<p>In one particular essay I made reference to a lot of literary characters without giving background, especially since I used them in figurative senses. In one scene I described a meeting with authority figures, and I wrote how "I had half-expected to see the cold, alert face of Mr. Charrington and or the resolute conviction of Javert." What I didn't write was, "Mr. Charrington of Orwell's 1984" and "Javert of Hugo's Les Miserables" -- because I felt that would simply spoil the rhythm and mood of my sentence, was worried about word count, and at the time I thought it unnecessary. </p>
<p>(I was detailing a contrast between my initial anticipations about being questioned by authoritarian government's ministry of interior for my speech online -- almost expecting a meeting to the likes of the Savage meeting Mustapha Mond -- and my actual meeting with a bunch of officers who seemed less reverent to the State than to their getting home on time.) </p>
<p>Can I be reasonably sure my sentence will be correctly interpreted?</p>
<p>Perhaps as a more general question, if the school you are applying to specialises in fields X and Y, can you use esoteric terms from X and Y without having to give background definitions?</p>
<p>Well I’m not intentionally using esoteric terms, it’s just that it would use up a lot of my word limit (and interrupt the flow) if I gave a lot of explanation. I assume for example, that “sociolinguistic” and “<em>a</em> creole language” is self-explanatory, while terms like “isogloss” and “tandem repeat” are found in introductory textbooks so even if you’re not a specialist in the field you would have likely heard of it.</p>
<p>I am sure when reading essays that AdCom officers come across fields they are not specialised in all the time, so do they refer specific parts to colleagues?</p>
<p>What are you writing about that needs esoteric terms? The sentence you provided as an example seems, while well-written, to include unnecessary refrences that someone who wasn’t extremely literary would understand.</p>
<p>Are they unnecessary references? That was exactly what I was thinking about at the time (I was 14) when I was meeting them – all the authoritarian characters from all the dystopian novels I had ever read. (I had anticipated being pounded into the table.) </p>
<p>The other thing is the “why school X” essay – I outlined a plan of research I wanted to pursue, and outlined a few ideas I had that I thought the school would be particularly adept at helping me pursue. How do I explain what “isogloss analysis” is for example? That would be like explaning what “DNA amplification” is on the spot. </p>
<p>“Esoteric” is overstating what I wanted I think – I simply wanted to include both literary and technical references.</p>
<p>I assume that “Malay” is pretty sufficient; I referred to what are commonly called the Chinese dialects as “the Chinese languages” – since linguistically speaking they are really languages, as much as Catalan is not a dialect of Spanish but its own language.</p>
<p>I think your example is brilliant, but both characters are unnecessary when one will suffice. Inasmuch as 1984 and Les Miserables are books with which most people are (or should be) familiar, you’re safe either way, but don’t overdo it.</p>
<p>The being familiar with 1984 and Les Miserables isn’t the part that worries me, it’s the character references. Have you put yourself in the shoes of the Adcoms? They’re reading essays all day long, and all of a suddon there’s Javert and Mr. Charrington. Even if they’ve read the books, the references might go misunderstood and unapreciated. It could go either way, though… </p>
<p>You can be descriptive without making obscure references. Taking the same sentence, “I had half-expected to see the cold, alert face of Mr. Charrington and or the resolute conviction of Javert” and changing it to what you yourself said in a later post, “I had half-expected to be pounded into the table” has the same effect and is more user-friendly. You’d obviously change the “pounded into the table” part, but you get my drift.</p>
<p>amb3r: To the contrary – there is a certain sort of showing off involved in every essay. (I admit that avoiding coming off as arrogant is an issue.) I did write my essays in haste, so it is partially my fault, but when making references, where does one strike the balance between explanation and elegance?</p>
<p>My literature is part of my person, so in a way I can kill two birds with one stone (I am trying to maximise the word limit) – invoke literature I have read as well as explain that chapter of my life.</p>
<p>Trojan: Ah, does putting in two characters sound inelegant? I thought Javert would be a more obvious reference actually, since he’s a more major character in his respective novel than Charrington is, but Charrington’s personality is more faithful to my I had imagined anticipating. </p>
<p>I agree that it might be rather unimportant, but going over essay prompts of different schools, it seems that some schools (e.g. UChicago) encourage technical or literary references in the essays (cue last year’s “what would your graph be?” question, invoking plenty of technical math and poetically relating it to your character) – and they seemed essential for addressing a question like, “What does a picture want?”</p>
<p>On the other hand, some school’s essays (to my disappointment) were rather bland. “Write an essay that best describes you…”</p>
<p>From the UPenn optional prompt of “You have just written your 300 page autobiography; submit page 217” – I would assume that since you’re starting in the middle of your hypothetical autobiography, you can act like you’re actually in the middle of the text.</p>
<p>(These are all past essays, yes – I am just wondering what how the essays will be interpreted. I suppose it’s the “yes, they’re submitted so now I can’t help thinking about the long wait” syndrome.)</p>
<p>Yes, it sounds most inelegant, but more importantly, it violates something everyone should practice in their own writing: Never use multiple words/comparisons when one will suffice; it just makes you sound as if you like to hear yourself talk and adds nothing of substance.</p>
<p>Adcoms are not interested in how “smart” you sound. You have test scores, gpa, and recommendations to cover that aspect of your application. The essay is a place to show who you are. If you really do regale those around you with obscure references that may well need to be explained to be understood, then go ahead and use 'em in your essay all you want. If, however, you are not the kind of person who inspires the fright-or-flight response when you walk into a circle of your peers … well, you might want to pick an essay topic that more accurately represents YOU. It’s not a research paper! I suggest you make a trip to the library or a book store to read some books on college application essays. </p>
<p>Do YOU enjoy reading essays like the one you wrote? If not, I doubt an adcom would, either.</p>
<p>You don’t need to explain things like isoglass analysis. Including specifics is fine in the “why” essay, but don’t bother with explanations. The fact that you have given a lot of consideration to specifics is great; explaining the specifics in detail is TMI.</p>
<p>Yes, I enjoyed reading it. I tried to make it sound like an actual page from an autobiography, ensured that it started out mid-sentence and ended mid-sentence, etc. </p>
<p>Test scores / gpa sadly aren’t covering that for me – so I have to make up for a lot of things in my essays. </p>
<p>“well, you might want to pick an essay topic that more accurately represents YOU. It’s not a research paper!”</p>
<p>?!!</p>
<p>I am talking about two different types of essays – with references not necessarily obscure but might require reading beforehand to know. </p>
<p>I didn’t toss in literary characters to sound smart. What part of this do people not understand? I tossed those in because that’s what I was <em>genuinely</em> imagining at the time. I like the analogy, because that’s what I was <em>GENUINELY</em> thinking at the time. </p>
<p>You suggest that I show what I am – well fine – at the time (four years ago) I was anticipating what meetingwith officials of a state agency that had ruthlessly suppressed opposition political organisations and had conducted long imprisonments without trial was supposed to be like.</p>
<p>It’s not like, “hey! What obscure reference should I toss in to confuse AdComs?” It’s not like that at all. I was writing freely from my consciousness – only that I didn’t want to be burdened with explaining.</p>
<p>Charles Dickens’ books must trip you up then? </p>
<p>(They trip me up too. But surely you must love the end of Ulysses.)</p>
<p>In any case, I am posting this quickly – I write a sentence, edit it halfway, and then hastily piece it back together. If I am writing frankly I will write interruptions in thought – but if this is intolerable surely Hamlet must be intolerable too. </p>
<p>In speech it would sound pretty okay. I just happen to have a really long noun-phrase (Which is why Singlish’s use of tones inherited from Chinese would be particularly attractive in this case, but I digress.)</p>
<p>“It’s unwise and inconsiderate imo to use esoteric terms when the readers are not specialists in the field.”</p>
<p>I agree. Admissions officers are reading essays to determine your character, not to determine your esoteric knowledge.</p>
<p>" am sure when reading essays that AdCom officers come across fields they are not specialised in all the time, so do they refer specific parts to colleagues?"</p>
<p>I doubt that they bother to. Why should they? An admission essay isn’t an AP or SAT II exam. If an applicant can’t bother to write in a way that would be understandable to an admission officer, the admission officer probably just goes on to the next applicant. For schools that weigh essays in admission, the schools are looking for students of good character who’ll add to their freshman class. A student who can’t be bothered to write in a way that will communicate to admissions officers probably wouldn’t bother to communicate well with other students.</p>
<p>“It’s not like, “hey! What obscure reference should I toss in to confuse AdComs?” It’s not like that at all. I was writing freely from my consciousness – only that I didn’t want to be burdened with explaining.”</p>
<p>Fine. Realize that admissions officers probably don’t want to be burdened with puzzling out what you meant when they can easily put your app in the rejection pile and then go on to read applications from the many applicants who took the time to write essays that are understandable.</p>
<p>“Admissions officers are reading essays to determine your character, not to determine your esoteric knowledge.”</p>
<p>Erm, they’re asking in some essays what attracted you to your current choice of major / discipline.</p>
<p>Again, I think my intentions are being misinterpreted. To a certain extent I admit this is partially my fault for communicating too hastily.</p>
<p>I am <em>not</em> using esoteric terms on purpose. It’s just that’s the only way to describe my particular choice of field, or at times, best suits what I was thinking at the time (for personal essays – comparisons to <em>well-known</em> literary characters).</p>
<p>How would you explain what your goals are in a program that married bioengineering and business economics? To explain isoglosses to adcom officers, I’d have to write, "I note that analysing language variation as isoglosses – imaginary lines analogous to isobars that each mark differentiation in a particular language feature – " To leave mention of them out totally would be unattractive as well, since they are essential to what I wish to pursue as a thesis topic in school.</p>
<p>“I doubt that they bother to. Why should they?”</p>
<p>I would think that if you’re applying to a special program about what particularly attracts you, the adcom officers <em>would</em> refer that essay to colleagues involved in that school?</p>
<p>To what extent would this change as the essay changes in purpose? (dR/dP!)</p>
</p>