Drew针对2013年前的普通申请中的问题1写了以下大学入学个人论文：“评估你的重要经历、成就、风险或你所面临的道德困境及其对你的影响。”

然而，这篇文章并没有注明日期，目前常见的几个应用题也可以很好地解决。它非常适合选项3：“反思你质疑或质疑某个信仰或想法的时候。是什么促使你思考？结果如何？”它也可以与选项2（关于挑战和失败）或选项7（开放主题）一起使用。

请注意，Drew的文章是在2010年写的，当时650字的长度限制还没有生效，所以它的字数只有700字多一点。

德鲁文章的长处

德鲁的文章之所以成功，是因为它令人耳目一新的诚实，而且他并不试图表现出自己是绝对正确的。它也没有重大错误，内省，并成功地传达了他对机械工程的热情。

The Job I Should Have Quit You can learn a lot about me from a quick glance in my closet. You’ll find no clothes, but shelves filled with motorized Lego kits, Erector sets, model rockets, remote control race cars, and boxes full of motors, wires, batteries, propellers, soldering irons and hand tools. I’ve always enjoyed building things. No one was surprised when I decided to apply to college for mechanical engineering. When last May a friend of my father’s asked me if I wanted a summer job working for his machining company, I jumped at the opportunity. I would learn how to use computer-operated lathes and milling machines, and I would gain valuable hands-on experience for my college studies. Within hours of beginning my new job, I learned that my father’s friend was a subcontractor for the military. The components I’d be making would be used in military vehicles. After that first day of work, I had many conflicting thoughts. I’m firmly against the United States’ overuse of military might in the world theater. I’m a big critic of our mismanaged involvement in the Middle East. I’m appalled by the number of lives that have been lost in military conflicts, many of them young Americans like myself. I want our troops to have the best equipment they can, but I also believe that our possession of the best military equipment makes us more likely to go to war. Military technology continues to grow more lethal, and technological developments create a never-ending cycle of military escalation. Did I want to be part of this cycle? To this day I still weigh the ethical dilemma of my summer work. Were I to not do the job, the vehicle components would still be produced. Also, the parts I was making were for support vehicles, not assault weaponry. It’s even possible that my work would be saving lives, not endangering them. On the other hand, nuclear bombs and missile guidance systems were all created by scientists and engineers with good intentions. I’m convinced that even the most innocent involvement in the science of war makes one complicit in war itself. I considered quitting the job. Were I true to my ideals, I really should have walked away and spent the summer mowing lawns or bagging groceries. My parents argued in favor of the machinist job. They made valid points about the value of the experience and the ways that it would lead to bigger opportunities in the future. In the end I kept the job, partly from my parents’ advice and partly from my own desire to be doing real engineering work. Looking back, I think my decision was one of convenience and cowardice. I didn’t want to insult my father’s friend. I didn’t want to disappoint my parents. I didn’t want to let a professional opportunity slip away. I didn’t want to mow lawns. But what does my decision say about the future? My summer job made me recognize that the military is a big employer of engineers, whether directly or indirectly. Undoubtedly I’ll be confronting similar yet more serious ethical decisions in the future. What if my first job offer has a stunning salary and interesting engineering challenges, but the employer is a defense contractor like Lockheed or Raytheon? Will I turn down the job, or will I once again compromise my ideals? I may even face such conflicts during college. Many engineering professors work under military grants, so my college research and internships could get entangled in messy ethical dilemmas. I’m hoping I’ll make a better decision the next time my ideals are challenged. If nothing else, my summer job has made me more aware of the types of information I want to collect before I accept a job and arrive at my first day of work. What I learned about myself during my summer work wasn’t exactly flattering. Indeed, it makes me realize that I need college so that I can develop not just my engineering skills, but also my ethical reasoning and leadership skills. I like to think that in the future I’ll use my engineering skills to better the world and tackle noble causes like climate change and sustainability. My bad decision this past summer has inspired me to look ahead and find ways to make my ideals and my love of engineering work together.

对德鲁文章的评论

关于通用应用程序的重要经验主题提出了独特的问题，在这5个写作技巧中讨论了这些问题。然而，与所有大学入学论文一样，普通申请选项#1的论文必须完成一项特定任务：必须写得清晰、严密，并且必须提供证据证明作者具有求知欲，开放的思想和坚强的性格是成为校园社区中有贡献和成功的一员的必要条件。

文章的题目

写一篇好的文章标题通常是一个挑战。德鲁的标题相当直白，但也相当有效。我们马上想知道Drew为什么要辞职。我们还想知道他为什么不辞职。此外，书名抓住了德鲁文章的一个关键要素德鲁写的不是他取得的巨大成功，而是个人的失败。他的方法有一点风险，但与所有关于这位作家有多伟大的文章相比，这也是一个令人耳目一新的变化。

论文题目

大多数申请者认为，他们必须让自己在论文中显得超人或完美无缺。招生人员阅读了几十篇关于“重大事件”的文章，作者在文章中描述了胜利的触地得分、卓越的领导时刻、完美的独奏，或者慈善行为给不幸者带来的幸福。

德鲁没有走上这条可预测的道路。德鲁文章的核心是一次失败——他的行为方式不符合他的个人理想。他选择了便利和自我发展而不是他的价值观，他从道德困境中走出来，认为自己做了错事。

有人可能会说德鲁写这篇文章的方法是愚蠢的。一所顶尖大学真的想招收一个如此容易妥协自己价值观的学生吗？

但让我们换一种方式来思考这个问题。一所大学是否愿意招收那些论文中把他们描述为自吹自擂者和利己主义者的学生？德鲁的文章具有令人愉悦的自我意识和自我批评水平。我们都会犯错误，德鲁承认了自己的错误。他对自己的决定感到不安，他的文章探讨了他内心的矛盾。德鲁并非十全十美，我们中没有一个人是十全十美的，他对这一事实直言不讳。德鲁有成长的空间，他知道这一点。

此外，德鲁的文章不仅仅是关于他错误的决定。它也展示了他的长处——他对机械工程充满热情，并且在他生命的大部分时间里一直如此。这篇文章在分析他的弱点的同时，成功地展示了他的长处。

论文选项#1通常会引出一堆可预测的、传统的论文，但德鲁的论文会在这堆文章中脱颖而出。

文章语气

德鲁是一个相当严肃和内省的人，所以我们在他的文章中找不到多少幽默。同时，文字也不太重。对德鲁衣柜的开场白描述和对修剪草坪的反复提及为文章增添了些许轻松。

最重要的是，这篇文章表达了一种令人耳目一新的谦逊。德鲁给人的印象是一个正派的人，一个我们想更好地了解的人。

作者的写作能力

德鲁的文章经过仔细编辑和修改。它没有明显的语法和风格问题。语言严谨，细节精心挑选。散文紧凑，句式多样。Drew的文章立即告诉招生人员，他可以控制自己的写作，并准备好迎接大学阶段工作的挑战。

德鲁的作品大约有730字。招生官有数千篇论文要处理，所以我们希望文章简短。Drew的回答有效地完成了工作，而不需要漫无边际。招生人员不太可能失去兴趣。与嘉莉的文章一样，德鲁的文章也很简短。[注：德鲁在2010年写了这篇文章，在650字的长度限制之前；按照目前的指导方针，他需要删掉文章的三分之一]

最后的想法

当你写文章时，你应该考虑一下你给读者留下的印象。德鲁在这方面做得很好。这里有一个学生，他已经有很好的机械能力和对工程的热爱。他谦逊，善于思考。他愿意冒险，甚至冒险批评一些大学教授的资金来源。我们让这篇文章理解德鲁的价值观、怀疑和激情。

最重要的是，Drew给人的印象是，他在大学里既有很多收获，也有很多贡献。招生人员可能希望他成为他们社区的一部分。学院要求写一篇论文，因为他们有整体招生，他们想了解整个申请人，Drew给人留下了很好的印象。

Drew回答的关于“道德困境”的问题不是当前常见申请中的七个论文选项之一。这就是说，常见的申请论文提示是广泛而灵活的，Drew的论文当然可以用于你选择的主题——关于质疑信仰的文章提示或选项3。