Undergraduate / intellectual engagement essay (for college app) [8]

Reflecting on your own interests and experiences, please comment on one of the following:

1. Intellectual engagement

When I was little, I always that that to be "intellectual" a person had to be the brightest and the best, but as I have gotten older, I have realized that being intellectual does not necessarily mean being naturally smart. It means being interested in what you are learning, and putting in that extra effort to succeed in school, not just for the grade, but for the knowledge. Intellectual engagement is necessary for success in life, even after education. What would happen if no one was ever curious, if no one ever tried to dig deeper and learn something? We would be without modern technologies and medicines. Our country would never advance in the world. It takes intellectual engagement to improve the lives of people everywhere. Sadly, children today in schools do not care about learning more, they only want to learn just enough to pass a test. Teachers need to find a way to make learning fun so children want to learn, so they want to go that extra mile to succeed and gain new knowledge. If there is to be any kind of future for today's people, and solutions to today's problems, there needs to be intellectual engagement today.

Please tell me what you think!!!

Undergraduate / cut out about 30 words for my college app; 'I wasn't elected to do nothing' [4]

2. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa told The New York Times, "The only way of not generating conflict is to do nothing, and I wasn't elected to do nothing." What issue quickens your pulse and inspires you to join the fray?

Murder. The Constitution says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." So it must be completely illegal in the United States, right? Wrong. There have been approximately 53 legal murders in the United States since the Roe vs. Wade decision to make abortions legal. It was passed on the basis that a fetus is not yet a human being. But it is.

Did you know that only a couple of weeks after fertilization a baby has a heartbeat? How can people say the baby is not alive? When a person is in a car accident and their heart stops, the EMTs pronounce them dead. So having a heartbeat must be what people consider being alive. So a fetus, only conceived two weeks ago, is alive. Most women are only starting to realize they may be pregnant at this point. When they do realize it and decide to have an abortion, the baby is just that. A baby. A human being. One that is murdered with the pregnancy's termination. About half of all abortions happen at about week 12 of the pregnancy. At this point, the baby has all of its organs and fingers and toes. It moves when it is bumped, or just moves freely when it wants to. It even hiccups. I just do not understand how a mother can kill her baby who can already do all of these things. Including being able to feel pain. A baby can feel everything that is done to it during an abortion. Every time it is sucked apart piece by piece, every moment it is suffocating. I do not mean to sound gory, but it is the truth.

Women most often have abortions because a baby is inconvenient for them, or they do not feel ready to be mothers. But there are so many people out there who cannot have children who want them. I understand that many women are not prepared to have a child. But that does not mean the baby has to be sacrificed just for the mother to be happy. However, many women are not happy after having an abortion. They are more likely to experience severe depression and regret for the rest of their lives. They are at a much higher risk of miscarriage, or could even become sterile, now unable to have children they want. A woman tries to improve her life by destroying another's and her life may end up much worse. There are more adoptive families out there than babies to adopt. Why would a woman chose to have an abortion, hurt herself, kill a child, when she could save a life, save herself pain, and give life to another family?

More than just destroying a life, women who have abortions are destroying potential. What if Einstein's mother had had an abortion? Or the mother of Christiaan Barnard, the man who performed the first heart transplant? If a woman decides to have an abortion, despite all the risks and possible effects, that is her decision. But she might have just killed the person who would have discovered the cure for cancer.

Undergraduate / 'Me fascinated with the human body' - Supplemental Essay to Harvard [3]

I just wrote this really quick so please feel free to give me any criticisms you have

Topic: An academic experience (course, project, paper or research topic) that has meant the most to you

A part of me has always been fascinated with the human body. When I was little, I enjoyed watching medical television shows with my mother. I thought it was interesting, but never really thought I would someday wish to become a doctor. That all changed when I took biology my sophomore year. I liked the units about plants and animals, but genetics and human development were by far my favorites. These are the sort of things I want to be doing for the rest of my life: helping people in a field that interests me. [..]

Book Reports / 'Does Man Control His Destiny?' - The Supernatural in Macbeth [2]

This is part of my English paper on the role of the supernatural elements in Macbeth. It's not done yet, I still have a couple more examples to go through, but could you please tell me what you think of it so far? I know it's kind of long, but I would really appreciate it!

Here are the directions: Withing each act of Macbeth, Shakespeare employs the element of the supernatural. Write a paper in which you analyze at least one apparition, or set of apparitions, that appears in each of the five acts. For each separate analysis, move beyond more literal meanings to consider the larger question of the purpose behind Shakespeare's dramatic use of each apparition. In what sense might they represent forces at work in the play beyond the will or imagination of an individual character? Did Shakespeare intend for each of these apparitions to embody a universal theme?

Does Man Control His Destiny?

Throughout the Shakespeare's tragedy Macbeth, elements of the supernatural appear. When Shakespeare wrote the play, people tended to be much more superstitious than the are now. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth really would have believed the different illusions they saw and heard, while today they probably just would have thought the apparitions some sort of strange coincidences. But they does believe the apparitions. Macbeth believes in the witches' prophecies and apparitions, the floating dagger, and Banquo's ghost. Lady Macbeth believes she cannot wash Duncan's blood off of her hands. It is their trust in these supernatural things that leads to Macbeth's downfall in Act 5. Because Macbeth and Lady Macbeth believe in the apparitions and act accordingly because of them, the apparitions cause their deaths. Even though they think they are acting of their own accord and controlling their own destinies, they are not. Shakespeare's use of the supernatural elements in Macbeth show that man has no control over his own destiny.

The three witches are the first sign of the supernatural we see in Macbeth. They open the play, and through their actions it is obvious they are something more than human. The witches meet Macbeth first in scene three. This is when they give Macbeth his prophecies. "All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis! / All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor! / All hail, Macbeth, that shalt be King hereafter!" (1.3.48-50) They tell Macbeth he is already Thane of Cawdor, and soon he shall also be King. When their statement about him being Thane of Cawdor turns out to be true, Macbeth sincerely believes in the witches' predictions. The realization that he will be King consumes him, and he immediately begins to think on how it will happen, even if it means killing Duncan. He lets the prophecy control his actions. He does not stop to think that maybe he will become King if he just sits back and lets it happen, he immediately jumps to the conclusion that he has to commit murder to get what he wants, or else it will not come to pass. He even kills his best friend Banquo, and tries to kill Banquo's son also, because the witches say Banquo, "...shall get kings, but be none." (1.3.67) The murders of Duncan and Banquo are what lead to Macbeth's growing insanity and eventual downfall later in the play. Macbeth lets the prophecies consume him and take over his destiny by twisting his actions around them.

Macbeth also puts too much stock into the second and third apparitions the witches show him in Act Four. The first apparition shows his own head cut form his body telling him to beware Macduff, the second, a bloody child, which says no man born of woman can harm Macbeth, and the third, a crowned child holding a sceptor who says Macbeth cannot be harmed until the whole country, form Birnam Wood to Dunsinane Hill come against him. The last image is a line of kings, one who carries a mirror with the image of Banquo in it. Macbeth comes to believe that he is invincible. Because "...none of woman born / Shall harm Macbeth," (4.1.80-81) he thinks neither Macduff, nor anyone, can harm him, for everyone is woman born. Macbeth puts so much faith in this he does not take heed whatsoever to beware Macduff, and so sends murderers to kill Macduff's family. He also does not think he can ever die, because how can the woods come and rise up against him at his castle? Macbeth takes faith in the predictions he likes, and not the ones that predict his downfall. These apparitions now take hold of Macbeth, giving him a false sense of security. He makes hasty decisions without thinking about the consequences, because he believes there are none. But these hasty decisions are what finalize Macduff's resolve to kill Macbeth. Macbeth's security in some of the apparitions leads him to ignore the one he should. He makes decisions he would not have done if it were not for these illusions, and so they leave him helpless against his destiny.

The first time we see Macbeth not completely in his right mind is when he imagines a floating bloody dagger leading him to Duncan. He understands that what he is seeing cannot possible be real, yet he still takes faith in it, believing it is leading him to Duncan. Not stopping to think about why he sees the dagger; he simply assumes it means that killing Duncan is the right choice for him. The dagger is bloody because he should spill Duncan's blood. If Macbeth had stopped to think about it, he probably would have realized that seeing objects that are not there is really not a good thing, especially when those objects are leading you to kill someone. He may have come to the conclusion that it was his conscience making him feel guild and shame for what he was going to do. In that case he would not have killed Duncan. But he puts too much faith in the supernatural dagger he sees before him and kills Duncan, the deed that starts off the downward spiral to his death.

Book Reports / The Human Condition as Portrayed in The Merchant of Venice (Shakespeare's) [4]

The subject was "Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice speaks to the human condition. Analyze how Shakespeare, in writing The Mercahnt of Venice, succeeds in his didactic purpose for all of humanity. Any feedback you have at all would be much appreciated!!

The Human Condition as Portrayed in The Merchant of Venice

People are not purely good or purely bad: they are some combination of the two. No one is perfect, and no one is completely evil. Everyone does both right and wrong. All people are both greedy and generous, are able to love and to hate, and are full of revenge and mercy. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare shows us the true human condition through his characters' actions. They are completely human. The "good" characters are not perfect, and the "bad" characters have feelings and reasons for their actions. They do not always do what is expected of them: people can be unpredictable, sometimes choosing to go against the rules and follow their own desires. Through the personas Shylock and Antonio, Jessica, and Portia, Shakespeare demonstrates the complex nature of the human condition, showing no person is completely who they at first seem to be.

In Shakespeare's day, Shylock was seen as the antagonist of the story. He was the hated Jew who tried to kill a beloved Christian merchant. Today, however, Shylock is often seen as the protagonist. Everyone hated him, but he just wanted to be understood and liked by others. He is sympathized with and seen as a broken down man, not an evil one. Both of these interpretations, while very different, are correct because of the complexity of Shylock's human nature. Shylock does indeed try to kill Antonio out of revenge. He will not take any amount of money, but wants Antonio's life. He is ruthless, showing no mercy. "My deeds upon my head! I crave the law, / The penalty and forfeit of my bond," (4.1.211-212). Critics of Shylock may say that he has no good in him. He is offered the money Antonio owes him, yet me will not take the money. Why? Because he is evil. If he has any good in him, he would take the money and go, not try to take Antonio's life, even if Antonio agreed to it. Antonio is a good man, and he should be spared. Any decent person would realize this. This, while true, is not the whole story. Shylock wants to kill Antonio because Antonio, while a good man, has been a horrible one to Shylock. Antonio mocks him, spits in his face, and calls him a dog. If Antonio had not been hateful to Shylock, Shylock would not want to kill him now. Antonio's doom is as much his own fault as Shylock's. There can be much sympathy for Shylock when the story is seen through his eyes.

"He hath disgraced me, and hind'red
me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my
gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled
my friends, heated mine enemies - and what's his reason?
I am a Jew." (3.1.48-52)
Shylock only wants Antonio to suffer as he has, for Antonio to realize what he has done to him. It may indeed by evil, but it is understandable. It is human. Shylock is the corruptive man he was interpreted as in Shakespeare's day, but also human, with real feelings and emotions, broken down by a life of misery.

When Jessica, Shylock's daughter, is introduced in the play, she is planning to run away and elope with a Christian. There are more sides to Jessica than there first seems to be. She appears to be running away from her oppressive father, the man she hates, to be with the man she loves. But at the same time, she knows it is wrong. Jessica realizes that it is a bad thing for her to hate her father, but she cannot not change the fact nevertheless. "Alack, what heinous sin is it in me / To be ashamed to be my father's child! / But though I am a daughter to his blood, / I am not to his manners" (2.4.16-19). Jessica is probably a good daughter to Shylock. He trusts her to lock up all his money and not go out to the masque with the Christians. There must be a basis for that trust, for Shylock does not trust people easily. But even though she is a good daughter and knows what she is doing is wrong, she cannot bring herself to stop. She is a good daughter doing something that will hurt her father. But this does not mean she is a bad person. Shylock has indeed been an overbearing father, not allowing Jessica to do many, if any, fun things. To Jessica, running away from her father is a sort of revenge for all those years of suffering, and a way of liberating herself. This still, however, is not an excuse for what she does to her father. If she is truly good, she would talk to Shylock about it before eloping, even though that probably would have meant not getting her way. Jessica is a complex person with conflicting emotions. She is a good person and in some ways a good daughter, but she follows her own feelings and runs away from her father, not thinking of what it would do to his. She is not perfect. She is simply human.

Portia is often seen as the perfect woman. She is intelligent, beautiful, loving, and polite. Her intelligence and cunning end up saving Antonio's life. She fulfills her father's dying wishes and chooses her husband through a lottery of caskets. But by no means was she perfect. In some ways she was hypocritical. She admits, "It is a good divine that follows his own / instructions. I can easier teach twenty what were good to / be done than be one of the twenty to follow mine own / teaching" (1.2.13-16). She knows how to be good but does not always do good. She is rude to the Moroccan Prince, at first only because of the color of his skin. In fact, she does not give any of her suitors, except Bassanio, the benefit of the doubt. If she really had been perfect, she would have at least given them time to prove themselves. Portia is also critical of her husband. She seems to trust him and love him completely, yet she tricks him into giving her his ring. Why would she do that? She does not fully trust him or his love for her. But her faults make her relatable. Shakespeare would not have written Portia to be the perfect woman, because no such woman exists. Everyone has faults. Portia is a little insecure about her marriage to her husband because she overheard him saying he would give her up to save Antonio. She has prejudices like everyone else, and she judges people by their first impressions, but that was the culture she grew up in. Portia is not perfect; she is simply human.

Shakespeare shows the complexity and faults of human nature through the actions of Shylock, Jessica, and Portia. Shylock tries to kill Antonio, a seemingly good person, but he does it because Antonio beat Shylock down again and again. Jessica runs away form her father and abuses his trust in her because she felt oppressed and was in love. Portia was was insecure about her marriage and prejudiced, but she had reasons to be. All of these characters have both good and bad qualities; both good and bad reactions to different situations. But the complexity of their natures is what makes them human.