I just scored a 168 on PT139.

Hello everyone!! I just did the second argumentative writing on Lawhub and I wanted to know your opinion about it. I have less than a month to improve so I would love to hear what you think about this response and is there anything I can do to improve it. Thank you so much in advance!!! I copied it exactly as it was at the end of 35 minutes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The parents' role in education should not exceed the role of other authorities, mainly the educators and teachers. One of the main reasons for this idea is that the authorities in that area, specifically the educators are the professionals in their field. They posses years of knowledge and experience that was earned through a long period of time teaching and analyzing the results from it. These knowledge and experience can be successfully put into practice while choosing and teaching children what they should and what they need to learn. 

Moreover, the decision of parents rests on the idea that parents already analyze and predict what their children will need and do in the future. Weaknesses in this idea are inevitable. First of all, parents' could impose their own desires and beliefs, even without realizing, into their child and one's future. On the other hand, educators equip all children with objective and broad knowledge, which is given through different subjects and their assessments. This way, one could get the basic knowledge and make a decision for themselves by analyzing what areas are in their interests and what they want to carry with themselves into the future. Another weakness in the parents' idea, which stems from the first one, is that children could not even know that their life is being influenced by their parents. This could lead to years of uncertainty in one's choice of major in the university or even one's career path. This decision should be done by children themselves and the best way they could do it is by being guided with objective and broad information acquired from their teachers. 

I certainly disagree with the perspective 1 in terms of it being rested on some assumptions. First, it assumes that the effects social media or any other negative influence on the life today will affect public schools adversely and strain the belief the parents have on school teaching methods. It assumes that parents' being able to choose for their children will counter those undesirable effects of modern harmful and inappropriate influence. This same idea also rests on the assumption that educators are not knowledgable enough to assess these same concerns. These teachers and educators, as mentioned in previous paragraph, are, first of all, in their respective fields because of their ability and their years of knowledge of teaching and education. If those educators were people who never dealt with such issues, then it might spark a debate whether they are capable enough of delivering the desired results and counter the undesirable influences. 

Another interesting idea is put forward in perspective 3 which I grant to be the example of my previous arguments about the capability of educators and teachers. The educator is capable enough to assess what is needed for child's future given the period of time they are in. The idea in this perspective about fundamental values is especially correct in that such values are fundamental for successful future of children. While parents a lot of time make assumptions or desires based on their subjective assessment or their life's period, educators such as in perspective 3 are wholly focused on objectivity and the requirements of their period of time.

Additionally, even the perspective 3 is partly supportive of my argument in terms that it indicates that parents' often judge by their own life experience and their period of living, although this argument fails to recognise that even if students are fully capable of being cautious and informed, nevertheless, the role of educators in this respect would enhance their understanding and knowledge. It could equip them with more ideas about the dangers of some content or even strengthen their own beliefs and knowledge by giving them concrete evidence. This would make them more confident in their abilities and in their actions as they move forward in life.

Despite my defense of the role of educators in the education of children, it is still correct that parents are very important in child's life, whether by guidance or giving them knowledge. We must admit that parents also possess years of experience and knowledge. But this knowledge, while being significant for child's future, might not be as precise and as professional enough as it is in educators or teachers methods of teaching. Thus, while admitting that parents should educate their children as much as they can, the ultimate requirements for future and child's knowledge is best decided by other authorities. 

Hello everyone!! I just took an argumentative writing test on Lawhub for the first time, and I want to know how is this from your perspective. I have less than a month to study for taking the real test. I would love to hear every advice you can give me!!!! Here is my writing:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emphasizing career preparation over teaching general, broad knowledge would be a serious mistake which is to be avoided at all costs. The general knowledge acquired through one's university studies are so valuable that those without it could find moving in life a lot difficult. The university education is an investment in the first place. This investment, while partly being about having a good career path, is still, a beautiful way for discovering and building oneself. 

Building upon this argument I will be in an agreement with the ideas from the second perspective. University is a place and time where you discover yourself, where all the knowledge acquired is stepping tool not only for getting a great job after graduating, but also for finding who you are and what your own perspectives are. Illustrating from my own experience I would emphasize how transformative the university experience was for me. Before starting my degree I thought only about what kind of job I will get and how much it will pay me while not even thinking about if I would like what I will do or not. I have acquired broad range of knowledge even from my first year of university which helped me realize of how little I know about my own self and about everything else. Every opinion, every perspective I had before starting the university has been redefined or at least, changed in some way. This change not only helped me in understanding my own values but also helped me to change my career path. I realized that I am not who I was before and I, probably, never even wanted this career path. This realization was only possible through acquisition of broad knowledge that was given by the university. If we consider the alternative option, if my university was fully focused on teaching me about my career and how to excel in this path, I would have chosen a path that wasn't mine to follow. So, broad knowledge might not directly influence how strong of a candidate or how successful employee one will be, it, nevertheless, directly guides one to the path one should and ultimately wants to take.

As we can observe in perspective one, the emphasis on career education leaves out the opportunity of discovering oneself. While I fully recognize that the argument stated in this perspective regarding today's job market is probably correct, still such a view of university education leads one to live for work and not use work for living. Another interesting point is made regarding contributions, specifically - contributing to society which is something that will be achieved even without career education. The knowledge acquired through university creates broad skills that can be useful in so many instances that one could contribute to society in so many different ways rather than being professional in only one route. 

While I defend broad teaching by universities, I, nonetheless, understand that a lot of students have sole motivation to be as successful as they can in their respective career path. This motivations would lead one to emphasize career readiness more than knowledge of different subjects. But this is mainly what I was arguing in the preceding paragraphs, this is the example of someone who found their own way and wants to follow it. But while teaching broad knowledge could help diverse range of students, such approach as career education is mainly beneficial to those students who have already found their way and their identity. This is while being unjust, is also depraving career focused students from discovering a lot more than they think is possible. Even if they don't discover anything new, nonetheless, they will be certainly sure on their chosen path and ideas.

As I defend teaching broad knowledge, I must emphasize, in case there is a counter argument that this way is not creating ready students for their career, that this broad knowledge leads one to be able to adapt to different environments, and in turn prepares one to take on wide range of career paths and responsibilities. The skills acquired from broad knowledge are essential for achieving a beautiful and wholeheartedly desired life, while skill for career success can be earned through working, The time in university is not unlimited, thus it would be best used to acquire as much knowledge as possible and discover deeply who one is and what life they desire the most.

I just scored a 174 on PT154.