Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback

[RaymondPrep101]

Politicians who are motivated by their own personal popularity are not true leaders.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a politician motivated by popularity might be a true leader. Discuss what you think determines when a politician motivated by popularity can be a true leader.

 

Instructions

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread.

 

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

 

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

 

Deadline

11:59pm Tuesday, March 6.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Wednesday, March 7.

[souljaboy]

In many countries, a politican must have some sort of personal popularity in order to attain a high position. However, for many politicians, personal popularity becomes a greater aspect of identity and they would sacrifice the well being of the state in order to increase their own popularity. An extreme example of such a case is the former North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, who possessed an enormous ego that must be satisfied by the adoration of his countrymen. To attain greater personal popularity, Kim manufactured an abundance of lies and provoked dangerous confrontations with the United States and South Korea. Many of these conflicts were very dangerous for the citizens of North Korea where they might have easily been thrown into war, such as firing on South Korea troops across the Demilitarized Zone. However, Kim heavily propogandarize these events and paints himself as the savior of North Korea, thereby securing popularity for himself. His actions to increase his popularity endangers the nation as a whole.

 

In another extreme, a politician can use his personal popularity to improve the overall quality of the nation. To these people, their own popularity is secondary to the greater good. Mahatma Ghandi stands as a politician that attained incredible popularity among Indians and used it to improve the nation as a whole. Ghandi used his popularity among the citizens of India to force the British into giving India its freedom from colonial rule. Without his popularity amongst the people, it would not have been possible for Ghandi to use his own life as leverage in order to pressure Britain into giving up its control of India. Ghandi also stood by his beliefs and thought with the greater good of the nation in mind when he advocated for peace with Pakistan, which directly led to his death at the hands of an assassin that did not share his beliefs.Ghandi acted as a true leader who used his popularity to obtain greater good for those that he represent.

 

Popularity is a necessity for many politicians to obtain their jobs. However when a politician puts his own popularity above the good of the nation, as in the example with Kim Jong Il, he becomes a leader that damages his nation with his pursuit of popularity. A person like Mahatma Ghandi, who utilized his popularity as a means of improving the nation, stands out a true leader who put popularity secondary in his mind to the greater good. Any politicians that puts personal popularity above the needs of those he represent can never be a true leader to his people. Ultimately, It is up to the population to see through a politician's facade and decide whether he is someone who should be representing the nation.

[kylamonkey]

My first WS essay in 5 years! My MCAT will expire this year so I need to rewrite. I don't feel great about this essay (I really, really don't think I should use a current political situation) but I'll post it anyways.

 

Politicians who are motivated by their own personal popularity are not true leaders.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a politician motivated by popularity might be a true leader. Discuss what you think determines when a politician motivated by popularity can be a true leader.

***************

 

A politician motivated by their own popularity can be a leader. Motivation to achieve a goal can allow people to achieve things they wouldn't otherwise. One of the hallmarks of a democracy is appealing to the people. When a politician does this, they can both increase their popularity and make innovative changes- changes that reflect the will of the people and not necessarily the preferences of those who are most influential. Recent attention in the media towards access to birth control has sparked heavy debate. When radio host Rush Limbaugh used harsh and deragatory language towards a young female law student who had spoken up in favour of providing access to birth control, the response of President Barack Obama was to phone her directly, indicating that her "parents should be proud of her". Was Obama's move simply to gain popularity? Perhaps not. Perhaps it was simply a message of support to a young woman who was being vilified by a few members of the media. In any case, it still provided leadership on the issue, with Limbaugh apologizing the next day, and prominent Republicans distancing themselves from the remarks.

 

In other cases, the pursuit of popularity can be a politician's downfall. At the extreme end is the behaviour and attitude of some dictators, such as Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania. Under his regime in the 1980s, megalomaniacal projects were undertaken to showcase his power and popularity to both the people of his country, and the rest of the world. A replica of the Champs Elysee and the Presidential Palace were two of his most notable follies- now they stand as a testament to the self-centred attitude of a dying regime. Under this leadership, Romania experienced a severe economic crisis, food shortages, and heavy incarceration of the population. At the same time as his country was experiencing food shortages, they exported food to other countries to gain favour with many of the major Cold War players- including both the US and Russia. Ceausescu's pursuit of projects that made him popular in the eyes of the outside world led to abject poverty of his people, and ultimately, his assassination.

 

In the end, motivation does not matter as much as the politician's charisma, attitude, and ability. It's important to remember too that popularity is not necessarily an instantaneous thing- sometimes the leaders history remembers best are those who were not popular in their own time. The popularity of a leader can be a positive trait when it leads them to the betterment of life for the people in their country and around the world. When a politician neglects the greater good in favour of improving his own popularity, such as the case with Ceausescu, it can have tragic consequences. In other cases, small gestures like connecting with one voter can be the mark of real leadership and have positive consequences.

[DaKirbster]

Good politicians are necessary for any society to run smoothly. To be a true leader, they must be able to do what is best for their country and the public, and not simply concerned with maintaining their popularity. Sometimes, sacrifices to a politicians popularity are required for the politician to make a decision that will be the most beneficial overall. As such, politicians are not true leaders if they are primarily motivated by their personal popularity. For example, in late 20th century Saskatchewan, the premier of the province decided to lower taxes in order to maintain his popularity, despite a desperate need for additional provincial income. While the general public hailed this decision since they had to pay less taxes, it caused some major economic problems down the road for Saskatchewan that had to be rectified. This politician was not a true leader because he made his decision based upon popularity instead of what was in the best interest of the province.

 

However, there are some cases when a politician who is motivated by popularity can be a true leader. For example, in order for a bill to be passed into legislation in Canada, it must receive a majority vote. This vote includes political parties other than the one currently in power. A true leader will propose a bill that is acceptable to the majority of parties in a democratic fashion in order to get it passed. In such a case, the politician is motivated by their popularity among fellow educated politicians and makes a decision based upon the most agreed upon choice, a true democratic process. Since the fellow politicians are presumably knowledgable, maintaining popularity among these politicians is most likely to result in a decision that is overall best for the country.

 

What determines whether or not a politician motivated by their own popularity is a true leader depends on if they wish to remain popular among the general public or among fellow polticians. In the first example, the leader of Saskatchewan wanted to be popular among the general public and decided to lower taxes to accomplish this; the result was detrimental to the province in the long run and thus he was not a true leader. In the second example, the politician wishes to remain popular among fellow politicians and thus bases decisions on the popular vote in the caucus. By doing so, the politician is accepting influence from other educated politicians and fosters democracy, resulting is decisions that are beneficial to the country. Ultimately, there is a fine balance between popularity and sacrifice that a politician must find in order to be both successful and beneficial.

[xngn8r]

Politicians who are motivated by their own personal popularity are not true leaders.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a politician motivated by popularity might be a true leader. Discuss what you think determines when a politician motivated by popularity can be a true leader.

 

 

In a democratic society a politician by definition represents the people who elected him. As such he is promoted to a leadership position by his constituents. What motivates someone to become a politician and a leader? Some individuals serve The Idea, and becoming a leader is simply a tool for them to be able to implement The Idea more effectively. Others feel the inner need to be popular, to have power, to rise above the common people. The individuals in this category, while possessing leadership skills, are not true leaders. Their true motives become obvious very quickly after they assume the position of power and they often make decisions throughout their careers that do not benefit community in a long run, but only serve the short term goals of maintaining their current popularity level in order to be re-elected. Individuals like that are often seen changing their opinions and directions based on the results of polls shortly before the election campaign. An example that comes to mind is a former Liberal Party of Canada leader Michael Ignatieff. In an interview on a widely watched Quebec talk show he was asked about his opinion of the Israeli bombing of a village of Qana during a war with Lebanon that killed dozens of civilians. His response was that he was “not losing sleep over it”. After realizing that his comments were very unpopular in Quebec where he was hunting for votes, he quickly declared Israel’s actions “a war crime”. At the end public recognized the lack of leadership skills in Ignatieff and he did not even win in his riding.

 

It seems upon initial examination that being motivated by popularity and being true leader are mutually exclusive notions. However they can co-exist if in addition to being motivated by personal popularity a politician truly aspires to improve the life of his constituents and uses popularity as a tool to achieve his leadership position. One of the leaders of Russian Revolution Leon Trotsky was an extremely popular figure among soldiers. He was fully aware of his popularity and greatly enjoyed it. During the Civil War in Russia that followed a Revolution, Trotsky became a Head of the Red Army and managed to win a war for Bolsheviks. While a personal popularity was a strong motivator for Trotsky, he was also obsessed with the idea of worldwide revolution and communism. Even though we might disagree with his ideas now, at the time of his political career he was recognized as a true leader by people who followed him.

 

At the end of the day, the goal of every politician is to assume a position of leadership and power. What makes a politician a true leader is what he does with his power after it is achieved. The history shows that it is a person’s underlying motivation to become a leader that will determine his course of action when his goal is achieved. A true leader usually has a vision that captivates people’s minds and will adhere to it regardless of short term changes in public’s mood. An opportunist will react to every opinion poll and change his stance on issues when it suits the current political climate. Someone who adheres to his vision through good and bad times may also be motivated to a degree by personal popularity , but public will forgive him that sin if he exhibits other qualities of a true leader, such as resolve, strength, and perseverance, the qualities that we value in leaders, but often do not possess ourselves.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by souljaboy

 

In many countries, a politican must have some sort of personal popularity in order to attain a high position. However, for many politicians, personal popularity becomes a greater aspect of identity and they would sacrifice the well being of the state in order to increase their own popularity. An extreme example of such a case is the former North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, who possessed an enormous ego that must be satisfied by the adoration of his countrymen. To attain greater personal popularity, Kim manufactured an abundance of lies and provoked dangerous confrontations with the United States and South Korea. Many of these conflicts were very dangerous for the citizens of North Korea where they might have easily been thrown into war, such as firing on South Korea troops across the Demilitarized Zone. Awkward organization. However, Kim heavily propogandarize these events and paints himself as the savior of North Korea, thereby securing popularity for himself. His actions to increase his popularity endangers the nation as a whole.

Excellent example. The argument needs to be more focused on explicitly addressing the supporting task. Try paraphrasing the task and ending with a concluding sentence in order to facilitate this.

 

In another extreme, a politician can use his personal popularity to improve the overall quality of the nation. To these people, their own popularity is secondary to the greater good. Mahatma Ghandi stands as a politician that attained incredible popularity among Indians and used it to improve the nation as a whole. Ghandi used his popularity among the citizens of India to force the British into giving India its freedom from colonial rule. Without his popularity amongst the people, it would not have been possible for Ghandi to use his own life as leverage in order to pressure Britain into giving up its control of India. Ghandi also stood by his beliefs and thought with the greater good of the nation in mind when he advocated for peace with Pakistan, which directly led to his death at the hands of an assassin that did not share his beliefs. Run-on sentence Ghandi acted as a true leader who used his popularity to obtain greater good for those that he represent.

Excellent

 

Popularity is a necessity for many politicians to obtain their jobs. However when a politician puts his own popularity above the good of the nation, as in the example with Kim Jong Il, he becomes a leader that damages his nation with his pursuit of popularity. A person like Mahatma Ghandi, who utilized his popularity as a means of improving the nation, stands out a true leader who put popularity secondary in his mind to the greater good. Any politicians that puts personal popularity above the needs of those he represent can never be a true leader to his people. Ultimately, It is up to the population to see through a politician's facade and decide whether he is someone who should be representing the nation.

Excellent. Try presenting your resolution principle at the outset of the paragraph. This helps to improve the organization of the paragraph.

 

Overall Mark: 6/6 (Corresponds to approximately a T)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 6 All tasks are completely addressed.

Depth: 6

Focus and coherence: 6

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by kylamonkey

 

Politicians who are motivated by their own personal popularity are not true leaders.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a politician motivated by popularity might be a true leader. Discuss what you think determines when a politician motivated by popularity can be a true leader.

***************

 

A politician motivated by their own popularity can be a leader. Motivation to achieve a goal can allow people to achieve things they wouldn't otherwise. One of the hallmarks of a democracy is appealing to the people. When a politician does this, they can both increase their popularity and make innovative changes- changes that reflect the will of the people and not necessarily the preferences of those who are most influential. Recent attention in the media towards access to birth control has sparked heavy debate. When radio host Rush Limbaugh used harsh and deragatory language towards a young female law student who had spoken up in favour of providing access to birth control, the response of President Barack Obama was to phone her directly, indicating that her "parents should be proud of her". Was Obama's move simply to gain popularity? Perhaps not. Perhaps it was simply a message of support to a young woman who was being vilified by a few members of the media. In any case, it still provided leadership on the issue, with Limbaugh apologizing the next day, and prominent Republicans distancing themselves from the remarks.

A few problems:

1) Try sticking with the standard order of paragraphs: Supporting paragraph, refuting paragraph and resolution paragraph. This is what the marker is expecting (supporting paragraph before refuting paragraph).

2) This example could work but not in the way it is described here. The example is not focused on addressing the writing task.

3) The organization is a bit haphazard and the example is presented but a point is not really made.

 

In other cases, the pursuit of popularity can be a politician's downfall. This is somewhat related to the writing task but is different enough to be considered off-topic. At the extreme end is the behaviour and attitude of some dictators, such as Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania. Under his regime in the 1980s, megalomaniacal projects were undertaken to showcase his power and popularity to both the people of his country, and the rest of the world. A replica of the Champs Elysee and the Presidential Palace were two of his most notable follies- now they stand as a testament to the self-centred attitude of a dying regime. Under this leadership, Romania experienced a severe economic crisis, food shortages, and heavy incarceration of the population. At the same time as his country was experiencing food shortages, they exported food to other countries to gain favour with many of the major Cold War players- including both the US and Russia. Ceausescu's pursuit of projects that made him popular in the eyes of the outside world led to abject poverty of his people, and ultimately, his assassination.

This example is excellent. However, it should be more focused on explicitly addressing the writing task. Try paraphrasing the prompt and ending with a simple concluding sentence to tie up your argument.

 

In the end, motivation does not matter as much as the politician's charisma, attitude, and ability. It's important to remember too that popularity is not necessarily an instantaneous thing- sometimes the leaders history remembers best are those who were not popular in their own time. The popularity of a leader can be a positive trait when it leads them to the betterment of life for the people in their country and around the world.

This is all off topic and does not directly relate to addressing the resolution task. When a politician neglects the greater good in favour of improving his own popularity, such as the case with Ceausescu, it can have tragic consequences. In other cases, small gestures like connecting with one voter can be the mark of real leadership and have positive consequences.

There is no clear resolution principle and therefore no resolution of the two examples.

Current events can be used as long as they are not overly controversial. I tend to advise away from current US politics as your marker will be American and you don't want to inadvertently offend them.

 

Overall Mark: 2/6 (Corresponds to approximately a L )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is very well addressed. Refuting task is not really addressed. Resolution task is not addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 2 A lot of the discussion was off-topic and not focused on addressing the writing tasks.

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by DaKirbster

 

Good politicians are necessary for any society to run smoothly. To be a true leader, they must be able to do what is best for their country and the public, and not simply concerned with maintaining their popularity. Sometimes, sacrifices to a politicians popularity are required for the politician to make a decision that will be the most beneficial overall. As such, politicians are not true leaders if they are primarily motivated by their personal popularity. For example, in late 20th century Saskatchewan, the premier of the province decided to lower taxes in order to maintain his popularity, despite a desperate need for additional provincial income. While the general public hailed this decision since they had to pay less taxes, it caused some major economic problems down the road for Saskatchewan that had to be rectified. This politician was not a true leader because he made his decision based upon popularity instead of what was in the best interest of the province.

This example is solid. A name would have lent some more credibility to the example. A bit more depth would also improve the example.

 

However, there are some cases when a politician who is motivated by popularity can be a true leader. For example, in order for a bill to be passed into legislation in Canada, it must receive a majority vote in parliament. This vote includes political parties other than the one currently in power. A true leader will propose a bill that is acceptable to the majority of parties in a democratic fashion in order to get it passed. In such a case, the politician is motivated by their popularity among fellow educated politicians and makes a decision based upon the most agreed upon choice, a true democratic process. Since the fellow politicians are presumably knowledgable, maintaining popularity among these politicians is most likely to result in a decision that is overall best for the country.

There are a few issues here.

1) This is a hypothetical example and as such is weaker than a concrete example.

2) The example also seems implausible.

3) Everything is very vague and there are few specifics.

 

What determines whether or not a politician motivated by their own popularity is a true leader depends on if they wish to remain popular among the general public or among fellow polticians. This is a good resolution. It sets clear conditions out. In the first example, the leader of Saskatchewan wanted to be popular among the general public and decided to lower taxes to accomplish this; the result was detrimental to the province in the long run and thus he was not a true leader. In the second example, the politician wishes to remain popular among fellow politicians and thus bases decisions on the popular vote in the caucus. By doing so, the politician is accepting influence from other educated politicians and fosters democracy, resulting is decisions that are beneficial to the country. Ultimately, there is a fine balance between popularity and sacrifice that a politician must find in order to be both successful and beneficial.

The weakness of your second example comes back to affect the strength of your arguments in the resolution paragraph. The principle is applied well but again, the example lacks strength.

 

Overall Mark: 3/6 (Corresponds to approximately a N)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3.5 Some ideas lack depth.

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by xngn8r

 

In a democratic society a politician by definition represents the people who elected him. As such he is promoted to a leadership position by his constituents. What motivates someone to become a politician and a leader? Some individuals serve The Idea, and becoming a leader is simply a tool for them to be able to implement The Idea more effectively. The Idea? Others feel the inner need to be popular, to have power, to rise above the common people. The individuals in this category, while possessing leadership skills, are not true leaders. Their true motives become obvious very quickly after they assume the position of power and they often make decisions throughout their careers that do not benefit the community in the long run, but only serve the short term goals of maintaining their current popularity level in order to be re-elected. Run-on sentence Individuals like that are often seen changing their opinions and directions based on the results of polls shortly before the election campaign. It takes you too long to set up for the discussion of your example. An example that comes to mind is a former Liberal Party of Canada leader Michael Ignatieff. In an interview on a widely watched Quebec talk show he was asked about his opinion of the Israeli bombing of a village of Qana during a war with Lebanon that killed dozens of civilians. His response was that he was “not losing sleep over it”. After realizing that his comments were very unpopular in Quebec where he was hunting for votes, he quickly declared Israel’s actions “a war crime”. At the end the public recognized the lack of leadership skills in Ignatieff and he did not even win in his riding.

This example works. Overall, the writing should be more concise and more focused on addressing the writing task. There are unnecessary ideas that just serve to dilute the strength of your argument. Sometimes less is more.

 

It seems upon initial examination that being motivated by popularity and being true leader grammar are mutually exclusive notions. However they can co-exist if in addition to being motivated by personal popularity a politician truly aspires to improve the life of his constituents and uses popularity as a tool to achieve his leadership position. One of the leaders of the Russian Revolution Leon Trotsky was an extremely popular figure among soldiers. He was fully aware of his popularity and greatly enjoyed it. During the Civil War in Russia that followed a Revolution, Trotsky became a Head of the Red Army and managed to win a war for Bolsheviks Bolsheviks? . While a personal popularity was a strong motivator for Trotsky, he was also obsessed with the idea of worldwide revolution and communism. How is this relevant to your argument? Even though we might disagree with his ideas now, at the time of his political career he was recognized as a true leader by people who followed him.

This example could work but the writing needs improvement here. You set out the idea that a true leader and being motivated by popularity can co-exist if 1) the politician truly aspires to improve the life of his constituents and 2) uses popularity as a tool to achieve his leadership position. You establish neither point in your discussion of the example. Similar to before, your discussion needs to be more focused on addressing the writing task.

 

At the end of the day, the goal of every politician is to assume a position of leadership and power. This is not always the case. What makes a politician a true leader is what he does with his power after it is achieved. The history shows that it is a person’s underlying motivation to become a leader that will determine his course of action when his goal is achieved. A true leader usually has a vision that captivates people’s minds and will adhere to it regardless of short term changes in public’s mood. An opportunist will react to every opinion poll and change his stance on issues when it suits the current political climate. Someone who adheres to his vision through good and bad times may also be motivated to a degree by personal popularity , but public will forgive him that sin grammar if he exhibits other qualities of a true leader, such as resolve, strength, and perseverance, the qualities that we value in leaders, but often do not possess ourselves.

There is no clear resolution principle here. There are hints but it is not explicitly stated in a clear manner. Furthermore, this paragraph does not fulfill the requirements of the resolution paragraph. You need to present a resolution principle and then apply it to both your examples thus creating a clear distinction between them.

 

Overall Mark: 2/6 (Corresponds to approximately a L )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is poorly addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 2 Focus should be on addressing the writing tasks.

Grammar and vocabulary: 3 Numerous grammatical errors

[RaymondPrep101]

The prestige of an occupation usually reflects the value of that occupation to society.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the prestige of an occupation might not reflect its value to society. Discuss what you think determines when prestige reflects the value of an occupation to society.

 

Instructions

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread.

 

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

 

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

 

Deadline

11:59pm Sunday, March 11.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Monday, March 12.

[xngn8r]

Thanks for a review. I will try the next one now.

[Non-trad hopeful]

The prestige of an occupation may or may not reflect the value of that occupation to society. An example of an occupation that is both prestigious and of high value to society is a medical doctor in Canada. Medical doctors are well-remunerated and also maintain a certain status in society that is generally characterized by respect. In some ways, Canadian doctors are unique because they operate in the ‘public sector’ and yet they are paid significantly higher than most other public sector employees. If doctors were to operate in the private sector, they may receive a higher salary but may not have the same level of respect from the public for their services. In this way, doctors are unique in that they are performing a public service that is of extreme value to society and at the same time they maintain a high level of prestige characterized by high-remuneration and respect.

 

However, the majority of public sector occupations in Canada do not receive the same level of prestige. For instance, teachers are frequently on strike – in British Columbia, for example, they have been in negotiations for months and are now on strike – over issues such as a lack of job security, poor remuneration, and classroom sizes. These issues reflect the fact that teachers generally do not hold a high position of prestige in society. While teachers may be respected on many levels for the work that they do, this respect in not reflected in their work conditions, and thus does not translate to prestige.

 

The majority of occupations that are of high-value to society are in the public sector – for instance, doctors, teachers, police officers, firemen etc. It is for this reason that these occupations fall under the banner of ‘public service jobs’. However, these occupations are unevenly remunerated. Whether or not the prestige of an occupation reflects its value to society thus depends not only on whether the particular occupation is well respected – you could argue that both teachers and doctors are highly respected professions – but also whether proper compensation and fair working conditions are granted to the occupation. In the case of doctors, I would argue that sufficient compensation and respect are afforded in order to reflect the value of this occupation for society. However, for teachers, the respect for their occupation is not reflected in their remuneration or working conditions and thus their high-value to society is not recognized.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by Non-trad hopeful

 

The prestige of an occupation may or may not reflect the value of that occupation to society. Before jumping into the argument right away, it would be nice to have an introduction. Start by paraphrasing the prompt and defining terms that are needed (in this case prestige and/or value). An example of an occupation that is both prestigious and of high value to society is a medical doctor in Canada. Medical doctors are well-remunerated and also maintain a certain status in society that is generally characterized by respect. In some ways, Canadian doctors are unique because they operate in the ‘public sector’ and yet they are paid significantly higher than most other public sector employees. If doctors were to operate in the private sector, they may receive a higher salary but may not have the same level of respect from the public for their services. This last part about public and private sector is a bit off-topic. The space and time would be better spent on elaborating upon the main points of this paragraph. In this way, doctors are unique in that they are performing a public service that is of extreme value to society and at the same time they maintain a high level of prestige characterized by high-remuneration and respect.

This example is solid.

 

However, the majority of public sector occupations in Canada do not receive the same level of prestige. For instance, teachers are frequently on strike – in British Columbia, for example, they have been in negotiations for months and are now on strike – over issues such as a lack of job security, poor remuneration, and classroom sizes. Run-on sentence These issues reflect the fact that teachers generally do not hold a high position of prestige in society. While teachers may be respected on many levels for the work that they do, this respect in not reflected in their work conditions, and thus does not translate to prestige.

This example could work but the explanation and writing style need improvement. It needs to be more focused on addressing the writing task. For example you do not talk about the value of teaching to society.

 

The majority of occupations that are of high-value to society are in the public sector – for instance, doctors, teachers, police officers, firemen etc. It is for this reason that these occupations fall under the banner of ‘public service jobs’. However, these occupations are unevenly remunerated.

 

Whether or not the prestige of an occupation reflects its value to society thus depends not only on whether the particular occupation is well respected – you could argue that both teachers and doctors are highly respected professions – but also whether proper compensation and fair working conditions are granted to the occupation.

Problems:

1) The italicized part doesn't make sense for the resolution. The point of the resolution paragraph is to separate your two examples. However, if both teachers and doctors are highly respected professions, how can respect be used to resolve the two examples? Furthermore, respect and prestige are highly related which makes it even more difficult to use as a resolution principle.

2) The resolution principle of whether proper compensation and fair conditions are granted is vague and ambiguous. Who decides whether compensation is proper and conditions are fair? For the resolution principle, you want it to be obvious and easy to apply.

In the case of doctors, I would argue that sufficient compensation and respect are afforded in order to reflect the value of this occupation for society. However, for teachers, the respect for their occupation is not reflected in their remuneration or working conditions and thus their high-value to society is not recognized.

The argument is not convincing because it is based on personal opinion rather than facts. Who decides whether doctors are properly compensated? Who decides whether teachers are properly paid? Unless you have facts to back the argument up, it is personal opinion and conjecture.

 

Overall, the writing is fine. The structure is also okay. However, the strength of the arguments is lacking.

 

Overall Mark: 2.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a M)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3 Some of the ideas lack depth.

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[gg173]

The prestige of an occupation usually reflects the value of that occupation to society.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the prestige of an occupation might not reflect its value to society. Discuss what you think determines when prestige reflects the value of an occupation to society.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Lawyers, physicians, professional athletes, and celebrities are just a few "prestigious" occupations in society. The common thread that connects all of these occupations in their "prestige" is the inordinately high income that they afford. Conversely, garbage collectors, janitors, and waitresses are examples of far less prestigious occupations in society, and are all characterized by relatively low-wage incomes. Ultimately, the prestige of an occupation is directly proportional to the income that occupation provides. The question remains, however, if the prestige of an occupation adequately reflects the value of that occupation to society.

 

The prestige granted to lawyers, engineers, physicians and other high-income occupations that require extensive training and education is warranted since these occupations serve important functions for society at large - the lawyer ensures justice is maintained; the physician tends to the health of the population; the engineer designs infrastructure and systems society requires to function. From these examples it can be said that prestigious occupations are valuable to society when the occupations function to maintain the well-being and proper functioning of society. This conclusion, however, falls short when considering the value of other prestigious occupations such as professional athletes, movie stars and haute-couture fashion designers. These occupations afford disproportionately high incomes yet do not significantly contribute to the well-being or maintenance of our society. Britney Spears nets a yearly income well above that of the common engineer or family doctor, yet the value of her occupation (i.e., performing music, endorsing products, modelling for magazines) is minimal at best. Evidently, the value of an occupation to society cannot always be determined by the occupation's prestige.

 

On the opposite side of the spectrum, less prestigious occupations such as janitors, garbage collectors and waitresses consistently lack any perceived value to society. A janitor, garbage collector or waitress is paid a relatively low wage, has poor job security, and must work significantly more hours to achieve any semblance of the quality of life enjoyed by a doctor, engineer or Britney Spears. These occupations, however, are not entirely devoid of value for society - a janitor is required to keep our hospitals, schools and other public facilities clean and sanitary, and a garbage collector is required to properly dispose our waste and recycling so as to avoid a public health hazard. The prestigious physician is needed to tend to the health of society, but the less prestigious sanitation worker is needed to prevent a public health crisis from occurring. Clearly, the disparity between an occupation's prestige and its value to society is in need of reconciliation.

 

It does not suffice it to say that an occupation is valuable to society if that occupation is considered prestigious. In addition, some valuable occupations are not considered prestigious. The professional athlete, movie star or fashion designer is not valuable to society because, despite their prestige, their work is not functionally important to society. The janitor or garbage collector is not considered valuable by society because their work does not require extensive training and education, and can be readily performed by any member of society. The lawyer, doctor or engineer, however, is prestigious and valuable because their work is of functional importance to society and can only be performed by highly trained members of society. Therefore, a more valid and encompassing generalization is that prestigious occupations are only valuable to society when those occupations combine functional importance to society with extensive training and education.

[donna71]

Prestige is often associated with wealth and social status and one may often equate prestige to those holding occupations of doctors and lawyers. These occupations address basic needs inherent of any society, such as the medical and health concerns and the basic rights of all individuals. Therefore these occupations provide an invaluable service and resource as all societies face the aforementioned needs. The gratitude and esteem held for such individuals is reflected in the elevated social status for such “heroic” figures that aid the helpless layman and therefore the prestige of such occupations reflects their value to society.

 

However one may argue that prestigious occupations are not a reflection of value to a society. For instance, celebrities may also be regarded as prestigious; they are regarded with high social status and earn a wealthy, if not exorbitant, salary. Reality TV celebrities, such as the actors and actresses on Jersey Shore, are ubiquitous now, but was not the case in the 1980s; a society can thrive with or without such occupations and therefore can be said to be of inconsequential value. Such occupations do not provide a basic need, but provide the luxury of entertainment.

 

Prestigious occupations can be found in all societies, but may not be reflective of its value to such societies. What determines whether or not these positions are a value to society is contingent upon the type of need addressed, specifically whether it is a basic need or a luxury need. Prestige reflects value to a society if fundamental needs are addressed such as medical care and justice. However the prestige may not reflect value to society if such occupations contribute to luxury or ancillary needs. A society’s progress in becoming a wealthy nation produces different types of needs, and as a result the demand for and creation of different occupations illustrates such progress.

[souljaboy]

For many occupations, the prestige is usually an indication of the glamour and and importance associated with it. An occupation that most would believe to be the most prestigious is the President of the United States. The prestige associated with this job is almost limitless since it is one of the most visible and important single occupation in the world. The enormous prestige associated with this job is a direct reflection of the the job's value, as the President is responsible for maintaining and improving the society. In fact, the President is likely the single most important person in the American society because he is responsible for making the majority of the decisions that affect society as a whole.The position of President is a necessity for the society because there must be a person to take reign of all the responsibilies of taking care of society. Therefore, the most prestigious job in America also has the most value to the society.

 

However, there are also many occupations that considered prestigious nowadays that offer limited contributions to society. An example is the occupation of a "celebrity" that has sprung up in the past two decades, specifically those that are famous for being famous. Most people would considered being a celebrity as a very prestigious position because of all the glamour associated with it. Many celebrities are in fact important because they are in the entertainment industry and have major contributions to society, but there are those manages to become famous for a random reason and then continues to do whatever they can to stay in the spotlight. An example would be Kim Kardashian, who managed to become famous from releasing a sex tape, then continues to retain the spotlight with a series of relationships with actors and athletes, which also included a month long marriage. Celebrities like Kim Kardashian do not contribute to society in any significant way other than staying in the tabloid pages, but their position is still regarded as highly prestigious.

 

It is a commonheld belief that the most prestigious positions in society are the ones that has the greatest contribution to our world. Prestigious occupations such as doctors and lawyers, and also the President of the United States, has a wide range of contributions to society and are inexpendable. Then again, there are those positions that offer limited contributions but are regarded as prestigious nonetheless, such as celebrities like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton who are mainly famous for being famous. These are likely the rarities, though. In the majority of cases, occupations that are prestigious are very important to society because these occupations attained the prestige from its' importance.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by gg173B

 

The prestige of an occupation usually reflects the value of that occupation to society.[/b]

 

Describe a specific situation in which the prestige of an occupation might not reflect its value to society. Discuss what you think determines when prestige reflects the value of an occupation to society.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There is a standard 3 paragraph structure that is best for writing sample essays. I would recommend using that format since it is the most effective.

Lawyers, physicians, professional athletes, and celebrities are just a few "prestigious" you should define prestigious rather than using quotations occupations in society. The common thread that connects all of these occupations in their "prestige" is the inordinately high income that they afford grammar. Conversely, garbage collectors, janitors, and waitresses are examples of far less prestigious occupations in society, and are all characterized by relatively low-wage incomes. Ultimately, the prestige of an occupation is directly proportional to the income that occupation provides. The question remains, however, if the prestige of an occupation adequately reflects the value of that occupation to society.

This introduction has some okay points but is too long because it does not directly address the writing task.

 

The prestige granted to lawyers, engineers, physicians and other high-income occupations that require extensive training and education is warranted since these occupations serve important functions for society at large - the lawyer ensures justice is maintained; the physician tends to the health of the population; the engineer designs infrastructure and systems society requires to function. Run-on sentence From these examples it can be said that prestigious occupations are valuable to society when the occupations function to maintain the well-being and proper functioning of society. This conclusion, however, falls short when considering the value of other prestigious occupations such as professional athletes, movie stars and haute-couture fashion designers. These occupations afford disproportionately high incomes yet do not significantly contribute to the well-being or maintenance of our society. Britney Spears nets a yearly income well above that of the common engineer or family doctor, yet the value of her occupation (i.e., performing music, endorsing products, modelling for magazines) is minimal at best. Evidently, the value of an occupation to society cannot always be determined by the occupation's prestige.

I don't quite understand why you grouped your supporting idea and refuting idea in the same paragraph. The ideas are good but should be separated and elaborated upon.

 

On the opposite side of the spectrum, less prestigious occupations such as janitors, garbage collectors and waitresses consistently lack any perceived value to society. I don't think this is an accurate statement. A janitor, garbage collector or waitress is paid a relatively low wage, has poor job security, and must work significantly more hours to achieve any semblance of the quality of life enjoyed by a doctor, engineer or Britney Spears. These occupations, however, are not entirely devoid word choice of value for society - a janitor is required to keep our hospitals, schools and other public facilities clean and sanitary, and a garbage collector is required to properly dispose our waste and recycling so as to avoid a public health hazard. The prestigious physician is needed to tend to the health of society, but the less prestigious sanitation worker is needed to prevent a public health crisis from occurring. Clearly, the disparity between an occupation's prestige and its value to society is in need of reconciliation.

The point here is good and is what the refuting task is looking for. However, the choice of words is questionable at times. You start by using words that are condescending towards these professions and then make a good argument that they perform important duties.

 

It does not suffice it to say that an occupation is valuable to society if that occupation is considered prestigious. In addition, some valuable occupations are not considered prestigious. The professional athlete, movie star or fashion designer is not valuable to society because, despite their prestige, their work is not functionally important to society. The janitor or garbage collector is not considered valuable by society because their work does not require extensive training and education, and can be readily performed by any member of society. The lawyer, doctor or engineer, however, is prestigious and valuable because their work is of functional importance to society and can only be performed by highly trained members of society. Therefore, a more valid and encompassing generalization is that prestigious occupations are only valuable to society when those occupations combine functional importance to society with extensive training and education.

The resolution principle here is good. However the writing style is long winded. Sometimes less is more. The writing style here takes away from the clarity and strength of the argument.

 

Overall, the ideas were good (doctors/lawyers vs. janitors/garbage collectors). Education/training is the determining factor.

 

Problems:

1) By having 3 examples, the organization of the writing becomes haphazard. I am not sure why the example of professional athletes and celebrities was included. Your arguments with doctors/engineers and janitors/garbage collectors were solid. However, the inclusion of the third example of celebrities was not only unnecessary but hurt your essay.

2) Stick to the standard organization and requirements of the writing sample essay: supporting paragraph, refuting paragraph and resolution paragraph. This structure is the accepted standard because it is the most effective.

3) Express your ideas in a more concise fashion. The round about writing style takes away from clarity and strength.

 

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4 All of the tasks are adequately addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 2 Inclusion of a third unnecessary example and the round about writing style hurt the focus and coherence

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5 The writing sample is a formal essay. I would recommend sticking to a more formal writing style.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by donna71

 

Prestige is often associated with wealth and social status and one may often equate prestige to those holding occupations of doctors grammar and lawyers. These occupations address basic needs inherent of any society, such as the medical and health concerns and the basic rights of all individuals. Therefore these occupations provide an invaluable service and resource as all societies face the aforementioned needs. The gratitude and esteem held for such individuals is reflected in the elevated social status for such “heroic” figures that aid the helpless layman I don't really like this. and therefore the prestige of such occupations reflects their value to society.

The example is fine. More depth and elaboration would make it better (it is very basic at the moment).

 

However one may argue that prestigious occupations are not a reflection of value to a society. For instance, celebrities may also be regarded as prestigious; they are regarded with grammar high social status and earn a wealthy, if not exorbitant, salary. Reality TV celebrities, such as the actors and actresses on Jersey Shore, are ubiquitous now, but was not the case in the 1980s; a society can thrive with or without such occupations and therefore can be said to be of inconsequential value. Such occupations do not provide a basic need, but provide the luxury of entertainment.

This is better than your last example because you have more details (Jersey Shore as an example). This is solid.

Prestigious occupations can be found in all societies, but may not be reflective of its value to such societies. What determines whether or not these positions are a value to society is contingent upon the type of need addressed, specifically whether it is a basic need or a luxury need. This idea is good but can be better expressed. By definition, a luxury is not a need. Try the resolution principle of (needs vs. wants). Prestige reflects value to a society if fundamental needs are addressed such as medical care and justice. However the prestige may not reflect value to society if such occupations contribute to luxury or ancillary needs. A society’s progress in becoming a wealthy nation produces different types of needs, and as a result the demand for and creation of different occupations illustrates such progress.

This is solid.

 

Overall, the essay is solid. All the necessary elements are present. The examples are adequate. To take it to the next level, there needs to be more depth, more elaboration and a stronger writing style. As it is written, it is basic. It is like a No Frills super market. It has everything that you need and is adequate but doesn't really stand out.

 

Overall Mark: 4.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a Q )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4.5 All of the tasks are adequately addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5 Some grammatical errors.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted by souljaboy

 

For many occupations, the prestige is usually an indication of the glamour word choice and and importance associated with it. An occupation that most would believe to be the most prestigious is the President of the United States. The prestige associated with this job is almost limitless since it is one of the most visible and important single occupation in the world. This description is a bit awkward. The enormous prestige associated with this job is a direct reflection of the the job's value, as the President is responsible for maintaining and improving the society. In fact, the President is likely the single most important person in the American society because he is responsible for making the majority of the decisions that affect society as a whole.The position of President is a necessity for the society because there must be a person to take reign word choice of all the responsibilies of taking care of society. Therefore, the most prestigious job in America also has the most value to the society.

This example is fine and works. However, the same idea is basically repeated over and over. There needs to be a greater variety of points in order to make this better.

 

However, there are also many occupations that considered grammar prestigious nowadays that offer limited contributions to society. An example is the occupation of a "celebrity" that has sprung up in the past two decades, specifically those that are famous for being famous. Most people would considered being grammar a celebrity as a very prestigious position because of all the glamour associated with it. Many celebrities are in fact important because they are in the entertainment industry and have major contributions to society doesn't this go against the point you are trying to make?, but there are those manages grammar to become famous for a random reason and then continues to do whatever they can to stay in the spotlight. An example would be Kim Kardashian, who managed to become famous from releasing a sex tape, then continues to retain the spotlight with a series of relationships with actors and athletes, which also included a month long marriage. Run-on sentence. Celebrities like Kim Kardashian do not contribute to society in any significant way other than staying in the tabloid pages, but their position is still regarded as highly prestigious.

This example works but the writing style needs improvement.

 

It is a commonheld belief that the most prestigious positions in society are the ones that has grammar the greatest contribution to our world. Prestigious occupations such as doctors and lawyers, and also the President of the United States, has grammar a wide range of contributions to society and are inexpendable. Then again, there are those positions that offer limited contributions but are regarded as prestigious nonetheless, such as celebrities like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton who are mainly famous for being famous. These are likely the rarities, though. In the majority of cases, occupations that are prestigious are very important to society because these occupations attained the prestige from its' importance.

This paragraph does not address the resolution task.

 

Overall Mark: 2/6 (Corresponds to approximately a L )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is not addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 2 Numerous grammatical mistakes.

[cristo34]

The prestige of an occupation is a reflection of many job elements and societal values. Individuals may be extremely grateful for the services provided by a particular occupation. For instance, in times of need, people often find themselves in awe of the exceptional duties that nurses, teachers, and members of the armed forces perform. The personal and emotional connection that people have towards these occupations, which provide critical services, elevates their status in the minds of society members. For example, the mother of a sick infant will see the nurses caring for her child as caring, trustworthy, and prestigious. The cumulative power of everyone's experiences and judgements of these critical occupations is the fundamental basis for their status as prestigious occuptations.

 

However, there are other factors which may elevate the level of prestige of a particular career that are independent of their true value to society. Positions which carry which them a history of power, money, or elitism may also have prestige attributed to them despite a distinct lack of value to society. For example, the president of an elite golf and country club, in the eyes of many, is seen as an extremely prestigious position. The difficulty of obtaining such a position, along with the power and influence amongst wealthy members of society renders the status of a club president to prestigious and elite. However, the occupation is distinctly lacking in any sort of value that it provides to society as a whole. By servicing the needs and desires of only the elite, an occupation can achieve prestige while having little to no value to the greater society.

 

Ultimately, the factor which determines if a prestigious occupation is truly of value to society is the underpinning reason for the occupation's elevated status. If the occupation is providing skilled, caring, and outstanding service in meeting the needs and challenges of society members, then the occupation is both valuable and prestigious. By contrast, those positions that achieve their prestige by pandering to the elite, wealthy, and powerful may not actually be providing excellent value to society. Only through analysis of the root of prestige can we begin to discect out the valuable from the trivial.

[medoc]

The prestige of an occupation usually reflects the value of that occupation to society.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the prestige of an occupation might not reflect its value to society. Discuss what you think determines when prestige reflects the value of an occupation to society.

 

The prestige of an occupation is the reputation the society has towards someone who has higher standing or education than them. The value of the occupation to the society usually dictates how much of a prestige an individual has. For example, a doctor is considered to have a higher standing in the society due to the occupational role he/she has in the society. A doctor is someone who we all trust and we respect them due to their high levels of education. We believe that in their judgement in caring for us and also trusting them with sharing confidential issues from our lives. Without doctors, many diagnosis cannot be made and many will die due to illnesses without having proper care. The importance of this occupation in saving lives is what creates the prestige that he/she has in the society.

 

On the other hand, there are many other occupations in our society that is vital for our survival but do not get the prestige they deserve. For instance, a sewage worker works in sewers to clean out human wastes and cares for the environment we live in. If our society did not have sewage workers, we will be living in polluted areas with many diseases spreading at fast rates. Although a sewer worker has a valuable occupation benefiting the society, he/she does not get recognized as having a prestigious occupation. The lower educational level of a sewage worker is what makes his/her job not prestigious in the society we live in.

 

In conclusion, the value of an occupation is not the only factor that determines the prestige of the occupation it has in the society. Prestige takes educational standing, financial standing, and the reputation of the career in the society into account when considering an occupation as prestigious. As in the example provided in paragraph 1, doctor's reputation in society comes from his/her educational standing, and the direct involvement in saving lives. With the sewage worker's example in paragraph 2, the reason he/she does not get the prestige for the occupation due to the lower education standing and the indirect importance of their service.

[DaKirbster]

The prestige held by a certain occupation is considered an important factor to many people when deciding on jobs and career paths. A person with a prestigious job will be met with respect society, and will hold importance in the eyes of his peers. Their prestige may allow them to climb the social hierarchy to the top ranks of society, depending on the job. The prestige associated with an occupation is often related to the value of that occupation to society. For example, medical doctors hold a high value to society because they are able to heal the wounded and promote health among the population; this high value is reflected by an equally high prestige. A doctor is regarded as one of the most prestigious positions in today's society. This is because, in addition to being curers of disease, it is well known that becoming a doctor is hard work. It take a high amount of intelligence, diligence, and motivation. As such, the high prestige of being a doctor is reflected by the high value that doctors bring to society.

 

However, there are some cases where the prestige of an occupation does not reflect its value to society. For example, custodians are adorned a very low level of prestige, in spite of bringing good value to society. They work hard through all hours of the night in order to clean and maintain facilities that are essential to society. Custodians tidy up our messes and maintain cleanliness to keep buildings functional and are thus valuable to society. Unfortunately, they are often met with low levels of respect by other members of society because some believe they are uneducated and consider their jobs 'dirty'. In this case, the prestige of the occupation is not reflected by the value it brings to society.

 

What determines if the prestige of an occupation reflects the value of that occupation to society is whether or not the majority of society can clearly see the value that the occupation brings. Everyone has had interactions with doctors in their lifetime, and at some point a doctor has helped to heal them of an injury. Doctors are also often publicized in the news for their health tips and advice. As such, society is very familiar with the benefits and value that doctors bring to society, and thus doctors obtain prestige. Custodians, on the other hand, carry out their work at night most of the time and are very rarely publicized. The public does not see their work first hand, and usually does not think about the cleanliness of a building. Thus, the value of custodians is often hidden and thus generates a low level of prestige. Ultimately, in order to have a truly nurturing world, society must learn to respect every occupation for the value that it brings.

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay cristo34

 

The prestige of an occupation is a reflection of many job elements and societal values. This is not a good paraphrasing of the prompt. Individuals may be extremely grateful for the services provided by a particular occupation. For instance, in times of need, people often find themselves in awe of the exceptional duties that nurses, teachers, and members of the armed forces perform. The personal and emotional connection that people have towards these occupations, which provide critical services, elevates their status in the minds of society members. For example, the mother of a sick infant will see the nurses caring for her child as caring, trustworthy, and prestigious. The cumulative power of everyone's experiences and judgements of these critical occupations is the fundamental basis for their status as prestigious occuptations.

The discussion here is okay but haphazard. There needs to be a better flow and organization of ideas. The cohesiveness needs improvement.

 

However, there are other factors which may elevate the level of prestige of a particular career that are independent of their true value to society. This is a better paraphrasing than the previous attempt. Positions which carry which grammar them a history of power, money, or elitism may also have prestige attributed to them despite a distinct lack of value to society. For example, the president of an elite golf and country club, in the eyes of many, is seen as an extremely prestigious position. The difficulty of obtaining such a position, along with the power and influence amongst wealthy members of society renders word choice the status of a club president to prestigious and elite. However, the occupation is distinctly lacking in any sort of value that it provides to society as a whole. By servicing the needs and desires of only the elite, an occupation can achieve prestige while having little to no value to the greater society.

This is an odd example and not really all that convincing.

Ultimately, the factor which determines if a prestigious occupation is truly of value to society is the underpinning reason for the occupation's elevated status. If the occupation is providing skilled, caring, and outstanding service in meeting the needs and challenges of society members, then the occupation is both valuable and prestigious. By contrast, those positions that achieve their prestige by pandering to the elite, wealthy, and powerful may not actually be providing excellent value to society. Only through analysis of the root of prestige can we begin to discect out the valuable from the trivial.

Similar to the other paragraphs, the strength and depth of ideas needs improvement.

 

The structure of the essay is fine. It is simply the quality of ideas that holds the essay back.

 

Overall Mark: 3/6 (Corresponds to approximately a N )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3 All tasks are somewhat addressed.

Depth: 2.5 Ideas lack depth.

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Essay submitted medoc

 

The prestige of an occupation is the reputation the society has towards someone who has higher standing or education than them. The value of the occupation to the society usually dictates how much of a prestige an individual has. For example, a doctor is considered to have a higher standing in the society due to the occupational role he/she has in the society. A doctor is someone who we all trust and we respect them due to their high levels of education. We believe that in their grammar judgement in caring for us and also trusting them with sharing confidential issues awkward phrasing from our lives. Without doctors, many diagnosis grammar cannot be made and many will die due to illnesses without having proper care. The importance of this occupation in saving lives is what creates word choice the prestige that he/she has in the society.

This example works but the writing style (clarity and strength of writing) needs improvement.

 

On the other hand, there are many other occupations in our society that is grammar vital for our survival but do not get the prestige they deserve. For instance, a sewage worker works in sewers to clean out human wastes and cares for the environment we live in. If our society did not have sewage workers, we will be living in polluted areas with many diseases spreading at fast rates. Although a sewer worker has a valuable occupation benefiting the society, he/she does not get recognized as having a prestigious occupation. The lower educational level of a sewage worker is what makes his/her job not prestigious in the society we live in. This is more of an idea for the resolution paragraph.

This example is fine. Instead of he/she use they.

 

In conclusion, the value of an occupation is not the only factor that determines the prestige of the occupation it has in the society. Prestige takes educational standing, financial standing, and the reputation of the career (I thought you defined prestige earlier as reputation). in the society into account when considering an occupation as prestigious. As in the example provided in paragraph 1, doctor's reputation in society comes from his/her educational standing, and the direct involvement in saving lives. With the sewage worker's example in paragraph 2, the reason he/she does not get the prestige for the occupation due to the lower education standing and the indirect importance of their service. You do not need to make reference to your paragraphs to discuss your examples.

The resolution paragraph here is a jumble of ideas. Choose one resolution principle and develop it fully. Here you have numerous ideas and since you have multiple principles, none of them are developed enough to have much depth. Similar to before, your ideas are okay but the writing style lacks clarity and cohesiveness.

 

Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3.5 Ideas are basic and lack depth.

Focus and coherence: 3 The writing style is not sharp and focused. Coherence needs to be improved.

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[RaymondPrep101]

DaKirbster

 

The prestige held by a certain occupation is considered an important factor to many people when deciding on jobs and career paths. A person with a prestigious job will be met with respect society grammar, and will hold importance in the eyes of his peers. Their prestige may allow them to climb the social hierarchy to the top ranks of society, depending on the job. The prestige associated with an occupation is often related to the value of that occupation to society. For example, medical doctors hold a high value to society because they are able to heal the wounded and promote health among the population; this high value is reflected by an equally high prestige. A doctor is regarded as one of the most prestigious positions in today's society. This is because, in addition to being curers of disease, it is well known that becoming a doctor is hard work. It take a high amount of intelligence, diligence, and motivation. As such, the high prestige of being a doctor is reflected by the high value that doctors bring to society.

The idea works. The organization of the discussion needs improvement.

 

However, there are some cases where the prestige of an occupation does not reflect its value to society. For example, custodians are adorned word choice a very low level of prestige, in spite of bringing good value to society. They work hard through all hours of the night in order to clean and maintain facilities that are essential to society. Custodians tidy up our messes and maintain cleanliness to keep buildings functional and are thus valuable to society. Unfortunately, they are often met with low levels of respect by other members of society because some believe they are uneducated and consider their jobs 'dirty'. In this case, the prestige of the occupation is not reflected by the value it brings to society.

This example also works. And the organization is better in this paragraph than in the last.

 

What determines if the prestige of an occupation reflects the value of that occupation to society is whether or not the majority of society can clearly see the value that the occupation brings. Everyone has had interactions with doctors in their lifetime, and at some point a doctor has helped to heal them of an injury. Doctors are also often publicized in the news for their health tips and advice. As such, society is very familiar with the benefits and value that doctors bring to society, and thus doctors obtain prestige. Custodians, on the other hand, carry out their work at night most of the time and are very rarely publicized. The public does not see their work first hand, and usually does not think about the cleanliness of a building. Thus, the value of custodians is often hidden and thus generates a low level of prestige. Ultimately, in order to have a truly nurturing world, society must learn to respect every occupation for the value that it brings.

Solid.

 

To take the essay to the next level, the discussion needs to have more depth. Your essay is fine but does not stand out.

 

Overall Mark: 4.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a Q )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4.5 All of the tasks are adequately addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4