- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,358
- Reaction score
- 122
Hi, I just took a sample MCAT (AAMC test 8) and had to write two essays that were about 430 words each. If you don't mind could you give me a score of what you think I'd get on the MCAT writing section (J-T scoring). I would love your comments, and I copied the essays below... thanks! Also, after grading, if you would like to me look over something of yours, shoot me a PM!
Essay one
Consider this statement: In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a successful politician does NOT resemble the ordinary citizen. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen in a democracy.
One of democracy's most touted benefits is its champion of the ordinary citizen. This is often cited in stark contrast to fascism or socialism. Successful politicians are the ones who are elected, and many times, these politicians resemble the ordinary citizen. For this to hold true, the ordinary citizen must be in the majority, as it is the majority of voters who elects a politician.
However, there are two exceptions to this rule. Take, for example, governors of California. The current governor is Arnold Scwarzenagger, a in the recent past, the people of California elected another actor, Ronald Reagan. This example describes the first exception to the rule: the ordinary citizen may elect someone that he aspires to be rather than who he actually is. The society in California assigns a great value to actors--arguably more so than anywhere else in the country. Although The ordinary citizen has likely never acted before, he values the profession of these people and therefore votes for them. The values of California's ordinary citizens were aptly demonstrated in these elections.
The second case for when this rule may not apply was frequently descrbied by America's founding fathers. They stated that when a small, but dedicated minority felt strong enough about something, they may very well overwhelm the "majority" in the polls. This may be because of increased voter turnout of the minority, or greater outreach to others by the minority, but nonetheless it translates into a politician who is elected who does not necessarily represent the ordinary citizen of his respective jurisidction. This kind of action is often what leads to drastic social changes in the history and direction of a democracy. The African-American civil rights movement is an excellent example of the necessity for this function of a democracy. While African-Americans where a minority of the population of the United States, they transformed this country into a much better place by expressing how important civil rights are to all people.
Elected, and therefore successful politicians often resemble the ordinary citizen. However, when citizens are offered the choice to vote for someone better than themselves (by their society's standards), or when a fervent minority overcomes a more complacent majority, this rule fails. While many may consider the case where the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen as ideal, the two exceptions I offered are what allows for progress in a democracy. When an issue is so important to a certain minority of citizens, or when a politician represents something that a society particularily values, the society as a whole has the opportunity to move forward.
Essay two
Consider this statement: Advancements in communications technology have reduced the quality of human interaction. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which advancements in communication technology have NOT reduced the quality of human interaction. Discuss what you think determines whether or not advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction.
By the standards of some, advancement in communication technology has lead to a constant digression of the quality of human interaction. As technology has advanced--from a neighborhood sharing one phone, to cell phones, to text messaging--traditional communication is becoming less necessary. However, one's view of the effects of communication technology on the quality of human interaction relies on their definition of quality human interaction.
Those that see technology as hurting this relationship likely view face-to-face conversation as the ideal. In this form of communication, both subjects are given every reasource to interpret the meaning of what the other is saying. They read their body language, their eye contact, the tone of their voice, among others, and many say that these unspoken actions can often tell you more about what someone is saying than the words that they speak. Undoubtedly, such people regret technology's abandonment of these unspoken cues.
However, there are many times when face-to-face conversation is impratical. If your car rolls into a ditch, and you are unable to move except for, perhaps, dailing on your cell phone, then calling 9-1-1 is obviously the best form of communication of this situation. With the technology of GPS and cell phones, it is necessary to even speak at all, it is only necessary for you to make the call. And, even though nothing is spoken, your message is still loud and clear: "HELP."
Each new form of techonology in communication follows the trend of sacraficing the clarity of tradional human interaction for the sake of something else that may be equally important, depending on your situation--namely, convience. Convience trumps the value of quality communication in emergencies, or even in situations when the message you are trying to relay is rather simple, and you prefer the convience of e-mail, for example.
In societies such as ours, we are allowed the luxury to decided which vechile of communication we prefer for each situation we encounter. This being the case, it is incorrect to say that one form of communication is better than another if the context of this communication is not revealed. In fact, people who communicate best may be those who are best at balancing the scales of convience and quality when chosing which method of communication to use for any given situation. And, those who value face-to-face conversations need not be alarmed, as this method of communication will always be used when quality is of utmost importance, and may even become more valued as technology makes it ever more rare.
Essay one
Consider this statement: In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a successful politician does NOT resemble the ordinary citizen. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen in a democracy.
One of democracy's most touted benefits is its champion of the ordinary citizen. This is often cited in stark contrast to fascism or socialism. Successful politicians are the ones who are elected, and many times, these politicians resemble the ordinary citizen. For this to hold true, the ordinary citizen must be in the majority, as it is the majority of voters who elects a politician.
However, there are two exceptions to this rule. Take, for example, governors of California. The current governor is Arnold Scwarzenagger, a in the recent past, the people of California elected another actor, Ronald Reagan. This example describes the first exception to the rule: the ordinary citizen may elect someone that he aspires to be rather than who he actually is. The society in California assigns a great value to actors--arguably more so than anywhere else in the country. Although The ordinary citizen has likely never acted before, he values the profession of these people and therefore votes for them. The values of California's ordinary citizens were aptly demonstrated in these elections.
The second case for when this rule may not apply was frequently descrbied by America's founding fathers. They stated that when a small, but dedicated minority felt strong enough about something, they may very well overwhelm the "majority" in the polls. This may be because of increased voter turnout of the minority, or greater outreach to others by the minority, but nonetheless it translates into a politician who is elected who does not necessarily represent the ordinary citizen of his respective jurisidction. This kind of action is often what leads to drastic social changes in the history and direction of a democracy. The African-American civil rights movement is an excellent example of the necessity for this function of a democracy. While African-Americans where a minority of the population of the United States, they transformed this country into a much better place by expressing how important civil rights are to all people.
Elected, and therefore successful politicians often resemble the ordinary citizen. However, when citizens are offered the choice to vote for someone better than themselves (by their society's standards), or when a fervent minority overcomes a more complacent majority, this rule fails. While many may consider the case where the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen as ideal, the two exceptions I offered are what allows for progress in a democracy. When an issue is so important to a certain minority of citizens, or when a politician represents something that a society particularily values, the society as a whole has the opportunity to move forward.
Essay two
Consider this statement: Advancements in communications technology have reduced the quality of human interaction. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which advancements in communication technology have NOT reduced the quality of human interaction. Discuss what you think determines whether or not advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction.
By the standards of some, advancement in communication technology has lead to a constant digression of the quality of human interaction. As technology has advanced--from a neighborhood sharing one phone, to cell phones, to text messaging--traditional communication is becoming less necessary. However, one's view of the effects of communication technology on the quality of human interaction relies on their definition of quality human interaction.
Those that see technology as hurting this relationship likely view face-to-face conversation as the ideal. In this form of communication, both subjects are given every reasource to interpret the meaning of what the other is saying. They read their body language, their eye contact, the tone of their voice, among others, and many say that these unspoken actions can often tell you more about what someone is saying than the words that they speak. Undoubtedly, such people regret technology's abandonment of these unspoken cues.
However, there are many times when face-to-face conversation is impratical. If your car rolls into a ditch, and you are unable to move except for, perhaps, dailing on your cell phone, then calling 9-1-1 is obviously the best form of communication of this situation. With the technology of GPS and cell phones, it is necessary to even speak at all, it is only necessary for you to make the call. And, even though nothing is spoken, your message is still loud and clear: "HELP."
Each new form of techonology in communication follows the trend of sacraficing the clarity of tradional human interaction for the sake of something else that may be equally important, depending on your situation--namely, convience. Convience trumps the value of quality communication in emergencies, or even in situations when the message you are trying to relay is rather simple, and you prefer the convience of e-mail, for example.
In societies such as ours, we are allowed the luxury to decided which vechile of communication we prefer for each situation we encounter. This being the case, it is incorrect to say that one form of communication is better than another if the context of this communication is not revealed. In fact, people who communicate best may be those who are best at balancing the scales of convience and quality when chosing which method of communication to use for any given situation. And, those who value face-to-face conversations need not be alarmed, as this method of communication will always be used when quality is of utmost importance, and may even become more valued as technology makes it ever more rare.
