<p>Wow.. these essays are absolutely amazing!!!! </p>
<p>Is it me or does everyone have this problem where you go completely blank and you have no idea what to write about.. and u just start writing....</p>
<p>Someone--I think it was a parent??--compiled a bunch of 11/12 essays (probably these) into a file available for download, and now I can't find the thread! Does anyone remember that conversation?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Here's an 11/12 I wrote for the November 2007 SAT. I kept my vocabulary nice and simple, filled up almost 1.75 pages, and used basic transitions:</p>
<p>Having a large number of options to choose from does not in fact make people very happy. Just because certain people are more better off than others and because of this have more things available to them, doesn’t make them enjoy life anymore than any other person. This can be seen in the movies such as Tuesdays with Morrie, in literature, and in the world of sports.</p>
<p>First, just because people have many options doesn’t necessarily make them happy. In the movie Tuesdays with Morrie, Mitch Album, a famous and wealthy sports writer that lives in Detriot has everything available to him. He has a good job and a gorgeous girl friend, and is very well off. Yet, he still isn’t happy. His relationship isn’t going as well as he would have hoped and his job is taking up most of his life. He reconnects with his old professor Morrie, who is terminally ill with ALS and they talk about life together every Tuesday. Morrie helps put Mitch’s life back on tack and gives him the lesson of what is most important in life: friends and family, not material goods and such. </p>
<p>Next, in a Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson, Bill and Stephen Katz, one of his friends, go on a 5 month trip through the Appalachian Mountains. For this trip to happen, they had to cut back on the amount of items they were taking such as food and clothing because that would be the weight they would have to carry on their backs for the duration of the trip. Together, they started in Georgia and experienced all the elements Mother Nature had to offer as they made their way up to Maine. Even with all of their options such as food and clothing to choose from, they still enjoyed themselves for a 5 month period. During this period, they were limited with all of their options. They knew they would have to sleep in the same tent every night, wear virtually the same clothing that they did a few days back, eat the same meals day in and day out, and shower only on occasion. All the things that we humans take for granted were removed from their lives and they couldn’t enjoy it anymore than they did. They still had eachother.</p>
<p>Third, in sports today, baseball in particular, athletes are given many options to choose from but are still not happy. Alex Rodriguez, former third baseman of the New York Yankees just decided to opt out of a $252 million dollar contract with the Yankees to pursue more money. Some experts believe the bidding for his services will start at $350 million dollars. Some people. ,myself included, think this number is an absurd amount of money to pay a person who does nothing but hit a baseball four hundred feet. Alex Rodriguez, however, and many athletes similar to him buy huge houses, cars, and televisions, yet want more and more at the same time. They can never be happy no matter how much they have.</p>
<p>what the heck i took the sat in october 2007 and i got a different prompt..............it was basically like "can people ever truly be original?" does that mean they have diff. prompts for diff. forms?</p>
<p>From Nov 2007:</p>
<pre><code> "It is a false assumption of mankind to assume the resilience of outdated practices," said western thinker and philosopher Slavoj Žižek. I agree with Žižek in supporting the statement that it is always necessary to find new solutions to problems. Innovation is paramount to our growth as a civilization, and will perish if not used, which can be exemplified through literature, history, and current world affairs.
Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World tells the haunting story of a futuristic society where the constituents are bred from test tubes and then psychologically conditioned to obey orders from the totalitarian government that rules them. Bernard Marx, a main character in the novel, recognizes the brainwashing that his fellow citizens are influenced by, and seeks to overthrow the government. He remembers that in times past, the citizenry often used rebellion as a means to free themselves from oppression, but due to the fact that the people around him are conditioned to obey the government, he recognizes that rebellion would not work. This literary example clearly shows that coventional solutions are not always useful, therefore demonstrating that innovative thinking is needed to keep up with the changing times and help us solve the contemporary problems of today.
The 1960 presidential candidates debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon is yet another example of how innovation is needed to solve problems as opposed to relying on conventional methods. The Kennedy-Nixon debate was the first televised presidential debate, which meant that it would be receiving ample news coverage in different media forms. Nixon, the presidential incumbent at the time, was very confident about winning because of his knowledge of the policy issues and his popularity with the American constituency. However, Nixon was short, often wore wrinkled clothes, and overall lacked aesthetic appeal. Kennedy, on the other hand, was tall, charismatic, well-dressed, and very good-looking. When the debate was seen on television, Kennedy looked poised and confident next to Nixon, who had sweat dripping from his brow due to the harsh camera lights. This resulted in Kennedy winning the election. THe 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate shows the necessity of innovation because Kennedy knew that the television would give voters a whole new means of evaluation--aesthetics. THis also shows that conventional methods, such as those Nixon relied on (policy targetting) wouldn't stay resilient.
Innovation is also necessary in today's world affairs. In our industrialized world, more smog and pollution is causing a depetion of the ozone layer, which is beginning to take its toll in the form of global warming. To stop the problem, we obviously can't stop driving cars and operating factories, because that would wreak havoc. This situation requires humans to be innovative and to think of new ways to conserve energy and our planet.
As shown through literature, history, and world affairs, innovation and new solutions to problems are always necessary if we as a civilization want to advance to our full potential. And as Slavoj Žižek observed, we cannot assume the resilience of outdated traditions.
</code></pre>
<p>Eh. Kind of half-assed description of Brave New World, so feel free to correct me. haha.</p>
<p>I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE SAT ANYMORE!! WHEEEE!!</p>
<p>Take a look at the essay on post 49.</p>
<p>Check out my 11 <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/457580-proof-sat-essays-prove-nothing.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/457580-proof-sat-essays-prove-nothing.html</a></p>
<p>You guys ever do anything such as stretching before writing?</p>
<p>Sample SAT “12” Essays
anymore please</p>
<p>Since mathlete314 resurrected this topic, I’ll try to contribute:</p>
<p>Do people accomplish more when they are allowed to do things in their own way?</p>
<p>The principle that hard work, diligence,and intense experimentation leads to a more efficient path to discovery is entirely unfounded. When people, those associated with science and otherwise, are left to their own devices in solving issues or alleviating problems,they are more confident of themselves within the framework of their own proven methods. James Watson’s own framework of “‘lounging around, arguing about problems instead of doing experiments,’” doubtlessly allowed him to conceive the theoretical components of the structure of DNA, something no experiment at the time could possibly prove or disprove. Also in this spirit of effectiveness through familiar processes include the upper echelon of society in 1984 and the creation of the assembly line in 1910’s America. The book 1984 showcases an intriguing eschewing of efficiency within the political spectrum. The 1-2% of those who control the country of Oceania are not concerned with the smoothness upon which society is run so much as delicate balance of power that keeps them in rule. In this sense, the term "accomplishment " is an ambiguous one; although they ultimately went backwards in terms of social, economic, and cultural progress, the Inner Party spawned a cycle that would forever keep them in power. Through this sequestering of common moral practices, those in the Inner Party in Oceania created a superstate: an entity so powerful as to transcend the petty wars that often destroy countries. Although not necessarily moral or desirable, this group accomplished that of pure fantasy through unconventional implementation of their own political, social, and economic devices. Another interesting example of this familiarity complex is the rising popularity of the assembly line-- the first true form of mass production-- in 1910’s America. The original proponent of this revolutionizing new piece of technology was Chester Taylor, a scientist who was blindly concerned with efficiency in the industrial setting. Although the commercial benefit of such a wonder in the workplace was undeniable, the assembly line had a marked effect on the psyche of the typical American worker. Whereas each worker had thought of him/herself as a fundamental part of the finished product (often having put together most of it by hand), workers now saw themselves as mere cogs in the industrial machine, unskilled and easily replaceable. This lack of comfortability on the part of the workers ultimately led to increased participants in unions (such as the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor), which fragmented the entire manufacturing industry until post-WWII. Had there been a familiarity amongst the workers-- an easing into the new ramifications that accompanied the assembly line-- such a revolt would not have impacted America as severely. Within the context of a society overly concerned with efficiency,leaving those who are comfortable in their talents to their own devices is often a smarter way to approach certain issues. As in the cases of 1984, workers introduced to the assembly line, and James Watson, such a reprieve from the oppressive yoke of efficiency benefited themselves more than any experiment, paper, or act of rote.</p>
<p>Good essay Bernard, your examples were great.</p>
<p>This thread must survive; therefore I bump.</p>
<p>My advice for writing the SAT Essay would be- Write like H*LL. Fill up the pages till there’s no more space. Also read some of the posts on writing essays here. Try backing up your statements/assertions with literature or historical evidence. I managed to get a 12 on my 1st essay (Only taken the SAT once).</p>
<p>GL to all taking it </p>
<p>P.S.
If you taken AP English then you’re pretty much set on a 12 for the essay. Master the art of BSing.</p>
<p>^ I already have a BS in the art of BS.</p>
<p>Will anyone else care to post their 12 essay?</p>
<p>bumpbumpbump</p>
<p>Really enjoyed the stanford guy’s essay. I think it had smooth transitions and flow, and was very clear and concise with good supporting details. Thumbs up :D</p>
<p>not to be rude but did you copy this essay from this website-- [Why</a> Heroes Are Important](<a href=“http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicsoutlook/2005/heroes.html]Why”>Heroism: Why Heroes are Important - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics)
or did he copy it from you, or are you the same person? cuz they are pretty much identical essays. heres an excerpt from the website’s essay </p>
<p>The term “hero” comes from the ancient Greeks. For them, a hero was a mortal who had done something so far beyond the normal scope of human experience that he left an immortal memory behind him when he died, and thus received worship like that due the gods. Many of these first heroes were great benefactors of humankind: Hercules, the monster killer; Asclepius, the first doctor; Dionysus, the creator of Greek fraternities. But people who had committed unthinkable crimes were also called heroes; Oedipus and Medea, for example, received divine worship after their deaths as well. Originally, heroes were not necessarily good, but they were always extraordinary; to be a hero was to expand people’s sense of what was possible for a human being.</p>
<p>Today, it is much harder to detach the concept of heroism from morality; we only call heroes those whom we admire and wish to emulate. But still the concept retains that original link to possibility. We need heroes first and foremost because our heroes help define the limits of our aspirations. We largely define our ideals by the heroes we choose, and our ideals – things like courage, honor, and justice – largely define us. Our heroes are symbols for us of all the qualities we would like to possess and all the ambitions we would like to satisfy. A person who chooses Martin Luther King or Susan B. Anthony as a hero is going to have a very different sense of what human excellence involves than someone who chooses, say, Paris Hilton, or the rapper 50 Cent. And because the ideals to which we aspire do so much to determine the ways in which we behave, we all have a vested interest in each person having heroes, and in the choice of heroes each of us makes.</p>
<p>How did you get a copy of your essay? My daughter hasn’t been able to.</p>
<p>bump…</p>