Samples of Scored Issue Essays with Reader's Commentaries [b][b]Present your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons [b]and/or examples to support your views. [b][b][b][b][b]Sample Issue Topic [b]"In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly over-rated. We need [b]more generalists — people who can provide broad perspectives." [b][b]Please note: All of these sample essays are reproduced as written, [b]although reformatted for this document. Misspellings, typos, grammatical [b]errors, etc. have been retained from the originals. [b][b]Benchmark 6 — Outstanding [b][b][b]In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to [b]increasing life complexity and psychological displacement, both positive [b]and negative effects among persons in Western society call for a balance [b]in which there are both specialists and generalists. [b]Specialists are necessary in order to allow society as a whole to [b]properly and usefully assimilate the masses of new information and [b]knowledge that have come out of research and have been widely [b]disseminated through mass global media. As the head of Pharmacology at [b]my university once said (and I paraphrase): "I can only research what I [b]do because there are so many who have come before me to whom I can turn [b]for basic knowledge. It is only because of each of the narrowly focussed [b]individuals at each step that a full and true understanding of the [b]complexities of life can be had. Each person can only hold enough [b]knowledge to add one small rung to the ladder, but together we can climb [b]to the moon." This illustrates the point that our societies level of [b]knowledge and technology is at a stage in which there simply must be [b]specialists in order for our society to take advantage of the [b]information available to us. [b][b]Simply put, without specialists, our society would find itself bogged [b]down in the Sargasso sea of information overload. While it was fine for [b]early physicists to learn and understand the few laws and ideas that [b]existed during their times, now, no one individual can possibly digest [b]and assimilate all of the knowledge in any given area. [b][b]On the other hand, Over specialization means narrow focii in which [b]people can lose the larger picture. No one can hope to understand the [b]human body by only inspecting one's own toe-nails. What we learn from a [b]narrow focus may be internally logically coherent but may be irrelevant [b]or fallacious within the framework of a broader perspective. Further, if [b]we inspect only our toe-nails, we may conclude that the whole body is [b]hard and white. Useful conclusions and thus perhaps useful inventions [b]must come by sharing among specialists. Simply throwing out various [b]discoveries means we have a pile of useless discoveries, it is only when [b]one can make with them a mosaic that we can see that they may form a [b]picture. [b][b]Not only may over-specialization be dangerous in terms of the truth, [b]purity and cohesion of knowledge, but it can also serve to drown moral [b]or universal issues. Generalists and only generalists can see a broad [b]enough picture to realize and introduce to the world the problems of the [b]environment. With specialization, each person focusses on their research [b]and their goals. Thus, industrialization, expansion, and new [b]technologies are driven ahead. Meanwhile no individual can see the [b]wholisitc view of our global existence in which true advancement may [b]mean stifling individual specialists for the greater good of all. [b][b]Finally, over-specialization in a people's daily lives and jobs has [b]meant personal and psychological compartmentalization. People are forced [b]into pigeon holes early in life (at least by university) and must [b]consciously attempt to consume external forms of stimuli and information [b]in order not to be lost in their small and isolated universe. Not only [b]does this make for narrowly focussed and generally poorly-educated [b]individuals, but it guarantees a sense of loss of community, often [b]followed by a feeling of psychological displacement and personal [b]dissatisfaction. [b][b]Without generalists, society becomes inward-looking and eventually [b]inefficient. Without a society that recognizes the importance of broad- [b]mindedness and fora a for sharing generalities, individuals become [b]isolated. Thus, while our form of society necessitates specialists, [b]generalists are equally important. Specialists drive us forward in a [b]series of thrusts while generalists make sure we are still on the [b]jousting field and know what the stakes are. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 6 [b][b]This outstanding response displays insightful analysis, meticulous [b]development, impressive vocabulary and a mastery of the elements of [b]effective writing. The writer disagrees with the stated opinions by [b]arguing that specialists and generalists are both vital: specialists [b]prevent us from becoming "bogged down in the Sargasso sea of information [b]overload," while generalists provide help to see "the big picture" and, [b]unlike specialists, protect our "greater good." [b]The essay is carefully constructed throughout, enabling the reader to [b]move effortlessly from point to point as the writer examines the multi- [b]faceted implications of the issue and provides compelling reasons and [b]examples to support the premise and take the argument to an effective [b]conclusion. Although other "6" responses may not be as eloquent as this [b]essay, they nevertheless all display the test taker's ability to [b]articulate complex ideas effectively and precisely. [b][b][b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Benchmark 5 — Strong [b][b]Specialists are not overrated today. More generalists may be needed, but [b]not to overshadow the specialists. Generalists can provide a great deal [b]of information on many topics of interest with a broad range of ideas. [b]People who look at the overall view of things can help with some of the [b]large problems our society faces today. But specialists are necessary to [b]gain a better understanding of more in depth methods to solve problems [b]or fixing things. [b]One good example of why specialists are not overrated is in the medical [b]field. Doctors are necessary for people to live healthy lives. When a [b]person is sick, he may go to a general practitioner to find out the [b]cause of his problems. Usually, this kind of "generalized" doctor can [b]help most ailments with simple and effective treatments. Sometimes, [b]though, a sickness may go beyond a family doctor's knowledge or the [b]prescribed treatments don't work the way they should. When a sickness [b]progresses or becomes diagnosed as a disease that requires more care [b]than a family doctor can provide, he may be referred to a specialist. [b]For instance, a person with constant breathing problems that require [b]hospitalization may be suggested to visit an asthma specialist. Since a [b]family doctor has a great deal of knowledge of medicine, he can decide [b]when his methods are not effective and the patient needs to see someone [b]who knows more about the specific problem; someone who knows how it [b]begins, progresses, and specified treatments. This is an excellent [b]example of how a generalized person may not be equipped enough to handle [b]something as well as a specialized one can. [b][b]Another example of a specialist who is needed instead of a generalist [b]involves teaching. In grammar school, children learn all the basic [b]principles of reading, writing, and arithematic. But as children get [b]older and progress in school, they gain a better understanding of the [b]language and mathematical processes. As the years in school increase, [b]they need to learn more and more specifics and details about various [b]subjects. They start out by learning basic math concepts such as [b]addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication. A few years later, [b]they are ready to begin algebraic concepts, geometry, and calculus. They [b]are also ready to learn more advanced vocabulary, the principles of how [b]all life is composed and how it functions. One teacher or professor can [b]not provide as much in depth discussion on all of these topics as well [b]as one who has learned the specifics and studied mainly to know [b]everything that is currently known about one of these subjects. [b]Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very [b]early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of them in gaining [b]more facts about the basic subjects and finding out new facts on the old [b]ones. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 5 [b][b]The essay presents a strong analysis of the complexities of the issue. [b]This writer's argument is rooted in two extended examples, both of which [b]are well chosen and effective. The example in paragraph 2 begins with a [b]discussion of the need in the medical field for general practitioners as [b]well as specialists and moves into an example within the example [b](breathing problems and the need for an asthma specialist) to illustrate [b]the point. This extension from the general to the specific also [b]characterizes the example in paragraph 3. Overall, the essay is well- [b]organized, in part because the writer connects ideas through the use of [b]appropriate transitions: "but," "usually," and "for instance," among [b]others. [b][b]While the writer handles language and syntax well, several bothersome [b]problems keep this otherwise well-argued paper out of the 6 category. [b]The problems vary from the lack of a pronoun referent ("When a sickness [b]progresses or becomes diagnosed,...he may be referred to a specialist") [b]to an error in parallel structure ("...how it begins, progresses and [b]specified treatments"), to loose syntax and imprecise language [b]("Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very [b]early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of them in gaining [b]more facts about the basic subjects and...") [b][b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Benchmark 4 — Adequate [b][b]The need for generalists is undeniable but one can not underestimate the [b]need and importance of specialists. The medical profession is a good [b]example of an area that requires both generalists and specialists. If [b]there were no generalists in the profession there would be no one to [b]help patients determine when a specialist was needed. There are certain [b]problems that a general practitioner can take care of and there are [b]other problems that are out of his or her league. The general [b]practitioner is the an appropriate place to start when a patient [b]develops a problem. Many times the general practitioner is more than [b]capable of handling problems that arise and other times he or she is [b]unable to fully take control of the patient's care. It isn't a fault [b]with the general practitioners. There is just too much to know for any [b]one person to be an expert on all topics. It takes people years to [b]become experts on a single topic, never mind being an expert on [b]everything in the medical profession. [b]I am currently working in a large teaching hospital where the need for [b]both general practitioners and specialists is obvious. When a patient is [b]admitted to a general medicine floor, the general medicine physicians [b]are not always able to deal with every problem the patient has without [b]some help from the specialists. It would be unrealistic, not to mention [b]unfair to the general practitioners, to expect the general practitioners [b]to know everything about everything. The key is to know where everyone's [b]knowledge and area of expertise lie and use their strengths to optimize [b]patient care. [b][b]On the general medicine team in which I worked, the team would [b]constantly be requesting consults from specialists. Whether it be a [b]renal, psychiatric, orthopedic, rehabilitation, speech, [b]gastroenterologist, or any other specialist, their input was constantly [b]needed and used to get the patient well as quickly as possible. The list [b]of specialists can go on longer than one would think and it is just [b]impossible for one person to know everything about each one of them. [b][b]Although the need for generalists is apparent, it would be hard to [b]survive without specialists, also. When a person acts as a generalist, [b]they know little bit about everything, but certainly not a totally [b]inclusive knowledge of everything. The specialist is there to help add [b]the expertise and inclusive knowledge that the generalist may be [b]lacking. The most important thing to remember with specialists and [b]generalists is to recognize both's strengths and weaknesses and [b]capitalize on the strengths to achieve whatever goal may be desired. [b][b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 4 [b][b]Overall, this is a competent response to the topic. The writer disputes [b]the claim that "specialists are over-rated" and argues from the position [b]that both specialists and generalists are needed. The single extended [b]example clearly supports the premise of the argument as the writer [b]compares the roles and responsibilities of generalists and specialists [b]in the medical profession. By paragraph 3, however, the discussion [b]falters, and the concluding paragraph does little more than repeat ideas [b]presented in the first two paragraphs. [b]This essay displays generally adequate control over syntax and usage, [b]and the word choice, while appropriate, lacks precision. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Benchmark 3 — Limited [b][b]Generalists have the ideas and beliefs of what America is made of. [b]America's wealth of knowledge can be related to the generalists of the [b]past generations and the original leaders of our Constitution Period [b]that helped shape our great nation. If our former leaders would have not [b]been generalists when creating our country's Constitution in the late [b]1770's, American generations of would have been burdened with the [b]constant understanding that they are doomed to failure. [b]The fact that our past leaders were not specialists gave the creation of [b]the Constitution the ability to be changed through amendments passed by [b]our represented leaders of today. The Constitution was created with the [b]ability to adapt to the countries needs and demands in running our [b]society as it changes over time. The generalists approach to this [b]creation of a non-specialized Constitution shows the need for todays [b]generations to continue with the beliefs that a specialist would not [b]follow. [b][b]America has learned from it's past and has done what it can to make the [b]changes through adaption. America's greatness has been from the [b]generalist leaders of the past, thinking for the Americans of the [b]future. Americans with a broad perspective is what will continue to lead [b]our great nation into the twenty-first century. [b][b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 3 [b][b]This response displays some competence but is flawed by imprecise use of [b]language and limited analysis of the issue. [b]The writer supports the claim that generalists are preferable to [b]specialists, offering as evidence the historical example of the [b]generalists who created the U.S. Constitution. The example, while [b]relevant, is not adequately developed. The middle paragraph traces the [b]flexibility of the U.S. Constitution to the generalist orientation of [b]18th century leaders, but the ideas in the first paragraph are too [b]vaguely expressed to contribute to this discussion, and the final [b]paragraph consists of unsubstantiated generalities. [b][b]Frequent minor errors in punctuation, pronoun use, and verb tense, as [b]well as imprecise syntax and phrasing (e.g., "Generalists have the ideas [b]and beliefs of what America is made of. " and "...gave the creation of [b]the Constitution the ability to...") contribute to the overall [b]inadequacy of this response. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Benchmark 2 — Seriously Flawed [b][b]I disagree with the portion of the "Specialists of all kinds are highly [b]overated" statement. Specialists are persons who take care of certain [b]tasks or a specific area of whatever the case may be. These persons [b]contibute more time and effort than those with general titles. the [b]specialists are the ones who can tell or give the client more details on [b]what is happening to them. The generalist can only give broad ideas [b]which can be a number of things. The specialist narrows the ideas down [b]to the specifics. For example if one goes to a "general practioner [b]doctor" for pains in the chest area, he would tell the client that the [b]poblem may be heart burns, or something else that's not be so serious, [b]depending on the symptoms. He may also refer him to a cardiologist to be [b]sure it's not any thing else. The point I'm making is that specialist [b]are people who can help us out even more that our generalist. Also the [b]fact that one would go to a specialist only in dire needs. [b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 2 [b][b]The response presents a position on the issue but the development of [b]that position is seriously flawed. [b]The writer begins by disagreeing with the assertion [b]that "specialists...are highly over-rated" and then attempts to define [b]and contrast specialists and generalists. The attempt is unsuccessful, [b]partly because the descriptions are vague and ill-conceived. [b][b]Whereas the example of going to a "general practitioner doctor" is [b]certainly relevant, the writer's claim that a general practitioner would [b]tell a patient with chest pains that the problem "may be heart burns or [b]something else that's not so serious" seems far-fetched. [b][b]The response is further weakened by poor word choice and by numerous [b]errors in sentence structure, usage, and grammar. These problems, while [b]not severe enough to seriously interfere with meaning, contribute to the [b]overall rating of "2." [b][b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Benchmark 1 — Fundamentally Deficient [b][b]In today's society, there are many people who feel generalist are more [b]broad than specialists. I will discuss how there is a need for [b]generalists in the medical field, education, and the work place. [b]First, I will discuss how there is a need for generalists in the medical [b]field. A generalist in this area would be straight foward with clients. [b]For instance, in explaining to a patient they had cancer. A specialist [b]would use wording that you would believe everything is fine. [b][b]Second, I will discuss how there is a need for generalists in the [b]education field. In this field some instructors use "big words" and try [b]to out smart themselves with there own thoughts of character. [b][b]Last, I will discuss how there is a need for generalists in the [b]workplace. In the workplace the bosses should be open with personell. [b]For instance, instead of acting like they know everything they should be [b]open to knew thoughts and ideas. [b][b][b][b]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]------- [b]Reader Comment on 1 [b][b]On the surface, this essay appears to present an organized discussion of [b]the issue. In actuality, there are fundamental deficiencies in analysis [b]and development. [b]The essay begins with a tautology: "...there are many people who feel [b]generalist are more broad than specialists." Then, in the three short [b]paragraphs that follow, the writer promises to discuss "a need for [b]generalists" in a specific field, but none of these discussions [b]materialize. [b][b]The rest of the essay only confirms the sense of "fundamental [b]deficiency." Rather than analyze the issue, the writer unpersuasively [b]vilifies specialists as people who use their power to deceive and [b]mislead others. [b][b]Although the errors (sentence fragments, incorrect verb tenses, and [b]awkward syntax) are persistent, language problems alone do not earn this [b]essay a score of "1." Rather, this response fits the scoring guide [b]criterion of showing "little evidence of the ability to develop or [b]organize a coherent response to the topic." [b]