<p>I'm applying for transfer to Georgetown for sophmore year, and I'm having trouble figuring out how essays 1 and 2 would be different for me (I'm applying to the College) I love politics wholeheartedly and want to be a campaign manager. I stepped on the campus when I visited in October at 7 o'clock in the morning, having left Vermont at 4 am to catch an early flight, saw the sun rising up over the clock tower, saw students from all over the world walking briskly, saw fliers for political debates and Kerry-Edwards signs STILL up, honestly felt tears rising up, and just knew that Georgetown was IT. I felt like I'd come home. An essay for another school talks about how when I heard Kerry's speech at the DNC in 2004, I started sobbing in the backseat of my family's car, and "a world that was bigger than me began to make sense," and I knew I wanted to spend my life in politics.
Is it OK if my first essay (which says "tell us something about yourself... if transferring from a four year institution, please include your reasons for wishing to transfer") just talks about that night I cried in the car, and how I believe in the goodness of American politics, and then how I stepped on campus and saw all this activism and political passion, and knew that I would like the person Gtown would turn me into, and that I knew it was the right school for me at that moment. I would then have my second essay talk about specific classes, programs and internships I could take that would help me along the way to campaign management. Or should I put the stuff about political groups and internships in the first essay? Any tips/guidance?<br>
Thanks for the help, hope the post makes sense....</p>
<p>that sounds great, but dont just talk about politics in your essays...you're applying to the college, so you should have diverse interests.</p>
<p>I used one essay to describe what I could offer to Georgetown, and the other to describe what Georgetown could offer me.</p>
<p>you cried because you believe in the goodness of American politics after hearing Kerry speak</p>
<p>wowwwwwwwwwwwwwww</p>
<p>all I can say is you're in for a bumpy ride with that attitude</p>
<p>that's really rude and closed minded </p>
<p>did you even hear that speech? do you have the exact same fears, hopes and dreams I do? do we define goodness in the same way? have we had the same life experiences.</p>
<p>have dare you disparage a moment that meant a lot to me because you don't understand it or agree with it....</p>
<p>
[quote]
have dare you disparage a moment that meant a lot to me because you don't understand it or agree with it....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You will to have to deal with it: the preponderance of intellectuals are against politics, and even more are against capitalism. </p>
<p>At any university comprising a primarily intellectual student-body, which includes the preponderance of the Top 25, intellectuals will act superciliously toward you. </p>
<p>Here is a fascinating essay on intellectuals: <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
all I can say is you're in for a bumpy ride with that attitude
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Senior is correct. There is almost zero tolerance in academia for the duplicitous antics of common politicians.</p>
<p>I like intellectuals/academia, and feel like I belong in the midst of it. I'm not sure who would be an elite politician as opposed to a "common politician" if the 04 nominee isn't. I obviously know that politics is not speechwriting. Several sentances in his speech at the DNC struck me very simply, and I really understood that the world was bigger than me, that there were very many people in the world who needed help, and that in unheralded senate chambers, writing legislation to help small business owners or insure uninsured children was goodness and hope for people who needed it.
obviously, there will be people who disagree with me. i want that. i want intellectual dissent and debate. but what I took senior's post to be saying was, "you believe all the crap bob shrum writes for john kerry? you nieve wannabe pol, stay home." if that wasn't the intent, i apologize for misinterpreting. but if it was, no matter how prevalent that attitude is, it is rude.</p>
<p>ps. the cato inst. article was really interesting, esp when you consider that in the soviet union, intellectuals were anti-communist. opposition to something as an occupational necissity... hmmm...</p>
<p>lol, you got me completely wrong</p>
<p>I wasn't talking about "academia v. politics" at all, just politics in general (your comment on basic goodness of politics... hahahaha). I was commenting on campaign managing as a career being less hugs and flowers than you described it as.</p>
<p>And seriously, "disparage" "preponderance" "superliciously"</p>
<p>Who's trashing academia here, lol........... jeez</p>
<p>jesus you guys are using such big words... does everyone at georgetown talk like this?? hahah</p>
<p>haha, thanks senior, i actually just got in a huge fight with my mom about morality because i was saying campaign managing is going to involve a lot of manipulation, and i was saying that why i want to spend my life being manipulative, finding ways to trash opposing candidates records, slaving away for the good of a pol, etc, is because i want to help get a candidate elected whose administration is going to push for LIEHP or health care for all kids, so people who have tangible hardships can have them eased and abated by GOOD GOVERNANCE, which is v. different than government. i think good governance is social programs, funding stem cell research, generally helping people.... so... I guess I just phrased it totally wrong. I don't think there is a basic goodness of politics... I want to be invovled in politics because I think good governance can acheive a desperatly important goodness in the many ways that it can help people who need it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and i was saying that why i want to spend my life being manipulative, finding ways to trash opposing candidates records, slaving away for the good of a pol
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A milquetoast.</p>
<p>
[quote]
jesus you guys are using such big words... does everyone at georgetown talk like this?? hahah
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Surely not. I am just a logophile;)</p>
<p>oh good...</p>
<p>umm, what's a logophile??</p>
<p>Main Entry: logophile
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a word lover or word buff </p>
<p>nice nice! i used to be majorly into vocabulary but once the sat ended i just stopped looking up new words. i like that one though!!</p>
<p>nspeds, for the love of god, why, why, why, do you have to trash both my idealism and my cynacism. the idealism doesn't make me stupid and the cynacism doesn't make me weak or a generally pale and spiritless person (that's what a milquetoast is, ilovedogs, and i think it's an awsome word, but it's pretty harsh to call me that)
I mean, do you think before you post that what someone wants to do with their life is weak and lacks courage?</p>
<p>sorry if that seemed just as harsh as i was asking you not to be</p>
<p>I was being facetious, largely because I wanted to use 'milquetoast,' which is a fascinating word.</p>
<p>
[quote]
nice nice! i used to be majorly into vocabulary but once the sat ended i just stopped looking up new words. i like that one though!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You should resume your study. It is fun to insult people with words they do not know. Since most do not carry dictionaries, there is no harm done to them, but all the joy for the one who delivers.</p>
<p>Of course, that is not the only reason to learn vocabulary.</p>
<p>Wiseacre:D</p>
<p>you were insulting me?? wow, i definitely wouldn't have thought that-- but because you were aiming to insult me, i'm now not too fond of you, not at all... you wisenheimer, you..</p>
<p>
[quote]
you wisenheimer, you..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Impressive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
jesus you guys are using such big words... does everyone at georgetown talk like this?? hahah
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. Not really.</p>