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 Free Essay Review
The author's recommendation that all of the students in a country should take the same national curriculum has both positive and negative effects on the quality of education of students.
The standardization of curriculum means all of the students in the country study same the syllabus. So it is pretty beneficial for those students who have to transfer to another school. If the curriculum of this school is different from that of the previous school, they may have to waste time studying those courses that other students have already taken. In such case, they may be easily left behind due to the different curriculum.
What's more, because of the same national curriculum, students from anywhere in the country, from big cities or from small villages, will read the same books and be taught the same syllabus. This makes it easier to evaluate a student's performance in standardized tests such as SAT. So it would be relatively easier for universities to select students based on their aptitude. Moreover, if students are taught the same curriculum in high school, universities can better determine which courses should be provided for students because they know exactly the educational background of students.
However, the standardization of curriculum may also elicit some bad consequences. One of the most significant negative outcomes is that it may impair the development of the students' creativity. As we know, the purpose of education is not simply to imbue students with what is in the books, but to teach students to think on their own and develop students' study habits. If the recommendation in the statement is adopted, a student interested in physics in high school won't have the chance to take extracurricular courses about physics to cultivate his talent for physics.
Another undesirable consequence is that some students may be dispirited when they find they are not interested in the courses that schools offer. For instances, a student is forced to learn literature while he doesn't like it. And because of having no interested in that course, he may just doze off during class and learn nothing. This is also a waste of time.
To sum up, standardization of curriculum is not only beneficial for those students who have to transfer to another school, but also for universities to choose students and determine which courses to provide for first-year students. However, standardization of curriculum also engender some bad outcomes such as hampering the development of students' creativity and wasting the limited study time of students. So, whether the proposal in the statement should be adopted need more investigation.
This is a reasonably well-written essay. Most of the arguments are convincing enough if, for this reader (and for obvious reasons), predictable. (These arguments are probably new to you, but if you've actually read a bunch of these essays and so are familiar with the standard responses, you may not be making the best use of your time in writing essays that rehearse those responses.)
Your second argument here is divided into two parts. A national curriculum benefits universities, you say, insofar as it makes evaluation easier and insofar as it makes designing appropriate courses less challenging. These are both reasonable arguments but it's worth noting, with respect to your reference to the SAT in your articulation of the first part of your argument, that standardized tests are intended to provide a means of assessing students despite their possibly different educational backgrounds.
Your third argument is less clear to me. There is no reason that I can think of, and none that you articulate, to assume that a national curriculum would reduce education to mere book-learning. There is no reason to assume, in other words, that such a curriculum would prevent teachers from teaching students how to "think on their own." If you think there is a tendency for that to happy in countries that have a national curriculum, you might explain why.
You conclude this argument with an illustrative example ("a student interested in physics") that seems only tangentially related to the main point of the paragraph. It is also not clear to me why you think a national curriculum would prevent students from pursuing extracurricular courses.
P.S. Please include the complete prompt with the essay.