I was asked to provide a "significant" writing sample to an admissions committee. Rather than dig up something old (and not interesting), I've decided to write something that actually might be interesting for the adcom (perhaps they will even be inclined to read it). The school is in Pittsburgh, so I'm writing about the legacy of the Pittsburgh Renaissance. The final product, will be quite long, so I'll spare you that, but I want to make sure I'm on track with my introduction and thesis. I would appreciate any advice, but I have a few specific questions.
1. My intended Thesis is the last two sentences of the second paragraph. Is that clear to you as a reader?
2. I often refer to a "public/private" partnership. Am I formatting that correctly? Should it be "public-private" partnership, etc...?
I'm pasting the beginning of the essay below along with the topic sentences for the remaining paragraphs. You can ignore the numbers in parentheses... these are just rough notes for citations I will fill in later.
Thanks in Advance!
A Lasting Legacy:
David L. Lawrence, Richard King Mellon and the Pittsburgh Renaissance
On May 28, 2009, President Obama announced Pittsburgh as the site of the 2009 G20 summit. The announcement came on the heels of the Pittsburgh Steelers' record setting, sixth world championship and in the midst of the Pittsburgh Penguins' bid for a National Hockey League championship. Two weeks later, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette announced that, for the fourth year in a row, Economist magazine named Pittsburgh the most liveable city in America. In the middle of a deep recession, an escalating war, and polls showing serious concern about the direction of our nation, Pittsburgh enjoyed an isolated bubble of good news. This good news reflects an energy in the Pittsburgh region that is difficult to source, but undeniably present. In his blog, Mike Madison of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law writes, "There is no doubt that Pittsburgh, as both a city and region, looks cleaner and brighter and has a hipper and more positive cultural tone than it did even a decade ago."(1) The scope of Madison's statement is too broad for any exhaustive causal analysis; the idea that Pittsburgh is brighter and hipper than it was ten years ago is evident to the region's residents, but the changes that created this new image are too complex to identify conclusively. The announcement that Pittsburgh is America's most liveable city, even, is laced with complexity. As Madison points out, the factors used to determine Pittsburgh's "liveability", "are weaknesses at the same time they are strengths."(1) A primary factor used to determine "liveability" is the cost of living - chiefly real estate costs. That Pittsburgh has low real estate costs is great if you already live in Pittsburgh, but also reflective of low demand to live in Pittsburgh.(1) Dwelling on the inherent complexities of the currents that shape the Pittsburgh of today, though, is not useful to the region or its leaders. Instead, it is valuable to study the identifiable factors that positioned Pittsburgh as a city with new energy and as the model that the President of the United States chose to share with the world at the 2009 G20 summit. To that end, this essay will investigate the impact of public/private partnerships that began in the Pittsburgh of yesterday and continue to impact the city today.
Fifty years ago, Pittsburgh was enjoying a brighter image in a much more literal sense. On October 1, 1946, a city smoke control ordinance took effect to limit smoke pollution from industry, commercial buildings and railroads.(2) One year later, residential sources of smoke pollution came under regulation (2). The city that needed streetlights at high-noon during the WWII industrial boom suddenly transformed into one with sunny skies and clear air. Some described the cleaned up city as "hell with the lid off"(1) The changes that occurred in Pittsburgh in the last half decade started with smoke control; it is difficult to imagine Pittsburgh's emergence as a leader in healthcare and technology beneath the smoky skies of its industrial past. The legislation that enabled the smoke control regulations, though, was unpopular and difficult to pass. Judge Homer Brown, a resident of Pittsburgh in 1946 describes the climate as one of opposition to the smoke control regulations. "After all," he recalls, "The people made their livelihood from coal and alternative forms of hard coal were very expensive. It was thus difficult to get legislation passed that would have the effect of working against the economic interests of groups in the city."(3) A deeper investigation of the 1946 smoke control regulations uncovers even more puzzling questions regarding the passage of the legislation. The legislation was backed by a public/private partnership of the Pittsburgh City Government and the Allegheny Conference on Community Development. The city involvement was spearheaded by Mayor, David L. Lawrence, a democrat, who owed a sizeable portion of his election to the working class people, who used cheap coal to heat their homes.(4) Conversely, the Allegheny Conference acted under the influence of Richard King Mellon, who had significant financial interests in a railroad industry that owed a portion of its profits to the availability of cheap coal and the absence of smoke control regulations. (5) Nonetheless, these two men worked together to exercise the political and economic muscle necessary to pass legislation they believed would improve the future of Pittsburgh. In the ensuing years, the partnership between Lawrence and Mellon brought the city flood control, new roads and infrastructure, and the modern buildings that shape Pittsburgh's landscape today.(2). It is clear that the two men, driven by different individual interests, recognized each other as forward thinking leaders with a shared stake in the future of Pittsburgh. In the formation of a civic alliance to improve their city, Richard King Mellon and David L. Lawrence set a standard of cooperation for succeeding generations of Pittsburgh's leaders. Sixty-Seven years after Mellon and Lawrence exchanged their first handshake, their model of private/public cooperation continues to drive progress in the city of Pittsburgh.
Topic Sentences:
1.After WWII, Pittsburgh faced enormous challenges to ensuring a future of economic vitality.
2.Richard King Mellon and David L. Lawrence were unlikely partners.
3.Despite different backgrounds and interests, Mellon and Lawrence shared a mutual interest in creating a strong future for Pittsburgh.
4.The Mellon Lawrence Partnership was the driving force behind Pittsburgh's renewal in the 1950's.
5.Modern Scholars reflect on the first Pittsburgh renaissance with mixed reviews.
6.The Mellon-Lawrence partnership model is visible in modern Pittsburgh initiatives.
7.The construction of three new sports venues in ten years, would not have been possible without significant public/private cooperation.
8.The "Pittsburgh Promise" scholarship program is the product of public/private partnership and represents an investment of one quarter of a billion dollars.
9.In both literal and figurative ways, the Mellon-Lawrence model of civic cooperation is shaping the Pittsburgh of today.
10.Conclusion- Consumed with the hype surrounding Pittsburgh, it is easy to forget that Pittsburgh remains a city facing real and diffult challenges.
1. My intended Thesis is the last two sentences of the second paragraph. Is that clear to you as a reader?
2. I often refer to a "public/private" partnership. Am I formatting that correctly? Should it be "public-private" partnership, etc...?
I'm pasting the beginning of the essay below along with the topic sentences for the remaining paragraphs. You can ignore the numbers in parentheses... these are just rough notes for citations I will fill in later.
Thanks in Advance!
A Lasting Legacy:
David L. Lawrence, Richard King Mellon and the Pittsburgh Renaissance
On May 28, 2009, President Obama announced Pittsburgh as the site of the 2009 G20 summit. The announcement came on the heels of the Pittsburgh Steelers' record setting, sixth world championship and in the midst of the Pittsburgh Penguins' bid for a National Hockey League championship. Two weeks later, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette announced that, for the fourth year in a row, Economist magazine named Pittsburgh the most liveable city in America. In the middle of a deep recession, an escalating war, and polls showing serious concern about the direction of our nation, Pittsburgh enjoyed an isolated bubble of good news. This good news reflects an energy in the Pittsburgh region that is difficult to source, but undeniably present. In his blog, Mike Madison of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law writes, "There is no doubt that Pittsburgh, as both a city and region, looks cleaner and brighter and has a hipper and more positive cultural tone than it did even a decade ago."(1) The scope of Madison's statement is too broad for any exhaustive causal analysis; the idea that Pittsburgh is brighter and hipper than it was ten years ago is evident to the region's residents, but the changes that created this new image are too complex to identify conclusively. The announcement that Pittsburgh is America's most liveable city, even, is laced with complexity. As Madison points out, the factors used to determine Pittsburgh's "liveability", "are weaknesses at the same time they are strengths."(1) A primary factor used to determine "liveability" is the cost of living - chiefly real estate costs. That Pittsburgh has low real estate costs is great if you already live in Pittsburgh, but also reflective of low demand to live in Pittsburgh.(1) Dwelling on the inherent complexities of the currents that shape the Pittsburgh of today, though, is not useful to the region or its leaders. Instead, it is valuable to study the identifiable factors that positioned Pittsburgh as a city with new energy and as the model that the President of the United States chose to share with the world at the 2009 G20 summit. To that end, this essay will investigate the impact of public/private partnerships that began in the Pittsburgh of yesterday and continue to impact the city today.
Fifty years ago, Pittsburgh was enjoying a brighter image in a much more literal sense. On October 1, 1946, a city smoke control ordinance took effect to limit smoke pollution from industry, commercial buildings and railroads.(2) One year later, residential sources of smoke pollution came under regulation (2). The city that needed streetlights at high-noon during the WWII industrial boom suddenly transformed into one with sunny skies and clear air. Some described the cleaned up city as "hell with the lid off"(1) The changes that occurred in Pittsburgh in the last half decade started with smoke control; it is difficult to imagine Pittsburgh's emergence as a leader in healthcare and technology beneath the smoky skies of its industrial past. The legislation that enabled the smoke control regulations, though, was unpopular and difficult to pass. Judge Homer Brown, a resident of Pittsburgh in 1946 describes the climate as one of opposition to the smoke control regulations. "After all," he recalls, "The people made their livelihood from coal and alternative forms of hard coal were very expensive. It was thus difficult to get legislation passed that would have the effect of working against the economic interests of groups in the city."(3) A deeper investigation of the 1946 smoke control regulations uncovers even more puzzling questions regarding the passage of the legislation. The legislation was backed by a public/private partnership of the Pittsburgh City Government and the Allegheny Conference on Community Development. The city involvement was spearheaded by Mayor, David L. Lawrence, a democrat, who owed a sizeable portion of his election to the working class people, who used cheap coal to heat their homes.(4) Conversely, the Allegheny Conference acted under the influence of Richard King Mellon, who had significant financial interests in a railroad industry that owed a portion of its profits to the availability of cheap coal and the absence of smoke control regulations. (5) Nonetheless, these two men worked together to exercise the political and economic muscle necessary to pass legislation they believed would improve the future of Pittsburgh. In the ensuing years, the partnership between Lawrence and Mellon brought the city flood control, new roads and infrastructure, and the modern buildings that shape Pittsburgh's landscape today.(2). It is clear that the two men, driven by different individual interests, recognized each other as forward thinking leaders with a shared stake in the future of Pittsburgh. In the formation of a civic alliance to improve their city, Richard King Mellon and David L. Lawrence set a standard of cooperation for succeeding generations of Pittsburgh's leaders. Sixty-Seven years after Mellon and Lawrence exchanged their first handshake, their model of private/public cooperation continues to drive progress in the city of Pittsburgh.
Topic Sentences:
1.After WWII, Pittsburgh faced enormous challenges to ensuring a future of economic vitality.
2.Richard King Mellon and David L. Lawrence were unlikely partners.
3.Despite different backgrounds and interests, Mellon and Lawrence shared a mutual interest in creating a strong future for Pittsburgh.
4.The Mellon Lawrence Partnership was the driving force behind Pittsburgh's renewal in the 1950's.
5.Modern Scholars reflect on the first Pittsburgh renaissance with mixed reviews.
6.The Mellon-Lawrence partnership model is visible in modern Pittsburgh initiatives.
7.The construction of three new sports venues in ten years, would not have been possible without significant public/private cooperation.
8.The "Pittsburgh Promise" scholarship program is the product of public/private partnership and represents an investment of one quarter of a billion dollars.
9.In both literal and figurative ways, the Mellon-Lawrence model of civic cooperation is shaping the Pittsburgh of today.
10.Conclusion- Consumed with the hype surrounding Pittsburgh, it is easy to forget that Pittsburgh remains a city facing real and diffult challenges.