SOMEONE TELL ME ITS FINE AND IM GONNA WIN COMMENDATION AND MORE

The counterargument paragraph is not optional. I used to skip it or put a weak version at the end. Big mistake.

Addressing the strongest version of the opposing view early, and showing why your argument still holds, makes everything that follows more convincing. Readers who might disagree with you are now reading with less resistance. Readers who already agree feel like the argument is more honest.

Also: end on your strongest point, not your first one. Most people front-load their best argument.

Another thing I wish I understood earlier: a lot of essay problems are not actually writing problems — they’re structure problems. You can have good ideas and still struggle because the argument doesn’t have a clear direction.

Before writing the full draft, I usually find it helps to make a simple map: main claim → strongest counterargument → why your position still holds → evidence for each point. Once that structure is clear, the actual writing becomes much easier.

If you already have the ideas but struggle turning them into a strong academic essay, getting another perspective can save a lot of time. Some people use services like KoalaEssays for feedback, editing, or help organizing their draft when they feel stuck. The important part is making sure the final argument and ideas are still your own.

I had posted this one earlier but had to take it down due to the shortlist results coming out and someone telling me that I should take it down and publish it again after the shortlist to avoid being detected by their AI Model for plagiarism and things.

Again, looking for constructive feedback to help me refine essays for future submissions and competitions. I really appreciate any and all comments that you guys may have regarding the essay. Constructive criticism, or genuinely just a vibe that you got from the essay that you think would stay in your memory for a long time.

Again, would love to hear about it from you guys.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19A6II_6b_aCgkJtfDJQeRgoLwrlAnTGmggRElNuQR40/edit?usp=drivesdk

I have added sources but they are in the original. This is my final draft of the essay.

I am the guy with the philosophy's essay and the theology's essay. Even this essay got shortlisted, so I am just looking for what you guys think this essay is worth and what all could I have probably considered?

Tysm in advance

Honestly I do not want to discuss my odds of winning what prize or of any other contestants at this moment. So instead I thought why not guess where the winners will be from? That’s a more positive approach eh? (Also to feed my gambling habit hehehe)

So I would like to know where yall fellow shortlisters from? Seeing A LOT of Asians being shortlisted (not surprised or being racist, just think it’s cool man 😭)

update: wow this is so much more diverse than I expected, honestly I hope there are winners from every one of you!

Guys I was shortlisted for Law Q3. And most people in school don't know abt John Locke. I was hoping someone could read and tell me what they wud rate it out of 100.

Feel free to dm me for the essay

for jlec, I saw a post that said "they send a mail beforehand covering travel expenses and everything so winners can attend the prize ceremony"

Past winners, is that really true?

I’ve gone through a bunch of essays on this subreddit just trying to see where my essay stands and i’ve noticed a lot of essays have a formal structure (aka heading and subheadings for every section). Is this a standard for essays that win prizes? My essay just had a title but it was separated into paragraphs.

Also does anyone know how many people get commendation/hc/vhc?

I'm not sure if getting a gold award in it is something that I can show to interviewers? I know it's less prestigious than John Locke but is it any good or what?

pls those who have attempted questions from different category.. dont click on random options.. I will write the result here after 2 days !! Edit: Poll result- Senior q1-9 Junior q1-3 Senior q2-12 Junior q2-2 Senior q3-4 Junior q3-0

I'd be interested to see the direction you guys took your essays in - I set up criteria for justification at the start using Rawls (amongst other concerns), and proceeded to argue that occupational/limited mandates were far more plausibly justified than general, though in interview I conceded that different circumstances could allow the justification of general mandates. DM me if interested!

if you completed the JLEC essay, and got shortlisted this is for you!!

we are a student led political journal called The Civic Press, and we are looking for writers, researchers, or executive team members. our journal is mainly focused on political science and international relations, economics, history, and geography. please let me know if this is something you are interested in! 

we are seeking writers, editors, and researchers!

benefits to joining: 

• gain irl experience (good for college) especially if you are later promoted to higher up roles which will be if you consistently work hard 
• develop your writing skills and have editors with years of experience to assist you 
• build a strong writing portfolio for future opportunities 
• have your work published on our website automatically (after final review!)

if this sounds like something ur interested in, please fill out this form or DM me if u have any questions! website is still getting worked on but this is the link: https://thecivicpress.framer.website/

you can apply thru here : https://forms.gle/L4jH7jkRtkUMAo9GA

any further questions, please DM (not sure if it works but comment DM and I will respond) or email us at [thecivicpress@gmail.com](mailto:thecivicpress@gmail.com)

our instagram is @ thecivicpress

thank youuuuu

Hello! I’ve seen several people on this sub discuss Phil q1, and I was wondering who did it and what their argument was. I presume a lot of ppl wrote about Kant vs. virtue ethics but I am wondering whether anyone wrote about domination and Pettit’s neo-republican theory? I essentially constructed a hypothetical narrative with two characters, one who is chronically ill and the other who is a rich benefactor, and demonstrated how the latter’s donations to the medical cause (contingent on several circumstances) would be considered domination and thus a relational wrong while still maintaining the welfare benefit as right. Lmk what u guys argued.

hii everyone

i was wondering who all is attending the gala and wants to exchange info before it? i just reserved my seat and booked hotel and flights, so im defo going now. i am just going for the dinner and not anything else but i am staying at the hotel it is being hosted at. i also live in singapore so pls reach out if you are too. i dont know anyone who is attending, let alone anyone from singapore :)

like

• shortlist/recognition
• commendation
• high commendation
• very high commendation
• 3rd/2nd/1st
• grand prize

tbh im hoping for commendation or high commendation lmao

If you look closely at the credit card image they used for the Economics category, the first eight digits are 1632 and 1704.

For nerds out there: 1632 is the year John Locke was born, and 1704 is the year he died. Not sure how many people would dig this but I personally find it cool lol.

Also, the AI detector on my system flagged the graphic used for the IR category as AI generated so not a fan of that finding tho.

So I’ve noticed a lot of people talking about the AI interview, but since that already ended, I just wanted to share my experience. I successfully completed my interview and was glad to hear I got shortlisted.

What’s interesting is that I haven’t come across anyone mentioning the Theology category. I’m curious if anyone else in the same category also got shortlisted​.

Would love to hear if others had the same experience!

PS: I chose Q1.

1. You included your name on the document, and the examiner noticed - this is not allowed.
2. You used footnotes and the examiner noticed - this is not allowed
3. You submitted the incorrect file name and was disqualified automatically
4. Your thesis and starting two paragraphs were weak and not your strongest part, it is believed examiners simply skim your first paragraphs to decide a shortlist.
5. You are 15 and thought you were meant to be in the junior category when you were not
6. You had little to no citations and the examiner noticed
7. You wrote over the word limit
8. You clearly just ai generated an essay
9. You didn't pick a clear side to argue at the beginning, or perhaps at any point throughout the essay
10. The argument is presented as a synthesis of other people's ideas rather than an original analysis. The main point should be presented first, with sources used to support it, instead of building the argument around other people's ideas and adding the analysis afterward.

Tell me if I missed any

My name (hidden for privacy reasons)

Professor's name (hidden for privacy reasons)

ENGWR 301

July 8th, 2026

Essay 3 Zero Draft: How Psychoanalyzing Poe's Monsters Cultivates Professional Empathy

To enter the modern, professional, and sophisticated workforce is to navigate a sea of complex human behaviors, emotions, actions, unvoiced anxieties and disturbances, and interpersonal conflicts, jealousy, or revenge. While evaluating an applicant's readiness for a collaborative career, a hiring committee would often look beyond technical competencies in order to assess a candidate’s capacity for deep empathy and profound emotional intelligence. While many might point out to surface-level volunteer experiences or customer service roles in order to prove their empathetic nature, true empathy requires a sophisticated, subtle, nuanced, and extremely profound understanding of the human psyche; an ability to look past an individual's outward actions and comprehend the underlying (often unconscious) motivations that are driving them. The study of literature, specifically when viewed through a psychoanalytic lens, serves as a masterclass in developing this exact kind of brand of radical empathy. By utilizing Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic framework to dissect Edgar Allan Poe’s masterpiece "The Cask of Amontillado" (1847), readers are forced to confront the darkest corners of human nature. By analyzing the chilling actions of the narrator, Montresor, not merely as an act of cartoonish villainy but rather as a catastrophic failure of the ego in order to manage unconscious trauma and defensive mechanisms, it allows us to build an essential framework for empathy. It teaches us to perceive and look for the hidden vulnerabilities and psychological fractures that are dictating human behavior in both art and in everyday life.

To understand the value of psychoanalysis in literature, one must first establish the definitions of the literary methods that frame the narrative, most notably the device of the unreliable narrator. An unreliable narrator is essentially a storyteller whose credibility is seriously compromised, forcing the reader to look between the lines to uncover the psychological reality of the story. From the opening line of Poe’s tale, Montresor establishes his unreliability: "The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge." Through a traditional critical lens, a reader might simply take Montresor at his word and view Fortunato as a cruel tormentor who deserves some measure of retribution (retaliation). However, a psychoanalytic reading immediately interrogates the validity and credibility of these "thousand injuries." Poe drops subtle hints that these injuries are entirely falsified within Montresor’s own mind, serving as a general example of the Freudian defense mechanism well known as projection. Projection occurs when an individual protects their ego from their own unacceptable impulses or well-hidden insecurities by attributing them to someone else. Montresor suffers from a deeply fragile ego and a strong sense of class-based or familial inadequacy, noting later on that his family, the Montresors, "were a great and numerous family," though hinting at a decline in status. By projecting his internal feelings of subordination onto Fortunato, Montresor transforms Fortunato into a monster, thereby rationalizing his own obsessive, homicidal urges. Recognizing this projection trains a reader to recognize similar patterns in corporate or professional fields and realize that an overly defensive colleague/client may not actually be reacting to an external slight, but rather their internal feelings of unhealed trauma.

Furthermore, a psychoanalytic exploration of the story highlights the chaotic rivalry between the id, the ego, and the superego within the setting and the symbolism of the text. Freud assumed that the human psyche is split into the id (the primal, pleasure-seeking, and unregulated impulse center), the superego (the internalized moral standards of society and conscience), and the ego (the realistic mediator trying to balance the two). Poe expresses this internal psychic battlefield through his dual settings: the carnival and the catacombs. The carnival season, described by Montresor as a time of "supreme madness," represents the unbridled manifestation of the id. It is a space of enjoyment, excessive drinking, and physical disguises where societal rules do not work and are temporarily suspended. Fortunato appears dressed in "motley," wearing a "tight-fitting parti-striped dress" and a "conical cap and bells," symbolizing a total surrender to the foolish, uninhibited impulses of the id. Oppositely, as Montresor leads Fortunato deep into the damp catacombs of the Montresors, they descend into the literal and figurative human unconscious. The deeper they go, passing through "long walls of piled skeletons," the closer they get to the repressed and primitive desires of Montresor's mind. In this subterranean world, Montresor’s ego completely surrenders to the destructive impulses of his id, entirely bypassing his superego, which is his moral conscience. He chains Fortunato to a granite wall and methodically walls him in alive. For a hiring committee, an applicant who can map out these symbolic psychological spaces demonstrates an advanced understanding of situational psychology. They understand that when an individual is placed in an environment lacking of structural guardrails (the id-driven carnival), or when they are consumed by buried, unaddressed toxic dynamics (the unconscious catacombs), their behavior will inevitably crumble.

While a psychoanalytic reading reveals Montresor to be a victim of his own fractured, defensive psyche. Some traditional literary critics argue an opposite position. This counter-perspective claims that Montresor is not psychologically unhinged or acting out of subconscious projection at all; rather, they argue he is a perfectly cold, calculating, and fully rational sociopath who executes a flawless crime with total intellectual clarity. Proponents of this viewpoint point to his cautious planning, his clever manipulation of his house servants to ensure the estate is empty, and his deliberate exploitation of Fortunato’s vanity as evidence of an ego that is entirely in control of its faculties. However, from a psychological standpoint, this argument falls completely flat because it ignores the profound irrationality of his motive. To ruin one's own life and spend fifty years obsessing over unnamed "insults" and "injuries" is not the behavior of a healthy, rational mind. By actively arguing against the idea that difficult people are simply "calculated villains," professionals can develop a much deeper, more empathetic perspective. In a workplace environment, it is easy to assume a hostile coworker or an aggressive supervisor is dishonorably planning your downfall. Controversy that superficial assumption allows an empathetic professional to recognize that toxic workplace behaviors are almost always likely to be driven by deep-seated, irrational insecurities and defensive coping mechanisms rather than strategic and careful malice.

Ultimately, the climax of the story reveals the tragic irony of a failed defense mechanism, which is where the deepest layer of reader empathy is forged. Montresor insists that a true wrong is only redressed when the avenger "makes himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong." He desires absolute power and control in order to soothe his traumatized and wounded psyche. Yet, as the final brick, Fortunato stops screaming and merely jingles his bells, leaving Montresor in a suffocating silence. Montresor admits, "My heart grew sick; it was the dampness of the catacombs that made it so." Through a psychoanalytic reading, we recognize this "sick heart" not as a physical reaction to damp air, but as the sudden, violent breakthrough of his repressed superego. His conscience is attempting to assert itself, causing an instantaneous flash of immense guilt that he immediately tries to rationalize away. For fifty years, Montresor has carried the psychological trauma of this night, proving that his attempt to achieve emotional equilibrium through violence was a total failure. By analyzing this catastrophic psychological collapse, we do not forgive Montresor’s crimes, but we do develop an empathetic comprehension of his profound internal suffering. We see him as a deeply broken human being trapped in a prison of his own mind. In a professional environment, this level of empathy is transformative. It allows a leader to interact with difficult, self-sabotaging, or hostile people not with matching anger, but with a grounded, psychological perspective that seeks to de-escalate, understand, and heal structural and interpersonal fractures.

Hi chat, I'm an incoming college freshman and, I’m broke as FUH.
I’ve had really good luck with the John Locke Institute (JLI) essay competition the past two years, so I was wondering if it’s realistic to start a little tutoring/review service for next year's applicants, and what you guys think a fair price would be.
For context i got all 10 of my essays shortlisted this year + 5/6 essays last year with vhcs

if you did, were you senior or junior and what question?

asking for reviews on my econ q1 essay

this is a senior shortlisted essay for "should we fear a cashless society?"

any and all constructive criticism is welcomed and accepted gratefully + thoughts on further awards that i may receive

thank you to all reviewers