Review comments and approx score on Issue essays
Source: MGMAT CAT 1 and CAT 2

Here are 2 issue essays that I wrote. I would really appreciate some review comments and an approx score. I know how much of an effort this is and am expecting very short comments. May be 2-3 positie and 2-3 negative, all one-liners and an approx score on each essay. Thats it. Basically I want to know if I am well prepared for AWA or do I need to practice more. I am looking for a perfect 6.0 on the actual GMAT as I am not very confident about my verbal score and also because I am not a native english speaker and hence essays would play an imp role for me.

CAT Exam #1 A 5/26/2007

AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Issues
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Individuals living in capitalist economies suffer a higher degree of personal risk than in other types of economies. Creating regulations that protect a society can’t help but interfere with free market forces, a basic tenet of capitalism."

From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

YOUR RESPONSE:
The contentious issue of whether regulations to protect individuals living in a capitalist society would interefere with free market forces can be argued upon perpetually. From one point of view it can be said that some amount of regulation and imposition of reasonable restrictions are necessary, ironically, to ensure the very spirit of freedom. On the contrary it can be argued that a free market should be free in the true sense and economic safety of individuals is their own responsibility. While many people opine that a capitalist economy should advocate a completely free market, I firmly believe that absolute freedom corrupts. I would like to present four compelling arguments to support my stand.

Undoubtedly, an individual is at a high risk in a capitalist economy, probably the highest compared to economies of a different nature. Capitalist economy is more of an "every man for himself" approach; very unlike the conservative and protective attitude that plays at the heart of a socialist society. Such risk faced by the people is essentially one of the drawbacks of a free market. Although it may not be possible to ensure complete protection of an individual without compromising freedom, an optimal balance can certianly be ensured. Extreme market forces need to be tamed by imposing reasonable regulations. As long as foresight is the basis for such regulations, they will not comprimise the freedom of market forces of a capitalist economy.

Let us consider some generic examples of such regulations. A much dreaded one by large corporations is that again monopolistic business practices. In the absence of such laws, smaller companies may never be able to avail equal opportunities in comparison to their deep pocketed rivals. The stock markets are very important indicators of any economy's performance. These too, need to be governed by a strict set of rules without which billions of dollars could be gulped away from the economy by unscrupulous investors. Ethical business practices are enforced by several countries to ensure fair trade, the European Union being one of the prominent supporters. Import duties are often necessary to protect the growing industries of several developing economies. It is not too difficult to visualize how, in the absence of such moderations, businesses would be "animal-like" - extreme and unforgiving.

The famous law suit again software giant Microsoft back in 1999 served as a corporate lesson to all major companies. Microsoft, by deciding that an internet browser by the name of Netscape Navigator would not be allowed to operate on Windows, was almost on the verge of destroying an upcoming company. If the federal prosecutors had not interfered, Netscape corporation would be no more. It was necessary to put a leash on the monopolistic and ruthless business practices of Microsoft at that time. It is noticable, after the strong supervision of the government summoned a seemingly immortal company like Microsoft, that in the the corporate world, business practices have become more ethical.

Another incident that would be aptly presented in this context would be the liberalization of the economy of India in 1999 by the then fianance minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh. This was done at just the appropriate time, any earlier would have resulted in small Indian companies getting trampled over by large multi-nationals, any later would have wilted the economy. Until 1999, restrictions and high import duties imposed on foreign goods were necessary to help indeginious Indian companies to rise to a level at which they could dare compete with multi-nationals who had been in the business for several years.

Consequently, I deem that regulations apart from NOT compromising the market freedom of a capitalist economy, are actually necessary to ensure freedom and economic justice in the true sense. Admittedly, this factor does tend to restrict growth at times, but ensures a more organized growth rather than a pool of corporate algae, at the same time providing equal opportunity to the means of economic development for all.





CAT Exam #2 A 5/31/2007

AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Issues
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Employees should expect no privacy while on the job, even when engaging in personal communication via telephone or e-mail. Employers are paying for their employees' time and have a reasonable expectation that this time is spent solely on work-related activities."

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your views with reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.


YOUR RESPONSE:
The contentious issue of whether the time that an employee is paid for should be strictly spent on the job and any loose ends need to be trimmed even to the entent of denying privacy for personal communication, could be argued upon perpetually. From one point of view it can be said that it is only human to expect one's boss to understand that every individual needs some basic privacy when talking on the phone or sending out a personal email. On the contrary it can be argued that when a company is paying one to work for 8 hours a day, then no less time spent on the work can be tolerated. While many people opine that each minute of an employee's time should be devoted to work and work only, I firmly believe that every individual should be cut some slack and invasion of privacy, even at the workplace, cannot be reasoned.

Undoubtedly, the need for privacy is a very basic human need and cannot be denied, or at least such a denial cannot be justified. If employers are so strict as to ensure that work is sqeezed out of every penny that they are paying a person, they need to realize that they are working with humans and not machines. If complete denial of privacy is accepted, and one must not shy away from work even for a moment, then having lunch should also be a problem, or an even the more basic need of going to the bathroom. Although such arguments may seem extreme, looking at them closely would make one realize that these rely on the same principle used to deny privacy.

Indeed, an employer cannot expect his or her employees to accept a strict no personal communication policy. It is only reasonable for a person to recieve a personal phone call or an email from a long lost friend once in a while. It may also be required to contact someone in case of an emergency. If employees are denied all access to their loved ones with their bosses hanging around all the time, it is highly likely that they are already looking at classifieds every morning. For that matter, such strict supervision only serves to make one more conscious and leads to a reduction not only in job satisfaction, but also in efficiency. Companies today should rather focus on allowing more freedom to employees to capture their enterpreneurship abilities rather than their ability to simply listen and do what is told.

The example of recent clashes between employees and management at BPO firms in India in 2005-06 would be aptly presented in this context. In order to improve efficiency and allow for closer supervision (or at least as it was claimed!), the management installed close circuit cameras throughout the working facility; it was literally keeping an eye on employees every moment. Employees were summoned and questioned for petty things such as receiving an SMS on their cell phones, or even turning around to talk to a colleague on a non-work related issue. A severe rise in attrition rates was reported in months of such unnecessary measures. Not just that, but the very purpose for which the management installed the cameras, i.e. improvement in productivity, not only remained unsatisfied, but rather the cameras served to bring down productivity. In my personal experience as well, at Infosys Technologies Limited, an Indian software giant, I realized that employees working under project managers who allowed for more freedom were often the ones performing much better than those who dreaded the sight of their bosses.

Admittedly, the right to privacy has often been misused by employees in several large organizations where it is difficult to keep a real-time check on who is doing what. Employees have often been playing games on their cell phones instead of attending technical support calls, or even yapping away on phone calls instead of fixing bugs in their programs. But eventually it is the responsibility of the organization to ensure a check against such activities through more acceptable means. For the fault of a few, the large majority cannot be punished and denied privacy. In fact, such denial of privacy would be an admittance on part of the employers that since they can't ensure efficiency through other, more reasonable and acceptable means, they are resorting to such measures.

Consequently, I deem that denial of privacy is a highly unjustified step on part of corporations to ensure that employees are strictly slogging each minute of their time to generate more revenues. Other more acceptable means such as time and motion study, ergonomic office design and even a more open and free environment would ensure better productivity levels and less resentment. So my advice would be that if you don't want to catch your subbordinate on jobs.com, allow him a bit of privacy!

I humly request for a quick response on this post. I only have 6 days for my GMAT and really worried about my essays. Actually, if I could get some review comments, I was planning on improvising and immediately posting another essay incorporating the comments. Hopefully if I could get a confirmation on the improvised essay and any additional comments I would feel much more confident.

I am expecting very short, only one line comments. Actually I know I have too many post and I request you to please ignore ALL of them and just respond to this one.

I have incorporated the comments that I got on my argument essays into the issue ones also and have hopefully improved. Instead of the ones, above, could you please grade these ones.

MGMAT CAT 6A
ESSAY QUESTION
"Although the modern information age has opened up channels of communication that never before existed, it, paradoxically, has destroyed the foundation of community by isolating individuals in a technological world that involves little real human interaction."

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.


RESPONSE
The contentious issue of whether the modern information age has ironically isolated individuals by significantly reducing real human interaction can be argued upon perpetually. From one point of view it can be said that new and revolutionary means of communication have brought people closer by making it easier to stay in touch with near and dear ones. On the contrary it can also be argued that too much convinience in communication has made people too lazy to maintain personal contact. While many people opine that the new means of communication have pulled people further apart, I firmly believe that it is this very modern technology that has made the world truly small and its inhabitants closer than ever before. I would like to present three compelling arguments to support my stand.

Undoubtedly, the modern information age has revolutionized the way we communicate with one another. Hand written letters were replaced by the electronic mail long ago. Traditional telephones have given way to cell phones. With innovations continuing, it is not long before email and cell phones are both replaced by video conferencing, a much more personal and interacive means now available at affordable prices. Such innovations have certainly made it much easier and much more convinient for people to stay in touch with one another. People, a few years back, could never even imagine talking to their families while travelling on business. Compared to a time when a kid would talk to grandmother staying in Florida only once a month due to exorbitant rates for long distance calls, now such calls can be made just about everyday, and that too when one is on the move.
The current scenario of ever-decreasing call rates in India is a classic example that illustrates my point. Domestic long distance call rates were at one time a phobia for middle class families, limiting the interaction they could have with their relatives. But now with call rates as low as 3 cents a minute, this is no longer a concern. With insufficient education facilities, Indian students have often opted for American Universities. After being awarded a scholarship or on recieving a gold medal, only a student can imagine the restraint that he or she must exercise to wait until Sunday to inform his parents. All this was due to exorbitant ISD calling rates at $5 a minute (well that is considered outrageous in India!). Today, with these prices dropping to 4 cents a minute, everybody is more in touch. This improved affordabilty of the means of communication has been made possible only by the technological innovations of this new information age.

Admittedly, people tend to rely too much on modern communication. Personal means such as that long awaited hand written letter are a thing of the past. It is far more convinient and even fashionable to say Merry Christmas through an SMS rather than making a phone call, let alone visiting someone or mailing a greeting card. But what proponents of such argument do not realize is that eventually it is people who are responsible for their deeds. Technology is offering you the convinience, the rest is up to you. Certainly it would be unfair to blame the modern information age for the laziness of individuals. Anybody smart enough to send an e-greeting should also be mature enough to realize that once in a while his friends and family would appreciate a more personal hand written card.

In conclusion, because of all the reasons cited above, I deem that the modern information age has brought people much closer than ever before. Any neglect on part of people isolating them from one another is their own doing and no fault of the new channels of communication. In the words of Nandan Nilekani, CEO, Infosys TEchnologies Limited, "Information technology has truely made the world flat!"

Source OG11, pg-742
“A powerful business leader has far more opportunity to influence the course of a community or a nation than does any government official.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.


The contentious issue of whether a powerful businessman has far more opportunity to influence the course of a community or a nation than any member of the government machinery can be argued upon perpetually. From one point of view it can be said that sheer autonomy and efficiency associated with the private sector enhance the capabilities of moulding the future of a community. On the contrary it can be argued that the administrative power held by the government bodies supercedes such advantages. While many people opine that government officials have a larger chance of affecting the course of communities and nations, I firmly believe that it is eventually business leaders who forge the future of a nation. I would like to preset three compelling argument to support my stand.

Undoutedly, one cannot rule out the freedom of operation that a business leader would enjoy over a government official. The former being an enterpreneur can make his or her own decisions instantly while the latter, no matter at what level or designation is eventually a mere component of a much larger system. Because of this, he or she must ensure adherence to certain policies and directives no matter how unjustified or outdated he or she might deem them to be. The inefficiencies associated with government bodies are rightly critisized. Such inefficiencies arise from the very nature of a long and convulated hierarchial administrative structure. For the private sector on the other hand, high efficiencies are a second nature. One must also admit that corruption in goverment bodies further slows down the job; which is certianly a lesser issue with a business organization and its leader.

To illustrate my point, it would be apt to present the example of how the Tata Corporation adopted an entire town in India. The town of Jamshedpur is located in the state of West Bengal in India. The state government had long ignored the town development citing every possible excuse in the book. Whether such reasons were justified or not dosen't change the fact that residents of this underdeveloped town were habitual to consider basic necessities such as drinking water or electricity a rare luxury. When the Tata Group, a leading business house in India and now even well recognized in the World, set up a steel manufacturing plant, it needed quality labour and basic amenities for its employees. Huge investments were made to set up power transmission grids and water canals. Today, the town is not only at par with most developed ones in the country, but is also recognized as a venue for international Cricket matches, boasting of a state of the art Cricket stadium of its own.

Another example, that of Infosys Technologies Ltd., an Indian software giant would further buttress my stand. In the state of Karnataka in India, Banglore, the software city of the country, was the only city to enjoy government investments in the late 90s. Tier II cities such as Mysore were ignored on account of insufficient funds. Mysore, also the hometown of Infosys founder and one of the most respected CEOs in the world, Narayan Murthy, has been put on the world map today. This was after the world class software training center of Infosys was set up there offering employment to more than a thousand town residents, with jobs ranging from that of a jantitor to that of a project manager.

Admittedly, the resources at the disposal of a business leader will appear meagre compared to those available to governments, especially in the more developed nations. Also one might say that since improving community conditions is secondary to the primary motive of profit, any corporation would never be as effective in changing the course of the region as a government body. However, one must realize that it is also the will that private organizations have that pulls more opportunity towards them. Goverment officials, no matter how much willing, are bound by a system. Opportunities may stare at their face but are often pushed aside for "administrative" concerns.

In conclusion, because of the reasons mentioned above, I deem that indeed a business leader can avail far greater opportunity to change the course of a community or even a nation at large. Government officials, owing to inherent administrative constraints are not even comparable in this regard.

Please respond ASAP... humble request, clock's ticking for me, only 5 days to go.

Hi, Rahul - just responded to your other set (argument) and will do my best to get to these tomorrow!

Ok Stacey no problem, I can see how much you are putting into this replying to so many post alone. I'll check tomorrow.

I saw the review comments on the argument essays, however would improving these small things help raise my score. Coz I dont know what else to do with my essay to get a 6.0. Could you provide some tips for a perfect score based on my writing style, any fundamental mistakes that I am making that are costing me?

DO NOT go for a perfect score. There's no advantage to scoring higher than a 5.0 and there can be a significant disadvantage to scoring a 6.0. Namely, the brainpower required to get a perfect score will tire you out more and you will not be able to perform as well on the multiple choice portions of the test that always follow the essays. You want to do well enough to beat the average (4.0) but not so well that you hurt your performance on the part of the test that really matters: the multiple choice.

Be careful about the timing. For your first essay (telecom), you said you wanted to present 3 arguments to make your point. Your first example paragraph is very long, but does not present 3 separate arguments (nor should it - each body paragraph should contain just one example). Your 3rd paragraph attempts to address people who believe the opposite of your thesis, but it does not provide any concrete examples and gets into an issue of maturity that seems more conversational and less appropriate for the task at hand. I got the sense that you started to run out of time and didn't address the things you planned to address when you started.

Your second essay is very long and I just want to make sure that you really did limit yourself to 30 min there - it's great if you can write that much in 30 min - it just seemed like more than most people can usually do. If you didn't monitor your timing that carefully, make sure you do so in practice from now on.

Also, FYI, you spelled convenience wrong a couple of times (there were other spelling errors, too, but one instance can be blamed on a typo - multiple instances of the same word indicates to them that you don't know how to spell it).

Your opening paragraph is good in both cases (with the exception of the "three compelling arguments" and then not following up with those arguments).

Your second paragraph should present one concrete example - in your first essya, you give lots of hypotheticals about a "grandmother in Florida" or "Indian students" but it would be better to say something like, "I have family in X country and [illustrate how your ability to communicate has improved] or to say that studies have shown that people traveling on business have 3x as much interaction with their spouses and children as they did 20 years ago, or whatever. You start to get into this a bit with specific values for telecom rates, but you could use even more concrete stuff.

Your third paragraph should present a different concrete example in support of your thesis - don't devote an entire paragraph to defusing potential arguments from opponents. (Though do acknowledge other points of view - in one sentence - in both the opening and closing paragraphs.)

Then close it out with a conclusion paragraph that (1) restates your thesis while acknowledging other points of view, (2) summarizes how your examples support your thesis, and (3) wraps things up with a flourish (and you did this last nicely with your quote).

Also, it's good to have something of a formula or format ready to go when you get in there, as you obviously do - but don't get so tied to it that it causes problems - eg saying you'll present 3 arguments when you don't actually do so.

By the way, I never provide 3 examples, only 2, and I always get 6's... so you don't have to have 3 examples to get a good score, and it's easier to write a compelling essay if you limit yourself to just two examples.