Will a 1560 sat (cr+m) and 3.7 gpa with most rigorous schedule at a competitive private high school get you in the door academically to being considered? (in top 15% at my school but we don’t officially rank)
subject tests are 730 (math2), 730 (lit), and 700 (us history)
My extracurriculars are good (and extremely time consuming, hence the low gpa), but I wanted to know if my gpa would get me rejected even before being evaluated by the school specific committee.
Your academic stats can be below average for the SFS applicant pool, but that does not necessary mean you will get rejected right away. GU will always look at our application not solely based on your academic points.
Personal interview; Essays; EC and your location do count. If SFS is one of your top choices, visit the school and find out more.
I had a 1340, #2 in my class, 750 ush, 700 wh, 660 math 2, and the most rigorous schedule we have ( not that bad compared to other schools) I have a 4.13/4.3 uw GPA which is a 3.98/4.0. I Have pretty good extra curriculars and have studied abroad and won scholarships for my 3 trips. I was accepted EA 
even though my test scorea were just average (31,32superscored act) my activities and essays and accomplishments were definitely strong for my area. I live in a very rural area so I don’t have the same opportunities as people in other areas, so my foreign language and culture interest, and how I’ve acted on it, certain,y helped. Just make your essays good and unique and make sure to convert why you are apply to SFS. We’re the only gtown school that doesn’t get asked that in the essays so make sure they know
@seoulbound would you suggest putting it on the school specific essay or in the creative/ personal essay? my sfs essay is long because i adapted it from my 20 page senior project paper. i got it down to 835 words, and im still trying to cut down. How long were your essays?
@mererosearn it’s very hard to put it into your essay but I think what I meant was to convey it in the interview I was typing it on my ipad so it got messed up. Sfs should be less than 2 pages deouble spaced simply because if it gets long, your admin may not want to finish. They have a lot of apps to read. Mine was around 650-700 words and dealt eith east Asian animosity. My activity essay was on one of my clubs ( non major related) and was around 350 words. My bio essay was 500ish and it talked about foreign languages and my perspective on life. Make sure your sfs essay doesn’t try to talk about too many different issues. Make sure it’s consise. Mine was intro story, 2 paragraphs on the issue (history and current situation) and 2 paragraphs of resolution. I can share it with you later if you want
@seoulbound my essay for SFS is about how supranational organizations such as NATO and the UN can adapt to the shifting security paradigm, and I give a lot of solutions to the problem. I also referenced books like Fixing Failed States and an interview i did with one of the authors because it is a condensed version of my senior project essay. Did you reference reports or books or anything like that in your essay?
@mererosearn I didn’t reference any books for space sake. This was my essay
I could hear the protesters walking out of the Seoul subway station. Rounding the corner, I saw the familiar spread of flyers claiming South Korea’s ownership of the Dokdo Islands, or, to the Japanese, the Takeshima Islands. I felt puzzled, as I had witnessed these same protests a year prior. Upon my return to the United States, I began to research the Dokdo controversy and its importance. Unintentionally, I discovered that it is one of a number of issues creating hostility in North East Asia.
South Korea, China, and Japan, three economic dragons, have been locked in political struggles since Japan’s colonization efforts over them in the early 1900s. During this period Japan claimed several islands, originally belonging South Korea and China, as their own. This colonization created much of the animosity that permeates the region today. Currently, China and Japan both claim ownership of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and South Korea and Japan of the Dokdo/Takeshima Islands. China and South Korea also request that the “Sea of Japan”, which reminds them of Japan’s colonial rule, be renamed to the “East Sea”, against Japan’s wishes. South Korea and China also call for Japan as a whole to sincerely apologize for the forced prostitution of over two hundred thousand girls and women (comfort women) during their colonization periods. Both countries felt jilted by Japan’s previous retracted apologies and antagonistic statements.
Nations worldwide have begun to see the consequences of China, Japan, and South Korea’s animosity, making this a slowly growing international issue that has the potential to explode exponentially. In late October 2014, China announced that it would equip some sixty submarines with long range nuclear missiles. Nations around the world fear that China will occupy the Sea of Japan in the future, to claim the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. This past year, Japan scrambled over three hundred Chinese jets that have flown close to these islands, causing an international aviation safety concern. Protests for South Korea’s issues have breached local governments abroad, threatening nations like the United States’ official stances on these issues. Should all three nations be left to quarrel, military action could ensue, potentially affecting commerce and security worldwide. Resolving these issues now will prevent future escalations.
To resolve these disputes, a delicate balance of agreements between all three nations must be achieved. This way, they can start to rebuild their political relationship, restoring a level of peace in East Asia. All three nations should attend a conference in Geneva, with Switzerland as the moderator. Switzerland is a neutral country with nothing to gain from any agreements these countries make. In regards to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, Japan should accept China’s previous offer of co-ownership. Both countries will share the expenses and profits of oil drilling in that area. For the Dokdo/Takeshima Islands, sovereignty will go to South Korea since the islands’ only inhabitants are Korean. Japan and South Korea will discuss terms for natural gas drilling, giving Japan a small percentage of the profits indefinitely.
For the longstanding issue of the comfort women, during this conference, Japan should agree to formally submit a final apology for the treatment of Chinese and Korean females during their colonization periods. South Korea and China should formally accept this apology and recognize that Japan cannot suppress the voices of the people and politicians who disagree with their apology. Japan will also be asked to host a human rights conference in the next four years to reflect on all injustices, past and present. Japan will also continue to support the Asian Women’s Fund.
The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) previously recognized the Sea of Japan naming in 2012, and will review it again in 2017. China, South Korea and Japan should attend this review and make their case for their preferred naming. Since the IHO is the international governing body for the naming of all bodies of water, their decision will be final. All three nations should agree to halt all international lobbying on the issue so that no nation is forced to choose a stance. Japan, China, and South Korea, with all issues resolved, would then be able to start focusing on building strong political relationships with each other.
@seoulbound I really like yours! I got super personal in my personal statement and activity essay, so i kept it pretty formal in my sfs essay. this was mine:
For decades, supranational organizations like the UN and NATO have provided a safe environment to conduct dialogue on important global issues affecting the collective security of their member nations. These governing bodies remain focused on collective security, but decision-making has become more challenging given the perpetual change in global affairs.
The 21st century has witnessed a change in the style of global conflict from nation versus nation to one characterized by clashes with non-state actors. The new security paradigm can affect anyone at any time, necessitating a change in the way supranational organizations handle collective security. The world has already seen how the rise of non-state actors has affected the international community, from the 9/11 Al Qaeda attacks to the kidnap of over 200 Nigerian school girls by Boko Haram. Given the geopolitical shift, supranational organizations must decide how to adapt to the security paradigm shift—an issue essential to maintaining world order.
Supranational governing bodies face several roadblocks when adapting to the new security paradigm, including validating their original charter within the context of the 21st century and providing consensus on the definition of terrorism. ISIS, Al-Shabaab, and Hamas are just a few of many non-state actors that most westerners consider terrorists. However, those that some call terrorists are considered by others as freedom-fighters. The failed state—ridden with poverty and a weak government—breeds terrorist activity because the people have no other legitimate power to turn to. Unfortunately, the proliferation of the non-state actor within these failed nations has caused even more unrest, leaving it to the international community to try and improve the victimized nations. The UN, among other organizations, has aided these failed states in maintaining peace with non-state actors through short-term humanitarian efforts such as the UN Peacekeeping Program. However, in an interview for my senior project, political expert and Fixing Failed States author Clare Lockhart says that the Peacekeeping program and similar projects perpetuate the unrest within a nation because they do not provide a long term solution for rebuilding a nation, thus prolonging the cycle of failed statehood.
Ms. Lockhart also states that supranational organizations struggle to eradicate non-state conflict because the failed states remain organization members and are part of the decision-making process instead of subordinate to it. The UN resolution system requires that all nations be involved in the decision-making process. Many of the global issues discussed reside in the failed states admitted to the UN, which can be helpful in understanding key issues of the global problem. However, some experts believe that UN aid to these failed states has perpetuated their failed condition. NATO has a strict accession program requiring a state to rebuild itself before entering. However, the UN is burdened with the perpetually failed states the more that they intervene, thus inhibiting supranational organizations from fully adapting to the new security paradigm.
The shift from one security paradigm to the next is still underway. During our discussion, Ms. Lockhart said that the UN and NATO are “organizations with a wealth of information about every corner of the world, which should be utilized further to maximize their understanding of global problems to create more effective solutions. This is essential to adapting to a new global political climate.” The only way supranational organizations will adapt to the security paradigm Thus, supranational organizations can adjust to new threats by restructuring the organization for more flexibility and most importantly, using their wealth of information to find a system for fixing their member states. Already, NATO has been able to restructure their information and training centers such as Allied Command for Transformation to promote more flexibility in approaches to combatting the new security threats. The UN, a larger organization, should use their vast information resources to help identify patterns and changes from past global crises in order to provide faster, more comprehensive solutions to new global crises. Above all, supranational organizations must implement a better framework as to what constitutes legitimate statehood, especially in regards to their accession programs. In doing so, global governing bodies can effectively aid a failed state by rebuilding their nation, providing for a stronger organization as a whole. Even though the shifting security paradigm poses many problems for supranational organizations, by focusing on fixing failed states and strengthening their internal structures, the UN and NATO can maintain their number one priority of maintaining collective security for all well into the 21st century.