TSA Essay Marking Help
Hi, I've attempted a few TSA essays but haven't been able to get any feedback on them as there is no marking scheme online. I would be incredibly grateful if anyone could provide some feedback on the essay which I just attempted under timed conditions:
3. Is a referendum a good way to decide a major question facing a country?
A referendum is not a good way to decide a major question facing a country. This is considering that a ‘good way’ of making decisions is one which results in a decision which produces the best outcome, and that a ‘major question’ is one which challenges a fundamental aspect of the way a country is run i.e. constitutions, membership of unions, religious traditions. While many believe that referendums are more democratic, this essay will argue that is not necessarily conducive of good decisions being made, and that the erratic nature of public opinion, lack of great political education, and the lies which result from referendum campaigns mean that referendums are not good ways of deciding major questions facing countries.
The principal reason for opposing referendums is that the public are ill-educated vis-à-vis the issues a ‘major decision’ would concern. For example, few Britons understood (and indeed few still understand) the way the European Union works, the trade agreements which it concerned, or even what a ‘trade agreement’ was. In turn, the public based their decisions off of the electioneering which took place during the referendum campaign in 2016 – much of which included lies and intentional deception. This was not a ‘good way’ of having decided to leave the EU because it did not produce the best outcome. Instead of acting on the advice of experts, we acted on the public’s ill-educated and ill-informed views, creating years of turmoil which ground the British political system to a halt. Clearly, this referendum did not produce the best outcome and it is due to the nature of a referendum: asking people who do not know about an issue to make a choice regarding it.
In addition, deciding major question by means of a referendum is not a ‘good way’ of doing things because of the erratic nature of public opinion. Sticking to the example of the EU, polling has since revealed that many now wish to re-join the EU and regret their decision in 2016. This, of course, is unfeasible: leaving the EU was a lasting decision which we cannot simply change our minds on. This erratic behaviour exhibited by the general populace and their stances on issues yet again demonstrates that referendums should not be used to decide major questions because they do not produce the best outcome, which the public themselves recognise. Were we have to decided by means the views of experts, whose opinions rest on a lifetime of education, we would have achieved the best outcome – one which reflects the enduring impact of the question.
Of course, proponents of referendums argue that they are the more ‘democratic’ way of deciding major questions, hence are a ‘good way’ of doing so. This is spurious for several reasons. Firstly, we adopt a Parliamentary democracy in Britain. Therefore, having our representatives – who we elected – voting on our behalf is perfectly in line with our democratic principles. Democracy cannot be seen as something quantifiable; there is nothing to say the direct democracy of a referendum is more democratic than representative democracy. Furthermore, the conclusion (a ‘good way’ of making decisions) does not follow from the premise (being more democratic). Democracy is in many ways a virtue, but it is not necessarily always a ‘good way’ – in the sense that it produces the best outcome – of deciding a major question. Conservative Members voted for Liz Truss, yet she proved the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British History. The Party then agreed to elect Sunak as PM (who our representatives initially chose). Though the people’s voice is powerful and can result in the best outcome, deciding major questions by referendum does not always – as demonstrated – prove a good way of doing so.
As mentioned previously, referendums turn into campaigns in themselves, in which people are intentionally deceived so that one side can win their support. The public find this mix of information and misinformation difficult to filter due to their lack of knowledge, and often are unable to – leading to them casting their vote on the basis of misleading information. Decisions resting on misinformation cannot lead to the best outcome, again demonstrating that referendums are not a ‘good way’ of deciding major decisions.
It is clear that, in spite of our penchant for maximum democracy, referendums are not a good way of deciding major questions facing a country. We – the public - will just have to swallow our pride, and defer the big questions to the experts we elect.
3. Is a referendum a good way to decide a major question facing a country?
A referendum is not a good way to decide a major question facing a country. This is considering that a ‘good way’ of making decisions is one which results in a decision which produces the best outcome, and that a ‘major question’ is one which challenges a fundamental aspect of the way a country is run i.e. constitutions, membership of unions, religious traditions. While many believe that referendums are more democratic, this essay will argue that is not necessarily conducive of good decisions being made, and that the erratic nature of public opinion, lack of great political education, and the lies which result from referendum campaigns mean that referendums are not good ways of deciding major questions facing countries.
The principal reason for opposing referendums is that the public are ill-educated vis-à-vis the issues a ‘major decision’ would concern. For example, few Britons understood (and indeed few still understand) the way the European Union works, the trade agreements which it concerned, or even what a ‘trade agreement’ was. In turn, the public based their decisions off of the electioneering which took place during the referendum campaign in 2016 – much of which included lies and intentional deception. This was not a ‘good way’ of having decided to leave the EU because it did not produce the best outcome. Instead of acting on the advice of experts, we acted on the public’s ill-educated and ill-informed views, creating years of turmoil which ground the British political system to a halt. Clearly, this referendum did not produce the best outcome and it is due to the nature of a referendum: asking people who do not know about an issue to make a choice regarding it.
In addition, deciding major question by means of a referendum is not a ‘good way’ of doing things because of the erratic nature of public opinion. Sticking to the example of the EU, polling has since revealed that many now wish to re-join the EU and regret their decision in 2016. This, of course, is unfeasible: leaving the EU was a lasting decision which we cannot simply change our minds on. This erratic behaviour exhibited by the general populace and their stances on issues yet again demonstrates that referendums should not be used to decide major questions because they do not produce the best outcome, which the public themselves recognise. Were we have to decided by means the views of experts, whose opinions rest on a lifetime of education, we would have achieved the best outcome – one which reflects the enduring impact of the question.
Of course, proponents of referendums argue that they are the more ‘democratic’ way of deciding major questions, hence are a ‘good way’ of doing so. This is spurious for several reasons. Firstly, we adopt a Parliamentary democracy in Britain. Therefore, having our representatives – who we elected – voting on our behalf is perfectly in line with our democratic principles. Democracy cannot be seen as something quantifiable; there is nothing to say the direct democracy of a referendum is more democratic than representative democracy. Furthermore, the conclusion (a ‘good way’ of making decisions) does not follow from the premise (being more democratic). Democracy is in many ways a virtue, but it is not necessarily always a ‘good way’ – in the sense that it produces the best outcome – of deciding a major question. Conservative Members voted for Liz Truss, yet she proved the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British History. The Party then agreed to elect Sunak as PM (who our representatives initially chose). Though the people’s voice is powerful and can result in the best outcome, deciding major questions by referendum does not always – as demonstrated – prove a good way of doing so.
As mentioned previously, referendums turn into campaigns in themselves, in which people are intentionally deceived so that one side can win their support. The public find this mix of information and misinformation difficult to filter due to their lack of knowledge, and often are unable to – leading to them casting their vote on the basis of misleading information. Decisions resting on misinformation cannot lead to the best outcome, again demonstrating that referendums are not a ‘good way’ of deciding major decisions.
It is clear that, in spite of our penchant for maximum democracy, referendums are not a good way of deciding major questions facing a country. We – the public - will just have to swallow our pride, and defer the big questions to the experts we elect.
Disclaimer that I am not involved in any way with Oxford admissions or marking the TSA. This is just based on my experience of taking the TSA and of mentoring other students applying to Oxford who are taking this exam.
I think this is a pretty good essay. It is structured well and provides a thoughtful argument with examples and is focused on the question.
To improve, I think your introduction could be a bit more specific, as the following essay mainly focuses on UK politics and the Brexit referendum as an example which you could foreground in the introduction. You have defined the scope of your argument somewhat in the introduction which is good but I think it helps to be more specific in terms of what you're actually planning to discuss. Or, it might have been nice to add another example (although, in the very restricted time conditions of the TSA nobody is expecting a totally comprehensive well-researched essay!).
You've also included and responded to a counter argument which is great as well. Your argument is clear throughout. I think possibly your point about misinformation could have tied into your first argument about the public being ill-educated as you already mention that there and I think the flow of the essay is interrupted a bit by suddenly coming back to it at the end. Your conclusion could also do with an extra sentence summarising the points you made and how they build your final conclusion.
Finally, here's a guide to section 2 produced by Oxford, if you haven't already seen it, which may help you with what they're looking for in an essay. https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/Half-Hour%20Essay%20TSA%202.pdf
I think this is a pretty good essay. It is structured well and provides a thoughtful argument with examples and is focused on the question.
To improve, I think your introduction could be a bit more specific, as the following essay mainly focuses on UK politics and the Brexit referendum as an example which you could foreground in the introduction. You have defined the scope of your argument somewhat in the introduction which is good but I think it helps to be more specific in terms of what you're actually planning to discuss. Or, it might have been nice to add another example (although, in the very restricted time conditions of the TSA nobody is expecting a totally comprehensive well-researched essay!).
You've also included and responded to a counter argument which is great as well. Your argument is clear throughout. I think possibly your point about misinformation could have tied into your first argument about the public being ill-educated as you already mention that there and I think the flow of the essay is interrupted a bit by suddenly coming back to it at the end. Your conclusion could also do with an extra sentence summarising the points you made and how they build your final conclusion.
Finally, here's a guide to section 2 produced by Oxford, if you haven't already seen it, which may help you with what they're looking for in an essay. https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/Half-Hour%20Essay%20TSA%202.pdf
Original post by vinceamd
Hi, I've attempted a few TSA essays but haven't been able to get any feedback on them as there is no marking scheme online. I would be incredibly grateful if anyone could provide some feedback on the essay which I just attempted under timed conditions:
3. Is a referendum a good way to decide a major question facing a country?
A referendum is not a good way to decide a major question facing a country. This is considering that a ‘good way’ of making decisions is one which results in a decision which produces the best outcome, and that a ‘major question’ is one which challenges a fundamental aspect of the way a country is run i.e. constitutions, membership of unions, religious traditions. While many believe that referendums are more democratic, this essay will argue that is not necessarily conducive of good decisions being made, and that the erratic nature of public opinion, lack of great political education, and the lies which result from referendum campaigns mean that referendums are not good ways of deciding major questions facing countries.
The principal reason for opposing referendums is that the public are ill-educated vis-à-vis the issues a ‘major decision’ would concern. For example, few Britons understood (and indeed few still understand) the way the European Union works, the trade agreements which it concerned, or even what a ‘trade agreement’ was. In turn, the public based their decisions off of the electioneering which took place during the referendum campaign in 2016 – much of which included lies and intentional deception. This was not a ‘good way’ of having decided to leave the EU because it did not produce the best outcome. Instead of acting on the advice of experts, we acted on the public’s ill-educated and ill-informed views, creating years of turmoil which ground the British political system to a halt. Clearly, this referendum did not produce the best outcome and it is due to the nature of a referendum: asking people who do not know about an issue to make a choice regarding it.
In addition, deciding major question by means of a referendum is not a ‘good way’ of doing things because of the erratic nature of public opinion. Sticking to the example of the EU, polling has since revealed that many now wish to re-join the EU and regret their decision in 2016. This, of course, is unfeasible: leaving the EU was a lasting decision which we cannot simply change our minds on. This erratic behaviour exhibited by the general populace and their stances on issues yet again demonstrates that referendums should not be used to decide major questions because they do not produce the best outcome, which the public themselves recognise. Were we have to decided by means the views of experts, whose opinions rest on a lifetime of education, we would have achieved the best outcome – one which reflects the enduring impact of the question.
Of course, proponents of referendums argue that they are the more ‘democratic’ way of deciding major questions, hence are a ‘good way’ of doing so. This is spurious for several reasons. Firstly, we adopt a Parliamentary democracy in Britain. Therefore, having our representatives – who we elected – voting on our behalf is perfectly in line with our democratic principles. Democracy cannot be seen as something quantifiable; there is nothing to say the direct democracy of a referendum is more democratic than representative democracy. Furthermore, the conclusion (a ‘good way’ of making decisions) does not follow from the premise (being more democratic). Democracy is in many ways a virtue, but it is not necessarily always a ‘good way’ – in the sense that it produces the best outcome – of deciding a major question. Conservative Members voted for Liz Truss, yet she proved the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British History. The Party then agreed to elect Sunak as PM (who our representatives initially chose). Though the people’s voice is powerful and can result in the best outcome, deciding major questions by referendum does not always – as demonstrated – prove a good way of doing so.
As mentioned previously, referendums turn into campaigns in themselves, in which people are intentionally deceived so that one side can win their support. The public find this mix of information and misinformation difficult to filter due to their lack of knowledge, and often are unable to – leading to them casting their vote on the basis of misleading information. Decisions resting on misinformation cannot lead to the best outcome, again demonstrating that referendums are not a ‘good way’ of deciding major decisions.
It is clear that, in spite of our penchant for maximum democracy, referendums are not a good way of deciding major questions facing a country. We – the public - will just have to swallow our pride, and defer the big questions to the experts we elect.
3. Is a referendum a good way to decide a major question facing a country?
A referendum is not a good way to decide a major question facing a country. This is considering that a ‘good way’ of making decisions is one which results in a decision which produces the best outcome, and that a ‘major question’ is one which challenges a fundamental aspect of the way a country is run i.e. constitutions, membership of unions, religious traditions. While many believe that referendums are more democratic, this essay will argue that is not necessarily conducive of good decisions being made, and that the erratic nature of public opinion, lack of great political education, and the lies which result from referendum campaigns mean that referendums are not good ways of deciding major questions facing countries.
The principal reason for opposing referendums is that the public are ill-educated vis-à-vis the issues a ‘major decision’ would concern. For example, few Britons understood (and indeed few still understand) the way the European Union works, the trade agreements which it concerned, or even what a ‘trade agreement’ was. In turn, the public based their decisions off of the electioneering which took place during the referendum campaign in 2016 – much of which included lies and intentional deception. This was not a ‘good way’ of having decided to leave the EU because it did not produce the best outcome. Instead of acting on the advice of experts, we acted on the public’s ill-educated and ill-informed views, creating years of turmoil which ground the British political system to a halt. Clearly, this referendum did not produce the best outcome and it is due to the nature of a referendum: asking people who do not know about an issue to make a choice regarding it.
In addition, deciding major question by means of a referendum is not a ‘good way’ of doing things because of the erratic nature of public opinion. Sticking to the example of the EU, polling has since revealed that many now wish to re-join the EU and regret their decision in 2016. This, of course, is unfeasible: leaving the EU was a lasting decision which we cannot simply change our minds on. This erratic behaviour exhibited by the general populace and their stances on issues yet again demonstrates that referendums should not be used to decide major questions because they do not produce the best outcome, which the public themselves recognise. Were we have to decided by means the views of experts, whose opinions rest on a lifetime of education, we would have achieved the best outcome – one which reflects the enduring impact of the question.
Of course, proponents of referendums argue that they are the more ‘democratic’ way of deciding major questions, hence are a ‘good way’ of doing so. This is spurious for several reasons. Firstly, we adopt a Parliamentary democracy in Britain. Therefore, having our representatives – who we elected – voting on our behalf is perfectly in line with our democratic principles. Democracy cannot be seen as something quantifiable; there is nothing to say the direct democracy of a referendum is more democratic than representative democracy. Furthermore, the conclusion (a ‘good way’ of making decisions) does not follow from the premise (being more democratic). Democracy is in many ways a virtue, but it is not necessarily always a ‘good way’ – in the sense that it produces the best outcome – of deciding a major question. Conservative Members voted for Liz Truss, yet she proved the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British History. The Party then agreed to elect Sunak as PM (who our representatives initially chose). Though the people’s voice is powerful and can result in the best outcome, deciding major questions by referendum does not always – as demonstrated – prove a good way of doing so.
As mentioned previously, referendums turn into campaigns in themselves, in which people are intentionally deceived so that one side can win their support. The public find this mix of information and misinformation difficult to filter due to their lack of knowledge, and often are unable to – leading to them casting their vote on the basis of misleading information. Decisions resting on misinformation cannot lead to the best outcome, again demonstrating that referendums are not a ‘good way’ of deciding major decisions.
It is clear that, in spite of our penchant for maximum democracy, referendums are not a good way of deciding major questions facing a country. We – the public - will just have to swallow our pride, and defer the big questions to the experts we elect.
Maybe try adding it on Tilf? But I don't think they have TSA mark scheme so you might need to use another one and see if the feedback makes seense
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How do you start preparing for the Oxford PPE admissions test?
- [Official] Oxford PPE Applicant Thread 2022
- Oxford PPE Application Advice for Scottish Student
- TSA Oxford: how to improve?
- TSA Section 1 2023 / Oxford E&M (2024 entry) thread
- TSA Advice
- What are my chances of getting into oxford university for experimental psychology?
- If I don't take Psychology A level, would it weaken my Oxford EP application?
- PPE
- EISPS at UCL - Asking current students for tips about applying.
- Tsa 2023
- CleverFrog? ThrivingFrog's A-Level Diary!
- How I got into Westminster School Sixth Form AMA
- Urgent tsa oxford question
- TSA word count?
- Land Economy Application Thread 2022 Entry
- Westminster 16+ 2024 Entry
- City of London School for Girls 16+ exams
- Simple Y13 GYG
- Will a 6 hold me back from PPE at Oxford?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
The fate of my Oxford applications is in the hands of my teacherLast reply 5 days ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
CMV: One should be allowed to apply to both Oxford and Camrbdige for undergrad
