Last month, The Argus hosted the essay contest for HUFSans. Undergraduate students wrote 700-800 word essays choosing from one of the four topics: #MeToo movement, Fourth Industrial Revolution, University Education, and Campus Journalism. A great many students submitted their writings, showing their passion for English.
Two foreign HUFS professors helped score the entries in accordance with seven criteria which included the ability to communicate a consistent idea and develop it in a logical and an organized manner. The essays were also graded on whether they abide by the style requirement, or the document format.
The Argus announced three award-winners on May 21 via SNS channels such as Facebook and Instagram (@hufsargus). The first, second and third place essays are published in the following pages.
The Argus Evaluation
The essay unfolds in a 1st person narrative style as in a memoir, carrying a personal voice and description. The writer talks about how she sees and feels about her experiences with university. Her story is intriguing, but lacks organization. It would have been more entertaining to read if there were evidence or explanation that provides an insight, rather than a share of her impression. In other words, it would have been better to contain some elements of an academic writing which centers around a debatable ? and thus interesting and enlightening - idea and provides supporting details in both organized and logical manner.
Her choice of title is well-played; it lures the readers to read more to find out the answer to a long-standing concern for humanities major undergraduates like HUFSans. It is unfortunate that the hook, or the starting sentence, do not compare. Nevertheless, the attempt to challenge the widespread fear of human-replaceable artificial intelligence. And the effective word choices help communicate her ideas very clearly. The mass of wonderful ideas would have perfected if it had been developed with more concrete explanations and sources.
The essay was written by someone who has an admirable taste for words and expressions. They are powerful enough to be more easily persuaded. However, it would have been better if she attempted to do more than share her affirmative stance toward the #MeToo movement. It would have been more interesting approach to tackle the controversies based on deep-rooted gender differences or anything other than what the public and the media all know and think.