My World: A Personal Blog About Everything

Monday, April 21, 2008

GRE Practice 2

I obviously need practice with these GRE questions, the problem is that when I'm given a fixed topic I try to structure my response too much and then the result isn't as good as it can be.   A really big tip I figured out is that great writing has implicit structure, but not vice versa.   In other words, if your argument/idea in genuinely good then the structure should flow naturally, whereas if you force a structure onto your ideas it hinders you from the start.   So for this response I'm going to try to let the ideas structure themselves and not worry so much about if it makes sense. Issue: "High-profile awards such as the Nobel Prize are actually damaging to society because they suggest that only a few people deserve such recognition." Let's look at some sample high profile awards.   The Nobel Prize is awarded annually in several different fields to the scientist who has had the greatest discovery in that field, as judged by an esteemed panel. Similarly, the Oscars are awarded anually in several fields to the actors/directors/producers/etc... who had the greatest works as judged by their esteemed peers.   In both cases the recipients did not do whatever it is they did ONLY to earn with the goal of getting the award.   Perhaphs the prospect of an award was a dream, a thought, but the time and effort was spent for the love of their craft.   My issue with the statement is that it implies that "recognition" can most commonly be achieved through high profile awards.   Of course everyone wants to be remembered and have an impact on the world, but recognition comes naturally to those who desevere it, an award isn't necesary.   In fact, many people who receive rewards were probably already somewhat recognized within their field for their pressence (be it through attending competitions, wirting papers, etc).   If you invent a great product that everyone enjoys, find a cure to a disease, or break a world record in sports, you will be recognized award or not.   You may argue that so-and-so is a better actor than the guy who one the Oscar, but the Oscar gives MORE recognition to the latter. Perhaps this is the case but let's not complicate the argument with different degress of recognition at this time, we are focusung on a simple black and white definition.   I could argue in fact that awards themselves bring more recognition to a certain field rather than an individual.   They perhaps only in rare cases, bring recognition to a specific individual.   The Oscars add recognition and value to movies, but people rearely remember recent winners.   The Olympics bring great attention to amateur sport but no can name all the medal winners, or even a good number of them.   If anything these awards create recognition to an entire field of interest for which outsiders might consider.   I might go so far as saying that the they attract new talent to the field that would otherwise not have noticed it, and as a result bring more to society than we would have had without the award. Controversy over awards comes about by people who feel they deserve recognition when they don't.   In other words they want the award because they aren't recognized, yet the reason they aren't recognized is because they haven'trdone anything yet to deserve the recongition.   In closing, awards are not a bad thing for society, they bring prestige to their respected field and open the eyes of the talent of tommorow to a new opportunity.   You may enter a field because of the idea of the "award" but you stay in the field and eventually receive the award for hard wok dedication and passion.     Michael

No comments: