1
GRE AWA MODEL ESSAYS
Topics in the following list may appear in your actual test. You
should become familiar with this list before you take the GRE-AWA
test. Remember that when you take the test you will not have a
choice of topics. You must write only on the topic that is assigned to
you.
2
The Pool of Issue Topics
Present your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examples
to support your views.
Issue 1
"We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose
views contradict our own."; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning."
Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose
ideas contradict ours? The speaker daims so, for the reason that disagreement can cause
stress and inhibit learning. I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, in
my view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose than
from people whose ideas are in accord with our own.
Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive
to learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On today's
typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningless
rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message
heard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging the
merits of the opponent's viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewers
learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and
biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded.
Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental
assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of
paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by
debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution
to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a
laissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centrv2ized power should
control all economic activity.
Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's
claim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to
debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is
primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal,
community, or global level.
At the personal level, by listening to their parents' rationale for their seemingly oppressive
rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain
undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns about
autonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effective
parenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionate
dialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concerns
of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the
latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring
job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing
political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to
understand the other's legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the
3
stability of its economy and currency, and so forth.
In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by
the same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned
discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon
which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally
correct.
Issue 2
"No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and
experience to that field of study."
I strongly agree with the assertion that significant advances in knowledge require expertise
from various fields. The world around us presents a seamless web of physical and
anthropogenic forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of a
variety of disciplines. Two examples that aptly illustrate this point involve the fields of cultural
anthropology and astronomy.
Consider how a cultural anthropologist's knowledge about an ancient civilization is
enhanced not only by the expertise of the archeologist--who unearths the evidence--but
ultimately by the expertise of biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers. By
analyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists and forensic
scientists can determine the life expectancy, general well-being, and common causes of death
of the population. These experts can also ensure the proper preservation of evidence found at
the archeological site. A geologist can help identify the source and age of the materials used
for tools, weapons, and structures--thereby enabling the anthropologist to extrapolate about
the civilization's economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, and
so forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments
of writings. And an astronomer can help explain the layout of an ancient city as well as the
design, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and temples--since ancients often looked
to the stars for guidance in building cities and structures.
An even more striking example of how expertise in diverse fields is needed to advance
knowledge involves the area of astronomy and space exploration. Significant advancements in
our knowledge of the solar system and the universe require increasingly keen tools for
observation and measurement. Telescope technology and the measurement of celestial
distances, masses, volumes, and so forth, are the domain of astrophysicists.
These advances also require increasingly sophisticated means of exploration. Manned and
unmanned exploratory probes are designed by mechanical, electrical, and computer
engineers. And to build and enable these technologies requires the acumen and savvy of
business leaders, managers, and politicians. Even diplomats might play a role--insofar as
major space projects require intemafional cooperative efforts among the world's scientists and
governments. And ultimately it is our philosophers whose expertise helps provide meaning to
what we learn about our universe.
In sum, no area ofinteUectual inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because the sciences are
inextricably related, to advance our knowledge in any one area we must understand the
interplay among them all. Moreover, it is our non-scienfists who make possible the science,
4
and who bring meaning to what we learn from it.
Issue 3
"A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter
college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic
courses to offer."
The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead of
allowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree
insofar as some common core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation. At the
same time, however, individual states and communities should have some freedom to
augment any such curriculum as they see fit; otherwise, a nation's educational system might
defeat its own purposes in the long tenn.
A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all,
by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculum
would help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productive
members of society. In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictable
foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and
select course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educational
experience. Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all school-children are taught core
values upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survive--values such
as tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others.
However, a common curriculum that is also an exdusive one would pose certain problems,
which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. First of all, on what basis would certain
course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision- maker? In all
likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are
likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to
children--notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents.
Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling by lobbyists
who do not have the best interests of society's children in mind.
Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of
propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines
the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text
books, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the
government might wish to suppress--as some sort of threat to its authority and power.
Although this scenario might seem far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised
already at the state level.
Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of
programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For
example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of
particular ethnic groups who make up the state's diverse population. A national curriculum
might not allow for this feature, and California's youngsters would be worse off as a result of
their ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose
citizenship they share.
5
Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to
undermine the authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent than
uniform state laws currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their children
receive an education that meets certain minimum standards are well-justified, for the reasons
mentioned earlier. However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather than at the
community level parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in the
decision-making process. This problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions left
exclusively to federal regulators.
In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount
to a double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a future
populated with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural
diversity and tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, is a balanced one that
imposes a basic curriculum yet leaves the rest up to each state--or better yet, to each
community.
Issue 4
"The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life that
it has become a more important form of documentation than written records."
According to the speaker, the video recording is a more important means of document hag
contemporary life than a written record because video recordings are more accurate and
convincing. Although I agree that a video provides a more objective and accurate record of an
event's spatial aspects, there is far more to document ha life than what we see and hear. Thus
the speaker overstates the comparative significance of video as a documentary tool.
For the purpose of documenting temporal, spatial events and experiences, I agree that a
video record is usually more accurate and more convincing than a written record. It is
impossible for anyone, no matter how keen an observer and skilled a journalist, to recount ha
complete and objective detail such events as the winning touchdown at the Super Bowl, a
Ballanchine ballet, the Tournament of Roses Parade, or the scene at the intersection of
Florence and Normandy streets during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Yet these are important
events in contemporary life the sort of events we might put ha a time capsule for the purpose
of capturing our life and times at the turn of this millennium.
The growing documentary role of video is not limited to seminal events like those described
above. Video surveillance cameras are objective witnesses with perfect memories. Thus they
can play a vital evidentiary role in legal proceedings--such as those involving robbery, drug
trafficking, police misconduct, motor vehicle violations, and even malpractice in a hospital
operating room. Indeed, whenever moving images are central to an event the video camera is
superior to the written word. A written description of a hurricane, tornado, or volcanic eruption
cannot convey its immediate power and awesome nature like a video record. A diary entry
cannot "replay" that wedding reception, dance recital, or surprise birthday party as accurately
or objectively as a video record. And a real estate brochure cannot inform about the lighting,
spaciousness, or general ambiance of a featured property nearly as effectively as a video.
Nonetheless, for certain other purposes written records are advantageous to and more
appropriate than video records. For example, certain legal matters are best left to written
