eNewspaper
Sign up for email newsletters
Sign up for email newsletters
eNewspaper
Trending:
There is a point where many seniors make their first mistake on college application. After spending weeks revising the personal statement, they treat the rest of the application as a form-filling exercise.
Grades are listed in one section, activities in another, recommendations somewhere else, and essays at the end. While the result may be respectable, it often fails to make a clear case as to why the college should accept the student.
At selective colleges, making that argument matters. In the age of AI, polished writing may be easier to produce but harder to trust. A clean essay about resilience, leadership, curiosity, or service no longer separates a student from the pool.
Admissions officers are looking for something more concrete, such as discovering what the student has actually done, how the student thinks, and whether the record supports the claims being made.
Any successful application has a central claim, and the rest of the file should support it. A student interested in engineering should not rely on a sentence such as “I have always loved solving problems” as it is too general. A stronger application shows the student solving a real problem: “The motor burned out three times before I understood that my design problem was not power, but friction.” Detailed sentences tell the reader something about the student’s work, judgment, and persistence.
The same is true in computer science. “Technology has always fascinated me” says little, while “The first version of my scheduling app worked perfectly until my father’s employees tried to use it,” points to a user who failed before a revision resulted in success.
Business applicants often weaken their applications by using corporate language. For example, “My experience in customer-facing operations taught me the importance of leadership” sounds inflated. A better sentence would be simpler, such as “At the restaurant, I learned that throwing away lettuce at 9 p.m. was not a small mistake. It was tomorrow’s profit.” That sounds like a teenager who has paid attention to how a business works.
History applicants face a similar problem. Broad statements about the importance of history rarely help. “History teaches us who we are” is not necessarily wrong, but it is overused. A stronger sentence would be “The courthouse file was only six pages, but it changed how I understood the strike my grandfather had always described as simple,” which gives the reader a document, a place, and a question.
Students interested in medicine often write predictable essays about hospital shadowing. “Watching the surgeon work inspired me to pursue medicine” is a familiar line, but leaves the question of “why?” in the reader’s mind. A more convincing sentence might be: “I learned more about care by helping my grandmother count pills every Sunday than I did from three hours standing quietly behind a nurse.” That sentence does not overpromise but shows responsibility. The point is not that every applicant needs a dramatic story. The point is that the application should show a record of movement. Courses, activities, recommendations, and essays should point in the same general direction.
The essay should help the reader understand that direction. It should not introduce a different student at the end of the file.
If the transcript shows advanced math, robotics, and physics, the essay can explain the student’s habit of taking machines apart. If the activities show debate, local history, and newspaper work, the essay can explain how the student learned to argue from evidence. If the file shows biology, family responsibility, and service, the essay can show why medicine is more than a career label.
The weakest applications rely on unsupported claims, such as “I am intellectually curious,” “I am passionate about helping others,” or “I am a natural leader.” These sentences ask the reader to accept the conclusion without supporting evidence. A stronger application supplies the facts and lets the reader reach that conclusion.
AI has made this distinction more important. It can improve a weak sentence. It can turn an ordinary activity into inflated prose. It can make a teenager sound like a consultant. That is why facts now matter more. A student who writes “I founded a community-impact initiative” may sound less credible than a student who writes, “Every Friday, I packed twenty-four grocery bags behind the church and learned which families could not use canned food because they had no working stove.”
Recommendations work the same way. A weak recommendation says the student is bright, hardworking, and pleasant. A useful recommendation gives an example. “After receiving the lowest grade in her lab group, she came in before school for three mornings to rebuild the experiment from the beginning.” That sentence matters because it is witnessed.
Activities also need evidence as membership is not the same as responsibility.
“Participated in environmental club” says little. A stronger entry would say: “Measured cafeteria waste for three months, presented findings to the principal, and helped change one lunchroom procedure that was producing the largest daily waste.” While the activity is still modest, it is also specific.
Many applications fail because they read like trophy cases: Good grades. Several clubs. Some service. A summer program. A leadership title. Nothing is obviously wrong, but the file does not gather force. The student appears active without becoming clear.
A successful application has shape. The reader should be able to finish it and understand what the student is about. That does not mean the student needs to be packaged like a product but the evidence should point in a clear direction.
There is still room for range. An engineering student may write about music if the connection is structure, revision, or discipline. A future doctor may write about caring for a family member. A business applicant may write about a family store because risk looks different when real money is involved.
That is what the usual advice about authenticity often misses. The application should present a single student from several angles.
AI can be useful in testing that alignment. A student can ask what claim the file appears to make, where the evidence is thin, which sentences sound inflated, and which lines could have been written by almost any strong applicant.
The answers may be uncomfortable, but that is the value of the exercise. “I learned the value of perseverance” is weak because it merely announces a virtue. “I rewrote the program after my first version deleted the data it was supposed to organize” is stronger because it shows both a mistake and an attempt to repair it.
The winning application does not need to be perfect, but it needs to be coherent. By the time readers reach the end, they should see more than a collection of scores, activities, and polished sentences. They should see a developing mind, supported by evidence. The essay still matters. But it is not the application itself. It is the closing argument.
Gerald Bradshaw is an international college admissions consultant with Bradshaw College Consulting in Crown Point.
Copyright 2026 Chicago Tribune. All rights reserved. The use of any content on this website for the purpose of training artificial intelligence systems, algorithms, machine learning models, text and data mining, or similar use is strictly prohibited without explicit written consent.
Leave a Reply