<p>Please just quickly read over my SAT essays and give your holistic scores. Thanks. Don’t need to read all 3, just do one or two if you’re busy. The prompts should be very self-explanatory, even from the first sentence.</p>
<p>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</p>
<p>I strongly agree with the statement that the way something seems is not always the same as it actually is. I will support my argument by exploring the consequences of the “halo effect.”</p>
<p>The halo effect is a social phenomenon in which we ascribe positive qualities to an individual after observing only a few positive characteristics of that person on an illogical and unfounded basis, and vice versa. For example, an attractive person is immediately judged to be more intelligent, extroverted, and caring in the complete absense of any proof. This assumption often leads to severe emotional pain for those who lack in a faculty that is readily displayed to the external world. It is a well-known fact that unattractive individuals find it much harder to express themselves fully because they are judged on their first impression, which is largely based on physical appearance. This “halo effect” in this case can lead to negative social outcomes, such as depression and the inability to express and feel love. Another situation in which the “halo effect” is damaging is in the workplace. Again, individuals that can present themselves well in interviews are assumed to be more confident, possessing better communication skills, higher IQs, etc. Although the first impression may be entirely manufactured by the interviewee, this does not matter. The employers would probably hire the individuals that are capable of making better first impressions. Hiring the wrong people, of course, is a tremendous waste of resources. The costs of training, insurance, and the hiring process in itself is believed to incur more costs than an entire year’s salary of that said employee. With such negative consequences for individuals and even businesses, it is advisable that judging the full spectrum of an individual’s character by outward first impressions is at best, financially unwise, and at worst, harmful to those in society.</p>
<p>Of course, the fact that first impressions influence us to such a great degree is not our fault. Our evolutionary legacy is based on raw instinct and immediate conclusions as much as it is based on weighty consideration. However, that is no excuse to fall to our baser instincts. Falling victim to the halo effect negatively affects so many people, both in the realm of intimate relations and business. Therefore, one should avoid letting first impressions dominate the judgment of a person-this will save the emotional damage and finances of many. </p>
<p>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</p>
<p>More often than not, people’s lives are the result of the choices they make. Bill Gates and the choices he made demonstrate that one’s choices, rather than blind luck, play a greater role in the outcome of one’s life.</p>
<p>As it is well-documented, Bill Gates dropped out from Harvard. This decision, however, wasn’t as simple or as easy as many make it out to be. Now, the idea of a dropout succeeding is often glorified and admired. However, Bill Gates’ mother and father at the time of Bill’s decision, were horrified, and with good reason. The culture of the 1970s was more accepting than most, but to dismiss a degree from Harvard was extremely risky and bordering on stupid. However, Gates had the last laugh. If he hadn’t dropped out at that time, he would have missed the opportunity to become the man he is today. At that time, progress in the computing industry was moving at the speed of light. Even two years of “wasted” time would have prevented Gates from making his fortune - one of the many other brilliant computer moguls would have taken Gates’ place. Gates was indeed a very brilliant young man. However, he wasn’t the smartest person bar none. However, he did have the right combination of intelligence and more importantly, the ability to make the right choice. That latter ability has certainly paid off today.</p>
<p>Gates’ decision to drop out of college, of course, wasn’t his only major decision. Shortly after dropping out of college and starting his company, Microsoft, Gates had to make an important decision. Would Microsoft focus on hardware or software? To other technology entrepreneurs such as Hewlett, Packard, Steve Jobs, and even his business partner Paul Allen, the decision was obvious - hardware. Bill Gates, however, broke out of the mold and decided to go with software. This proved to be an industry-changing decision. Bill’s choice was important for two reasons. First, Gates was more suited to developing software than hardware. He was an expert programmer, not an expert at the aesthetics and artistic touch that is often required when developing hardware. Secondly, Gates was the one of few who went into software development. Hardware, on the other hand, was thought to be the new exciting thing, and most of the brightest minds went into that area. Gates going into software in the 1970s is like a scientist researching alternative energy in the conservative 1980s America. Not very many people did it. This decision proved to be the one that allowed Gates to change an entire industry, and not merely be one of its players.</p>
<p>Gates’ two life-changing choices allowed him to rise to the very top of the computing industry. If he simply waited to graduate from college, competitors would have probably done the same thing that he envisioned. He didn’t necessarily have the best idea, but he had a good idea that was acted upon at the right time. He also chose to specialize in a field that was ignored. The relative dearth of bright minds in this area allowed Gates to shine. If Gates had decided to graduate from Harvard and go into what everyone else was going into - hardware, he would have still become extremely successful. However, he would not be the richest man in the world. That honor only goes to an individual who was not only intelligent, but was able to make the right choices at the right time.</p>
<p>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</p>
<p>I believe that “closed doors” are very necessary for creativity. Comparing early man and American culture in the 1950s demonstrates that “closed doors,” to a certain extent, are necessary for creative production.</p>
<p>Early man’s struggle for survival is the epitome of an instance in which obstacles and restrictions were present. Human intelligence was sufficient for self-awareness, but it wasn’t sufficient to consistently outwit predators. To insure higher chances of survival, early man had to be on constant alert and most of all, needed to be creative. Man used his nascent intelligence to do several things. First, they created more potent weapons that could be used to defend themselves against these predators. Secondly, they formed social groups and clans to organize themselves against attacks. The individuals that could develop the best weapons and marshal the best human resources ended up surviving and becoming the forefathers of the civilization today. In the absence of such predators, man would have been content to do the minimum activities required for survival. Creativity simply wouldn’t be necessary. This contrast can be readily seen in nature. Zebras, which live in the African savanna, are hunted by lions, and thus have evolved speed and alertness that allows them to effectively cope with the predators. However, the koala bear, which lives in the relative peace of Australia (lack of predators in Australia), is anything but concerned with survival. The zebra isn’t creative because it wants to be, it is creative because it must be, and vice versa with the koala. Creativity, as we have shown, is not some innate force present in all of humanity. It only appears when obstacles and restrictions are in place.</p>
<p>By contrast, America in the 1950s was the polar opposite environment of early man. Poverty was quite rare, and attack by ferocious predators was obviously ruled out. While this was a significant improvement over the life of early man, there was one drawback. Creativity was no longer needed. Because all of the resources that one needed were readily available, people did not need to find creative solutions to problems. They just needed to conform to society and do as they were expected to. Those that conformed in the African savanna were picked off by the predators; only the ones who were ingenious and creative managed to survive. However, in an environment where there is an abundance of resources, creativity doesn’t necessarily win out. The beatniks and those who lived alternative lifestyles (artists, musicians, etc) were often looked at with disdain. While prospertity was admittedly present, creativity was at an all-time low. Popular music and movies from the 1950s are less memorable than those from the 1960s. The angst and discontent among young individuals was necessary in order to cause the burst of creativity that was born in the 1960s. The 1950s didn’t have the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, etc. In the absence of this discontent and stress, conformity and a lack of creativity reigned supreme.</p>
<p>We have seen in two instances that creativity is not omnipresent. At some times, humans are more creative than at other times. While there isn’t a clear and cut relationship between the level of stress and discontent in an environment and the creativity of its populace, the two previously mentioned examples strongly imply that obstacles and restrictions are conducive to creative production, both in the realm of survival and artistic creativity.</p>
<p>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure I’d get at least a 5 on these, but are they closer to a 5 or 6 based on your judgment?</p>
<p>Thanks very much.</p>