Please help with essay?

<p>Please tell me how my writing is! I only have a few days left before I take the October SAT!</p>

<p>Prompt:
"People generally prefer originality to imitation, which is often considered inferior and second-rate. However, we have learned most of what we know by imitating others. Mastering any skill or gaining any knowledge means that we must learn from those who have gone before us. In fact, it is not until we have imitated others and learned from them what there is to know that we can strike out on our own and maybe create something new." </p>

<p>Is it necessary for people to imitate others before they can become original and creative? 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 readings, studies, experience, or observations.</p>

<p>Essay:</p>

<p>Innovation and imitation are two terms that can be considered closely intertwined. However, it is not necessary for creativity to stem out of innovation. The following three examples show why this is true.</p>

<p>General Pavlovich of the Ottoman empire was a highly respected general for the Ottoman Turks in the Crimean War against Russia. His novel battle formulations and creative concepts were decisive in the victory. This was a war that was also emphasized on technology. Pavlovich knew the faults of previous generals, who relied mostly on brute strength and large manpower. He instead focused on tactical positions, high end technology, and modern transportation to achieve his goals frugally and efficiently. This moderation and innovation earned him accolades and won him the war. It is clear that Pavlovich would not be as successful if he had chose to imitate his predecessors. His greatness came from himself, not from others. </p>

<p>In the Chinese myth, The Ferocity of the River, a village is faced with a cataclysmic problem. Every time it rains, the river submerges the land around it, thus wrecking and destroying the tranquility of the village. The villagers are unable to move, as they do not possess the money or the mindset to move. Some people have proposed a main solution. Their solution is to pile stones upon each other to create artificial levies. This plan fails though, as the next time, half the village is destroyed. The protagonist, Wanghu, proposes a novel idea. He proposes to dig an artificial route in the ground to divert the direction of the river away from the village. Sure enough, this solution works. Wanghu's original idea did not come from the imitation of others. His unique idea allowed his village to enjoy peace and prosperity. </p>

<p>Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is an idea that has changed the face of science. Through observations of the stars and others, Einstein was able to conclude the nature of light, time, and how they could all be distorted. Einstein's creative theory proposed in the first half of the twentieth century shook the world. The scientific world started a rash movement to divulge into the claims and theories of Einstein. In a way, he was able to start a scientific revolution. Einstein would not be able to discover or conclude his theory if he had imitated others. He himself has a mind that thought very differently than his contemporaries. His distinctiveness gave the world a new understanding on the universe, and has influenced millions of scientists today.</p>

<p>The three preceding examples thus show that imitation is not necessary for innovation. Imitation is an important aspect that helps people explore or learn about a certain process. But it is by no means necessary. True originality stems from oneself, not from others.</p>

<p>Bump! Anyone willing to help?</p>

<p>You can’t blame someone for trying. Bump it up.</p>

<p>From the standpoint of mechanics, grammar, and punctuation, the quality of your writing is fine.</p>

<p>Whether you’ve done what the prompt asks you to do is a different issue.</p>

<p>In order for me to help would require a near-total change in your mindset toward this task.</p>

<p>—Your essay appears to be about 450 words, but in reality it isn’t nearly that long.</p>

<p>—For some reason, your conclusion is almost identical to your introduction. Why waste the ink?</p>

<p>—Most of this essay consists of factual information. Where in the prompt are you asked to give a history lesson?</p>

<p>Thanks for your input. I have always been under the idea that SAT essays should have as much fluff as possible. Based on your comments, you mean I have too much fluff and barely and analysis? Also, if you were a grader, what would you give my essay?</p>

<p>

</p></li>
<li><p>You’re welcome.</p></li>
<li><p>Where the hell did you hear that? No essay should have “as much fluff as possible.” You need as much quality content as possible.</p></li>
<li><p>You don’t have nearly enough analysis. I wouldn’t call the rest of it “fluff.” It’s just yet another “essay” that consists of word blocks (as opposed to paragraphs) that vomit out a bunch of facts.</p></li>
<li><p>I am a grader. Luckily for 90% of the students who post here, I’m not like most. I would give this a four only because it proves that you know how to link a noun and a verb. In other words, you prove that you’re a college-ready writer. Another reader might give it a five, but there would be a discussion in the room, you can bet on that. These example-driven “essays” are getting more and more attention (and NOT the kind that you guys want) with each reading cycle.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Sorry Charisma, Phd but to me your essay is unconvincing. </p>

<p>Its hard to even tell what your position on the prompt is: "However, it is not necessary for creativity to stem out of innovation. " Was that supposed to be ‘imitation’?</p>

<p>Even at that, I think you seriously under play the situation you are trying to address. What they are thinking of is an student artist who apprentices and copies a Great Masters style for years before striking out on their own. Or a jazz trumpeter who has had years of training before he starts playing his own jazz improvisations. </p>

<p>So the question is: is it necessary to have training in the conventional to know how to innovate.</p>

<p>General Pavlovich (and BTW that sounds Russian not Turkish) was a ‘General’ so the implication is that he must have had some training in the conventional military to rise to that rank. In reading your paragraph it seems to me that it might be argued that his success came from knowing the conventional approach and innovating to exploit it. So I dont find this example persuasive. Einstein was a classically trained physicist and while his approach to general relativity was innovative, it built on the work that was going on around the gaps in the understanding of Newtonian gravity. Which Einstein all knew. I dont think you have proven that the General and Einstein didnt need their backgrounds before they could innovate. </p>

<p>“The Ferocity of the River” is probably the best example for your thesis but you needed to emphasize the distinction more. ie: the initial plan is to build levies to block the river. The river breaks through so the people keep trying larger and larger levies. The innovative approach is to dig a spillway to redirect the flood waters. Redirecting vs. Blocking shows an innovative approach that doesnt have an antecedent.</p>

<p>re: fluff. As Andrew Marvell said, if we had but world enough and time, this coyness would be no crime. If you had three hours to write and revise, put down whatever you want. The problem is that you only have 25 minutes to read and understand the prompt, come up with examples and write your essay. That severely constrains the number of words you are going to write so every one of them ought to be serving the purpose of demonstrating critical thinking and insight on your point of view. Wasting a chance to better prove your point make no sense to me. If you cant think if anything, by all means keep your pencil moving, but to go in with the plan of piling on the fluff is silly.</p>