Barnard supplement- possibly too obscure; questionable structure? too idolizing?

Barnard supplement- possibly too obscure; questionable structure? too idolizing?

B. Pick one woman in history or fiction to converse with for an hour and explain your choice. What would you talk about? (100-250 words)

Emma Goldman.

The "Priestess of Anarchy"; the woman who was arrested and jailed several times yet continued to advocate for her fringe views; one who overcame Soviet limitations and created her own culture among likeminded revolutionaries.

One minute: I introduce myself.
Five minutes: I ask if she was involved in the assassination of President McKinley.
Ten minutes: I avow the effect she's had on me as a young woman, from her feminist ideologies and obstinate character to her rejection of communism. The latter would make a particularly compelling tangent- after reading 'My Disillusionment in Russia', I explored various 'ideal' economic systems, some of which are an antithesis to anarchism. Her rebuttals to my points would be the most validating bit.

Twenty minutes: we discuss anarchism in light of recent political activity (assuming she is aware of current news), and the far left leanings towards socialism. This would not be heavy... I just want to hear her speak about what she believes; to witness one of her speeches, albeit a personal one.

Seven minutes of female angst met with wise reassurance: I confess that an ex-boyfriend cheated on me- only because I haven't told anyone this. It was assumed our relationship flickered out because we were a reserved couple. She would understand my frustration, because she, too, was cheated on.

Seven minutes: I ask about the influence of Judaism on her life.
Two minutes: a hug.
This plan gives an eight minute buffer in a conversation with my idol.

@agoldie
It's interesting that you chose to provide a literal minute-by-minute outline of the conversation. But I think it sort of takes away from the flow of the reading and is a bit unnecessary. Also, you should include a stronger conclusion to capture what fascinates you about her in a nutshell and how she's specifically affected you and your beliefs. The end is pretty blunt and makes the essay feel overly systematic, which I don't think the prompt is really looking for. You could also elaborate a little on the points you mentioned about her writing and anarchism.

Anna, there is no need for a blow by blow account of how you would spend a total of 60 minutes with the woman that you idolize. Instead, you should present that hour in a fluid essay discussion. With your questions represented and the possible responses and rebuttals you might be getting from here. Mostly because you already know everything to know about this person so it would be logical that you can relate the blow by blow account of the discussion in an interesting manner. BTW, there is a case of TMI in this essay. There is no need to tell the reviewer about your love life. That is an irrelevant part of the discussion that you are trying to present. Keep the discussion on an academic and professional level. The personal matters should not be involved here. It taints the hour long discussion that you are having with the person. Your discussion is not really idolizing nor obscure. It is a highly intellectual discussion actually and I enjoyed reading it.