Grade my SAT essay

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>I would appreciate if any of you would comment on my essay. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Prompt: Is the world changing for the better?</p>

<p>Answer:</p>

<pre><code>The world has faced many dreadful and dehumanizing wars that leave us questioning the nature of human beings. Only about seventy years ago, the world was in despair because of the malevolence of Hitler and Mussolini. Since then, however, progress has inevitably been evident. This does not only indicate that the world is actually changing for the better; it also implies that we have learned valuable lessons from history and now utilize these in making the world continuously better.

Indeed, just after the Second World War, several European nations such as Italy, Germany, and France met to discuss how war could be prohibited in the future. This led to the first steps in organizing the European Union, because as the meeting countries foresaw, economic and political contracts between nations will decrease the incentives to wage war. In fact, several organizations that were established during the end of the Second World war and shortly after—the EU and the UN just to mention a few—sought to make countries dependent on one another by creating united militaries and intertwined and international economies. Ultimately, this is for the better, because doing so, any country waging war on another country will face drastic consequences if it has no legitimate reasons. Furthermore, this dependency shows how human beings have realized that progress stems from collaboration and unity, not single-mindedness and prejudice.

The world’s change for the better is also evident in another aspect of society: equality. Actually, several examples since the 1800s show how the world has become more equal when it comes to human rights. Frederick Douglass, for instance, a black slave born in 1818, was not able to educate himself simply because of his skin color. In order to educate himself, Douglass had to secretly educate himself, even though his white owners strictly forbade Douglass to do any reading or writing. Compared with today, people like Douglass and also iconic figures from the Civil Rights Movement such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks have been instrumental in securing an American society, in which everyone is encouraged to educate themselves regardless of skin color and gender. Although equality is not ubiquitous yet, the inauguration of Barack Obama is clear evidence of vast progress and definite sign of a world changing for the better.

It would be a clear overstatement to say that the world of today is perfect and that we should not strive to better it every day that passes. However, the political and economic bonds between countries arising after the Second World War and the progress of equality exemplified by the current president of the USA show that the world has in fact changed for the better and that there are reasons to be optimistic about our future.
</code></pre>

2

<p>I made another essay and thought I might as well upload it here, as I still will value any comments that you wish to give any of the two essays.
Thanks.</p>

<p>Prompt: Is there any value for people to belong only to a group or groups with which they have something in common?</p>

<p>Answer:</p>

<p>In every human lives an innate longing to belong to something. As a child, we seem to have a preference for playing with others instead of playing only with ourselves. Later in life, we seek close friendships and might also join clubs or even political parties. Actually, political parties are also a clear example of how we have a predilection for seeking friendships and joining groups with people whom we have something in common with. We must wary, however, that we also meet and socialize with people with different opinions than our own and even with our adversaries. If we do, and instead only belong to one monolithic group of people, it will have grave consequences because then we would demolish clash of opinions and differences, the main catalysts of societal progress.</p>

<pre><code>In the novel “1984”, author George Orwell portrays a homogenous society ruled by “the Party”. Free speech and differing opinions are not allowed. Instead, any individual thought is pinned as “thoughtcrime”, “the worst off all crimes” according to the novel’s protagonist, Winston Smith. Because of the manipulation that secures that everyone believes in the same things and has the same opinions, the society experiences no real progress. Also, no one is available to gestate any ideas, because as everyone is enforced to feel and believe the same, discussion and rational thought does not take place. Even though groups without differing opinions might not be as harsh or authoritative as the dystopian state depicted in “1984”, Winston’s portrayal of such a society shows clearly how progress does not stem from uniformity and similarity, but instead arises from differences and discussion.

In fact, democratic parliaments all over the world are perfect examples of groups with differing attitudes and outlooks in which the individual is allowed free thought. Take the US Congress as an example: here is a forum, in which people are allowed to express how they feel, and perhaps more importantly, why they feel so. Thus, it is not discussion in itself, but the argumentation and rational thought which it promotes that lead to societal progress. Books, organizations, businesses, schools and universities share a similar function in that they are all entities that promote the individual thought and challenge the public to reflect on these thoughts. Therefore, it is the forums and organizations that encourage individuality that secure progress; not those who oppose individual thought.

Conformity and the fellowship of people with opinions like those of our own seem like comforting traits valuable to pursue. However, as shown by the dreadful dystopian state in Orwell’s “1984” and the analysis of the function of democratic groups, it is evident that individuality should be promoted over conformity in order to ensure the progress of our societies in the 21st century.
</code></pre>

3

<p>I wrote another essay that I thought I would share with you. I hope that anyone of you might have some comments on how I might improve and perhaps would like to grade the essays.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Prompt: Do people need to compare themselves with others in order to appreciate what they have?</p>

<p>We human beings have an innate quality of always evaluating our lives. That, scientists argue, is one of the things that make us different from all other species. This also means, however, that we seem to have an inborn predilection for comparing ourselves to others in order the search of self-appreciation. We must beware though, for doing so can be highly demoralizing and would indeed also be unfair towards ourselves, because the only person fit to be used as the measuring stick of one’s life is oneself.</p>

<p>Last year, I was lucky enough to attend a speech by the Dane Arne Nielsson, a tenfold world champion in canoe rowing and Olympic silver medalist. In his speech, Nielsson pointed out that in the beginning of his rowing career, everyone told him that he would not success, because compared to other rowing talents, Nielsson lacked the height to ever be one of the best. Nielsson, however, refrained from comparing himself to other rowers and instead focused on his own strengths as a rower. He noticed that this approach not only led him to succeed all prophecies made by his critics, but also enabled him to appreciate his own abilities regardless of how they compared to those of others. Certainly, Nielssons outstanding career as a sportsman is evidence of his success, but so are his achievements in his current profession as a coach and motivational speaker. In fact, Nielsson has won the award as the “Best Inspirator” in Denmark in both 2009 and 2011.</p>

<p>Nielssons maxim has come to have great importance in my life through my early experiences as a runner. I started running with a friend, but as made friend continuously made vast progress, my own progress seemed to stagnate compared to his. In the beginning, this annoyed me greatly, and it did not seem that the joy of running would ever return. Gradually, however, I realized that my results were in reality not stagnating, but just increasing at a slower rate than those of my friend. This made me realize that I was actually doing myself injustice by comparing myself to my friend. While he, because of his short height and lean body type, had a natural talent, my height of 6’3 gave me a clear disadvantage. From then on, I forbore from comparing myself to him, and thereby enabled myself to appreciate my progress by reflecting only on my own conditions to make progress. These experiences show that comparing yourself to others may be demoralizing, and also how, if we compare ourselves to others in search of self-appreciation, we let others determine our appreciation of ourselves.</p>

<p>We might have a natural inclination to seek a quick dose of self-appreciation and confidence by comparing ourselves to someone less fortunate. Real appreciation, however, as shown by the experiences of Arne Nielsson and my own running experiences, stems from within. By comparing ourselves to others, we acquiesce in letting others determine our own self-appreciation. Realizing, instead, that all people are different and receive different opportunities, it becomes evident that the act of comparing ourselves to others in the pursuit of self-appreciation not only is not needed; it is dehumanizing.</p>

4

<p>I still hope someone will give a comment or two about the essays I posted. If not, I hope that those of you who do read them can use them for inspiration, so I thought I might as well keep posting some of my practice essays. Here is another one.</p>

<p>Prompt: Are widely held views often wrong, or are such views more likely to be correct?</p>

<pre><code>Human beings seem to have an innate way of creating a general consensus in society. This consensus shows itself in shared opinions that eventually become the prevalent opinions in society. More than anything, these widely held views are consequences of our need for unity and a feeling of stability, and general views are many times needed to create such an atmosphere in society. It often shows, however, that widely held views might develop into seeming as natural laws of society, and therefore, we leave them unquestioned. By failing to question widely held views, we thus fail to cast away wrong views, and this inevitably leads to widely held views often being wrong.

In the theatrical play “A Doll’s House” from 1789 by Norwegian play writer Henrik Ibsen it is shown how the unjust, but widely held opinion about the woman’s role at the time was not questioned, and thus acquiesced to. The protagonist, a housewife named Nora, who is married to a bank manager, presents Ibsen’s way of showing the unfair treatment of women at the time. Ibsen shows how Nora is dependent on her husband’s income and has no real opportunities to get a job herself. Furthermore, the women in the story are independent and do have jobs are paid low wages and possess some of the lowest places in the society’s caste system. No one except Nora seems to have sincere grudges about the prevalent disparity, because after all, the characters perceive the current state as the natural state of society, because that was what the characters had been taught by previous generations. Ibsen thus shows how, because widely held views are liable to be seen as natural laws instead of opinions that are open for inquisition and discussion, many widely held views are accepted even if they are wrong.

The life of Frederick Douglas, lasting from 1818 to 1895, and the society in which he lived shows another widely held view that is today believed to be wrong. Douglass lived a great part of his life as a slave, and after escaping slavery, Douglass wrote several books about his experiences. In his autobiography, “The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass”, he describes how he was being treated almost as if he were an animal. Douglass tells how the white slave owners thought of this as natural and therefore the only possible way of treating African Americans. Slavery was in fact widely accepted in the Southern states at the time, because many did not regard the African Americans as being able to live civilized lives. Douglass, a great writer and educator, falsifies this belief entirely, but at the time, people had accepted it and forbade from questioning it, because they thought of it simply as perfectly natural.

Human beings are inclined to share opinions and develop general views about society, and we should not refrain from doing so. However, as shown by the play “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen and the life of Frederick Douglass in a society accepting slavery, widely held views are often viewed as natural laws of society and are therefore left unquestioned. By doing so, we seize to be critical towards such views, and thus, widely held views often remain in existence even though they are actually wrong. By remembering to always be rational and not take anything for granted, however, we will retain our strength to belie false views.
</code></pre>

5

<p>I made another essay and thought that I might as well also share this. We can probably all benefit from seeing how other people do things, and you might find some approaches in my essays that might seem interesting to you as well.</p>

<p>Prompt: Is it more valuable for people to fit in than to be unique and different?</p>

<pre><code>Accepting the fact that we are all unique beings with an individual mindset can be hard. Many actually wish that they were more like “normal” people in order to be able to fit in more easily with the rest of society. However, because we are all different, the “normal” person does not exist, and the sooner we realize this, the sooner we will be able to thrive by being unique and different, because it is not though common ideas and traits, but though differences and uniqueness that discussion and societal change are created.

The racial discrimination would have been as diminutive as it is today had it not been for uniqueness. Rosa Parks, an African American, we one of the proponents of this uniqueness, when she in 1955, on December 1st, helped spur the Civil Rights Movement simply by claiming her human rights. Doing so at the time, however, was not something all African Americans dared to do, but the intrepid disposition of Rosa Parks gave her this ability. In fact, all she did was to stand fast on her right to keep her bus seat in a time when it was expected for African Americans to give their seats to white passengers. Realizing the absurdity of this, parks chose to be different from the norm, and that paid off: Park’ actions became the reason for the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott in her town, which eventually lead to more equal laws regarding public transportation, and her actions were some of the first signs to black people all over the US that they did indeed have the power to overcome the injustice of racial discrimination.

The value of being unique also shows itself in the field of education and science. Marie Curie, born in 1867 and the first woman to win the Nobel Prize, is a perfect example of this. At Curie’s time, the late 1800s, receiving an education as a woman was hard, because many universities were men-only. Like Parks, Curie did not wish to simply fit in and accept the lack of encouragement for women to educate themselves. Instead, Curie participated in underground classes, and eventually enrolled at the Sorbonne in Paris. Disparity still followed her, however, and it was not until her husband’s death in 1906, three years after Curie received her first Nobel Prize, that Curie became a professor at Sorbonne. Besides her profound academic results, among others coining the term radioactivity and discovering polonium, Curie became an inspiration to all females with hopes of higher education and scientific careers and she has become a symbolic figure that proves that woman can be just as capable scientists as men. Had Curie simply fit in and accepted the rigidity of her time, all her great achievements would not have been accomplished. This underscores that realizing our own uniqueness and sticking by it is what creates prosperity and societal and scientific progress.

It is inevitable that we human beings come to share common opinion, traits and goals. We must, however, acknowledge the differences among us and the uniqueness of every single person that ultimately creates progress. Differences and the courage to stand out is what spurs new perspectives and discussions, and, as underscored by the characters of Rosa Parks and Marie Curie, drives our society forward.
</code></pre>

6

<p>I made another essay, and still hope that some has some comments to share, or at least will benefit from reading them.</p>

<p>Prompt: Are people more likely to be productive and successful when they ignore the opinions of others?</p>

<p>Throwing away our own opinions to instead adopt opinions of others is a hard thing to do, because after all, the act of gestating an idea or opinion makes us feel creative and unique. However, we must be honest to ourselves and realize that the opinions of other people may often help us achieve success and give us new perspective. Inevitably, not all ideas and opinions are worth adopting, but we must strive to be open to listening to any opinions, because as human beings, our sense of mental discrimination will help edify the opinions and let us know whether it will be useable or not.</p>

<pre><code>In the novel “Fahrenheit 451”, the author Ray Bradbury shows how listening to the ideas and opinions of others is a path to knowledge and understanding. The protagonist, Guy Montag, is a fireman, but not in the traditional sense. Instead of putting out fires, Montag starts fires in houses that contain books. As implied, the story depicts a society where books are forbidden and therefore knowledge in itself seems to have stopped evolving as well. Montag is, however, able to free himself from the manipulation by acknowledging and reflecting about the ideas of a professor named Faber, who still thinks highly of books, and a woman, who preferred to be burnt with her books instead of having to live without them. Not only does Bradbury emphasize the role of knowledge and understanding, but also shows through Montag how knowledge and insight comes from acknowledging the opinions of others and continuously reflecting about them.

There are also examples of people who chose to act the opposite of Montag by refusing to acknowledge the opinions of others and instead rely solely on their own opinions. Steve Jobs had an outstanding career, but actually, at one point in his career, Jobs experienced failure because he, unlike Montag, refused to listen to the ideas and opinions of people around him. There are especially two landmark incidents of this in his career. The first is from his first period with Apple. Jobs was losing control of the company, and was given his own project developing the computer “Lisa”. Jobs’s idealistic spirit pushed him to create a computer that was too expensive and impractical, the consequence being that “Lisa” became a failure. Many had advised Jobs to stay within budget and make an affordable computer, because Jobs forbade to listen to others, “Lisa” was destined to fail. The second incident is from Jobs’s time with NeXT, a computer company Jobs created after leaving Apple the first time. As with Lisa, Jobs had an idealistic view that inevitably ended with a product that was too expensive and did not bring success to neither NeXT nor himself. These incidents from Steve Jobs’s life show that even the greatest persons will experience failure if they fail to listen to the opinions of those around them.

People have different experiences and abilities. Realizing that we can all learn from each other is important, and as shown by the character Guy Montag in “Fahrenheit 451”, listening to the opinions of others will bring insight and personal success. Also, as shown by some of Steve Jobs’s few failures, prohibiting from listening to others might bring failure to even the brightest of people. Therefore, acknowledging the opinions of others will inevitably make us more likely to be successful and productive.
</code></pre>

7

<p>Made another essay. Hope that you reading do get something from it, and I would still very much appreciate any comment you would like to share with me. </p>

<p>Prompt: Should we pay more attention to people who are older and more experienced than we are?</p>

<pre><code>As human beings, we are naturally directing our attention to persons with traits that we value. This shows in how we pick our friends as children, and it even follows us in adulthood, where we often seek to pay more attention to people whose qualities we cherish. Most of all, we do so in order to qualify ourselves. In our society, experience is a well renowned trait and for good reason: experience inevitably can be a foundation for self-understanding and insight. Society is, however, so full of characters with a plenitude of just as important virtues such as talent, ingenuity and creativity that we cannot let ourselves neglect such qualities by paying more attention to more experienced people simply because they are more experienced.

In the middle of the 17th century, there was a heated dispute between two anatomists, the inexperienced Dane, Thomas Bartholin, and one of the leading anatomists in Europe at the time, Jean Riolan. The dispute was about whether the liver creates blood or not, something that Bartholin refused, but Riolan, who supported the 1500-year-old teaching of the Greek Galen, advocated. Having just recently become a professor, Bartholin had, as mentioned, spare experience, but through secret autopsies, Bartholin was able to show that the liver does in fact not generate blood. Bartholin thereby exemplifies how other virtues than experience, which Riolan was a sure proponent of, such as Bartholin’s courage to go against established beliefs and a leading anatomist, are just as important as experience. To neglect this and channel one’s attention towards people simply because of their experience would thus be completely irrational.

Another example of the importance of other virtues than experience is evident in the story of the world famous toy manufacturer LEGO. The founder of the company, Ole Kirk Christiansen, might have had the experience to lead a profitable toy manufacturer, but without the help of his son Godtfred’s ingenuity and creativity, LEGO would probably not have been around today. In fact, it was Godtfred that came up with the idea of a “system of play”, where toy bricks can be put together and disassembled as many times one could wish for, and where the child can build practically anything with the right amount of bricks. This underscores how experience in itself is not a sensible measure to decide where to direct our attention, and instead, taking one a more holistic view by valuing other virtues as well would be more rational.

We should never underestimate the value of experience, but to guide our attention to people simply because they have more experience than we would be to neglect other virtues that are at least equally important. As shown by the examples of Thomas Bartholin and the story of LEGO, experience may even be less important than other traits, and thus, the channeling of our attention towards others should instead be determined from a more holistic viewpoint.
</code></pre>

8

<p>I’ve read a few of the essays you posted, and I think they are top-notch. Your examples are excellent and offer great reasoning behind your theses. </p>

<p>If you can write those essays within the time limit, you will for sure get around 11-12.</p>

9

<p>Thanks for your comment, feedback411. Even though I do feel confident about a high score on the essay, it is always nice to be confirmed by others’ opinions.</p>

<p>I made another essay, I thought I’d also share (disappointingly, I used an extra five minutes on this one):</p>

<p>Prompt: Should society limit people’s exposure to some kinds of information or forms of expression?</p>

<pre><code>As human beings in a global society, communication is a much valued quality; it is through communication that we receive all the information that become so integral to our modern way of living. Whether we receive our information from co-workers, relatives or the media, we all have a way of acquiring information, and trying to impede this stream of information would be wrong. Firstly, several examples show that there is but a short way from limitation to manipulation and alternation, and secondly, we have to realize that by trying to limit information, we also limit the principle of free speech that society’s progress depends on.

In the novel “1984”, author George Orwell depicts a dystopian society in which information is highly limited by the ruling Party. It has even gone so far that the main protagonist, Winston Smith, actually alternates history for a living. Winston works in the Ministry of Truth, which, quite the opposite of its name, does not tell, but alters truth. A few people at the very top of the hierarchical society decide what information is to be shared. This has led to a society in which no one is able to say what they feel and the devaluation of free thought. Thus, Winston’s society makes no progress at all, and is constantly manipulated by the Party. The societal construction and limitation of information and expression in “1984” thereby show how limitation of free speech quickly turns into manipulation and thwarts societal progress. Furthermore, it underscores how important it is for individuals to engage in rational discussion, which can only be secured by the invariable right to express how we feel and to be free from all censorship.

History also contains a plenitude of examples of how the limitation of information and expression ultimately turns into manipulation and even the general acceptance of fallacies that seem absurd today. One incident is the famous astronomer Galileo Galilei’s dispute with the Catholic Church in the beginning of the 160s. Galilei supported Copernican astronomy and advocated his belief in heliocentricism, the theory that the sun is the center of the universe and that the earth rotates the sun. Even though the sun is not the center of the universe, Galilei’s views had scientific grounds, and were much closer to reality than the Church’s belief that the earth is flat and unmoving. By sentencing Galilei to spend the rest of his life in house arrest in 1633, the Church tried to limit information and free thought. In fact, besides leading to the procrastination of the exploration of the universe, the Church’s decision can be viewed as an act of manipulation by how the church tried to decide what is right and what is wrong. However, it is not the spare argumentation by a single person or group, but the accumulated discussions, debates, and rational thoughts of an entire population that yield the best arguments for or against certain issues, and therefore, free speech is and will remain invaluable to society.

Society should not always be in perfect accordance, because this would lead no room for discussion of our ideas and opinions. Instead, we must accept adversary as fundamental in positive change, and therefore, free speech much always be advocated. As shown by the dystopian society in “1984” and the limitation of Galilei’s free expression by the Church, impeding free speech leads to the exclusion of rational thought and the prevalence of manipulation. In a time where we have enough problems as it is, rational thought should be one of our last virtues to cast away.
</code></pre>

10

<p>I made yet another essay, and as I believe we can all benefit from reading each others’ essays, I will probably just keep sharing these. </p>

<p>Of all the ones I’ve shared, I believe this is probably the one I feel less confident about, so I would really like for any of you to comment on it. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Prompt: Can a group of people function effectively without someone being in charge?</p>

<pre><code> Throughout history, we human beings have always had an inclination for gathering in groups or communities. Evidently, we have a need for the presence of others. In many aspects of society, we have begun to discuss how we may best organize groups; this is seen with many companies that experiment with their leader structure and it is true for political structure as well. Indeed, some even go so far as to say that in today’s world, groups do not have a need for leadership. The function of a leader is, however, so important that such claims are merely chimerical, and in fact, groups are naturally dependent on their leaders.

Steve Jobs has been used in manifold ways as an example of different aspects of life, and he is also a great example of how important the functions of good leadership are. In fact, after Jobs was rehired at Apple in 1997, this time as CEO, it was mainly because of his leadership qualities that Apple was able to rise from the gutters; something that could never have happened without strong leadership. Many of Jobs’s qualities and functions as a leader at Apple point to this. Firstly, as a leader, Jobs had the function coordinate everything and also to take ultimate responsibility for the end products. Thus, Jobs’s main aspect of his job was making sure that his ideas were put to life, an achievement that could only be met by a leader with a discriminative mind and the ability to make everyone strive for the common good of the company. This made Jobs’s function as a leader irreplaceable; a function that could never be achieved in a group without leadership. In fact, many former employees speak of Jobs as the most demanding person they ever worked with, but at the same time characterize their time with Jobs as the most exciting part of their career.

In the novel “The Lord of the Flies”, author William Golding shows how groups without strong leadership, like that of Steve Jobs’s for instance, will inevitably see its members seek individual goals, thereby destroying the coordination needed by any effective group. Golding shows this through a group of English boys, who strand on an island. Without the presence of adults, the group picks a boy named Ralph as their leader, but not many days later, the group splits in two, the other part lead by the more uncivilized boy Jack. Tragically, the boys grow more and more savage and uncivilized, and two boys, Piggy and Simon, are killed by the other boys. It is hereby shown how the boys inevitably seek their own individual goals as a consequence of the lack of adult leadership, thus also underscoring how groups need proper leadership if they do not wish to succumb to selfishness and narrow-mindedness. Had the boys instead had a leader with the quality of Steve Jobs, their goals, desires and motives could have been united, this being the prime function of strong leadership.

The idea that a leader is not needed for a group to be effective might be attractive, but it is an unrealistic one. This is gravely emphasized by the tragic outcome of “The Lord of the Flies”. Instead, we must realize that leadership has functions of such integral importance to groups that leaders are essential to any group—just like Steve Jobs was integral to the success of Apple.
</code></pre>

11

<p>Here is another one. I would still appreciate any thoughts.</p>

<p>Prompt: Is it important to question the ideas and decisions of people in positions of authority?</p>

<pre><code>Practically every person in the world is part of a society with some kind of authority; employees have managers or leaders, students have teachers and a principal, and the citizens of society have the government as their main authority. Therefore, authority inevitably has an important impact on our lives, whereby, being part of a society, we have a responsibility to continuously question the authorities in our lives. Just like ourselves, authorities are ultimately human beings and are therefore just as liable of making mistakes as ourselves. Indeed, because authorities have great powers, we actually have to be even more critical of authorities than of any other part of our society.

“The Great Leap Forward”, a grand scheme by the former ruler of China Mao Zedong, offers an example of how not questioning the authorities of society might have devastating consequences. Although Mao might have had good intentions, the scheme to relocate the Chinese population to the countryside and make them produce steel from rudimentary items brought great suffering and casualties; a shortage of food and the insensible focus on producing steel was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. The gravity of this tragedy emphasizes the imperfectness of authorities and the people’s responsibility to question authorities. Had anyone been able to question Mao’s plans and thwart them, the disastrous outcome could perhaps have been avoided.

In the novel “1984” by George Orwell, Orwell gives another example of why authority should be questioned. “1984” depicts a dystopian society called Oceania in which the authority is the government ruled by what is known as the Party, which ruthlessly manipulates its population and abolishes all free thought. In fact, the act of thinking freely and unaffectedly by the teachings of the Party is characterized as “thoughtcrime”, the worst of all crimes according to Winston Smith, the protagonist of the novel. Winston actually has a job rewriting published articles in order to alter history, this underscoring the extent of the absurdity of this dystopian society. No one except Winston and his girlfriend Julia seems to have any will or power to question the actions of the Party, and it seems like the actions of the Party have been accepted unconditionally since the beginning of its rule. Orwell thus shows how we must always question authority because even though it is supposed to protect its citizens and members from manipulation and corruption, the authority may itself be a perpetrator of such crimes. Orwell used the novel in warning people about the oppression and manipulation in the Soviet Union, but this message is not restricted to merely one incident; instead, the novel delivers the universal message that authorities are imperfect and like human beings, authorities are also capable of succumbing to the innate evil that lies in everyone.

Like any other part of society, authorities are also prone to natural human evils and are by no means perfect. The consequences of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” emphasizes this, while “1984” by George Orwell shows us how authorities are just as liable to deliberately do wrong or try to manipulate those they are actually supposed to protect. Therefore, as a part of a society that needs authority to work, it is our responsibility as citizens to constantly question the authority to keep it on its right track.
</code></pre>

12

<p>I made another essay that I thought you might want to take a look at.</p>

<p>Prompt: Is compromise always the best way to resolve a conflict?</p>

<p>As children we learn to compromise by not always getting what we want. In fact, compromises are integral to the survival of democracy and community. There are times, however, when compromise leaves only vague optimism for the future, and in those situations, we have to stand up for what we believe and neglect our counterparts’ plea for compromise.</p>

<p>In the novel Fahrenheit 451, author Ray Bradbury shows that we should never compromise on the opinions that we can argue and believe in. The main protagonist, Guy Montag, is a fireman, but not a fireman of the traditional sense: instead of putting out fires, Montag sets fire to houses that contain books. Evidently, in the dystopian society depicted by Bradbury, there is a fear of knowledge. Montag is, however, able to see through the manipulation of his superiors and thus enables himself to acknowledge the value of knowledge and books. Montag begins to secretly fight the regime with the help of an English professor, Faber, and even though Montag is appointed to the authorities by his own wife, he refuses to yield to the manipulation of the regime. In the end, this enables Montag to stay true to his values, and after escaping from the city, he joins like-minded people referred to as “The Book People”. Had Montag simply given up on his own discriminative mind and rational thought by compromising his own beliefs in the conflict with the regime, he would have been giving up the very principles of a thriving society: courage, rationality, and the will to try to change what seems unchangeable.</p>

<p>Like Montag, the country of Algeria exemplifies why compromise is not always the best answer. Algeria was long a colony of France, and the French leaders intended it to stay that way. However, in the 50s and 60s, the decolonization of many Third World countries served as an example of independence. When the French imposed new discriminating laws on the Algerian people in the late 50s–one law forbidding Algerians to preach in public–the Algerian people finally had enough of the authoritative regime, and from then on forward, compromise would only mean the future prevalence of French superiority in Algeria. By not accepting several proposes by France to give more rights to the Algerian people in return for their loyalty, the Algerians showed their reluctance against being ruled by another people, and on the 5th of July, 1962, Charles de Gaulle, then President of the French Republic, announced the independence of Algeria. The Algerians’ decline of compromise and their eventual success shows how compromise is not always the wisest solution; especially not if what we are offered undermines the equality between people and nations.</p>

<p>Ostensibly, compromise might be a quick fix to an ominous threat. The uncompromising character Guy Montag from the novel Fahrenheit 451 and the Algerian struggle for independence nonetheless show that by compromising, we might cast away the very principles that we hold dearest, and furthermore, that an uncompromising behavior might be needed if we wish for freedom to be prevalent. In the future, we must remain to be open to compromises, but their will without a doubt be situations in which it would be insensible to acquiesce to outrageous offers of compromise.</p>

13

<p>I made another essay, but I think this is probably my weakest yet. I would therefore greatly appreciate any comments.</p>

<p>Prompt: Is education primarily the result of influences other than school?</p>

<pre><code>Modern society demands that we continually educate ourselves. School is perhaps the best known institution of education, and with good reason: school has innate qualities in educating the minds of the youth and in helping them on their way to knowledge and understanding. School is not the primary educational influence, however. Instead, the life experiences that we accumulate and the people in our social environment are vastly more important in our strives for personal education.

Booker T. Washington, born in 1856 as a slave, exemplifies how education is primarily the result of life experiences rather than the influence of school. In fact, many of Booker’s virtues that he would later emphasize as principal at the Tuskegee Institute came not from his time at school, but from the experiences of his youth. For instance, Booker’s appreciation of cleanliness—something we take for granted today, but was not guaranteed in Booker’s time—came from his tiresome job as a house servant for a rich white woman named Mrs. Ruffiner. Also, Booker came to acknowledge the important life moral that you should not try to pretend to be someone you are not through the actions of his mother, who, after everyone else at Booker’s school had bought new caps, decided to make one for Booker herself as the family simply could not afford a cap for Booker. These are some of the personal experiences that Booker—rather than emphasizing the teachings at school—underscores as important for how he came to see and experience the world around him.

Like Booker, the fictional character Scout Finch in the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee also demonstrates that education mainly stems from influences other than school. This is evident in Scout’s close relationship to her father, lawyer Atticus Finch, whose actions show to be more important to Scout’s view of the world than anything else. Finch is a righteous and tolerant man, and he sees it as his responsibility to pass those values on to his children. Scout notices every action of her father, and it becomes clear through the story that the disposition of the father seems to affect Scout’s own opinions. Scout tries to see the world though her father’s eyes, and through the just and dignified actions of Atticus—especially his defense of the black man Tom Robinson in a highly suspicious accusation of rape—Scout learns the deeds of tolerance and righteousness. This underpins the statement that education is primarily a result of personal experiences such as those of Scout’s, and also shows how we are largely morally educated by our own parents rather than by our school.

We should always value school as an important institution that has great importance in passing on the heritage of earlier generations. Education is, however, as shown by the life of Booker T. Washington and the character Scout Finch in “To Kill a Mockingbird”, not primarily the result of school, but rather the result of our own life experiences. This brings optimism by implying that we are actually able to channel our own education.
</code></pre>

14

<p>Great Essay Chhallas ! I read the first one and it was profound , grammatically miscellaneous , and loaded with college-level vocabulary . honestly , It deserves perfect 12 .</p>

15

<p>Thanks, NewMKh. I do hope I’ll be able to perform as well as I think I have in some of these essays on Saturday. My only fear is that the prompt will leave me clueless for examples, because to me, thinking of good examples quickly is really the essence of writing a good SAT essay.</p>

16

<p>Holy … You pop out 11/12 essays like nothing. All these essays are great and i actually enjoyed reading them. Grammar,diction,thesis,structure all these make into the high score range… Good job!!</p>

17

<p>It’s been a long time since I posted one of my essays, but leading up to the test this weekend, I thought I would share a couple more essays with you. Here is the first one. What are your thoughts?</p>

<p>Is criticism—judging or finding fault with the ideas and actions of others—essential for personal well-being and social progress?</p>

<p>Throughout the history of the human race, it is evident that we have always sought prosperity and progress. In these times, progress is highly cherished by practically everyone. However, progress and well-being cannot be achieved without the principle of criticism, because without criticism, we would not have any ground for valuing ideas and opinions that may or may not be favorable. This notion is clearly evinced through the realms of history and literature.</p>

<p>The statement that progress and well-being can only prevail in communion with criticism becomes evident in the Civil Rights Movement that started in 1955. Back then, segregation was the norm in many American states. This did not please Rosa Parks, an African American living in Montgomery, Alabama at the time. While on her way home on the bus, she was told to give up her seat for a white person, but she reluctantly refused. Parks was jailed, but her actions helped spur the Civil Rights Movement that created progress in the American society by advancing equality for African Americans. Thus, Parks’s tacit but recalcitrant criticism was instrumental in securing societal progress and the well-being of thousands of African Americans.</p>

<p>The novel 1984 by George Orwell further emphasizes that a society devoid of criticism is a society devoid of progress and well-being. The novel portrays a dystopian society in which almost everyone has rudimentary jobs and dull lives. The Party, the authority that rules the people through the image of the supposed leader, Big Brother, cracks down on anyone who dares to criticize the form of society or the Party itself. However, this has inevitably led to a society in which no one has any real personal freedom and therefore everyone—except the fortunate few that lead the Party—leads miserable lives. Furthermore, the progress of the society has stagnated, and there is no technological or spiritual development. As Orwell tries to illuminate, this is a direct product of the fact that when people are bereft of their ability to criticize, they will enter a state of silent despair that naturally resonates their inability to try to create progress for themselves. Simply, Orwell illustrates that when our right to criticize is taken away from us, so is the possibility of societal progress and personal well-being.</p>

<p>Through the Civil Rights Movement that was galvanized by Rosa Parks and the novel 1984 by George Orwell, the conception that societal progress and personal well-being can only be present in a partnership with criticism is clearly demonstrated. This idea should spur optimism, however, because it leaves us with the belief that we, through making our opinions known, can actually make a change in our lives. As Gandhi said, “be the change you wish to see in the world.”</p>

18

<p>Here’s another one:</p>

<p>Should people make more of an effort to keep some things private?</p>

<p>In today’s world, we expect each other to share almost anything with one another. This can be traced in the countless paparazzis that travel throughout the world, scouting for gossip about celebrities. However, as human beings that have to show empathy and understanding, we should actually make greater efforts to keep some things private. This notion is clearly evinced by examples taken from the field of neurology and the realm of literature.</p>

<p>The nonfiction book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains from 2011 by author Nicholas Carr provides solid argumentation to why some things need to be kept private. The book is about neuroplasticity, the neurological phenomenon that our brains adapt to how and under which circumstances we perceive information. Carr argues that because of the constant inundation of news, information, gossip, etc., our brains slowly adapt into being less capable of concentrating on single issues. Thus, in order to prevent this trend, we have to be more aware of not adding to the overflow of information by filtering the information that we share. Certainly, the fact that you have just baked cookies is completely irrelevant to almost anyone but you, but if you are getting married and wish to share this happiness, certainly, a lot of people would see this as uplifting.</p>

<p>The novel 1984 by George Orwell further emphasizes the importance of privacy. In the novel, Orwell depicts a dystopian society in which everyone is bereft of their privacy by the constant surveillance of the Party, the authority that ruthlessly rules the society. This lack of privacy creates distraught in all citizens and especially Winston Smith, the novel’s protagonist, who has a love affair with a fellow Party member named Julia even though that is forbidden. Eventually, this leads to the capture of both Winston and Julia, and through torture, the very motivation to live is sucked out of them. Even though this is an exaggerated depiction of a form of society, the novel effectively demonstrates that privacy is to be cherished, and thus, we should commit ourselves to keeping parts of our lives private.</p>

<p>Through the concept of neuroplasticity and the novel 1984 by George Orwell, the conception that we must keep some things private becomes apparent. Privacy is an important quality of personal well-being, something we should not impair by encouraging an unrestrained inundation of needles information. As Marlon Brando said, “Privacy is not merely something that I’m entitled to, it’s an absolute prerequisite.”</p>

19

<p>Here is another one, I hope some of you would like to comment one.</p>

<p>Does the success of groups and communities depend on its members’ willingness to limit personal interests?</p>

<p>The world is built on the communities that we have created and continue to create throughout our lives. Inevitably, we come to face situations where our own interests collide with that of the community. If the community or group that we are a part of is to be successful, it is important, however, that we try to limit those personal interests in order to reach a consensus that is favorable to the whole of the group. This notion is clearly evinced in examples from history and literature.</p>

<p>The statement that the success of a group depends on its individuals to limit their personal interests becomes evident through the dispute between the Catholic Church and the astronomer, Galileo Galilei, in the 1630s. Galileo had recently published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World in which he vigorously defended the heliocentric world view proposed by Copernicus. This did not converge with the doctrines of the Church, and in 1633, the Roman Inquisition, the court of the Church, decided to sentence Galileo to house arrest for the rest of his life on the grounds of heresy. Even though the fallacies put forward by the Church in its pursuit of “personal” interests—regarding the Church in this instance as an individual part of a greater society—the verdict impaired Galileo’s ability to create progress through scientific examination, thus being hurtful to society and alienating the objectivity that we hold cherished in public debates.</p>

<p>The novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding further emphasizes that in order for a community to be successful, its members must cease to be recalcitrant about giving up their personal interests. In the novel, a group of boys are deserted on an island without any adults after their plane crashed. In the beginning, a boy named Ralph tries to keep the group together and remain civilized, but it does not take long before the personal interests of another boy, Jack, splits the group apart. Jack wishes to be the leader instead of Ralph, who was initially elected leader, and thus, a fierce conflict arises and the group splits in two. Ultimately, before the boys are saved, this conflict leads to the death of several of the boys. This shows that communion is only possible when we are able to limit our personal interests.</p>

<p>Through the examples of the 17th-century dispute between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church and the novel by William Golding, Lord of the Flies, the conception that a group can only withstand if personal interests are limited to some extent becomes evident. Of course, personal interests should not be demolished completely, but they should inevitably be moderated. As the famous football coach, Vince Lombardi, said, “Individual commitment to a group effort—that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.”</p>

20

<p>Here is another one. I would still be very grateful for any critical insight.</p>

<p>Is it always best to determine one’s own views of right and wrong, or can we benefit from following the crowd?</p>

<p>Often, we find ourselves adapting to the opinions of others without truly scrutinizing what it is that we are really adapting to. For instance, this is largely the case of growing up, a phase in which we adopt many of the ideas of our parents and those around us. However, it is not from following the crowd that we can create personal and societal progress. Instead, progress is attained through discriminating the ideas and opinions of others. This notion is clearly evinced by examples in literature and history.</p>

<p>The statement that personal progress is attained through constantly challenging the ideas of others becomes evident in the Civil Rights Movement that started in the 1950s. Back then, the African American woman, Rosa Parks, was told to give up her seat on the bus to a white person, but she reluctantly refused to acquiesce to this absurd act of segregation. By doing so, Parks helped spur the Civil Rights Movement that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Thus, Parks created both personal and societal progress by challenging the opinions in her society that she found straight out wrong, showing that we need to scrutinize the ideas of others in order to prevent accepting immoral and dehumanizing beliefs.</p>

<p>The classic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee further emphasizes that we should strive to question the opinions of others in order to educate ourselves and practice opinions that we can actually argue. In the novel, the lawyer Atticus Finch defends a black man that is falsely accused of rape in a town where racism is a generally accepted belief. However, Atticus’s daughter, Scout Finch, prohibits from simply accepting racism as an inevitable part of society, and instead, she tries to examine the attitude of the townspeople. By showing empathy for the man accused of rape and learning from the aggression of the townspeople, she comes to understand the hatred that surrounds racism, and thus, she debunks the idea of racism. Alongside her father, she tries to fight the dominance of the prejudicial townspeople, and ultimately, this ends up educating her spiritually, elevating her to a greater understanding of her society. Thus, Scout’s ability to see through the false prejudices of the townspeople and her willingness to criticize ideas that do not make sense to her gives Scout a broader perspective on the world. Certainly, this shows that in order to improve ourselves as human beings, we need to be able to mentally discriminate the ideas of the crowd.</p>

<p>Through the actions of Rosa Parks and the novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, the conception that we have to question the ideas of the crowd in order to debunk false beliefs and educate ourselves becomes evident. In a world that unquestionably still holds many evils, this ability is what makes us stay clear from those evils. As JFK once said, “Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.”</p>