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!