平凸雜談
才高五鬥不覺恥，水灌一壇隻作癡。凸情不枉君付意，子誌難琢我化石。
2021好文書比拚：哈佛 vs 霍普金斯
前天PO過兩篇2021年的優秀文書，要大家讀完後給兩篇分個高下。下麵是這兩篇分別屬於霍普金斯和哈佛的優秀文書。
《Left And Right Don't Exist》 – Hopkins'25
The first lesson I learned as a student pilot is that left and right don’t exist. Maybe driving on a highway or in a parking lot, left and right is precise enough to describe the location and movements of slow-moving bikers, pedestrians, and cars. But at 36,000 feet in the air in a steel tube hurdling almost 200 miles an hour? Left and right just don’t cut it.
During one of my first flights in a small Cessna-182, my flight instructor ordered me to scan the horizon for approaching aircrafts. To my right, I caught a glimpse of one: another Cessna with maroon stripes, the sun’s reflection glinting off its windows. Gesturing vaguely to my two o’clock, I informed my flying instructor, “There’s a plane to the right.”
“No, to your right. From his position, what direction does he see you?” From his angle, I was to his left. In that moment, I realized that perspective and precision of language is everything. The radio chirped: “Cessna One-Eight-Two Sandra, heading north to John Wayne Airport. Over.”
I navigate using my compass’s north, east, south, and west directions because every pilot’s vantage point differs from each other both vertically and horizontally, creating opposite perspectives. My right was that pilot’s left.
Through flying, I began to consider all points of view, regardless of my personal perspective.
Perhaps it was my ability to scan the horizon to communicate a single story, uniting contrasting outlooks, that drew me to my love for journalism and the diverse melting pot that was my community.
To me, journalism modernizes the ancient power of storytelling, filled with imperfect characters and intricate conflicts to which I am the narrator. As editor-in-chief for my school newspaper, The Wildcat’s Tale, I aim to share the uncensored perspective of all students and encourage my editorial groups to talk — and listen — to those with whom they disagree. Starting each newspaper edition with a Socratic, round-table discussion, I ask the other journalists to pursue stories that answer the questions: why did this happen and where will it lead?
Expanding beyond the perspectives of my classmates, I began writing articles for the Korea Daily, and later, the Los Angeles Times High School Insider. I schedule interviews with city council candidates, young and old voters, and mayors of my town, obtaining quotes and anecdotes to weave into my writing. My interviews with both Democratic and Republican voters have taught me to thoroughly report polarizing-opposite opinions through an unbiased lens. As a journalist, I realized I cannot presume the opinions of the reader, but instead simply provide them with the tools necessary to formulate their own conclusions.
However, differences in perspective in my articles are not solely limited to politics. I found that in my suburban community, people love to read about the small-town hospitality of their own friends and neighbors. Quirky traditions, like our Fourth of July carnival clown and local elementary school’s Thanksgiving talent show, are equally as important to me as national headlines are. My favorite stories to publish are the ones taped onto fridges, proudly framed on the mom-and-pop downtown diner, or pinned into the corkboard in my teacher’s classroom. I discovered the size of my story does not matter, but the impact I leave on the reader does.
In my time as both a student pilot and journalist, I grew to love these stories, the ones that showed me that living life with blinders, can not only be boring, but dangerous. Whether I was 36,000feet in the air or on ground level, by flying and writing, I realized that the most interesting stories of life come straight from the people most different from me.
《From Christianity To Different Truth》— Harvard'25
“Ella, what did you think of Douglass’s view on Christianity?” I gulped. Increasingly powerful palpitations throbbed in my heart as my eyes darted around the classroom – searching for a profound response to Dr. Franklin’s question. I took a deep breath while reaching the most genuine answer I could conjure.
“Professor, I don’t know.”
Dr. Franklin stared at me blankly as he attempted to interpret the thoughts I didn’t voice. My lack of familiarity with the assigned text wasn’t a consideration that crossed his mind because he was familiar with my past contributions to class discussions. I was a fervent critic of the corrupted culture behind Christianity of the Puritans in Hawthorne’s “Young Goodman Brown” and modern evangelicals involved in the puzzling divinity of Donald Trump. He arched his flummoxed brows as he began to open his mouth.
“Professor, what I mean is that I’m not sure whether or not I even have a say on Douglass’s statements on Christianity in his Narrative of the Life.”
In class, I often separated the culture of Christianity from the religion. To tie these immensely disparate concepts as one and coin it as Christianity would present fallacies that contradict with the Christianity I knew. Lack of tolerance and hostility were products of humans’ sinful nature – not the teachings of Christ. People were just using Christianity as an excuse to exalt themselves rather than the holy name of Jesus. These were the “facts.”
My greatest realization came when Douglass declared Christian slave-holders as the worst slave-holders he ever met because of their deceptive feign of piety and use of Christianity to justify the oppression of their slaves. I realized that I couldn’t bring myself to raise the same argument that I used to convince myself that my Christianity of love was the only true Christianity. To Douglass, Christianity was the opposite. I didn’t want to dismiss his story. People use this sacred religion to spread hatred, and to many, this is the only Christianity they know. Their experiences aren’t any bit falser than mine.
Christianity isn’t the only culture that harbors truth that transcends the “facts.” America’s less of a perfect amalgamation of different ethnic cultures and more of a society severed by tribal conflicts rooted in the long established political culture of the nation. Issues such as racism, white privilege, and gender disparity are highly salient topics of current political discussion. However, during a time when people can use online platforms with algorithms that provide content they want to see, we fail to acknowledge the truth in other people’s experiences and express empathy.
As a Korean-American in the South, I am no stranger to intolerance. I remember the countless instances of people mocking my parents for their English pronunciation and my brother’s stutter. Because their words were less eloquent, people deemed their thoughts as less valuable as well. I protect my family and translate their words whenever they have a doctor’s appointment or need more ketchup at McDonald’s. My protective nature drives my desire to connect with different people and build understanding. To do so, however, I step outside my Korean American Southern Baptist paradigm because my experiences do not constitute everyone else’s.
Excluded from the Manichaean narrative of this country, I observe the turmoil in our nation through a separate lens - a blessing and a curse. Not only do I find myself awkwardly fixed in a black vs. white America, but I also fail to define my identity sandwiched between Korean and American. In the end, I find myself stuck amongst the conventional labels and binaries that divide America.
“You seem to work harder than most to understand other people’s points of view,” Dr. Franklin said after I shared these thoughts to the class.
“I find this easier because I spent my childhood assuming that my culture was always the exception,” I replied. As an anomaly, accepting different truths is second nature.
看看網友們是怎麽看這兩篇文章的。12位寫評論的網友中，6票投給第二篇，3票投給第一篇，3票覺得不分伯仲。大家再稱讚兩篇文章語言的同時，也注意到故事內容所表現的作者在經濟、文化、教育背景的差異，這是大多數人讀後都能看出第二篇突出之處的原因。
第二篇的宗教話題其實也讓部分網友糾結。這個話題不好寫，而且一貫的常識還把它作為申請文書的禁忌。也有人覺得第二篇內容在結構安排上顯得淩亂。第一篇的開飛機內容，給作者附上了明顯的privilege 感，這是一些讀者Concern之處。也有人讀出來第一篇在文筆上稍有的缺陷。
以下是12位網友評論的原文匯總。
【米湯 】*2*
感覺第一篇有點平淡，除了飛行員這件事不簡單，第二篇好像有點獨特，因為這個原因感覺有點深度，如果一定要二選一應該是這篇。感覺第二篇作者是大藤料 。
第一篇談到開飛機的高中生。加州亞裔高中生開飛機不多，應該是有錢又有冒險獨行意識，但文章沒提到喜歡冒險獨行，可能在這裏拿飛機駕照不是太大事。韓裔舍得花錢給小孩，不一定是家裏多有錢，以前好像飛機駕照幾千刀可以學到，小中可能騎馬更常見，有些小留喜歡做這個。
前麵還不錯開飛機吸引人，但接下來有點平鋪直敘, 堆砌了做過的事，感覺自述過多虎頭蛇尾。讀者預期是特立獨行離經叛道的品格。
感覺一般人對第二篇討論的人物是誰都不一定了解，能有分析，並聯係到自己的背景和思想的高中生不簡單。讀的時候猜Douglass 是基督徒奴隸主。父母到了高中有時瞎指揮真會幫倒忙。給孩子足夠空間，出主意的時候必須給出自己的分析和出發點，便於孩子取舍。
第二篇裏的課程有可能是大學選課，或大學教授到高中兼課？CC 或者大學的課？暑期大學裏的夏令營？上了這門課裏麵那幾個名字自然就都知道了。這篇裏麵簡單粗暴show off 有點多。立意也太政治正確有點cheat shot。思維也不太深刻。我不怎麽喜歡。
【windyLL】*2*
肯定是第二篇，信仰算是一個不能碰的題材吧，寫成這樣而且還有深度很不容易。第一篇凸顯了孩子的privilege，無深度。
第二篇談到Douglass 人物確生疏，而且作者明確的表現了私高的背景，感覺好像是針對yale（或者Princeton？）的essay。 稱老師為教授，莫非是到大學選課？沒有一個公高有能力開這種選修課，頂級絲糕很常見。但你懷疑的有道理，也有可能是去大學上課。intellectual的話題+自己移民的背景，是針對東岸T3的，尤其是Y或P。
對於第二篇文章的深度，想想普通AO隻能花上1，2分鍾讀這個，簡單粗暴是必要的。思想那麽有深度的人就不會當AO而去做教授了。我們自己寫過essay的就知道太多不能碰的題材，不能用的詞語，加上字數限製，加上體貼AO的種種，最後就不是偉大的文學作品了。
第一篇文章寫了自己的growth，但沒有對community的impact，因為這是個privilege的community，不需要小孩的impact
【飛黎】-
小學生就知道Douglass是誰了吧，到處有以他命名的橋和路，我兒子五或六年級在黑人月做了內戰和奴隸解放運動的PPT，讀了很多文獻。兩篇都還行，涉世未深的年輕人的憤世嫉俗，應該不是寫手寫的
【randomness】-
兩篇都算一般好吧？文筆平直。第二篇主題有點危險，不過因為是批判性談基督教所以過了AO關。
【yude 】-
Accept or not, identity is not political, but personal。They are equally good, equally convincing. The legend says, when one of their peers picks up the essay from the floor littered with essays, one could return it to the rightful writer. These two essays are very personal, personally identifiable.
【tibuko】*2*
第二篇好點，但有點亂。觀察是很不錯的：the Manichaean narrative of this country
【最愛韭菜盒子】*1*
我喜歡第一篇。特別是這段：“No, to your right. From his position, what direction does he see you?” From his angle, I was to his left. In that moment, I realized that perspective and precision of language is everything. The radio chirped: “Cessna One-Eight-Two Sandra, heading north to John Wayne Airport. Over.”
【fish100】*1*
第一篇有好的立意，開頭和結尾都不錯，但文筆不怎麽樣，太多 I 和my。
【mike】*1*
第一篇寫得不錯，特別是開篇。不是太喜歡第二篇，宗教有關的話題不好寫。
【Danny】*2*
第一篇 裏麵的流露的一些細節證明申請人家庭條件不錯 但在描述自己與major上的聯係時不如第二篇。第二篇 申請者可能是宗教研究major的。結論：如果兩者隻能錄一個 ，標化相同且都不申請FA，我選擇錄第二個。第二篇比第一篇有深度。
【yoyo】*2*
我更喜歡第二篇。AO也許會喜歡第一篇吧。
【nonoo】*2*
感覺cmu/jhu會比較喜歡第一篇。第二篇感覺學習的領域不同不太好評價，但是感覺更符合哈佛/Yale的胃口一點。第一篇結構和內容安排上還挺多可以學習的東西。思辨性體現的也流暢。如果我來寫第二篇有點難…沒有經曆和真實體驗。但兩者的文字/用詞都很nice，整體閱讀觀感emm 很絲滑。
不得不說，網友們的感覺是灰常灰常準的。兩篇都是今年申請中的好文書。第一篇是Hopkins選出的優秀文書例文，而第二篇則是Harvard的推薦。Admissions還Po出了各自入選該校優秀文書的理由。先看Hopkins給出的第一篇入選理由：
【Hopkins Admissions】
Stella begins this essay by discussing her experience learning to fly. This anecdote, however, is less about the act itself as it is what the experience taught her in regards to perspective and points of view. She’s then able to connect these takeaways to another aspect of her life – her love of journalism. As she shares more information about her approach and impact with journalism, she makes it clear that those lessons from flying are ever-present in her work. From listening to others’ ideas and points of view in the newspaper editing room to looking at stories from a balanced and thoughtful perspective, we’re able to learn a good deal about how she approaches not just her passions, but her community as well. This essay is able to add to the whole application by sharing with us some new passions and expanding on some of her impact, but its main focus is how she was able to apply lessons from one experience to other aspects of her life. As we think about what type of member Stella will be in our community, this essay helps us understand that she’ll be someone willing to listen, learn, apply those learnings, and make an impact.
作者從學開飛機入筆，通過飛行中的視角概念，有效地關聯到自己另一興趣寫作上。言下之意，這篇文書把作者的profile連成整體，從而使招生官對申請人有了更深入的認識。而這個整體認識，讓招生官覺得，申請者Stella是Hopkins校園所需要的一員。評論的總結處，招生官說：“她願意傾聽、學習、應用所學，並[給Hopkins社區]帶來影響”。而作者在自己成長的過程中所表現過的傾聽、學習、應用和影響社區的能力，在文書中也都完完全全有清晰的描述。
再來看看第二篇的招生官意見：
【Harvard Admissions】
At a time in which the Black Lives Matter movement was sweeping America and racial tension was at a high, Ella was able to offer a powerful and brave perspective: how she feels to be neither Black nor White. The true strength of this essay is its willingness to go where people rarely go in college essays: to race, to politics and to religion. 1) Her dedication to her religion is evident - but so is her willingness to question the manipulation of the word ‘Christianity’ for less than genuine purposes. It requires intellectual bravery to ask the hard questions of your own religion as opposed to succumbing to cognitive dissonance. This is a trait that exists in a powerful independent thinker who could push all kinds of debates forwards - academic ones or otherwise. 2) Her word choice continues to emphasize bravery and strength. “I protect my family” inserts Ella as the shield between her family and the daily racism they experience in the south because of their accents and heritage. Her humorous quirks show the insidious racism. She even needs to shield her family from the humble request for some more Ketchup at McDonalds! Imagine if one is nervous to ask for some more Ketchup and even such a mundane activity becomes difficult through the friction of racial tension and misunderstanding. This is a powerful way to deliver a sobering commentary on the real state of society through Ellen’s lived experiences. 3) She connects major societal debates (Trumpism for example) with daily experiences (her translations at the doctor’s office) with a gentle but powerful cadence. She demonstrates her intellectual prowess in her discussion of somewhat high-brow topics but also grounds herself in the descriptions of her daily acts of kindness. 4) Creatively Ella weaves numerous literary devices in and out of her story without them being overbearing. These include alliteration and the juxtaposition of longer sentences with shorter ones to make a point. 5) Her final dialogue is subtle but booming. “....my culture was the exception”. The reader is left genuinely sympathetic for her plight, challenges and bravery as she goes about her daily life. Ella is a bold independent thinker with a clear social conscience and an ability to wade in the ambiguity and challenge of an imperfect world.
Wow，這不是一段簡單的招生評語，而是一篇完整的讀後感吧。開言明義，Ella以一個powerful 和brave的perspective講述了自己對當前美國的hot button issue的思考。而讓她的故事具有這種力量的最重要因素，就是這種討論是where people rarely go。對了，就是這個往時的禁忌，成就了這篇文書的Power。當然還有很多別的值得誇獎的地方。Her dedication to her Christianity、her word choices、her taking on Trumpism、her numerous literacy devices，最後 her booming dialogue “my culture is exception”。所有的文字細節，都清晰地支持一個結論：Ella是[哈佛需要的] 大膽且獨立、不懼混沌、敢於挑戰缺陷的思想者。
比較完兩位AO的意見，用更明白地話說，第一篇的AO是在評審的眼光下閱讀Stella的文書的，而第二篇的AO卻是在欣賞的心情中體會Ella的思想。對於申請者來說，後者明顯更勝於前者。
為什麽？因為當你有幸遇到一個欣賞者麵對你的文書的時候，她是在主動地尋找你的閃光點，或者說你的一切在她看來，都會是一種主動選擇性的美。如果，你麵對的是一個評審者，她總是能給你挑出毛病來，這時候你能否獲得錄取還要看文書之外的其他因素。
讀到這裏，你感許感覺到，自己彷佛是一隻伏在龍門前的鯉魚，隻等那片屬於你的浪花打來，便也奮身一躍，成為下一個錦鯉。
浪花，時刻都會打到每一隻鯉魚。就像前麵列舉的這麽多的觀感、評論，甚至還有AO的整篇評語，每一段都可以是搭載你身上的浪花。
但你要怎樣地去做？
照著上麵AO說的，你試著去寫的時候，就知道那是否夠你寫出一篇同樣rare的文書。現實中，誰都讀得出“明月疑霜“的妙，但喝了酒他們，還是隻會屙吐，卻念不出李太白來。大多數人都讀得出優劣寫得了評論，但大多數人寫出來的文章，卻隻劣而不優。靠學習文評，很顯然是寫不出好文的。
要麽，忍痛去相信“讀書破萬卷、下筆如有神“吧！古人見證過這條路。但在今天的科技條件下，還寧願選擇它的人們，我敬佩你們，就像胡適敬佩留辮子的辜鴻銘一樣。辜老，人家那是真的有才！
要麽，還有第三條路：學點真正有效、操作性強的技術唄！有效，當然是文書必須出質量，操作性強，則是讓小白秒變成李白。What can you do?
- 未完待續
“第二篇裏的課程有可能是大學選課，或大學教授到高中兼課？CC 或者大學的課？暑期大學裏的夏令營？上了這門課裏麵那幾個名字自然就都知道了。這篇裏麵簡單粗暴show off 有點多。立意也太政治正確有點cheat shot。思維也不太深刻。我不怎麽喜歡。”