To say that one nation is comparitively better as compared to another nation
   only based on the artistic and scientific accomplishments is a misguided
   conception of the bigger picture.
   
   A nation is an amalgamation of various achievements of society including
   arts, science and economic prowness. Without one the other cannot sustain
   long term growth and improvement of a nation. Take for example the Nazi
   Germany, scientific achievements made by the Nazi's during the years
   1930-1945 surpasses some of the greatest achievements of all times. Yet
   since these achievment where not in the context of furthering prosperity and
   progress, the nation fell to the alies. Had the motivation of the scientific
   achivements been for the betterment of the Germany society, in both artisitc
   and economic speheres, Germany would have been a different nation today.
   
   On the contrary, it’s the economic success which will provide the
   resources and support needed to bring out creativity and discovery in the
   citizens of the nation. Can a painter or sculptor surive only on his
   artistic achievment in a nation where earning minimum wage is a challenge?
   Well the obvious answere is no, the scultpor will be forced to comprimise
   his talent and earn a living by other means since the citizens of the nation
   do not have the capacity to pay for his creativity.
   
   Another example which comes to mind is India. India is said to have one of
   the most competent scientific minds; along with the fact that India is the
   backyard of various	cultures rich in artistic expressions. Yet the nation
   has been at the fringe of Global development till the late 1990's, when it
   opened its market to the global community, and over the years has seen
   spectacular economic growth. 
   
   Hence, all elements have to be taken under consideration for evaluating the
   value of a nation. Growth and development in only one sphere would not
   provide long term sustainence for the society and hence for the nation.

Posted at: Fri Aug 25 01:39:43 2006 (GMT)

   Out of curiosity, what was your AWA score on the GMAT?  I don't see this
   essay getting a 6.  
   
   I've taken the GMAT several times in my quest to score an 800.  I haven't
   reached that goal yet, but I'm almost there.  In any case, I've gotten a 6.0
   on my AWA every time, and guess what folks, its not that hard. But it seems
   as though some people here are missing the bigger picture and instead are
   attempting to create a literary masterpiece or demonstrate their mastery of
   penmanship.	And I see the same people scoring 4.5 or below every GMAT test
   they take.
   
   Don't be creative!!!!  Be concise, insightful, and BALANCED.
   
   The questions they are asking are relatively straightforward, and you are
   expected to create an ARGUMENT for or against an idea.  The human reader
   will spend only 2 minutes reading your essay, so the more creative you get,
   the longer it'll take him to understand your point.	And after reading 100
   essays in the last 4 hours with 200 more to go, how do you think he'll
   reward you for making him take the extra three minutes and grasp your
   literary genius and "bask" in your creativity?
   
   
   I hope you get my drift...
   
   
   My suggestions...
   
   Start your essays by saying:
   
   I agree with the statement... or I disagree with the statement.  Yes, its
   simple, and not original.  Rather, very plain and boring.  But guess what,
   you're trying to convey a point, not make the New York Times.  I've used the
   same intro for each of my essays, and getting a 6.0 has never been easier.
   
   Also, explore arguments contrary to the position you are taking, and how
   they may "seem" correct.  Then refute those arguments with evidence or
   annecdotes.	If you only argue one viewpoint, your argument will lack
   balance, and it'll convey to the reader that you lack true analytical
   skills.  You are going to business school, and business leaders need to be
   analytical -- which means considering ALL alternatives.  Address the
   alternatives contrary to your own, then negate them.  Do this, and the 6.0
   is yours.
   
   Guys, getting a 6.0 on your AWA is VERY EASY.  Trust me, I've spent
   literally less than 15 minutes on each essay, and have gotten a perfect
   score EVERY TIME.
   
   
   Remember, don't be creative or attempt to WOW the readers with your literary
   style. This is a 30 minute essay.  You aren't expected to create a
   masterpiece, and the human reader, who by now has probably read over a
   hundred other essays in a 3 hour period, isn't prepared to decipher the
   works of the next Shakespear either.
   
   Be concise. Keep it simple, and DON'T BE CREATIVE.  Save the creativity for
   your applications!!!  Good luck on getting that perfect score!
   
    
   
   > To say that one nation is comparitively better as compared to another
   > nation only based on the artistic and scientific accomplishments is a
   > misguided conception of the bigger picture.
   > 
   > A nation is an amalgamation of various achievements of society including
   > arts, science and economic prowness. Without one the other cannot sustain
   > long term growth and improvement of a nation. Take for example the Nazi
   > Germany, scientific achievements made by the Nazi's during the years
   > 1930-1945 surpasses some of the greatest achievements of all times. Yet
   > since these achievment where not in the context of furthering prosperity
   > and progress, the nation fell to the alies. Had the motivation of the
   > scientific achivements been for the betterment of the Germany society, in
   > both artisitc and economic speheres, Germany would have been a different
   > nation today.
   > 
   > On the contrary, it’s the economic success which will provide the
   > resources and support needed to bring out creativity and discovery in the
   > citizens of the nation. Can a painter or sculptor surive only on his
   > artistic achievment in a nation where earning minimum wage is a
   > challenge? Well the obvious answere is no, the scultpor will be forced to
   > comprimise his talent and earn a living by other means since the citizens
   > of the nation do not have the capacity to pay for his creativity.
   > 
   > Another example which comes to mind is India. India is said to have one
   > of the most competent scientific minds; along with the fact that India is
   > the backyard of various  cultures rich in artistic expressions. Yet the
   > nation has been at the fringe of Global development till the late 1990's,
   > when it opened its market to the global community, and over the years has
   > seen spectacular economic growth. 
   > 
   > Hence, all elements have to be taken under consideration for evaluating
   > the value of a nation. Growth and development in only one sphere would
   > not provide long term sustainence for the society and hence for the
   > nation.
   >

Posted at: Mon Oct 2 02:57:00 2006 (GMT)