This scholarship has two prompts and I have an idea for both; however, I cannot afford to create two essays. I'll have to evaluate each initial idea for its potential and some help in doing so would be much appreciated. These are NOT the intro paragraphs.
Prompt #1:
Evaluate a significant experience, achievement, risk you have taken, or ethical dilemma you have faced and its impact on you.
One significant experience I had was of an incident in the Philippines about 10 years ago. I lived in a fairly impoverished neighborhood and a house fire suddenly erupted in the middle of the night. The whole community roused up and fought the fire while also saving the victims and the majority of their belongings. And about 5 minutes after the ordeal, the firemen arrived (Fire Stations are corrupted in the Philippines). I would focus on the community though and its united effort to save a family in need.
Prompt #2:
Describe an experience that you have had or a concept you have learned about that intellectually excites you. When answering this question, you may want to consider some of the following questions: Why does this topic excite you? How does it impact the way you or others experience the world? What questions do you continue to ponder about it?
Ever since I've heard of the Laissez Faire policy, I've been interested in its impact on society and the economy. I would explain the how it allows the businesses to create their own identities and promotes healthy competition. I would also explain how it might benefit businesses for a little government intervention in poverty-stricken countries and during periods of recession (such as this one).
So which one sounds like it has more potential for not only showing my character to the reviewers but also displaying my intellectual curiosity.
i would go with #2
An incident in the Philippines, about ten years ago, was one of my most significant experiences. I lived in an fairly impoverished neighborhood, and a house fire suddenly erupted in the middle of the night. The whole community roused up and fought the fire while also saving the victims and the majority of their belongings. And About five 5 minutes after the ordeal, the firemen arrived (Fire Stations are corrupted corrupt in the Philippines). I would focus on the community though and its united effort to save a family in need.
Wow!! I can definitely say with confidence that the Laissez Faire essay is going to be very impressive. For the one about Indonesia, I wonder if you like that new first sentence. I think it gets the reader's attention if you start with "An incident in the Phillipines..." Ha ha, that sounds like the title of a movie of a novel.. haha...
That one about the fire will only be good if you can explain some profound truth through the telling of that experience. The moral of the story has to be good.
I'll pile onto to the "Go with option 2" bandwagon. The second one will make it much easier for you to show your intellectual curiosity, and what you say about the philosophy will reveal much about what sort of person you are.
Oh ok, I should have a typed up draft by tomorrow night.
And as I stated, Kevin, these are NOT my intro paragraphs.
Right on, I understand what you mean. Good luck with those drafts!
Ye gods.
That's the Questbridge College Prep Scholarship, no?
I'm doing it as well; I'm finding myself somewhat intimidated by merely your topics.
Props, both seem to be impressive.
Mm, but if you read the sample essays from previous winners, you'll find that even after ripping a grammar rulebook in front of the judging panel, if you're passion and personality communicates itself effectively through your piece, grammar matters little. Personally, I would be satisfied with "lesser" prizes, such as the free college-admission conferences. Anything that will help, right?
Here's first draft. Any thoughts? And yes, I will definitely re-edit this. The 3rd paragraph doesn't really seem to correspond with the prompt, but it does provide background information. Maybe I'll whittle it down a bit. Night everyone.
The first sentence seems abstract. Maybe you should say "monetary value." Maybe not, though since money was not always used.
...have pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into their economies, hoping that their engines would start and drive them forward once again.
Wow, seduced by the Burger King's large portion! I like it...
Well, I see that you argue in favor of government intervention, but you also acknowledge the importance of capitalism (i.e. because it WORKS)... but how about if at the beginning you introduce these two ideas clearly and formally -- so that the reader sees that the essay has structure. Otherwise, it seems like you are jumping from one idea to the next.
Well, it seems you misunderstand my purpose then, though it might be my fault. I'm discussing Laissez-Faire, it's the main idea. I'm just pointing out times when it's not the correct policy.
"...there are times, especially in periods of recession such as now, when government intervention in business is necessary to protect the economy."
to
"though Laissez-faire's freedom is favorable in most situations, there are times, especially in periods of recession, when government intervention in business is necessary to protect the economy."
I'm not really jumping from one to the other. I'm just transitioning from a little introduction about Laissez-faire to reasons why it is sometimes necessary to implement a different policy. The last paragraph isn't a heads-up to Laissez-faire, it's the conclusion.
Edit:
Long ago, mankind must have discovered the meaning of value. Along with this discovery, they must have realized that some things are better kept while others can be bartered away for things of similar value, and so the age of possessions and trade began. The leaders of the time might have attempted to regulate this trade, either for avarice or for altruism, and might have encountered the consequences and benefits of either dictating it completely or letting it be, a policy known as "Laissez-faire." The significance and use of this policy has intrigued me before I even knew what the word meant and has continued to interest me in the dealings of business today.
As a little boy, I fancied exploring, and sampling when unnoticed, the wares of my parents' quaint little shop. It was installed in the first floor of our humble abode, facing the dirt road. In some odd attempt to pin prestige to the store, my parents named it the Erap-Erap Store: Erap is a nickname of the now-former President of the Philippines, Joseph Estrada. My parents fooled me into thinking that Estrada himself sponsored the store and even dropped by for occasional visits when I wasn't there. Childhood curiosity still intact, I had thought of how this affected our store: Is some of the money going to our president? Does he choose the things we sell? Did he know that I sneaked some candy off the shelves? They were simple questions, a first-grader has few worldly concerns, but those elementary questions form the basis of most questions regarding the government's role in the economy: Should the government regulate prices? Should it regulate the quality of products? Should it be involved in the development of businesses? As I grew, the complexity of my questions and my interest in the matters of business grew, along with my concerns about the policy. Especially frightening to me is the close-mindedness of people who believe that Laissez-Faire is always the correct policy; though Laissez-faire's freedom is favorable in most situations, there are times, especially in periods of recession, when government intervention in business is necessary to protect the economy.
A global recession is ravaging the world market leaving behind a trail of unemployment, economic stagnation, and forsaken lots full of brand new Toyota Corollas: a horrid sight. The world governments, desperate to effect change, have pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into their economies, hoping that their engines would start and drive them forward once again. Such actions are blasphemy for supporters of a Laissez-Faire policy; however, it is crucial. Without government funding, businesses would be forced take drastic measures to prevent bankruptcy. In prosperous times, Laissez-faire produces a diverse market driven by healthy competition.
Laissez-faire is the heart of capitalism. I've felt its influences as I walk on my home, a McDonalds tempting me with its prices while a Burger King seduces me with its larger portions. I've always wondered how the world would be under a different policy: streets lined with colorless businesses lacking competition.
though Laissez-faire's freedom is favorable in most situations,
You don't really argue for this, at all. I can see why Kevin thought you were writing an essay on the importance of government intervention. If that's what you are trying to do, that's fine, but if you are also trying to stress the importance of laissez-faire, you are going to have to add more. Perhaps you would find it more natural to argue from the outset that a balance is needed. Total laissez-faire economies can result in monopolies, unstable markets for goods and services that society really needs to be available on a stable basis, and "dead zones" in which important services aren't available because economies of scale don't make them profitable enough for private enterprise to deliver. On the other hand, the government, even when not run by a bunch of corrupt buffoons, still tends to move inexorably towards inefficiency and waste, because that is what bureaucracy, especially government bureaucracy, rewards most. Even well intentioned policies, such as forcing the banks to lend to poor people so they can become homeowners, can have devastating unintended side effects -- witness the subprime mortgage fiasco. So, you could argue that government needs to intervene enough in the economy to ensure that it remains fairly stable, while still allowing business the freedom to produce wealth.
Also, you say that "however, it is crucial. Without government funding, businesses would be forced take drastic measures to prevent bankruptcy" So? The businesses that made poor business decisions would go out of business, and new, more efficient companies would arise to replace them. How does the government's keeping alive of companies that are badly mismanaged constitute a good thing? Also, how can the government deliver any economic stimulus, when every dollar it spends is taken, ultimately, from taxpayers who would spend it anyway? And how do you deal with the issue of creating moral hazard? You don't need to respond to these question directly in your essay, but you might want to think about them as you revise.
That may be true, but it is not only the businesses that have made poor decisions that are going out of business. Reputable companies such as Circuity City, Washington Mutual, and Lehman Brothers have fallen to the effects of the recession. These aren't just unrelated deaths, there is an economic atmosphere that encourages failure. AIG, though stupidly using the stimulus money to line their one pockets, is a crucial insurance corporation: without it hundreds of smaller insurance companies would fail immediately since they turn to AIG for financial support concerning their larger clients.
It would be difficult for an efficient company to rise during this economic climate and even if they were, lack of government funding would just plunge the markets into a depression leaving all companies, efficient and inefficient alike, in tatters.
Well, thanks Kevin, Sean, kenzi, and sarahmk. I'll just edit it a little to fit what Sean and Kevin said and submit it to Questbridge. Wish me luck~
Okay, then: good luck. You are a very articulate writer with some thoughtful views on important matters, though, so you probably won't need it.
Jay, in both the prompts the central point is 'the impact on you'. You appear to have missed this.
I would suggest that you take up prompt #1. It will be unique if others are submitting on the same topic. Prompt #2 will be evaluated be inevitably compared with others.
