GMAT on 11.02.2013. Need to know how my essay is.

Hi kartikdatwani,
there can be nothing urgent about grading a GMAT essay Please, don't make your topics urgent even if you find out a way to do it. (If you really think it is so important, please, consider paying.)

I would give this paper a 4.0: this response is adequate. The writing is somewhat convoluted and difficult to read; however, there are few mistakes, and the reasoning, where present, is solid. The paper demonstrates some critical thinking. Unfortunately, most of the issues are identified, but not analysed. The paper would greatly benefit from discussing the involved issues in depth instead of merely pointing out that A does not follow from B.

3.5. The paper identifies some of the important features of the argument. Some logical analysis is present

3.5. The paper analyzes some tangential or irrelevant issues, yet it develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily.

The second paragraph identifies and analyses the following issue: it is unclear how the survey of the students was conducted.
The third paragraph identifies two issues: it is unclear by how much the number of the students has to increase, and it is also unclear, what exactly is needed to increase the prestige of the university. The first of those issues is arguably tangential and largely irrelevant to the substance of the argument. (At least the way this issue is analysed makes it look tangential. If it is really important to know by how much the enrollment/admission has declined or should increase, the critique should demonstrate the importance of knowing the exact numbers.) The second issue is central, but it is only identified, not analysed. The fourth paragraph identifies a number of other issues: a campaign may not be successful; increasing the range of courses may not fix "poor teaching"; increasing the size of the library facilities may not make library resources adequate. However, again, virtually no analysis is present. The paper could suggest that e.g. a campaign is unlikely to be successful because a low-prestige university in the middle of nowhere is unlikely to have rich and generous alumni.

Some of the deeper issues the paper could address are:

1. It is unclear if poor teaching or inadequate library resources can significantly affect admissions. Do the prospective students know or even care about adequate library resources? What is the level student satisfaction at e.g. Harvard? Do they also complain about poor teaching?
2. A decline in admissions/enrollments may simply be a demographic phenomenon and not a problem in itself. If the university is actually losing its prestige, it may be for entirely different reasons. More generally, it is unclear if the argument suggests that low prestige IS THE SAME as falling admissions/enrollments or if low prestige IS THE CONSEQUENCE of falling admissions/enrollments.
3. In fact, it is the other way round. Low prestige is probably the reason for falling admissions/enrollments. Poor teaching is then one of the effects of low prestige. In this case increasing admissions/enrollments would actually seem like an increase an prestige, and this perception is likely to actually increase the prestige.
4. Perhaps the university has enough money and does not even need a fund-raising campaign.

Now let me discuss the critique in the paper in greater detail.

The paper identifies and discusses one major problem with the argument: it is unclear, how exactly this survey of the students was conducted. The paper also makes an insightful observation that

In other words, it is possible that no formal survey was conducted; some people in the office may just have an impression that that's what the students are complaining about. This is a good insight that is indicative of strong critical thinking. However, the paper dramatically fails to analyze this issue in a clear way. I suggest you look for a simpler way to express the same thought. I personally find it easy to understand the expression "It may be possible that no sample set was chosen"; however, note that I have a Ph.D. in pure mathematics...

Let me explain once again:

I personally understand that no sample set was chosen actually means that no survey was done. However, the paper should state that explicitly.


The paper then takes issue with some imprecisions in the original argument. For example:

Here the paper makes a valid point. However, the critique about the increase of the number of students by just one student is extreme. It is common sense that "an increase in the number of students" means an increase by a certain significant number, not just one student. Similarly, "has suffered from a decline..." cannot be taken to mean a decline by just one student. This is not mathematics, and it is unreasonable to criticize the argument for not being mathematically precise. Normal, common language is not like that. (I recall a personal story about a student who agreed to see a professor on Monday. He missed the appointment. The professor was angry, to which the student replied: "I agreed to meet on Monday, but not necessarily NEXT Monday.")

The following paragraph correctly points out that an increase in the number of courses offered may not be an adequate substitute for poor teaching, and an increase in the size of the library facilities may not adequately compensate for "inadequate resources". In fact, an increase in the size of the facilities may simply mean allocating another room another building, not even buying new books. However, here the paper only identifies some features of the argument but fails to analyse them. For example, no attempt is present to analyse what "poor teaching" actually means, nor what "inadequate library resources" actually mean. The critique simply says that "poor teaching" is not the same as "too few courses to choose from"; it does not explain what "poor teaching" does mean.

Similarly,

Surely, increasing the number of the students may or may not lead to higher prestige, as the criteria are not written. However, this mere remark is not insightful enough. Why would the university even think that increasing the number of the students may lead to higher prestige? Is it likely or unlikely? What alternative metrics should be considered? (e.g. the number of applicants denied admission) What is the significance of this observation? (that the number of students may not equal prestige) Without such a discussion it appears that the critique is simply "picking" on the argument without having anything substantial to say. Besides, "...the criteria for regaining the status of highest prestige is not written" --- how can such criteria be written?! It is physically impossible, not to mention that the notion of prestige itself is abstract and intangible.

Every argument can be criticized in this way. For example:
"In the past few years, Fern Valley University has suffered..."
Critique: it is not exactly clear what "past few years" is supposed to mean. Since one is few, it may be the case that we are talking about just one year. Since we cannot make conclusions from just one year, the argument is absent and the conclusions are unwarranted. The argument would benefit from specifying the exact number of years, days, and milliseconds, during which the admission has declined.
--- this is pretty much what some of the critique in the paper looks like.



Indeed, it is not enough to launch a campaign: the campaign has to be successful. Also, of course, it is not NECESSARY to initiate a campaign: the prestige may rise by itself, or somebody may kindly donate the money, or God may help the Fern Valley University.
However, the argument never said that it would be SUFFICIENT to launch a campaign in order to regain the prestige. It only said that it was NECESSARY to launch the campaign. Thus, in this case the critique is unfounded.

3.0. The paper provides support of little relevance or value for points of the critique

The second paragraph of the paper is perhaps the most well-supported. Yet even there we see:

It is definitely possible that a survey was not carried out in a prescribed manner, and thus the results are unreliable. It is also possible that the students were not honest in replying to the survey, or that the results were stored in a computer and then modified by a malicious virus from the Internet. It is further possible that the secretary who was entering the results of the survey into a report made a typo or, worse, intentionally modified the data because she did not like her boss. Those are all possibilities, but unlikely ones. We have no good reasons to specifically doubt that the survey, if there was one, was not carried out in the prescribed manner; thus this observation adds little support to the points of the critique.

The suggestion that there could have been no survey at all is much more valuable. Unfortunately, it stands as an exception, in contrast to the rest of the essay.
In the other paragraph we see little support for the points of the critique.
For example,

Of course, everything may or may not be the case; this is life...

As an other example,

Same: of course, nothing is guaranteed. Only death is inevitable. Simple observation that something is not guaranteed or not necessarily true are valuable, but need additional support. These observations should be developed in order to become a valuable part of the critique. For example: "Increasing the range of subjects taught will not guarantee increasing the quality of teaching. It would be wiser to evaluate the quality of teaching in the existing courses. The university could then hire some new faculty members with proven strong teaching skills and assign to them the task of improving the quality of teaching across a range of important courses where the quality of teaching is in need of improvement. Increasing the range of courses taught should probably not be considered: since the reasons for the poor teaching of the existence courses are not understood, it is likely that the new courses will be taught just as poorly."

4.0. Demonstrates sufficient control of language to convey ideas with reasonable clarity.

"Reasonable" is the key word. While most of the sentences are structured correctly, they tend to be long and convoluted. This style of writing makes the meaning incredibly difficult to extract. For example,

After getting through the complexity of this introductory sentence I personally had no desire to keep reading the rest of the paper.

Many sentences in the paper are structured in such a way that makes the meaning difficult to extract. For example,

As far as I can see, there is no reason to make "the size of the library facilities" the subject of the first independent clause. While it is grammatically permitted and possible, I do not see the reason for this grammatical emphasis. It would be better to say "Thirdly, the proposed campaign, if successful, will allow the school to increase the size of its library facilities. However, the issues that needs to be addressed is inadequate library resources."

5.0. Demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have occasional flaws.

The first very long sentence ("In a feeble attempt...") would greatly benefit from a comma: "...and to increase the size of library facilities, the financial planning office..."

BONUS POINTS: identify the grammatical structures used in the sentence "In a feeble attempt..." (I don't remember those either, but would be curious if other experts analyzed this sentence.)


Is there even such a word, "majorly"?
Also, "this premise is based on the fact" should be followed by something that sounds like a solid, well-established fact. "These two reasons are majorly cited by students of the university" does not sounds like a fact. This paper itself questions this by suggesting that there could have been no formal survey, or that the survey may not have been conducted in the right way.


The second "it" may refer to"the reason". In fact, this second "it" should be removed entirely.


the number of the students


Not sure how to fix it. What exactly is meant?


Not sure how standard it is. I'd say "succeeds in increasing".


are not written


A comma is missing.


"...the size of the library facilities...", "...campaign; however,"