477 lines
17 KiB
Markdown
477 lines
17 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: Developing Essays
|
|
description: Methodology for developing personal statements and analytical essays. Use when helping identify throughlines, resolve "too many ideas" paralysis, or clarify essay themes.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Developing Essays
|
|
|
|
## Core Principle
|
|
|
|
**Actionability > Description**: Essays answer "what will you do?" not "who are you?"
|
|
|
|
Every theme must translate to **future behavior**.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Output Format
|
|
|
|
When providing essay feedback, use this concise side-by-side format:
|
|
|
|
**Structure:**
|
|
- One focused paragraph per major issue
|
|
- Quote the problematic essay text, then provide commentary immediately after
|
|
- No lengthy preambles or excessive context
|
|
|
|
**Format pattern:**
|
|
> **[Issue name]:** "[quoted essay text]"
|
|
>
|
|
> [Single paragraph explaining the problem and suggesting fix]
|
|
|
|
**Constraints:**
|
|
- Maximum 3-4 issues per feedback session
|
|
- Each commentary paragraph: 3-5 sentences maximum
|
|
- Focus on actionable changes, not theory
|
|
- Use examples only when they directly demonstrate the fix
|
|
|
|
**What to prioritize:**
|
|
1. Missing forward projection (no "what will you do")
|
|
2. Circular narrative gaps (opening theme not closed in conclusion)
|
|
3. Weak openings (no hook, unclear stakes, unmotivated quotes)
|
|
4. Weak throughline or too many themes
|
|
5. Abstract language without concrete moments
|
|
6. Structural problems (formula, weak climax)
|
|
|
|
Omit exhaustive walkthroughs of the diagnostic framework unless specifically requested.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Five-Step Diagnostic
|
|
|
|
**Note**: This is strategic (what to say). See "Tactical Writing Process" for mechanical execution (how to write).
|
|
|
|
### 1. Throughline Extraction
|
|
Find what the essay is *actually* about:
|
|
- What's the emotional climax?
|
|
- What was lost/gained?
|
|
- What pattern does this reveal?
|
|
- How will this manifest in the future?
|
|
|
|
**Example**:
|
|
- Surface: "Couldn't dance professionally"
|
|
- Deeper: "Lost external validation"
|
|
- Pattern: "Shifted from performing → discovering"
|
|
- Future: "Will seek clarity over recognition"
|
|
|
|
**For college essays**: State your throughline/values explicitly in the opening paragraph. Don't bury it in abstractions.
|
|
|
|
❌ Weak opening: "Growing up a member of Gen Z, I'm invested in learning how people negotiate power..."
|
|
✅ Strong opening: "I want to understand how policy can empower people, not just regulate them. This matters to me because..."
|
|
|
|
**Pattern**: Lead with clear personal values → then show how opportunities align with those values
|
|
|
|
### 2. Actionability Test
|
|
Ask: "What does this predict about future behavior?"
|
|
|
|
**Strong**: "I embrace imperfection" → "I will take intellectual risks, be vulnerable, try repeatedly from failure"
|
|
**Weak**: "I learned resilience" → (What specifically will you DO?)
|
|
|
|
**Rule**: If you can't name 3 concrete behaviors, the theme is too abstract.
|
|
|
|
#### Realization → Action Template
|
|
|
|
Many essays end with realizations but no behavior change. Use this template to convert insights to actions:
|
|
|
|
**Pattern**: "I realized [insight]. Now when [situation], I [specific behavior]."
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
- ❌ Weak: "I realized food negotiates belonging"
|
|
- ✅ Strong: "I realized food negotiates belonging. Now when roommates mention what they eat, I ask about the story behind it"
|
|
|
|
- ❌ Weak: "Bridge-building is carried in everyday objects"
|
|
- ✅ Strong: "Bridge-building is carried in everyday objects. Now when I meet someone new, I notice what they carry—the book bag, the keychain, the coffee order—and ask about it"
|
|
|
|
**Test**: Can you name both the trigger situation AND the specific behavior? If not, still too abstract.
|
|
|
|
### 3. Subtraction Test
|
|
Too many themes? Subtract until one remains.
|
|
|
|
1. List all themes
|
|
2. Write "This essay is about [theme]" for each
|
|
3. Which feels most urgent?
|
|
4. Cut everything else
|
|
|
|
**One essay, one throughline.**
|
|
|
|
### 4. Forward Projection
|
|
Transform past → future capability.
|
|
|
|
❌ "I had to reinvent myself"
|
|
✅ "I reinvented myself once; I can do it again"
|
|
|
|
**Template**: "Because [experience], I am now capable of [specific action]"
|
|
|
|
#### Circular Narrative Structure
|
|
|
|
Bridge-building essays must close the loop: if opening establishes a theme, conclusion must show how that theme manifests in future action.
|
|
|
|
**Opening → Conclusion Circle:**
|
|
- Opening establishes: "[Core theme/value]"
|
|
- Body demonstrates: [Examples that prove theme]
|
|
- Conclusion projects: "Because of [theme], I will [specific action] when [context]"
|
|
|
|
**Test**: Replace conclusion with opening theme phrase. Does it connect naturally? If not, revise conclusion to explicitly callback.
|
|
|
|
**Example (NYU bridge-building essay):**
|
|
- Opening: "I'd grown through the words of others"
|
|
- Weak conclusion: "Bridge-building is carried in everyday objects" (realization, no callback)
|
|
- Strong conclusion: "At NYU, I'll grow others through my questions—not just learning from their words, but helping them discover meaning in their stories" (callbacks to "words of others" + shows future behavior)
|
|
|
|
**Common mistake**: Concluding with a beautiful insight that has no connection to the opening theme. This breaks the essay's coherence.
|
|
|
|
### 5. Concrete Translation
|
|
Abstract → tangible.
|
|
|
|
- Abstract: "I embrace imperfection"
|
|
- Concrete: "In the lab, when I killed the cricket, I documented the failure and adjusted technique"
|
|
- Three contexts:
|
|
- Academic: Share preliminary ideas in class
|
|
- Research: Publish null results
|
|
- Collaborative: Admit when I don't know
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Tactical Writing Process
|
|
|
|
Bottom-up sentence construction method. Use after identifying throughline (Steps 1-3).
|
|
|
|
### Two-Phase Refinement
|
|
|
|
**Phase 1: Paragraph-Level**
|
|
1. Break paragraph into components
|
|
2. For each component:
|
|
- Q1A: "Do I need this?"
|
|
- Q1B: "What relationships between components?"
|
|
- Q1C: "How does this relate to previous paragraph?"
|
|
- **Q-ALWAYS**: "How does this serve my throughline?"
|
|
|
|
**Phase 2: Sentence-Level**
|
|
1. For each sentence:
|
|
- Q2A: "What am I expressing?"
|
|
- Q2B: "Does this have a role in the paragraph?"
|
|
- Q2C: "What relationship with previous sentence?"
|
|
2. Build from simplest version → layer complexity
|
|
|
|
### "Start Dumb, Build Up" Method
|
|
|
|
**Core technique**: Strip to bare logic, then add descriptions.
|
|
|
|
**Process**:
|
|
1. Write simplest possible sentence (bare logic)
|
|
2. Layer in descriptions one at a time
|
|
3. Discover what's essential vs. "fluffy"
|
|
|
|
**Example**:
|
|
- Bare: "Law recognizes equality. Law allows local practice. This created problems."
|
|
- Layer 1: "Chinese law recognizes equality. But allows villages to govern by custom. This dispossessed Lei."
|
|
- Layer 2: "Chinese law upheld both villagers' land entitlements and villages' autonomy to govern by custom. Despite statutory protection, rural custom revoked married women's land rights, dispossessing Lei."
|
|
|
|
**Why**: Adding details to "nice-sounding" writing makes structure messy. Start ugly, build beautiful.
|
|
|
|
### Bottom-Up Detail Gathering
|
|
|
|
**Before structuring**, gather raw material:
|
|
|
|
1. **Collect**: Personal experiences, cases, observations, thoughts
|
|
2. **Extract**: General principles/patterns from details
|
|
3. **Connect**: Link principles to specific examples
|
|
4. **Merge**: Weave into coherent narrative
|
|
|
|
**Critical rule**: "Don't make it sound nice yet. Give personal experience and details first."
|
|
|
|
### Reading Strategy for Material Gathering
|
|
|
|
**Iterative skimming** (not deep reading first):
|
|
|
|
1. General sense: Why introduced? Why important?
|
|
2. Application: When/how used?
|
|
3. Explain test: "How would I explain this in 2-3 sentences?"
|
|
4. Extract: Take 1-2 technical concepts to show understanding
|
|
5. **Go back only when writing** (not during reading)
|
|
|
|
**Note**: "Skimming feels uncomfortable because you're not understanding everything. But it's much more time efficient."
|
|
|
|
### Relationship Mapping
|
|
|
|
**Every sentence must explicitly relate to surrounding sentences.**
|
|
|
|
**Method**:
|
|
- "What does this sentence do for the previous one?"
|
|
- "What does it set up for the next one?"
|
|
- "If relationship isn't clear, add transitional language"
|
|
|
|
**Example progression**:
|
|
- "From Lei's case..." (anchors to previous)
|
|
- "This drew me to common law..." (consequence)
|
|
- "Reading Kennedy's work..." (action taken)
|
|
|
|
### Three-Part Structure
|
|
|
|
For complex points:
|
|
1. **Express problem/tension**: State core issue
|
|
2. **Give example**: Concrete case
|
|
3. **Tie together**: Show connection
|
|
|
|
**Template**: "When reading [source], I found [tension]. In [specific case], [what happened]."
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Content Development Techniques
|
|
|
|
When student lacks material or struggles with abstraction.
|
|
|
|
### Content Provision
|
|
|
|
**When to use**: Student has structure but lacks substance.
|
|
|
|
**Method**: Provide concept clusters as building blocks.
|
|
|
|
**Example**:
|
|
Student writes: "Video journaling helped me understand myself"
|
|
Consultant provides: "Difference. Seeing different ways people live. Seeing intricacies. Listening. Culture. Attentiveness."
|
|
|
|
Student integrates: "Video journaling taught me to see difference—how others live, the intricacies of their daily rhythms. I learned listening as cultural practice, attentiveness as skill."
|
|
|
|
**Rule**: Give raw concepts, not finished sentences. Let them build.
|
|
|
|
### Compression Exercise
|
|
|
|
**When to use**: Writing is verbose, ideas buried in excess.
|
|
|
|
**Method**: Force radical reduction.
|
|
|
|
**Commands**:
|
|
- "Reduce this paragraph to 1 sentence"
|
|
- "Say this in 2 sentences maximum"
|
|
- "This paragraph can be a leading sentence"
|
|
|
|
**Example**:
|
|
Original (3 paragraphs): Discussion of dopamine, YouTube, vlogs, and why vlogging works
|
|
Compressed (2 sentences): "Laptop open, I resisted YouTube, the vlogs and dopamine. Yet my mind wondered—vloggers record unpolished moments for the public, yes, but for themselves too."
|
|
|
|
**Why it works**: Forces identification of core idea. Everything else was decoration.
|
|
|
|
### Experience Translation
|
|
|
|
**When to use**: Too many abstract concepts, not enough felt moments.
|
|
|
|
**Method**: Replace every abstraction with concrete experience.
|
|
|
|
**Pattern**:
|
|
- Abstract: "dopamine from watching vlogs"
|
|
- Concrete: "what you felt when watching"
|
|
- More concrete: "I watched a vlogger hesitate mid-sentence, laugh at herself. That hesitation felt familiar."
|
|
|
|
**Exercise**: "For each abstract term, give me the moment you experienced it."
|
|
|
|
**Examples**:
|
|
- "I learned resilience" → "When the cricket died, I documented it and tried again"
|
|
- "Embracing imperfection" → "I posted the video with my voice cracking"
|
|
- "Cultural awareness" → "In the matriarchal village, I interviewed a craftsman who spoke of overseas patrons"
|
|
|
|
**Rule**: If you can't name the moment, the concept isn't earned yet.
|
|
|
|
### Theoretical Framework Integration
|
|
|
|
**When to use**: Personal narrative lacks academic rigor.
|
|
|
|
**Method**: Find scholarly framework that explains student's experience.
|
|
|
|
**Examples from consultations**:
|
|
- Video journaling → Turner's "liminality" (anthropology)
|
|
- Dance discipline → Embodied cognition (philosophy)
|
|
- Village experience → Intersectionality (Crenshaw)
|
|
|
|
**Process**:
|
|
1. Identify pattern in student's experience
|
|
2. Ask: "What field studies this?"
|
|
3. Provide 1-2 key scholars/concepts
|
|
4. Student integrates: "Turner's concept of 'liminality' gave me language for what I'd been doing"
|
|
|
|
**Why it works**: Elevates personal story to intellectual inquiry.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Key Techniques
|
|
|
|
### One Sentence Test
|
|
Complete: "This essay is about how [experience] taught me [insight], which means I will [action]"
|
|
|
|
If they can't → essay isn't ready.
|
|
|
|
### Uncomfortable Truth
|
|
The best throughline makes the writer slightly uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
**Prompt**: "What are you afraid to say?"
|
|
That's often the throughline.
|
|
|
|
### So What? Chain
|
|
Ask "So what?" three times:
|
|
|
|
- "I embrace imperfection"
|
|
- So what? → "I'm willing to be vulnerable"
|
|
- So what? → "I take intellectual risks"
|
|
- So what? → "I contribute bold hypotheses, even if wrong"
|
|
|
|
Stop at third level—that's the actionable insight.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Common Problems
|
|
|
|
**"Too many themes"**
|
|
→ Which most directly answers "what will you do in college?" Keep only that.
|
|
|
|
**"Unclear throughline"**
|
|
→ Complete: "If the reader remembers one thing: ___"
|
|
|
|
**"Emotional climax underdeveloped"**
|
|
→ Turning point gets 3 sentences? Expand to full paragraph.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Red Flags
|
|
|
|
Phrases that signal weak throughline:
|
|
- "I learned a lot"
|
|
- "This experience shaped me"
|
|
- "I'm passionate about"
|
|
- "This taught me the importance of"
|
|
|
|
Push for specificity: What *exactly*? How *specifically*?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## For Analytical Essays
|
|
|
|
**Background vs. Analysis**:
|
|
- Background = Established facts needed to understand
|
|
- Analysis = Your interpretation using those facts
|
|
- Test: "Is this my argument or common knowledge?"
|
|
|
|
**Evidence Rule**: Every claim needs:
|
|
1. Textual evidence
|
|
2. Contextual support (historical/cultural)
|
|
3. Logical connection between evidence and claim
|
|
|
|
❌ "Snail Girl served a purpose after An Lushan rebellion"
|
|
✅ "Snail Girl reflects post-rebellion anxiety, evidenced by [textual detail] and increased courtesan culture in [source]"
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Essay Type Patterns
|
|
|
|
### Opening Strategies for Bridge-Building Essays
|
|
|
|
**Core principle**: Strong openings establish stakes before delivering insights.
|
|
|
|
❌ **Weak**: Start with advice/quote without context
|
|
✅ **Strong**: Start with moment of tension, then give insight that resolved it
|
|
|
|
**Before (unmotivated quote):**
|
|
> Professor Wong said, "Talk to people more."
|
|
|
|
**After (setup stakes first):**
|
|
> Reviewing famous ethnographies, I expected techniques for observation. Instead, Professor Wong paused: "The fieldwork I'm proudest of came from conversations I almost didn't have."
|
|
|
|
**Hook Types:**
|
|
1. **Surprising moment** - Expectation violated
|
|
- "I expected to learn interviewing tactics. Instead, he told me to stop taking notes."
|
|
2. **Tension** - Two opposing truths
|
|
- "The village preserved matriarchal tradition. Yet every woman I met had left to work in coastal cities."
|
|
3. **Vivid scene** - Drop reader into action
|
|
- "The boy approached singing. His mother, 2,000 miles away, had taught him the melody over FaceTime."
|
|
4. **Confession** - Admit uncomfortable truth
|
|
- "I spent three months analyzing communities. I never asked what the data meant to them."
|
|
|
|
**Test**: Could the essay start at paragraph 2 instead? If yes, paragraph 1 is weak—it's not doing work to engage the reader.
|
|
|
|
**Common mistake**: Generic statements about generation, society, or abstract concepts. These feel like padding.
|
|
- ❌ "Growing up a member of Gen Z, I'm invested in learning how people negotiate power..."
|
|
- ✅ "When the village elder refused my interview, I realized my questions were extracting data, not building trust."
|
|
|
|
### Thank-You Note / Mentor Essays
|
|
|
|
**Core principle**: Relationship-focus over achievement-focus.
|
|
|
|
❌ Achievement-focused: "I led 493 members, organized games, created mentorship programs..."
|
|
✅ Relationship-focused: "You taught me that persistence matters more than perfection. When you accepted me despite my 33% win rate..."
|
|
|
|
**Seven-part structure**:
|
|
1. **Introduce setting**: Where/how you met
|
|
2. **Establish mentor relationship**: Who they are to you
|
|
3. **Show transition**: How they empowered you
|
|
4. **Present problems**: Challenges in the community/space
|
|
5. **Detail your actions**: What you did (influenced by them)
|
|
6. **Reflect on growth**: What you learned from the process
|
|
7. **Final thank you**: Connect back to their specific impact
|
|
|
|
**Balancing analytical with personal**: You can include sociological/intellectual observations, but frame them as insights the mentor helped you discover.
|
|
|
|
**Example**:
|
|
- ❌ "I implemented rotating moderators and created participation guidelines..."
|
|
- ✅ "You taught me that access defines opportunity. When I saw the PeiWan economy create hierarchy in our group, I remembered your words and introduced rotating moderators..."
|
|
|
|
**Key**: Use observations to explain what the person taught you, not to showcase knowledge.
|
|
|
|
### "Why This College" Essays
|
|
|
|
**Specificity over name-dropping**: Show what you'd actually do, not just list programs.
|
|
|
|
❌ Vague: "I'm excited to join debates at the Philomathean Society"
|
|
✅ Specific: "At Philomathean Society, I want to bring debates on digital policy—how do we regulate platforms that shape identity formation?"
|
|
|
|
❌ Generic: "I'll use the Data Driven Discovery Initiative"
|
|
✅ Concrete: "Through DDDI, I plan to analyze social media discourse patterns using NLP to understand how marginalized communities build counter-narratives"
|
|
|
|
**Pattern**: Program/opportunity → specific question/project you'd pursue → why this connects to your values
|
|
|
|
**Test**: Could another applicant copy-paste this sentence? If yes, add more specificity.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Consultation Flow
|
|
|
|
**First meeting**: Ask
|
|
- "What is this essay about?"
|
|
- "If you deleted half, what stays?"
|
|
- "What about your future, not just past?"
|
|
|
|
**Output**: 2-3 possible throughlines
|
|
|
|
**Second meeting**: Present options
|
|
"Here are three framings: [A→behavior], [B→behavior], [C→behavior]"
|
|
|
|
Ask: "Which feels uncomfortable to admit?"
|
|
→ Usually the right one.
|
|
|
|
**Revision**: Focus on
|
|
- Climax developed enough?
|
|
- Every paragraph serves throughline?
|
|
- Can we subtract anything?
|
|
- Conclusion projects forward?
|
|
|
|
**After structure is solid**, use Tactical Writing Process for sentence-level refinement.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Mantras
|
|
|
|
1. "What will you do?" > "Who are you?"
|
|
2. One throughline, deeply excavated
|
|
3. Uncomfortable truth = right throughline
|
|
4. Abstract → concrete behaviors
|
|
5. Climax deserves most space
|
|
6. Evidence before interpretation
|
|
7. Start dumb, build up (bare logic → descriptions)
|
|
8. Every sentence must relate to adjacent sentences
|