Every year, UChicago provides six new extended essay prompts that are designed to highlight how you engage with complex ideas and, through that, essentially show how you fit within the UChicago community. Your job is to pierce through the seeming absurdity of the questions to showcase your intellectual vitality, curiosity, creativity, and perhaps humor. Sounds like a lot to accomplish in one essay, right?
Right. ‘Cause it is. But don’t let that scare you off! Remember, UChicago is searching for students who will help shape its intellectual community and who can stand up to its academic rigor—this essay is one of the primary ways they refine that search.
To clarify, we aren’t saying that what’s below is the only way to approach these essays—you should definitely feel free to explore. But if you want a little more guidance in approaching this essay, we’ve identified three possible paths (of the virtually unlimited paths available, but that might seem overwhelming) for you to take depending on your unique strengths and offerings.
This guide will include:
How to choose your UChicago prompt
Intro to 3 paths forward
How to break down the question
Brainstorming
Outlining + example essays
Part 1: The Prework
Regardless of the prompt you choose, you’ll have to complete some significant pre-work before your fingers start dancing away on the keyboard.
Remember how much reflection and planning you did for your personal statement? This essay will require a similar amount of prep (maybe more).
Still with us? Let’s begin. :)
How to Choose Your UChicago Extended Essay Prompt
The prompts are intended to allow you to showcase your intellect and personality in unique ways. But they won’t each do so equally for all applicants. (And a quick but important note that you can choose prompts from previous years. UChicago lists them here.)
For example, take this prompt from a previous year:
Alfred Hitchcock said: “Puns are the highest form of literature.” Tell us what you find punny.
Or this recent one from 2021:
What’s so easy about pie?
The first has the potential to really highlight your word play, wit, and sense of humor. The second could display a person’s reasoning skills, perhaps persuasiveness, and creativity in making interesting, subtle connections.
That difference points to our first key piece of advice: pick a prompt that plays to your strengths. For example, if you’ve never played with puns before, this is probably not the time to start. Or, if you feel like finding subtle and complex connections and layers of insight is a skill you’re still developing (side note that it’s a skill, not a talent—everyone can get better at it) then maybe be wary of the “pie” prompt.
Looking at the prompts given over the years, we’ve designed three different paths you can take based on your archetypal strengths.
The Scholar
Have you taken college level coursework in high school and know a lot about a subject? Want to apply those philosophical theories, historical perspectives, or mathematical concepts to a certain topic? Do you feel confident in flexing that academic area of expertise? Look for questions that allow you to be the expert on a subject and assert your academic prowess. (And yes, in theory any prompt could be used this way, but some are going to be easier for you to do this with than others…)
Example prompts:
If there’s a limited amount of matter in the universe, how can Olive Garden (along with other restaurants and their concepts of food infinity) offer truly unlimited soup, salad, and breadsticks? Explain this using any method of analysis you wish— physics, biology, economics, history, theology… the options, as you can tell, are endless.
What if the moon were made of cheese? Or Neptune made of soap? Pick a celestial object, reimagine its material composition, and explore the implications. Feel free to explore the realms of physics, philosophy, fantasy…the sky is the limit!
Dog and Cat. Coffee and Tea. Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. Everyone knows there are two types of people in the world. What are they?
The Ponderer
Are you a Holmesian analyst (as in Sherlock)? Someone who likes to think in silence by yourself? Do you tend to get lost down rabbit holes of thought? Look for prompts that could be suited to showcasing your analytical skills and ability to go deep.
Example prompts:
What’s so easy about pie?
"There is no such thing as a new idea" - Mark Twain. Are any pieces of art, literature, philosophy, or technology truly original, or just a different combination of old ideas? Pick something, anything (besides yourself), and explain why it is, or is not, original.
What’s so odd about odd numbers?
The Storyteller
Are you most comfortable bringing stories to life through imagery and revelation? Did you have a blast writing your personal statement, and have other interesting life stories to tell? Use this essay as an opportunity to weave some stories that reveal more of your core values and how you view and connect with the world around you.
Example Prompts:
The popular saying goes, “You are what you eat.” What food has shaped your life or worldview?
People often think of language as a connector, something that brings people together by helping them share experiences, feelings, ideas, etc. We, however, are interested in how language sets people apart. Start with the peculiarities of your own personal language—the voice you use when speaking most intimately to yourself, the vocabulary that spills out when you're startled, or special phrases and gestures that no one else seems to use or even understand—and tell us how your language makes you unique. You may want to think about subtle riffs or idiosyncrasies based on cadence, rhythm, rhyme, or (mis)pronunciation.
Merriam Webster defines epiphany as “An intuitive grasp of reality through something usually simple and striking.” Isaac Newton had his apple tree. Scout had Boo Radley’s Porch. Cher Horowitz had her living room doorway. What was your something, both simple and striking, that sparked noteworthy realization?
Quick side note: The UChicago prompts can fall into more than one category. The three paths often criss-cross and merge. So, consider your path as a starting point–the place from which you feel most confident approaching your essay.
Breaking Down Your Extended Essay Prompt
Now that you have a prompt in mind, it’ll save you a ton of time to analyze the prompt before you dive into any writing.
How? Like this:
The steps:
Read the question twice (or more).
Underline the key terms.
Define your key term(s) using the examples provided in the prompt. (The prompts often give you instruction on how to interpret the key term and answer the question).
Reframe the question as an instruction to yourself.
Here’s an example:
Read twice: "There is no such thing as a new idea" - Mark Twain. Are any pieces of art, literature, philosophy, or technology truly original, or just a different combination of old ideas? Pick something, anything (besides yourself), and explain why it is, or is not, original.
Underline key terms: "There is no such thing as a new idea" - Mark Twain. Are any pieces of art, literature, philosophy, or technology truly original, or just a different combination of old ideas? Pick something, anything (besides yourself), and explain why it is, or is not, original.
Define terms using examples from the prompt: “original”=new idea, not a combination of old ideas
Write an instruction to yourself: Argue why a selected piece of art, literature, philosophy, or technology is (or is not) original.
Brainstorming your extended essay
As you brainstorm, write down everything (Like, literally everything. Well, fine, figuratively, but pretty close to literally.) you can think of that fits your key term(s) and definitions.
Set your timer for 30 minutes and jot down your ideas. Once your time is up and/or you feel like you’ve emptied your idea bank, shoot to write down 10 more ideas before taking a rest.
Important note: What you brainstorm is just your starting point. In this phase, think expansively: It’s easy to discount ideas that seem like a stretch. But in this process, get rid of that limiting censor. You might be surprised what seemingly terrible, unoriginal idea will springboard you to the unique, quirky topic you end up using.
So where should you begin?
Let’s play with this prompt:
Dog and Cat. Coffee and Tea. Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. Everyone knows there are two types of people in the world. What are they?
First, think about things that are related (or if applicable, unrelated) to your key term(s). It doesn’t have to be a perfect fit, we just want to get your wheels turning.
There are people who… drive cars and ride bikes, run fast and run slow, love math and hate English, etc. (There are no stupid ideas when you’re brainstorming!)
Second, break down your ideas into various component parts.
Drive→one hand vs. two hands, front in vs. back in, speeding vs. speed limit
Running→long strides vs. short strides, good technique vs. bad technique, running backwards vs. running forward.
Hate English→hate writing vs. love having written, cursive vs. print, handwritten vs. typed
Notice how breaking down your ideas helps to broaden your scope, giving you even more topics to work with!
Last, do some test drives–provide a mini answer for one of your ideas. You might want to repeat this step with multiple topic contenders to a) see if you have enough material to work with and b) help you to conceptualize your definition further.
Typed vs. handwritten→technology vs. human connection, paper card vs. evite, speed and function vs. nostalgia and charm
At this point, if you go with handwritten vs. typed, you might realize your real topic is about human connection vs. technology. You could continue going down this rabbit hole for a loooong time. Find a stopping point that is exciting to you and that generates a wide range of ideas.
After you’ve done substantial brainstorming, you might want to circle back to your “I love + I know” brainstorming exercise for potential ideas on how to support your chosen topic(s)
Little Reminder: This is a general approach that must be tailored to the different questions being asked of you. As you apply these brainstorming techniques, try to think big picture: understand the question, define the terms, and then start grouping and breaking down your own ideas under those terms.
Part 2: Writing the Uchicago Extended Essay + Examples
Once you’ve completed your prework, you’re ready to outline and write!
Remember those three paths we mentioned above? Let’s take a look at some examples + best practices for outlining those types of essays.
The Scholar Approach
Approach: Answer the question through your knowledge of a few subjects
Answer the question in your introduction, provide some context surrounding your topic, and state your “thesis.”
Find 3-4 different academic lenses/muscles to flex. If you are a superstar at 1 subject, feel free to go all in on that subject!
Reframe your “thesis”
Here’s an example essay:
Dog and Cat. Coffee and Tea. Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. Everyone knows there are two types of people in the world. What are they?
—Inspired by an anonymous alumna, AB'06
There are two types of people in this world: those who love La Croix, and those who hate it. In the extremely unlikely chance you’ve never heard of it, La Croix is a brand of canned sparkling water, featuring flavors such as ‘shy watermelon’, ‘tropical cardboard’, ‘a strawberry with low battery’, and ‘transported in a truck near bananas’ (No, these aren’t the actual names of flavors. But they maybe should be.). Personally, I’m a lover of La Croix, and my favorite flavor is ‘hint of hint of lime’. There’s actually a surprising amount of controversy over the carbonated beverage based on its subtle flavors, especially given its higher degree of carbonation, which has led to what many describe as a ‘tsunami of memes’. Given this, I love LaCroix not just for its barely-existent flavors, but also for what it shows us about human psychology, biology, and society.
While LaCroix has become the focus of innumerable memes in recent years, the company has actually existed since 1981, and was created, funnily enough, to fill the niche that Perrier failed to, since Perrier marketed itself as a posh drink for the well-established (which could’ve started a meme war of its own had the internet existed). While La Croix received little public attention at its inception, the creation of a Facebook page for Pamplemousse LaCroix memes changed that. And then social psychology and cognitive bias took over. The bandwagon effect is defined as a phenomenon whereby the rate of uptake of beliefs, ideas, fads, and trends increases with respect to the proportion of others who have already bought in. So naturally, as the page became popular, many hopped on the bandwagon and spread the memes even further. And at the same time, people who liked Coconut LaCroix, as well as people who just don’t like carbonated water in general, began creating their own groups and spreading memes, creating in-groups and out-groups that only served to meme for their own cause. And thus, there were two kinds of people: those who memed in favor of the carbonated drink, and those who memed against it.
One particular phrase that actually points to another reason some dislike carbonated beverages is “La Croix tastes like when my foot falls asleep.” Many don’t like the carbonation levels of the drink (and others like it). My friend says drinking LaCroix is “like drinking pop rocks.” This is because, unlike soda, carbonated water has no sugar or other strong flavorings, so the carbonation has to be stronger to give a more distinct taste, which is especially divisive since different people with different biological makeups perceive flavor differently. This leads to two kinds of people: those who can tolerate the increased carbonation, and those who can’t. The main reason that some can’t handle high levels of carbonation is due to the byproduct of water and CO2. When water is carbonated, it causes a chemical equilibrium in which carbonic acid is created (H2O + CO2 <=> H2CO3). This acid, combined with the taste of fizz, often overwhelms people with low pain tolerance, in the same way that some can’t handle spice and capsaicin.
One particular factor that plays a role in how a person perceives the flavor of carbonation is genetic. Specifically, the CA4 gene, located on chromosome 17, which encodes for the carbonic anhydrase 4 protein, widely regarded as the protein that exists in taste buds that give us the ‘fizzy’ sensation when we drink carbonated beverages. The carbonic anhydrase 4 protein also serves a role in a number of other functions in the body, from respiration and calcification to the formation of saliva and cerebrospinal fluid. The expression of this gene is impacted by a number of factors in the human body, from variance in metabolic functions and the expression of Human Growth Hormone to certain genetic disorders, such as Retinitis pigmentosa 17, which results from a mutation of the CA4 gene. This reduces the body’s ability to maintain specific pH levels. Since the carbonic anhydrase 4 protein facilitates the reverse hydration reaction of carbonic acid, breaking down the acidic compound into water and carbonic dioxide. When the body (or parts of it) loses the ability to facilitate this reaction, it can’t break down certain acids, meaning that we are overwhelmed by the fizz sensation.
Or to put all of that another way: genetically, there are two types of people—those (with a functioning CA4 gene) who love La Croix and those (without) who don’t.
While some may argue that I can’t just define people by their preference regarding a specific drink, I have yet to meet a person who has a moderate stance on the taste of LaCroix and defies the duality I’ve presented. But regardless of your stance, you can’t deny that ‘tropical cardboard’ is an objectively great name for a drink.
— — —
Analysis of Approach
Answer the question in your first paragraph, provide some context surrounding your topic, and state your “thesis.”
The student clearly answers the question in the first line of the sentence:
“There are two types of people in this world: those who love La Croix, and those who hate it”
He continues with made up descriptions of various La Croix flavors and concludes with his thesis:
“Given this, I love LaCroix not just for it’s barely-existent flavors, but also for what it shows us about human psychology, biology, and society”
Find 3-4 different academic lenses/muscles to flex. If you are a superstar at one subject, feel free to go all in on that 1 subject!
The student flexes his human psychology, biology, and sociological perspectives in three different paragraphs by discussing the bandwagon effect, body chemistry, and genetics.
Reframe your “thesis”.
At the end of the essay, the student reframes his answer to the question using multiple academic lenses:
“Or to put all of that another way: genetically, there are two types of people—those (with a functioning CA4 gene) who love La Croix and those (without) who don’t.”
The final paragraph is a bookend of the beginning (and shows an additional value for humor):
“While some may argue that I can’t just define people by their preference regarding a specific drink, I have yet to meet a person who has a moderate stance on the taste of LaCroix and defies the duality I’ve presented. But regardless of your stance, you can’t deny that ‘tropical cardboard’ is an objectively great name for a drink.”
The Ponderer Approach
Approach: Answer the question through deep analysis
Use the first paragraph to contemplate the key term + topic using appropriate contextual information that will funnel you through to your thesis statement.
Make 3-5 arguments supported by evidence and analysis
Reframe your “thesis” (essentially, “so what?”).
Example Essay:
"There is no such thing as a new idea" - Mark Twain. Are any pieces of art, literature, philosophy, or technology truly original, or just a different combination of old ideas? Pick something, anything (besides yourself), and explain why it is, or is not, original.
Meret Oppenheim. Object, 1936. Fur-covered cup, saucer, and spoon, cup 4-3/8 inches in diameter; saucer 9-3/8 inches in diameter; spoon 8 inches long, overall height 2-7/8"
(The Museum of Modern Art)
The notion of originality in art has been widely debated, with implications extending beyond the scope of the subject. Matthew Teitelbaum, director of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, has said, “At one time, all art was contemporary … it was received by an audience and played a certain role in relation to a culture or community.” Art can be groundbreaking and revolutionary, though over time, it can lose its meaning due to changes in preferences, tastes, and fashion. But with thousands of years of ancient history, could any object in the modern world be truly original? Or are creations today merely regroupings of the past and combinations of old ideas? In my opinion, because artists inevitably draw inspiration from the past, true originality does not exist, but ultimately this doesn’t matter—what is essential is that art motivates and ushers in intellectual discourse across interest groups and sparks transformation.
Enter Object by Meret Oppenheim, regarded as one of the defining representations of Surrealism for its embodiment of mundane objects challenging logic and reasoning. At first glance, Object may seem ugly, even idiotic: a teacup, saucer and spoon, evocatively wrapped in animal fur, strike a stark contrast to my vision of the pinnacle of art: e.g., the luminous landscape, thick brushstrokes, and vivid colour of Starry Night. In creating Object, Oppenheim challenges the nature of originality in art with the jarring combination of fur and everyday items. Even the 3D sculptural elements deviate from past establishments. Object does not follow the idealistic canon of proportions of Polykleitos’ Doryphoros, nor does it embrace the pop art of contemporary icons. Was this thought-provoking sculpture a satirical response, or unintentional brilliance?
Object was inspired by a luncheon with Pablo Picasso and Dora Maar, who complimented the furry brass bracelet of Oppenheim and jokingly proclaimed: “Almost anything can be covered in fur!” Oppenheim was struck with inspiration—she left the cafe immediately and created the now-iconic Object using a cup, saucer, and spoon from a nearby store.
Object is certainly not original in that it utilizes ready-made items for art creation; this concept has been exemplified by artists such as Marcel Duchamp and his famous sculpture Fountain. But ultimately, originality should not be the end goal of artists. The goal of art should be to challenge the human mind. Object certainly accomplishes this goal—the idiocy of the brown gazelle fur layered on top of the presumably ceramic/porcelain dining utensils transposes human logic.
Object creates a lasting impression, even if Object is not truly original. As the colour of the earth, the brown exterior symbolizes a return to simplicity and a sense of dullness of everyday life. More importantly, why fur? And why gazelle? This particular medium might serve as an allusion to the 1790-1890 American Fur Trade, which represents a period of economic and social significance. Though disagreements permeate art historians, some recognize fur as sexual in nature, alluding to fetishistic qualities in the fur-lined set; others believe that Object is linked to the alchemical transformation of Surrealism in the transition from smooth ceramics to a bristly fur to attain a higher state of consciousness.
Now, imagine being in an exhibition, examining this bizarre and extraordinary spectacle. The saucer, spoon, and cup are arranged in a naturalistic way, almost as an invitation for a warm cup of black tea paired with a fine assortment of chocolates on a pleasant afternoon. Yet no one in their right mind would ever drink from a cup full of fur. Fur may be pleasant to touch, but the physical discomfort and ridiculousness of wet fur filling one's mouth and throat is an appalling nightmare, simply disgusting. Abominable. Through creating Object, Oppenheim had given practical, everyday commodities transcendence, moving into a realm of irrationality and absurdity. The creation of Object speaks to the fact that originality should not be the end goal of art; art should focus on transforming the way humans see the world. Object exemplifies these characteristics in that it evokes a visceral and profound response: the absurd addition of fur challenges the logic in our everyday thinking regarding simple things around us. During Object's exhibition at the MoMa, a woman fainted "right in front of the fur-bearing cup and saucer." (Landsdale & McKelway 1936) She left no name, but the fact that an eccentric combination of everyday objects could cause such a sensation shows why Object exemplifies Surrealism's desire to revolutionize human consciousness and experience.
Despite the success of Object, the majority of Oppenheim’s artistic career was tragically overwhelmed by the focus of the world spotlight. Yet Object was something fresh—the stunning fur-wrapped set remains one of the defining icons of Modernist art cemented in the minds of enthusiasts worldwide. Today, Object is no longer the groundbreaking sensation it was in 1936. Still, it embodies the glamorous and elegant elements of the principle of art: a regrouping of old ideas and transformative creativity challenging the nature of the human mind and paving the way for future artworks that no longer obsess over the notion of originality. So now, when I sit on my comfy couch sipping a lovely afternoon tea, I will always remember the furry, thought-provoking Object and its role in creating history.
— — —
Analysis of Approach
Use the first paragraph to contemplate the key term + topic using appropriate contextual information that will funnel you through to your thesis statement.
The student references an art historian and asks rhetorical questions to ponder the originality of art, which leads directly into his thesis:
“…what is essential is that art motivates and ushers in intellectual discourse across interest groups and sparks transformation.”
Make 3-5 arguments supported by evidence and analysis.
The student makes 4 main arguments and/or belief statements to then unpack using his own observations, research, and analysis:
In creating Object, Oppenheim challenges the nature of originality in art with the jarring combination of fur and everyday items.
Belief statement/argument: But ultimately, originality should not be the end goal of artists. The goal of art should be to challenge the human mind.
Object creates a lasting impression, even if Object is not truly original
Art should focus on transforming the way humans see the world.
Reframe your “thesis” (essentially, “so what?”).
The student finds a unique spin on his answer to the prompt. Instead of directly answering the question, he states his belief that art doesn’t need to “obsess over the notion of originality.”
The Storyteller
Approach: Weave a world that leads to complex reflection
Find 5-7 “beads” that answer the prompt’s question
These beads should be connected by the key term
Pick values and details that will bring each bead to life
Example Essay:
People often think of language as a connector, something that brings people together by helping them share experiences, feelings, ideas, etc. We, however, are interested in how language sets people apart. Start with the peculiarities of your own personal language—the voice you use when speaking most intimately to yourself, the vocabulary that spills out when you're startled, or special phrases and gestures that no one else seems to use or even understand—and tell us how your language makes you unique. You may want to think about subtle riffs or idiosyncrasies based on cadence, rhythm, rhyme, or (mis)pronunciation.
“Khushi, do your American accent!”
My friends and I are sitting in the Commons, currently filled with hungry high schoolers and agitated lunch ladies. No matter how many times I’ve been requested, the thought of the action makes me highly self-conscious.
You see, having pruned my vocal cords through fusions and accents of ethnic languages for the majority of my life in India, it was permissible for me to exaggeratingly mock the “American” verbiage, characterized by its excessive use of the word ‘like’ and strange soft way of pronouncing r’s.
I brush my friends off and try to change the topic. Once I’ve been made aware of how I normally speak, I tend to get quiet. My phone lights up with a call from Papa; I silence it and let it go to voicemail. I know that if I did pick up, my voice would invariably switch to my “Indian accent,” something I was not going to let my friends hear. For the most part, my British accent sounds cool to them, but my Indian accent diminishes me to a negative stereotype.
When my family moved to the United Kingdom from India, not only was I exposed to “Religious Studies” and other new courses, but for the first time I also had to learn a new kind of English. And though much of Indian English and British English overlap, I still had to train my brain’s speech assisting Broca’s area, to say aubergine instead of brinjal, cuppa instead of chai, and cafeteria instead of canteen.
My vocal identity crisis followed me to the United States, where I had to relearn the English language once again, this time switching aubergine for eggplant and cuppa for cup of tea, but at least cafeteria remained cafeteria.
In one of my first speeches at an Model UN conference, while trying to focus on national surveillance, I was all at once reminded of my vocal differences and began stumbling over words that I didn’t know how to pronounce the “American” way. I unwittingly corrected my mistakes by saying “Arrey!” under my breath, the Hindi equivalent of “Darn.” As my American journey continued and Bangalore and London and Oakland all rolled off my tongue together, I thought to myself, which world do I speak like now?
It’s a deep injustice that some accents are granted more leverage than others, British accents are ‘prim and proper’ and authoritative, while Indian accents are somehow ‘backwards’, funny, or a stereotype. As a student of culture and geopolitics, I have seen how modernism and social acceptability still trend towards Western values, a pattern that has persisted through history: markers of certain cultures provide access whilst others create barriers.
Language is nothing more than another agent of socialization. In a world where we broadcast messages of “cultural awareness” and “global exposure,” it’s disturbing to see American journalists call Renée Zellweger’s accent in Bridget Jones “sophisticated” British (as opposed to her Texan drawl), while Indian journalists refer to Priyanka Chopra’s accent in Quantico as a “sickening fusion of accents.”
As the world transitions towards a society where differences are celebrated, where gender and sexual fluidity is acceptable, why is it that cultural identity is considered constant and cultural belonging, exclusive?
I am a proud third culture kid, finding her place within the intersection of a Venn diagram on linguistics. I can’t (pronounced without rhyming with ant, true desi style) and won’t forego one of my identities in favor of another.
Having multiple accents is neither negotiable nor remarkable. It is a benign symptom of the worlds in which I grew up in and must be seen that way. Hybrid accents are not betrayals of identity, and they are never performances nor punchlines.
— — —
Analysis of Approach
Find 5-7 “beads” that answer the prompt’s question.
The student seamlessly depicts multiple scenes navigating her Indian accent, experimenting with different American speaking styles, stumbling through her Model UN speech, noting the injustice of accents, and critiquing language’s role in current culture.
These beads should be connected by the thread/key term.
The prompt’s question is used as the unifying thread: how does language set you apart?
Pick values and details that will bring each bead to life.
The student uses imagery, clear examples, and literary devices in each paragraph to tell her story. Just a handful of examples that stood out immediately were:
“hungry high schoolers and agitated lunch ladies”
“aubergine instead of brinjal, cuppa instead of chai, and cafeteria instead of canteen”
“As my American journey continued and Bangalore and London and Oakland all rolled off my tongue together, I thought to myself, which world do I speak like now?”
I can’t (pronounced without rhyming with ant, true desi style) and won’t forego one of my identities in favor of another.
As a final note, notice that these approaches still allow for each essay to feel distinct—each gives us a sense of the human being who, if accepted, is going to show up at UChicago’s door.
As you can see, the UChicago essay requires a lot of preparation, self-reflection, and writing skill. It’s a daunting task, but hopefully also an exciting one: an opportunity to showcase your academic character, knowledge and creativity, and command of the English language.
Special thanks to Ali for writing this blog post
Ali is a college essay specialist with her BA in English from Stanford University and MFA from UC Irvine. She has spent thousands of hours coaching admissions essays and helping students to build their confidence in the writing process. In addition to essay coaching, she is a former professional ballerina and current co-artistic director for Maui’s contemporary dance company Adaptations Dance Theater. She is a hybrid writer-dancer who enjoys the power of storytelling.
