Research students in universities should typically spend on an average
[#permalink]
23 Apr 2021, 20:35
Q: Prompt: “Research students in universities should typically spend on an average 75 hours an week if they wish to complete their research and gain a doctoral degree in three years. Moreover, if the students are the parent of young children, universities should make every facility available for those children on campus itself, so that they do not miss their parent.”
Essay Format
The argument claims that researchers in universities should typically devote average of 75 hours per week over their topic, if they wish to complete the research on time. However the universities should also provide facilities to the researchers kid if the researchers are parent of young ones. Stated in such a way the argument is though satisfying, but incomplete of the data, tends to manipulate the hypothesis presented in a distorted way and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes. However, the arguments could have been presented in much simpler way with proper examples which could have supported the hypothesis.
First the author suggest that researchers should spend on an average 75 hours over their research papers in universities. This is a merely wrong supposition by the author. He has tried to be quantitative rather than qualitative. The researchers should have marvellous researches in their area of study rather than spending hours with average research data which could be futile to the universities or to anyone. There had been instances where researchers have presented the paper with much concise data and information rather than time bounded research unless an emergency like situation. Great mind needs great research which needs great time.Without discussion on such large extent, the assumption of the author remains more of a wishful thought.
Second, the author also suggest that ignorer to support the kid of the research, the universities should provide every facility available for those children at the campus. This thought process per se is noble indeed, but facility should also be imbibed with quality of the same without which no one would like to avail the same. Spending 3 to 4 year of life at a place is good investment and cannot be rolled back. So what if the schools within campuses are not so good enough or the creche facility are poor or the playground are in dilapidated positions. This will lead to the under development of the kid and can be dragged back as compared to modern competitive era. So, though the suggestion is applaudable but it would have been better if it could have been clubbed with qualitative factors.
Finally, the major flaw in the suggestion presented by the author is that though he has presented his facts, but these facts remain very plain as they are not supported with qualitative analysis of the same. Had it been the other way, the argument would have remained attractive to majority of the readers.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reason and is unconvincing as it fails to address the proper reasons citied above. The qualitative factor needs to be taken under consideration which could be pivotal for the argument without which the argument is plain and simple. Unless the facts are presented in such a manner and clearly stated properly, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.