Prep101 (Sameer) - FREE MCAT Writing Sample Feedback Corner

[KaelaShaw]

Hey Sameer,

 

Maybe you just haven't gotten to it yet, but it looks like you may have skipped over my writing sample for prompt 2 ! Just wanted to mention it in case you missed it. Thanks!

[pew peter]

Hey Sameer this is for promt #1. Thank you very much

 

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

 

Should the adult workplace (a place where adults can spend half of their time living) be just as private as the outside world, or should it be a place of acknowledged lack of privacy? Privacy is defined as the right to keep one's own matters to themself. Employees who work for a company should be granted the same amount of privacy they are granted in the outside world. Even though the employee is on company property, they should still be treated with the same privacy they would recieve off company property. Recently, Dow, a company based in Toronto provided the women employees a female changeroom in order to use the company workout facilities. Even though there were few females using the workout facilities, the company felt all the employees should have the same right to privacy they would recieve outside the workplace.

 

Although usually an employee should recieve the same amount of privacy recieved in public, there are times when their privacy must be sacrificed. Michael Caraher, the GM of the Washington Redskins was recently fired for having relations with a receptionist during company hours. Michael Caraher did not have the right to keep his relationship with the receptionist private, although in the real world he would have certainly been able to keep the relationship to himself.

 

Initially, it is difficult to determine when an employee should have the same right to privacy at the workplace as they do outside the workplace; howevery, a key determinant as to when the employee should lose the right to privacy is when the act sacrifices productivity. The women being granted a changeroom would not change how productive they were being at work, thus having their own private changeroom was just. On the hand, becuase Michael Caraher's relationship with the receptionist was during company hours and sacrificed productivity, the company had a right to know about the relationship.

[missmathematics18]

The importance of education is undeniable by all who cherish thought-provoking critical thinking and skills. The advancements since the Industrial Revolution and the mass movement from agricultural life to urban living have demanded specialization in all fields of work. Education makes everyone equal when they are in elementary school. Timetables are preprogrammed for all students and everyone must attend the same classes. All students learn to read and write at the same age as well as how to solve mathematical problems. While there are different levels of reading and writing, these differences are not very widely pronounced between children in the same grade; they all learn to perform the basic functions that teachers demand of them. If a student is falling behind, more one-on-one time is spent to make sure the child is caught up. Hence, teachers push children along to stay caught up with the class and there is rarely ever a child failing elementary school. It is at this time in their lives that education has made an eighth grade graduation class fairly equal.

 

In contrast, individuality of these children is widely formed beginning the moment one begins their first day at high school. The differences between high school programs are vast-one can choose to attend a religious, private, or public school with a choice of what subjects to study, particularly in the second half of high school. There are a plethora of paths to be taken after high school graduation, unlike elementary school where everyone is simply entering a high school. Some people find jobs immediately while others go to College or University to advance their studies. It is at this moment in everyone’s life that they have chosen the path they will take, perhaps for the rest of their lives or temporarily until a love of a new profession and goal crosses in their path.

 

In conclusion, what determines whether or not education makes everyone equal is the level of education and step on the corporate ladder one achieves. Different levels of respect and salary are attained depending on which path on takes. White collar jobs are seen to be more respected and desired than blue collar jobs. Inevitably this leads to white collar workers to be seen as more sophisticated and specialized, not by any means equal to those inferior.

 

 

 

Thank you!

[pew peter]

Education makes everyone equal.

 

Is education the baseline for equality, or are there other factors that determine one's (relative to other humans) equality? Education can be determined, and measured, in classes passed or relative grades. Measuring someone's education is the determining factor when comparing poeple. Regardless of race, gender, or sexual education, the level education is how an indivual is "rated." An example of this is when most universities are accepting or rejecting high school graduates. The admission commity doesn't look at at one's kindness or work ethic, they look at the transcript to see if the applicant has attained credits for certain courses and has achieved a certain grade. As seen with this example, it is the level of education that makes someone equal.

 

Although education does make everyone equal in certain circumstances, this isn't always the case. When being drafted into the NHL, Steven Stamkos had only recently attained his highschool equivalence. Although he was drafted in the same round as many university graduates, Stamkos was selected first overall in the draft. As seen in this example, there were other factors than just education which made Stamkos more favorable than those he was up against.

 

Although determining when education does and doesn't make everyone equal is difficult, a major determinant is when physical attributes are involved. Being accepted into most universities has nothing to do with one's physical attributes, therefore, education is the only thing that matters, and all applicants are rated on their level of education. However, when it comes to professional athletics, such as the NHL, education has a very minor role, and physical characteristics is the main determinant on individuals. In sum, as long as physical characteristics aren't important, education is what makes everyone equal.

[dcadieux]

A typical individual spends 8 hours a day, 5 days a week in the workplace. In this environment, an individual should have the same amount of privacy as in their home and community. Canadian citizen's right to privacy is incresing with the upcoming changes to the national census. This once mandarory questionaire quizzed Canadian citizens on their most intimate personal and finacial information. A new version of the census is in the process of being created to enhance the privacy of individuals. Canadian's now must complete a short mandatory survey, and have the option to disclose personal information to the government. If the government no longer requires individuals to discole information regarding their race, income, and marital status, then an employeer definitly does not have the right to request such personal information. An individuals right to privacy in the workplace should be mirrored by the standard set forth by the governemt, or even more stringent.

 

There are some aspects to an individuals personal endevors that may be of more interest to an employer than the government, especially during the hiring process. A company has the right to know if their employees have a criminal record. Even if this is in violation of privacy, a criminal record is important information for a company to know in order to ensure the safety of their employees. This is especially true if the job being held is one related to a previous offence commited by an individual. A employeer has the right to know if the person they are interviewing for the position of child care worker has a previous history of child abuse.

 

The disclosure of personal information is not something that is usually required by employeers. When hiring individuals, personal attributes that do not relate to the position being held should not be required to be disclosed by the individual. However, the discloure of information regarding criminal records, even though an invasion of privacy, should be required to ensure the safety of employees. Once trust and faith has been put in an employee, ensuring the privacy of their workers should be a top priority. This is evident in the steps the Canadian governement are taking to enhance the privacy of their citizens.

[7vrb]

Hi Sameer, I noticed someone posted an essay from a prompt that you hadn't posted. I was wondering if it was okay for anyone to do that or if it was a one time thing? I'd love some more critiques on my practicing.

Thanks!

[madison007]

I'm not sure if this is too late, but I would appreciate any feedback

 

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

 

 

Our society has been bombarded with new technologies that may be pushing the boundaries when it comes to privacy. With the click of a button, bosses are able to access a wide range of personal information about a prospective employee by simply surveying their ‘facebook’ page. Often, these facebook pages are being surveyed without the employee’s knowledge or consent, diminishing the importance of one’s right to privacy. Should bosses be able to navigate their employee’s private life without their knowledge, or is this breaching the code of privacy in the workplace? In order to allow employees to feel comfortable in their workplace and among their fellow employees, privacy is a topic that cannot be overlooked.

 

However, there are situations in which privacy in the work setting is taken for granted. Employees may begin to feel “too comfortable” at work, and begin to neglect their work duties as a result of keeping up to date on their personal lives. Recently, there has been the continuous debate of whether bosses should be able to access their employee’s work email accounts. In the case of an inefficient employee, the boss may benefit greatly from sifting through the individual’s emails and discovering many online purchases and social networking being done during working hours. “Time is money” and when an employee is refusing to use their paid hours productively it is in the best interest of the boss to take remedial action in order to maintain high efficiency. When employees are slacking on their duties to such an extent that it is impacting the rest of their team, they should be prepared to have their privacy disregarded until they make a drastic change in their behaviour.

 

When discussing where to draw the line when it comes to workplace privacy, there is only one question that must be asked. Is the employee proving to be so inefficient during the work day that it is necessary to investigate further? When the boss can confidently answer “yes” to this question, the employee’s privacy should not be highly respected until they are able to prioritize their job over their daily activities. However, bosses should not be able to rely on facebook as a means of choosing between prospective employees, as this form of media is often a biased representation of the individual and will not share adequate information about their employment capabilities. Current employees who are devoting their attention to their work, should have their privacy respected in such a way that it is indeed continuous with their privacy outside of the workplace.

[madison007]

"Education makes everyone equal."

 

Knowledge is power, and in our society education is highly valued as a means of ensuring a successful future. Employers will consult a prospective employee’s resume for their educational background and university transcripts and many employers believe that there is a direct correlation between academic success and occupational success. Regardless of age, ethnicity or gender, our society is fortunate enough to be able to receive high quality education at a very limited price. By attending school, each member of society is able to benefit from similar lessons taught by similar instructors, while opening up the door to increased job opportunities.

 

There are many different levels of education that can be obtained depending on the type of career one is interested in. Those who are interested in design may only require a one year college course in order to apply for a job as an interior designer, whereas those who are choosing to pursue the career of a brain surgeon may be looking at over ten years of extra education. The variety of job opportunities in our society has allowed for numerous education programs that vary in terms of length and subject matter. Although a basic education, such as elementary school, is common among most students, the varying types of higher education options allows for a greater level of distinction.

 

Education helps to evoke a feeling of equality among our society because it is an opportunity that is open to people from all different walks of life. However, it is important to distinguish between those who are attending an elementary institution and those who are pursuing higher studies on a specific subject matter. It is impossible to divide society into educated individuals and noneducational individuals as there are far too many subclasses of education. Only those who have received similar schooling in terms of duration and subject matter, can be classified as equal from an educational standpoint.

[anna8]

Thank you!

 

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means

 

Political decisions are often subjected to criticisms by dissenting parties. This may be due to ineffective policies that hinder improvement or a negative impact brought about by the process of achieving the desired end. Most often, a political decision is widely accepted by the public when it addresses significant issues confronting the majority. However, when the means by which this end is achieved is equally detrimental, then the public generally disagrees with the proposal. A recent political decision made by the Philippine government is to impose a 12% value-added tax on goods and services in order to generate more government revenue for the improvement of government services. This decision has been largely opposed by the public due to the burden that the means will impose on the people. Despite its favorable end, such as the improvement of government services, the means creates a heavy toll on the citizens of the developing country who are already facing financial burdens. Therefore, political decisions must be able to respond to relevant issues by providing acceptable means towards an end. Otherwise, these political decisions will rarely be effective.

 

However, in times where there is an urgent and compelling issue confronting the public, then a political end might justify using questionable means. This is what happened during the massive typhoon that hit the Philippine capital in October of 2009. A decision was made by government officials that involved having to cause major flooding in the city for this is the only means by which the major dams might be prevented from breaking and causing even bigger problems in the future. By releasing water from the dams, the problems of future widespread water shortage and huge spending on repairs were avoided. In spite of the fact that the means caused minor damages to the city, this decision proved to be effective in providing a solution to a more compelling problem. In a case like this, the political situation was favored and commended by the majority.

 

What determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end lies in the relevance of short-term or long-term issues to the particular society. There are times when a particular group of people would weigh the short-term issues they are confronting as more relevant. Such is the case for the majority who opposed the imposing of added taxes as a means to improve on infrastructure and services in their area. As they are already significantly burdened by financial problems, then they believe that a political decision must address the issue of economic development among citizens first and foremost before they can achieve ends such as improvements in services by the government. On the other hand, when a long-term issue is deemed to hold more relevance for the public, such as the preservation of the major dams that bring water to the citizens, then a detrimental means might be accepted to achieve the ends. In the end, a political decision is evaluated and must be tailored based on the particular issues confronting a society for it to be deemed effective.

[dcadieux]

Thank you so much for reviewing these! It is for sure a challenge to stick within the timelines and forgive me if ther are lots of spelling mistakes...I am still getting used to the no spell check rule lol

 

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 has the power to inform, instruct, and inspire. The gift of knowledge is something that can be instilled in the minds of the young and old. It does not matter where you come from, or the colour of your skin, education is the universal gift that anyone in the human race is capable of obtaining. When entering the education system, there are sets of specific guidelines which determine the level of education you recieve. This ensures that you are on a equal learning level with your peers. If a family immigrates to a country such as Canada, the children in the family have the right to enter the education system once citizenship is obtained. If the children are young, they would enter the public school system and become equal in their ability and right to obtain education. As these children grow in both knowledge and age, their status as an equal citizens grows as well.

 

The education system is one which progresses from public school, to seconday school, post secondary education, and graduate studies. As individuals expand their knowledge base by completing each level, they remain on a equal playing field with their peers. This education however, becomes extremely variable as individuals leave educational institutions and enter the working world. In the field of medicine, it takes more than the competion of a university degree and book smarts to become a sucessful doctor. In a particular graduating class, all individuals have an equal education. Deviance from the mold of a medical school occurs due to differance in personality. Two doctors with the same education are capable of diagnosis an ailment such as cancer, yet only the one with compassion and understanding is able to comfort their patient in dealing with the reprocussions of their disease. A pateint should not be viewed as a textbook definition, but as a person. In this sense, an equal education does not produce an equal capability to be a successful doctor.

 

From the time we enter the education system as young children, we are educated at an equal level to those around us. Knowledge is something that as a Canadian citizen, everyone has the right to obtain. It does not matter where you came from or how old you are, in the classroom, you are entitled to an equal oppourtuinty to learn. Textbooks and cirriculums ensure that every individual in the classroom establishes a standard knowledge base that can be applied to their future careers. Once leaving the education system, an equal education does correspond to equality in the workplace. Certain carrers are based not only on education, but personal skills which cannot be taught. Two people with the same education may vary in their ability to excel at their career. Obtaining a licence to practice medicine indicates that you have an equal education as other practicing professionals; posessing the ability to communicate and comfort a patient will set you apart from your peers and ensure your success as a medical doctor.

[ckilburn]

Hey... I am writing in a week and I am a little bit nervous about the writing sample. I think I can write and structure things so that they flow... however, the 30 minute deadline freaks me out a little because I usually take lost of time to edit and re-edit. Also, I find difficult to read some of the prompts and think of really relevant examples. Anyway, here goes...

 

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.

 

 

Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "all men were born equal". There are many truths to this, especially when one considers all humans opportunity to be educated. Education is a tool that allows people to acquire knowledge of the world as mankind knows it. We are all born with the same capacity to learn and the majority of the countries in the world capitalize on this by providing education to all citizens. All Canadian citizens have equal opportunity to attend educational services from kindergarten to grade 12. By the end of grade 12, the majority of people are equal in their educational level even if they feel that they are perceived different because of socioeconomic background, race, sexuality, gender, etc. Education is a unifying experience in that it transcends the boundaries and allows people to all acquire the same knowledge to utilize in everyday life. Education tries to defy a separation between man, as can be evidenced in the case of Brown v. Board of Education in the US in the 1950s in which it was decided that there would be no separate schools for African Americans and that segregation would cease to exist. This is important because education should create equality between people and if a segregation occurs between men, then education is not being used as a useful tool for equality.

 

Although education can be used to create human equality, when considering applying for careers after completing post secondary education, this equality may not curtail. For example, a post secondary graduate that completed a bachelor of business administration applies for the same job that a Yale school of business graduate applies to. As evidenced by many studies, a Halo effect occurs, and automatically the Yale grad, who has the same education as the other grad, receives an interview and a recommendation from the human resource person only because they attended an Ivey league college. The perception of the institution providing an education can outweigh the type of education people are receiving. Therefore, when applying for positions in life where the type of education received is considered, education may not create an equality between people.

 

Clearly there is no fundamental resolution between when education creates equality or when it divides people. However, a pretty good guideline is that education creates equality when human perception is not involved. This is evidenced from considering all people from different backgrounds attending school from kindergarten to grade 12 being perceived as having an equal education, but when higher levels of education are attained, there is a human perception regarding the institution one attends and the level of education one receives. Unfortunately, although many people receive the same kind of education at different institutions, one may have difficulties overcoming the perception that certain post secondary institutions are better than others.

[S B]

Hi...Thanks for helping out with the writing sample. I have written the following essay for the prompt, and would be glad to have any feedback on it. Thank you.

 

Education makes everyone equal

 

Education refers to the life experiences by which one evolves over a period of time into a mature human being who has a sense of society and knows how to deal with certain critical conditions. Equality here refers to the status of an individual who after attaining education is capable of settling himself in cases listed above. However, the term ‘education’ when used in an overtly restricted manner, as in case of listing degrees an individual owns, it can deviate from this unifying quality and can lead to creation of differences among people with different forms and levels of education.

 

For instance, when meeting two different individuals, one being the owner of a corporation with an MBA degree while the another a clerk with a college diploma, people behave differently towards the two. They give more respect and thought to what the corporate owner says, than to the clerk who could very well be a very worldly wise person but is not considered so as he does not own a degree. Same was the case with Timothy, a private small business owner who did not have a degree in field but through life experiences in different areas was equally as aware of the functionings of a corporation as a corporate owner. When wanting to work in one such corporation no one would give a thought to what he had to present simply owning to the fact that he does not have a business degree. Although, through his persuasion skills, he managed to gain a position in a company much later than a business school graduate would have and is now a owns successful business corporation himself.

 

Therefore, education when used in a very limited sense revolving around the degrees a person owns, and not based on what he/she has learnt as part of his life experiences and is capable of learning thereafter, causes discrimination and unjust decisions, rather than being a unifying force.

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hey KaelaShaw,

Sorry about that I must have just missed yours. Anyway hope this helps.

Your first task doesn’t seem to support the prompt well enough. You state that the Nazi party’s knowledge of the events of the Holocaust gave them power, and once other nations and people found out they were able to destroy the Nazi party. But this doesn’t support the contention that education (that is, formal education as opposed to “knowledge” of any specific events) has the power to make people socially equal.

Your second example is that of a situation in which a lack of education did not bring about equality, however this task required you to describe a situation in which even the presence of education did not make people equal.

Your third task unfortunately does not follow from your first and second tasks either. Your third task should clearly present criteria that can be related back to your examples from task 1 and 2 that state “what determines whether or not education makes people equal”.

Score: 2/6

[the stranger]

Hey everyone,

 

Its great to see the level of response so far! I'm glad you're all posting essays, and especially glad to see people posting multiple times and improving so quickly! Great job guys.

 

Just a couple of things:

 

1) Yes you can definitely post essays from prompts that I don't post. No need to wait 5 days just to get feedback, so if you're writing up essays and want feedback feel free to post any essays to the forum and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

 

2) Sorry to those of you that have been waiting to get feedback, there's been a great response so I'm just trying to get through all of them as fast as I can. I aim to get back to people within 48 hours (but of course I can't guarantee this) so please bear with me

 

3) Just a note, I've removed Post #2: "Education makes everyone equal" because I've been finding it to be a bit too vague, and for the people just starting out I'd like to have a clearer prompt to start out with before you try tackling something very vague. Please don't post responses to that post from now on.

 

Take care and keep the essays coming!

 

Sameer

[the stranger]

Here is the newest prompt (#4):

 

"Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news."

 

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 news report might justifiably not be completely objective. Discuss what you think determines whether or not objectivity should be the primary goal of

news reporting.

 

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.

[the stranger]

Hi Sameer, I noticed someone posted an essay from a prompt that you hadn't posted. I was wondering if it was okay for anyone to do that or if it was a one time thing? I'd love some more critiques on my practicing.

Thanks!

 

For sure! Any prompt is fine.

[the stranger]

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.

 

Hi jab4eva,

You seem to be treading on thin moral ice here; I think you would be hard pressed to convince someone that violence is “justified” even in the most dictatorial regime. Although it can’t be said that your arguments are invalid, I would suggest that you avoid basing your arguments on a morally questionable idea because you risk alienating your grader who may disagree with your position here (although they are trained to grade essays without personal bias, why risk it? If the grader vehemently disagrees with your strong position on this issue, they can’t help but to look at your entire essay with a negative lens and dock marks).

Otherwise your essay was structured well and you did address the required tasks. Be sure to spend more time proofreading for mechanical errors as there were several spelling and grammar mistakes evident here.

Score: 4/6 – could drop below this if a grader really disagrees with your argument

[seabass]


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.

 

Politicians are under an extreme amount of pressure to produce results, and may resort to unconventional methods in order to achieve their goals. Methods that are unethical or have negative longterm consequences should not be used to achieve short-term goals. When Omar Torrijos was elected president of Panama in the 1980's, it was under the pretense that he would implement large-scale industrialization projects that would develop Panama's economy and allow Panama to remain competitive in changing global markets. This was part of Torrijos' overall goal of gaining autonomy, both politically and economically, from the United States. However, Torrijos quickly ran out of domestic funds to support these projects and secretly turned to private US investors for money. In doing so, he managed to achieve wide-spread industrialization but was forced to adhere to strict guidelines that benefited investors' interests. Thus, although his goal was economic development, the method of using American investors to fund his projects undermined the country's ultimate goal of independence.

However, sometimes the desired result is so essential for the good of a country's citizens that it must be achieved by any means possible. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, safety was of the utmost concern for President George W. Bush. In order to ensure the safety of his citizens, he enacted the "Patriot Act" which gave law enforcement officials the authority to carry out random searches of suspicious individuals; infringing on civilians' privacy rights. In this case the goal of safety was deemed so important, that it had to be achieved by any method possible.

Thus, it is the neccesity and urgency of the political goal that determines whether any means necessary can be used. When the goal at hand is small in comparison to other goals, methodology must be chosen carefully to ensure there are no negative consequences. However, when the desired result is absolutely essential for the safety of the population, than the end truly does justify the means.

[the stranger]

Hey Sameer this is for promt #1. Thank you very much

 

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

 

Should the adult workplace (a place where adults can spend half of their time living) be just as private as the outside world, or should it be a place of acknowledged lack of privacy? Privacy is defined as the right to keep one's own matters to themself. Employees who work for a company should be granted the same amount of privacy they are granted in the outside world. Even though the employee is on company property, they should still be treated with the same privacy they would recieve off company property. Recently, Dow, a company based in Toronto provided the women employees a female changeroom in order to use the company workout facilities. Even though there were few females using the workout facilities, the company felt all the employees should have the same right to privacy they would recieve outside the workplace.

 

Although usually an employee should recieve the same amount of privacy recieved in public, there are times when their privacy must be sacrificed. Michael Caraher, the GM of the Washington Redskins was recently fired for having relations with a receptionist during company hours. Michael Caraher did not have the right to keep his relationship with the receptionist private, although in the real world he would have certainly been able to keep the relationship to himself.

 

Initially, it is difficult to determine when an employee should have the same right to privacy at the workplace as they do outside the workplace; howevery, a key determinant as to when the employee should lose the right to privacy is when the act sacrifices productivity. The women being granted a changeroom would not change how productive they were being at work, thus having their own private changeroom was just. On the hand, becuase Michael Caraher's relationship with the receptionist was during company hours and sacrificed productivity, the company had a right to know about the relationship.

 

Hey Pew Peter,

Your essay was well structured and you hit all the key points: interesting opening, addressing each task, specific examples, clear criteria, and even relating the criteria back to your examples to increase unity. It’s almost as if you’ve taken the Prep101 course before

Some suggestions:

- Spend a bit more time explaining the relevance of your examples. This was especially true for example 2 which feels abrupt. Try to flesh things out a bit more to engage your reader

- Relating your criteria back to your examples is good, but again spend more time explaining how your examples fit the criteria. This was again especially true for example 2 – i.e. how did it affect productivity

- Spend more time explaining your criteria and why it is important to draw that particular distinction you chose

Unlock higher scores by being more in-depth and offering a deeper treatment of the subject. Basically, write more! But still make sure to be concise. Balance is the key here – enough words to really delve into your arguments and examples, but not so many that you’re being redundant.

 

Score: 4/6

[the stranger]

The importance of education is undeniable by all who cherish thought-provoking critical thinking and skills. The advancements since the Industrial Revolution and the mass movement from agricultural life to urban living have demanded specialization in all fields of work. Education makes everyone equal when they are in elementary school. Timetables are preprogrammed for all students and everyone must attend the same classes. All students learn to read and write at the same age as well as how to solve mathematical problems. While there are different levels of reading and writing, these differences are not very widely pronounced between children in the same grade; they all learn to perform the basic functions that teachers demand of them. If a student is falling behind, more one-on-one time is spent to make sure the child is caught up. Hence, teachers push children along to stay caught up with the class and there is rarely ever a child failing elementary school. It is at this time in their lives that education has made an eighth grade graduation class fairly equal.

 

In contrast, individuality of these children is widely formed beginning the moment one begins their first day at high school. The differences between high school programs are vast-one can choose to attend a religious, private, or public school with a choice of what subjects to study, particularly in the second half of high school. There are a plethora of paths to be taken after high school graduation, unlike elementary school where everyone is simply entering a high school. Some people find jobs immediately while others go to College or University to advance their studies. It is at this moment in everyone’s life that they have chosen the path they will take, perhaps for the rest of their lives or temporarily until a love of a new profession and goal crosses in their path.

 

In conclusion, what determines whether or not education makes everyone equal is the level of education and step on the corporate ladder one achieves. Different levels of respect and salary are attained depending on which path on takes. White collar jobs are seen to be more respected and desired than blue collar jobs. Inevitably this leads to white collar workers to be seen as more sophisticated and specialized, not by any means equal to those inferior.

 

 

 

Thank you!

 

Hello missmathematics18,

There seems to be a problem with the arguments you’ve presented here. You talk about how people are given equal educational opportunities, but you don’t support the statement that education makes everyone equal in your task 1. As well in task 2, you state that different educations can lead people down different paths, which is true, but you don’t describe a specific situation in which the same level of education failed to equalize people (in a social context). True that people’s eventual jobs may make them unequal, but this doesn’t follow from your second task because you’ve stated that inequality comes from a difference in education level after highschool (i.e. the level of education required to get a blue collar/white collar job). Your task 3 therefore is flawed because you’ve only stated, essentially, that education level determines job status, and not determined when education has the power to equalize people in society and when it doesn’t. Granted this is a vague prompt, and many students had difficulty with it so don’t worry about it too much. I would suggest going back and reading some of the higher scoring essays for this prompt just to see different people’s approaches to the prompt.

Overall your writing is good and well structured, and you have potential to score higher. In the future, consider and aim to discuss the broader social implications of the prompt in order to present an in-depth, thoughtful and thorough exploration of the topic.

Score: 3/6

[Kalie]

Hi PreMed101,

 

This is the one stop location for MCAT Writing Sample Feedback from Prep101. I'll post ALL new prompts here every 5 days (July 19, 24, 29, August 3, 8), and I will include the words "newest prompt" on the most recent prompt posted (that way you can search for "newest prompt" and easily find the latest one). You can also post essays to ANY of the prompts I've posted in the past at any time, just be sure to include which prompt you're replying to in your response. Feel free to also post responses to any prompts that you choose: I'd be happy to give you some feedback on your essays to any prompt.

 

Please post all your essays to this thread, even if you're responding to one of the older prompts, or to any other prompt. That way everything will be in one place.

 

Good luck!

 

Sameer

 

Prompt #1 was

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

workplace."

 

Prompt #3 was

"In politics, the end rarely justifies the means."

 

Prompt #4 is

"Objectivity should be the primary goal in reporting the news."

Hey Sameer! Sorry this is really late... I just got on top of things now!

 

 

"In politics, the end rarely justifies the means."

 

 

Parents always tell you that there are two things that you should never speak about in the company of people you do not know – politics and religion. Politics can be an upsetting subject to some, as there are many different viewpoints one can take. This being said, many people would agree on the above statement. This statement shows a mistrust of political action, and says that while the end may be indisputably positive, the means through which a goal is achieved may not be justifiable. For example, take the war on terrorism in the United States. Over the past couple years there have been stories of torture and inhumane methods, both from the opposition and the U.S.A itself. Most memorably, there were reports that came out of Abu Gharib, which prooved that torture and inhumane acts were being used to obtain information from detainees. Undoubtedly, the means of obtaining this information was wrong.

 

However, exceptions occur when political action uses peaceful methods to solve problems. Take, for example, the BP oil spill that occurred just months ago. President Obama has been taking a hard line against BP Oil, demanding that there be compensation for the communities affected, aid in cleaning the environments near destruction, and quick action on stopping the oil spill itself. While the wheel has been slow in turning, the spill has been stopped, motions to clean environments and save animals are well under way, and communities are being assessed for the level of reimbursement they need. Notably, President Obama and those that work for him have been using words and legal action to elicit this response.

 

Therefore, the end result of a political action does not justify the means when illegal actions are taking place. In the case of Abu Gharib, illegal and inhumane treatment of prisoners may have given the information the soldiers were looking for, but it was unjustifiable as it broke international and national laws. However, as shown in the case of the BP oil spill, while many stories occur in which scandals and horrific events occur, political means can be achieved through humane and lawful action.

[wes.90]

Employees should have the same right to privacy in the workplace as they do outside the workplace. (prompt #1)

 

Millions of people across the country get up every Monday morning and head to work. Some of these people have large comfortable offices, where others work on assembly lines with hundreds of other people. At work some people have the same privacy they do at home; their own space, quiet, and the ability to do what they want with it. Others are forced to share their workspace and have very little privacy. In professions based on individual work, it is important for the employees to have the same privacy they do a home. An example of this would be an accounting firm. The accountants here have individual work to do, and will be the most efficient if there are little distractions. This is why most accountants have their own, private workspace.

 

Privacy is nice, but it doesn’t always promote the most efficient work. Jobs where people are constantly working together require less privacy and more interaction. An example of this would be a McDonalds or other fast food restaurant. If all the employees were separated it would take too long for a single order to be assembled. Each employee has a specific job (make the hamburgers, fries, drinks, or take orders), and if they were all separated then they couldn’t work together effectively. Although privacy provides less distraction, in some professions it is not effective.

 

Everyone wishes that they could have privacy at work, but this isn’t always the most efficient way to run a business. The employees should have the same privacy they do at home if the job requires individual work. If the job is more inclined to teamwork, then privacy is not justifiable. Could you imagine working as an accountant in a room of 20? Or working at a McDonalds where the fries, hamburgers, and drinks were all made in separate rooms? The importance of privacy in the work place is dependant on the nature of the profession.

[wes.90]

Education makes everyone equal (Prompt #2)

 

Every year, millions of our tax dollars are spent on education. There is such a large emphasis on the importance of education as it is believed to give everyone and equal chance of success. One area of education that makes everyone equal are certification programs for certain skills. An example of this is a standard first aid course. In order to pass the course you must demonstrate that you have learned how do treat various minor injuries. Everyone who passes this course can do this and is therefore equal in the area of first aid. You can do it or you can’t, there is no grey area. It is clear that skill certification programs produce people of equal standing in that specific area.

 

On a more general scale, all education doesn’t necessarily make everyone equal. This is exemplified in the secondary school education systems. Throughout high school, every student responds differently to the teachers, pursues different interests, and works at a different pace. Upon graduation, everyone in the class is different. Some are moving on to university, others are learning a trade, and some may not know exactly where they are going. This is because the teacher presents the material in one way and every student interoperates it in his or her own way. General education does not produce equal graduates.

 

Although the goal of education is to give everyone an equal chance, it doesn’t always accomplish this. Education makes everyone equal if it is for a very specific skill, but if it is general education it produces a wide variety of people. Everyone who successfully completes a first aid course knows the material and is equally useful in an accident. On the contrary any given high school graduate could be doing something completely different from the next. Education is very important, but doesn’t always make everyone equal.

[7vrb]

Hi again! I'm SO glad you are willing to critique other posts - this is my weakest area so I'm glad I'm getting lots of feedback! This is one from one of the full practice MCATs I've done:

 

 

One should always tell the truth.

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 one should not tell the truth. Discuss what you think determines whether or not one should tell the truth.

 

"Honesty is the best policy" is a well known proverb. Being truthful is a well-esteemed quality to posses, those who are honest are often the most repected. Telling the truth often depicts you as a brave, moral, trustworthy person which, as a whole, lead to a better image and possibly more success in society. As such, it is usually best to always tell the truth. Even if it means putting oneself in a negative light, it is usually best for all involved if the truth of a situation is known. For example, in court cases, perpetrators are often given a lighter sentance if they plead guilty right off the bat as opposed to being proven guilty after consistantly asserting otherwise. This act can be seen as brave and can show that the perpetrator is aware of his wrong doings and is willing to accept the consequences. Honesty is rewarded in many situations such as this.

 

However the truth can be used for malice. It is often the tactic of an army to take prisoners of war and torture them to get information on enemy troops. Some prisoners cave to this torture and release information that gives the enemy an advantage resulting in the deaths of many. However, some prisoners are able to resist and, even if it leads to their own death, do not disclose important information or give false information. They essentially protect their country by being dishonest or not revealing the truth.

 

Honesty is the best policy depending on the situation in which it is being requested. When all involved and society would benefit from the truth it is important that it is disclosed. It can even benefit someone who is at fault if they are shown to be honest such as in some criminal trials. However, when the truth is being used for wrong, such as to perpetuate a war, it is best to not disclose the truth. People can be protected from harm by lying, therefore, in such cases, dishonesty is the best policy.

[7vrb]

Here's another one: again thank you SO much!

 

Politicians should never compromise their principles

 

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 politician should compromise. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a politician should compromise.

 

In a democracy, politicians are elected because their political principles concur with the principles held by the majority of the people they are going to represent. A politician’s principles can be political or personal. Political principles are ideas such as the political regime they support, be it Conservative, Liberal, Democrat or Republican, and their beleifs for healthcare or environmental policies. Personal principles might be their affiliation with a certain religion, or something else that does not involve government. A politician should not compromise their principles for which they were elected. Their job is to represent the principles of the majority and therefore they cannot compromise those principles without compromising that representation. President George W. Bush began the war on terrorism against Iraq because of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City. Although this war would result in the deaths of many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, he refused to compromise the American principle of anti-terrorism by letting terrorism go unpunished.

 

Although politicians must support and represent the principles of their people, they should not let their personal principles get in the way of this representation. Dalton McGuinty, the premiere of Ontario, legalized same-sex marriages in 2005, despite the fact that it went against his personal beleifs. As a member of the Catholic Church, McGuinty was opposed to same-sex marriage, however he compromised his principles in order to give fair representation to the people of Ontario.

 

Politicians must find a balance between upholding their political principles and personal principles. It is important that politicians uphold the principles of the country or area they are representing in order to give a strong message, as when Bush decided to uphold the American principle of anti-terrorism despite the repercusions on American soldiers. However when it comes to a politicians personal principles, it is important that they do not get in the way of representing the majority. Dalton McGuinty allowing same-sex marriages in Ontario is an example of this. A politician should not compromise their principles when those principles are integral to a country's beliefs, however a politician should set aside his principles if they are of a personal nature and do not represent the principles of the people he or she represents.