors that play into having a successful career. Personal characteristics, that are not taught at an institution but are developed over years of growth are often just as important when seeking out employment. Drive, ambition, compassion, logic, critical thinking are just a few beneficial characteristics that cannot be soley derived from education. As well, some individuals seem to have natural abilites that give them advatages over their peers. Be it genetics, or just the environment they were raise, natural affinities or abilities towards a particular area of concentration can be far more advantageous than a regimented education.

 

 

Education plays a critical role in determining how an indiviual will live out their life. Without proper knowledge, it is impossible to make proper decision in all aspects of adult life, including child rearing, finances, religous endeavors, and career paths. Provision of equal education to every member of a community allows for more equal opportunities. Unequal education distribution is a major cause of division among the successful and less successful. Education, however, is not soley responsible for equality. It is one of many factors that play into the differences among individuals. Although education is a critical factor in the creation of equality, finances, genetic predispositions and childhood up-bringing can all have an effect on creating of inequalities among individuals

[Ahhdumb]

Grade 1 is the perfect example of a level playing field. Each student is entering class for the first time and each is presented with the same information as everyone else. The teaching provided does not cater to any one individual and therefore provides each student with an equal oppurtunity to succeed and do well. At this point any one of these students could be a future doctor or lawyer. It is simply a matter now of the students taking advantage of the oppurtunities provided to them. Inevitably not all will take advantage of this equality. But next to actually somehow forcing each student to become motivated, schools do all they can to provide an equal oppurtunity to each of their students. Schools can not make the qualities of all its students equal but it can offer them all an equal oppurtunity to succeed. However as schooling progresses from elementary education to post secondary, this equality of oppurtunity will become increasingly smaller based on the students performance in previous years.

 

University is a prime example of when education splits and divides students rather than making them all equal. The competition for limited spots and resources in the university creates differences in equality between students. When looking at the requirements of admission to medical school it is clear that not all students have an equal chance of getting in. A student with a C average is not in any way an equal to a A student in the eyes of medical school. Therefore the university is creating inequalities in its students by dividing them into groups based on academic performance. Even some entry level classes impose grade restrictions which serve to limit the equality of oppurtunity provided to the students. Students of varying academic achievement are clearly not presented with equal oppurtunities within the university. This necessitates the conclusion that the university is not in fact making everyone equal but is doing the opposite.

 

When considering when an education will make everyone equal it is important to look at not the equality of students but they oppurtunity for equality they are provided with. In elementary school each student is taught the same information and given the same, equal oppurtunity to suceed as any other student. Although as any grade distribution will show, not all students perform equally. This distribution is not a fault of school in failure to provide equality but rather a fact of life that some students will be more motivated or gifted than others. But the fact still remains that education make everyone equal in that everyone has the same oppurtunity for success and everyone else, it is just a matter of whether this oppurtunity is taken advantage of or not. However as education furthers into university the equality of oppurtunity is significantly lower in that it becomes llimited based on previous perfmoance

 

any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

[dw88]

Hi there,

So I'm not going to lie I despise these prompts, politics is far from my strong point and I could stare blindly at this one for 30 minutes easily. Fortunately when I was talking stuff through with the family this weekend this "manitoba politician" came up (his names Elijah Harper after closer investigation to make sure I wasn't totally lying and I still don't know how accurate I really am). But anyways here it is -

And thanks in advance for any feedback.

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means.

 

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 a political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end.

 

In the world of politics, people are remembered not only for their feats and blunders, but also for their methodology particularly when unusual and questionable. Because of this, it is usually the case in politics that using unsupported methods will not be justified by the outcome. Thus, the result of using questionable means to achieve a successful result is usually still negative. Evidence supporting this includes situations where governments are able to increase local wealth however the methods are later deemed harmful to the environment. In this situation the citizens who benefitted from the governments actions will frequently neglect the outcome and show disapproval for the government.

 

Alternatively, questionable means can offer a unique and memorable approach to address important issues. When the Canadian government tried to pass legislation which was deemed unfair by the aboriginal settlers in Manitoba, and an aboriginal politician in Manitoba decided to fight to against it. Knowing that he would be unable to convince the government, he stubbornly refused to give his minority vote and caused the deadline to pass. After his actions, many frustrated Canadian politicians saw others beginning to join his stance and ultimately the law failed to pass. This politicians means were highly questionable and no doubt unwelcomed by much of Canada, however the result turned out to be so positive that these actions are actually responsible for his good reputation.

 

Ultimately, the means a politician uses are always examined closely and any deviation from acceptable usually has a very punishing effect on reputation and credibility. The exception to this rule appears to be that if the result is very beneficial and no other means were available. As with the Manitoba politician, he knew any other method of getting his opinions expressed would fail and believed his cause was extremely valuable. Once others began to share his views of the value of his fight and the futility of any alternative means, his stubbornness became justified. However, when the outcome is not grand, the cost of getting there is large or better methods are available, the politicians unsupported means will not be justified.

[Avery]

Hi Avery,

It seems that you have made some logical arguments to address task 2 and a clear task 3. However your support/explanation of the experiment was almost lost in your explanation of your example. I would suggest that you take a more structured approach in which you explain the statement, use an example, and relate the example to your explanation clearly and concisely. In all I was unconvinced in your support of the statement. As well, I would suggest that you avoid using a “contrary” example in your task 1: try always to use an example that supports the prompt.

Score: 4/6

 

Thanks so much! I'll try to work on that

[Purplehaze]

Hi Sameer,

 

Hope its ok to post different prompts from the ones you've posted. If it is, then here is one I wrote:

 

Nations often resist new approaches to solving social problems.

Describe a specific situation in which a nation did or might attempt to solve a social problem with a new approach. Discuss what you think determines when a new approach would be the best way for a nation to solve a social problem.

 

Be it positive or negative, its is in our nature as human beings to resist change. Once we are accustomed to dealing with issues in a certain way, any deviation is most likely to be met with some form of resistance. This characteristic of ours has been carried on to our governments. In most cases, nations have a tendancy to resist approaching any social issues they are having to deal with in a new way. Take for instance, the anti-AIDS campaign that has been implemented in Botswana for the past two decades. One of the earliest methods of AIDS prevention was teaching adolescents the "ABCs" of AIDS: abstain, be faithful and condomize. However, this teaching has shown to be ineffective in several African nations, including Botswana, that are utilizing it. Regardless of this fact, Botswana continues to teach its young citizens to abstain, be faithful and condomize.

 

Unlike Botswana, there have been nations that have taken measures to finding innovative methods of approaching their social problems. Take for instance, the civil disobedience movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. In order to free his nation from British rule, Gandhi did not opt for the more common and obvious method of war. Instead, Mahatma Gandhi pioneered a new method of peaceful resistance and nonviolence that eventually resulted in gaining India its independence.

 

The question remains: when would a new approach be the best way for a nation to solve a social problem? The answer depends on whether the current method being employed is effective or not. In the case of Botswana, the AIDS prevention campaign teaching the "ABCs" of AIDS has clearly been demonstrated to be unsuccessful by the increasing rates of AIDS in the nation. In such cases, it would be beneficial to employ new approaches to solving the issue, because the method currently being employed is unsuccessful. However, when it comes to methods of dealing with social issues that have shown to be effective, there is no need to develop new approaches to handling those issues.

[Wellington Boots]

Hi Sameer,

Thanks for taking the time to read my WS

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means

 

 

Politicians are faced with a multitude of difficult decisions on a daily basis, be it creating and implementing new policy, leading a nation in a new direction or taking a stance on world issues, just to name a few. Another of these difficult decisions facing politicians and the political process is to take a course of action where the final outcome is justified by the manner taken to get there. In such situations, it is often the case that such a route is not warranted; the end rarely justifies the means. The decision to invade Iraq by American President George Bush, for instance, is one such case where the end did not justify the means. Bush was acting in the spirit of defending Americans and protecting democracy and freedom from terrorists whom he believed were harboured in Iraq. This was an especially sensitive matter given the events of September 11th in New York previously. However, the decision to invade Iraq went against the evidence available not only domestically from the CIA, but also internationally from the United Nations; both sources specifically noted that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found. Nevertheless, the US invaded Iraq and it proved to be a very unwise decision as not only were these weapons not found, but it led to the Iraqi war that continues to this day, billions of dollars spent and thousands of US soldiers being killed. The end certainly did not justify the means.

 

 

However, political ends sometimes do justify the means. There are circumstances where questionable means are warranted to achieve an outcome. Canada’s decision to enact more strict fiscal and monetary policy to combat the economic downturn that affected worldwide economies in late 2008 was instrumental in keeping it economically viable. This decision was based on the evidence from prior economic events in Canadian history as well as historical events, such as the Great Depression in 1939 which saw widespread unemployment, poverty and slow economic growth. The Canadian government and Bank of Canada worked in tandem to control spending, borrowing and interest rates so that Canadians and Canada in the end would prosper. Granted, the period after the 2008 economic crisis was difficult as the unemployment rates increased, the manufacturing industry suffered, import and export trade was affected and there was some inflation, but the end was result was that the Canadian economy came out stronger and became a world leader in robust economic practice, as seen by their leadership at the recent G8 and G20 summits. Using the best, truthful and reasonable evidence to guide decision making proved a fruitful end through the difficult means to get there.

 

 

Determining, then, whether or not a political end justifies the means to achieve that end depends on whether one has sound, truthful and reasonable evidence with which to act on. If such evidence does not exist and one acts regardless, such as the case with George Bush and the Iraq invasion, then the ends do not justify the means since the burden of proof has not been established. If, however, reasonable and truthful evidence does exist to achieve an outcome, such as the case with Canada and is economic decisions, then the ends do justify the means. Whatever the case, in politics, one is best served by acting in the best interest of the nation and its people and making the most reasonable and sound decisions in order to achieve those best interests.

[KaelaShaw]

Creating equality between all people in the world is a difficult task, but the statement that "education makes everyone equal" suggests a way of achieving this. By providing everyone with an education, it provides a platform of knowledge for each individual to share, thus creating equality. An important example of this equality, or lack thereof, can be seen in the Holocaust. The people of the world were unaware of many of the horrible things being performed by the Nazis, however Hitler and his Nazi Party all had this knowledge. This provided them with a higher power, and the ability to control the situation. As the world began to share the knowledge, more and more people were able to join that platform, eventually leading to the destruction of the Nazi Party.

 

However, there are still instances where education alone is not enough to provide equality. In many of Africa's less developed countries, education for the people is a rare occurence. The funding and resources to provide the population with a solid education are non-existant, leaving the majority of people uneducated. However, this void of education leaves all members on the same platform of knowledge. But despite this common lack of education, there is still a hierarchy and lack of equality. There are leaders and rebels who will impose their power on the rest of the population using their money and weapons. These situations show that even with everyone at the same education level, equality can still lack by others finding different means to achieve power.

 

While education does have the ability to create equality, it depends on the knowledge being provided and how this knowledge can be used in the peoples' day to day life. For each person to have a basic education providing them with introductory mathematics and literacy, this will not necessarily provide equality. But, a shared knowledge of certain events such as political campaigns, financial investments and world events can allow each individual to have the same control over their own life and the quality of living in their country, and provides an equal power to each member of a population.

[kawalac]

Hey stranger. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I realize my writing isn't the most eloquent, so it probably isn't the most fun to read. I appreciate your help! Warning about my next response. I totally fabricated the example in my first paragraph because I don't know much about politics and I was running out of time and couldn't come up with anything else. Do you think that's a good idea? Just to come up with an example?

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end.

 

Inherent in the nature of politics is the fact that the end rarely justifies the means. In this context, the means refers to the actions taken by a politician to achieve a certain goal, or end. Usually, a politician’s goal is to gain or retain his or her position in office. In order to ensure their spot in office, politicians take actions that are not justified considering the end result. For instance, in 1980, an election was taking place to determine the Premier of Ontario. The leader who was already in office decided to illegally use public money to fund his election campaign. The politician was re-elected and his wrong doings were not apparent until a later time. This public money could have been spent in health care or education. Instead, because the politician had his own goals in mind, his actions benefitted only himself. In this situation, the end result did not justify the means because the cost to the public outweighed the benefit of the politicians action.

 

However, not all politicians have only themselves in mind when they make decisions. As a result, the end can justify the means. For instance, during the 1970s, a radical separatist group known as the “Front du Liberation du Quebec” (FLQ) was wreaking havoc in Quebec. The group was responsible for kidnapping political members as well as the bombing of mailboxes and the Montreal Stock Exchange. The Prime Minister at the time, Pierre Trudeau, put the “War Measures Act” into action. This act gave unprecedented power to police to detain any individual who they viewed as suspicious. Enacting the War Measures Act was questionable because many human rights were violated during this time. However, Pierre Trudeau decided to do so in order to protect the citizens of Quebec from the actions of the FLQ. In this case, the end justifies the means because the benefit of safety outweighs the cost of losing some human rights.

 

Ultimately, the cost versus benefit ratio must be identified in order to determine if a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end. If the benefit of the politician’s action outweighs the cost, then the means justify the end. Unfortunately, in regards to politics, the cost usually outweighs the benefits because politicians usually put their interests in favor of the interests of the people.

[the stranger]

Prompt: "Employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace."

 

 

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a document that outlines the rights granted to the citizens of Canada. One of these guaranteed rights includes the right to privacy. If a company is considered a public enterprise, then that company must provide its workers with the same right to privacy as they are entitled to outside the workplace. A public enterprise is one that is overseen by a local, provincial, or federal government and is funded with public money. Passport agencies and revenue offices are examples of public enterprises which are prohibited from removing their employee’s right to privacy. In the late 1990’s, e-mail came into greater use and began to pose a problem for workplace environments which utilized computers in their day to day activities. A manager at a local passport agency decided to implement a program that allowed him to check his employee’s e-mails. The employee union fought this decision as they believed it was an infringement on the employee’s right to privacy. The case was heard in court and the passport agency manager was prohibited from checking his worker’s e-mails.

 

However, if a company is not considered a public enterprise, then that company does not have to provide its employees with the same right to privacy in the workplace. Private companies, such as the Wells-Fargo investment firm, often have their prospective employees sign a waiver that relinquishes some of their rights, such as the right to privacy. This behavior is justified because the company is not forcing the employees to sign the waiver; they do so voluntarily. As a result of signing the waiver, the employees agree to having their computer activity checked to ensure that they are engaging in work related activities. In this case, the employees should not have the same right to privacy because they are working for a private company. This company is free to decide on the rules that govern how it will be run.

 

Therefore, whether or not employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace depends on whether the company is a private or public enterprise. For instance, working for the government of Ontario would be considered a public workplace. Because the workplace is public, it should abide by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees the public people a reasonable degree of privacy. However, companies which are privately run, such as Wells Fargo, do not have to provide the same level of privacy to its employees. Private companies are not funded publicly. Therefore, the public has no right to decide on the rules of the company. Consequently, whether a company is public or private determines the employee’s right to privacy in the workplace.

 

Hi kawalac,

I believe your essay suffers from a few inaccuracies in your examples. Crown corporations, as employers, have the right to monitor their employees for safety reasons. Private companies, although not explicitly bound by the Charter, are bound by provincial human rights legislation that includes provisions for monitoring and breach of privacy in the workplace. This weakens the distinction you draw between public and private companies in determining when employees should be given the same right to privacy in and out of the workplace, and renders your task 3 inadmissible. Avoid this situation in the future by ensuring you use only accurate facts in your examples.

Score: 3/6

[ayinniya]

Education makes everyone equal

 

All around the world people go to school. In some countries people start school younger than others, in other places there are some individuals who do not get a chance to go to school at all. Some people only get an education until they are 14 years old, others go on to get their PhD. For many people how much or the type of education they have had determines how they are judged by society. The statement, “Education makes everyone equal,” means that getting an education makes everyone equal to each other. Education puts everyone on the same level solely because they have been educated.

 

Education does not necessarily make everyone equals. Take for example countries where only boys are allowed to school, or only those who have enough money are allowed to go. In these cases groups are already segregated by gender and income, and by only permitting education for certain groups it only makes the separation between these groups larger. Now not only may a wealthy group of individuals think they are above poor people because of money, but also because of the education they have. When conditions like finance or gender are put on education it does not make everyone equal but does the exact opposite.

 

There are three factors that determine whether or not an education makes everyone equal. One is whether or not everyone is getting an education, second what individuals make of their education and lastly how much society thinks an education defines someone. If anyone who wanted an education could receive one then it would help make education make people equal. This is because everyone had an equal chance of receiving an education and would therefore be considered equal from the start of their education not only after they have received their education. Secondly it is what each person takes from the education that makes them equal. If one person does not attend class and manages to pass courses and get their degree, they still may not be considered equal to a fellow classmate who has the same degree but graduated at the top of their class. Finally whether education makes us equal depends on how society thinks education defines us. If we all believed that people should be solely judged on their education then everyone who got a high school diploma would be considered on the same level. But is society put more emphasis on a person’s character defining who they are then education may not be what makes individuals equal to each other.

 

 

Thanks for your help =)

[7vrb]

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means.

 

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 a political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end

justifies the means for accomplishing that end.

 

Acheiving a political goal does not always justify what needs to be done in order to realize that goal. Many wars have begun for political reasons resulting in the deaths of countless soldiers and civilians. Although acheiving a goal may benefit a country or political party, it does not justify violating human rights. In 2003, the United States declared a War on Terrorism, in which they attacked Iraq, supposedly in the search for weaponds of mass destruction. However, many have postulated that the reason for this war was to gain political control over the vast quantities of oil in the Middle East. American soldiers and countless innocent Iraqi civilians died from gun fire and the bombing of major cities. Having political power over this large energy resource would be of great economic benefit to the United States. However, beginning a war which encroached on the human rights of thousands was in no way justified to achieve this end.

 

Although killing innocent human beings should not be used as a tactic to achieve a political goal, sometimes questionable actions are necessary to make a point. In the Indian Independance Movement, Mohatma Ghandi led a massive movement of civil disobediance in order to achieve the independance of India from the British. Civil disobediance was a method of non-violent rebellion in which followers would refuse to adhere to laws that they beleived needed to be changed. By maintain their position of non-violence but refusing to be controlled, this uprising eventually led to the independance of India.

In politics, it is difficult to find a way to acheive one's goal without crossing the lines of justice.

 

The Iraq war is an example of the end not justifying the means. The desire of the United States to have political control over a profitable energy resource does, in no way, mean that it is alright to trespass on the lives of millions and cause the deaths of innocent bystanders. However, acting against the law can be a way of gaining attention and making a stand as long as it does not endorse or cause harm to others. The tactic of non-violent, mass civil disobediance in the fight to free India is an example of this. In politics, the end only justifies the means if lives are not taken or ruined in the process.

 

*(P.S. I know I spelled Mahatma Gandhi wrong... I was in a rush. But now I'll never make that mistake again!)

[medschoolhopeful10]

Thank you so much for your feedback Sameer!

 

Education makes everyone equal.

 

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 education does not make everyone equal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not education makes everyone equal.

 

-------

 

 

Education is an important facet of our society. All levels of education, from elementary schools and high schools, to post-secondary are under continuous scrutiny from the public in order to ensure their efficiency and effectiveness. Education has become such an important part of our society since it is what provides an equal base of knowledge for all individuals upon which to achieve success in life. For instance, in Canada it is mandatory for everyone to attend school until the age of 16 as it has been extensively researched that without this basic preliminary education, the chance of achieving financial stability in the from of a stable well-paying job is greatly diminshed. This type of basic education provided to everyone gives all individuals an equal footing to become a contributing part of society.

 

Although education does provide the means for everyone to take an active part in society, a higher degree of education achieved by only a propotion of

individuals can lead to unequality in their position in society. For example, a career as a physician, which to obtain requires a higher level of education involving attending post-secondary school and medical school, is a career often viewed with a higher level of esteem compared to other jobs. This is seen by the fact that many parents pressure their children to attend medical school since they view the position of a physician as one of prestige. In this case it can be seen that all types of education are not always viewed equally, as obtaining the education necessary to become a physician is viewed to be more prestigious that other types of schooling.

 

Determining whether education makes everyone equal is tough to do. This debate involves the type of education that one obtains. The mandatory preliminary elementary and high school education provided until the age of 16 places everyone on equal footing at the start of life, giving everyone the opportunity to achieve the basic knowledge that determines success in future endeavors. However, it is also true that obtaining certain forms of higher education, like attending medical school, are sometimes viewed more highly than others and thus someone with such an education is viewed as having a higher position in society. Thus whether education makes everyone equal tends to depend upon the extent of education obtained by individuals.

[Danielle123]

Hi Sameer,

Thanks for grading my essay! This is my first attempt so I am hoping it is not too awful.

 

Prompt: Education makes everyone equal.

 

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 education does not make everyone equal.

Discuss what you think determines whether or not education makes everyone equal.

 

Instructions:

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above.

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

Post your essay in this thread on the Forum and I will post comments and a score here

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the Forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

 

Education makes everyone eaual in a develpoed society. Where a developed soceity can be defined as the ability to receive an education non discrimentory of your ethnicity, gender or relgion. Furthermore, for education to be a true equator, one much be able to put their education to use once in the workforce. For example Maud Menton was the first Candaian women to receive a graduate degree in the sciences in the early 1900's, which resulted in a well known discovery in enzyme kinetics. Her famous discovery was a serious of experiments resulting in the Michaleous-Menton equation which is still used today to calculate many properties of enzymes. Thus the reader can see that when all citizens are permitted to be educated great discoveries can be obtained.

 

On the other hand, education is nearly rendered useless when one cannot use the education they have obtained because of societal restrictions. An example of where societal retrictions have imposed upon education is Aung San Suu Kyi. Aung San Suu Kyi is a well educated women who resides in Burma. Kyi actually won the Burmenese election for presidency in 1990, but has been denied her position for 20 years because of the current Burma government the Junta. The Junta are a military dictaroship that have put Kyi under house arrest for 20 years in fear of Kyi using her education and knowledge to bring fourth a democracy in Burma. Thus Kyi's education has been unable bring equality to Burma because of societal restrictions.

 

The determining factor in whether or not education makes everyone equal is the soceity one resides in. For the society one resides in determines the usefullness of your education once in the workforce. For example, Menten was able to live up to her education because the society she lived in was accepting of her contributions to society. On the other hand, Kyi has not been able to fullfill the full potential of her education because of the societal restrictions of the junta. In conclusion, education is a powerfull tool in a society that allows you to carry out all that you have learned.

[the stranger]

Thanks for your feedback! This was my first writting sample attempt.

 

 

 

In an environment where knowledge is power, educating the population equally can level the playing field for individuals. Provision of educational resources allows equal propagation of information and diminishes disadvatages that can result from unequal distribution of knowledge amoung a community. The effects of a lack of education can be seen in communities amoung the United States. Low income communities with less funding provided for education typically have higher crime rates, and students see less success in future careers. Where educational funding is high, students are typically better prepared for adulthood and are more successful. These inequalities are created by educational differences. It is probable that creating equivalent learning enviromnents would lessen the difference seen between these communities. Another example of the creation of equality through education can be seen non-developed communities in Africa. There are many non-profit organizations whose primary mission is to teach sustainability and family planning. The effort stems from the philosophy that education creates equality. By teaching how to plan sustainable families, among other life lessons, the quality of life for individuals living in developing countries can be greatly improved.

 

 

Education is cricitcal for a success in the later years of life. Children must learn how to tie their shoes, arithmetic, and spelling. Teenagers must learn to drive and how to effectively make decisions. In early adulthood, individuals choose a career path and proceed in specialized education. A person bound to become a lawyer must go to law school, and a future businessman to business school. In post-secondary education, you are surrounded by peers with similar goals and aspirations. In each lecture attended you sit next to your future competition. If education creates equality, then each graduating class should be equally qualified to enter into a career in their related field. This is not so; every student is not equally qualified when they graduate, although they received the same information, attended the same lectures and completed the same projects. Simply learning facts and procedures cannot creat equality among collegues. There are other factors that play into having a successful career. Personal characteristics, that are not taught at an institution but are developed over years of growth are often just as important when seeking out employment. Drive, ambition, compassion, logic, critical thinking are just a few beneficial characteristics that cannot be soley derived from education. As well, some individuals seem to have natural abilites that give them advatages over their peers. Be it genetics, or just the environment they were raise, natural affinities or abilities towards a particular area of concentration can be far more advantageous than a regimented education.

 

 

Education plays a critical role in determining how an indiviual will live out their life. Without proper knowledge, it is impossible to make proper decision in all aspects of adult life, including child rearing, finances, religous endeavors, and career paths. Provision of equal education to every member of a community allows for more equal opportunities. Unequal education distribution is a major cause of division among the successful and less successful. Education, however, is not soley responsible for equality. It is one of many factors that play into the differences among individuals. Although education is a critical factor in the creation of equality, finances, genetic predispositions and childhood up-bringing can all have an effect on creating of inequalities among individuals

 

Laura126,

Try to avoid using a “contrary” example in your supporting paragraph (task 1). For example here you should have an example of a situation in which education created equality, rather than your situation in which a lack of education caused inequality. Your task 3 is less clear than it ought to be; you should clearly state “what determines whether education makes everyone equal or not”, rather than stating that “other factors” are also present in addition to education. In fact, an AAMC grader may interpret your task 3 as incomplete since you don’t state criteria that determine when the statement is true or false.

Score: 3.5/6 <- incomplete task 3

[the stranger]

Grade 1 is the perfect example of a level playing field. Each student is entering class for the first time and each is presented with the same information as everyone else. The teaching provided does not cater to any one individual and therefore provides each student with an equal oppurtunity to succeed and do well. At this point any one of these students could be a future doctor or lawyer. It is simply a matter now of the students taking advantage of the oppurtunities provided to them. Inevitably not all will take advantage of this equality. But next to actually somehow forcing each student to become motivated, schools do all they can to provide an equal oppurtunity to each of their students. Schools can not make the qualities of all its students equal but it can offer them all an equal oppurtunity to succeed. However as schooling progresses from elementary education to post secondary, this equality of oppurtunity will become increasingly smaller based on the students performance in previous years.

 

University is a prime example of when education splits and divides students rather than making them all equal. The competition for limited spots and resources in the university creates differences in equality between students. When looking at the requirements of admission to medical school it is clear that not all students have an equal chance of getting in. A student with a C average is not in any way an equal to a A student in the eyes of medical school. Therefore the university is creating inequalities in its students by dividing them into groups based on academic performance. Even some entry level classes impose grade restrictions which serve to limit the equality of oppurtunity provided to the students. Students of varying academic achievement are clearly not presented with equal oppurtunities within the university. This necessitates the conclusion that the university is not in fact making everyone equal but is doing the opposite.

 

When considering when an education will make everyone equal it is important to look at not the equality of students but they oppurtunity for equality they are provided with. In elementary school each student is taught the same information and given the same, equal oppurtunity to suceed as any other student. Although as any grade distribution will show, not all students perform equally. This distribution is not a fault of school in failure to provide equality but rather a fact of life that some students will be more motivated or gifted than others. But the fact still remains that education make everyone equal in that everyone has the same oppurtunity for success and everyone else, it is just a matter of whether this oppurtunity is taken advantage of or not. However as education furthers into university the equality of oppurtunity is significantly lower in that it becomes llimited based on previous perfmoance

 

any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

 

Hello,

 

Your essay started off well with an interesting first paragraph, however I would suggest you try to incorporate a specific example of a situation in which education created equality. Your task 2 followed from your task 1, so that was good, but again a specific example would help here. Your task 3 did not adequately fulfill the requirements since you do not state clearly what defines when education can make people equal and when it cannot. As well you should avoid bringing in new ideas (i.e. grade distributions in elementary school) in your task 3, and instead use this paragraph as a chance to tie together the rest of your essay, and clearly state the determining principle for the topic. In all, you should take more time to consider the "criteria" that determine when the statement is true and when it isn't , and build your essay around this idea. It also felt as though you ran out of time by the end of your essay; you can increase your efficiency by planning out your ideas, arguments and examples before you start writing. Lastly, make sure you take a few minutes to proofread for mechanical errors.

 

Score: 3.5/6 <- task 3 inadequate

[the stranger]

Hi there,

So I'm not going to lie I despise these prompts, politics is far from my strong point and I could stare blindly at this one for 30 minutes easily. Fortunately when I was talking stuff through with the family this weekend this "manitoba politician" came up (his names Elijah Harper after closer investigation to make sure I wasn't totally lying and I still don't know how accurate I really am). But anyways here it is -

And thanks in advance for any feedback.

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means.

 

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 a political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end.

 

In the world of politics, people are remembered not only for their feats and blunders, but also for their methodology particularly when unusual and questionable. Because of this, it is usually the case in politics that using unsupported methods will not be justified by the outcome. Thus, the result of using questionable means to achieve a successful result is usually still negative. Evidence supporting this includes situations where governments are able to increase local wealth however the methods are later deemed harmful to the environment. In this situation the citizens who benefitted from the governments actions will frequently neglect the outcome and show disapproval for the government.

 

Alternatively, questionable means can offer a unique and memorable approach to address important issues. When the Canadian government tried to pass legislation which was deemed unfair by the aboriginal settlers in Manitoba, and an aboriginal politician in Manitoba decided to fight to against it. Knowing that he would be unable to convince the government, he stubbornly refused to give his minority vote and caused the deadline to pass. After his actions, many frustrated Canadian politicians saw others beginning to join his stance and ultimately the law failed to pass. This politicians means were highly questionable and no doubt unwelcomed by much of Canada, however the result turned out to be so positive that these actions are actually responsible for his good reputation.

 

Ultimately, the means a politician uses are always examined closely and any deviation from acceptable usually has a very punishing effect on reputation and credibility. The exception to this rule appears to be that if the result is very beneficial and no other means were available. As with the Manitoba politician, he knew any other method of getting his opinions expressed would fail and believed his cause was extremely valuable. Once others began to share his views of the value of his fight and the futility of any alternative means, his stubbornness became justified. However, when the outcome is not grand, the cost of getting there is large or better methods are available, the politicians unsupported means will not be justified.

 

Hi dw88,

Your essay was well written, unified and addressed the 3 tasks well. As you mentioned your examples would benefit from specificity, especially in task 1. Your task 3 was especially successful since you related your criteria back to your example. See your score rise with more specific examples.

Score: 4.5-5/6

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer,

 

Hope its ok to post different prompts from the ones you've posted. If it is, then here is one I wrote:

 

Nations often resist new approaches to solving social problems.

Describe a specific situation in which a nation did or might attempt to solve a social problem with a new approach. Discuss what you think determines when a new approach would be the best way for a nation to solve a social problem.

 

Be it positive or negative, its is in our nature as human beings to resist change. Once we are accustomed to dealing with issues in a certain way, any deviation is most likely to be met with some form of resistance. This characteristic of ours has been carried on to our governments. In most cases, nations have a tendancy to resist approaching any social issues they are having to deal with in a new way. Take for instance, the anti-AIDS campaign that has been implemented in Botswana for the past two decades. One of the earliest methods of AIDS prevention was teaching adolescents the "ABCs" of AIDS: abstain, be faithful and condomize. However, this teaching has shown to be ineffective in several African nations, including Botswana, that are utilizing it. Regardless of this fact, Botswana continues to teach its young citizens to abstain, be faithful and condomize.

 

Unlike Botswana, there have been nations that have taken measures to finding innovative methods of approaching their social problems. Take for instance, the civil disobedience movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. In order to free his nation from British rule, Gandhi did not opt for the more common and obvious method of war. Instead, Mahatma Gandhi pioneered a new method of peaceful resistance and nonviolence that eventually resulted in gaining India its independence.

 

The question remains: when would a new approach be the best way for a nation to solve a social problem? The answer depends on whether the current method being employed is effective or not. In the case of Botswana, the AIDS prevention campaign teaching the "ABCs" of AIDS has clearly been demonstrated to be unsuccessful by the increasing rates of AIDS in the nation. In such cases, it would be beneficial to employ new approaches to solving the issue, because the method currently being employed is unsuccessful. However, when it comes to methods of dealing with social issues that have shown to be effective, there is no need to develop new approaches to handling those issues.

 

Hello again PurpleHaze,

Your writing has the potential to score quite high, but you’re being held back because of the idea of unity. Your task 1 and 2 were both well put and your examples were relevant (although, your task 1 example would be stronger if you used a situation in which a nation actively resisted a new approach, rather than continuing an old one, and your task 2 would have been strengthened if you had mentioned explicitly that not only Gandhi himself but the entire nation adopted a new approach). However your task 3 does not relate directly to your examples from the other tasks. You state that a nation should adopt a new approach when the old approach is ineffective, however example 1 is a situation in which the nation did not adopt a new approach even though the old one was ineffective (this doesn’t fit your criteria since they should have adopted a new approach), and example 2 is a situation in which it is questionable whether the old approach was ineffective or not (i.e. war may have been effective). In all your arguments are sound but your overall essay is not unified. Make sure you use examples that clearly exemplify your criteria (or in other words, make sure your criteria follow directly from the arguments in your task 1 and 2).

Score: 4/6

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer,

Thanks for taking the time to read my WS

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means

 

 

Politicians are faced with a multitude of difficult decisions on a daily basis, be it creating and implementing new policy, leading a nation in a new direction or taking a stance on world issues, just to name a few. Another of these difficult decisions facing politicians and the political process is to take a course of action where the final outcome is justified by the manner taken to get there. In such situations, it is often the case that such a route is not warranted; the end rarely justifies the means. The decision to invade Iraq by American President George Bush, for instance, is one such case where the end did not justify the means. Bush was acting in the spirit of defending Americans and protecting democracy and freedom from terrorists whom he believed were harboured in Iraq. This was an especially sensitive matter given the events of September 11th in New York previously. However, the decision to invade Iraq went against the evidence available not only domestically from the CIA, but also internationally from the United Nations; both sources specifically noted that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found. Nevertheless, the US invaded Iraq and it proved to be a very unwise decision as not only were these weapons not found, but it led to the Iraqi war that continues to this day, billions of dollars spent and thousands of US soldiers being killed. The end certainly did not justify the means.

 

 

However, political ends sometimes do justify the means. There are circumstances where questionable means are warranted to achieve an outcome. Canada’s decision to enact more strict fiscal and monetary policy to combat the economic downturn that affected worldwide economies in late 2008 was instrumental in keeping it economically viable. This decision was based on the evidence from prior economic events in Canadian history as well as historical events, such as the Great Depression in 1939 which saw widespread unemployment, poverty and slow economic growth. The Canadian government and Bank of Canada worked in tandem to control spending, borrowing and interest rates so that Canadians and Canada in the end would prosper. Granted, the period after the 2008 economic crisis was difficult as the unemployment rates increased, the manufacturing industry suffered, import and export trade was affected and there was some inflation, but the end was result was that the Canadian economy came out stronger and became a world leader in robust economic practice, as seen by their leadership at the recent G8 and G20 summits. Using the best, truthful and reasonable evidence to guide decision making proved a fruitful end through the difficult means to get there.

 

 

Determining, then, whether or not a political end justifies the means to achieve that end depends on whether one has sound, truthful and reasonable evidence with which to act on. If such evidence does not exist and one acts regardless, such as the case with George Bush and the Iraq invasion, then the ends do not justify the means since the burden of proof has not been established. If, however, reasonable and truthful evidence does exist to achieve an outcome, such as the case with Canada and is economic decisions, then the ends do justify the means. Whatever the case, in politics, one is best served by acting in the best interest of the nation and its people and making the most reasonable and sound decisions in order to achieve those best interests.

 

Great essay. I would only suggest being careful with your use of a controversial example. Despite the majority view that Bush was wrong in the decision to invade Iraq, this could still be a touchy subject if you happen to get a pro-Bush AAMC grader. If possible, try to stay away from polarizing examples. You would probably be fine in this case, but it is worth mentioning here to consider in future essays.

 

Score: 5.5/6

[the stranger]

Hey stranger. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I realize my writing isn't the most eloquent, so it probably isn't the most fun to read. I appreciate your help! Warning about my next response. I totally fabricated the example in my first paragraph because I don't know much about politics and I was running out of time and couldn't come up with anything else. Do you think that's a good idea? Just to come up with an example?

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end.

 

Inherent in the nature of politics is the fact that the end rarely justifies the means. In this context, the means refers to the actions taken by a politician to achieve a certain goal, or end. Usually, a politician’s goal is to gain or retain his or her position in office. In order to ensure their spot in office, politicians take actions that are not justified considering the end result. For instance, in 1980, an election was taking place to determine the Premier of Ontario. The leader who was already in office decided to illegally use public money to fund his election campaign. The politician was re-elected and his wrong doings were not apparent until a later time. This public money could have been spent in health care or education. Instead, because the politician had his own goals in mind, his actions benefitted only himself. In this situation, the end result did not justify the means because the cost to the public outweighed the benefit of the politicians action.

 

However, not all politicians have only themselves in mind when they make decisions. As a result, the end can justify the means. For instance, during the 1970s, a radical separatist group known as the “Front du Liberation du Quebec” (FLQ) was wreaking havoc in Quebec. The group was responsible for kidnapping political members as well as the bombing of mailboxes and the Montreal Stock Exchange. The Prime Minister at the time, Pierre Trudeau, put the “War Measures Act” into action. This act gave unprecedented power to police to detain any individual who they viewed as suspicious. Enacting the War Measures Act was questionable because many human rights were violated during this time. However, Pierre Trudeau decided to do so in order to protect the citizens of Quebec from the actions of the FLQ. In this case, the end justifies the means because the benefit of safety outweighs the cost of losing some human rights.

 

Ultimately, the cost versus benefit ratio must be identified in order to determine if a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end. If the benefit of the politician’s action outweighs the cost, then the means justify the end. Unfortunately, in regards to politics, the cost usually outweighs the benefits because politicians usually put their interests in favor of the interests of the people.

 

Hi kawalac,

You've shown a good improvement here. Your essay was clear, organized, and unified. Your examples were well chosen and directly relevant to your criteria (though your first example could have benefitted from specificity – use names and details when you can). One word of caution – avoid making position statements in your essay (i.e. your last sentence). Making one sided statements about the topic or otherwise offering your opinion can be detrimental since your opinion is not asked for in the instructions. Stick to the three tasks and offer both sides of the argument without taking a side yourself.

Score: 5/6

[the stranger]

Education makes everyone equal

 

All around the world people go to school. In some countries people start school younger than others, in other places there are some individuals who do not get a chance to go to school at all. Some people only get an education until they are 14 years old, others go on to get their PhD. For many people how much or the type of education they have had determines how they are judged by society. The statement, “Education makes everyone equal,” means that getting an education makes everyone equal to each other. Education puts everyone on the same level solely because they have been educated.

 

Education does not necessarily make everyone equals. Take for example countries where only boys are allowed to school, or only those who have enough money are allowed to go. In these cases groups are already segregated by gender and income, and by only permitting education for certain groups it only makes the separation between these groups larger. Now not only may a wealthy group of individuals think they are above poor people because of money, but also because of the education they have. When conditions like finance or gender are put on education it does not make everyone equal but does the exact opposite.

 

There are three factors that determine whether or not an education makes everyone equal. One is whether or not everyone is getting an education, second what individuals make of their education and lastly how much society thinks an education defines someone. If anyone who wanted an education could receive one then it would help make education make people equal. This is because everyone had an equal chance of receiving an education and would therefore be considered equal from the start of their education not only after they have received their education. Secondly it is what each person takes from the education that makes them equal. If one person does not attend class and manages to pass courses and get their degree, they still may not be considered equal to a fellow classmate who has the same degree but graduated at the top of their class. Finally whether education makes us equal depends on how society thinks education defines us. If we all believed that people should be solely judged on their education then everyone who got a high school diploma would be considered on the same level. But is society put more emphasis on a person’s character defining who they are then education may not be what makes individuals equal to each other.

 

 

Thanks for your help =)

 

Hello ayinnia,

Your essay addresses the 3 tasks but would benefit from more specific examples rather than general ones. Also your essay would be more unified if you chose one determining factor in your task 3 rather than introducing multiple criteria – this can convolute your arguments and detract from the coherent feel of your essay. It is best if your defining criteria relate directly to the examples you choose as well.

Score: 4/6

[jab4eva]

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means.

 

In a democracy, political actions are often driven to win more votes and to be able to stay in power longer, but not really intended to benefit the people in any significant way. Before the election, candidates promise anything that the public wants to hear just for the sake of getting enough votes. Upon election, the electorate makes all kinds of excuses to make the promise seem non-accomplishable or simply just break the promise that was once believed by the people whole-heartedly. Before the Mcguinty government was elected back in 2003, Dalton Mcguinty promised, among other things, to freeze the electricity price at around 4 cents a kilowatt for at least 2 years; but later broke that promise and increased electricity price by twenty percent just few months after election. As a result, the Mcguinty government broke many promises that were made to the public and the end results are not justified for his action to promise first, and then break it later.

 

In a situation where a monarchy is thought to be in thread, questionable means are justified to accomplish a political end, which is to maintain the monarchy. For an authoritarian government to successfully continue its duty, it must prevent any type of rebellions to arise. By doing so, the government has eliminated a potential revolution that may kill the monarchical government. For example, during the Tiananmen Square, thousands of students gathered to fight against corruption of the communist party. The then communist government of China saw the protest as a thread to communism and applied violence to control the students from gaining more support from the public. Although violence itself is not a justifiable mean to end the thread, but that is the only way in which the communist party can accomplish maintain its power. Therefore, questionable means are justified here to accomplish a political end.

 

In conclusion, what determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end depends on the type of government. For a democracy, violence is never an option because democracy promotes freedom and equality but violence takes away that freedom. However, political ends in a democracy never justify the means because lying is not a way to accomplish something. Democratic politicians often promise something and break the promise once they firmly grasped the power. On the other hand, an authoritarian government is justified to apply questionable means in order to accomplish a political end, if this allows maintenance of political power. Hence, the goal of both types of government is to maintain its power by any means that will accomplish its end, whether justified or not.

[the stranger]

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means.

 

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 a political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end

justifies the means for accomplishing that end.

 

Acheiving a political goal does not always justify what needs to be done in order to realize that goal. Many wars have begun for political reasons resulting in the deaths of countless soldiers and civilians. Although acheiving a goal may benefit a country or political party, it does not justify violating human rights. In 2003, the United States declared a War on Terrorism, in which they attacked Iraq, supposedly in the search for weaponds of mass destruction. However, many have postulated that the reason for this war was to gain political control over the vast quantities of oil in the Middle East. American soldiers and countless innocent Iraqi civilians died from gun fire and the bombing of major cities. Having political power over this large energy resource would be of great economic benefit to the United States. However, beginning a war which encroached on the human rights of thousands was in no way justified to achieve this end.

 

Although killing innocent human beings should not be used as a tactic to achieve a political goal, sometimes questionable actions are necessary to make a point. In the Indian Independance Movement, Mohatma Ghandi led a massive movement of civil disobediance in order to achieve the independance of India from the British. Civil disobediance was a method of non-violent rebellion in which followers would refuse to adhere to laws that they beleived needed to be changed. By maintain their position of non-violence but refusing to be controlled, this uprising eventually led to the independance of India.

In politics, it is difficult to find a way to acheive one's goal without crossing the lines of justice.

 

The Iraq war is an example of the end not justifying the means. The desire of the United States to have political control over a profitable energy resource does, in no way, mean that it is alright to trespass on the lives of millions and cause the deaths of innocent bystanders. However, acting against the law can be a way of gaining attention and making a stand as long as it does not endorse or cause harm to others. The tactic of non-violent, mass civil disobediance in the fight to free India is an example of this. In politics, the end only justifies the means if lives are not taken or ruined in the process.

 

*(P.S. I know I spelled Mahatma Gandhi wrong... I was in a rush. But now I'll never make that mistake again!)

 

Great job 7vrb, you've really done well here. Your examples are specific and relevant, and your criteria follow directly from them. You’ve related your criteria back to your examples as well, which adds to unity and coherency. I would only suggest that your introduce your criteria earlier in your third paragraph, then relate back to examples. If you find you’re running out of time make sure you’re spending enough time planning before you write (that might sound counterintuitive, but spending more time planning eliminates more wasted time thinking about your arguments while you write). Be sure to take a couple minutes to proofread for spelling/mechanical errors.

Score: 5.5/6

[the stranger]

Thank you so much for your feedback Sameer!

 

Education makes everyone equal.

 

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 education does not make everyone equal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not education makes everyone equal.

 

-------

 

 

Education is an important facet of our society. All levels of education, from elementary schools and high schools, to post-secondary are under continuous scrutiny from the public in order to ensure their efficiency and effectiveness. Education has become such an important part of our society since it is what provides an equal base of knowledge for all individuals upon which to achieve success in life. For instance, in Canada it is mandatory for everyone to attend school until the age of 16 as it has been extensively researched that without this basic preliminary education, the chance of achieving financial stability in the from of a stable well-paying job is greatly diminshed. This type of basic education provided to everyone gives all individuals an equal footing to become a contributing part of society.

 

Although education does provide the means for everyone to take an active part in society, a higher degree of education achieved by only a propotion of

individuals can lead to unequality in their position in society. For example, a career as a physician, which to obtain requires a higher level of education involving attending post-secondary school and medical school, is a career often viewed with a higher level of esteem compared to other jobs. This is seen by the fact that many parents pressure their children to attend medical school since they view the position of a physician as one of prestige. In this case it can be seen that all types of education are not always viewed equally, as obtaining the education necessary to become a physician is viewed to be more prestigious that other types of schooling.

 

Determining whether education makes everyone equal is tough to do. This debate involves the type of education that one obtains. The mandatory preliminary elementary and high school education provided until the age of 16 places everyone on equal footing at the start of life, giving everyone the opportunity to achieve the basic knowledge that determines success in future endeavors. However, it is also true that obtaining certain forms of higher education, like attending medical school, are sometimes viewed more highly than others and thus someone with such an education is viewed as having a higher position in society. Thus whether education makes everyone equal tends to depend upon the extent of education obtained by individuals.

 

Hello medschoolhopeful10,

Your essay is logical, unified and well written. I would suggest you use more specific examples to strengthen each of your tasks. As well try to think about the prompt in terms of its broader social context, i.e. how education might serve to equalize people socially, despite other factors that might serve to make them unequal. The key to higher scores is providing an in-depth, thoughtful treatment of the topic, rather than an obvious or superficial overview. Still this is a good start, well done.

Score: 4.5/6

[Guest destiny_child]

Hey Sameer, I've always been instructed to propose an argument of "when" the prompt and anti-prompt are true, followed by a specific example, followed by a rational. Although it seems some of these essays that scored a 5+ don't outline when it's true, but simply dive into an example followed by an explanation of how it demonstrates the prompt or anti-prompt. So my question is, is it not necessary to establish the "when" in task 1 and task 2 before assigning criteria in task 3? or is this redundant, since the "when" is essentially the criteria used to fulfill task3?

[the stranger]

Hey Sameer, I've always been instructed to propose an argument of "when" the prompt and anti-prompt are true, followed by a specific example, followed by a rational. Although it seems some of these essays that scored a 5+ don't outline when it's true, but simply dive into an example followed by an explanation of how it demonstrates the prompt or anti-prompt. So my question is, is it not necessary to establish the "when" in task 1 and task 2 before assigning criteria in task 3? or is this redundant, since the "when" is essentially the criteria used to fulfill task3?

 

Hi, yes you're exactly right that really your "when" is in fact your criteria. At Prep101 we instruct students to use a standardized approach to their essays in which you support, refute, and resolve the prompt (address the three tasks) in 3 paragraphs, use specific, relevant examples in task 1 and 2, and specific, clear criteria in task 3.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Sameer