As Takeda already hinted, it is in parts something like a "Themaverfehlung" (=an essay missing the subject). You start to lay out a line of thought that is not too directly related to the questions, and this sideline of thinking you then embark on - in strength. That is a bit like this old joke about a schoolboy who for the exams has learned everything about worms, but then get asked about elephants, and so he starts answering: "The elephant is a big animal with a trunk. This trunk is formed loike a big,m giant worm. There are flatworms, roundworms...etc"
You did not care enough for the question, because you had something on your mind you wanted to focus on - which unfortunately had not too much to do with the question.
This can happen for two cases: first, like in your case, the student has something on his mind he is too fixiated on so that he misses the question, or ignores it to a too wide degree. This is what has happened to you. Second, he does not stick to the original subject because he lets himself carried away in arguments and side-arguments and additions to sidearguments, and he gets lost in a growing flood of details and loses the central thread. This is my special hobby.
Sometimes I must struggle hard not to excel in it.
School or university papers likes this are no ideological battleground. If you are not able to separate your "agenda"
from the real subject of an academical excercise, then you will run into trouble.
Stick to the thread, don't turn it into an opportunity to run a "crusade" - that you can do on GT forum.
I really think that your personal challenge is to think beyond your established personal schemes.
It's not about me agreeing with your answer or not, in principle you make your stand and then defend it - I see that for sure. But that stand of yours happens to be only loosely related to the subject. Too loosely, for my taste. I would expect the prof not to be too happy.
From your economic disucssions in GT I see you are a stubborn defender of your ideas, and it is very difficult to reach you with details or ideas that first need to break through this armour of established answers you surround yourself with. My subjective perception, but that's the way I see you. I think your challenge really is to become able to establish a greater mental openess for different concepts as well, in order to really compare your own answers to these and check the validity of the one - or the other. Like in this essay you quote above, you often seem to somewhat fall back by reflex to that fortress of ideas about how things are, and I cannot help but sometimes have the impression that the defence of this fortress is quite unflexible, static and depending on always falling back onto the same reaction schemes, like a spring. I think that somehow this pattern is what got you trapped again in that essay of yours.
This answer goes a bit beyond a fact-oriented reply, and is even a bit personal. I only do so because of our long PM disucssions some months back, since that gave me a bit more of a personal impression of you. This, and the several very long essays you have produced in GT when it was a topic about economic theory.
In that essay of yours you maybe failed because you lack the flexibility to step away from yourself and your own convictions, by that you drew the answer you gave to that preset position of yours, ignoring that that maybe had little to do with the question being asked. If that would be true, the challenge set up to you is not so much about intellect, knowledge and mind, but maybe a personality feature of yours. And in that case it would be a mistake to change courses or even schools. Start exploring yourself instead.
If there are any docents/profs whom you trust, ask them about their impression about you personally, how they perceive you.
My old - and much liked - prof who had a major share in leading me through university, used to say something like this: "
most problems students have with learning, come from just two issues in most cases: they either have never learned how to efficiently learn, or they are so fixiated on what they already have on mind that this hinders them to think beyond their own brainworld, may it be for understanding a different argument than theirs, may it be focus on something they were not focussed on before". And when I look back to my time at university and the guys I knew there, I must say that he was right.
Don't change school so easily. Don't give up that course and prof too early. Consider to ask him for a personal conversation about yourself, and the problems you feel confronted with. If he is fair in his business, he will allow that. Don't tell him about yourself, but ask him about yourself, his perception. And consider for some moments that
maybe he sees you right even if he violates your self-definitions.
