Kaplan!

So after careful consideration, I have finally made the decision to pay the $1500 to take the MCAT prep course with Kaplan. I figured since they have this high score guarentee, if I under-performed on the MCAT I can always get my money back. On the other hand, if I did well, I might be able to get into medical school, lol, in which case $1500 should come to me in no time at all. :) The course itself will consist of 24 sessions that is divided into 54 hours of instruction and 32 hours of mock tests. The class room instruction is divided into different parts, each focusing on a specific section of the MCAT, and there are also strategic sessions dispersed throughout the course to give tips on stress management as well as score optimization. Unlike with Princeton Review, the different sections of the course will be taught by a single instructor.

Personally I would actually prefer the course be taught by different instructors that are more "specialized" in their fields. Also, the likelihood of getting stuck with 5 lousy instructors is much lower than the likelihood of getting stuck with just one lousy instructor, lol. However, I do like the way the Kaplan course is set up. The Kaplan program is much more spread out compared with the Princeton Review program. From what I have heard, Princeton Review program consisted of 5 classes per week, where as the Kaplan program only had 2 classes per week. (This still has to be verified...) I am personally a very slow learner, and I really need the time to digest the material taught in each class before moving on. So admist my busy research schedule, it would be a lot better to take the Kaplan program so that I can spend some time to review and preview each class' material before attending the session.

I really hope that the $1500 will be worth it... lol, I was saving up for a MacBook Pro... but I guess I am back to square one with that... >< From my previous experience with the SAT's I think I am in good hands. Kaplan people seems to know what they are talking about. The most important thing is the database of questions Kaplan has on the Internet. It was IMMENSE! I hope I can find enough time to fully take advantage of the database. I might even share some difficult questions on this blog ;)

History is the record of humanity's wars

Wow... now this is is a difficult prompt... ><

History is the record of humanity's wars.
Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which history might be the record of something other than humanity's wars. Discuss what you think determines when history should be the record of humanity's wars and when it should be something else. 

Outline:

1. History is a record of past conflicts, and any conflict may be regarded as a war. Example: battle between different politicians, conflicts between countries, etc.
2. There are many events that are recorded in history text books that are not wars. Examples include the invention of the telephone, the great depression, etc.
3. History is the record of everything that has happened in the past, including but not restricted to wars. Whether or not history is a record of wars depend on which period the history is recording.

Open any history textbook and we will see that wars are a common theme throughout history. World War I, World War II, American War of Independence, wars seem to be the most common solution to problems between countries. However, wars don't always have to involve groups of people fighting each other. In fact, a war can be defined as any conflict between groups of people. For example, the Cold War was an arms race between the former Soviet Union and the United States. Even though no guns were fired and no bombs dropped, the tension between the two nations were not unlike that felt by two countries when they were in a conventional war. This definition of war can be extended to include all conflicts between groups of people or even individuals. As such, the conflict between two political candidates could be called a war. Since history is a record of conflicts of the past, we can say that history is the record of humanity's wars.

Although there has never been a dearth of conflicts throughout history, it can be argued that history is a record of any significant events of the past, regardless whether the event involve any conflict. For example, the Great Depression of the 1930's was a significant event that changed the lives of millions of people. Although the depression was ended by a conflict, the World War II, the depression itself did not involve any major conflict between groups of people. Another example would be the invention of the telephone. The event was definitely worthy of being recorded in history text books as it revolutionized the communications industry. And just like the Great Depression, it did not involve any conflicts between groups of people. Therefore if the history focuses on events of the past rather than events involving conflicts, history is the record of something other than humanity's wars.

An important factor that determines whether history is a record of humanity's wars or the record of other events is the time period from which the historical record comes from. In the past, the world is less stable compared to the present, and wars are more prevalent than recent history. As a result, history of the past is more of a record of wars than history of the present world. This can be illustrated by contrasting history from two different periods. For example, lessons in medieval history never fail to include topics on famous knights and the battles they fought in. In contrast, history of the past 20 years are much more peaceful, and includes economic fluctuations and political reforms.

(Word count: 433)

I think I need to read more books. The ideas for these writing samples come very slowly to me. But hopefully thinking up ideas will be easier as I do more practice. The main problem with this piece of writing is that the arguments are very weak. I don't really like how the thesis and the counter-thesis differ only by the definition of the world history.

I found a video on youtube on this topic. I'll summarize the main points here:

• When thinking about a world historical timeline, it is clear that war has played a central role in the shaping of humanity's history
• When looking at major events in history, there is a disproportionate number of wars. For example, the two darkest period in recent human history are undoubted the two World Wars.
• Additionally, looking at the list of wars over humanity's existence, the list is mind boggling in length.
• One historical perspective involves examining societal elements within the context of war
• Given the magnitude and severity of war, it impacts society on every level. Art, literature, culture, technology, ideology, everything in society is affected by war. 
• A common example of this historical perspective is examining how war impacts economics. It often involves analyzing the economy during the war and the post-war economy.
• Given the sheer number of wars and their far reaching impact, it is reasonable to say that history is the record of humanity's wars.
• In contrast, there are many heritage societies internationally that seeks to preserve the past
• These heritage societies have the goal of preserving the roots of their nation and the rich history of the past
• They are interested in preserving how people once lived their everyday lives and this has little to do with war
• History exists on many time scales. For example, one can look at the history of the past hundred years or one can look at history on the scale of millions of years.
• As mentioned before, wars have devastating impacts on all facets of society. When one takes a broader view of history, wars will undoubtedly stand out and it will seem like a record of wars.
• However, on a smaller scale, history is about preserving the specific moment or period of time and that is what is important

Of all the forms of media, television has the strongest influence on public opinion

Got out of bed after a long nap... let's just get right to it.

Of all the forms of media, television has the strongest influence on public opinion.
Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which television might not have the strongest influence on public opinion. Discuss what you think determines whether or not television has the strongest influence on public opinion.

Outline:

1. Television is very influencial, it brought the vividity of motion picture into home. Since people are more likely to believe things they see for themselves, TV has a very strong influence on public opinion.
2. The Internet is arguably more influencial than TV. In addition to just receiving, the Internet is an interactive network which is more effective at instilling a thought in the viewer.
3. The influence of TV versus the Internet depends on the overall age of the population. Younger population tend to be affected by the Internet while the older generation are more affected by the television.

If they say a picture is worth a thousand words, a video must be worth a million. The invention of the television has brought motion and liveliness into common households. In comparison to the radio, the television incorporated a visual sensation, and it accurately presents the events that has taken place to the audiences, right in front of their very eyes. In comparison to the newspaper, the television is much more vivid, and in addition to the sound, never fails to grab the attention of an audience. Television has a very strong influence on public opinion because it can appeal to two of the most important human senses. The combination of sound and images can convince the audience that they are witnessing the reality. The reason that we get scared watching a horror movie is exactly the same. Even though we understand perfectly well that the movie is a work of fiction, the vividness convinces us that it is real. Television has exactly same effect on its viewers. If a dubious individual were to read a report of an incredible event on the newspaper, sometimes she may not believe it. However, if she were to watch the report of the same event on the television where the live footage was played back, the realistic feelings generated by the two senses will very likely convince her that what she saw was real. Since the telivision can be so convincing, it has one of the strongest influences on public opinion among various forms of media.

The Internet is arguably more influencial on public opinion than television. Just like the television, Internet appeals to the senses to create a realistic feeling that can easily convince its users. In addition, Internet is much more portable than the television. Nowadays, the Internet could be accessed at anywhere, anytime. Cellular phones, ipods, laptop computers, just to name a few. The convenience and accessibility of the Internet means that it is able to reach a much wider audience than the television. More importantly, the Internet is not a static network fed by a few wealthy media companies; it is an interactive network where people can receive instant feedback about their thoughts. In addition to receiving the information in a format that appeals to the senses, Internet users can go online to share their reflection with regards to the issue and receive responses from other users. This interaction can greatly reinforce the information and have a greater influence on public opinion. 

While both the television and the Internet are very influencial to public opinions, the strengths of the influence is greately dependent on the technology literacy of the society. The television and the Internet, despite being two of the most popular forms of media, have very different users. Internet usage requires a lot of technical knowledge from the users, therefore it is very popular among the younger population of the society, which tend to be more technologically literate. Television, on the other hand, are relatively easy to operate and does not require significant technical knowledge. Therefore, whether the television or the Internet has a stronger influence on public opinion depend largely on the demography of the society. Societies with a big young population tend to be affected greater by the Internet while societies with older population tend to be affected by television to a greater extent.

(Word count: 558)

This is terrible... today must be my unlucky day. Hopefully it will get better with practice... lol

The following is the same writing prompt taken off the Internet, written by somebody else. Personally, I think his is much better.

Television is more vivid and engaging than radio, more up-to-date than movies and documentaries, more programmed towards issues that invoke “public opinion” than music and shows, and perhaps most importantly, it also has more audience than any other traditional forms of media. This places television in a position to better influence public opinion than the rest. But what is “public opinion”? Is it the shared values or believes of a significant portion of the society? Or is it the collection of different opinions from every member of the public? For the sake of our discussion, let’s define “opinion” as what a person think of something or someone, with the connotation of moral judgment, and “public opinion” as the opinion of every members in a society.

National television programs can reach millions of viewers in an instant, and frequently these programs cover stories that would influence what we think of the subjects in them. For example, a news story on CBC about the crackdown on demonstrating Tibetan monks by the Chinese government caused an uproar in the Canadian community and greatly influenced the Canadian public opinion of the politically restrictive regime.

However, the influence of television on public opinion as a medium may arguably be less universal than the Internet, especially for some specific subjects. The newest technological progress cannot be covered adequately by any television program if only because of the speed and quantity of these advances. Instead, the army of bloggers, technical journalists, and online discussion forums lead the eyes and ears of the explorers and developers of the computer world. When Microsoft launches the World Wide Telescope, a ground-breaking project that maps out our understanding of the universe in an intuitive, 3D simulation map, it is first demonstrated in the TED conference and uploaded to the Internet. Soon it got the attention of countless bloggers, and the buzz spread through the cyberspace. This changed many people’s opinion about Microsoft, which was widely perceived as a monstrously large, arrogantly money-thirsty monopoly which lacked the innovation and energy of some of its competitors.

Had the World Wide Telescope been aired on national television, would it have caused the same effect on public opinion as the Internet? No, because the audience that would be excited about such technological break-throughs are moving away from the television as a provider of information. The television nowadays is only a source of entertainment for the younger generation, and CSI does not really have much influence on the public opinion of anything. The key in determining the dominance of television and the Internet as the major influence of public opinion, then, is where the audience is who would care to have an opinion on this issue at all.

The nature of democracy requires that its citizens be dependent upon one another

Having slacked off last night, I got up extra early this morning to do a writing sample. Yesterday I have been reading the Economist to boost my vocabulary and to build my reading comprehension skills. I jogged down several words I did not understand, looked them up and memorized them. I hope I can still remember those words as I try to put them to use in this writing sample. Without further ado, let's write.

I have decided to write up a small outline before writing so that I can stay on task.

The nature of democracy requires that its citizens be dependent upon one another.
Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which citizens in a democracy might justifiably not be dependent upon one another. Discuss what you think determines when citizens in a democracy should be dependent upon one another.

Outline:

1. In democratic societies, decisions are made not by an individual but by a collective. Therefore, individuals must work together in order to achieve a common goal.
2. However, in a democratic society, individuals also make personal decisions that does not affect the society as a whole. In these cases decisions are reached individuals, therefore the citizens are not dependent on one another.
3. Whether or not citizens are dependent on one another depends on the impact of the decision.

Democracy literally means government by the people, and it is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. In such societies, decisions are not made individually by one or a few individuals, but as a collective. Through voting, The decision that is represented by the majority is adopted. As a result of the nature of democracy, opinions of an individual can only be expressed by congregating with other individuals who share the same view. Therefore, individuals in a democratic society are dependent on one another.

However, when it comes to small scale decision making, decisions are usually made individually or by a small group of people due to its speed and efficiency. An example would be decision making in a family. Although each individual of the family may possess different values and have different preferences, decisions are usually made by the parents, usually without consultation with the rest of the family members. The decisions made in this manner usually do not affect the society as a whole, and in this case, decisions are made by individuals without dependence on one another.

Whether individuals should depend on one another in decision making is dependent on the influence of the decision on the society as a whole. Usually the decision that impacts the society greatly are reached after careful planning and voting. In this case the individuals must be dependent on one another. In contrast, if the decision in question influences only a small unit of a society, such as a family, but have limited influence on the society as a whole, the decisions are usually made individually.

(Word count: 272)

Well, I kept within the allowable 30-minute limit this time, but the writing positively sucks. I think I would be very lucky to get even a 4 on this writing. I did not go into enough depth. In addition, I don't really like my counter thesis because a family isn't really a democratic unit. Families are usually controlled by one or two individuals: an oligarchy, so decisions are natually made without dependent on other members of family.

Obviously I have not had enough sleep... I'm going back to bed.

Examkracker MCAT Audio Osmosis

As a result of the large amount of caffeine I consumed in the afternoon, I am not sleepy despite the late hour. I was browsing the Internet when I came across the torrent for this MCAT program on Isohunt... (yea, I pirate software!) Well, it is called Examkracker MCAT Audio Osmosis, and after listening to a few minutes of it, I think it is an excellent program. I have only listened to the physics section of the program, and it seems to cover the section in great details. They read aloud different formula that we are responsible for in the MCAT, and as I am a auditory learner, the formula just imprint in the brain so much better because it was read out loud to me. After approximately half an hour of listening, I have essentially re-acquired all of the high school kinematics knowledge that I am responsible for in the MCAT. I am hoping that the other sections will come back to me just as easily... *fingers crossed*

Humor is another important factor in making MCAT Audio Osmosis a great program. The two hosts of the program, Jordan and Jon, often go off humorous tangents while explaining MCAT related material. The advantage to that is the program is extremely relaxed. Listening to an hour of the program does not feel tiring at all because you relax while listening to the jokes told by the hosts. 

For any of you who are interested in downloading the MCAT Audio Osmosis program, you can download the torrent at http://www.isohunt.com/download/88859885. You'll need a torrent client such as utorrent to download the software. It is about 500 mb.

Hope it helps!