Grade my essay, please?

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Prompt: Do people accomplish more when they are allowed to do things in their own way? </p>

<p>Whilst there has always been an age-old distinction between "doers" and "thinkers", I believe it is appropriate to say that you cannot normalise and equalise the thinking processes of human beings, and thus pathways to accomplishment are always subjective. Those with above-average reasoning abilities, or those whose intelligence serves as an anomaly for their demographic, certainly can accomplish more when they are allowed to do things independently. </p>

<p>In the context of the education system, I believe it is appropriate for one to say that one's own thinking process can serve them greater than that which society has imposed on him. In the United Kingdom, education is very much standardised(using the state-wide GCSE system), with all students enrolled in the same curriculum. Because of this constraint on a students' education, there has been recent debate in the UK regarding the status of the GCSE as a suitable curriculum for the nation's youth. An increasing number of schools are opting to become Independent and switching over to a variety of foreign curricula such as the IGCSE and O-Level, claiming that the state-wide GCSE is not suitable for the needs of students whose intellectual capabilities may be higher than that of the benchmarked norm, or students whose ways of knowing are vastly different than the average child. </p>

<p>The great disparity and diversity in human minds and habits serves to greater emphasise the fact that independent ventures are more likely to achieve precedents and accomplish more. When man conforms to a certain norm or practise, it is inevitable that the results yielded from his exploits will be little different than a social deviant or an anathema. This is not to say that one will always be better than another, but to understand the concept of progress and accomplishment, we must first affirm the fact that progress involves the breaking of knowledge barriers and new forms of thinking. Most accepted "geniuses" such as Einstein or Watson did not accept conventional forms of thinking and doing, and thus engaged in their own independent thought processes that were unaffected by society's inherent intellectual egalitarianism. Had James Watson attempted to go about exploring genes and the origin of life like any other scientist of the time, such advances such as DNA discovery would not have occurred at the time. Had Galileo believed and did as the social norms of the time expected him to, he would not have once thought that conventional laws of the earth were wrong. Discovery and progress can only be present in society permitted we allow a number of independent thinkers and "doers" to have their way. </p>

<p>What is good for one will not always be good for another. Whilst simple and clich</p>

2

<p>bumpsies
10char</p>

3

<p>5/6. The essay seemed too wordy at some points.</p>

4

<p>So how should I write future ones? use fewer words? I know I have a tendency to ramble on, but how does one correct that?</p>

<p>Thanks btw.</p>

<p>EDIT: also I’d like to add that this was done on one of those online practise tests, so I could have fit more words on there simply because of my typing speed. Perhaps on the written test I wouldn’t be able to write nearly as much.</p>

5

<p>Hello everybody! I’m a new member and feel really happy i joined your community! As dubyawhy, i would also be grateful if you could grade my essay too! It’s extra-important to me!</p>

<p>TOPIC: Nowadays, nothing is private: our culture has become too confessional and self-expressive. People think that to hide one’s thought is to pretend not to have those thoughts or feelings. They assume that honesty requires one to express every inclination and impulse.</p>

<p>Should people make more of an effort to keep some things private? </p>

<p>ESSAY:
It is often alleged that what is missing from our globalized world is the oportunity to decode and express ourselves unrestrictedly. This could be a possible reason why modern educational methods try to use artistic material in order to elicit an impression or a feeling on behalf of the students’ corpus even if students are altogether unwilling to disclose what the tutor is stubbornly seeking. And note that this is only one example of how people are being gradually compelled into refusing their right to privacy.</p>

<p>It is my firm conviction that of all human rights privacy is the prerequisite for spiritual and emotional freedom and, subsequently, a right worth safeguarding. First of all, emotions and unexpressed thoughts sometimes represent what people are usually deprived of, either physically or legally. This means that the externalization of our thinking process would most probably receive puritanic criticism for it would not conform to the social norms and generally accepted ethical values. To exemplify, sexual fantasies are (according to the psychological community) a defensive and joy-provoking mechanism that is even biologically justified. Nevertheless, our hypocritical society would not hesitate to condemn such thoughts classifying them as paranormal, resulting in the stigmatization, social marginalization and distortion of the psychological balance of the individual. Therefore, isn’t it clear that struggling to maintain our privacy is closely attached to our chances of physical and emotional survival?</p>

<p>Second of all, the distorted assertion that intimacy equals an effort to eliminate the hidden part of our psychism is altogether unfounded. On the contrary, in cases where individuals are somehow forced to express an emotion without them feeling the communicational need, the verbal outcome is not a sincere depiction of what they feel if not a loquacious, standardized and tecnically impressive monologue. On observing the example of the stufent who is asked to literally “make up” an emotion and verbalize his feelings, don’t we all realize how unethical it is to destroy the instinctive nature of our private thoughts by ousting them out?</p>

<p>On the whole, expression can be real and honest only if it serves communicational purposes. As a consequence, in all other contexts, individuals are morally obliged to secure their privacy as a shield to social criticism and emotional distortion.</p>

<p>Thank you all in advance!</p>