GRE: Graduate Record Examinations Information 1

[ganeshbala]

Quantitative Section : Analytical Writing Assessment

Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

The statement means that at times practical experience can be a better method of education than pure classroom work.

The use of books to present abstract ideas is one kind of education that is better to learn from books than practical experience. Take math, for instance. Math concepts are best learned from books rather than practical experience. Also, history is best learned in the classroom since a person can't physically go back in time and watch a war.

Certain professions are learned on the job, like carpentry and plumbing. Practical experience is the primary method of education. It is the same way for surgery. You wouldn't want someone to take out your appendix unless they had practiced this procedure many times on someone else.

In certain circumstances, books and practical experience go hand in hand so that students can learn from both. Mostly this is also true in medical school. You read books about anatomy and learn where the organs are located. This is very helpful. Then you dissect dead bodies and get the practical experience of seeing where the organs are in the body. Only then are you ready to perform surgery.

Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

Both books and practical experience have important roles to play in the educational process of an individual. Books serve as a foundation of knowledge. Books are also helpful in situations where experiential learning is impractical or impossible. On the other hand, experiential learning is more personal and absolutely necessary in the development of certain skills.

Practical experience is critical in order to learn skills that involve physical abilities and require dexterity. For example, carpenters learn on the job. One can read books about how to construct a house, but no one becomes a master carpenter unless he or she has mastered the use of a hammer, power saw, and measuring tape. Similarly, a medical student can read about anatomy, but surgery is performed in operating rooms, not libraries. In this case, hands-on experience-literally "hands on," in fact-is the best way to learn. Competence is attained through practice, and experience is required if one is to master the surgeon's trade.

It is true, however, that certain subjects are best learned through books. Math is a subject that requires the understanding of abstract concepts and formulae. Most students are introduced to mathematical principles in math textbooks. These books also provide problems for the student to work so that he or she can apply the rules that have been taught. History is another subject that is best taught through books. We can read about past events, like wars and peace treaties, without having directly participated in the event. A book about Vietnam by a veteran who served in that conflict would be one way to learn some of the important facts about that war.

What determines which is the better way to learn depends on several criteria. Obviously, it depends on the material, subject matter, or skill to be learned. It also depends on the student, or person, doing the learning. Some people like to read books and can absorb vast quantities of information and apply it immediately to relevant tasks. Others learn by doing, by making mistakes or having success. In most cases, however, a combination of the two approaches works best.

Education comes not from books but from practical experience.

There is a basic philosophical tension between theory and practice, basic and applied science, learning and doing, head and hand. Not surprisingly, professors hold books in high esteem. But students are often frustrated by the abstract, seemingly impractical nature of traditional instruction through textbooks and assigned readings. Students hunger for real experiences that teach practical skills and demonstrate clear links between classroom work and practical application.

Tomorrow's leaders and professionals need to work with the tools of their trades, to develop the crucial personal qualities-interpersonal skills, moral judgment, decision making under pressure-that are required for success in real world situations. In fields as diverse as construction and medicine, one thing is certain: experience counts. No matter how many blueprints or books on architecture an aspiring carpenter reads, there is no substitute for working on a construction crew. The same is true for the aspiring physician. An effective bedside manner is learned next to the patient's bed, not in a study carrel. Doctors must read case histories and study theories of treatment, but doctors also need to see patients, listen to them explain their symptoms, and see the outcome of various therapies. Doctors can't just read about how to perform surgery; they need to practice their artistry with a scalpel in hand.

Despite the immense value of practical experience, it must also be acknowledged that books provide the basics. Certain fundamentals are required in any course of study, and books are an appropriate starting point. For instance, in preparation for a medical career, one must be familiar and comfortable with many facts of science. Without a thorough understanding of biochemistry and anatomy, one can hardly be expected to learn much through practical experience. In this case, the professors are right to stress the importance of books. Mastering the content of a subject is a vital first step.

Beyond content, books also educate by teaching students how to think, not just what to know. Often books are the stimulus for creative processes, and they are also a medium for reflection on past experiences. Ethical and moral dilemmas are explored in literature, for example, and the perceptive student who ponders these questions will be better prepared to face them in practical situations. Furthermore, medical students, as well as trained physicians, will find it valuable to read of new discoveries, theories, and the outcome of various studies in the hundreds of books published each year in the medical field.

Reading and doing, head and hand, these seemingly polar opposite approaches to learning, are actually complementary. What we learn from books prepares us for applying that knowledge in real life situations. Similarly, our experiences "on the job" may send us back to books for deeper study or thoughtful contemplation.

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

The prompt means that generally speaking a scientists job is to discover new things but not to pursuit a threat to human life. Discovery is important but not costing human life. For example, what the Nazis did to prisoners was wrong to them.

Sometimes a threat to human life is tolerated when the scientific discovery can help many people at one time. Such a specific situation might be if a scientist thinks he has a cure for AIDS but needs to test it on people who are not HIV positive. In this case and others where humans might be helped, scientific discovery can be pursuit even if there's a threat to human life because maximum benefit might occur.

A scientific discovery can overtake a human life only in certain cases that occur when scientists can see benefits from their experiment. Such as if there's a cure for AIDS.

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

Scientific discoveries have always been important to the advancement of society. Every scientist is a kind of explorer trying to discover new truths about the natural world that can be applied to how we live. This is how we invented the light bulb and learned about space. This statement claims that scientific discoveries are important, but not so important that a threat to human life is caused. A threat to human life simply for the sake of exploring and discovering is intolerable.

Some research doesn't involve humans, like making better computers or inventing software. But in World War II, the Nazis experimented on live prisoners and used them like guinea pigs. The results were horrible. On the other hand, I believe there are situations in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. I think that patients suffering from terminal diseases like cancer or AIDS might be used in experiments. Maybe there is a new drug that works on rats in a laboratory but no one knows if it works on humans in a hospital bed. The drug might be a cure, if not for that patient then for another patient. The patient would die anyway, so why not try the new drug?

In general, I do not believe scientific discovery is worth a threat to human life. Scientists might be different about this issue, but what I think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life has to do with if a person's life is threatened. If a person is going to die from a terrible disease, then his life is not at risk and an experimental treatment won't hurt him. It might even help him and if it doesn't help him, it might help science.

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

It is human nature to be curious, and it is the role of scientists in society to pursue the scientific truths lurking in nature. Centuries of scientific inquiry have resulted in the discovery of essential facts about our natural world, a deeper understanding of our place in the universe, and the practical application of scientific knowledge to every day life.

The statement in question raises an important issue in regards to scientific inquiry. How, exactly, does science and, in a larger context, society itself-make the determination as to what is ethical in terms of the pursuit of knowledge? Do the ends justify the means?

All reasonable people agree that the testing the Nazis did on unwilling subjects in concentration camps in World War II was despicable and immoral. Those ghastly experiments, carried out on prisoners who were hostages of Hitler's Fascist regime, are indefensible. No one volunteered to be in a concentration camp, so surely none of the subjects can be said to have participated willingly. Their lives were put at risk-or deliberately destroyed-without their consent. This was not science; this was madness. Some discoveries-one thinks of Thomas Edison in his laboratory, inventing the phonograph and the light bulb-are made without risking human life. But scientific inquiry often involves human beings-as explorers or subjects-whose lives are put in jeopardy to gain knowledge and advance the cause of civilization. Think of Ben Franklin, flying his kite in a thunderstorm. Think of explorers like Christopher Columbus or John Glenn, venturing into the unknown without regard for personal safety. And think of the brave individuals who participate in AIDS research. In order to test vaccines, healthy subjects are required. In order to test drugs to suppress or retard the advance of the disease, subjects who are already ill are needed.

This brings us to the central question implied by the statement: when is it ethical to risk a human life in order to discover scientific truths? The key is informed consent. It is essential that every person put at risk whether a willing explorer like an astronaut, a patient choosing a course of treatment, or a subject in a controlled experiment be fully informed of the known risks he or she faces. Scientists are not God, and human beings are not guinea pigs. Human life must be respected. Human beings are not disposable like paper cups.