Hey guys! I am applying to BU's Trustee scholarship and they asked for another essay. Three statements were given and I was to write about one. I will be sending the essay tomorrow so i jsut wanted to check if I wrote it the right way.
The word limit is 600.
3. The current economic crisis traces to a surfeit of mortgages that were sold to people who could not afford them. Some people blame the situation on consumers who failed to evaluate what they were buying; others say the industry defrauded consumers through unclear contracts and promotion. What do you think?
Like the two sides of a coin, most things in life are always paired or can be viewed from more than one perspective. And such is the case of the problem with the industry and the consumers. Neither side can be blamed completely for both sides are at fault. As with human nature, everyone is merely looking for his own profit.
In my home country, Myanmar, buying things in installments are not allowed. If we want something, we have to pay cash down. So there are rarely problems concerning with debts or mortgages. However, there is one type of business I am familiar with, which may be similar to the problem of mortgages. Unlike other countries, the government is the sole supplier of phone lines and mobile phones in my country. Anyone wanting a phone must go to the telecommunications office, fill up a pile of forms and request for one. In front of this office are many people, who sell forms and their services for a price.
At first glance, these form sellers attract people by shouting that applying for a form will only cost around a thousand or so. People lured by these declarations go to these sellers and request for their service. These sellers will in turn fill in the forms, submit them at the office and come back with the total bills and their service charges. At this time, the people who requested for their services will find themselves in a tough predicament. What they had thought would cost only a thousand would be ten times the price. This is due to the fact that the price the sellers had been yelling was the price of only one form. But these sellers had already submitted ten or more forms under the buyer's name. And so, since the forms had already been submitted, the buyer would have no choice but to pay.
In this kind of situation, neither side can be blamed for. The buyers had requested for the services voluntarily and from their point of view, it is the seller's fault. The buyers would argue that the seller should have been clearer about the price and such. On the contrary, from the seller's view, the buyers are at fault. A seller would argue that the buyers should have asked carefully and looked over everything before deciding to buy the forms. They should not have been persuaded so easily by the seller.
Similarly, with the mortgage crisis, both the industry and the consumer are only looking to gain profits. The industry could argue that it is the consumer's fault for entering a contract without clearly finding out about the terms. Or maybe the consumers should have made sure that they would be able to pay the debt on time. Nonetheless, the consumer would also argue that the industry had tried to persuade them into entering a contract that did not suit the consumer. It is the fault of the industry for pairing the consumer with a contract that did not match him financially. The industry should have taken the consumer's financial situation into account before convincing the consumer to enter the contract.
As you can see, both sides are simply trying to gain profits and neither side can be blamed for it. Therefore, I think both sides are at fault.
So, what do u guys think?
Interesting essay - the adage "it takes two hands to clap" (better than to tango) comes to mind. I wouldn't go so far as both sides are EQUALLY at fault but that both are at fault.
The comparison is pretty good and helps me understand both sides of the argument. Here a few suggestions on wording etc. Hope this isn't too late and you get the scholarship!!!
And so, since the forms have were already been submitted, the buyer would have no choice but to pay.
The buyers hadvoluntarily requested for the services by their own wills and from their point of view, it is the seller's fault. The buyers would argue that the seller should have been clearer about the price and such . WERE MISLEADING? GAVE INCOMPLETE PRICING INFORMATION??
Or maybe they should have made sure that they would be able to pay the debt on time. NOT CLEAR WHO YOU MEAN BY "THEY" (the industry, the consumer?? different each time?)
It is the fault of the industry for pairing the consumer with a contract that did not match him. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "MATCH"?
Ah!! It will be better if you take a side, or say something assertive in that first paragraph! Don't dodge the question! Ha ha.
Instead, you say, well, each side has its own point of view, and then you change the subject and start talking about Myanmar! That is just like what slick politicians do to dodge difficult questions, ha ha.
In this kind of situation, neither side can should be burdened with all the blame.
I think what really happened was that some people at the top arranged to get rich and then let the system collapse. I think it has to do with predatory lending, definitely, though. I mean, that is something you can really say with certainty. It is better to take a stand! If you just remain neutral, it is not very impressive. Read a few articles and see which arguments seem strongest! Cite the articles.
