darria
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#1
Heey!

Could you guys give me some feedback on this LNAT essay please? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

‘It is right that students should contribute to the cost of their degrees.’ Do you agree?

Countries all over the world have different educational systems, starting from primary school to universities. Some of them make the students cover the entire amount or just a part of the cost of their degrees. Others offer a limited number of free places for the first degree somebody’s getting. The question is what the best option is. I believe that everybody should have the chance to obtain their first degree for free, without financially contributing to it, as there are a variety of arguments supporting my idea.

The percentage of people enrolling in university is extremely important for a country’s future figures of employment. Thus, a state should encourage all those who don’t have a degree yet, but the capacity to obtain one, to apply without having to worry about financial support. In order to do this as fair as possible, each university should have a limited number of free places which can be obtained by sitting an exam. This way, constructive competition would be implemented and everybody would have a fair chance at getting at least one degree.

Another argument is represented by the fact that a state should encourage education. There are many young people who have the necessary capacity to get a degree and then be integrated into the work field. However, they can’t afford higher education costs, so they just learn to do something else. This means that the state has less educated people in the academic field, which only damages the next generations as well. Not encouraging education by making it mandatory for students to contribute financially to their degrees means that the state will have less teachers in schools and less professors in universities. What is worse, those who will become teachers or professors might not be the best candidates. However, because of the lack of educated people, they will get a job in the educational field.

Another argument is that, most of the time, students have more to pay for than just their degrees. A lot of them have to buy expensive books or learn a foreign language. What’s more, the typical student has to pay for accommodation, basic utilities and food. A degree is not that easy to obtain, so having a part-time job while also keeping up with your studies surely represents a challenge. This is another reason why universities should let students get their first degree for free.

Some people say that it is moral for a student to contribute financially to the cost of their degree. In the end, this might represent a way to give something in exchange for all the knowledge and academic support the state is offering through your university. Moreover, an educational institution has to survive while also modernise and adapt to the needs of the new generations. Universities need money in order to do that. Thus, a student should pay in order to get the best education. However, this argument does not stand because each state should have special resources for education and these resources should also go to universities. It is the duty of a country to make sure that its citizens live as good as possible and that includes education as well.

That having been said, the arguments presented support the idea that not all students should contribute financially to their degrees, because the university should offer them the chance, through a fair and competitive exam, to obtain a free place. This could only be available for the first degree somebody gets, so as to encourage employability and education. There will also be students who won’t get one of the free places, so they will pay for their degree, which will be a sufficient contribution for the university.
0
reply
returnmigrant
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 months ago
#2
Firstly, this is way too long - in the 40 mins you have to write the 'essay', you will at best manage 4 short paragraphs.
The maximum length for an LNAT essay is 750 words, and most people only manage abut 400 words in this time.

You will not have time to think/consider the question, or the time to elaborately plan your answer, as you clearly have here. You will literally choose a question, and start writing like crazy, correcting as you go.

Four short paragraphs of literally a couple of lines each - introduction, case for, case against, conclusion. If you can write this in sensible and correct English, and do it in 40 minutes, job done.That is what you need to do in practice writing - not an A level essay.
0
reply
darria
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#3
Hey! Thanks for the feedback! I actually managed to write that in 40 minutes😅
0
reply
returnmigrant
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 months ago
#4
(Original post by darria)
Hey! Thanks for the feedback! I actually managed to write that in 40 minutes😅
So you were just handed the question, with no prior knowledge of the question - and immediately wrote that. Or did you ponder, choose, contemplate etc, and then write.

By the way, it isnt a good essay. It far too repetitive, has too many 'another argument is' statements, and isnt succinct enough. The question is not asking you about part-time jobs, who should get mythical 'free places', and 'how should students fund their degrees', its asking you the moral question about government spending, and the benefits of higher education to both the individual and to the state, and therefore where the cost of this should lie. For all LNAT questions, you need to spot what the question is actually asking you to think about - the bigger issues, and then to answer it in a far more abstract way.
0
reply
darria
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#5
(Original post by returnmigrant)
So you were just handed the question, with no prior knowledge of the question - and immediately wrote that. Or did you ponder, choose, contemplate etc, and then write.

By the way, it isnt a good essay. It far too repetitive, has too many 'another argument is' statements, and isnt succinct enough. The question is not asking you about part-time jobs, who should get mythical 'free places', and 'how should students fund their degrees', its asking you the moral question about government spending, and the benefits of higher education to both the individual and to the state, and therefore where the cost of this should lie. For all LNAT questions, you need to spot what the question is actually asking you to think about - the bigger issues, and then to answer it in a far more abstract way.
Oky, got it.
Thanks, I’ll take everything into account.
0
reply
darria
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#6
(Original post by returnmigrant)
So you were just handed the question, with no prior knowledge of the question - and immediately wrote that. Or did you ponder, choose, contemplate etc, and then write.

By the way, it isnt a good essay. It far too repetitive, has too many 'another argument is' statements, and isnt succinct enough. The question is not asking you about part-time jobs, who should get mythical 'free places', and 'how should students fund their degrees', its asking you the moral question about government spending, and the benefits of higher education to both the individual and to the state, and therefore where the cost of this should lie. For all LNAT questions, you need to spot what the question is actually asking you to think about - the bigger issues, and then to answer it in a far more abstract way.
Hey!

Could you please take a look at this as well? Only if you have the time Thanks!

"Make the best case you can for public funding of the Arts."

Art of all kinds has been used in the past in order to express different feelings or ideas. It played a major role for different historical periods, but the question is whether it still plays a so important role that it should be publicly funded nowadays. The answer is positive, as there are strong points that support this cause.

It has been proved that art develops the part of the brain that’s concerned with creativity. It has also been said that it can make people happy because it somehow represents a way to escape from the daily struggles and habits everybody has. Society should strive to make its people happy. Citizens with high levels of happiness are more productive in all fields. Thus, public funding of the Arts would mean a general increase in good disposition and productiveness. Moreover, pupils and students would have a lot to benefit from public funding because they would develop creativity, spontaneity and other important aspects that teachers in schools are not holding lessons about at the moment.

However, there is more to art than that. Every society has to keep its culture alive in whatever ways possible. What better way to do that than to encourage people to make art? Public funding of this field would mean promoting and protecting culture, while also helping it evolve. This is quite an incentive for those who are passionate about it. Most of the time, countries which promote their culture also receive more tourists, which leads to economic growth. We have reasons to believe that public funding of the Arts would result in even more than cultural growth.

Many people believe that there are more vital aspects in a society that should receive public funding. Some of these may even include education or economy. This argument does not stand because there are people who should be supported in their decision of pursuing a path in Arts, just like there are people who are supported in obtaining a career in IT or Law. Not funding this field basically means obliging people to follow some other careers, even though they are not as prepared or passionate about them as they should be. Those who are talented should not feel like they do not have a chance in this particular field just because nobody invests money in it.

Some other people say that Arts should not receive public funding because there are not enough Arts-enthusiasts, meaning people that are willing to pursue a path related to this field. However, there is no way that we can be sure of that because we have not tried to encourage people to go into Arts. Culture has never been fully promoted, which makes it normal for somebody to find another career even if they might be passionate about a field of creativity. Starting to fund Arts would most definitely encourage people to be creative and contribute to enriching the culture of their country.

That having been said, public funding of the Arts would be a great way to ensure cultural and economic growth. This field represents a crucial part of our society, as it can make citizens happier and more productive, while also offering a chance to make a living out of it to those who are passionate about it.
0
reply
returnmigrant
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 months ago
#7
Sorry, but I'm not going to mark everyone's essays!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you worried that a cap in student numbers would affect your place at uni?

Yes (130)
59.36%
No (48)
21.92%
Not sure (41)
18.72%

Watched Threads

View All