Insert Title Here
Mukesh K. Jain, Tadataka Yamada and Robert Lefkowitz’s article, “We Need More Doctors Who Are Scientists,” shows how easy it is to speak about a problem without giving a solution, or why the problem exists in the first place. As a young adult who is nearing the end of my education, I have experienced what the school systems do to encourage studies of science. The effort for children to pursue a path that interests them most is great. Where the effort for creativity is vacant is where kids spend the most time, at home. From my experience, the most important aspect of education was to grow up and get a job. A job produces money and money leads to prosperity. With these lessons I had to pick the option most viable to achieve success, that being business. A field that includes my favorite subject and almost guarantees me paychecks in the future. Where I was not guided was to pursue my interest in physics. This is the route of the problem.
Where the authors of this article show inaccuracies in their research is when they say, “Nonetheless, the number of young doctors pursuing research continues to wane,”. This is an incorrect statement as the second most pursued major is health professions and related programs. In this major the basis of most classes are research, analyzing data, using the scientific method, etc. If Science based research for health studies is the second most pursued major and study then how could that number “wane”? There is no research that doctors are doing less research. All the authors do is complain that there hasn’t been a scientific breakthrough recently.
If a child shined in school and excelled in every aspect of science then by all means its a filed to be pursued. Or if it’s a child’s dream to help people then the medical field is perfect. Otherwise what interests people most is the best way to make money. That is why the business major is one of the most saturated fields to study. In order to have more people pursue a career in science and science research, all the country needs to do is pay them higher salary.
OK, lazybear, let’s get started. You haven’t specified what sort of advice you want, so I’ll just react as I read.
You appear to be criticizing the article for two failures
1. offers no solution
2. fails to explain the source of the problem
If that’s true, you’re making two promises to your readers: You will give a solution and identify the cause of the problem. Be sure to deliver on those promises.
This is a radical shift of focus without explanation, lazybear. We don’t know the problem yet, or the solution, or its cause, but you don’t appear to be exploring those. You’re on to something else: how schools encourage science.
Still no idea where you’re going with this. Do schools encourage sciene where their students’ interest in science is already strong? And neglect them when they’re at home? What could that possibly mean?
Are we still talking about the failure of schools? Did THE SCHOOLS emphasize getting a job as the most important aspect of education? Did the school steer you away from science toward business? Honestly, I have no clue.
What field guarantees you paychecks? Business? OK You were NOT GUIDED to study physics. Is this the school’s fault? For not proving that science would provide you an income? Is that the root of the problem?
In short, lazybear, you have an interesting thesis to argue here, but you dither instead of claiming it clearly when the declaration will help you retain readers best: at the beginning. In the sentences that follow your declaration, you could provide specific evidence that you were MISled or MISguided.
See the difference? STRONG POSITIVE VERBS: OFFER / FAIL / GUIDE / EMPHASIZING. CLEAR CLAIMS. Readers are clear on your expectations.
In Paragraph 2, you make a strong refutation in six sentences that could be made in two.
I’m not sure your claim proves that young doctors (once they graduate from those courses of study) continue to do research, but you could certainly provide evidence for that claim in the space you’ve saved.
In your third paragraph, you appear to be making a value judgment that business is THE BEST choice for anyone who wants to succeed in life. But you waver on that assertion by passing it off to popularity:
In your last sentence, you make good on your promise to explain the problem of why doctors are not scientists: scientists aren’t paid well enough. Of course, naming that problem doesn’t solve that problem. Are the authors correct? Would researchers be paid better if they delivered more big scientific breakthroughs? Are is it chicken/egg: they’d make more breakthroughs if they were given more resources and incentives?
I hope you find this feedback helpful, lazybear. Keep the conversation going either way. I take the strongest interest in students who engage in the process.
feedback please. Sorry for the extreme lateness, an excuse will be given more privately.
Excuses are valuable only to you, lazybear. To me they’re water to behavior’s stone. My love for my students is unconditional, and I will always give you the benefit of the doubt, partly from sympathy, partly because I missed a lot of classes in college, and partly because the consequences fall to you, not to me. Don’t trouble yourself with explanations; they’ll make us both uncomfortable.
Make up the work and be consistent from now on.
If you want to climb back more expeditiously, leave me a detailed explanation of the sort of feedback you want on this post. Otherwise, your Feedback Please request sifts to the bottom of the pile. You might not hear back from me until your Editorial is due, and THAT would start to really put you behind.
So, let’s do that. It will be much more productive than explaining why the Draft was late. We good?