Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
A Nation Should Require All Of Its Students To Study The Same National Curriculum Until They Enter College - With A Free Essay Review
Asking students throughout the country to study the same national curriculum or not is a question bothering the government for many years. Without a thorough investigation, it is hasty to arrive to the conclusion as the answer varies according to the situation. However, As far as I can see, there exist many circumstances in which unify studies is not a proper way to educate elites for the nation's future. Generally speaking, I am not quite agree with the arguer's view - reasons can be listed as follow.
To begin with, we cannot draw a conclusion plausible internationally. The author points out that governments of all the nations should play such a role in education without consideration of the diversity in different nations. Developing countries and developed countries vary a lot. It is pragmatic to give personalized lessons to American students, but implausible in Africa due to the lack of teaching resources and reading materials. What's more, the quality of students in different countries varies, too. In developing countries, students are more likely to be illiterate before entering the primary school while in developed countries where family education is emphasized, students are likely to be of various degree when their school life start, indicating a need for different curriculum for different students. For that matter, we had better check the question from nation to nation.
Even if selecting a specific country, we would find it an unwise choice to require all the students to study the same curriculum. Firstly, lacking proper equipment can be a disadvantage in the popularization of national curriculum. Just as the gap between developing countries and developed ones, in a nation, there also exist some areas of poverty. For those students have never seen computer, I do not think it a good idea to ask them to learn Photoshop. Reading book cannot help them understand the use of the machine.
Secondly, cultural dissimilarity could be another barrier. Because of geographic and cultural differences, various parts of the nation share little in common - the south may be places for agriculture while the north may engaged more in industrial production. The requirements of elites for local economic development can be dissimilar. To cultivate elites qualified, it is better to provide specific curriculum to students before they entering university in that it both helps students making decision when choosing major, providing them with basic knowledge for their major and enables them to apply what they learned to practice.
Thirdly, using local textbook is helpful in spreading history and tradition to their offspring. As a citizen of the certain place, they should be taught the basic knowledge of the town, including its history, policy and culture which are of the same significance as the history of the nation. Such knowledge is more important for young children because they are at the stage forming their philosophic view. It is the local government's duty to help them developing their love for the nation as well as their mother town.
In summary, offering the same national curriculum has some advantage. For example, it provides the government convenience in college entrance examination and makes the admission procedure standard. However, its disadvantage overweigh is advantage. Diversity between different parts of the nation is so enormous that makes the suggestion implausible to be carried out.
For exam essays, you do not need to prove that you understand why the proposition might be something worth thinking about, so if I were revising this essay I would delete the first paragraph and write something in the introduction that might actually score some points; e.g., I might identify some of the issues that might be relevant to evaluating the proposition. (Write a sentence like this: Some of the issues that need to be considered when evaluating this proposition are X, Y, Z). And I would certainly include a complete thesis statement in the introduction. Doing that would make the first paragraph better, but it would also make the essay as a whole better since the author will now know from the beginning how the essay ought to proceed.
Note, however, that a thesis statement is not a statement of your position but a summary of your reasons for holding that position. Don't say "I do [note correction] not agree with the arguer's view - reasons can be listed as follows [note correction]." Instead, write something like this:
"I disagree with the general statement that a nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum because A, B, C" - where A, B, and C are brief statements of the actual reasons you have for making that claim. Such a statement will make it obvious to your reader what you are arguing. That's a good thing to do.
Now your first argument is that "personalized lessons ... [would be] implausible in Africa." I don't understand the relevance of this argument; it seems to oppose the idea of personalized lessons to a national curriculum, which doesn't make sense to me, at least not without further elaboration of what you mean by "personalized lessons." Further, I don't understand why the plausibility of personalized lessons depends on the availability of teaching resources and reading materials. The general point that you are making here, that we should consider differences between nations, would seem to be reasonable, but it's not clear how you would articulate that point in a way that is clearly relevant to the argument. So instead of saying "personalized education is implausible in Africa" say something much more obvious: "African nations need to have a national curriculum because ...."
Your second argument is that in developed countries, different students have different levels of preparation. You say that indicates a need for a different curriculum for different students. A complete argument here would specify how the first thing indicates the second.
Your argument about cultural dissimilarity is, to be frank, odd and all but unintelligible. I'm not sure what you mean by elites, or why you are talking about them at all, since the proposition is about students generally. If you want to argue that there ought to be a different curriculum in agricultural areas from the curriculum in industrial areas, then say that, and explain why. If the general point is that different economic areas require differently educated students, then say that. Saying "the requirements of elites for local economic development can be dissimilar" is perhaps your intended way of saying that, but unfortunately it is likely only to provoke a quizzical grimace from your reader. So make your arguments as simply and straightforwardly as possible (of course one does not simply write simply, but try!).
You go on in the same paragraph to talk about the advantage of providing a specific curriculum to students before entering university, and again I have to guess what you are getting at. Are you talking about the last few years of schooling before entering university? If so, say that. Are you talking about allowing students to specialize in just a few areas in those few years? If so, that idea is not captured by "specific curriculum." Perhaps this is a case where an example of what you mean would be helpful.
The argument of your penultimate paragraph is reasonable enough, so let me skip to the end where you consider one of the advantages of having a national curriculum. For these kinds of essays, doing that, considering both sides of the issue is crucial. But what you do in this respect here is not nearly enough. Devote at least one full paragraph, not just one sentence, to elaborating the advantages of a national curriculum. In this case, specify why it is advantageous to have a standard admissions procedure, and how (given what you want to argue) the disadvantages of not having one might be circumvented. Simply asserting that the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages is not enough.