论文部分内容阅读
2013年康奈尔大学本科申请essay题目:
Some students have a background or story that is so central to their identity that they believe their application would be incomplete without it. If this sounds like you, then please share your story.
正文:
Personal Essay
“What’s happening?” I kind of lost my temper, “Why still I couldn’t get the signal?” Looking at the “No Watermarking Detected” on the screen of my laptop, I breathed out a puff of disconsolate air. “Nothing can stop me anyway.” I summoned up and pondered upon the whole experiment process.
In this August, I was selected by Professor Tiegang Gao to join his research project Study of Neural Network Model (NNM) and its Optimization Algorithms for Digital Image Watermarking. After acquiring the basic knowledge of NNM and digital watermarking technology, I was assigned to conduct experiments to prove that NNM algorithms were applicable in digital image watermarking, even though the images were being edited.
The main idea of digital watermarking technology is to embed digital watermarking into digital products to protect its copyrights. And I was informed by Professor Gao that NNM could be applied to produce robust and safe watermarking algorithm which could resist various malicious attack. In the first week of my experiment, I did achieve favorable results as expected. For those images with digital watermarking, I manipulated image processing software to edit them to impair the digital watermarking. As expected, I could still detect the signal of the watermarking.
But things did not go well subsequently. This time I was trying to monitor the signal of watermark from the photo re-taken from the embedded-watermark images, I failed to obtain experimental reproducibility, or rather, barely receive signal at all. I had tried seven times and all I got was “No Watermarking Detected”.
“Something must go wrong” I told myself “It could be my misconduct in some process of the experiment.” Then I went to go over the NNM theory and digital watermarking papers and carefully examined every step of my experimental operation. With all set, I gave it another shot. Again, for the eighth time, the robustness test indicated the digital watermark failed to maintain its original characteristics.
“How could it be? I’ve double checked my operations and there’s no way would make mistakes!” I scratched my head and suddenly an idea hit me, “Wait a second! Would it be the NNM algorithms itself? Maybe Professor Gao’s confidence on the NNM robustness is not so convincing.” I challenged Professor Gao about my finding and elaborated what I encountered in the experiments. “Really?” he looked into my eyes and together we did the experiment again. As it turned out, the NNM watermarking algorithm created by our team was not applicable for the circumstance when photos were re-taken by a camera.
“Great job!” Professor Gao patted on my shoulder, “You just found the limitation of our algorithm. We need to further improve our algorithm to make it work in more universal circumstances”. “Yes! I knew it!” The euphoria of discovering made all my efforts worthwhile.
It occurred to me that scientific research is about ceaselessly questioning. To get the truth, we need to question our universe, our way of thinking, our experience, and more importantly, the previous authorized “truth”.
《留学》杂志明星顾问甘勇老师点评
[0]第一段:言简意赅地把整个故事的“冲突点”放在一开始的段落,很有画面感地描绘了申请者做实验期间碰到的问题,吸引读者继续读下去。
[0]第二段:交代了时间、地点、人物、事件,把故事的起因阐述清楚,并且交代了申请者所从事的科研项目工作的内容。
[0]第三段:为了使得读者,尤其是那些没有相关专业背景的普通读者,能够很好地了解申请者所做的科研工作的内容,用非常科普易懂的笔触,阐述了什么是“图像数字水印技术”。同时,也进一步交代了自己的实验工作的内容。
[0]第四段:即使对第三段的进一步的铺陈,也是对第一段“冲突点”的回应。进一步阐述了申请者在做实验的过程中,碰到了什么样的现象,对申请者将要发现问题,埋下伏笔。
[0]第五、第六段:重点描写critical thinking的过程。申请者怀疑自己实验操作有误,于是重新自我检查了一遍实验。但经过检查无误后,认为极有可能是的教授的理论有误。
[0]第七、第八段:申请者挑战学术权威的过程。
[0]第九段:总结段落:用非常简单有力的语句,表明了申请者对于科研的态度和理解。
《留学》杂志明星顾问郑煜老师点评
2013年8月份Common Application进行了第四次改革,这次的调整不止是简化了申请流程,Essay也有较大变化。本文挑选的是CA Option 1,即通过描写“a background or story”来告诉admission officers 申请者是什么样的人,同时这个“story”必须“central to your identity”,“would be incomplete without it”。回答好此题,对于高中生来说不是一件易事。 但本文做到了,通过500字的描述,学生对科学研究的热爱展露无遗,反映出该学生在科研方面的potential和exploring spirit。
从整体结构来说,没有采用常规的时间顺序来描述,而是以“what’s happening”开头,这种表达更容易激发读者的好奇心,想一探到底。我们也经常建议自己的学生多花点时间来构思第一段。毕竟好的开头才能给读者更大的动力阅读下去,尤其是对于录取委员会,在短短的3个月时间里要需要阅读成千上万篇essay,普通的文章根本吸引不了他们的注意力。在接下来的几段,学生描述了科研项目的经过,内容点到即止,没有夸张的修饰也没有累赘的表达,过渡非常自然,一段段递进,直到结尾点出主题“scientific research is about ceaselessly questioning”。另外,从语言看,学生的英文表达非常流利,句型多变,展现了扎实的写作功底。
《留学》杂志明星顾问刘梦璇老师点评
作为一篇申请美国本科的common essay,该文章并没有拘泥于仅仅讲述一个生活中的故事,而是在这个故事里融入并凸显了个性,就这一点而言,这篇common essay与众不同。很多申请者在看到这个题目的时候往往注重描述自己的background或者story,而忽略了identity;但本文的作者恰恰将自己的identity展现得淋漓尽致:通过讲述一次研究经历,表现了自己锲而不舍和勇于挑战的学术精神。可以说这篇文章给申请者的竞争力增加了砝码。
从结构上来讲,这篇文书做到了开头引人入胜,中间叙事清晰,结尾扣题升华。中间穿插了申请人在这段研究经历中遇到的困难,所做的尝试,以及解决的途径。没有单纯的平铺直叙,而是有失落,有惊喜,整体连贯,可读性强。
从语言的角度来看,几乎所有的表达都很地道,准确地反映了作者的想法,而且不失文采。句式也丰富多样,有长有短,体现了英语文章的节奏感。
当然这篇文书也有个别可以改进之处,比如第一段和第二段之间,倒数第二段和最后一段之间都可以考虑加上一两句话,使逻辑更加顺畅。总体来说,这是一篇充满个性,让人印象深刻的common essay。 《留学》杂志明星顾问李震老师点评
非常精彩的个人陈述!就文章本身而言,行文流畅、扣题,让读者印象深刻,相信这也是招生官们被它打动的原因。
文章以心理活动倒叙开篇,通过一系列的自我发问,将读者带入情景;随后阐述故事的背景,并随着故事的进展让读者看到作者独立思考和动手实践能力及坚持不懈的个性特征;故事以该学生挑战教授的理论而进入高潮,最后以作者敢于尝试,最终获得实验突破结束故事,使得个人的创造力和勇气得以展现。整个故事真实自然,让读者在能够预测到结局的情况下依然耐心跟随故事的情节前行,情绪也随着试验的成败而起落,最终在看到获得成功那一刻不禁长舒一口气,“哈~总算成功了!”
尽管文章紧扣题目引人入胜博得了名校青睐,但依个人拙见,分配在彰显个性的笔墨稍显浓厚,使得人品、动机和影响力等方面的体现略为逊色。不难看出,作者在结尾虽然想到升华主题,怎奈前边的文章铺垫工作做得不够,结尾时又限于篇幅要求,仅凭借一句话而升华到某一高度终归显得突兀,有种草草收尾的感觉。如果作者能在谋篇布局上更加均衡地采用“Five W”和“One H”式问答,将能更好地为后面的升华埋下伏笔。
甘勇,来自金东方,毕业于清华大学工程物理系。对美国顶级名校及主流国际名校的申请方式和录取规则有深入研究,现专注美国名校和奖学金申请,曾帮助数百名学生获得哈佛大学、耶鲁大学、杜克大学等顶级名校的录取和奖学金;并帮助数百名高校学者和科研人员成功申请到哈佛大学、麻省理工学院、宾夕法尼亚大学等顶级名校的交流访问学者或博士后科研机会。
郑煜,英国杜伦大学硕士,澳际留学院校申请中心美国高端文书组组长。专业从事美国名校申请,曾帮助学生达成卡耐基梅隆大学、埃默里大学、哥伦比亚大学等高校的录取,积累了丰富的文书写作经验。
刘梦璇,嘉华世达资深写作顾问,曾在美国学习和工作6年,其间获得夏威夷大学亚洲研究专业硕士学位。现主要负责VIP高端文书写作,擅长将学生特色与美国文化有机结合,挖掘学生潜在优势,曾帮助许多学生达成美国名校本科和硕博录取。
李震,美国大学网文案总监,开朗、热情、热爱教育行业,善于从孩子的角度关心他们的学习与成长。有十年美国学习工作生活经历,深入了解美国社会文化,能帮助学生细致分析文案方向,指导学生参与社会活动丰富文案素材,分析制定个性文案。
Some students have a background or story that is so central to their identity that they believe their application would be incomplete without it. If this sounds like you, then please share your story.
正文:
Personal Essay
“What’s happening?” I kind of lost my temper, “Why still I couldn’t get the signal?” Looking at the “No Watermarking Detected” on the screen of my laptop, I breathed out a puff of disconsolate air. “Nothing can stop me anyway.” I summoned up and pondered upon the whole experiment process.
In this August, I was selected by Professor Tiegang Gao to join his research project Study of Neural Network Model (NNM) and its Optimization Algorithms for Digital Image Watermarking. After acquiring the basic knowledge of NNM and digital watermarking technology, I was assigned to conduct experiments to prove that NNM algorithms were applicable in digital image watermarking, even though the images were being edited.
The main idea of digital watermarking technology is to embed digital watermarking into digital products to protect its copyrights. And I was informed by Professor Gao that NNM could be applied to produce robust and safe watermarking algorithm which could resist various malicious attack. In the first week of my experiment, I did achieve favorable results as expected. For those images with digital watermarking, I manipulated image processing software to edit them to impair the digital watermarking. As expected, I could still detect the signal of the watermarking.
But things did not go well subsequently. This time I was trying to monitor the signal of watermark from the photo re-taken from the embedded-watermark images, I failed to obtain experimental reproducibility, or rather, barely receive signal at all. I had tried seven times and all I got was “No Watermarking Detected”.
“Something must go wrong” I told myself “It could be my misconduct in some process of the experiment.” Then I went to go over the NNM theory and digital watermarking papers and carefully examined every step of my experimental operation. With all set, I gave it another shot. Again, for the eighth time, the robustness test indicated the digital watermark failed to maintain its original characteristics.
“How could it be? I’ve double checked my operations and there’s no way would make mistakes!” I scratched my head and suddenly an idea hit me, “Wait a second! Would it be the NNM algorithms itself? Maybe Professor Gao’s confidence on the NNM robustness is not so convincing.” I challenged Professor Gao about my finding and elaborated what I encountered in the experiments. “Really?” he looked into my eyes and together we did the experiment again. As it turned out, the NNM watermarking algorithm created by our team was not applicable for the circumstance when photos were re-taken by a camera.
“Great job!” Professor Gao patted on my shoulder, “You just found the limitation of our algorithm. We need to further improve our algorithm to make it work in more universal circumstances”. “Yes! I knew it!” The euphoria of discovering made all my efforts worthwhile.
It occurred to me that scientific research is about ceaselessly questioning. To get the truth, we need to question our universe, our way of thinking, our experience, and more importantly, the previous authorized “truth”.
《留学》杂志明星顾问甘勇老师点评
[0]第一段:言简意赅地把整个故事的“冲突点”放在一开始的段落,很有画面感地描绘了申请者做实验期间碰到的问题,吸引读者继续读下去。
[0]第二段:交代了时间、地点、人物、事件,把故事的起因阐述清楚,并且交代了申请者所从事的科研项目工作的内容。
[0]第三段:为了使得读者,尤其是那些没有相关专业背景的普通读者,能够很好地了解申请者所做的科研工作的内容,用非常科普易懂的笔触,阐述了什么是“图像数字水印技术”。同时,也进一步交代了自己的实验工作的内容。
[0]第四段:即使对第三段的进一步的铺陈,也是对第一段“冲突点”的回应。进一步阐述了申请者在做实验的过程中,碰到了什么样的现象,对申请者将要发现问题,埋下伏笔。
[0]第五、第六段:重点描写critical thinking的过程。申请者怀疑自己实验操作有误,于是重新自我检查了一遍实验。但经过检查无误后,认为极有可能是的教授的理论有误。
[0]第七、第八段:申请者挑战学术权威的过程。
[0]第九段:总结段落:用非常简单有力的语句,表明了申请者对于科研的态度和理解。
《留学》杂志明星顾问郑煜老师点评
2013年8月份Common Application进行了第四次改革,这次的调整不止是简化了申请流程,Essay也有较大变化。本文挑选的是CA Option 1,即通过描写“a background or story”来告诉admission officers 申请者是什么样的人,同时这个“story”必须“central to your identity”,“would be incomplete without it”。回答好此题,对于高中生来说不是一件易事。 但本文做到了,通过500字的描述,学生对科学研究的热爱展露无遗,反映出该学生在科研方面的potential和exploring spirit。
从整体结构来说,没有采用常规的时间顺序来描述,而是以“what’s happening”开头,这种表达更容易激发读者的好奇心,想一探到底。我们也经常建议自己的学生多花点时间来构思第一段。毕竟好的开头才能给读者更大的动力阅读下去,尤其是对于录取委员会,在短短的3个月时间里要需要阅读成千上万篇essay,普通的文章根本吸引不了他们的注意力。在接下来的几段,学生描述了科研项目的经过,内容点到即止,没有夸张的修饰也没有累赘的表达,过渡非常自然,一段段递进,直到结尾点出主题“scientific research is about ceaselessly questioning”。另外,从语言看,学生的英文表达非常流利,句型多变,展现了扎实的写作功底。
《留学》杂志明星顾问刘梦璇老师点评
作为一篇申请美国本科的common essay,该文章并没有拘泥于仅仅讲述一个生活中的故事,而是在这个故事里融入并凸显了个性,就这一点而言,这篇common essay与众不同。很多申请者在看到这个题目的时候往往注重描述自己的background或者story,而忽略了identity;但本文的作者恰恰将自己的identity展现得淋漓尽致:通过讲述一次研究经历,表现了自己锲而不舍和勇于挑战的学术精神。可以说这篇文章给申请者的竞争力增加了砝码。
从结构上来讲,这篇文书做到了开头引人入胜,中间叙事清晰,结尾扣题升华。中间穿插了申请人在这段研究经历中遇到的困难,所做的尝试,以及解决的途径。没有单纯的平铺直叙,而是有失落,有惊喜,整体连贯,可读性强。
从语言的角度来看,几乎所有的表达都很地道,准确地反映了作者的想法,而且不失文采。句式也丰富多样,有长有短,体现了英语文章的节奏感。
当然这篇文书也有个别可以改进之处,比如第一段和第二段之间,倒数第二段和最后一段之间都可以考虑加上一两句话,使逻辑更加顺畅。总体来说,这是一篇充满个性,让人印象深刻的common essay。 《留学》杂志明星顾问李震老师点评
非常精彩的个人陈述!就文章本身而言,行文流畅、扣题,让读者印象深刻,相信这也是招生官们被它打动的原因。
文章以心理活动倒叙开篇,通过一系列的自我发问,将读者带入情景;随后阐述故事的背景,并随着故事的进展让读者看到作者独立思考和动手实践能力及坚持不懈的个性特征;故事以该学生挑战教授的理论而进入高潮,最后以作者敢于尝试,最终获得实验突破结束故事,使得个人的创造力和勇气得以展现。整个故事真实自然,让读者在能够预测到结局的情况下依然耐心跟随故事的情节前行,情绪也随着试验的成败而起落,最终在看到获得成功那一刻不禁长舒一口气,“哈~总算成功了!”
尽管文章紧扣题目引人入胜博得了名校青睐,但依个人拙见,分配在彰显个性的笔墨稍显浓厚,使得人品、动机和影响力等方面的体现略为逊色。不难看出,作者在结尾虽然想到升华主题,怎奈前边的文章铺垫工作做得不够,结尾时又限于篇幅要求,仅凭借一句话而升华到某一高度终归显得突兀,有种草草收尾的感觉。如果作者能在谋篇布局上更加均衡地采用“Five W”和“One H”式问答,将能更好地为后面的升华埋下伏笔。
甘勇,来自金东方,毕业于清华大学工程物理系。对美国顶级名校及主流国际名校的申请方式和录取规则有深入研究,现专注美国名校和奖学金申请,曾帮助数百名学生获得哈佛大学、耶鲁大学、杜克大学等顶级名校的录取和奖学金;并帮助数百名高校学者和科研人员成功申请到哈佛大学、麻省理工学院、宾夕法尼亚大学等顶级名校的交流访问学者或博士后科研机会。
郑煜,英国杜伦大学硕士,澳际留学院校申请中心美国高端文书组组长。专业从事美国名校申请,曾帮助学生达成卡耐基梅隆大学、埃默里大学、哥伦比亚大学等高校的录取,积累了丰富的文书写作经验。
刘梦璇,嘉华世达资深写作顾问,曾在美国学习和工作6年,其间获得夏威夷大学亚洲研究专业硕士学位。现主要负责VIP高端文书写作,擅长将学生特色与美国文化有机结合,挖掘学生潜在优势,曾帮助许多学生达成美国名校本科和硕博录取。
李震,美国大学网文案总监,开朗、热情、热爱教育行业,善于从孩子的角度关心他们的学习与成长。有十年美国学习工作生活经历,深入了解美国社会文化,能帮助学生细致分析文案方向,指导学生参与社会活动丰富文案素材,分析制定个性文案。