<p>I think I completely botched my SFS essay for Georgetown. For identity reasons, I didn't post it but if anyone wants to read and give me their opinion I would really appreciate that. </p>
<p>The prompt was: "Briefly discuss a current global issue, indicating why you consider it important and what you suggest should be done to deal with it."</p>
<p>Unless you read my essay, you won't really get whats wrong with it but basically it was super formal and didn't mention me or shed ANY light on me as an individual. </p>
<p>If you could let me know whether I'm just being paranoid, I would really appreciate that.</p>
<p>Hey,
I did the same prompt as you and I thought of the same issue while I was writing it.
I actually discussed it with my counselor, if I needed to have it related to me at the end, she said after all it’s a college essay you should always relate it to yourself at the end;however, you did write another 2 essays dedicated on who you are, so this one doesn’t necessarily have to be all tied with you.
So yeah, I wouldn’t say you are completely out of your mind for being paranoid, I just personally don’t think its that big of problem.</p>
<p>OK well since no one is biting, I decided to post the essay on here: </p>
<p>General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev implicitly and inadvertently concluded the Cold War when he introduced the twin forces of glasnost and perestroika in hopes of resuscitating a sclerotic Soviet Union. Although tensions with the United States lingered until 1992 when Presidents George H.W. Bush and Boris Yeltsin formally concluded the Cold War, the writing was on the wall. Communism’s ideological contest with capitalism had ended not with synthesis but a decisive victory for the latter. China, India, and Brazil among other poor nations have begun embracing capitalism with varying degrees of enthusiasm and economic growth while ideologically determined trade barriers have dissolved as the world becomes increasingly interconnected. This narrative, characterized by the expansion of democracy and the economic success stories of Asia in particular, has largely been told through the lens of domestic politics and microeconomics.
Yet the end of the Cold War brought global ramifications too. Russia’s influence around the world shrunk and Western Europe has ingested former Soviet satellite, to give two prominent examples. Most importantly global discourse has traded in the metaphor of the Iron Curtain for that of the rising tide that lifts all boats. Realist theories that predicted an inexorable clash between rising powers and incumbent hegemons were dismissed as Americans fueled China’s economic growth by consuming her cheap imports and China parked these exchange reserves in US Treasury Bonds. In the eyes of many, the process of globalization had achieved what not even nuclear arms could accomplish: the prospect of perpetual peace between the Great Powers.
Yet it is no longer clear whether globalization works. The financial crisis of 2008 has led to a severe recession, yet it more importantly has impelled Western introspection. With the bursting of a services-bubble, wealthy societies are being confronted with the unpalatable and often ignored consequences of globalization. As offshoring intensified from 1990 to 2008, American employment in the tradeable sector of the economy (the sector that produces goods and services that can be consumed anywhere) has grown by only 600,000 jobs – a pitiful expansion for a sector that employed 34 million people in 1990. One in 5 working-age men in America are unemployed and the trend is rising both in the States and in other highly developed countries. Income inequality has also exploded across the world, partly as a corollary of globalization by rewarding the executives and bankers who facilitate the process of offshoring jobs and companies. If these patterns persist, globalization will not be seen as a panacea but the source of current problems. The US and Europe may no longer see their interests coincide with those of the developing world. Already rising tensions have led many politicians in America to campaign on China-bashing while far right parties in Europe, such as France’s National Front or Netherland’s Party for Freedom, exacerbate and exploit xenophobic fears for electoral gain.
More prudent domestic and international policies must be implemented lest relations between the status quo and revisionist Great Powers corrode to the point of perfervid competition and war. In order to ensure relations between the current Great Powers and those rising do not rot, smarter domestic and international policies must be implemented. Countries must not race to the bottom in order to attract and retain capital but rather collectively establish thresholds. Financial transaction taxes and higher capital and income taxes should be signed by all the major developed nations. Foreign aid and direct investment to developing countries should be entwined with regulatory obligations to ensure that offshoring sustainably benefits not just the said corporation but also the country in which the new factory or business is established. Yet ultimately the successful prevention of this imminent international crisis lies in domestic policy. If trade barriers are eradicated in the name of comparative advantage, then rich countries must ensure that they are not just allowing cheaper imports in but that newly liberated resources and capital are not left idle. Globalization and comparative advantage works if the United Kingdom or America produce high-tech and green-tech goods and China produces sneakers, yet it will not work if wealthy governments naively believe that the free market will create entire new industries that can compete with government-sponsored ones in poorer nations. Likewise, developing nations would be wise not allow unfair and monopolistic companies with state-sponsorship to venture overseas for finite resources or sustain unreasonable losses in the industries of the future. Without prudent and collaborative policymaking, it would not be surprising to see the world tragically and accidentally enter another destructive period of global turmoil and conflict. </p>
<p>I was on a gap year so I couldn’t talk to any advisors and it made me think how tough this process if for non-US students who don’t go to school here. I definitely think this was one of my worst essays and I really don’t like how Georgetown doesn’t use the Common App but eh, not point complaining now.</p>
<p>Not to be harsh, but you did not relate the issue at all to yourself, so I can see why you may be kicking yourself a bit for “botching” the essay in itself.</p>
<p>Still, though, there is no point in lamenting what is already lost, so no worries. You also said in another thread (correct me if I am wrong) that you got into Yale…which is an okay school. So there is that, too.</p>
<p>Yes I did get into Yale and several other schools which I would take over Georgetown SFS, but I’m really weird in that I still want to get into Georgetown and Stanford. </p>
<p>I have no idea why, I suppose its because this process has always felt like a personal judgment. </p>
<p>Or perhaps I just want to feel wanted haha. </p>
<p>Would this kill my application?</p>
<p>EDIT: I will update everyone on my news when I find out so other students who apply to SFS next year will realize my mistake. </p>
<p>Its just the prompt asked for a global issue and what is to be done. Oh well, I screwed this one up.</p>
<p>A personal judgment? Admissions doesn’t know you…at all.
And you got into Yale so obviously you’re “wanted” or whatever. Take a chill pill. This is a pointless thread since you clearly just need self gratification that you’re awesome.</p>
<p>^ Sorry that wanted line was a joke, because its the kinda thing a arm-chair psychiatrist would say (I imagine). </p>
<p>And I only started this thread because I read in the Georgetown acceptance thread how one boy talked about his interest in world issues in this essay so that’s all. </p>
<p>So sorry if anyone finds this offensive and I guess I’ll find out in 2 days (international student) how this turns out.</p>