我的童年在两个极端之间徘徊着：圣·凯瑟琳公园和纽约公立图书馆在第67街道的分馆。这两个地方都位于这条街道的两端，也正是这两个地方占去了我大部分美好的童年时光。每天，我在公园里和一群死党玩儿过瘾后，再像隐士一样待在图书馆里看书。我玩的时候，和大家一起，我们拥有共同的乐趣；我学习的时候，则是呆在我一个人的世界里——我的玩伴们不大可能像我和我母亲一样扎进书堆里，然而我也不可能带着书走进篮球场或者健身房。
通常情况下，我都是趁玩的间隙从公园悄悄溜开，又像溜出去的一样再悄悄溜回来，然后以我母亲的名义兜售罗尔德·达尔的平装书，并且没头没尾地加入到朋友中间去讨论绿巨人Hulk和超人哪个更厉害。我从来没有想把这两样兴趣结合在一起；它们从来都是分开的。我的世界里超人和Willy Wonka从来不会相遇，因为这两个巨人生活在我截然不同的领域里。
然而，我在Regis酒店经历的事情改变了我之前的想法。现在的我认识到我的知识的增长和我那群同龄的小伙伴们有着无法割裂的关系。我渐渐地不再把我身边的那些人仅仅认为是一帮朋友，而是将他们认为是我不断学习的一部分。因为我懂得一个人在一生都应是学无止境的。
一次次的小组讨论，终让我领悟到了学习的真谛。就以我学习阿尔贝·加缪(Albert Camus)存在主义文学经典著作《The Stranger.》的过程来说明吧（阿尔贝·加缪，法国著名存在主义文学家，“荒诞哲学”的代表人物，1957年获诺贝尔奖，The Sstrong正是其代表作，整个故事淋漓尽致的展现了加缪的荒诞主义哲学。故事以主人公莫尔索母亲的去世开始，以莫尔索在海滩杀死一个阿拉伯人并受到法庭荒诞的裁决结束，故后文作者有“不过就是一场谋杀谜案”一说）。我六年级第一次读这部作品的时候，我如坠五里雾中。结果，我对Camus哲学的理解非常浅薄，以至于，我都没法诠释我对这部作品的理解。于是，我巧妙地避开了所有的讨论，以避免有任何出洋相的机会。我对自己的这种做法很满意，甚至用一种高傲和不屑的态度跟我的父母解释说：“不过一场谋杀谜案嘛，谁都知道是谁杀了那个阿拉伯人，他母亲（的死）跟这沾不上边”。我第二次接触加缪是在我高三时的法语选修课上，这次我在的小组有八位十分有见地的操着法语的成员，我们流连于加缪的荒诞主义与莫尔索的反抗宣言，新的理解自阳光普照的阿尔及利亚沙滩上升起。这个小组的每个成员都提出自己的见解让大家参考，虽然每个想法都要经过投票审查，甚至有可能被否决，但是他们都对自己的独到见解很有自信。严格的标准，以及共同的希冀，都最终使得大家的共识和理念更坚定。我对加缪的理解来源于这场不断的讨论，更多的来自我的同龄人们，因为我们都毫无保留地分享了各自的想法。
通过参与Regis的演讲和辩论，我依然渴求从这个团队中汲取知识。即席的演讲或辩论需要说话人在此之前对当前热点（比如热门的事件或政策）进行了解，在思考和整合大量的资料后进行系统的分析。
发言的人都会在对方的话题上展开深刻的讨论，从苏联时代鲍里斯·尼古拉耶维奇·叶利钦的民主和经济改革，到共和党控制的国会众议院对医保改革的展望。在演讲和辩论中的锻炼都会得到同组组员的评估，成就感的取得是建立在对林肯和道格拉斯争论这个话题的正确且严谨的理解上，同样地，也需要在哲学原理基础上对论点进行简要陈述。我们作为一个小组，已经被优待，不用经过复杂的申请程序和申报阐明主题的步骤，因为这会像社会契约论和国际道德立法一样困难和复杂。
我们小组在追求知识这点上作出了不懈的努力，这也在我高三那年冬天的哈佛邀请赛上体现的淋漓尽致。这次辩论赛的主题是要求我们评价“美国社会被单独的聋人文化很好的维持了秩序。”在淘汰赛开始的头一天晚上，十六名辩手聚在世纪大道上的豪生酒店的一个房间里，靠夹有花生、黄油和棉花糖的三明治以及加仑咖啡来补充能量，争论着最终决定的每个细节。主张社会同化的阵营，建议要同时获得集体尊严和每个聋人的认同，但是这两者是建立在更大的一个群体被认同的背景之上的。分裂主义是在美式手语和聋人学校里固有的，也是阻碍团队深入参与讨论美式民主最致命的因素。真正的文化特殊性要求参照一个共同的框架。相反地，聋人的分裂主义游击队维持了注定的少数人被边缘化的状态，这证明了文化的独特性要与它经历的独特性相匹配。分离出来使得这个群体有了尊严，也赋予了他们权利。
随着时间一点点过去，辩论不时出现难以控制的现象，各方也更加坚定自己的观点，但是一种似乎相互矛盾，但看似更加合理的观点出现了。每方团队都凭借自身的辩论才能和极强的说服力，延伸了自身对观点的理解，当然这也促进了双方的交流。我们了解也尊重那些我们并不赞成的逻辑和观点的同时，我们也将我们自己认同的观点明确有力地告知对方，以保护自己。在凌晨1：30，我们全身都被汗水浸湿，筋疲力尽也很愉快地结束了，很遗憾，我们没有达成一致意见，我们各自回到自己的房间，希望睡了一觉醒来过后，就忘了这次争论给我们带来的影响。
如果说我是以一个知识独裁者的身份开始我的接受教育的生涯的，我相信，我已经成为一名集体主义者。在我暑假的最后一天，十几名Regis的学生在羊基体育场的看台上，兴致勃勃地争论起美国联盟棒球锦标赛可能出现的比赛结果，然后又转到曼哈顿中央公园去参加纽约莎士比亚节，看引人注目的《特洛伊勒斯与克芮丝德》的首映礼。我们从Delacorte剧院出来后，就开始讨论改造过后的莎士比亚传递给大家的信息。有些人表扬这部剧很好地传递给大家一股忧郁和悲伤主义；另外一些人则批评剧中过于荒诞的行为以及对原著中艺术美感的亵渎。我们一致认同布朗克斯轰炸机战胜希腊特洛伊的机会更大，但是实质仍然没变。
分析
写关于出色学习的话题是个人陈述一个相当普遍的话题。但是许多申请者可能会选择一个典型的有区别于他人的一个特殊的时刻-比如获得州演讲锦标赛或者刷新学校最高GPA记录的时刻-来作为可以跟人值得一讲的一次经历，然而，Habib却另辟蹊径，选择记录自己在追求知识上一个渐变的过程。就因为选了这样的话题，Habib有机会展示自己在教育上获得的成就，并且历数之前有趣的经历，而不只是简单的陈词滥调一般地叙述自己的得与失。
Habib的论文-最大的意义在于告诉我们，只有当他的社会生活与他个人知识上的融合在一起时，才会达到最好的效果-这在某种程度上来讲，是比较抽象和有一定难度的论点，至少对于一名高四即将毕业的学生来讲。事实上，Habib对这个论点的处理很成功，通过一些细节和具体案例的描写，使得这篇文章信息更全面，给人的印象更深刻。
但是，还是要说这篇ESSAY也有不足之处，就是篇幅太长。句子也有些复杂和费解。本文运用的语言，也足够能让Kaplan，SAT的讲师印象深刻，应该用一些让读者容易理解的语句。Habib本可以用更简短的话，并且用少一些的，短一些的真实生活中的实例来诠释他的论点。比如招生委员会可能没有必要了解具体的讨论以及小组为哈佛锦标赛对林肯和道格拉斯争论所做的准备细节。
总体来讲，Habib的文章成功之处在于同样是写很普遍的话题，但是他能将他同其他的申请者从一个很有趣的角度很好地区分开，并且运用了有力的论据。
总之，这是一篇很好的ESSAY，作者摆出了他个人的观点、例证以及所有重要的细节增强了文章的说服力。
ESSAY英文原版参考
ESSAY8:”Introducing Clark Kent and Willy Wonka”
--By Daniel G. Habib
My childhood passions oscillated between two poles: St. Catherine’s Park and the 67th Street branch of the New York Public Library. Located across Sixty-Seventh Street from one another, the two crystallized the occupations of my youth. On a typical day, I moved between a close-knit group of friends at the park to largely solitary stays at the library. My recreational pursuits were communal; my intellectual pursuits were individual. The gulf was pronounced: friends rarely joined my mother and me as we meandered among the stacks, and the books I obtained from the library never accompanied me to the basketball courts or the jungle gym.
Generally, I slipped away from the park during a lull in the action and returned as stealthily as I had gone, foisting Roald Dahl paperbacks on my mother and scrambling to rejoin my friends in arguing the relative merits of the Hulk and Superman. I never thought to integrate these passions; they remained firmly segregated. That Clark Kent and Willy Wonka should never cross paths was a given; the giants existed in separate realms of my life.
More than anything else, my Regis career has reversed that assumption. I now recognize that my intellectual growth and my peer community are inextricably linked. I have come to regard those who surround me not simply as a network of friends, but most vitally as components in the ongoing work of education. I understand that an individualized process of learning is intellectually impoverished.
The most startling of my educational epiphanies have occurred in the context of fellow students. Case in point: my acquaintance with Albert Camus’ absurdist manifesto, The Stranger. My first reading of the classic, in sixth grade, came in an atomized intellectual climate. As a result, my understanding of Camus’ philosophy was tenuous, so much so that, feeling incapable of defending or even articulating my interpretation of the work, I eschewed any discussion and shunned the chance for error. Satisfied in my ignorance, I disdainfully explained to my inquiring parents,” Oh, it wasn’t much of a murder mystery. You know who kills the Arab all along. And that whole mother angle just doesn’t fit.” My second encounter with Camus came in my junior French elective, this time in the company of an insightful octet of Francophones. As we grappled with Camus’ vision of the absurd world and Meursault’s statement of revolt, an understanding emerged from the sundrenched Algerian beach. Each member of the class offered his insights for consideration, risking the scrutiny of the group but confident in its intellectual generosity. The rigorous standards of the class, and our common desire for understanding, led eventually to firmer comprehension. My balanced interpretation of Camus derived only from the intensity of discussion, the contributions of my peers, and our mutual willingness to share our insights.
Through my participation in Regis’ Speech and Debate Society, I have continued in my quest for the acquisition of knowledge through the group. Extemporaneous Speaking requires that a speaker provide a thorough analysis of a current events/policy proposition, after considering and synthesizing numerous sources.
Speakers engage each other on subjects ranging from democratic and free-market reforms in Boris Yeltsin’s Russia to the prospects for a Medicare overhaul in the Republican Congress. Practices involve evaluation by fellow team members and success depends intimately on an accurate common understanding of the issues Lincoln-Douglas Debate, similarly, entails team formulations of argument based on philosophical principles. We prepare as a team, and I have been privileged to benefit from teammates’ sophisticated applications and elucidations of issues as diverse as social contract theory and international ethical mandates.
The group character of the team’s intellectual strivings was brought to bear most strongly at the Harvard Invitational, in the winter of my junior year. Debaters were asked to evaluate the proposition that “American society is well-served by the maintenance of a separate culture for the deaf.” The evening before the tournament began, sixteen debaters massed in one hotel room at the Howard Johnson’s on Memorial Drive, and, fueled by peanut butter and marshmallow sandwiches and gallons of coffee, we wrangled over the specifics of the unique resolution. The assimilationist camp suggested that the achievement of group dignity and a private identity for the deaf had to occur against the backdrop of a larger public identity. The separatism inherent in ASL or deaf schools fatally divorced the group from meaningful participation in the American democracy. True cultural uniqueness required a common frame of reference. Conversely, the deaf separatist partisans maintained that this decidedly marginalized minority deserved a distinctness of culture commensurate with the distinctness of its experience. Separation allowed dignity and empowerment.
As the hours wore on and the dialectic raged out of control, positions became more entrenched, but paradoxically a truer comprehension arose. The eloquence and persuasiveness with which each side advanced its interpretation furthered the exchange. We acknowledged and respected the logic of those with whom we disagreed, and we reinforced our own convictions by articulating and defending them. At 1:30, bedraggled, exhausted, and happily not unanimous in perspective, we regretfully dispersed to our rooms, to sleep off the effects of the session.
If I began my educational career as an intellectual monopolist, I have evolved into a collectivist. On our last day of summer vacation, a dozen Regis students spent an afternoon in the Yankee Stadium bleachers, arguing the possible outcomes of the American League pennant race, then returned to Manhattan’s Central Park to attend the New York Shakespeare Festival’s arresting and hyper-controversial production of Troilus and Cressida. As we exited the Delacorte Theater, we reflected on the modernization of Shakespeare’s message. Some praised its transmission of bleakness and pessimism; others joined critics in attacking its excesses and its artistic license in manipulating the original. Our consensus on the Bronx Bombers’ chances in October was firmer than that on the Greek conquest of Troy, but the essential truth remains. Regis has wonderfully fused the communal and the intellectual phases of my life.
ANALYSIS（分析）
Writing about an outstanding learning experience is a fairly common approach to the personal statement. But while many applicants may choose a defining and distinct moment – winning the state speech tournament or setting the school record for the highest GPA –as an experience worth retelling, Habib instead chooses to chronicle the gradual process of intellectual maturation. By choosing this topic, Habib has the opportunity to reflect on his education and recount several formative experiences, not just resort to trite descriptions of winning or losing.
Habib’s thesis – that one’s communal life and intellectual pursuits are only enhanced when fused together – is a somewhat abstract and difficult argument to make, at least for a high school senior. The fact that Habib makes the argument successfully, through the use of details and concrete examples, makes the essay all the more impressive.
Still, the essay isn’t perfect. It’s long. The sentences can be complex and a bit convoluted. The language used, while enough to impress any Kaplan SAT instructor, could be toned down to make the essay more readerfriendly. Habib could have easily shortened his statement by using fewer examples of real-life learning experiences. Or the experiences he shares could have been shortened: the admissions committee may not need to know the exact arguments and counter-argument Habib’s Lincoln-Douglas debate team drafted for the Harvard tournament.
Overall, Habib’s essay helps distinguish him from other applicants by taking an interesting approach to a common theme and using concrete supporting arguments.
All in all, it is a well-written essay enhanced by personal insights, examples, and the all-important details.
注：此篇ESSAY出自哈佛成功ESSAY50篇之第一版。
