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
"Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position."
I strongly agree with the claim that all students should be made to study the same curriculum before they enter college. As for all controversial issues, this issue has its drawbacks as well its strong points. However, the strong points outweigh the flaws.
If students study the same national curriculum, it will be easier for universities to design their curriculums accordingly. They will know exactly how much each student has been taught, and what to expect from the incoming students.
Moreover, there will be a sense of equality among students. In Pakistan there are different high schools systems; the rich students take their high school exams under the Cambridge system, while the poor students go into the local matric system. This educational divide means that all the students are not studying the same thing. It therefore becomes difficult for the universities to select the students because of the different parameters of academic excellence for both the systems. Hence, the universities have to take tests to determine the capability of the students.
Moreover, ensuring that there is only one national curriculum for all students will mean that there will be no other study options for students. Hence, the educational bodies will be pressurised by the public to make sure that the curriculum design is to the best of standards. If there will be a diverse number of curriculums students can choose from, the government will not be pushed into altering its own local system, since if the students do not like the local system they can easily switch to the other educational systems available.
However, there seems one flaw of having one national curriculum for students. Students range in their capabilities; some are brilliant while others are average. If there isn’t one national curriculum, bright students will be able to take advanced pre-university courses rather than following what others are being taught.
To conclude, all schools should adhere to the same national curriculum for students, since its strong points more than make up for its flaws.
You do a reasonably good job here of identifying some of the advantages of the recommendation in specific circumstances. Your first point, which you deal with in just two sentences, could be usefully elaborated by considering what specific problems universities have to deal with when students have not shared the same curriculum. I'm not sure the problems are really that severe, since universities are usually happy to offer (profitable) catch-up courses and can offer placement tests (which is not much of inconvenience) to determine which students need to take them.
Your next argument starts out as a point about equality and ends up being about that inconvenience facing universities that need to administer tests. These two points should probably dealt with separately, and perhaps with greater elaboration. Your subsequent argument about a state-directed curriculum needing to be stronger if there is no alternative more naturally belongs with your discussion about the implications for equality, or at least it would if your point was that the Cambridge system, to take your example, is better than the matriculation system; you should probably clarify, then, in what sense the question of inequality arises.
The overarching claim of your essay is that the "strong points" (by which you mean, I take, the advantages) of requiring students to study the same national curriculum outweigh the drawbacks. That claim would be a lot stronger if you considered the strongest possible objections to the given recommendation, and then explained why those objections are not actually that strong. The one disadvantage you point out is that a national curriculum would prevent bright students from taking advanced course. That's not a very strong objection, if only because it is not always true (there are examples of countries with national curricula that allow for additional or more advanced courses to be taken by gifted students). Perhaps a more general version of the argument would make for a stronger objection: A national curriculum tends to lack the flexibility to meet the needs of different types of students, or perhaps students in different areas. But once you’ve done something like that, you really ought to explain why you think the possible objection is less important than the advantages of having a national curriculum.