Writing Sample Critique Thread

[xylem29]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I remember seeing a thread like this awhile back but I can't seem to find it so I'm going to start it up again for people who are going the solo route and thus do not have course instructors to grade and comment on their essays. I hope some will find this helpful and more importantly, i hope there are those here who can lend some helpful opinions and advice 🙂

 

[xylem29]

In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective.

In the recording of history, being objective can be seen as giving an accurate and unbiased account of historical events so that future generations may be able to interpret the event in their own way. However, since history is generally a way for current generations to communicate to future generations what was significant in the present, it is often difficult to be objective. This can be due to a clouded perspective becuase of strong emotions, nationalism for example. For a patriot of country A, writing an account of a war with country B would likely be biased and not objective because the writer would be clouded by his or her nationalistic feelings, no doubt depicting their own country in a more positive light. However, there can be instances when objectivity is possible.

Using the same example, should an outsider, from another country C, which had absolutley nothing to do with the war between A and B and would be in no way affected by the war, a writer from country C would not likely be clouded by any emotions because they would not be personally affected by it and thus, they could give a more objective account of events because they are emotionally detached from the event itself.

Is it completely impossible to be objective when writing history? It can be difficult when the writer is someone who is directly involved or has some sort of emotional attachment. This emotional attachment would naturally cloud their interpretation of events and thus, objectivity would be lost. It follows from this then, that when the writer is not emotionally attached, it may be possible to achieve objectivity.

Let's hear the comments and advice- I know this essay is pretty bad, that's why I need your help!

Did I interpret the prompt correctly or was I too literal?

 

[ADeadLois]

In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective.

In the recording of history, being objective can be seen as giving an accurate and unbiased account of historical events so that future generations may be able to interpret the event in their own way. However, since history is generally a way for current generations to communicate to future generations what was significant in the present, it is often difficult to be objective. This can be due to a clouded perspective becuase of strong emotions, nationalism for example. For a patriot of country A, writing an account of a war with country B would likely be biased and not objective because the writer would be clouded by his or her nationalistic feelings, no doubt depicting their own country in a more positive light. However, there can be instances when objectivity is possible.

Using the same example, should an outsider, from another country C, which had absolutley nothing to do with the war between A and B and would be in no way affected by the war, a writer from country C would not likely be clouded by any emotions because they would not be personally affected by it and thus, they could give a more objective account of events because they are emotionally detached from the event itself.

Is it completely impossible to be objective when writing history? It can be difficult when the writer is someone who is directly involved or has some sort of emotional attachment. This emotional attachment would naturally cloud their interpretation of events and thus, objectivity would be lost. It follows from this then, that when the writer is not emotionally attached, it may be possible to achieve objectivity.

Let's hear the comments and advice- I know this essay is pretty bad, that's why I need your help!

Did I interpret the prompt correctly or was I too literal?

Good: Well done defining terms in the opening paragraph...you did it well without making it too choppy. Your reasoning in the first paragraph if solid, if not a little vague.


Bad: You need to cut down on comma ussage. The second paragraph is one long run-on sentence. It's easy for the reader to get lost. Short sentences can have more impact. Also, I would use more concrete examples than country A , B, and C. The question in the beginning of paragraph 3 is the prompt in question form. In short, don't do this.

 

[xylem29]

Good: Well done defining terms in the opening paragraph...you did it well without making it too choppy. Your reasoning in the first paragraph if solid, if not a little vague.


Bad: You need to cut down on comma ussage. The second paragraph is one long run-on sentence. It's easy for the reader to get lost. Short sentences can have more impact. Also, I would use more concrete examples than country A , B, and C. The question in the beginning of paragraph 3 is the prompt in question form. In short, don't do this.

omg, i didn't even realize that my second paragraph was a single sentence.... 😱 ,

btw, is the length of paragraphs right or is it too short?

 

[ADeadLois]

omg, i didn't even realize that my second paragraph was a single sentence.... 😱 ,

btw, is the length of paragraphs right or is it too short?

The first one is about right. The second and third could use more.

 

[Mr. Tee]

Let's hear the comments and advice- I know this essay is pretty bad, that's why I need your help!

Did I interpret the prompt correctly or was I too literal?

Here's my advice to get a T. I used this method to get an S on the writing sample, but my first essay was written rather poorly so that's probably why I didn't get a T...but I digress, here we go:

First paragraph. Explain what the prompt means [to you]. Give an example to help explain this definition. This is the argument.

Second paragraph. Give the counter-example. Make this counter-example relate to the example given in the first paragraph. The essay graders will go gah-gah over this since it shows depth and sophistication (parts of your essay actually weave together!).

Third paragraph. Weigh both sides of the argument. This is where YOUR opinion comes in, whereas in the first two paragraphs you were objective. Cite specific criteria to give your opinion more credibility. For example, why would you believe in the counter-argument over the argument (ie. why would you go with the example instead of the counter-example?). Make sure to evaluate both the argument and the counter-argument using the same criteria.

In the recording of history, being objective can be seen as giving an accurate and unbiased account of historical events so that future generations may be able to interpret the event in their own way. However, since history is generally a way for current generations to communicate to future generations what was significant in the present, it is often difficult to be objective. This can be due to a clouded perspective becuase of strong emotions, nationalism for example. For a patriot of country A, writing an account of a war with country B would likely be biased and not objective because the writer would be clouded by his or her nationalistic feelings, no doubt depicting their own country in a more positive light. However, there can be instances when objectivity is possible.

Don't regurgitate the prompt. You need to explain more what the prompt means. You already gave a counter-example without explaining the prompt. How does the counter-example directly show what the prompt means? That's a rather convoluted way to explain the prompt.

Using the same example, should an outsider, from another country C, which had absolutley nothing to do with the war between A and B and would be in no way affected by the war, a writer from country C would not likely be clouded by any emotions because they would not be personally affected by it and thus, they could give a more objective account of events because they are emotionally detached from the event itself.

Why does this thought occupy its own paragraph? It should belong in the first paragraph.

Is it completely impossible to be objective when writing history? It can be difficult when the writer is someone who is directly involved or has some sort of emotional attachment. This emotional attachment would naturally cloud their interpretation of events and thus, objectivity would be lost. It follows from this then, that when the writer is not emotionally attached, it may be possible to achieve objectivity.

You set up criteria to evaluate both sides of the argument, which is good.

 

[xylem29]

Here's my advice to get a T. I used this method to get an S on the writing sample, but my first essay was written rather poorly so that's probably why I didn't get a T...but I digress, here we go:

First paragraph. Explain what the prompt means [to you]. Give an example to help explain this definition. This is the argument.

Second paragraph. Give the counter-example. Make this counter-example relate to the example given in the first paragraph. The essay graders will go gah-gah over this since it shows depth and sophistication (parts of your essay actually weave together!).


Third paragraph. Weigh both sides of the argument. This is where YOUR opinion comes in, whereas in the first two paragraphs you were objective. Cite specific criteria to give your opinion more credibility. For example, why would you believe in the counter-argument over the argument (ie. why would you go with the example instead of the counter-example?). Make sure to evaluate both the argument and the counter-argument using the same criteria.

So we can actually pick a side but evaluate both sides...hmm...what about if I just want O and higher?

Don't regurgitate the prompt. You need to explain more what the prompt means. You already gave a counter-example without explaining the prompt. How does the counter-example directly show what the prompt means? That's a rather convoluted way to explain the prompt.

I didn't realize that! Good point, my counter example should've been in the 2nd paragraph right?

Why does this thought occupy its own paragraph? It should belong in the first paragraph.

Wait, if this belongs in the 1st paragraph, then I'm screwed! This was my antithesis paragraph!

You set up criteria to evaluate both sides of the argument, which is good.

So I set up criteria here to evaluate both sides? Damn, this was my synthesis paragraph...not just a mere set up. Aiee, I've got work to do.

 

[Mr. Tee]

If you complete all the tasks (explain the prompt, give a counter-example, describe when and when the prompt doesn't apply) you will get higher than an O. If you write with sophistication and depth, some good vocab words, and elegance, you are setting yourself up for an R or higher. Just make sure your statements and examples are very clear. Sacrifice profundity for clarity.

Also, in the first paragraph where you explain the prompt, make SURE you stick with this working definition throughout the essay.

 

[DougFlutie]

If you complete all the tasks (explain the prompt, give a counter-example, describe when and when the prompt doesn't apply) you will get higher than an O. If you write with sophistication and depth, some good vocab words, and elegance, you are setting yourself up for an R or higher. Just make sure your statements and examples are very clear. Sacrifice profundity for clarity.

Also, in the first paragraph where you explain the prompt, make SURE you stick with this working definition throughout the essay.

Agree with Teerawit. I used the same methods, got a T.

I do disagree with vocab words. If you can't spell it, and aren't 100% sure that it applies correctly, then DO NOT use it. And yes, always sacrifice length and profundity for absolute clarity. And answer the prompt. This is frequently not done by MCAT takers 😉 .

 

[Mr. Tee]

I do disagree with vocab words. If you can't spell it, and aren't 100% sure that it applies correctly, then DO NOT use it.

Well if you are familiar with the word then chances are you know if it applies in the given context. Just don't try to be grandiloquent.

 

[DougFlutie]

Well if you are familiar with the word then chances are you know if it applies in the given context. Just don't try to be grandiloquent.

Only if you can refrain from being declamatory.

 

[NontradICUdoc]

I will be blunt, I will be harsh, take it with a grain of salt because better me than the person scoring your essay. I scored and R in August and Q in April, so I have an idea of what I am talking about.

1) You never back up any of your claims.

"Since history is generally a way for current generations to communicate to future generations what was significant in the present, it is often difficult to be objective." How? When? Where? You state it, but never prove it. Is there a specific event you have in mind? History is NOT a way for current generations to communicate. The cavemen, never said "uh Zook, let communicate with future. Make antelope in cave". History is a way for current generations to INTERPRET events that have occured in an effort to learn from them in order to either repeat positive outcomes and avoid negative ones. History is also the story of the evolution of this planet. You need to be specific.

2) Spelling, this DOES count. "This can be due to a clouded perspective becuase of strong emotions, nationalism for example." Again, you are not specific. What THIS are you talking about.

3) Too vague. You are too confusing. Confusing the person scoring your essay is a bad thing. Shows that you do not flow and that you have no clue what you are talking about. "For a patriot of country A, writing an account of a war with country B would likely be biased and not objective because the writer would be clouded by his or her nationalistic feelings, no doubt depicting their own country in a more positive light. However, there can be instances when objectivity is possible." Be specific. We are in the middle of a war and you have to write country A and country B???? 👎 A good example here would be ""In the current middle east situation, in which the United States and coalition forces are fighting to destroy terrorist in Iraq, it would be difficult to find true objectivity. In fact, this war has caused such polarity in the United States itself that someone would be hard pressed to find objectivity even here. Unlike WWII, where the citizens of this country were united in fighting the axis, in this war America is now divided into two different colors. If you support the war, then you are a red state and if you are against the war you are a blue state. How can there be any objectivity in the recording of this war.

Just by listening to the talk radio shows such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, and Jerry Springer you see that the first two, who are for the war will show that their side is correct. They will bring examples of how democrats are using the war to tarnish the administration, they will have clips from talks by Senatory Murtha who says we should leave Iraq as a means of surrenduring, and more. On the other side, the liberals such as Franken and Springer will use the information that showed that the NSA had illegally wire taped people, had people seized without trial against the writ of habius corpus because they had a conversation where they said that Islam was right and America was wrong. These are just four examples of four radio hosts on just two american radio stations. With this kind of polarity, how is it possible for history, at this time, to be objective?

It is not the responsibility of the current generation to be objective, we cannot. We do not have all of the information. Future historians will be able to look into files that we were unable to gain access to, but more importantly, the conflict would be over and they would know the result. Since the end has already happened, only future historians can be objective about the decisions that are being made now"

Do you see what I did? I was very, very specific. You can follow my train of thought. You can see where I am going and you can predict my conclusion. You need to tie things nicely. No loose ends.

4) You never concluded: "Is it completely impossible to be objective when writing history? It can be difficult when the writer is someone who is directly involved or has some sort of emotional attachment. This emotional attachment would naturally cloud their interpretation of events and thus, objectivity would be lost. It follows from this then, that when the writer is not emotionally attached, it may be possible to achieve objectivity. "

You are still too vague, you never answered any questions. you posed more questions. A conclusion is just that, concludes. You have asked and then answered.

I hope you do not take this too hard. Let me know if you want more help.

By the way, I was a history minor.

 

[Gabujabu]

Hmm, the only time I practiced writing out samples was the day before the MCAT (did not get them critiqued), just to get a feel for how long 30min of writing the prompts was. I think that was more practice than most people I know, and I ended up w/ an S. This section is very subjective and depends a lot on your handwriting as well. The most important advice, as stated above, is make sure you follow the directions and you will be fine. This section is not as important because 1) It has not shown to be as reliable as the other sections in predicting future results, 2) It doesn't factor into US News Rankings .