| name | Developing Essays |
| description | Rule-based methodology for essay development. Load this index first, then load specific essay type file based on task. |
Developing Essays
When to Load Which File
| Essay Type | File to Load |
|---|
| College application, PhD statement, "Why X", mentor essay, personal narrative | personal-essays.md |
| Literary analysis, historical analysis, argumentative essay on external topic | analytical-essays.md |
Rule: If essay answers "who am I / what will I do?" → personal. If essay answers "what does this text/event mean?" → analytical.
Analytical Essays Quick Reference
analytical-essays.md now includes:
- Phased Framework Methodology: Organize arguments into temporal/thematic phases (Revolution → Reaction → Reform)
- Critical Argument Linkage: Every paragraph must explicitly connect to thesis
- Paragraph Planning Tables: Map paragraphs to phases, claims, evidence, and thesis linkage
- Primary Source Requirements: Rules for evidence inventory and citation practices
- Expanded Self-Check Checklist: Structure, evidence, and completeness checks
Universal Principles
These apply to ALL essay types. Check before any specific rules.
U1: Factual Accuracy
Rule: Every factual claim must be verifiable.
Elaboration: Don't invent dates, statistics, or events. If uncertain, mark for verification. Applicants lose credibility from a single factual error.
Example:
- BAD: "Professor Smith's 2019 paper on graph algorithms..."
- CHECK: Verify paper exists, verify year, verify it's about graph algorithms
- GOOD: [After verification] "Professor Smith's 2021 paper on shortest-path algorithms..."
U2: Quote Verification
Rule: Every quote must be checked against the original source.
Elaboration: Misquoted professors, misattributed ideas, or paraphrased-as-quoted text damages trust. When in doubt, paraphrase instead of quote.
Example:
- BAD: Professor Wong said, "Talk to people more." [Did they say exactly this?]
- CHECK: Find original source, verify exact wording
- GOOD: Professor Wong emphasized the value of conversation over formal interviews.
U3: No Invented Content
Rule: Never fabricate experiences, achievements, or reflections the writer hasn't expressed.
Elaboration: When writer input is needed, use placeholders. The writer must provide: specific research interests, personal reflections, lessons learned, connections between experiences.
Example:
[WRITER: What specific lesson did you take from this experience?
Example style: "I learned to survey literature first—we could have saved weeks"
Your version: _______________]
U4: Sentence-Level Clarity
Rule: Every sentence must relate explicitly to adjacent sentences.
Elaboration: If the connection isn't clear, add transitional language. Readers shouldn't have to infer how ideas connect.
Example:
- BAD: "I studied algorithms. Cambridge has a strong theory group."
- GOOD: "I studied algorithms. This interest drew me to Cambridge's theory group."
U5: Remove Filler Phrases
Rule: Cut phrases that add no meaning.
Elaboration: These phrases signal weak writing and waste word count.
Remove:
- "I hope to..." → "I aim to" / "I intend to"
- "more importantly" → [delete]
- "In particular" → [delete or be specific]
- "which I took the summer after my second year" → [resume has dates]
- "incredibly exciting" → [be specific about what excites]
U6: Active Over Passive
Rule: Use active voice unless passive is specifically justified.
Elaboration: Passive voice obscures agency and weakens impact.
Example:
- BAD: "It was learned that research requires persistence"
- GOOD: "I learned that research requires persistence"
U7: Compression Test
Rule: If a paragraph can become one sentence without losing meaning, compress it.
Elaboration: Verbosity buries ideas. Force radical reduction to find the core.
Example:
- BEFORE (3 paragraphs): Discussion of dopamine, YouTube, vlogs, why vlogging works
- AFTER (2 sentences): "Laptop open, I resisted YouTube, the vlogs and dopamine. Yet my mind wondered—vloggers record unpolished moments for the public, yes, but for themselves too."
Output Format for Feedback
When providing essay feedback:
Structure:
- One focused paragraph per issue
- Quote problematic text, then commentary
- Maximum 3-4 issues per session
Format:
[Issue name]: "[quoted essay text]"
[Single paragraph: problem + suggested fix, 3-5 sentences max]
Priority order:
- Missing forward projection
- Circular narrative gaps
- Weak openings
- Weak/multiple throughlines
- Abstract language without concrete moments
- Structural problems
Red Flag Phrases
These signal weak throughlines in ANY essay type:
- "I learned a lot"
- "This experience shaped me"
- "I'm passionate about"
- "This taught me the importance of"
- "I've always been deeply interested"
Response: Push for specificity. What exactly? How specifically?
