<p>took the sat in jan, got a 7. still don't know what i did wrong. dear god somebody help me. the topic: Is an idealistic approach less valuable than a practical approach?
*I know it's too short, but what else? Were my examples terrible? </p>
<p>It is easy to criticize idealism as na</p>
<p>You’d be up to a 9 just by adding 100 more words.</p>
<p>ok, thanks. so another body paragraph, then.
anything else? should i be more explicitly obvious and less creative in stating my introduction/thesis?
E.g., “Several examples from both history and literature show that a certain measure of idealism is necessary to achieve greatness.”</p>
<p>You don’t tie your first body paragraph back to your thesis, and so it is unclear how that supports your point of idealism. Also, you don’t directly answer the question, which is “Is an idealistic approach less valuable than a practical approach.” You just talk about how idealism can be valuable. Also, make it longer.</p>
<p>That being said, however, you probably deserved an eight.</p>
<p>I also recommend that if you add a 3rd body paragraph, make it a counterexample. What I mean is instead of making it another example of why idealism is so valuable, make it an example of a time someone took a practical approach and had it go wrong.</p>
<p>I think your conclusion could use a little more detail/explanation. It is only one sentence.</p>
<p>qwerty: ok, i see what you mean about the first paragraph. i guess i should say something like, “FDR’s idealist nature was what made him a successful politician; this shows that an idealistic approach can be even more valuable than a realistic approach.” (badly worded, blah you get the idea)</p>
<p>I think that would answer your second complaint (drawing a blank on a better word… piece of advice?) as well, about not directly answering the prompt. I thought that the gold rush thing kind of answered that because I posited a counter-scenario in which those people were realistic and didn’t move west, but I guess I could have been clearer. oh, and thank you! i really appreciate the advice.</p>
<p>And pyroqueen, I actually thought a short conclusion was desirable… but I could be wrong? anybody else have input?</p>
<p>maybe i’m wrong, but isn’t your essay a little bit off-topic? imho, the assignment asked you to compare between idealistic approaches and practical approaches, not to point out the value of idealism. i mean, the essay does a closely related yet (a little) digressive task, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>yeah, i think that’s what qwerty was saying about not directly answering the prompt. in that case, should i have contrasted what actually happened (idealist approach) with what would have happened if the person had used a more realistic approach? e.g., “If FDR had resigned himself to a life out of the public eye instead of idealistically pursuing his political ambitions, America would have been deprived of one of its most talented and influential leaders.” does that sufficiently answer the prompt?
or would i have needed a counterexample to the opposition, as qwerty said? i can’t think of any, GAHHH… it always takes me FOREVER to come up with good examples!
thanks again everybody</p>