Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback **Thread #4**


RaymondPrep101

Recommended Posts

Developments in technologies have brought much convenience to people throughout history. However, not only have these developments made life easier for people, it also has restricted people's creativity. In this case, creativity can be interpreted as uncovering new purposes or uses for existing technologies. Take paper making technology as an example. Ever since people discovered the method for paper making, they have tried to develop the paper making technology in order to accelerate the process of paper making, to make stronger papers, and to make paper with less cost. However, no matter what kind of development people had for the paper making technology, there have been little changes made regarding the purpose of paper. Since the paper making technology serves limited purposes, the developments in such technology can only go in one direction and creativity is restricted.

 

On the other hand, development in technologies that may serve multiple purposes would not restrict creativity. For example, the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) technology was originally used in organic chemistry laboratories to measure the components of a molecule. However, later developments opened it's doors into the medical field. The NMR technology is now commonly known as Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology, which is used to distinguish between diseased and normal tissues in living organisms by forming 2D and 3D images. The same principle technology is involved in both NMR and MRI, but with development in the NMR technology people discovered it's new use in a different field and led to creation of the MRI machine. Since the NMR technology has the potential to serve multiple purpose, development in such technology will not restrict creativity.

 

Therefore, whether development in technology will restrict creativity depends on whether the technology serves a single purpose or multiple purposes. Development in technologies that only have limited uses, such as paper making technology, may lead to restricted creativity. Since such technologies can only serve the existing purposes, development in such technologies are only making modifications to the current ones. However, development in technologies that have multiple uses, such as the NMR technology, would not necessarily restrict creativity. Since these technologies have potential to lead to new discoveries, which will eventually lead to a new use of these technologies, they would not limit creativity. As such, people's creativity can never be restricted when there is still room for new discoveries to be made.

 

 

THANK YOU!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It is not good ideas, but rather personal influence, that leads to success in politics.

 

Describe a specific situation in which good ideas might lead to success in politics. Discuss what you think determines whether good ideas or personal influence leads to success in politics.

 

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, July 31.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Wednesday, August 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not good ideas, but rather personal influence, that leads to success in politics.

 

Describe a specific situation in which good ideas might lead to success in politics. Discuss what you think determines whether good ideas or personal influence leads to success in politics.

 

In democratic societies, politicians are voted into power by the constituents. The primary goal of a politician is to lead the nation by making crucial decisions on the behalf of the masses. Such decisions tend to have the potential to make a great impact on the daily lives of the citizens. In developed nations such as Canada, success in politics can be attributed to personal influence. Citizens of developed nations are often seeking improvements in existing policies and public services. For instance, the primary concern of citizens in Canada is to ensure that public services such as public education, universal health care and public transit are provided to all citizens at the best possible standards. As a result, they are seeking a candidiate who also shares similar views and set of needs since such an individual is likely to work towards goals of improving and ensuring long-term existence of such services. For example, Stephen Harper, leader of the Progress Conservative Party is the current Prime Minister of Canada. He is often portrayed by the media as a family man with two young children. Such portrayal makes it easier for the general public to relate to Mr. Harper. In fact, a post-electoral survey following the 2010 federal elections was conducted by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC). The results of the survey revealed that a shocking majority of citizens voted for Harper due to his personality and public image. This example illustrates how the personal influence of a politician via their personal image and a general sense relatability to the leader can result in ones success in politics.

 

However, in relatively young and developing nations like India, good ideas are an important determinant of success of a politician. For example, India is a relatively young nation in Southeast Asia that won its independance from British authorities in 1947. At present, Dr. Manmohan Singh, a member of the Congress Party is the current Prime Minister of India. Prior to taking office as a Prime Minister for his first term in 2003, Dr. Singh served the nation as a Minister of Finance. He is known for his great work in leading the nation on a path of economic success and prosperity. In fact, he holds a doctorate degree in economics and political science from Harvard University. During the early 2000’s, As a Minister of Finance, Dr. Singh proposed a number of modifications to the existing economic policies to help boost interest of foriegn investment in the nation. His ideas of policies that attract the attention of foreign investment from multi-national companies was the primary force that has led the nation to become an economic powerhouse. Furthermore, it is important to note that Dr. Singh is a member of the minority religious group in India. He is the first member of the Sikh religion to ever become Prime Minister. He is also known to be a soft spoken man in his 60’s and many citizens in India do not relate to him on a personal level. However, he has been successful in winning two federal elections due to his past performance record as a Minister of Finance and his intellectual abilities in turning the country around in terms of its economic state. As a result, India has been able to make a tremedous mark as a booming economy on the global scale despite the fact that it is a relatively young nation. In this case, citizens are seeking change and initiative on the part of the government to lead the nation into sucess as well as result in overall improvements in the standard of life for all citizens. As a result, they are looking for a leader with goood ideas rather than personal influence.

 

In conclusion, whether good ideas or personal influence leads to success in politics depends on whether the country in question can be classified as a well-established developed nation like Canada or a relatively young developing nation like India. In the case of a developed nation like Canada, success of politicians including Canada’s current Prime Minister Stephen Harper can be attributed to personal influence on the public. Harper is a leader with whom the public can relate to on a personal level and such relatability has led to his success during the last federal elections. The primary concern of citizens in Canada is to ensure that public services such as public education, universal health care and public transit are provided to all citizens at the best possible standards. As a result, they are seeking a candidiate with whom they can realte to on a personal level and hence, personal infleunece plays a greater role in determining success in such situations. In contrast, for young developing nations like India, news ideas are the primary determinant of success of politicians. In such nations, citizens are often seeking change and initiative on the part of the government to lead the nation into sucess as well as result in overall improvements in the standard of life for all citizens. As such, they are seeking a leader who has great ideas and the abilities to act on those ideas to lead the country into sucess. As seen in the example of India’s current Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, it is not his public influence, rather his good ideas that have led the nation into economic prosperity and his individual success in politics by winning two federal elections. Overall, the needs of citizens differ in a developed nation versus a developing nation and hence, they are seeking a leader with a different set of qualities.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not good ideas, but rather personal influence, that leads to success in politics

 

Describe a specific situation in which good ideas might lead to success in politics. Discuss what you think determines whether good ideas or personal influence leads to success in politics.

 

Success in politics can be measured by a number of metrics. The approval of the public and one's peers, for a politician and the changes he brings, is a good measure of it. One may expect that bringing forth good ideas would most directly lead to success. Good ideas can be said to be ideas that contribute to the well-being of a public. However, there are many examples that suggest that it is the personal influence of a politician that leads to success. When the late Jack Layton became the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, it could not be said it was solely because of his good ideas; he often advocated extreme socialist ideas, such as the idea that health professionals should earn the same as fast food restaurant employees. However, his charisma allowed him to build personal influence that paved the way for his ascension through the party. His ideas were sometimes seen as too left-leaning, but his interactions with his fellow politicians made it clear that he was an effective leader. His ability to influence how others viewed him, in this way, negated their lack of respect for his ideas, and led to his success. Upon his death, the nation mourned for the loss of a great leader, and supporters of the NDP wondered if the party could recover without his strong leadership. The effects of his charisma, before his untimely death, could be seen not only in his influence with the party but eventually his influence with the public.

 

This is not always the case, for there are examples of good ideas leading to success in politics. Tommy Douglas, the first leader of what is now the New Democratic Party of Canada, was a relative unknown when he entered the political scene. The government had been run alternatively by the Liberal and the Conservative parties of Canada, so Tommy Douglas, and his party, had very little relative influence. However, he did have the idea of universal healthcare throughout the country. This idea was initially met by stiff opposition, especially from politicians from other parties and medical professionals who saw it as unfeasible. However, the public began to take note of what they thought may be a good idea, which caused public healthcare to be implemented in a few provinces. Their success led to the spreading of the good idea, which caused nationwide approval for it to soar, making Tommy Douglas a well-loved politician. The public demanded for his idea to be implemented nationwide, and politicians followed suit. A CBC poll of Canadians, decades later, announced Tommy Douglas to be "The Greatest Canadian Ever" because of his commitment to his one good idea. The support he received then and continues to receive today is a mark of his success in procuring public approval, both in his political life and well after.

 

Success in politics thus hinges on different factors of one's life; one's good ideas and one's personal influence. What determines when good ideas or personal influence leads to success is whether a politician is aiming to gain the approval of the public or his fellow politicians. When trying to move up the ranks in a party, personal influence plays a larger role than good ideas. Jack Layton is an example of this. His ideas were seen as extreme, even to those in his party. However, the personal influence that he was able to obtain through his charisma led him to become the leader of the NDP. However, in Tommy Douglas's case, he was already the leader of a party with separate goals from the two dominant parties in Canadian politics. He did not want to join them, and ascend the ranks of the Liberals or Conservatives; his aim was to gain the approval of the public to make a name for himself and his party, and to do this he had to present a good idea that would win the favour of the public. Universal healthcare is today seen as an excellent, visionary idea. It was seen the same way by the public soon after it was implemented. It allowed for Tommy Douglas, and his party to become more powerful players in national politics, which had been dominated by two parties until then. This success in gaining the approval of the public came from a good idea; Layton's success in gaining the approval of his peers came from his growing personal influence over them during his time in politics.

 

----------

 

Thanks a lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal influence in politics is characterized by an individual's heavy involvement to have their beliefs implemented. People who lead by example and are actively involved in promoting their views can often have monumental political success regardless of whether or not they have good ideas. Nelson Mandela was one important figure who achieved outstanding success in politics as a result of his personal influence. Prior to his election as President of South Africa, he was the leader of the African National Congress, and played a major role in fighting against and ending apartheid. Although being initially imprisoned for leading these violent uprisings, he was eventually released and elected President. He continued to push his policies that led to success in combating inequality in South Africa.

 

However, often times it is an individual's good ideas, rather than their personal influence, that leads to success in politics. Mikhail Gorbachev was one politician whose ideas were essential to social change and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He was the first leader of the USSR who had not been born during the Russian Revolution. Gorbachev's ideas of perestroika and glasnost were monumental in restructuring the economy and establishing greater freedom among the Soviet people. His reorientation of Soviet strategic aims also helped to end the Cold War. Gorbachev's success in politics was validated by numerous prestigious awards including being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

What then determines whether it is good ideas or personal influence that leads to success in politics? In the case of Mandela, many people recognized the clear injustices of that time and that change was required to achieving greater equality. The circumstances required a strong leader, in Mandela, in order to achieve this change, which lead to his success as a politician. In the case of Gorbachev, the process of achieving positive social change was less clear and his ideas were fundamental to achieving successful change. Both good ideas and personal influence are important to acquiring success in politics, but the degree to which each is required depends on the clarity in how to achieve political goals. When the process to achieving these goals is clearer, personal influence plays a more important role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not good ideas, but rather personal influence, that leads to success in politics.

 

In order to achieve success in politics, a politician should have good ideas to persuade public opinion in his or her favour. However, sometimes personal influences can play a greater role in achieving this. Personal influences are characterized by emotional attachment and one-to-one connections created by the politicians and his or her supporters. Take for example, during his 2003 campaign, Jack Layton visited downtown Toronto and connected with university students and built personal connections on a one-to-one basis. The students, mainly occupied with studies and school activities are limited to understanding of the political arena and policy making. Thus, it is harder for teens to become attuned to what exactly the politician has to offer. Thus regardless of his campaign promises, in 2003 Layton was able to win the votes from many adolescents due to the strong emotional attachment that he has established with them. In this example, emotion triumphs over reason and thus personal influences become a more powerful determinant of a politician's success.

 

However, good ideas in politics become an important factor when the public is consciously awareness of the subject matter at hand. For example, the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty recently implemented a 30% tuition rebate off of postsecondary studies, to make education more affordable and accessible. More than 300 000 students were eligible last year and those numbers are growing. Financial issues such as paying tuition is a topic that students are acutely aware of. Since students tend to give more attention to aspects that highly relate to their education and well-being, these good ideas proposed by politicians come through very successfully. Regardless of whether Mcguinty appealed to students' emotion, he would still have won the vote with an idea that strongly affects the student body. Many have accredited Mcguity for pushing this idea foward helping his reputation in politics and also progress of society.

 

Whether good ideas or personal influences lead to success in politics would depend on the public. If the public is completely unaware of politicial situations simply because it is not relevant to them or because of lack of time, personal influences would achieve more in wining their votes. Personal influences can reach to others through emotions and one-to-one connections, something that can create a spark regardless of what ideas the politicians may propose. In this case, emotion over reason can achieve success in politics. However, if the public is very aware of the advocated subject, this means that they understand the ups and downs of the idea and its implications. Thus, the idea itself should be convincing and sensible in order to win voter's approval. In this regard, personal influence does little to a knowledgeable audience because reason in this case triumphs emotion.

 

thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not good ideas, but rather personal influence, that leads to success in politics.

 

 

 

The field of politics is a fickle one where personal influence is critical. In fact, it is not good ideas but rather, the personal influence of a leader that leads to success in politics. For example, Jack Layton, the former leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada reveals that personal influence leads to success in politics. The New Democratic Party is quite socialist and not a mainstream party. In fact, some of the party’s policies regarding health care and taxes are relatively extreme and are not endorsed by the majority of the population. However, Jack Layton placed a personable face on the party and has permanently impacted the face of politics in Canada. He was able to win other politicians’ respect, despite his unorthodox ideas. He connected with people from all backgrounds and areas and his charisma uplifted the NDP to new heights. He also connected with the country’s youth, a usually untapped voter market that resulted in Quebec electing numerous NDP members to parliament in the last federal election and resulted in the eradication of the Bloc Quebecois party. When he died, the entire country, regardless of their personal political beliefs, mourned Jack Layton and the NDP wondered if they would ever be able to succeed without their personable, charismatic leader. Because of Jack Layton, the NDP now are the Opposition Party of Canada, a feat that would have been impossible without Jack Layton’s personal influence.

 

However, on the other hand, good ideas can also be critical in gaining success in politics, especially when a country is vying for a drastic change in its political environment. For example, Barack Obama’s Democratic campaign, against John McCain, for the 2008 elections was founded on new ideas that gained popularity with American citizens. During his campaign, he focused on promising changes in the country’s environmental policies, health policies, changes regarding gay rights and a new foreign policy that would involve withdrawing soldiers from Iraq but still focusing on ending the fight with Al-Qaeda. His ideas focused on what the people of America wanted, and by focusing on new ideas that would signal growth and a change for America, he managed to gain the popular vote and has been president for the past 4 years. By elaborating on good ideas that the population admired, Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party managed to encourage the country to be open to some new policies and for a Democratic government, which was a drastic change for the country after Republican George Bush’s eight year presidency.

 

Whether or not it is good ideas or personal influence that leads to success in politics depends on the political ideas that the leader is trying to support. If the ideas are unpopular among the general population, then it is integral for the leader to be charismatic and to be able to personally influence the voters in order for him to have political success. In the instance of Jack Layton and the NDP party, the party’s recent success is due to Layton’s charisma and persona. Without his ability to connect with people, the party would remain as a fringe party. Instead, because he was relatable and personable, the NDP is the Oppositional Party of Canada. On the other hand, in a situation where the political leader has ideas that are innovative but still mainstream, it is the merit of those ideas that will determine the leader’s success. For example during Obama’s 2008 presidential election, the Democratic Party elaborated on and supported ideas that were very different from the policies that the Republican party had instituted during the past eight years. However, the ideas were appealing to the population and were new and innovative. Because these ideas had merit, Obama won the election and has been president for the past four years. Essentially, a leader with personal influence is integral in a situation where the ideas he is trying to institute are not popular. However, when the ideas are mainstream, it is the merit of the ideas, rather than the charisma of the leader, that will determine political success.

 

 

thank you :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Raymond!

 

 

There are many different ways one can become successful in politics. Good ideas are plans that are well thought out and effective. Personal influence is the reputation of a person affecting the outcome of a situation. Usually, success in politics is led by personal influence instead of good ideas. For example, in Thailand, mayor Ma Binh, was a rich politician who is the son of the famous Then Binh. Ma did not have great ideas when he was serving as mayor, but his reputation of being so rich and the son of Tehn Binh was what led him to winning the election for mayor. The other candidate that ran against Ma had some good ideas of decreasing the cases of prostituion and improving the health care of citizens, but he was not well known and had only average income. In this mayor election, the reputation of the candidates for mayor was what led to success in the campaign for mayor. Thus, personal influence instead of good ideas is usually what leads to success in politics.

 

However, good ideas might also lead to success in politics. For example, in Canada, mayor Eddie Francis became successful as mayor through a number of good ideas. Francis was the person who thought of building an aquatic centre in Windsor. This was a great idea since Windsor currently does not have a olympic standard pool, which is a pool that is 25 m long. Also, many of the top swimmers in high school come from the Windsor region. Thus, bringing an new olympic standard pool will allow the University of Windsor to have a good swim team, attracting more students to apply to the university. In addition, more high end swim meets will be able to be held at this aquatic centre, making the city more popular to visit since fans will come to see the competitions. Francis's personal influence did not have much of a role in his success as mayor. His personal influence was not even that great before he ran for mayor and he still is not that well known. However, he came in as a middle income citizen that brought great ideas for the city.

 

Thus, what determines whether good ideas or personal influence leads to success in politics depends on the level of development in a city. For example, Mayor Ma Binh in Thailand, represented a pretty poor city that is underdeveloped. The citizens of the city felt they needed a well known and rich person to lead the city since citizens thought a rich and well known mayor would be best for the city. However, in a developed city such as Windsor, citizens are not as concerned about the personal influence of the Mayor; citizens are more concerned about if a mayor had good ideas for a city since this is what will bring the city forward and make the city more prosperous. Francis's idea of building a new aquatic centre was one of his good ideas that has contributed to his success as mayor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not good ideas, but rather personal influence, that leads to success in politics.

 

Describe a specific situation in which good ideas might lead to success in politics. Discuss what you think determines whether good ideas or personal influence leads to success in politics.

 

 

In politics, having great personal influence can often lead to success even if the politician does not possess good ideas. In the 1920s and 1930s, Adolf Hitler came into power in Germany, even though many of his ideas that he ran on were viewed as counterintuitive and dangerous. At the time, a large number of opposing German politicians pointed out the negatives of the drastic ideas of Hitler, but the population did not see that as a problem because most of them saw Hitler as a charismatic leader. Since Hitler was a great speaker, he used his own influences to convince a majority of the German population to support him. He was able to convince many people that his ideas are actually benefitial, even though by rational thought, they are clearly not. His personal influence is a significant factor in his success by overshadowing his faults.

 

Despite the importance of personal influence, great ideas will always lead to success in politics. During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt put forth plans for an enormous amount of public spending in infrastructure in order to jumpstart the American economy. The idea of spending in order to jolt the economy had many detractors who thought that it would not work, but it eventually became one of the key reasons for the improvement in American economy. This was one of Roosevelt's signature accomplishments during his presidency, and it was very successful for him personally because it established him as a highly competent leader and eventually was part of the reason leading to him being the only president to serve three terms in office.

 

Good ideas will lead to success in politics, but personal influence can overshadow bad ideas and still lead to someone being successful. Roosevelt's economical stimulus was considered to be vastly successful and is generally regarded as a very good idea. The benefits eventually led to Roosevelt's unprecendented three terms in office. However, Adolf Hitler, who had no obvious good ideas but was successful in asserting his personal influence in the Germany population, still managed to attain great success in politics. Great personal influence can then be viewed as more important than good ideas, since it can still lead to political success without regards for the politician's ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not good ideas, but rather personal influence, that leads to success in politics.

 

Political success is achieved when an individual assumes control over a population, or is elected as the representative of a country. In order to be successful, one must be able to convince citizens that he is the most worthy candidate. This can be done in a number of ways, but personal influence most often prevails, as was the case when Adolf Hitler's assumed command over Nazi Germany. The events of World War II provide a clear account that Hitler's motives of world domination were radical and unethical. Therefore it was not the quality of his ideas that allowed him to take command over his people, but rather through his powerful influence. Hitler was an engaging public speaker, capable of making the most extreme ideas seem rational. He was successful in cultivating countless followers through personal influence.

 

However, there are situations in which ideas can be more powerful than influence. In the campaign for the most recent Canadian federal election, most of the debate centered around strategies to improve Canada's economic situation. The two dominant parties, Stephen Harper's Conservative party and Jack Layton's New Democratic Party, had leaders with unique approaches. Layton, a well-liked politician with a great following, relied heavily on his personal influence to sway voters. On the other hand, Harper was not as well liked, but presented a groundbreaking strategy to grow the Canadian economy. In the end, it was Harper's ideas that prevailed as he won the election and led the Conservative party to their first Majority government in decades.

 

In order to be successful, a politician must receive support from enough followers by persuading them that he is the best candidate. As demonstrated by Adolf Hitler, personal influence often prevails over reason. However, when a politician presents an extremely strong idea in a desperate time, it is usually recognized and rewarded by voters. Harper prevailed over Layton because although politics is a popularity contest, a revolutionary idea can overcome even the most influential opponents.

 

 

Thanks, Raymond!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having an idea that will bring positive impacts on people is important, but successes in politics are usually lead by great leaders. It's the leader's personal influence that made him so successful comparing to others in the political filed. Since in order to make a political decision effective support must be gain, and only influential leaders can have their ideas supported by the majority of public. In this case, success in politics can be defined as having an idea that's being supported by the majority of the public and eventually lead to positive influences within society. Take Arnold Schwarzenegger as an example. Schwarzenegger was a former American Hollywood star, and he was known for his movie series "Terminator" one to three. Due to his popularity, he won the election for Governor of California and he did a very successful job during the time he served as the governor of California. If Szchwarzenegger wasn't a famous actor, he wouldn't have had the support from the majority of the public to won the election and wouldn't have his political ideas heard easily. Thus, personal influence is the primary factor that leads to success in politics.

 

On the other hand, if an idea can bring a social impact that is so influential, in which caused it to be supported by the majority of the public. Then this may be the case where good ideas can out-win personal popularity and lead to success in politics. For example, the current Canadian healthcare system originated from a single person's idea. Tommy Douglas, who came up with the foundation of the Canadian health care system gained public support very effectively, because his idea of having the government to cover health care fees would benefit all Canadian citizens. Thus as a result, Douglas's idea of the health system gained major support and is still benefiting the Canadians today.

 

Therefore, whether personal influence would lead to success in politics depends on the scale of the impact on society. When the impact on society is in small scale, such as electing Arnold Schwarzenegger as the governor of California, then personal popularity would be the primary factor that leads to success in politics. Since a more popular politician's ideas would gain more support from the public and eventually lead to impact on society. However, when the impact on society is in larger national scale, such as the Canadian health care system, then good idea would gain more support from the public. Who would say no to free health care? Thus, since the benefit on society is so great, popularity may not play a very important role in such cases.

 

Thank you! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not good ideas, but rather personal influence, that leads to success in politics.

 

Success in politics can be measured by the number of votes attained by the politician or political party of interest. There are multiple factors that can propel one to succeed in politics, including strong ideas, but often more important is the personal influence of the party leader. The party leader can have substantial personal influence by relating to the citizens of the nation and thus swaying them to vote favourable for his party. In this sense, the citizens care little for the ideas actually put out by the party reform, but do care immensely about the personnel of the party. For example, the NDP party in Canada made history with the success they had in the 2011 election, becoming the official opposition. This was made possible due to the great campaign led by the late Jack Layton, who was battling cancer at the time. Through his relatability to the citizens, the NDP gained much support despite the fact that many voters were not familiar with their reform. It can be seen that many voters pay more attention to the person they are voting for than the ideas put forth by that person.

 

However, there are also instances where success in politics is due to the sound ideas presented by the political party. President Obama was able to be elected to become the first black president ever because of the solid ideas he had that promised change. Obama presented many ideas that were supported by majority of the nation, things such as universal health care and additional funding for the education system. Due to the popularity of these ideas among the voters, Obama was able to become elected as president, despite having fierce competitors with much stronger personal influence such as Hilary Clinton, a former first lady.

 

Thus, the question remains: when is it that political success arises from good ideas and when is it achieved through personal influence? This often depends on the stability of the socioeconomic landscape prior to the election. In a democratic society where citizens vote for their representatives in politics, a stable socioeconomic state will favour personal influence over good ideas. In a stable state, majority of citizens are already comfortable with the status- quo, and will likely be more influenced by the personnel rather than their ideas. In Canada, the socioeconomic status was stable when Jack Layton's NDP became the official opposition. Citizens were not seeking many drastic changes, and therefore were more persuaded to vote for a party with stronger personal influences rather than strong ideas. However, Obama won the election amidst strong socioeconomic uncertainty. USA was in the middle of one of the deepest recessions in recent history due to the housing bubble. Many citizens were displeased with the Bush government and their spending. Obama promised change through many strong ideas that ultimately led him to political success. Thus, it can be seen that success in politics can be determined by either good ideas or personal influence, depending on the status of the country.

 

thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good teaching requires flexibility.

 

Describe a specific situation in which good teaching might not require flexibility. Discuss what you think determines when flexibility is necessary for good teaching.

 

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, August 5.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Monday, August 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flexibility is an important aspect to consider when teaching. It

 

can allow students to learn at their own pace to maximize

 

efficiency and productivity. For example, small seminar classes

 

on environmental ethics taught at the University of Toronto

 

introduces various methods of teaching students based on their

 

learning style and strength. Many styles of learning implemented

 

in these classes include visual, auditory and tactile, suited for

 

each students' needs. By allowing flexibility in styles of

 

learning, students based on their aptitude can benefit from good

 

teaching effectively and quickly. If flexibility is impaired in

 

teaching, students may find it difficult to follow because that

 

particular method may not work for them. This is undoubtably why

 

seminar courses at such a large institution is so popular to

 

students.

 

On the other hand, flexibility is sometimes not necessary to

 

teach successfully. For example, in the practice of martial arts,

 

KungFu and Karate require constant repetition in order to master

 

a skill. Usually, students who wish to become even more advanced

 

go through rigorous training sessions with very similar

 

principles. Flexibility cannot constitute to a skill like martial

 

arts because it requires students to master a set of moves

 

accurately without variability. The only way to excel in martial

 

arts is through constant practice; by being flexible such as

 

reading books about karate, will not help the student in

 

perfecting their skill.

 

 

From these two cases, it can be concluded that whether or not

 

good teaching requires flexibility depends on what is being

 

taught. In the case of the small seminar course, it provides

 

flexible styles of teaching such as auditory, visual and tactile

 

to best fit the needs and strengths of the student. However, in

 

teaching martial arts, students require top-notch accuracy in

 

their movements and attacks. The only way to perfect this is

 

through constant repetition. Thus any sort of teaching deviating

 

away from physically practicing is not very effective. In the

 

end, to judge whether flexibility is necessary for good teaching

 

depends on the subject being taught.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 33 sixstar

 

It is often regarded that the life expectancy of citizens living in a particular nation is directly related to the citizens access to adequate health care. For some countries, providing health care to all citizens, without consideration of factors such as wealth and previous health conditions, is one of the government's main priorities, with health care spending often commanding a significant portion of the federal budget of many countries. Considering the number of jurisdictions that have programs in place to offer all citizens health care services, one can argue that achieving health care for all is a realistic goal. For instance, many countries, such as the United States of America and Canada, provide a significant amount of financial aid to other countries in need, especially to those in need of health care services. In particular, a charity organization, known as Doctors Without Borders, was established precisely to provide health care services to those in need in other countries. This organization sends volunteer doctors, nurses and other health care providers to third-world countries who in need of health care services. This organization and their operations have continued to expand ever since their establishment, highlighting how many people, especially health care providers, believe that providing health care to all is important. As the health care providers going on these aid missions to third-world countries are volunteers, the financial restrictions on providing health care to all are not as great as it would seem, and thus, through volunteer organizations such as Doctors Without Borders, providing health care for all, especially those in third world countries is a realistic goal. This is not going to work. Although Doctors without Borders as an organization does a lot of good work, their efforts are only a tiny drop in the bucket. Even all of the volunteer organizations combined can only service a tiny portion of the population in third world countries.

 

However, providing health care for all may not always be a realistic goal. Recently, in Canada, a country known for its universal health care policies, new legislation was proposed by the Immigration Minister, Jason Kenny, that limits the health care services that new immigrants receive when they come to Canada. The legislation states that services such as dental care, among others, would no longer be covered by the Government of Canada and would be the responsibility of the newly landed immigrant. While this legislation received harsh backlash from many citizens angry that the government chose to not provide health care for all Canadian citizens, including newly landed immigrants, the basis of this legislation was mainly to save money. After the economic crisis of 2008, the Government of Canada still had a deficit, and cutting some health care services to newly landed immigrants was one of the ways of saving money (reportedly over 20 million dollars). As such, providing health care for all was not a realistic goal for the Canadian government due to financial constraints stemming from the 2008 economic crisis. Excellent.

 

It would seem that whether or not providing health care for all is a realistic goal depends on the financial constraints facing the health care provider. If the health care provider does not face significant financial constraints that would limit their ability to provide health services for all, providing health care for all is a realisitic goal. The volunteer organization "Doctors Without Borders" is an example of an organization that has less financial constraints, due to its workforce being volunteers, and are able to set a realistic goal of providing health care to those citizens in need in third-world countries. This does not work. Doctors without Borders still faces significant financial constraints from travel costs, medical costs, equipment, security, housing, etc. However, when the health care provider faces significant financial constraints, health care for all may not be a realistic goal. The Government of Canada faced signifcant financial constraints due to their deficit budget stemming from the 2008 economic crisis, and thus, had to cut back health care services to newly landed immigrants, exemplifying a situation when providing health care for all may be be a realistic goal. As providing health care is a costly endeavor, the financial state of the health care provider is of utmost importance when determining whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal. The resolution principle lacks depth. Similar to before, the arguments related to Doctors without Borders are simply unrealistic.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good teaching requires flexibility.

--------

 

Teaching has become an essential component of human development. From the age of five until adulthood, most of our children are attending an academic institution in order to fulfill their dreams and pursue a career they desire. Needless to say, not every person is the same; therefore teachers must show some flexibility in their teaching methods in order to transfer the bulk of information to most types of students. If a teacher is not versatile in class, then only a certain subset of the students will appreciate the lessons. A stunning example of this happened in my high school chemistry class. For the first half of the year, we had a teacher that could not explain a given subject in different ways, therefore more than half of my class was failing. After Christmas break, to our surprise, a new chemistry teacher arrived. Although he would also teach the “classical” way, when students did not understand, he would use props, or analogies in order to “teach”. The entire class passed the final exam with ease.

 

However, in some instances, too much flexibility in teaching can be detrimental to the learning experience. This phenomenon most often appears in university where teachers are often asked to teach in front of auditoriums filled with hundreds of people. For instance, if during an advanced calculus class, a student does not understand, the teacher will not stop the lesson at the detriment of all the other students in order to help a single person. In elementary/high school, it is possible due to the smaller class sizes and a lenient curriculum. At the university level, excellent teachers need not be versatile in their teaching methods. When a student registers in a college-level class he/she is expected to be passionate by the material and should be ready to do individual work: spoon-feeding time is over.

 

Teaching will always remain an integral part of our educational systems. One appreciates the human interaction and drive provided by the teachers in order to succeed. However, at different stages in their academic careers, students need to change from passive learning to active learning. In elementary and high school, children are still trying to understand who they are and what appeals to them. Once students move on to acquire degrees and doctorates: difficulty and transient confusion in their studies are part of the learning experience. It contributes to their problem-solving techniques and shapes their personality accordingly. These experiences go well beyond trivial knowledge.

 

------

 

Thanks Raymond!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 33 funtimess

 

An efficient and comprehensive health care system is the only safeguard to our most precious commodity. Countries like Canada hold word choice universal health care for its citizens closely – despite a current conservative government known to often attempt spending cuts, any politician with the intent of attacking the health care system as a whole would be committing political suicide. Furthermore, countries such as Cuba exemplify that the health care system is not only a priority in democratic countries, nor countries with high GDP. In fact, Cuba spends only a fraction of its GDP on health care compared to Canada or the United States, while maintaining a similarly high life expectancy to such countries, and providing services to all citizens. Thus, it is possible to have an effective universal health care system in many types of countries with different political agendas. The discussion is strong overall. However, you should not mix examples. One fully developed example is better than two underdeveloped examples. Having two examples also affects the clarity and focus of your arguments.

Surprisingly, there is resistance to a more socialized health care system in the United States. Although the USA is a powerhouse in terms of its GDP and aid sent to help provide health care in developing nations, often its own citizens are left with enormous medical bills resulting in financial ruin when they lack insurance. Even as programs like Obamacare finally emerge in the political spotlight, there is backlash from many citizens complaining about the governments spending practices. It is unfortunate that some people opposing programs like Obamacare would end up losing the most if it was repealed. This does not address the refuting task.

 

Health care around the world has seen vast increases in effectiveness and availability over the past few decades. Both wealthy democratic countries like Canada, and less wealthy, communist countries like Cuba have universal health care offered to its citizens. However, in countries like the United States, the goal of universal health care faces an ongoing struggle. The struggle is due to the will of the people – in order for universal health care to exist, the people must want it and make it a high priority.

This does not address the resolution task.

 

I would recommend working on the basics. Learn what the writing sample essay is looking for and the standard template to follow.

http://portal.prep101.com/Forum/yaf_postst58_How-to-write-Writing-Sample-essays.aspx

 

Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting and resolution tasks are not addressed.

Depth: 1.5

Focus and coherence: 1.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good teaching requires flexibility. Describe a specific situation in which good teaching might not require flexibility. Discuss what you think determines when flexibility is necessary for good teaching.

 

Children acquire knowledge in a variety of ways and at a varying rates. A good teacher is someone who guides the student to a higher level of learning.

Therefore, it is recommended by some education experts that in order to be a good teacher, one must incorporate flexibility into the pedagogical approach. For example, when students enter kindergarten, there is a good deal of hetereogeneity in their current levels of knowledge and skill. An effective kindergarten teacher would approach learning not as a rigid set of expectations, but rather would adapt lesson plans to accommodate unique student needs. This teacher would be able to teach the alphabet to a child who may never have ever explored the ABCs, but would also need to be ready to guide pronunciation during reading for in a more gifted or advanced student. By adapting the approach to fit the needs of each student, the teacher ensures that he/she is advancing the learning level of all students.

 

However, this approach to instruction may not always be feasible. In the case of a 2nd-year University Physics class, the students will likely be all at the same level of knowledge regarding the subject matter. In this case, the teacher would not be required to meet each individual student 'where they're at', and a flexible approach to teaching would not be necessary. Instead, the teacher can focus on a unified lecture - a single didactic approach taken to instruct all students in the same way. Because they are beginning at the same level, students will all be presented with the same opportunity to advance their knowledge of physics.

 

What therefore, determines whether flexibility is necessary for effective instruction? It is likely that the level of education dictates the approach a teacher needs to take in order to advance the learning of a student. In the case of elementary and early secondary school, a high-quality teacher would likely adapt their teaching style to conform to the needs of individual student learning levels. However, in the higher grades and in post-secondary, an effective teacher can assume that all students are at roughly the same knowledge level, and can be effective in conveying information without adjusting teaching style on a student-by-student basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 33 chris67

 

A good health care system is one of the most important concerns for a government. Most governments want what is best for their citizens, and having an effective health care system in place goes a long way to improve their grammar citizens' quality of life. Ideally, a government would be able to ensure all of its citizens have access to adequate medical care, and this is a goal that has been reached by certain countries. Through the use of money collected from taxes, the Canadians grammar government is able to provide equal health care to virtually all of its citizens free of charge. Everyone has access to the same medical procedures, and such procedures are performed by competent professionals. Other nations, such as the United States, provide health care of a similar quality, but have privatized their medical care. This means that citizens' health care is not paid for through taxes, but the individuals must pay for it themselves, with the cost depending on the procedure. Although not all individuals receive equal health care under this system, even the lowest quality medical care is adequate for most people's needs This is a baseless assumption. , and is still provided by trained professionals. Both systems effectively provide access to health care to all of its citizens. I don't quite understand why you mix Canada and the US. In the US, there are lots of people who do not have access to even the most basic forms of care so your discussion regarding the US is faulty in its facts. This would have been much better had you stuck to Canada and simply elaborated upon your arguments.

 

In some other countries, however, not all citizens are able to have access to health care. Countries that have their population spread over a large geographical area would need a large amount of health care professionals to reach all of their citizens, and for some nations training such a large number of individuals is not realistic. In Sudan, for example, almost all of the population lives in what can be described as sparsely populated rural areas, with few health care practitioners. Sudan relies largely on foreign aid organizations, such as the Red Cross, to supply medical care to its citizens, but such organizations cannot be expected to reach everyone. The result is that a large number of people go through life without adequate health care. Strong.

 

Ultimately, what decides whether or not a nation can supply health care to all of its citizens is where the health care comes from. This is vague. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply from the outset. If it comes from within the country's borders, then it is possible for all citizens to have access to adequate medical care. In Canada, the Canadian government funds hospitals and clinics in Canada to ensure that all of its citizens are cared for. In the United States, private organizations provide health care to those willing to pay. Not everyone is able to afford the same level of health care, but it is still available to all. However, if a nation relies on aid from other countries or non-profit organizations to fund and provide its health care, then all of its citizens will not be able to receive adequate care. In third world countries, such as Sudan, non-profit organizations set up camps to provide free healthcare to those who desire it, and while this system does satisfy basic health care needs of some it is unlikely to reach each and every individual. This argument is flawed and lacks depth. If a nation could afford health care for everyone, then by default, they would not need outside medical care. Of course if a nation has to rely on non-profit organizations for medical care then health care for all is not realistic. These points are obvious.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 33 souljaboy

 

Universal health care isn't a new novel concept; it has been present in many developed countries around the world for decades. Your introduction needs work. In Canada, universal health care was barely discussed until the idea was presented by the Premier of Saskatchewan in the 1960s. Prior to that, there was no health care system in place. At the time, there were many politicians who argued that such a system would not work financially and the burdens on the government as well as taxpayers would be too high. Many citizens liked the idea but thought that it was not a realistic goal to achieve. However, the plan was eventually put in place and continues to operate without any significant issues today. The same system is present in many European countries as well, and the opponents always argue that the goal is unrealstic but so far, none of the universal health care plans around the world have failed. This discussion is okay but is too general and therefore lacks depth.

 

In most developing countries, though, health care for all is simply not possible due to limited resources. In poorest African grammar countries that has been grammar ravaged by war, the economy and systems currently in place is not grammar capable of providing universal health care. In a country such as Congo, there are very few native doctors available and is nowhere close to being what is needed to look after the population. The government is also not able to provide the fundings grammar that would be needed because the war ravaged economy cannot support it. Congo and other similar African nations require foreign doctors and foreign aid to provide some semblance of health care for its citizens. In such countries, health care for all is not a remotely attainable goal. This is okay. Try to add more depth because this is all very general information.

What determines whether univesal health care is a realistic goal for a country is mainly the economic situation of the country. Developed nations around the world, including Canada, has been grammar able to provide health care to al because they are in a stable economic state and possesses the grammar resources necessary to support health care. Most developing countries does not grammar have this luxury as they have not been able to dedicate significant spending to the health care sector. Their economy cannot support the significant resources needed to train doctors, build facilities, or provide the large number of factors required for universal health care. Hence, health care for all is completely dependent on whether the provider can support the financial burdens assocaited with it. Strong.

 

The grammar in this essay requires improvement.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 33 tms

 

Health care is an essential service that is either funded by the government, private insurance companies or patients and their families. Health care consists of all medically related services and medical procedures performed by trained and licensed health care professionals. In a developed nation such as Canada, health care for all is a realistic goal due to the relative abundance of resources and the relative absence of other social, political or economic factors requiring the government’s attention. In Canada, the health care system is publically funded via tax dollars and is highly regulated by the government. The Canadian health care system is designed to ensure that no individual is placed in a vulnerable state of not being able to get the proper medical attention if they were not able to afford the required treatments. Health care is considered as an essential service and all citizens have the right to access to heath care as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All citizens are issued a health care card by the provincial government that provides them with the access to health care services in their province of residence. It is important to note that at present, Canada is in a relatively stable social, political and economic state and can afford to devote valuable resources and funds towards providing health care for all citizens. Furthermore, the model of the public health care system has been around in Canada since the mid-1900’s and has been modified and improved over the course of time. The government has established a model that operates well and can be regulated to ensure proper delivery of health care services. Excellent. However, there is a bit too much filler. Sometimes more is not always better.

 

In contrast, for a developing nation like Bangladesh, health care for all is not a realistic goal since the nation has a number of other social, political and economic factors at play. Moreover, a developing nation often has limited resources in comparison to those enjoyed by the developed nations. As such, health care for all is not a plausible or realistic goal for a developing nation. In Bangladesh, health care is privately funded meaning that it requires patients and their families to cover the costs of all needed services and treatments. There is an absence of a centralized health care system where records are manually kept and updated at individual health care facilities and health care providers are not required to report details or billing information to the government. This does not allow the goverment to have control over the activities of health care providers and there is a lack of governmental regulation. Moreover, at present, Bangladesh is a developing nation that is facing other factors including slow economic growth, high unemployment rates, civil problems due to clashes between religious groups and weak international relations with neighboring nations. Such factors require resources and attention of the government. Thus, under such circumstances, health care for all is not a realisitic goal. Excellent. Again, too much filler hurts the clarity and impact of your arguments.

In conclusion, whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal depends on whether the nation can be considered as a developed nation or an undeveloped/developing nation. In the case of a developed nation as seen in the example of Canada, there is a vast amount of resources, stable political state, a relative lack of other social, political or economic matters. The government of a developed nation also has a relatively stable operating model such as the funding of health care via tax dollars and strict government regulations as seen in Canada. However, for undeveloped and developing nations as seen in the case of Bangladesh, health care for all is not a realisitic model since there is often a relative lack of resources, other social, political, and economic factors requiring attention of the government and political unstability that does not permit for proper regulation and delivery of health care services. Therefore, if a nation can be classified as developed, health care for all is a realistic goal but if a nation is classified as a developing nation or even an undeveloped nation, health care for all is not a realistic model. Excellent.

 

Sometimes less is more.

 

Overall Mark: 5.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a S )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 6 All of the tasks are completely addressed.

Depth: 5

Focus and coherence: 5

Grammar and vocabulary: 5.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 33 Raiya

 

A universal health care grammar is a goal that everyone would like to achieve. Whether you live in a poor or rich country, health care is of prime importance to you and those around you. And thus, it is a goal that many societies try to achieve. In most societies, health care for all is a very realistic aspiration because of the conditions and environment that already pre-exist grammar . For example, cervical cancer affects females and males Men don't have a cervix., but can be avoided and easily treated in a society like Canada. It can also be easily detected by regular screening. Virtually all cervical cancers are caused by HPV infections, with just two HPV types, 16 and 18, responsible for 70% of all cases It's characterized by abnormal bleeding and spotting from vagina, bleeding after sex. To combat this problem, Health Canada issued to have a Papanicolaou smear test starting at 18 as part of a routine health examination, or as soon as the patient becomes sexually active. If the tests show no abnormality, the patient is re-screened every three years to age 69 to ensure no cervical abnormalities crop up. Because of advanced technology and excellent diagnostic tools, many patients are treated at their pre-cancerous state. Additionally, access to free vaccines such as Gardail and Cervarix are funded through the Canadian government and the education school board to encourage young teens to receive protection at an early age. Thus, by having a well-rounded health care system that targets the at-risk population, achieving proper healthcare is a realistic vision, thanks to advancement in preventative medicine and accessibility. This discussion is mostly off-topic. Your example does not address what the writing task is looking for.

 

On the other hand, in 2006 across the world in India, a drug-resistant tubercolosis emerged (TDR-TB), raising concerns for families, government and the health care system in India. Tubercolosis is a potentially fatal contagious disease that mainly infects the lungs. This drug-resistant form of tubercolosis was created by a case of mismanagement where wrong treatments, wrong regimens were given to patients by private sector physicians who are unregulated in terms of practice and treatments.A study conducted in Mumbai showed that only 5 out of 106 private practitioners could prescribe correctly for a hypothetical patient with tuberculosis. In such a condition of having unqualified healthcare officials, poor economic status and a booming population, a universal healthcare simply cannot grammar be achieved. Additional to this grammar , pharmaceutical companies seek to earn profit by selling TB vaccines; but by judging the economic status and the increased population of India, it does not serve as an attractive market and thus, accessibility to vaccines is low. As diseases like TB progresses, palliative care is enforced but with a lack of professionalism and due to economic issues accessibility to preventative care is far from reach. Thus, the hope of reaching a goal of healthcare for all seems to be slim. This discussion is not focused enough on addressing the refuting task. You have some points that get at the heart of the issue but most of the discussion is again off-topic.

Where can we draw a line between when a universal healthcare grammar can be achieved and when it cannot? In a society like Canada, where the economic status is stable and healthcare education system is well-supported, physicians are properly trained and tested rigorously in their field. As well, because of advancement in technology, there are better tools to screen for cervical cancer, thus leading to better preventative care for patients' health. As well, vaccines such as Gardasil and Cervarix are freely distributed in school boards across Canada and are given to adolescents to provide the first step in preventative medicine and to a healthy start in their lives. With a health care system focused on preventative care and high accessibility like Canada, healthcare for all is a very realistic goal. However, in a country that is suffering from financial instability and rapid population climbs, obtaining a proper healthcare for all is pushed aside. Having more people mean that each individual receives less time and care. Not to mention, most of the practitioners are not properly trained for medicine and can even escalate the problem as seen in 2006 with the rise of the drug-resistant tuberculosis.Accessbility to vaccines and market interest for pharmaceutical companies becomes even lower when looking at the economic status of India and its financial systems. Thus, whether or not a society can obtain healthcare for all depends on the economic status which governs accessibility and the management of the health care system in that country. Your resolution principle is good. You need to express it clearly at the beginning of your resolution paragraph before applying it to your examples.

 

The grammar needs to be improved.

 

Your examples and arguments should remain focused on addressing the writing prompt tasks. Do not go off-course.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

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

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 2.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Raymond,

Ack!! I wish I found this forum a month ago. My MCAT is Aug 16. Any chance I'll receive feedback before then? Thanks in advance.

 

Prompt 36: Good teaching requires flexibility.

 

Flexibility - the ability to adapt, compromise, and deviate from the original - has always been an important component in the evolution of society. Flexibility in education depends on the stage of education as well as the subject matter. Young children are only capable of concrete thinking so it makes sense that much of the learning we do in elementary school consists of indisputable facts. Basic arithmetic and phonetic skills and various observations of the world around us comprise the majority of our early education. Flexibility is not required in the presentation of facts. By the time we get to high school, our brains have developed enough that we are now capable of abstract thinking. We are introduced to subjects such as philosophy and literature where the same thing might be interpreted differently by different individuals. Flexibility allows for all viewpoints to be considered and the combination of this myriad of ideas allows students to get the most out of their educations.

 

However, although older students are capable of abstract thinking, in subject areas like math, physics, and chemistry, most of the content is still concrete and absolute. The facts are non-debatable and are already proven to be one way or another. Teachers simply cannot say, “In some cases, the water is composed of three hydrogens and one oxygen.” Water will always be two hydrogens and an oxygen and a molecule with three hydrogens and one oxygen will be a hydronium ion. In this case, good teaching would only require that the teacher present the concepts in a way that will be easily understood by the students. For example, instead of telling students to memorize a formula, the professor might show how the formula was derived to enhance the understanding of the concept and to help students memorize it with greater ease.

 

Ultimately, whether or not flexibility is needed for good teaching depends on what is being taught and what the stage of education is. If hard facts are being taught, flexibility is not needed. If abstract concepts are being taught, flexibility is essential for exploring different possibilities and interpretations. Generally, flexibility is not needed in elementary school because hard facts are being taught. In higher education, flexibility might be needed, again, depending on what is being taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 33 ann2012

 

Every citizen in a nation should have equal access to basic resources such as, health care, grammar and no one should be rejected from these basic rights. It is a realistic goal that everyone in the country would have access to physicians when needed. For example, all citizens in Canada can go to their family doctor whenever they think it's necessary, because such fees are covered by the government in the form of health insurance. Even a person without a job or without any income can afford visits to a physician, since the government will be paying for him. This governmental coverage is made possible by the Canadian health care system, but more importantly because the Canadian economy is developed well enough to afford such expense. Thus, having no one rejected from health care is an achievable goal. The discussion is okay but is too general and therefore lacks depth.

 

On the other hand, if the country's economy is underdeveloped and the government cannot afford health care coverage. Then there may be situations where some people cannot have equal access to health care. Take the Chinese health care system as an example. The Chinese government decided that people in the nation will pay for their own health care, because the country's economy is still developing and cannot afford this additional expense. People who are unable to pay for their own visit to the hospital do not have access to a physician when needed, because unlike in Canada the Chinese government does not cover health insurance for all. Again, this works but the points are too general.

 

Therefore, whether people have equal access to health care depends on whether the country's economy is developed well enough to afford health insurance coverage. In a developed country such as, Canada, no one is rejected from the health care system, because related fees are covered by the government. The government have the grammar ability to afford such coverage since their economy is well developed. However, in a developing or underdeveloped country such as, China, people who are unable to afford fees needed for health care would be rejected from the health care system. The government is not covering such fees because the nation's economy is still developing and cannot afford any additional expense. Hopefully one day health care for all will be a realistic goal in all countries around the world. This is fine.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 33 perspectives

 

Health care is the medical attention provided to individuals by professionals in the medical field. In the past, it has often been a service reserved for those with money and power. However, in the modern society we live in, it is becoming increasingly realistic to provide health care for everyone. Strong opening. Previously, the shortage in supply of health care professionals could not meet the demands of those requiring health care, and thus only those with money and/or power were able to gain access. The medical industry has since made great improvements in efficiency to narrow the gap between supply and demand. Health care is often divided into a private and public sector depending on the country. Canada for example, has a public health care program where all Canadian citizens have access to basic health care. Everyone has the opportunity to consult with a primary care physician and to basic drugs and medicine. Thus, in Canada, health care for all is a goal that has been realized by the Canadian government. This discussion is okay but there are some points the are irrelevant to developing your argument. Your discussion is not focused enough on addressing the supporting task.

 

However, despite the improvements made in health care, there are still individuals that do not receive proper health care. This is different from the refuting task. The issue is not that people do not receive proper health care. The issue is whether health care for all is realistic or unrealistic. The demand for health care is inelastic This is not true., but the supply can only increase as quickly as medical professionals can be nurtured. Thus, in locations such as Hong Kong, where there is a public and private sector and a great shortage of doctors, many individuals do not receive health care. In Hong Kong, health care provided in public hospitals is cheaper than private, but due to the shortage of doctors, many individuals have to wait for an excessive number of hours before being tended too. Many choose to rather not go to the doctors due to this waiting time. The private hospitals will often have room to take in new patients, but they charge an amount substantially greater than the publicly owned hospitals. Therefore, not all citizens are able to afford this luxury service. This discussion does not address the refuting task. Even if people have to wait for an unreasonably long time, they still have access to health care.

 

Whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal depends on how much funding the the health care system is given. Public health is governed and funded by the government and thus ensures that all individuals have access to health care, although it may not be as quick. Canada has a publicly owned health system that does provide health care for all, and it is funded by the government revenue such as taxes. Backed by the Canadian government, the public health care system has a stable source of capital sufficient to provide health care for all. In predominantly privately owned health systems, due to the lack of financial support from the government, only those with money will be able to gain access to health care. Hong Kong's mixture of private and public health attempts to provide quick access for those with money and slower access for those without. But in the end, many individuals are hindered from receiving health care at all. Therefore, it can be seen that health care is a realistic goal only in certain countries depending on the financial stability in the health care system. There are a few issues here. The first is that your resolution principle lacks depth because it is too obvious. The second is that a private health care model can still receive a lot of funding. In fact, a private health care model could receive even more funding than a public one yet it is not the funding level that determines accessibility. Therefore, your resolution principle does not work.

 

Overall, the quality of ideas needs to be improved.

 

I tend not to like examples from movies. Movie examples are still made up examples and do not carry the same impact as real life examples.

 

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 weakly addressed.

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...