GRE Argument: Should Colleges Discourage Students from Fields Where They May Struggle?

Colleges should not discourage students from a field simply because they seem unlikely to succeed in it. They should, however, give students candid advice about preparation, costs, and the work required, and intervene when a student is at serious risk of harm or an avoidable academic setback. This distinction matters: advising identifies obstacles and ways to address them, while discouragement can turn an uncertain forecast into a closed door. Because institutions influence which opportunities students can imagine pursuing, their guidance should help students make informed choices without treating present weaknesses as proof of permanent inability.

For students, a warning can be useful when it is specific and paired with a path forward. A student struggling in introductory mathematics, for instance, may need to identify gaps in prerequisite knowledge, try tutoring, and reassess progress after a term. Telling that student, “you are not suited to this field,” supplies neither a diagnosis nor a remedy. It may instead convert a temporary difficulty into a judgment about identity and discourage further effort. At the same time, unconditional encouragement is not responsible: students deserve to know if their current preparation makes a course especially demanding or if continuing without support could put their academic standing at risk. The appropriate message is not that success is guaranteed, but that the student can test a plan and evaluate evidence of progress.

The history of American higher education shows why institutions should be cautious about defining who belongs in a field. The Morrill Act of 1862 supported colleges focused on agriculture and mechanic arts, and these land-grant institutions opened higher-education opportunities to farmers and working people previously excluded. This example does not prove that every student will thrive in every program. It does show that access can change when educational institutions make fields available to people who may not have been treated as their conventional candidates. If colleges discourage students because their backgrounds or initial preparation differ from an assumed norm, they risk reproducing exclusion rather than identifying genuine academic needs. A better response is to make expectations clear and provide routes for students to meet them.

That history also requires a qualification: widening access is not enough if institutions fail to confront unequal conditions or their own role in creating barriers. The land used for Morrill Act grants included more than 10 million acres expropriated from tribal lands, according to the National Archives. Thus, an institution cannot claim that opportunity is automatically fair merely because it admits a broader range of students. It must examine how its policies shape access and whether its support is adequate. This is relevant to advising because discouraging a student for struggling may shift responsibility onto that student without asking whether instruction, prerequisites, or available assistance contributed to the difficulty. Fair guidance considers both the student’s choices and the institution’s obligations.

Institutions also have a responsibility to protect students from costly decisions based on incomplete information. If a student repeatedly fails required courses, wants to continue in a program, and has not considered alternatives, an advisor should explain the academic consequences and discuss realistic options. The purpose should be to clarify a decision, not make it on the student’s behalf. For example, the advisor might help the student compare retaking a prerequisite with changing a major while preserving related interests. This approach serves the institution as well as the student: it can encourage more deliberate use of advising and academic resources, while respecting students as decision-makers. A policy of never raising concerns would be as inadequate as a policy of steering struggling students away automatically.

A serious objection is that open-ended encouragement can waste students’ time and money, especially when evidence suggests that a student is unlikely to meet a program’s requirements. Colleges cannot promise that effort will overcome every obstacle, and they should not conceal clear information to avoid an uncomfortable conversation. But this objection supports honest, individualized advising—not blanket discouragement. A useful warning explains the particular evidence behind it, distinguishes a present performance problem from an assumed lack of ability, and names possible next steps. Students can then decide whether the effort and risk are acceptable to them. The decision may be to persist, pause, or change direction; each can be reasonable when it follows from accurate information and the student’s own priorities.

Colleges should therefore respond to apparent difficulty with both candor and restraint. They should identify specific academic concerns, explain consequences, and offer feasible support or alternatives. They should not infer that a student cannot succeed from early struggle alone, especially when the student has not had a fair chance to obtain needed preparation or assistance. Such a standard protects students from misleading reassurance without allowing institutional predictions to become self-fulfilling barriers. The goal is not to keep every student in every field indefinitely; it is to ensure that students, rather than stereotypes or premature judgments, make informed decisions about where to direct their effort.

How the argument works

The essay makes a qualified claim: colleges should warn and advise, but should not discourage students solely on the basis of apparent difficulty. Its paragraphs develop the claim in sequence: define the distinction between guidance and exclusion; explain effects on student motivation and decision-making; use the Morrill Act to illustrate how access can broaden; qualify that example by recognizing the harms embedded in its history; address institutional responsibilities; answer the counterargument about wasted time and cost; and conclude with a practical standard. The historical evidence supports a limited point about access, not a claim that all students succeed or that past institutions were equitable. The counterargument is taken seriously, then answered by distinguishing specific, evidence-based advice from blanket discouragement.