Gus Feedback

  1. Efficiency in Writing: The conversation opens with a discussion about writing concisely. The speaker emphasizes that Roshan needs to remove redundant statements to be more efficient, especially when constrained by a word count (e.g., 300 words). They encourage focusing on quality over unnecessary filler sentences.

  2. Specificity in Paragraphs: Roshan acknowledges the need to be more specific in two of his paragraphs and eliminate redundancies in the essay. He expresses a willingness to reconsider his approach, including possibly dropping one of the points if necessary.

  3. Answering the Essay Prompt: The speaker points out that Roshan is not clearly answering the question about his passion for a field of study, particularly why his work with finding water for tribes in Africa is relevant to his interest in the field. The speaker stresses the importance of connecting personal experiences to the prompt.

  4. Evidence and Reasoning: A key point made is that Roshan’s essay provides evidence but lacks reasoning, particularly in explaining why the experiences shared are significant for his field of study. The essay lacks a clear "reason" supporting the evidence.

  5. Goal Setting: The speaker critiques Roshan’s goal in the essay, particularly his mention of organizing research trips to the Maasai region. They argue that this is a "bad" goal because it is binary—either it happens or it doesn’t. They recommend setting goals that are flexible, measurable, and achievable over time.

  6. Writing Goals: The speaker advises Roshan to look up best practices for goal-setting, focusing on being specific, flexible, and achievable. They provide an example of a poorly set goal (e.g., "benching 200 pounds in a year") compared to a better-designed goal (e.g., "benching significantly more by the end of the year").

  7. Positive Framing: The speaker notes that Roshan’s first sentence is negative, discussing what he won’t or doesn’t want to do. Instead, they suggest framing everything positively and focusing on what Roshan wants to achieve.

  8. Removing Irrelevant Information: The speaker highlights a sentence in paragraph two about a discussion with a PhD student, questioning how it contributes to answering the essay’s question. Roshan agrees that this was more of a "name drop" and doesn’t tie back to his goals.

  9. Applying to Two Colleges: There is a discussion about the risks of applying to two colleges (within a university) and how it could affect admission chances. The speaker shares that when they applied, this was discouraged, and it has become even more difficult in recent years.

  10. Transferring Within Schools: Roshan shares a conversation with his dad about applying to CMU's civil and environmental engineering program, even though he prefers computer science. The speaker discusses the ease of transferring within engineering departments but warns that transferring between schools (e.g., to computer science) is more difficult.

  11. Minor in Computer Science: Roshan considers getting a minor in computer science while majoring in civil or mechanical engineering, discussing whether it’s possible and weighing the flexibility of his degree options.

  12. Gen-Ed Requirements: The speaker explains CMU’s general education requirements, breaking down the four categories: innovation, social analysis, writing, and others. They emphasize that writing classes are generally the most challenging but provide examples of lighter options.

  13. Name-Dropping Professors and Courses: The speaker advises caution with "name dropping" professors and courses in the essay. They explain that while it’s important to demonstrate that a school offers unique opportunities, too many name drops can feel forced or shallow if not integrated into a cohesive narrative.

  14. Structuring Evidence and Reasoning: The speaker emphasizes the importance of pairing evidence with reasoning to make a stronger case. They suggest integrating information about specific courses and professors into the broader argument rather than listing them separately.

  15. Reworking Sentences for Clarity: Roshan is advised to rewrite a sentence in the essay that is overly negative ("impatience is a virtue") and replace it with a more positive framing. The speaker argues that the tone and structure should always remain positive, avoiding any suggestion of negativity.

  16. Concerns About Reusing Essay Prompts: Roshan mentions that one of his CMU essays is based on a University of Chicago prompt. The speaker reassures him that admissions officers are unlikely to recognize the source of the prompt and encourages him not to worry about reusing components of essays, as long as they are relevant.