GRE Issue Essay Education

1) I believe it is true, but the educational institution needs to be careful with the way they do this. Why true: In educational institutions, students are obligated to take decisions (what to study) from an early age, and even in college some are still not mature enough to know exactly what they want from their lives. They have only been in one environment (school) and have little experience elsewhere. Even one enjoyable summer internship is not enough for them to know for sure they want to work in that field, as it is possible it was a lucky strike. Give example. (2 ways. lucky and unlucky internsip, in both cases advisers at the institutions should work to help the student not be encouraged or discouraged) Guidance is very important, and I believe that if the student is clearly considering a field they are unlikely to succeed in, their advisers should discourage them. It is important, however, that these advisers are careful with the reason for which it could be considered they are \"unlikely to succeed\". Just taking history as an example is not a valid reason. Discouraging women from going into science just because it's been historically dominated by men is not a valid reason. However, there are cases in which they should do this. For example, if it is somewhat clear to the advisers that the student is pushed in a direction by his/her parents.

1) Beginner luck -- Steinhardt 2) Scientific methods from one field to another -- string theory to quantum computing 3) Art - original, not necessary to be inspired Counter: Inspiration is crucial to discovery.

1) Many great minds and artists were uneducated or self-educated. Ex: Einstein taught himself most of what he knew. Michael Faraday worked in a book shop, the Wright Brothers never graduated from high school, Gregor Mendel. 2) No matter how hard schools try, they still can't individualize teaching, and students end up learning things that might not be the best for them to understand. Given on framework for understanding, and then tested on it. Counter: Formal education is required for being able to think independently and freely. True, but it does not cause it directly. In fact only when students do research do they actually start thinking freely. It is a necessary evil today, since there is already so much that is known. But in the past, it was not even necessary, it was just an evil.

reprimanding bad actions and praising only very good actions. 1) Ignoring negative actions is not bound to eliminate them. Ex: The child might get accustomed to do them less frequently when the parents are around, and more frequently when parents are not around. But no fear of punishment means they will never STOP doing them altogether. 2) Always praising positive actions can have repercussions such as need of reassurance, low self-esteem etc. So praising only extremely good actions or in a way conclusive actions best mimics reality. Counter: Fear is never good and positive reinforcement helps give feelings of confidence etc. Yes, but fear is actually good, is what protects us etc. And too much positive reinforcement is bad etc.

1) Hard to separate other factors affecting students' performances from the teacher involvement. 2) Teachers become frustrated and care more about performance on tests than students understanding the material and being able to apply it in real-life. 3) Teachers might start giving inaccurate grades to students and cheat the system. Counter: It would make the teachers more effective. False, teachers usually do what they do out of passion and seeing students learn is better incentive than anything else.Like any other job there is constant evaluation and holding on to the job is also incentive enough.

1) In day-to-day life, things become more and more comprehensible. 2) Mysterious is not necessarily the opposite of comprehensible in science. Knowing \"why\" something is mysterious is already comprehension of some aspects of that something and decreases its mystery. Counter: some would argue that the deeper we delve into molecules and atoms, the more mysterious they appear. Ex. string theory. That is not true, everything is a matter of scale. We could go infinitely up or infinitely down and it will be more mysterious indeed, but as far as day-to-day life is concerned, what we know so far is very ilumminating.

1) Schools might not have anything suitable for them, they might not learn in the same way. 2) Such a training program solves the problem of social exclusion. Counter: Excluding those children from their peers is deleterious. Peers = not age, but who share same interests and have same level of maturity etc.

1) It is during alone time that we truly discover who we are. When in social groups we change. Ex: from an early age, alone time = time to reflect on one's mistakes and beliefs of right and wrong. so much uniformity because no one is ever alone journeys of self-discovery, meditation etc => gives people opportunity to rediscover self 2) Social groups change more frequently, but our core beliefs do not. Counter: We are social beings who would not be able to exist outside a group, so we must be one with that group. Yes, but the group is only a part of what makes us us, it is in the phenotype. The genotype also influences us and our personality and who we are and to a greater extent because groups can change etc.

1) Such a system helps accommodate students with sundry interests and levels of intelligence. 2) It also prevents the institutions of schools to appear rigid and restrictive, which helps increase motivation and interest among students. 3) Lastly, it ensures the curricula are in a constant process of questioning and refinement, facilitating its improvement. Counter: students would not have to make crucial decisions about their future at an early age. But parents can help with this....

1)The main benefit of this is helping them become well-rounded individuals and independent-thinkers. 2)It also helps to ensure any possible mistakes made by the teachers are not left unattended and then perpetuated. 3) In the process of teachings being questioned in a circumspect manner, the teachers can also derive useful feedback on their explanation giving. Counter: Studying how a teacher got to a conclusion without questioning it is a good way to develop intuition. Yes, but that does not preclude questioning it. Even if the same steps are taken as teachers have, at each step the concept can be compared with other concepts and analyzed without breaking this process. It is possible, after all, that the teacher's thinking was flawed.

1) Focuses on learning frameworks, tricks, rather than understanding concepts. 2) Makes it hard for students to focus on the subjects they like, since total GPA counts. Counter: Grades => competition => motivation Yes, but it is the wrong kind of motivation. It is the motivation to cover as much material and remember it short-term, instead of looking for best ways to understand it long-term and apply it to real-life.

1) What would become of the educational system is teachers changed their curricula to accommodate wishes of students who are taking the courses \"for fun\", for example? 2) Furthermore, educators around the world have both didactic training and life experience to aid them in the design of courses. Then, even if painful at first, the courses they might despise will, in many cases, prove immensely useful to many students. Counter: students lose interest in the topic and quit. but no, passion => interest => motivation and passion helps you love the courses.

1) Limited time ex: physical chemistry 2) Facts can be used without understanding origin. ex: sines, cosines, derivatives etc --- engineers Counter: better understanding, but since knowledge is vast and lifetime short, there has to be a starting point prior to which knowledge is taken for granted.

1) Well-rounded means well-versed in various fields. Traditionally it might mean conversant in literature, art and music because those were the fields accessible to the common man, but with the spread of education in the natural sciences, social sciences, astronomy etc now everyone can have a basic understanding of the sciences too. So it would be unfair to demand that someone who is well-rounded be conversant in literature but not in other fields. And since there are so many fields, well-rounded now means being knowledgeable in many fields, but there should not be one specific field such as literature, even less so imaginative literature, that is a necessary component of being well-rounded. 2) Course selections are better left to the student. Obligating them to take certain courses they might not feel comfortable taking makes it harder to focus on their major etc etc Counter: Imaginative literature might help them develop a active imagination. The same can be argued about imaginative art, and is not clear it does help. If it became clear, the colleges and universities could require students to take courses in art and lit in order to guide them towards these fields, but they shouldn't have to pick literature necessarily.

1) The circle of academic life: Professors assume guiding roles, and their students take over the tedious work. They make discoveries, because they are the workers. 2) Beginners are more enthusiastic, more patient etc. 3) Beginners are more numerous than experts, and numbers are very frequently important. Ex: archeology, zoology etc Counter: Expertise is more important for extraordinary discoveries. But no, in most cases hard work and trying a lot of ways is more efficient.

1) Learning is a life-long process, does not happen only at school. No matter how good school is at teaching, learning needs to happen at home, as well. 2) Teaching cannot be individualized completely, so personal discipline is crucial. Counter: Good teacher and good courses make for good learning. Yes, but those do not last forever, whereas learning does.

1) Any area can lead to brilliant discoveries. ex: string theory 2) The life of a human with a rare genetic disease is as valuable as that of a human with diabetes 3) it's hard to tune talents to specific areas, efficiency is lost 4) EBOLA for example could spread. Counter: more revenue, more lives saved. This is true, but the first three arguments should win.

1) Takes time from improving their teaching 2) takes time from furthering research and possibly improving life. Universities are biggest research centers. 3) What would happen with their groups? Courses? Counter: Practical experience makes professors better rounded, better experts and they could pass that on to their students. Nope, because courses need to give students a common set of tools and knowledge that can be acknowledged at other universities. Including massive amounts of esoteric information gathered from a prof's adventures in course material would defeat this purpose. Adding just a small amount of external info can be achieved by the prof just by being informed in their field, which can be achieved from campus. internships serve this purpose.

1) Students need to take their knowledge and apply it in the real world. Frequently theory and practice are different, for example COS. 2) If they understand properly, they can explain better and students can teach each other. Counter: School is for acquiring a common knowledge, and that knowledge is what matters. Applying it can be learned later in jobs. Yes, but learning how to apply makes it easier to learn (it forces repetition etc)

1) The reason one cannot find the answer is that they are looking for it in the wrong place. Taking the most direct way usually doesn't work, since likely it has been tried before. Then, it is by working on another related problem that the solution is usually found. Or completely different problem! Ex: similar problem: In chemistry, a common way to simulate systems is by using DFT. In DFT the total energy is expressed as the sum of potential energy due to the fixed nuclei, plus the electronic and kinetic energy of the electrons. The last two terms are written as a functional of the electron density and that functional was not known for a while. The answer finally came from studying a completely disparate system, the free electron gas and then employing local approximations. different: string theory and quantum, Fleming's discovery of pennicilin. 2) If it's not accidental it's not as important, because it usually implies a long, sustained, and somewhat predictable work. It doesn't surprise anyone. Counter: Hard-sustained work is necessary for great discoveries. True, but elegant, short solutions to problems are always more appreciated and considered bigger accomplishments.