Q160. Essay--Statement of 250-1,000 words. This essay and all information provided as part of the admission application process will be used for freshman scholarship consideration. Choose one:
- Describe how a Purdue education will help you achieve your personal and/or professional goals.
- Envision yourself near the end of a fulfilling, lifelong career and you just published your autobiography. Share the title and introduction.
- Imagine being able to join a conversation between any two people, living or deceased. Describe that conversation. Identify the people and topic and express what you were able to contribute and/or what you learned.
Respond to only ONE of the above topics in the space provided to the right.
3. As I sat on the firm scratchy sofa awaiting my host and his guest, I marveled at the sense of power and authority that seemed to flow into my veins through the crisp cool atmosphere, as if an IV of splendor and magnificence were preventing me from losing consciousness. Indeed, I did have a good reason to feel light headed and somewhat queasy; it’s not every day that you meet some of the most powerful people to have walked the face of the planet.
I was tracing the patterns of the ornate carpet with my eyes for the fifth time when at last a man of large build wearing a simple black suit, tie, and sunglasses entered the Oval Office to tell me that the meeting was relocated to the rear patio on account of the beautiful weather. As we left the bright majestic room and filed down the boxy corridors of the White House, I began to feel the same nervous anticipation that I had felt as a boy when about to ask a girl out on a date growing with each step.
After what seemed long enough to have been hours yet too short for me to have regained my nerves, we reached the large French doors to the back center of the building, beyond which I could make out two figures sipping on drinks and sitting at a large, round, plastic picnic table.
Upon hearing the opening of a door behind them, the two men turned their heads, rose from their seats, and headed my way. I greeted President Obama and former President George W. Bush very enthusiastically, shaking their hands so vigorously they must have thought I was an assassin trained in bone crushing martial arts.
They led the way to the table where we all sat down and President Obama had the attendant fetch me a Coke. While we were waiting for him to return, however, the two presidents continued their previous conversation about the economic crisis. I sat, my attention fixed on the two, for some time in silence. President Obama claimed that the best way to lower unemployment rates and fix the economy was to stimulate the businesses, to give them a little ‘defib’ as he called it. He explained how the money would trickle down and how this method was foolproof. George, however, thoroughly disagreed. He immediately expressed his opinion by elaborating on all of the flaws of Trickle Down Economic theory. Bush explained that while the theory worked in a perfect world, this world was not perfect and so the theory couldn’t be completely applied.
Although I’m a supporter of President Obama, I couldn’t help but agree with George. I noted briefly in my mind how he took a more logical approach to problems as the President took an ideological one. What made Obama different from other politicians, however, was that although he was an idealist, he did not let it hinder him when coming to a compromise with realists.
While Bush was elaborating about perfect worlds and the flaws of theories, I interrupted him midsentence to stimulate a growing thought in my mind. I asked the two why we couldn’t just raise taxes a bit to solve the economic problem. I recalled how Roosevelt had done so in the Great Depression and how it had paved the way to a huge growth spurt in the national revenue. For Obama’s sake I also pointed out how the president before Roosevelt, President Hoover, had attempted to treat the broken economy with stimulus money and how it had only made the situation even worse. Both presidents at the table commended me for my knowledge of U.S. History, but Obama retorted, saying that the reason for the huge economic growth after the Great Depression resulted largely from disorder in Europe and East Asia, which boosted nationalism and made people more industrious on the home front.
Both Bush and I agreed, but Bush claimed that even had the war not occurred, economic growth in America would’ve rocketed skyward anyway. As the two men talked on, I sat quiet for the majority of the rest of the afternoon, only taking in information as a computer would data streaming from the internet. Finally, towards the end of my visit, I compiled my mental data and spoke once more. I told the two that I saw a similarity with all of the methods we discussed, and that it was that none of them worked. They sat perplexed. I continued on despite their dumbfound faces by asking why we didn’t just try something new. Immediately they began insisting that there was nothing practical left to try and that the key lied in one of the methods that they had tried and failed with or dismissed many times before.
On the silent ride home, I pondered everything that had happened that night and everything I’d heard. I had finally come to a conclusion by the time I arrived home. The American people have some very qualified and educated people holding office in their government. After immense thought, I concluded that although much education can bring much knowledge, it doesn’t necessarily bring wisdom. Many of the politicians in our government have a lot of knowledge to bring to the table, but that knowledge isn’t worth much if one doesn’t know how to make the most of it for the best possible outcome.
The only reason I ended it the way I did is because it asked what I contributed/ learned, and because I didn't contribute much in the dialogue (because I was just going with the flow when writing it), I decided to add a little lesson to it that I learned. I was also running out of words.
