<p>For practice I looked at an old SAT Essay Prompt. This is from June 06 I believe.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if i'm answering the question presented.</p>
<p>Prompt: </p>
<p>Let me break this up into individual posts</p>
<p>Prompt:
Are established rules too limited to guide people in real-life situations? Plan and write an essay in which you develop your point of view on this issue. Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations</p>
<p>Essay:
Naturally, in our society, we are obsessed with established guidelines, rules, regulations and traditions. These guidelines conceive us with a certain aura of order and stability that can ward off chaos or pandemonium in the face of adversity. However, often times, it is best to push aside these norms, and perform iconoclastic actions for the good of others and oneself. Specifically, Ralph Waldo Emerson in his influential Self Reliance, Huck Finn in Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Rosa Parks in the racist- filled south, serve as examples of people who pushed aside established customs for the betterment of others and society as a whole.
One example of a piece of literature that contains the message to not conform to the rules of society is Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Self Reliance. In this book, Emerson constantly remonstrates for the importance of trusting one’s decisions and not changing his decisions to appease other members of society. Emerson even says that the only person who is a man is one who trusts himself and acts for his own good, not for the good of others. Clearly, Emerson believes that it is best that one does not follow these guidelines and conform to society’s norm, if one is presented with an opportunity to better his own life. In this way, Emerson argues against the theory of following society’s established guidelines and customs.
Similarly, Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn promotes the same message of not trusting what society has declared its norms. The setting of the book is the antebellum south and west, where cruelty to slavery is rampant and viewed as normal and justified. Given these conditions, it would be likely that Huck Finn would betray his friend and ex- slave Jim when given the opportunity to return Jim to his owner, Miss Watson, and collect a hefty reward. However, Huck matures and realizes that he does not have to follow the established guidelines of society, and be cruel to Jim; rather, he views Jim as a human, and assists Jim in evading capture and certain enslavement and punishment. Huck pushes aside the established guidelines of society in order to help his friend Jim, even though society dictates that he should heartlessly and greedily betray and hurt Jim.
Not only does this doctrine of pushing aside society exist in literature, but it also exists in society. In the 50’s and 60’s, African Americans were oppressed and were given limited rights in the South. One of the provisions that limited the rights of blacks was a law stating that blacks had to sit in the back of public buses. However, one brave woman, Rosa Parks, defied this law, and insisted on sitting in the front of the bus. Rosa acted against the established rules of society, and did not conform to the wishes of society as a whole. By performing this defiant action, Parks inspired civil rights marches and other reform movements for African-Americans, all through the single action of defying society’s norms. Clearly, this incident illustrates the importance of not abiding by society’s norms, and demonstrates the ability of what benefit pushing aside guidelines can bring.
Often times, the norms set forth by society are good guidelines. However, literature and history both advocate the message that pushing aside these established norms can better society as a whole. We can deduce from the actions of Rosa Parks and Huck Finn, and the message of Ralph Waldo Emerson, that it is sometimes best to remain defiant and not conform to society’s rules.</p>
<p>Hm. I'm NOT an official scorer of these tests, but from what I've studied re: the test rubrics, I'd give you a 9 out of 12. That means, essentially that as an individual I'm giving you a 4.5 x 2, so think of me as saying my opinion is yours is between 4 and 5 on a scale of 6. Here's why: </p>
<p>I think you DID write responsively to the prompt, which was the question most troubling you in your OP. You chose 3 worthy examples: Emerson's "Self-Reliance", Huck Finn's not turning in slave Jim, and Rosa Parks action on the Birmingham bus.
Sidenote: the old SAT asks you to pull examples from "your reading, studies, experiences or observations" while my recollection of S's new SAT is more specific: draw examples from literature, history, science or personal experience." I thought your examples came from an educated, informed menu of choices (okay, not Nietsche but it doesn't HAVE to be some obscure philosopher). You didn't write 35 reasons why you hate wearing a tie for church, in other words.</p>
<p>There are some very good moments in there where you engage in logical thought, for example: you briefly in a sentence engage in the opposite situation ("aura of stability that can ward off chaos or pandemonium...") so that makes me, as your reader, more committed to your thesis when you show how the opposite "could" be true. Yet you did not linger there, since as you know, you're not debating your own thesis! But I like that brief mention of your thesis in its opposite form, because it helps define your thesis before you launch into giving examples of it. That's a good thing to maintain in future essays like these--just ONE sentence or phrase re: the opposite of your thesis, before pressing forward with it.<br>
As I understand your thesis, your claim is that, notwithstanding that brief fling with warding off chaos and pandomonium, you're committing yourself to this idea: "it's best to perform iconoclastic actions for the good of others and oneself." And you name your 3 examples.
At this point, you had a decision to make as a writer. If you knew a LOT of details about any one of those 3 examples, you might decide to devote the whole rest of your essay to ONLY "Self-Reliance", Huck, or Rosa, and perhaps gone into 3 examples within any one of those. Instead, you chose 3 different examples and told one thing about each of them. They all related back to your thesis logically.
What you didn't quite do was make any distinctions or critical thinking points to differentiate one from the other of your 3. In essence, you made the same point 3 different times: Emerson says to live individually; Huck didn't turn in Jim; and Rosa wouldn't give up her seat. And buried in there is enough material that you already know, that you could whip up a bit to cross-analyze the differences among your examples, but you kind of just left them lying on the table.
What would take it up to a level of 5/6 for me would be if you had picked up on these 3 points that you mentioned, but delve more into the difference among them. I see more potential in your essay than you did (of course I have benefit of reading it, rather than your writing it under timed pressure...). </p>
<p>I'll give you ONE example, just one possible way (there are many) to play with what you've already got to bring it up to the next level of logic/thinking/etc. I'm not going to try to write it well (so don't copy my style, it's not feeling like it's happening tonight!) Just follow along with my thoughts. You could kick it up higher by thinking even deeper, like this:
Each of these 3 represents points along a spectrum that measures whether one is iconoclastic for oneself (one pole) or for the benefit of others (the other pole). Emerson clearly is an iconoclast to "benefit oneself" while Rosa actually disadvantaged herself (went to jail, lost her job, and more) so was defying norms primarily "for the good of others," although of course she was part of the oppressed group.
One could place Huck, wrestling with his thoughts, at a mid-point between Emerson and Rosa. By saving Jim, Huck knows he will find no personal benefit that he can articulate for himself. At the same time, as demonstrated throughout the rest of the novel, Huck understands himself as an isolated character with no connection to society, white or black. If anything, Huck leans closer to Rosa, putting himself at a disadvantage, for he sacrifices reward, in the form of bounty money, by not handing Jim over to the slave-patrollers.
These three examples demonstrate that the iconoclastic action can be for benefit of onesself or the community, or somewhere in-between.
Yet in each case, all three personalities found they could not rely upon existing norms to guide them sufficiently. (note to OP: do you see how this gets back full-square to the original prompt, after you've explored your own ideas?).
(Now, OP, really WOW them with some applications, which shows ever higher-order thinking, for example...) One could imagine that if Emerson lived in a society that already amply rewarded his individualism, he would find no need to retreat from society. Had Huck lived in a moral community where Jim would be understood as a criminal only if he had stolen the owner's property, rather than being a criminal simply because he was ruled a piece of property, then perhaps Huck could have turned in Jim and followed what he knew to be "honest." If Rosa Parks, whom we know from her autobiography to be a soft-spoken, polite woman, had lived in Birmingham, Alabama today, she might have given up her seat to any other individual she recongized also needed a seat. Instead, Emerson believed he lived in a society whose norms rewarded only those who conformed. Huck felt isolated at the bottom social rung of a world that would misinterpret his every move as one of a poor, uneducated lad. Rosa, a law-abiding and (in her words) God-fearing woman, could not trust that her own city would accept her choice to stay in her properly-paid bus seat as anything but a criminal, provocative act. For all of these individuals, the norms of society let them down and they had to press much harder, either by living alone (Emerson), dodging the law with Jim (Huck), or breaking the law (Rosa). Instead, each had to take individual actions that were iconclastic and broke the norms of their limited societies. </p>
<p>Now, I won't go into such detail, but if that seems too crazy-hard, you could have taken a different approach. Know a LOT about any one of the three, and play between three different events in one life, but MAKE SOME COMPARATIVE POINTS. Think and compare between one sub-example and the next; then, if you can, put them all together into some kind of format (I chose the "spectrum") that lets you talk about each point in relation to one another.
That way, it's less like just "listing" 3 good examples (which yours were). Do more with the connections between the examples.</p>
<p>It could also be just 2 examples. My S said he didn't have enough time to write well about 3 sometimes, so instead went into depth about 1, or just chose 2 that were really good contrasts but both proved his thesis.</p>
<p>NOW, so much for logic.</p>
<p>The other reason I'd not give you an 11 or 12 for your draft above is that several times when you imported a heavy vocab word, but then used it incorrectly. Here are the specifics: "remonstrate", "conceive" (in your 2nd sentence). And yet, you sometimes use heavy words very appropriately, and they add to your credibility as a thinker, specifically: iconoclastic, antebellum.
My response to you is that if you absolutely understand what the word meant (as in iconoclastic, antebellum) then USE it; otherwise, don't. What is very effective is your convincing use of in-between words such as "heartlessly and greedily betray." That's good! I'd rather see that those expressive uses of language you really, really understand than something outside your comfort zone, such as "heartlessly and avariciously betray" if you just looked up avariciously 8 seconds ago! Get the idea? I love it when people work up their vocab...just don't experiment toooo recklessly on an SAT essay. Save it for your college app essay, where you can double-check with an English teacher that you used your shiny new toy correctly:)</p>
<p>Maybe it's just me, but seeing big words abused bugs the heck out of me as a reader! I'd rather see a 5 pound word used well than a l0 pound word butchered. So, if you have a brand new, shiny word, don't risk it on these SAT-I essays! It'll only lose you points, not gain you. </p>
<p>Now, that said, I also pointed out above some places where you used some strong words very well. So, in balance, I'd be marking down a 4/5 level when I'm grading just for the sub-mark on for "word usage." </p>
<p>Your spelling and punctuation are great. There, I'd give you a 6 for that sub-mark. But, at one point, I saw some fancy playing with semi-colons to combine 2 sentences. It's in the paragraph about Huck, a sentence that starts with "However..." and ends with ..enslavement and punishment." Was that your own? It's fine if someone showed you how to do it, but wow, that's tricky stuff. If you realllly learned it and internalized it, then great to go ahead and use in the future; if, however, it was someone else's edit, and you're still on shakey ground with it alone, do not attempt it in the confines of an SAT proctored exam! Yer playin' with FIRE, there :)</p>
<p>Well, that's a lot of feedback. I hope it's received positively and productively as it is meant, and as you certainly intended by opening yourself up to public review! Rosa isn't the only brave one in town ;)</p>
<p>Good luck, keep working, you're on the right track, IMHO.
P.S. I teach First Grade. I'd love to see you take this to a h.s. English teacher, if one will give you that time.</p>
<p>Suggestion: when you are choosing your examples, presumably after you have your thesis and before you begin to write about the examples, then stop a moment and think, really hard, about WHY you chose that example.
Exactly what point does it prove about your thesis?
It should be a different point than the other l or 2 examples you chose.
And that's how you begin to cross-compare the points.
For example 1. you saw the prompt about "breaking norms"
2. you decided to argue it as "for the good of oneself or others"
3. you chose your 3 examples because something about the
prompt brought those 3 into your mind (good intuition!)
4. you started to write</p>
<p>What I'm saying is, in between #3 and #4 above, just pause a minute and make even a one-word note as to why you chose each one as related to your thesis.
It might look like this:
- Emerson's "Self-Reliance" -- shows individual benefit of living alone,
free of norms
- Huck/not turn in Jim -- no benefit obvious, but still must break law
to do what he believes is "honest"
- Rosa -- hurts herself but clearly benefits society</p>
<p>You write as if you're showcasing your vocabulary and not your ideas.</p>
<p>I say this because beneath those glittering words, your sentence structures end up being bland, overused, and painfully standard.</p>
<p>And that I don't think you answered the question too well.</p>
<p>"Are established rules too limited to guide people in real-life situations?"</p>
<p>Like Payingtuitions said, you just made the same point, three times. Aside from making your essay repetitive and slightly boring, a single reason can only help you to a limited degree, no matter how many times it's stated. A point is a point.</p>
<p>Thanks for the suggests Paying3Tutions and Taggart</p>
<p>Stedobe, don't miss out on this link </p>
<p>It helps to see what the SAT scorers think is a terrible, okay and great essay. </p>
<p>To see a range of examples, all graded 1-6, see this collegeboard link. Scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the sample essays.</p>
<p>I can't write it out in a line, b/c this site somehow cuts it off, so i'll put it in a column, but you type it out as a line:</p>
<p>collegeboard.com/
student/
testing/
sat/
prep_one/
essay/
pracStart.html</p>