Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Writing Sample Database for Prompts


Recommended Posts



For those of you who are preparing for the Writing Sample, here is a document that thehumanmacbook has spent copious hours creating. In it, you can feel free to add your ideas for examples for a thesis, antithesis and synthesis for any of the prompts.


Please feel free to contribute, as what you post may help others, or you may find yourself benefiting from this document:


[link removed]


mod edit: This is an old thread and the link is no longer active. Sorry folks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add - I basically just sorted all the AAMC prompts into the categories set out by TPR. People can add their thesis/antithesis/synthesis examples in very brief notes, and we'll have a very awesome list to study from. Hope it helps, and thank you Pasta for posting it!


Please remember that it's on open edit (anyone can edit) so don't be an ******* and delete the document. Please, sharing is caring (hard for premeds I know) but hey, we're all here for the cause so why not help not hinder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are rockstars!!!! This is one I've worked on too right up until the buzzer. Be relentless :)


To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.


Describe a specific situation in which social criticism directed at an individual might be effective. Discuss what you think determines whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective.

The famous philosopher, Volatiare, is fondly remembered for having proclaimed "I do not agree with a word you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it." Perhaps Voltaire had not seen this statement, but his proclamation certain influences it. Clearly, this statement is expressing Voltaire's sentiments that every member of society has a right to express their opinions and ideas. Their thoughts convey an underlying larger context and are subject to scrutiny, but the actual individual is not. Effective social criticism brings wider awareness and attention to an issue. The situations that influence this criticism can be analyzed and judged - for better or worse - in the public arena. Where does the "mouthpiece" belong in the debate? Perhaps it is best summarized in the classroom epithet (likely endorsed by Voltaire) "Criticize ideas, not people." Certainly, those who subscribe to this ideal would cite public health professionals as examples. In the field of public health, the concern with lifestyle and lifestyle related disease such as obesity, is often addressed public on a societal level. The message is resoundingly clear: obesity is epidemic, obesity has serious health care and financial costs, and obesity can be controlled by the individual. This message, though indisputable, is often slathered in insensitivity and political incorrectness. In those cases, another classroom epithet applies: it's not what you say, it's how you say it. This example underscores the importance of focussing on the issues, not the players behind the scenes. It makes no difference who is saying that there is a growing concern with obesity rates and their health consequences. Whether this message came from a trained medical physician or the neighbourhood milkman, the message is the same. The public health officials do not deserve criticism for telling the public that they need to lose weight.

Contrary to this is the ideal that people must take accountability for what they say. This also applies to the field of public health. For example, health care professionals who advocate for or against vaccination deserve to be examined as closely as their message. The issues with childhood vaccinations has been significant for both parents and health care professional for years. Ever since the release of scientific research that linked childhood vaccination with autism, parents have feared that they have been unnecessarily putting their children at risk for serious lifelong disabilities. The concern and anguish of these parents has been compounded by the exasperation from public health officials as this research has since been discredited as deeply flawed and hugely biased. In this situation, politeness and political correctness has also dissipated. Parents and health care practitioners choosing vaccinations have been labelled as needle-happy and reckless; parents and practitioners choosing against vaccination as ignorant hippies. Wouldn't this grief have been prevented if the scientists involved with the initial research been as closely scrutinized as their words? Shouldn't the professionals carrying out this research been as carefully examined as the actual science? This scenario points to the importance of considering not only the significance of the issue, but the credibility of those involved.

When the issue and its context has been closely examined, the facts are clearly laid out, and the message cannot be disputed, social criticism should be levelled towards the issue and the context surrounding it. Truly, when the information cannot be disputed it makes no difference who is actually saying the message. Still, we do not always have the luxury of certainty. In these cases, anyone who makes a statement deserves criticism and should expect it. This criticism need not be personal, petty, or perpetual, but bring light to the credibility of those making the statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 9 months later...

Hi PastaInhaler,


Really appreciate your (and everyone who is adding to the database) effort coming up with this brilliant idea. However, when I try to access the document I am told that I don't have access to the document.


If we can get this going once again, I am sure a lot of the MCAT writers will benefit from this.


Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...