GRE Issue Essay: Elements, Structure, Strategies & Samples

In contemporary academia, the question of whether universities should mandate students to solely pursue courses within their chosen fields of interest has sparked contentious debate. Advocates argue that such a measure fosters student engagement, enhances academic performance, and streamlines career pathways. On the other hand, opponents contend that exposure to diverse disciplines cultivates well-rounded individuals capable of addressing multifaceted challenges. Despite the opposing viewpoints, the advantages of requiring students to focus solely on their areas of interest outweigh the potential drawbacks.

Firstly, mandating students to pursue courses within their fields of interest promotes intrinsic motivation and engagement. When students study subjects they are passionate about, they are more likely to show enthusiasm, persistence, and dedication. This enthusiasm translates into higher levels of academic performance, as students are more inclined to invest time and effort in mastering the subject matter. Consequently, universities can expect to witness improved graduation rates and academic achievements, contributing to their reputation and academic excellence.

Furthermore, focusing on specialized courses enables students to develop expertise and proficiency in their chosen fields. In an era characterized by rapid technological advancements and specialized knowledge, possessing in-depth knowledge and skills in a particular domain is essential for professional growth. By concentrating their efforts on courses relevant to their interests, students can acquire specialized knowledge, hone their skills, and cultivate a competitive edge in the job market. Consequently, graduates are better prepared to meet the demands of the workforce and make meaningful contributions to their respective fields.

Moreover, requiring students to concentrate on their areas of interest streamlines the educational process and facilitates timely degree completion. Oftentimes, students are required to fulfill numerous general education requirements that are unrelated to their majors, leading to prolonged graduation timelines and increased financial burdens. By eliminating non-essential coursework and focusing solely on relevant subjects, universities can optimize students’ academic trajectories and ensure efficient degree completion. This not only alleviates financial strain on students but also enables them to enter the workforce sooner, thereby accelerating their professional development.

Critics may argue that exposure to diverse disciplines cultivates critical thinking skills and promotes interdisciplinary collaboration, both of which are essential for addressing complex real-world challenges. While this contention holds merit, it is imperative to recognize that students can still engage with diverse perspectives and disciplines within the context of their chosen fields. Many specialized courses incorporate interdisciplinary approaches, allowing students to explore diverse perspectives while maintaining a focused academic trajectory. Thus, the benefits of specialization need not come at the expense of interdisciplinary engagement.

In the annals of history, there is a prevailing notion that individuals who tenaciously pursue their ideas despite facing skepticism or opposition are more likely to carve out a lasting legacy. While it holds some truth, a nuanced examination reveals that the relationship between perseverance and legacy is complex and multifaceted. While unwavering dedication to one’s ideas can indeed lead to significant accomplishments, it is equally important to acknowledge the role of adaptability, collaboration, and critical self-reflection in shaping a lasting legacy.

Undoubtedly, there are countless examples of individuals who have cemented their place in history through their unwavering commitment to their ideas. Consider the case of Mahatma Gandhi, whose steadfast belief in nonviolent resistance against British colonial rule led to India’s independence. Despite facing criticism, doubt, and even imprisonment, Gandhi remained resolute in his conviction, leaving behind a legacy that continues to inspire movements for social justice around the world. Similarly, visionaries like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk have reshaped industries and revolutionized technology through their relentless pursuit of their visions, despite encountering skepticism and resistance along the way.

However, while perseverance is undeniably a key ingredient in leaving a lasting legacy, it is not the sole determinant of success. In many cases, the ability to adapt and evolve in response to changing circumstances is equally crucial. History is replete with examples of individuals who clung stubbornly to their ideas in the face of overwhelming evidence or societal change, only to see their legacies fade into obscurity as a result. The most enduring legacies are often those that can adapt to new challenges and embrace innovation, rather than remaining rigidly fixed in their original vision.

Moreover, the importance of collaboration and receptivity to criticism cannot be overstated in the context of legacy-building. While it is important to have confidence in one’s ideas, it is equally important to recognize that no individual possesses a monopoly on wisdom or insight. By engaging in dialogue with others, soliciting feedback, and fostering collaboration, individuals can enrich their ideas and increase their likelihood of leaving a lasting impact. History is filled with examples of groundbreaking innovations that emerged from the exchange of ideas and collaboration among diverse perspectives.

In contemporary society, luxuries and conveniences have become ubiquitous, permeating nearly every aspect of daily life. From advanced technologies to streamlined services, modern individuals enjoy unprecedented levels of comfort and ease. However, amid this abundance of convenience lies a paradox: does the prevalence of luxuries hinder the development of individuals, preventing them from attaining true strength and independence? In this essay, I will explore the nuanced interplay between modern comforts and personal growth, arguing that while luxuries offer convenience, they also present challenges that can foster resilience and fortitude.

One of the primary arguments against the proliferation of luxuries is that they cultivate a sense of dependency among individuals. In an era where tasks are automated, and services are readily available at the touch of a button, people may become accustomed to relying on external aids to accomplish even the most basic activities. This overreliance on conveniences can diminish one’s ability to adapt and problem-solve in the face of adversity. For instance, the convenience of food delivery apps may deter individuals from learning cooking skills, leaving them vulnerable in situations where such services are unavailable or unaffordable.

Moreover, the comfort provided by modern luxuries may breed complacency, inhibiting individuals from pushing beyond their comfort zones and pursuing personal growth. When life’s challenges are cushioned by convenience, there is little incentive to confront difficulties head-on and develop resilience. This phenomenon is evident in the reluctance of some to engage in physically demanding activities or to undertake ambitious endeavors that require perseverance and determination. As a result, individuals may remain stagnant in their personal development, lacking the drive to strive for excellence and overcome obstacles.

However, it would be overly simplistic to dismiss the role of luxuries and conveniences as wholly detrimental to individual development. In reality, these amenities offer opportunities for personal growth and empowerment when approached with intentionality. Rather than stifling independence, the availability of resources can catalyze self-discovery and skill acquisition. For example, access to online educational platforms enables individuals to pursue lifelong learning and acquire new competencies at their own pace, fostering a sense of autonomy and self-reliance.

Furthermore, the convenience afforded by modern technologies can free up time and energy that can be redirected toward pursuits that nurture personal development. By delegating mundane tasks to automation and outsourcing, individuals can focus their efforts on cultivating their passions, honing their talents, and building meaningful connections with others.

While it is true that the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life pose challenges to individual development, it would be shortsighted to overlook their potential benefits. Rather than viewing these amenities as impediments to strength and independence, we should recognize them as tools that can be leveraged to foster resilience, autonomy, and personal growth. By embracing the opportunities afforded by modern comforts while remaining mindful of their potential pitfalls, individuals can navigate the complexities of the modern world with confidence and emerge as truly strong and independent individuals.

While traditional notions of heroism may have shifted in the modern age, it is overly simplistic to conclude that society is categorically unable to recognize heroism in the present day. A closer examination reveals that heroism continues to manifest in diverse forms, and individuals are still capable of achieving heroic status in the eyes of the public, albeit through different avenues and under altered societal frameworks.

Historically, heroes were often revered for their exceptional bravery, selflessness, or extraordinary achievements in the face of adversity. Figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Rosa Parks exemplify this traditional archetype of heroism, having spearheaded movements for civil rights and social justice that transformed societies and inspired generations. However, in contemporary society, the parameters of heroism have expanded to encompass a broader spectrum of traits and actions. Heroes are no longer confined to battlefield valor or grand acts of altruism; instead, they may emerge from everyday contexts and show heroism through acts of kindness, resilience, and advocacy for marginalized communities.

Moreover, the advent of digital media and the 24-hour news cycle have democratized the dissemination of heroic narratives, allowing ordinary individuals to attain widespread recognition for their deeds. Social media platforms serve as amplifiers for stories of courage and compassion, enabling grassroots movements and amplifying the voices of previously overlooked heroes. From healthcare workers on the front lines of a global pandemic to activists advocating for environmental sustainability, contemporary heroes emerge from diverse backgrounds and engage in a myriad of endeavors aimed at fostering positive change in society.

However, it is essential to acknowledge that the contemporary scenario of heroism is not without its complexities and challenges. In an era characterized by skepticism and disillusionment, the pedestal upon which heroes are placed is often precarious and subject to scrutiny and revision. The ubiquity of social media also means that heroes are more susceptible to scrutiny and criticism, with their actions subject to heightened scrutiny and public debate. Additionally, the proliferation of misinformation and the politicization of hero narratives can distort perceptions of heroism, leading to the idolization of individuals whose actions may not align with universally recognized ethical standards.

Nevertheless, despite these complexities, society remains capable of recognizing and celebrating heroism in its myriad forms. Whether it be the courage of a whistleblower exposing corruption, the compassion of a community rallying to support those in need or the advocacy of individuals championing social justice causes, heroism endures as a timeless and universal concept that transcends temporal and cultural boundaries. While the definition of heroism may evolve and adapt to changing societal norms, the intrinsic human capacity for empathy, courage, and selflessness ensures that heroes will continue to emerge and inspire admiration and reverence in the collective consciousness.

The question of whether governments should impose restrictions on scientific research and development is a contentious issue that implicates a delicate balance between innovation, ethical considerations, and societal welfare. While proponents of minimal government intervention argue that unrestricted scientific inquiry fosters progress and innovation, opponents contend that certain safeguards and regulations are necessary to mitigate potential risks and ethical concerns. In this essay, I will explore the complexities of this debate and argue that while governments should strive to facilitate scientific advancement, they must also enact prudent regulations to safeguard against potential harm and ensure that research serves the broader interests of society.

Advocates of unrestricted scientific research often invoke the imperatives of innovation and progress as primary justifications for minimal government intervention. They argue that scientific discovery thrives in an environment of intellectual freedom and unfettered exploration, unhampered by bureaucratic red tape or regulatory constraints. Indeed, history is full of examples of groundbreaking advancements that have emerged from unfettered scientific inquiry, from the discovery of penicillin to the development of vaccines and space exploration. By allowing researchers the freedom to pursue their inquiries without undue interference, governments can catalyze innovation and propel society forward into new frontiers of knowledge and understanding.

Furthermore, proponents of minimal restrictions on scientific research emphasize the importance of preserving academic freedom and protecting researchers from censorship or political interference. They contend that governmental regulations, particularly those motivated by ideological or political agendas, risk stifling scientific creativity and impeding the pursuit of truth. In an era marked by increasing polarization and skepticism among experts, safeguarding the autonomy of scientific inquiry is paramount to upholding the integrity of the scientific enterprise and maintaining public trust in the scientific community.

However, while the benefits of unrestricted scientific research are undeniable, it is equally important to recognize the potential risks and ethical considerations inherent in certain areas of inquiry. Scientific advancements have the potential to yield profound benefits for humanity, but they also carry the risk of unintended consequences and ethical dilemmas. With the development of biotechnologies and the potential for misuse of research with implications for environmental sustainability and public health, the ethical implications of scientific research cannot be overlooked or dismissed.

Moreover, the pursuit of scientific knowledge does not occur in a vacuum; it is inexorably intertwined with broader societal concerns and values. Governments have a responsibility to enact regulations that safeguard against potential harm and ensure that scientific research serves the collective good. This may entail implementing ethical guidelines, establishing oversight mechanisms, and enacting legislation to address emerging ethical dilemmas and technological risks. By striking a balance between promoting scientific innovation and protecting societal interests, governments can harness the transformative power of science while mitigating potential risks and maximizing the benefits for society as a whole.