GRE Graduate Record Examination GRE General Vocabulary Workout
GRE Graduate Record Examination GRE Model Essay 33. "Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study because
GRE Graduate Record Examination Everyday Barron's wordlist 1151-1175
GRE Graduate Record Examination GRE Model Essay 32. "The concept of 'individual responsibility' is a necessary fiction. Although societies must hold individuals
GRE Graduate Record Examination GRE Model Essay 31. "In any academic area or professional field, it is just as important to recognize the limits of our knowledge and understanding
Substantially vocabulary workout is not much different than your regular workout in the gym. Those of you who start working out in the spring to get into shape by the summer time are exactly in the same situation: you have got a couple of months before the actual GRE test date and you need to learn all those words. It's not a secret that training your brain is somewhat similar to training your muscles. So why don't we try to apply some gym techniques to our GRE test preparation? We did! My friends and myself tried several different ways to memorize new words, and guess which one turned out to be the most effective. That's right, the one originated from the gym. Before turning to the specific examples, have a look at the first chart on the left. This is the way human memory works in its orthodox way. Here we have a simulated model of a person who tried to memorize 1160 new words (by coincidence equal to the number of the words in the GRE General Vocabulary; in the model I assume that all the words are unknown). The red line show the memorizing dynamics of the guy when he has 30 days to learn all the words; blue - 60 days, and green - 90 days. The results are far from satisfactory. If you have 30 days and use the usual learning algorithm ("usual learning algorithm" is "divide the whole thing into n parts, where n is equal to the number of days and then learn each part every day"), you learn approximately 310 words out of 1160 (27%). What happened to the rest 850 which you did study? This answer is trivial - you forgot them; even though you remembered each part by the end of the corresponding day. Similarly, in 60 days you learn about 450 words, and about 550 in 90 days. If these results seem suspicious I would urge you to try the "usual learning algorithm" yourself (in case you have some time to waste).
So what can we do, realistically. It mostly depends on the time left. If you have something less than a month and a half you probably should not bother learning 1160 words (I do assume that all the words are new to you, which is a thick assumption). Instead have a look at some alternative (usually not free) GRE vocabularies of, say, 200-300 words. If you have more than a year (believe me sometimes there are such individuals who start preparation more than a year beforehand) you may want to tackle all these vocabularies of 4000, 5000, 10000 words and so on (again, in case you have some time to waste). The most reasonable way is to learn 1000-1500 words commonly found on GRE, something that my friends and I did. In order to be comfortable with the vocabulary you need 3 months for preparation (the part below). Those of you who have less than that, however, should not give up. Have a look at the graph on the left, this is your workout. In 45 days you learn more than 600 new words (note that this is much better than what you would learn in 90 days using the "usual" way. And this is the case of what we call "casual learning," when it takes several minutes a day and when you have other things to take care of. Of course, you can do even better putting more effort into learning the words. So how does it work? Very simple. Day 1 - learn 40 words. Day 2 - learn another 40. Day 3 - repeat these 80. Day 4 - new 40. Day 5 - another 40. Day 6 - repeat - 160, and so on... You got the idea: 2 days on, 1 day off sequence. Important: after several days you will get a lot of words to repeat - do not repeat more than 200 words (or last 5 days). Many of you already know a lot of words from the list making things easier. Still be realistic - you are unlikely to learn all the words, but what you do will definitely increase the number of points on your verbal section of GRE.
Now comes the fun part. You have 3 months before the exam in order to learn more than 1000 words. Using our "gym" methods it is relatively easy. The program, however, gets a little bit more complicated. Let's get going. Day 1 - learn 30. Day 2 - learn 30. Day 3 - rest (yeah, that's right!). Day 4 - repeat 60. Day 5 - learn 30. Day 6 - learn 30. Day 7 - rest. Day 8 - repeat 120. (Never repeat more than 180 words). Thus, you are learning 120 new words per each 8 days. Under such pace you would learn about 1320 in three months. First, you may get tired after 2 months; second, you do not need to learn 1320 (we got 1160 here). Therefore, for the third and last month you should make a minor change: learn 90 instead of 120 words. Instead of "Day 6 - learn 30" use "Day 6 - start repeating the list from the very beginning." In this case you recall some of the very first words. Following this program you are sure to know at least 89% of the GRE vocabulary. I ran software simulation on both myself and couple of buddies and we all got higher than 90% (I got 97% ;-P) Several last notes. First, try using some vocabulary learning software, it may improve your workout but do not worry if it does not. The good old "read and memorize" still works. Second, try to get a workout pair and make it a habit to check each other; some sort of competition would be even an additional boost. Third, the most important thing in your workout should be to work hard. Make sure that by the end of the day you do know all the 30 words you were supposed to learn that day. It is practically impossible to catch up with something later. And don't forget that vocabulary, though extremely important for the exam, is not all: read academic books and practice things like analogies or sentence completion. Take as many practice tests as possible. And get these first 10 questions right! Good luck!
... acquiring knowledge of various academic disciplines is the best way to become truly educated."
I fundamentally agree with the proposition that students must take courses outside their major field of study to become "truly educated." A contrary position would reflect a too narrow view of higher education and its proper objectives. Nevertheless, I would caution that extending the proposition too far might risk undermining those objectives.
The primary reason why I agree with the proposition is that "me" education amounts to far more than gaining the knowledge and ability to excel in one's major course of study and in one's professional career. True education also facilitates an understanding of one- self, and tolerance and respect for the viewpoints of others. Courses in psychology, sociology, and anthropology all serve these ends. "True" education also provides insight and perspective regarding one's place in society and in the physical and metaphysical worlds. Courses in political science, philosophy, theology, and even sciences such as astronomy and physics can help a student gain this insight and perspective. Finally, no student can be truly educated without having gained an aesthetic appreciation of the world around us--through course work in literature, the fine arts, and the performing arts.
Becoming truly educated also requires sufficient mastery of one academic area to permit a student to contribute meaningfully to society later in life. Yet, mastery of any specific area requires some knowledge about a variety of others. For example, a political-science student can fully understand that field only by understanding the various psychological, sociological, and historical forces that shape political ideology. An anthropologist cannot excel without understanding the social and political events that shape cultures, and without some knowledge of chemistry and geology for performing field work. Even computer engineering is intrinsically tied to other fields, even non-technical ones such as business, communications, and media.
Nevertheless, the call for a broad educational experience as the path to becoming truly educated comes with one important caveat. A student who merely dabbles in a hodgepodge of academic offerings, without special emphasis on any one, becomes a dilettante lacking enough knowledge or experience in any single area to come away with anything valuable to offer. Thus in the pursuit of true education students must be careful not to overextend themselves----or risk defeating an important objective of education.
In the final analysis, to become truly educated one must strike a proper balance in one's educational pursuits. Certainly, students should strive to excel in the specific requirements of their major course of study. However, they should complement those efforts by pursuing course work in a variety of other areas as well. By earnestly pursuing a broad education one gains the capacity not only to succeed in a career, but also to find purpose and meaning in that career as well as to understand and appreciate the world and its peoples. To gain these capacities is to become "truly educated."
deviate V. turn away from (a principle, norm); move away from an accepted standard; swerve; depart; diverge; N. deviation; Ex. deviation of the path of light by a prism devious adj. roundabout; erratic; deviating from the straight course; not straightforward; not completely honest; Ex. devious route devise V. think up; invent; plan; bequeath; N: bequest devoid adj. empty; lacking devolve V. to give a duty, responsibility, power, etc. to sb who has less authority than you.Ex. devolve on/upon/to deputize V. work or appoint as a deputy; N. deputy: person who has the power to take charge when the leading person is away devotee N. enthusiastic follower; enthusiast; Ex. devotee of Bach devout V. pious; deeply religious; sincere; earnest; Ex. my devout hope dexterous adj. skillful; skill in using hands or mind; N. dexterity diabolical adj. diabolic; devilish; fiendish diadem N. crown dialectical adj. relating to the art of debate; mutual or reciprocal; Ex. dialectical situation; N. dialectic: art of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments diaphanous adj. sheer; transparent diatribe V. bitter scolding or denunciation; invective; abuse dichotomy N. division into two opposite parts; split; branching into two parts (especially contradictory ones) dictum N. authoritative and weighty statement (made by a judge in court); saying; maxim; CF. obiter dictum: incidental, nonbinding remark (something said in passing) didactic adj. (of speech or writing) intended to teach a moral lesson; teaching; instructional; N. didacticism die N. metal block used for shaping metal or plastic; device for stamping or impressing; mold; CF. dice diffidence N. shyness; lack of self-confidence; timidity; ADJ. diffident diffuse V. wordy; verbose; rambling; spread out (like a gas); V: spread out in all directions; disperse; N. diffusion; CF. suffuse digression N. wandering away from the subject; V. digress dilapidated adj. falling to pieces; in a bad condition; ruined because of neglect; Ex. dilapidated old car/castle; N. dilapidation dilate V. expand; dilate on/upon: speak or write at length on (a subject) dilatory adj. delaying; tending to delay dilemma N. situation that requires a choice between equally unfavorable options; problem; choice of two unsatisfactory alternatives
... accountable for their own actions, people's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making."
I fundamentally agree with the speaker's first contention, for unless we embrace the concept of "individual responsibility" our notions of moral accountability and human equality, both crucial to the survival of any democratic society, will whither. However, I strongly disagree with the second contention--that our individual actions are determined largely by external forces. Although this claim is not entirely without support, it runs contrary to common sense and everyday human experience.
The primary reason that individual responsibility is a necessary fiction is that a society where individuals are not held accountable for their actions and choices is a lawless one, devoid of any order whatsoever. Admittedly, under some circumstances a society of laws should carve out exceptions to the rule of individual responsibility--for example, for the hopeless psychotic who has no control over his or her thoughts or actions. Yet to extend forgiveness much further would be to endanger the social order upon which any civil and democratic society depends. A correlative argument for individual responsibility involves the fact that lawless, or anarchist, states give way to despotic rule by strong individuals who seize power. History informs us that monarchs and dictators often justify their authority by claiming that they are preordained to assume it--and that as a result they are not morally responsible for their oppressive actions. Thus, any person abhorring despotism must embrace the concept of individual responsibility. As for the speaker's second claim, it flies in the face of our everyday experiences in making choices and decisions. Although people often claim that life's circumstances have "forced" them to take certain actions, we all have an infinite number of choices; it's just that many of our choices are unappealing, even self-defeating. Thus, the complete absence of free WIU would seem to be possible only in the case of severe psychosis, coma, or death.
Admittedly, the speaker's second contention finds support from "strict determinist" philosophers, who maintain that every event, including human actions and choices, is physically necessary, given the laws of nature. Recent advances in molecular biology and genetics lend some credence to this position, by suggesting that these determining physical forces include our own individual genetic makeup. But, the notion of scientific determinism opens the door for genetic engineering, which might threaten equality in socioeconomic opportunity, and even precipitate the development of a "master race." Besides, since neither free will nor determinism has been proven to be the correct position, the former is to be preferred by any humanist and in any democratic society.
In sum, without the notion of individual responsibility a civilized, democratic society would soon devolve into an anarchist state, vulnerable to despotic rule. Yet, this notion is more than a mere fiction. The idea that our actions spring primarily from our free will accords with common sense and everyday experience. I concede that science might eventually vindicate the speaker and show that our actions are largely determined by forces beyond our conscious control. Until that time, however, I'll trust my intuition that we humans should be, and in fact are, responsible for our own choices and actions.
... as it is to acquire new facts and information."
Does recognizing the limits of our knowledge and understanding serve us equally well as acquiring new facts and information, as the speaker asserts? While our everyday experience might lend credence to this assertion, further reflection reveals its fundamental inconsistency with our Western view of how we acquire knowledge. Nevertheless, a careful and thoughtful definition of knowledge can serve to reconcile the two.
On the one hand, the speaker's assertion accords with the everyday experience of working professionals. For example, the sort of book knowledge that medical, law, and business students acquire, no matter how extensive, is of little use unless these students also learn to accept the uncertainties and risks inherent in professional practice and in the business world. Any successful doctor, lawyer, or entrepreneur would undoubtedly agree that new precedents and challenges in their fields compel them to acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge, and that learning to accommodate these limitations is just as important in their professional success as knowledge itself.
Moreover, the additional knowledge we gain by collecting more information often diminishes-sometimes to the point where marginal gains turn to marginal losses. Consider, for instance, the collection of financial-investment information. No amount of knowledge can eliminate the uncertainty and risk inherent in financial investing. Also, information overload can result in confusion, which in turn can diminish one's ability to assimilate information and apply it usefully. Thus, by recognizing the limits of their knowledge, and by accounting for those limits when making decisions, investment advisors can more effectively serve their clients.
On the other hand, the speaker's assertion seems self-contradictory, for how can we know the limits of our knowledge until we've thoroughly tested those limits through exhaustive empirical observation--that is, by acquiring facts and information. For example, it would be tempting to concede that we can never understand the basic forces that govern all matter in the universe. Yet due to increasingly precise and extensive fact-finding efforts of scientists, we might now be within striking distance of understanding the key laws by which all physical matter behaves. Put another way, the speaker's assertion flies in the face of the scientific method, whose fundamental tenet is that we humans can truly know only that which we observe. Thus Francis Bacon, who first formulated the method, might assert that the speaker is fundamentally incorrect.
How can we reconcile our experience in everyday endeavors with the basic assumption underlying the scientific method? Perhaps the answer lies in a distinction between two types of knowledge--one which amounts to a mere collection of observations (i.e., facts and information), the other which is deeper and includes a realization of principles and truths underlying those observations. At this deeper level "knowledge" equals "understanding": how we interpret, make sense of, and find meaning in the information we collect by way of observation.
In the final analysis, evaluating the speaker's assertion requires that we define "knowledge,'' which in turn requires that we address complex epistemological issues best left to philosophers and theologians. Yet perhaps this is the speaker's point: that we can never truly know either ourselves or the world, and that by recognizing this limitation we set ourselves free to accomplish what no amount of mere information could ever permit.
