how to write uwc essay

"incredibly inspirational" ~one of my friends, jokingly

ULTIMATE INTERVIEW/SELECTION WEEKEND GUIDE – TIPS FOR THE UWC APPLICATION PROCESS

I have promised to do this for way too long now and never actually got around to it- but since I’m at home in lockdown and college doesn’t start until August, I’m finally writing up my tips for all things regarding the UWC application, interview and selection weekend. I think, since I got rejected the first time I applied and I went through the whole process twice, I probably have at least some useful insights to share. !DISCLAIMER! Remember that these are all based on my own experience going through the Austrian selection process- the one in your country might be different. These are all things I wish someone had told me before starting/during the application process, so I really hope that you’ll find some of these helpful😊

1. THE WRITTEN APPLICATION

Your first step towards your greater goal of attending a UWC! It may seem daunting, but this is the one thing in this whole process that you have complete control over, so really you should take full advantage of that fact! You can spend as little or as much time as you like writing and tweaking your application and have family or friends help you. Interviews, selection weekends, group activities etc. is where other people come in, but this step is under your control, so don’t stress yourself out too much! 😊 Here are my top tips for the written application.

1. Get your letters of recommendation early

Take it from someone who left it until it was almost too late. It doesn’t feel good to have to (politely) stress out your teacher/whoever is writing you a recommendation because the application submission deadline is soon, and it will definitely not make them feel any more inclined to write it for you if you’re forced to pressure them to do it quickly. Just figure out who you want to ask for recommendations as early as possible and make sure they have all the time they need to write you a great letter!

2. Don’t compare yourself to others

It’s so important to be honest with yourself. Know yourself, know how long it takes you to write an essay and how many times you might need to edit it to be satisfied. It doesn’t matter whether that one UWC youtuber said you should take 3 months to write the essays, or that maybe that one friend of yours who is really good at essay writing said they wrote them in one day. Just because you’ve read or heard somewhere that someone wrote it in 2 days doesn’t mean you should and just because you heard that someone took all summer to write them doesn’t automatically mean they’re good. Obviously, it’s easy to give the tip “Start early!” but I think it is more effective to just be realistic and honest with yourself. Personally, I wrote up my application and edited everything in the span of 1-2 weeks, and it worked for me that way. But, let’s say you tend to be a perfectionist and also want your mom, your best friend and your dad’s brother’s cousin’s daughter to read over your stuff, starting early is probably a good idea.

3. Don’t be afraid to contact your national committee

Applications vary from country to country so I can’t talk about any specifics, but generally, if there is anything at all that you are confused about, don’t be afraid to write an email to your NC! They will be happy to assist you, and there is no such thing as stupid questions (cliché but true in this instance). A personal example would be that the first time I applied, I wasn’t sure which things on the application should be answered in German and which in English, but instead of contacting my NC I just kinda did it and changed it again and after submitting was scared that I did it the wrong way. Don’t be like me! If something is unclear, ask for clarification. It will spare you a lot of stress.

4. Just send it!

Send off your application, even if you have doubts and think it may not be good enough. First of all: you have nothing to lose and everything to gain! And second of all, I assure you that everyone hitting that submission button doubts themselves at least a little bit. I sure as hell did.

2. INTERVIEWS

So now you’ve made it to the interview- congrats! I know that this is a nerve-wracking part of the application process, but just try to see it as a way to share more about what kind of a person you are with the National Committee.

1. Be yourself

I know what you’re thinking. Wow, how cliché, thanks, never even thought about this totally obvious thing! I agree, it’s cliché, but if you take away one thing from this whole blog post it should be this. Now, this should also be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, you shouldn’t try to act any different, for example if you’re usually a bubbly person-it’s okay, you don’t have to act all serious. If you’re a naturally funny person, you could include a little (appropriate) joke here and there even though we tend to think this is an extremely formal setting (which yes it kind of is, but again this may vary from national committee to national committee). However , “be yourself” doesn’t mean “stay in your comfort zone”. As an introvert, I know it can be hard to speak up, and I’m not saying you should change and act like an extrovert. What you have to make yourself realize is that this interview is about you. These people (the number of people interviewing you will vary) are sitting there to listen to you talk and occasionally ask some questions, they are trying to find out what kind of a person you are beyond those stiff essays from the application. If you’re an introvert, it’s fine to not talk loudly or whatever, but be confident about your opinions and don’t be afraid to talk about yourself! And even if you’re not, just act like you are confident and before you know it you will feel that way too (fake it till you make it). Believe me, I know it can feel super weird to just talk about yourself, but in some ways that is the point of an interview.

2. Don’t be scared of the interviewer(s)

They aren’t trying to trip you up. They will ask questions about your essays and things you indicated on your application in order to get an idea of who you are as a person. They might challenge something you said, but just stay true to your opinion, they don’t want to hear a certain answer they want to get to know you. If they ask you to elaborate on something, you should see it as a great opportunity to talk even more about something that you obviously already like discussing, since otherwise you (hopefully) wouldn’t have chosen it for your essay! In my case, the interviewers even made a joke here and there. The whole thing isn’t quite as formal as you might think.

3. Be passionate

I kind of touched on this earlier, but again: these people are there to listen to you talk. They will ask you questions about stuff you wrote on your application to find out more about you and whether or not you are a good fit for UWC (and whether or not UWC is a good fit for you.) They want to know what kind of a person you are, what makes you get out of bed in the morning and what things light up your eyes when you talk about them. No matter what you are passionate about, make sure they know it and feel it!

4. Don’t read too much into facial expressions

Seriously, don’t. During my interviews a lot of my stress came from me overthinking the interviewer’s facial expression. You don’t know what they’re thinking! They are just listening intently or taking notes, if one of them looks bored to death don’t let it affect you or discourage you. They are there to listen and take notes and maybe think of additional questions, but during the interview there is absolutely no time for value judgements anyway. Just do your thing and try not to read into it too much.

5. Be honest

This one is kind of similar to “Be yourself”. Don’t try to psychoanalyze the interviewers to answer in a way that you think will please them. They aren’t looking for a specific answer from you, they genuinely want to know your honest thoughts. If they phrase a question weirdly and you’re like ‘okay maybe I should answer it differently…’ No, stop right there! Stay true to what you think and what you believe in. Be honest in giving your opinions. Also, be ‘honest’ (maybe that is the wrong word) in terms of your feelings. UWC is an intense experience, that can be hard to adjust to and they want to make sure to send people who they think will be able to work through that and deal with it, which means they might ask you personal or emotional questions that could strike a chord. It’s okay to be emotional in that case, I was asked a very personal question and got teary-eyed. It’s totally fine to say “This is a hard question, please give me a second to think about it” or something along the lines of that.

6. Don’t try to find out what they asked the other people

When you’re sitting there waiting for your turn and someone who just had their interview comes out, don’t ask that person what questions they were asked. The questions you get are based on what you wrote in your application, so there’s no point since they most likely won’t even ask you that question. It will only make you more nervous.

3. GROUP ACTIVITIES/SELECTION WEEKEND

1. Arrive early

Of course, being early is always a good thing for these kinds of situations, but as an introvert this truly made a big difference for me. The first time I applied, I had really bad luck and ended up arriving late to the selection weekend. Picture this: 15 year-old, very introverted me opening the door to see groups of people seated at tables, already deep in conversation with one another and since I was the only person left, once I had arrived everyone got up and the activities started straight away. This led to me being super ‘stuck in my shell’ and stressed out from the get-go. The second time I applied, I made sure to be (maybe even too) early, which enabled me to be calmer since I wasn’t stressing about having to find my way in a big city I don’t know too well, I wasn’t stressing about whether or not I’d be late and make a bad impression, and I got to be the first one to sit down at the table and then have a chill introduction and conversation with the first person who arrived after me, and then the next etc.

2. Don’t be afraid to talk in group activities

After I received my rejection the first time round, I also received an email with feedback and insight as to why I didn’t make it into the final selection. It said something along the lines of: “We often had the impression that you wanted to say something but in the end you didn’t. We know that you have opinions, and we would have loved to hear them more often.” If you are a naturally ‘charismatic’ person you probably don’t have to worry too much about this, but for my fellow quieter peeps: just dive head in! Make a conscious mental note to SAY SOMETHING, to force yourself if you have to, during group activities, to contribute in any way, don’t be scared of what the other applicants might think of what you’re saying because, frankly, they don’t matter that much. Say what you’re thinking, if you are playing a group game and you have an idea for a strategy that might work, propose it to the rest of the group! It might not work, but that’s not what matters. What’s important is that you are contributing and trying to get the whole group to succeed by providing ideas and that you can show that you can work with others. UWCs are all about sharing ideas and brainstorming together, trying new things and tweaking what doesn’t work to try and find solutions to problems. That’s what they are trying to ‘simulate’ in these group activities, so speak up when you have an idea, even if it’s just a small one.

3. “Who wants to start?”

You do! Or at least I think you should. At least once or twice. On my first selection weekend, we had activities in small groups where we would get some sort of an ethical dilemma and had to do a ranking for example. In the end we would all go around in a circle and share our ranking with the group. What happened was, everyone ended up kind of having very similar rankings and I always ended up saying mine last, so I was left pretty much awkwardly repeating what we already heard 5 times. I learned from that experience, and during my second selection weekend, when it was time to share our ranking and one of the ‘evaluators’ asked “Who wants to go first?” I just went and said “I can go!”. For people who don’t want to seem too dominant this may seem daunting, but I promise you, in practice it’s not as bad as you think. It shows you are not afraid to say what you think and you don’t need to run your rankings by the other people first.

4. Stick to your opinion

In group activities and games, it may be that you suggest something and everyone is on board right away. But, it’s also very possible that the others in the group are skeptical of your idea and quietly look at you with confused looks. If this happens, don’t despair! The worst thing to do in that situation is drop your shoulders and quietly say “But we can do something else too”. Instead, calmly try to explain what you were thinking and why this might work or how you arrived at the conclusion that this might at least be a step in the right direction compared to the last thing you all tried to do. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” In those games, it’s good to have everyone contribute new ideas, even if the idea itself isn’t the solution, someone else might bounce off of it and think of something new and so you will arrive at the finish line much faster. Obviously, don’t be unnecessarily stubborn and insist on your idea because you think it’s the very best- remember that it’s a group effort and you have to compromise.

Just don’t instantly give up on something you said just cause people aren’t agreeing to it right away.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: HAVE FUN!

The selection weekend is your first opportunity to experience the UWC spirit, and you will truly meet some great people there who share the same values as you. You will have great conversations over dinner, question your own beliefs over challenging discussions and just get to hang out with really interesting people. Above all, it should be an enjoyable time, and even though I was very anxious during my first application process, I still had so much fun and I hope you will too.:)

BEING REJECTED If you are rejected but you are not too old yet, APPLY AGAIN NEXT YEAR! In the Austrian system, you are allowed to apply twice.

If you are 15 and get rejected, APPLY AGAIN NEXT YEAR, and I cannot emphasize this enough. I’ve heard before that people think “Oh, if I didn’t make it this time then why should I get in next year?” but just look at me- I didn’t even get into the final selection the first time I applied. People evolve, things happen, you change. A year is a time where a lot of stuff can happen, you can collect new experiences and work on yourself, so don’t just write it off. Also, if you are applying a second time it is definitely a positive, since the National Committee will see how much you want this and how dedicated you are.

5 thoughts on “ULTIMATE INTERVIEW/SELECTION WEEKEND GUIDE – TIPS FOR THE UWC APPLICATION PROCESS”

yES STELLA new blog post finally!! p.s. from another recent grad, cannot stress the last apply again point enough. some years UWC simply might not have a scholarship available for the school you want to go to = aka why you might not get a spot! some of the most important people to me are those who reapplied, and i cannot imagine what life would’ve been like had they not done so 😉

yes fully agree!! now don’t mind me, i’m just over here waiting for a new blog post on thenotoriusdreamer 😉

• Pingback: Applying to UWC for a second time – what made all the difference? – Stella's Chronicles

can you send me the pdf form

Hi, sorry but I’m not sure what form you are referring to?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

• Kale by LyraThemes.com.

Scholarship Essays

United World College Scholarship Essay Example - Personal Statement

A personal statement (within 300 words) explaining why you are interested in attending a uwc school/college and reflecting on uwc's mission and values, what you might contribute to the school/college and what you would hope to gain from the experience.

About a year ago, I received an immense opportunity to go on an international excursion with 43 other nations to Gothenburg where I had to represent my nation and my culture. In other words, it was an adventure of a lifetime for me, one that taught me about multiculturalism, diversity, responsibility and self-dependence; one that I would like to take again. So I began my hunt for greater opportunities that could once again let me experience the magic behind multiculturalism and more importantly, help shape myself into a better person by being more open to diversity.

I had the incredible luck to come across UWC's website during one of my hunts, and was instantly enticed by what each school had to offer. Cultural exchange, the challenging IB curriculum, community service, extracurricular activities and plenty of time to have fun -all these are basically everything I could ask for in a journey of two years, specially being a person who likes to keep busy. Moreover, it seems incredible to me that so much can be done and learnt in this time span, and I'm definitely eager to take this ride.

In order to contribute to the UWC community, I believe I have the requisite skills and characteristics that would help make the two years in college productive and successful. To begin with, I am naturally comfortable with diversity and curious about different worldviews and belief systems, so I plan to learn a lot about the different cultures as well as let others know about mine. Furthermore, I am particularly keen to contribute to various social services and community projects because I want to make use of the experiences and knowledge I have gathered from working in different non-profit organizations throughout my life. Lastly, having been a sportsman all my life, I wish to be involved in any of UWC's sports team which I can help lead to victory; where I can form a bond with other players from different social and cultural backgrounds, and where I can make every player recognize their worth and help them face challenges together.

From experiencing two years at a UWC, I hope to achieve a deeper level of intercultural understanding so that I can become more globally engaged. I also aspire to gain meaningful social relationships across culturally diverse groups as well as learn to be more compassionate and understanding from doing the CAS program and similar service works. All in all, I am hoping to have the time of my life in these two years which will be a journey of self exploration, adventures and lots of learning.

Original Source: Essay Forum

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content

University Writing Center

Undergraduate Students

The University Writing Center was founded in 1993 to help UT Austin students become more proficient, more versatile, and more confident writers. The UWC can help students from any major, with any writing project, at any point on their college career. Writers of all abilities come here to do what professional writers do: get another person’s response to their writing.

Writing Appointments

To maximize support for online learning, we have lifted restrictions on the number of consultations students can have per semester. Find out more and schedule an appointment!

Presentations

Request a presentation for your student organization or suggest that your teacher request one for your class.

Find the full list of our resources on the main handouts page. A selection of undergrad-specific resources are listed below.

Find out more about our mission to be inclusive and accessible to all UT students.

Interested in working here? Find out about our job opportunities!

Accessibility

Find out more about accessibility at the UWC.

Resources for Undergrads

Additional resources.

• ChatGPT & LLMs_2023
• Code-Switching and Code-Meshing
• College Writing Myths
• Entrepreneurship Resources
• Hire an Editor
• Peer Review (45-50min)
• Peer Review (45-50min) Presenter Template
• Psychology CVs
• RHE 306 Recommended Presentations Schedule
• Resources for Multilingual Writers
• Résumé-Writing Resources

Grammar, Usage, & Punctuation

• Definite and Indefinite Articles Flow Chart
• Eliminating Wordiness
• Resisting Clichés

Research Papers and Lab Reports

• Data Presentation
• Editing Lab Reports
• Lab Reports
• Paraphrasing
• Primary and Secondary Sources
• Steps for Writing a Research Paper
• Tips for Writing Lab Reports
• Using and Framing Direct Quotations
• Writing Lab Reports (45-50min)
• Writing Research Introductions
• Writing Research Papers (30-40min)
• Avoiding Plagiarism (25-35 min)
• Avoiding Plagiarism (25-35 min) Activity
• Brainstorming
• Conclusions
• Final Revisions Checklist
• Grammarly Presentation (30-35 min)
• How to Edit Your Own Writing
• Introduction to the UWC (10-15 min)
• Introductions
• Writing in Process (15-30min)

Writing Guides

• Analyzing Poetry
• Art and Art History Papers: Formal Analysis and Comparative Analysis
• Close Reading Literature
• Cover Letters
• How to Construct and Format a Resume
• Making the Transition from High School to College Writing
• Personal Statements
• Personal Statements: Models for Generating Content
• Revising Essays and Research Papers (45-50min)
• Rhetorical Analysis
• Rhetorical Fallacies
• Sentence Clarity (45-50min)
• Transitioning from High School to University-Level Writing (45-50min)
• Writing Abstracts (45-50min)
• Writing Effective Internal Transfer Essays ( 35-45 min. )
• Writing Literature Reviews (25-35min)
• Writing Personal Statements (35-45min)
• Writing Resumes, CVs, and Cover Letters (45-50min)

• How to Apply
• Application Information
• Application Inspiration

How can I give my application to UWC my best shot?

An application to study at a UWC school is the first step in a life-changing experience. Not just life-changing for you, but also for those whose lives you will impact during and after your time as a UWC student.

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

How to Write the University of Washington Essays 2020-2021

This post has been updated! Check out the 2021-2022 University of Washington essay guide .

The University of Washington is the state of Washington’s flagship university and its premier public university. U.S. News ranked it as 62nd on the 2020 National Universities List.

UW has a 49% acceptance rate, and of the admitted students, the middle 50% achieved  3.75-3.99 GPAs, 27-33 on the ACT, and 1240-1440 on the SAT. UW is a member of the Coalition for College, so prospective students apply through the Coalition application. 

There are two required essays, one being the first Coalition Application prompt, and the other a standard prompt on diversity and community. There is also an optional space to address any unusual circumstances, as well as two Interdisciplinary Honors Program prompts. For a detailed breakdown of each prompt, read on. Want to know your chances at the University of Washington? Calculate your chances for free right now.

For All Applicants

Required: tell a story from your life, describing an experience that either demonstrates your character or helped to shape it. (500 words).

This prompt is the first of the five options on the Coalition Application and is purposefully phrased nebulously to allow for a wide range of responses. You can relay any experience that reflects or shaped who you are. 

To start, examine your many identities, and choose one that you want to highlight. All experiences are valid, whether they are traditional or unconventional. Focus on the things that make you different from others, and reflect on how they shaped you as a person. Remember that this is your main college essay, so be sure to pick an experience that was integral to your growth throughout high school. 

This is a good chance to tell the story behind any major extracurriculars on your activity list. For example, you might write “debate team captain” as an extracurricular, but this essay is where you can recount the grit and dedication it took for you to reach that position, as you once were extremely shy. You can also use this space to explore identities that don’t appear elsewhere on your application, such as your role within your family. For example, you can write about how you tutor your younger brother in math, and how watching his face light up after understanding a new concept sparked your love of teaching. 

A common theme across all college essays is “show, don’t tell.” This phrase is thrown around frequently, but is easier said than done. A few things to keep in mind when showing rather than telling are vividness and authenticity, which can be created by invoking imagery and specific details. For example, rather than saying “I like tennis and the game has always fascinated me,” try conjuring an image in the reader’s mind such as “At the start of my first official match, I gripped my trusted red racquet tightly, swaying ever so slightly from foot to foot in the ‘ready’ stance that I had practiced for years.” While the first response may be true, it is generic and can apply to any tennis aficionado. The latter response better authenticates your experiences than the former, and demonstrates your sincerity to readers. 

Required: Our families and communities often define us and our individual worlds. Community might refer to your cultural group, extended family, religious group, neighborhood or school, sports team or club, co-workers, etc. Describe the world you come from and how you, as a product of it, might add to the diversity of the UW. (300 words)

This question serves two purposes: it gives UW an opportunity to learn more about how you developed your values, and it allows them to consider how you might interact with others on campus. It is easy to get mired in focusing on describing your community, but remember, UW wants to learn about you through seeing how your community impacted you. Use a description of your community to frame your essay, but always remind yourself to connect the story back to how it changed you. Once you have framed the essay with a description of who you have become as a result of your community’s impact, be sure to extend this thread to your potential future influence on UW.

There are several ways to interpret community. You could interpret it in the literal sense by explaining how your hometown and family have guided your ambitions. For example, maybe growing up on your family’s farm inspired your appreciation for agriculture and working with your hands. You hope to share this appreciation with other students by working on the UW farm and organizing workshops where students can learn how to plant their own flowers or herbs.

Or, perhaps the community you want to highlight is less conventional, such as the coffeeshop you work at. You could discuss how your coworkers are from all walks of life, and how you’ve befriended a retired older couple that picks up weekend shifts. They offer you advice based on their many life experiences, showing you the importance of having an older mentor. This makes you want to join the Big Brothers Big Sisters chapter at UW.

Regardless of what your community is, be sure to highlight how you’ll contribute to UW’s diversity, whether that’s through your perspective, actions, ideas, cultural traditions, etc.

Optional: You are not required to write anything in this section, but you may include additional information if something has particular significance to you. For example, you may use this space if:

You have experienced personal hardships in attaining your education, your activities have been limited because of work or family obligations, you have experienced unusual limitations or opportunities unique to the schools you attended. (200 words).

This portion of the application is optional, and while we recommend that you fill out most “optional” essays, this space is truly optional. If you don’t have any unusual circumstances, you can leave it blank without penalty. If feel that the parameters apply to you, you should fill this section out. This is your chance to explain anything that hasn’t been addressed in other parts of your application. Since the maximum is 200 words and the prompt is straightforward, you can (and should) also be totally straightforward in your response, rather than painting a picture with vivid imagery. 

For the first prompt, an example of a response could be:

“In the sophomore year of high school, my dad was diagnosed with cancer, and it profoundly affected multiple areas of my life, including my academic performance. For that reason, there is a significant dip in my grades in the spring semester of that year.”

For the second:

“Because my parents own a small restaurant, it is often my responsibility to watch my younger siblings while they are working, and even help out by doing the dishes or bussing tables in my free time. For that reason, I was unable to join as many extracurriculars as my after school time went towards helping ensure the family restaurant was running smoothly.” 

For the last prompt, you can briefly state school-related limitations or opportunities, like if your school did not have an AP or IB program, or if it did have a special internship program that you participated in. Keep in mind that some universities designate admissions officers to research your region and know what programs your school has or doesn’t have – this might be something you want to look into before filling out this section. However, you might want to fill out this section if the school you’re applying to does not have regional admissions officers.

If there is a specific school program or opportunity that you wish to mention, we recommend doing so via your activity list or one of your essays, rather than in this short, 200-word window. If you find that you don’t have space in the rest of your application, then this section is fine.

Your GPA and SAT don’t tell the full admissions story

Our chancing engine factors in extracurricular activities, demographics, and other holistic details. We’ll let you know what your chances are at your dream schools — and how to improve your chances!

Calculate your acceptance chances

Our chancing engine factors in extracurricular activities, demographic, and other holistic details.

Our chancing engine factors in extracurricular activities, demographic, and other holistic details. We’ll let you know what your chances are at your dream schools — and how to improve your chances!

UW Interdisciplinary Honors Program

Required: what is your understanding of the uw interdisciplinary honors program and why do you want to be a part of it (300 words).

This prompt is specific to those applying to the honors program, and as such, it should contain a level of interest one notch above a typical admissions essay. Prospective students should research the honors program online to discover its different offerings. Take some time to reflect on which aspects of the honors program appeal the most to you, and how you would realistically take advantage of those opportunities. 

The more specific you are, the better. If there is a certain conference you want to participate in, or class you want to take, mention it! Getting granular demonstrates the research you have done and underscores your interest in both the university and the honors program. Just one caveat: you can mention specific professors, but only do so if you’re truly familiar with their research; otherwise, it will seem like disingenuous name-dropping.

Here’s an example of something to avoid:

Bad: I want to learn more about the way conservation-related engineering affects disadvantaged communities, and the Interdisciplinary Honors Program’s rigorous classes will help me do that. 

Here’s a good example:

Good: I look forward to crafting experiential learning activities via the Interdisciplinary Honors Program. I plan to conduct a community service project centered through an interdisciplinary course such as Science and Engineering for Social Justice. I want to design an architectural structure, such as a public water fountain that filters carcinogens, or a smart streetlight initiative that improves quality of life without negatively disrupting existing community dynamics. Through the Interdisciplinary Honors program, I can combine my different passions by engaging in community projects such as these. 

The bad example mentions “rigorous classes,” which are available at almost every university. The good one lays out the student’s goals and cites resources specific to UW that would allow her to achieve those goals: the interdisciplinary course on Science and Engineering for Social Justice, as well as the community service initiative.

Required: Consider at least two very different subjects you’ve studied in school; tell us how and why you imagine bringing those subjects together in your first year at UW to engage with a pressing global concern. (300 words)

This prompt is incredibly multifaceted. You’ll first want to brainstorm two or more contrasting subjects you’ve studied that:

1. Share more about your background/interests

2. Can be applied to a pressing global issue that you’re passionate about 

For example, maybe you love English and Environmental Science, and you’re concerned about climate change. You could bring these two subjects together to share the stories of the communities impacted by climate change, on a blog or in a print publication. Or, maybe you’re interested in Sociology, Political Science, and Computer Science, and you want to address the concern of automation replacing jobs by engaging in policy around Artificial Intelligence.

Once you have some ideas, you should think of how and why you’ll bring these different subjects together in your first year at UW. Tell us the story of what draws you to your subjects of choice, and your global issue. Research specific Honors Program resources and broader UW resources that will help you synthesize the subjects and engage with the global concern. 

For the first example of the student interested in English and Environmental Science, maybe their town’s water supply was polluted by the textile industry, which is why they want to fight climate change. They could take the honors course Storytelling in the Sciences, which would teach them how to share scientific knowledge in an accessible way. This would help them share the stories of those impacted by climate change more effectively, and equip them with the skills to educate others through writing. They might also want to join the Environmental Law Society to gain experience with the legal side of protecting the environment. 

Regardless of what your story, subjects, and plan are, be sure to share more of who you are and what matters to you, and tie them into specific resources within the UW Interdisciplinary Honors Program.

Want help with your college essays to improve your admissions chances? Sign up for your free CollegeVine account and get access to our essay guides and courses. You can also get your essay peer-reviewed and improve your own writing skills by reviewing other students’ essays.

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

It’s Time to Treat Sugar Like Cigarettes

T he food we eat impacts every aspect of our lives and our bodies: our hormones, brain chemistry, immune system, microbiome; the list goes on. As consumers, we deserve the right to easily understand our foods’ nutritional value in order to make informed decisions about what we consume and how that will impact our health and well being. This is especially important when it comes to ingredients that are detrimental when eaten in excess, such as sugar. As researchers in functional medicine, longevity, AI, and nutrition, as well as inventors of health-enhancing and life-saving solutions, we have dedicated our professional lives to improving the health and well-being of millions everywhere. And while we applaud the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) taking important strides to pass mandatory front-of-package labeling for packaged foods in the U.S., this is a change that cannot come soon enough. Everyone’s health depends on it. 

The FDA recommends adults consume no more than 50 grams of added sugar per day (based on a 2,000 calorie diet), but the average American consumes closer to one-third of a pound of sugar daily, more than three times the recommended amount. To put that into perspective, the average American consumes over 100 pounds of sugar per person per year. With that much sugar consumption, it is no wonder that 49% of American adults are diabetic or pre-diabetic. What’s worse is that much of the sugar we consume occurs without our even realizing it. There are over 60 different ways sugar is identified on nutrition labels, making a consumer’s attempt to regulate their sugar intake unfairly complicated.

Extensive academic research published in medical peer-reviewed journals backs common knowledge that excess sugar consumption can lead to serious chronic conditions , as well as fatigue , anxiety , memory loss , ADHD , and even to a shorter life .

Seventy four percent of packaged foods in the U.S. contain added sugar, including seemingly healthy foods, such as salad dressing, coleslaw, and even baked beans, marinades, and yogurt; some sweetened yogurts contain more sugar than a can of soda. The fact that sugar is so biologically addictive — studies indicate it is eight times more addictive than cocaine — makes the reality that it’s hidden in so many foods even more harmful. Most of us are addicted to sugar and we don’t even know it.

This cycle of addiction is relentless and hard to break: we eat food with sugar, which then triggers a blood sugar spike, which lights up the pleasure center in our brain. When the inevitable sugar crash comes, we seek that spike again in the form of craving more sugar. Without easily discernible food labeling, shoppers unknowingly create this cycle inside their own bodies, even while they erroneously think the food they’re buying is healthy.

Read More: How the World Got Hooked on Sugar

In many countries, labels on packaged foods serve a similar function to labels on cigarette cartons: to warn consumers of risk. In Chile , a policy of “high in” labels on the front of sugary drinks dramatically reduced the consumption of those beverages. In Israel, a front-of-package labelling system , wherein a red label indicates an item high in sugar, has led to significant positive changes in 76% of the population’s food buying habits. We’re excited to see what a similar program in the U.S. would yield.

Those in the U.S. lobbying against this front-of-package change, unsurprisingly, have an interest in the continued popularity of their products. In a February 2023 joint filing , the nation’s largest cereal producers threatened a lawsuit after proposed changes would not allow them to label products as “healthy” if they didn’t meet nutritional standards. The front-of-package suggested change would rightfully prevent many cereals on the market with excess sugar from calling themselves “healthy.”

This dynamic is similar to changes made in cigarette advertising in the 20th century. In the 1940s, a famous Camel cigarettes campaign featured the slogan , “More doctors smoke Camels.” By 1969, a mandatory warning label was added to cigarettes, giving consumers clearer access to information about risks, allowing them to make more informed choices about their health. Today the percentage of Americans who smoke is 11% compared to nearly 50% back in the day when “more doctors smoked Camels”. Life expectancy rose nearly 11 years in that span of time too, and the decrease in smoking certainly contributed.

While front-of-package labeling on packaged foods is a crucial first step towards a healthier society, education and awareness alone will only get us so far. To drive even more significant change in the way most Americans eat, a change that will lead to a healthier population, we must also incentivize the production and widespread distribution of healthier alternatives. These alternatives—a packaged cookie with healthier ingredients, for instance—must be just as delicious, and readily available as those loaded with sugar. The recently announced new standards by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that will limit added sugars in school meals can greatly help with the availability of healthier alternatives, especially when children form their eating habits. For the rest of us, though, front-of-package labeling is an important step one in this journey towards national wellness and it will also encourage producers to create healthier options for consumers; readily available healthier alternatives is step two.

FDA leadership ensuring labeling of high contents of sugar in packaged foods could increase awareness and reduce the negative impacts of sugar and help millions live healthier longer lives. This change would help us make more informed choices about our food and our health. We believe it is our right, and every American’s right, to have clear and visible information about the sugar content of the foods we are eating in order to make more informed decisions.

More Must-Reads From TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• How Far Trump Would Go
• Scenes From Pro-Palestinian Encampments Across U.S. Universities
• Saving Seconds Is Better Than Hours
• Why Your Breakfast Should Start with a Vegetable
• 6 Compliments That Land Every Time
• Welcome to the Golden Age of Ryan Gosling
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

UWC at a Glance Leadership Registrar Finance and Operations UWC Careers International Relations Support UWC Alumni

Admission & Financial Aid

Apply Admission Support Services Fees & Financial Aid Undergraduate Admission Postgraduate Admission Recognition of Prior Learning International Students

Faculties & Programmes Learning & Teaching Research & Innovation Academic Administration Postgraduates All Areas of Study Curriculum Advisory Partnerships

Campus Life

Student Development and Support Student Development and Support Departments Student Life & Culture Sport Student Representative Council Library and Resources Special Units & Programmes

News & Announcements

News Events Announcements Publications Newsflash Tender Opportunities UWC on Air

UWC students lead the way in advancing the SDGs by participating in a competition hosted by the library

• Nosipho Magoxo
• Zaria Williams   
• Nabilah Ebrahim
• Yuvir Naidoo and Ryan Bird (tied for first place)
• Vashna Rampersad

Media Gallery

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

The Last Thing This Supreme Court Could Do to Shock Us

There will be no more self-soothing after this..

For three long years, Supreme Court watchers mollified themselves (and others) with vague promises that when the rubber hit the road, even the ultraconservative Federalist Society justices of the Roberts court would put democracy before party whenever they were finally confronted with the legal effort to hold Donald Trump accountable for Jan. 6. There were promising signs: They had, after all, refused to wade into the Trumpian efforts to set aside the election results in 2020. They had, after all, hewed to a kind of sanity in batting away Trumpist claims about presidential records (with the lone exception of Clarence Thomas, too long marinated in the Ginni-scented Kool-Aid to be capable of surprising us, but he was just one vote). We promised ourselves that there would be cool heads and grand bargains and that even though the court might sometimes help Trump in small ways, it would privilege the country in the end. We kept thinking that at least for Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts , the voice of reasoned never-Trumpers might still penetrate the Fox News fog. We told ourselves that at least six justices, and maybe even seven, of the most MAGA-friendly court in history would still want to ensure that this November’s elections would not be the last in history. Political hacks they may be, but they were not lawless ones.

On Thursday, during oral arguments in Trump v. United States , the Republican-appointed justices shattered those illusions. This was the case we had been waiting for, and all was made clear—brutally so. These justices donned the attitude of cynical partisans, repeatedly lending legitimacy to the former president’s outrageous claims of immunity from criminal prosecution. To at least five of the conservatives, the real threat to democracy wasn’t Trump’s attempt to overturn the election—but the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute him for the act. These justices fear that it is Trump’s prosecution for election subversion that will “destabilize” democracy, requiring them to read a brand-new principle of presidential immunity into a Constitution that guarantees nothing of the sort. They evinced virtually no concern for our ability to continue holding free and fair elections that culminate in a peaceful transfer of power. They instead offered endless solicitude for the former president who fought that transfer of power.

However the court disposes of Trump v. U.S. , the result will almost certainly be precisely what the former president craves: more delays, more hearings, more appeals—more of everything but justice . This was not a legitimate claim from the start, but a wild attempt by Trump’s attorneys to use his former role as chief executive of the United States to shield himself from the consequences of trying to turn the presidency into a dictatorship. After so much speculation that these reasonable, rational jurists would surely dispose of this ridiculous case quickly and easily, Thursday delivered a morass of bad-faith hand-wringing on the right about the apparently unbearable possibility that a president might no longer be allowed to wield his powers of office in pursuit of illegal ends. Just as bad, we heard a constant minimization of Jan. 6, for the second week in a row , as if the insurrection were ancient history, and history that has since been dramatically overblown, presumably for Democrats’ partisan aims.

We got an early taste of this minimization in Trump v. Anderson , the Colorado case about removing Trump from the ballot. The court didn’t have the stomach to discuss the violence at the Capitol in its sharply divided decision, which found for Trump ; indeed, the majority barely mentioned the events of Jan. 6 at all when rejecting Colorado’s effort to bar from the ballot an insurrectionist who tried to steal our democracy. But we let that one be, because we figured special counsel Jack Smith would ride to the rescue. Smith has indicted Trump on election subversion charges related to Jan. 6, and the biggest obstacle standing between the special counsel and a trial has been the former president’s outlandish claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges as a result of his having been president at the time. Specifically, Trump alleges that his crusade to overturn the election constituted “official acts” that are immune from criminal liability under a heretofore unknown constitutional principle that the chief executive is quite literally above the law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in February that the president does not have blanket or absolute immunity for all actions taken in office, including “official” acts performed under the guise of executing the law (for example, Trump’s attempt to weaponize the DOJ against election results under the pretense of investigating fraud). The D.C. Circuit’s emphatic, cross-ideological decision should have been summarily affirmed by SCOTUS within days. Instead, the justices set it for arguments two months down the road—a bad omen, to put it mildly . Even then, many court watchers held out hope that Thursday morning’s oral arguments were to be the moment for the nine justices of the Supreme Court to finally indicate their readiness to take on Trump, Trumpism, illiberalism, and slouching fascism.

It was not to be. Justice Samuel Alito best captured the spirit of arguments when he asked gravely “what is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society” (good start!), then answered his own question: total immunity for criminal presidents (oh, dear). Indeed, anything but immunity would, he suggested, encourage presidents to commit more crimes to stay in office: “Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Never mind that the president in question did not leave office peacefully and is not sitting quietly in retirement but is instead running for presidential office once again. No, if we want criminal presidents to leave office when they lose, we have to let them commit crimes scot-free. If ever a better articulation of the legal principle “Don’t make me hit you again” has been proffered at an oral argument, it’s hard to imagine it.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke to this absurdity when she responded in what could only be heard as a cri de coeur: “Stable democratic society needs good faith of public officials,” she said. “That good faith assumes that they will follow the law.” The justice noted that despite all the protections in place, a democracy can sometimes “potentially fail.” She concluded: “In the end, if it fails completely, it’s because we destroyed our democracy on our own, isn’t it?”

But it was probably too late to make this plea, because by that point we had heard both Alito and Gorsuch opine that presidents must be protected at all costs from the whims of overzealous deep state prosecutors brandishing “vague” criminal statutes. We heard Kavanaugh opine mindlessly on the independent counsel statute and how mean it is to presidents, reading extensively from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in a case arguing that independent counsels are unconstitutional. (Yes, Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr , the independent counsel.) If you’re clocking a trend here, it’s gender. Just as was the case in Anderson , it’s the women justices doing the second-shift work here: both probing the thorny constitutional and criminal questions and signaling a refusal to tank democracy over abstractions and deflections. As was the case in the EMTALA arguments, it’s the women who understand what it looks like to cheat death.

Is the president, Sotomayor asked, immune from prosecution if he orders the military to assassinate a political rival? Yes, said John Sauer, who represented Trump—though it “depends on the circumstances.” Could the president, Justice Elena Kagan asked, order the military to stage a coup? Yes, Sauer said again, depending on the circumstances. To which Kagan tartly replied that Sauer’s insistence on specifying the “circumstances” boiled down to “Under my test, it’s an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” (Cue polite laughter in the chamber.)

This shameless, maximalist approach should have drawn anger from the conservative justices—indignation, at least, that Sauer took them for such easy marks. But it turns out that he calibrated his terrible arguments just right. The cynicism on display was truly breathtaking: Alito winkingly implied to Michael Dreeben, representing Smith, that we all know that Justice Department lawyers are political hacks, right? Roberts mocked Dreeben for saying “There’s no reason to worry because the prosecutor will act in good faith.”

The conservative justices are so in love with their own voices and so convinced of their own rectitude that they monologued about how improper it was for Dreeben to keep talking about the facts of this case, as opposed to the “abstract” principles at play. “I’m talking about the future!” Kavanaugh declared at one point to Dreeben, pitching himself not as Trump’s human shield but as a principled defender of the treasured constitutional right of all presidents to do crime. (We’re sure whatever rule he cooks up will apply equally to Democratic presidents, right?) Kavanaugh eventually landed on the proposition that prosecutors may charge presidents only under criminal statutes that explicitly state they can be applied to the president. Which, as Sotomayor pointed out, would mean no charges everywhere, because just a tiny handful of statutes are stamped with the label “CAN BE APPLIED TO PRESIDENT.”

The words bold and fearless action were repeated on a loop today, as a kind of mantra of how effective presidents must be free to act quickly and decisively to save democracy from the many unanticipated threats it faces. And yet the court—which has been asked to take bold and fearless action to deter the person who called Georgia’s secretary of state to demand that he alter the vote count, and threatened to fire DOJ officials who would not help steal an election—is backing away from its own duty. The prospect of a criminal trial for a criminal president shocked and appalled five men: Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch suggested that Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional; meanwhile, Roberts sounded eager at times to handle the case just a hair more gracefully: by cutting out its heart by preventing the jury from hearing about “official acts” (which lie at the center of the alleged conspiracy). Justice Amy Coney Barrett was far more measured, teasing out a compromise with Dreeben that would compel the trial court to tell the jury it could not impose criminal liability for these “official” acts, only “private ones.” Remember, drawing that line would require months of hearings and appeals, pushing any trial into 2025 or beyond. The president who tried to steal the most recent election is running in the next one, which is happening in mere months.

The liberal justices tried their best to make the case that justice required denying Trump’s sweeping immunity claim, permitting the trial to move forward, and sorting out lingering constitutional issues afterward, as virtually all other criminal defendants must do. They got little traction. Everyone on that bench was well aware that the entire nation was listening to arguments; that the whole nation wants to understand whether Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election was an existential threat to democracy or a lark. Five justices sent the message, loud and clear, that they are far more worried about Trump’s prosecution at the hands of the deep-state DOJ than about his alleged crimes, which were barely mentioned. This trial will almost certainly face yet more delays. These delays might mean that its subject could win back the presidency in the meantime and render the trial moot. But the court has now signaled that nothing he did was all that serious and that the danger he may pose is not worth reining in. The real threats they see are the ones Trump himself shouts from the rooftops: witch hunts and partisan Biden prosecutors. These men have picked their team. The rest hardly matters.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

I Was an Attorney at the D.A.’s Office. This Is What the Trump Case Is Really About.

By Rebecca Roiphe

Ms. Roiphe is a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

Now that the lawyers are laying out their respective theories of the case in the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, it would be understandable if people’s heads are spinning. The defense lawyers claimed this is a case about hush money as a legitimate tool in democratic elections, while the prosecutors insisted it is about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”

Yet this case is not really about election interference, nor is it a politically motivated attempt to criminalize a benign personal deal. Boring as it may sound, it is a case about business integrity.

It’s not surprising that the lawyers on both sides are trying to make this about something sexier. This is a narrative device used to make the jurors and the public side with them, but it has also created confusion. On the one hand, some legal experts claim that the conduct charged in New York was the original election interference. On the other hand, some critics think the criminal case is a witch hunt, and others claim it is trivial at best and at worst the product of selective prosecution.

As someone who worked in the Manhattan district attorney’s office and enforced the laws that Mr. Trump is accused of violating, I stand firmly in neither camp. It is an important and straightforward case, albeit workmanlike and unglamorous. In time, after the smoke created by lawyers has cleared, it will be easy to see why the prosecution is both solid and legitimate.

It would hardly make for a dramatic opening statement or cable news sound bite, but the case is about preventing wealthy people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability. Manhattan prosecutors have long considered it their province to ensure the integrity of the financial markets. As Robert Morgenthau, a former Manhattan district attorney, liked to say , “You cannot prosecute crime in the streets without prosecuting crime in the suites.”

Lawmakers in New York, the financial capital of the world, consider access to markets and industry in New York a privilege for businesspeople. It is a felony to abuse that privilege by doctoring records to commit or conceal crimes, even if the businessman never accomplishes the goal and even if the false records never see the light of day. The idea is that an organization’s records should reflect an honest accounting. It is not a crime to make a mistake, but lying is a different story. It is easy to evade accountability by turning a business into a cover, providing a false trail for whichever regulator might care to look. The law ( falsification of business records ) deprives wealthy, powerful businessmen of the ability to do so with impunity, at least when they’re conducting business in the city.

Prosecutors and New York courts have interpreted this law generously, with its general purpose in mind. The element of intent to defraud carries a broad meaning, which is not limited to the intent of cheating someone out of money or property. Further, intent is often proved with circumstantial evidence, as is common in white-collar cases. After presenting evidence, prosecutors ask jurors to use their common sense to infer what the possible intent may be, and New York jurors frequently conclude that a defendant must have gone to the trouble of creating this false paper trail for a reason.

Mr. Trump is accused of creating 11 false invoices, 12 false ledger entries and 11 false checks and check stubs, with the intent to violate federal election laws, state election laws or state tax laws. The number of lies it took to create this false record itself helps prove intent. His defense attorneys will claim that he was merely trying to bury a false story to protect his family from embarrassment. The timing of the payments — immediately after the potentially damaging “Access Hollywood” tape was released and right before the election — makes that claim implausible.

As many have pointed out, Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, is a witness with a remarkable amount of baggage. But as with most business records cases, his testimony will largely add color to the tweets, handwritten notes, bank documents and shell corporations. Documents don’t lie.

More important, jurors are particularly good at applying common sense. Mr. Trump didn’t go to all this trouble just to protect his family members, who might have known about accusations of his involvement with the porn star Stormy Daniels or similar ones. We may never learn which crime the jurors believe Trump was seeking to commit or cover up, but they can still conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this was his intent.

It is not unusual for lawyers to give narrative arcs to their legal theories, reasons to care about the evidence and animating thoughts that may make jurors more inclined to convict or acquit.

When the jurors deliberate, they will weigh the warring narratives in light of the evidence, and the judge will instruct them in the law. Then the narrative frames should recede into the background. The key is to offer one that is both captivating and closely tied to the facts so that when the jurors put the pieces of evidence together, it is the story they believe.

If one side promises too much, it risks losing the jurors. In their opening remarks, Mr. Trump’s lawyers insisted that he was innocent, that all the witnesses were liars. Such a sweeping theory is a dangerous strategy because if the jurors believe part of the prosecution’s case, just one or two of the witnesses, then the jurors may lose faith in the defense altogether.

For the prosecution, the elements of the crime in this case do not require a finding that Mr. Trump interfered with the 2016 election. Nor does it matter whether he had sex with Ms. Daniels. Instead, the real elements concern the way Mr. Trump used his business for a cover-up. By emphasizing the crime he was intending to conceal rather than the false business records, the prosecution also risks confusing the jury into thinking about whether the lies affected the election. It might lead them to wonder why Mr. Trump wasn’t charged with this alleged election crime by the federal government — a talking point that he has promoted publicly.

Even if the case seems simpler in this light, we are still left with the question: Is it really worth charging a former president for this? While the New York business records law is important, it is no doubt true that the conduct pales in comparison with the effort to overthrow the 2020 election, at issue in the special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 prosecution of Mr. Trump.

Taking this case on its own terms as a business records case offers a different and arguably more convincing way to defend its legitimacy. It is a simple case that is similar to hundreds of other cases brought in New York. The simplicity and run-of-the-mill nature of the prosecution make it easier to defend against claims of politicization in the following sense: Mr. Trump was a businessman for many years in New York long before he was president. If others would be prosecuted for this conduct and no man is above the law, then he should be, too.

So by all means, listen to the stories that the lawyers tell, soak up the drama of hush-money payments and the alternate universe in which Hillary Clinton won the election. But just as the jurors should ultimately consider the facts and the law, it would be wise for everyone else to focus on what the case is really about.

Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, is a law professor at New York Law School.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .