john locke essay contest

All essayists must register here by 11:59PM BST on 31 May 2024.

Enter your email address below to:

Register (if this is your first time here)

or Login (if you have already registered).

Everything You Need to Know About John Locke Essay Competition in 2024

Indigo Research Team

John Locke Essay Competition is one of the most popular and international essay competitions for high school students. Those who were first and honorable mention in this competition went on to attend Princeton, Oxford, and other Ivy League universities.

Not to mention placing in the top three of the competition, even receiving an honorable mention is a fantastic addition to your admissions resume and is viewed by admissions officers from Harvard to Stanford and beyond as one of the most distinguished accomplishments a high school student can accomplish! Keep reading this blog to know more about this essay competition.

What is the John Locke Essay Competition?

The John Locke Writing Competition is hosted by the non-profit John Locke Institute, a university with offices in Oxford, UK. Professors from top colleges like Oxford, Princeton, Brown, and Buckingham University work at the John Locke Institute.

The John Locke Global Essay Competition Institute helps young people to develop the qualities of great writers, such as critical analysis, persuasiveness, independence of thought, and range of knowledge. Students are allowed to investigate a wide range of topics that fall outside the scope of their coursework.

Why should you participate?

Participating in the John Locke Competition 2024 is a great idea if you want to improve your academic performance and stand out on your college application. Securing a prize or simply making the shortlist might attract the attention of elite university admission panels, demonstrating your commitment to and proficiency in the classroom.

Along with offering participants a great opportunity to interact with current global concerns through engaging themes, the competition also helps participants hone their critical thinking skills by having them write insightful, well-researched essays.

Essay topics 

Students must submit an argumentative essay that is at most 2000 words long. The main subjects of the John Locke Institute Essay Competition 2024 include philosophy, politics, economics, history, psychology, religion, and law.

The following are the topics for the 2024 John Locke Essay Contest.

• Philosophy 

Tips for Students 

• Essays can only deal with one of the topics in the subject category you have selected, and they should be at most 2000 words (not including copyright declarations, examples, tables of data, or footnotes).
• If you follow an in-text referencing style like APA, the word count includes your in-text citations.
• You can submit an unlimited number of essays in all categories. (Considering how difficult it may be to produce a single high-quality submission, we recommend going for just one.)

Pay close attention to the structure and flow of your essay in the John Locke Essay Competition 2024. If justifications and logic are your primary weapons in this contest, then your writing's fluidity is your weapon. What is meant by a smooth flow? It suggests the reader must understand your line of argument easily. This is especially true for articles that explore otherworldly topics.

Important dates

• Registration starts on April 1, 2024.
• The deadline for registration is May 31, 2024.
• Deadline for submissions: June 30, 2024.
• Deadline for late entries: July 10, 2024.
• Essayists on the shortlist will be notified on July 31, 2024.
• Academic conference, September 20, 22nd, 2024.
• Dinner for awards: September 21, 2024.

Read the questions and make a connection to John Locke's ideas.

You can present a sophisticated and perceptive analysis that thoroughly comprehends both the essay prompt and Locke's thoughts by linking the philosopher's ideas and the essay prompt. This method demonstrates your understanding of the subject matter and helps you interact critically with it. Along with do consider John Locke's most famous work to increase the chance of success.

Outline Thoroughly

Before diving into writing, create a clear outline outlining your main arguments and supporting evidence. This helps maintain focus and coherence throughout the essay, ensuring each paragraph contributes meaningfully to your overall argument.

Clear arguments 

Once you've determined your position on the matter, it's essential to support it with solid information from reliable sources and logical reasoning. Scholarly articles, books, and academic journals are just a few of the resources available to students to help them gather pertinent data and craft well-reasoned arguments. Furthermore, ensure that your essay has a compelling thesis statement and that the organization and ideas are presented in a way that makes it easy for the reader to follow. Also, reading John Locke's essay competition’s past essays can help you to understand complete assignments.

Revise Strategically

Take breaks between writing and revising to gain a fresh perspective. When revising, pay attention to sentence structure, grammar, and coherence. Ensure each paragraph flows logically into the next, and that your ideas are expressed with clarity and precision.

Seek Feedback

Share your essay with peers, teachers, or writing groups for constructive criticism. Consider their feedback thoughtfully and use it to refine your work. Embrace constructive criticism as an opportunity for growth, allowing you to identify blind spots and strengthen your writing skills over time

Common Questions Related to the John Locke Essay Competition

Which skills of students is the john locke essay competition assessing.

• Fundamental understanding of concepts and theories in economics, politics, history, psychology, theology, or law
• Proficiency at writing argumentative essays and mastery of basic writing frameworks
• Logical analysis methods, independent thought, and written persuasive

What are the awards for the John Locke Essay Competition?

• As part of their award, each topic category winner will receive a scholarship worth $2000 (US dollars) for any program offered by the John Locke Institute.
• A scholarship worth $10,000 (USD) to attend one or more of our summer schools and gap year programs will be awarded to the writer of the overall winning essay.
• The Institute will make the pieces available online.
• Networking opportunities with judges and other academics at the John Locke Institute.

This essay competition is one of the best ways to bring out the essence of youth, freedom of expression, and a student’s critical thinking ability. Thus, we encourage high school students to take part in it and convey their enthusiasm and revolutionary thoughts to shape the world.

Joining the John Locke Essay Competition 2024 requires some amazing ideas and clever solutions. Indigo Research is the perfect spot for curious high schoolers who want to explore more and turn their bright ideas into reality. We connect you with top mentors to dive into research projects you're passionate about.

Think about mixing the challenge and smart thinking from the Locke competition with Indigo Research's supportive research environment. This combo can really make your college applications shine and show off your unique talents.

Introducing PolyPilot:

Our AI-Powered Mentorship Program

Everything You Should Know about the John Locke Institute (JLI) Essay Competition

By Jin Chow

Co-founder of Polygence, Forbes 30 Under 30 for Education

2 minute read

We first wrote about the world-famous John Locke Institute (JLI) Essay Competition in our list of 20 writing contests for high school students . This contest is a unique opportunity to refine your argumentation skills on fascinating and challenging topics that aren’t explored in the classroom.

The Oxford philosopher, medical doctor, political scientist, and economist John Locke was a big believer in challenging old habits of the mind. In that spirit, the JLI started this contest to challenge students to be more adventurous in their thinking. 

While not quite as prestigious as getting published in The Concord Review , winning the grand prize or placing in one of the 7 categories of the JLI Essay Competition can get your college application noticed by top schools like Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge. Awards include $2,000 scholarships (for category winners) and a $10,000 scholarship for the grand prize. (The scholarships can be applied to the JLI’s Summer Schools at Oxford, Princeton, or Washington D.C., or to its Gap Year programs in Oxford, Guatemala, or Washington, D.C.) 

But winning isn’t necessarily the best thing about it. Simply entering the contest and writing your essay will give you a profound learning experience like no other. Add to that the fact that your entry will be read and possibly commented on by some of the top minds at Oxford and Princeton and it’s free to enter the competition . The real question is: why wouldn’t you enter? Here’s a guide to get you started on your essay contest entry.

Eligibility

The John Locke Institute Essay Competition is open to any student anywhere in the world , ages 15-18. Students 14 or under are eligible for the Junior prize. 

JLI Essay Competition Topics

The essay questions change from year to year. You can choose from 7 different categories (Philosophy, Politics, Economics, History, Psychology, Theology, and Law). Within each category, there are 3 intriguing questions you can pick from. When you’re debating which question to write about, here’s a tip. Choose whichever question excites, upsets, or gives you any kind of strong emotional response. If you’re passionate about a topic, it will come through in your research and your writing. If you have any lived experience on the subject, that also helps. 

re are some sample questions the 2023 contest for each of the seven JLI essay subject  categories and the Junior Prize (the questions change each year):

Philosophy : Is tax theft? 

Politics : Do the results of elections express the will of the people?

Economics : What would happen if we banned billionaires?  

History : Which has a bigger effect on history: the plans of the powerful or their mistakes?

Psychology : Can happiness be measured?

Theology : What distinguishes a small religion from a large cult?

Law : Are there too many laws?

Junior Prize : What, if anything, do your parents owe you?

John Locke Writing Contest Requirements

Your essay must not exceed 2,000 words (not counting diagrams, tables of data, endnotes, bibliography, or authorship declaration) and must address only one of the questions in your chosen subject category. No footnotes are allowed, but you may include in-text citations or endnotes. 

Timeline and Deadlines

January - New essay questions are released

April 1st - Registration opens

May 31st   - Registration deadline

June 30th - Essay submission deadline

We highly recommend you check the JLI website as soon as the new questions are released in January and start researching and writing as soon as you can after choosing your topic. You must register for the contest by the end of May. The deadline for the essay submission itself is at the end of June, but we also recommend that you submit it earlier in case any problems arise. If you start right away in January, you can have a few months to work on your essay. 

John Locke Institute Essay Competition Judging Criteria

While the JLI says that their grading system is proprietary, they do also give you this helpful paragraph that describes what they are looking for: “Essays will be judged on knowledge and understanding of the relevant material , the competent use of evidence , quality of argumentation, originality, structure, writing style and persuasive force. The very best essays are likely to be those which would be capable of changing somebody's mind . Essays which ignore or fail to address the strongest objections and counter-arguments are unlikely to be successful. Candidates are advised to answer the question as precisely and directly as possible. ” (We’ve bolded important words to keep in mind.) 

You can also join the JLI mailing list (scroll to the bottom of that page) to get contest updates and to learn more about what makes for a winning essay.

Research and Essay Writing Tactics

Give yourself a baseline. First, just write down all your thoughts on the subject without doing any research. What are your gut-level opinions? What about this particular question intrigued you the most? What are some counter-arguments you can think of right away? What you are trying to do here is identify holes in your knowledge or understanding of the subject. What you don’t know or are unsure about can guide your research. Be sure to find evidence to support all the things you think you already know. 

Create a reading/watching list of related books, interviews, articles, podcasts, documentaries, etc. that relate to your topic. Find references that both support and argue against your argument. Choose the most highly reputable sources you can find. You may need to seek out and speak to experts to help you locate the best sources. Read and take notes. Address those questions and holes in the knowledge you identified earlier. Also, continue to read widely and think about your topic as you observe the world from day to day. Sometimes unrelated news stories, literature, film, songs, and visual art can give you an unexpected insight into your essay question. Remember that c is a learning experience and that you are not going to have a rock-solid argument all at once.

Read past winning essays . These will give you a sense of the criteria judges are using to select winning work. These essays are meant to convince the judges of a very specific stance. The argument must be clear and must include evidence to support it. You will note that winning entries tend to get straight to the point, show an impressive depth of knowledge on the subject with citations to reputable sources, flow with excellent reasoning, and use precise language. They don’t include flowery digressions. Save that for a different type of writing.

Proof your work with a teacher or mentor if possible . Even though your argument needs to be wholly your own, it certainly helps to bounce ideas around with someone who cares about the topic. A teacher or mentor can help you explore different options if you get stuck and point you toward new resources. They can offer general advice and point out errors or weaknesses. Working with a teacher or mentor is important for another reason. When you submit your entry, you will be required to provide the email address of an “academic referee” who is familiar with your work. This should be a teacher or mentor who is not related to you. 

Research and Prepare for your Competition or Fair

Polygence pairs you with an expert mentor in your area of passion. Together, you work to create a high quality research project that is uniquely your own. Our highly-specialized mentors can help guide you to feel even more prepared for an upcoming fair or competion. We also offer options to explore multiple topics, or to showcase your final product!

Upcoming Summer 2024 Application Deadline is May 12, 2024.  

Click here to apply.

Featured Posts

8 ICEF Conferences You Should Be Attending as an Educational Consultant

11 Ways to Use AI Ethically in the College Admissions Process

NYU's Science and Technology Entry Program (STEP) - Our Review

10 Animation Summer Programs for High School Students

Discovery to Cure (DTC) High School Internship - Is It Worth It?

PCACAC's 2024 Conference - Should You Attend It?

RMACAC's Conference in 2024 - Should You Attend?

CEISMC's Summer P.E.A.K.S Program At Georgia Tech - Is It Worth It?

10 Kinesiology Summer Programs for High School Students

The Junior Scientist Internship by BioBus - Should You Apply?

• 12 min read

The Ultimate Guide to the John Locke Essay Competition

Humanities and social sciences students often lack the opportunities to compete at the global level and demonstrate their expertise. Competitions like ISEF, Science Talent Search, and MIT Think are generally reserved for students in fields like biology, physics, and chemistry.

At Lumiere, many of our talented non-STEM students, who have a flair for writing are looking for ways to flex their skills. In this piece, we’ll go over one such competition - the John Locke Essay Competition. If you’re interested in learning more about how we guide students to win essay contests like this, check out our main page .

What is the John Locke Essay Competition?

The essay competition is one of the various programs conducted by the John Locke Institute (JLI) every year apart from their summer and gap year courses. To understand the philosophy behind this competition, it’ll help if we take a quick detour to know more about the institute that conducts it.

Founded in 2011, JLI is an educational organization that runs summer and gap year courses in the humanities and social sciences for high school students. These courses are primarily taught by academics from Oxford and Princeton along with some other universities. The organization was founded by Martin Cox. Our Lumiere founder, Stephen, has met Martin and had a very positive experience. Martin clearly cares about academic rigor.

The institute's core belief is that the ability to evaluate the merit of information and develop articulate sound judgments is more important than merely consuming information. The essay competition is an extension of the institute - pushing students to reason through complex questions in seven subject areas namely Philosophy, Politics, Economics, History, Psychology, Theology, and Law​.

The organization also seems to have a strong record of admissions of alumni to the top colleges in the US and UK. For instance, between 2011 and 2022, over half of John Locke alumni have gone on to one of eight colleges: Chicago, Columbia, Georgetown, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale.

How prestigious is the John Locke Contest?

The John Locke Contest is a rigorous and selective writing competition in the social sciences and humanities. While it is not as selective as the Concord Review and has a much broader range of students who can receive prizes, it is still considered a highly competitive program.

Winning a John Locke essay contest will have clear benefits for you in your application process to universities and would reflect well on your application. On the other hand, a shortlist or a commendation might not have a huge impact given that it is awarded to many students (more on this later).

What is the eligibility for the contest?

Students, of any country, who are 18 years old or younger before the date of submission can submit. They also have a junior category for students who are fourteen years old, or younger, on the date of the submission deadline.

Who SHOULD consider this competition?

We recommend this competition for students who are interested in social sciences and humanities, in particular philosophy, politics, and economics. It is also a good fit for students who enjoy writing, want to dive deep into critical reasoning, and have some flair in their writing approach (more on that below).

While STEM students can of course compete, they will have to approach the topics through a social science lens. For example, in 2021, one of the prompts in the division of philosophy was, ‘Are there subjects about which we should not even ask questions?’ Here, students of biology can comfortably write about topics revolving around cloning, gene alteration, etc, however, they will have to make sure that they are able to ground this in the theoretical background of scientific ethics and ethical philosophy in general.

Additional logistics

Each essay should address only one of the questions in your chosen subject category, and must not exceed 2000 words (not counting diagrams, tables of data, footnotes, bibliography, or authorship declaration).

If you are using an in-text-based referencing format, such as APA, your in-text citations are included in the word limit.

You can submit as many essays as you want in any and all categories. (We recommend aiming for only one given how time-consuming it can be to come up with a single good-quality submission)

Important dates

Prompts for the 2023 competition will be released in January 2023. Your submission will be due around 6 months later in June. Shortlisted candidates will be notified in mid-July which will be followed by the final award ceremony in September.

How much does it cost to take part?

What do you win?

A scholarship that will offset the cost of attending a course at the JLI. The amount will vary between $2000 and $10,000 based on whether you are a grand prize winner (best essay across all categories) or a subject category winner. (JLI programs are steeply-priced and even getting a prize in your category would not cover the entire cost of your program. While the website does not mention the cost of the upcoming summer program, a different website mentions it to be 3,000 GBP or 3600 USD)

If you were shortlisted, most probably, you will also receive a commendation certificate and an invitation to attend an academic ceremony at Oxford. However, even here, you will have to foot the bill for attending the conference, which can be a significant one if you are an international student.

How do you submit your entry?

You submit your entry through the website portal that will show up once the prompts for the next competition are up in January! You have to submit your essay in pdf format where the title of the pdf attachment should read SURNAME, First Name, Category, and Question Number (e.g. POPHAM, Alexander, Psychology, Q2).

What are the essay prompts like?

We have three insights here.

Firstly, true to the spirit of the enlightenment thinker it is named after, most of the prompts have a philosophical bent and cover ethical, social, and political themes. In line with JLI’s general philosophy, they force you to think hard and deeply about the topics they cover. Consider a few examples to understand this better:

“Are you more moral than most people you know? How do you know? Should you strive to be more moral? Why or why not?” - Philosophy, 2021

“What are the most important economic effects - good and bad - of forced redistribution? How should this inform government policy?” - Economics, 2020

“Why did the Jesus of Nazareth reserve his strongest condemnation for the self-righteous?” - Theology, 2021

“Should we judge those from the past by the standards of today? How will historians in the future judge us?” - History, 2021

Secondly, at Lumiere, our analysis is that most of these prompts are ‘deceptively rigorous’ because the complexity of the topic reveals itself gradually. The topics do not give you a lot to work with and it is only when you delve deeper into one that you realize the extent to which you need to research/read more. In some of the topics, you are compelled to define the limits of the prompt yourself and in turn, the scope of your essay. This can be a challenging exercise. Allow me to illustrate this with an example of the 2019 philosophy prompt.

“Aristotelian virtue ethics achieved something of a resurgence in the twentieth century. Was this progress or retrogression?”

Here you are supposed to develop your own method for determining what exactly constitutes progress in ethical thought. This in turn involves familiarizing yourself with existing benchmarks of measurement and developing your own method if required. This is a significant intellectual exercise.

Finally, a lot of the topics are on issues of contemporary relevance and especially on issues that are contentious . For instance, in 2019, one of the prompts for economics was about the benefits and costs of immigration whereas the 2020 essay prompt for theology was about whether Islam is a religion of peace . As we explain later, your ‘opinion’ here can be as ‘outrageous’ as you want it to be as long as you are able to back it up with reasonable arguments. Remember, the JLI website clearly declares itself to be, ‘ not a safe space, but a courteous one ’.

How competitive is the JLI Essay Competition?

In 2021, the competition received 4000 entries from 101 countries. Given that there is only one prize winner from each category, this makes this a very competitive opportunity. However, because categories have a different number of applicants, some categories are more competitive than others. One strategy to win could be to focus on fields with fewer submissions like Theology.

There are also a relatively significant number of students who receive commendations called “high commendation.” In the psychology field, for example, about 80 students received a commendation in 2022. At the same time, keep in mind that the number of students shortlisted and invited to Oxford for an academic conference is fairly high and varies by subject. For instance, Theology had around 50 people shortlisted in 2021 whereas Economics had 238 . We, at Lumiere, estimate that approximately 10% of entries of each category make it to the shortlisting stage.

How will your essay be judged?

The essays will be judged on your understanding of the discipline, quality of argumentation and evidence, and writing style. Let’s look at excerpts from various winning essays to see what this looks like in practice.

Level of knowledge and understanding of the relevant material: Differentiating your essay from casual musing requires you to demonstrate knowledge of your discipline. One way to do that is by establishing familiarity with relevant literature and integrating it well into their essay. The winning essay of the 2020 Psychology Prize is a good example of how to do this: “People not only interpret facts in a self-serving way when it comes to their health and well-being; research also demonstrates that we engage in motivated reasoning if the facts challenge our personal beliefs, and essentially, our moral valuation and present understanding of the world. For example, Ditto and Liu showed a link between people’s assessment of facts and their moral convictions” By talking about motivated reasoning in the broader literature, the author can show they are well-versed in the important developments in the field.

Competent use of evidence: In your essay, there are different ways to use evidence effectively. One such way involves backing your argument with results from previous studies . The 2020 Third Place essay in economics shows us what this looks like in practice: “Moreover, this can even be extended to PTSD, where an investigation carried out by Italian doctor G. P. Fichera, led to the conclusion that 13% of the sampling units were likely to have this condition. Initiating economic analysis here, this illustrates that the cost of embarking on this unlawful activity, given the monumental repercussions if caught, is not equal to the costs to society...” The study by G.P. Fichera is used to strengthen the author’s claim on the social costs of crime and give it more weight.

Structure, writing style, and persuasive force: A good argument that is persuasive rarely involves merely backing your claim with good evidence and reasoning. Delivering it in an impactful way is also very important. Let’s see how the winner of the 2020 Law Prize does this: “Slavery still exists, but now it applies to women and its name in prostitution”, wrote Victor Hugo in Les Misérables. Hugo’s portrayal of Fantine under the archetype of a fallen woman forced into prostitution by the most unfortunate of circumstances cannot be more jarringly different from the empowerment-seeking sex workers seen today, highlighting the wide-ranging nuances associated with commercial sex and its implications on the women in the trade. Yet, would Hugo have supported a law prohibiting the selling of sex for the protection of Fantine’s rights?” The use of Victor Hugo in the first line of the essay gives it a literary flair and enhances the impact of the delivery of the argument. Similarly, the rhetorical question, in the end, adds to the literary dimension of the argument. Weaving literary and argumentative skills in a single essay is commendable and something that the institute also recognizes.

Quality of argumentation: Finally, the quality of your argument depends on capturing the various elements mentioned above seamlessly . The third place in theology (2020) does this elegantly while describing bin-Laden’s faulty and selective use of religious verses to commit violence: “He engages in the decontextualization and truncation of Qur'anic verses to manipulate and convince, which dissociates the fatwas from bonafide Islam. For example, in his 1996 fatwa, he quotes the Sword verse but deliberately omits the aforementioned half of the Ayat that calls for mercy. bin-Laden’s intention is not interpretive veracity, but the indoctrination of his followers.” The author’s claim is that bin-Laden lacks religious integrity and thus should not be taken seriously, especially given the content of his messages. To strengthen his argument, he uses actual incidents to dissect this display of faulty reasoning.

These excerpts are great examples of the kind of work you should keep in mind when writing your own draft.

6 Winning Tips from Lumiere

Focus on your essay structure and flow: If logic and argumentation are your guns in this competition, a smooth flow is your bullet. What does a smooth flow mean? It means that the reader should be able to follow your chain of reasoning with ease. This is especially true for essays that explore abstract themes. Let’s see this in detail with the example of a winning philosophy essay. “However, if society were the moral standard, an individual is subjected to circumstantial moral luck concerning whether the rules of the society are good or evil (e.g., 2019 Geneva vs. 1939 Munich). On the other hand, contracts cannot be the standard because people are ignorant of their being under a moral contractual obligation, when, unlike law, it is impossible to be under a contract without being aware. Thus, given the shortcomings of other alternatives, human virtue is the ideal moral norm.” To establish human virtue as the ideal norm, the author points out limitations in society and contracts, leaving out human virtue as the ideal one. Even if you are not familiar with philosophy, you might still be able to follow the reasoning here. This is a great example of the kind of clarity and logical coherence that you should strive for.

Ground your arguments in a solid theoretical framework : Your essay requires you to have well-developed arguments. However, these arguments need to be grounded in academic theory to give them substance and differentiate them from casual opinions. Let me illustrate this with an example of the essay that won second place in the politics category in 2020. “Normatively, the moral authority of governments can be justified on a purely associative basis: citizens have an inherent obligation to obey the state they were born into. As Dworkin argued, “Political association, like family or friendship and other forms of association more local and intimate, is itself pregnant of obligation” (Dworkin). Similar to a family unit where children owe duties to their parents by virtue of being born into that family regardless of their consent, citizens acquire obligations to obey political authority by virtue of being born into a state.” Here, the author is trying to make a point about the nature of political obligation. However, the core of his argument is not the strength of his own reasoning, but the ability to back his reasoning with prior literature. By quoting Dworkin, he includes important scholars of western political thought to give more weight to his arguments. It also displays thorough research on the part of the author to acquire the necessary intellectual tools to write this paper.

The methodology is more important than the conclusion: The 2020 history winners came to opposite conclusions in their essays on whether a strong state hampers or encourages economic growth. While one of them argued that political strength hinders growth when compared to laissez-faire, the other argues that the state is a prerequisite for economic growth . This reflects JLI’s commitment to your reasoning and substantiation instead of the ultimate opinion. The lesson: Don’t be afraid to be bold! Just make sure you are able to back it up.

Establish your framework well: A paragraph (or two) that is able to succinctly describe your methodology, core arguments, and the reasoning behind them displays academic sophistication. A case in point is the introduction of 2019’s Philosophy winner: “To answer the question, we need to construct a method that measures progress in philosophy. I seek to achieve this by asserting that, in philosophy, a certain degree of falsification is achievable. Utilizing philosophical inquiry and thought experiments, we can rationally assess the logical validity of theories and assign “true” and “false” status to philosophical thoughts. With this in mind, I propose to employ the fourth process of the Popperian model of progress…Utilizing these two conditions, I contend that Aristotelian virtue ethics was progress from Kantian ethics and utilitarianism.” Having a framework like this early on gives you a blueprint for what is in the essay and makes it easier for the reader to follow the reasoning. It also helps you as a writer since distilling down your core argument into a paragraph ensures that the first principles of your essay are well established.

Read essays of previous winners: Do this and you will start seeing some patterns in the winning essays. In economics, this might be the ability to present a multidimensional argument and substantiating it with data-backed research. In theology, this might be your critical analysis of religious texts .

Find a mentor: Philosophical logic and argumentation are rarely taught at the high school level. Guidance from an external mentor can fill this academic void by pointing out logical inconsistencies in your arguments and giving critical feedback on your essay. Another important benefit of having a mentor is that it will help you in understanding the heavy literature that is often a key part of the writing/research process in this competition. As we have already seen above, having a strong theoretical framework is crucial in this competition. A mentor can make this process smoother.

Lumiere Research Scholar Program

If you’re looking for a mentor to do an essay contest like John Locke or want to build your own independent research paper, then consider applying to the Lumiere Research Scholar Program . Last year over 2100 students applied for about 500 spots in the program. You can find the application form here.

You can see our admission results here for our students.

Manas is a publication strategy associate at Lumiere Education. He studied public policy and interactive media at NYU and has experience in education consulting.

Jesus loves you!

Feeling overwhelmed with academic demands? Don't worry, I've got you covered! I just found a website that provides assistance with research papers. From topic https://www.phdresearchproposal.org/ selection to formatting, they offer comprehensive support throughout the writing process. Say goodbye to academic stress!

Our Services

College Admissions Counseling

UK University Admissions Counseling

EU University Admissions Counseling

College Athletic Recruitment

Crimson Rise: College Prep for Middle Schoolers

Indigo Research: Online Research Opportunities for High Schoolers

Delta Institute: Work Experience Programs For High Schoolers

Graduate School Admissions Counseling

Private Boarding & Day School Admissions

Online Tutoring

Essay Review

Financial Aid & Merit Scholarships

Our Leaders and Counselors

Our Student Success

Crimson Student Alumni

Our Reviews

Our Scholarships

Careers at Crimson

University Profiles

US College Admissions Calculator

GPA Calculator

Practice Standardized Tests

SAT Practice Test

ACT Practice Tests

Personal Essay Topic Generator

eBooks and Infographics

Crimson YouTube Channel

Summer Apply - Best Summer Programs

Top of the Class Podcast

ACCEPTED! Book by Jamie Beaton

Crimson Global Academy

+1 (646) 419-3178

A Complete Guide To ✨The John Locke Essay Competition✨

Join our exclusive info session if want to find out more about the john locke competition and what it takes to enter an award-winning essay. session 1: 5 pm (gmt-0) feb 24th session 2: 3 am (gmt-0) feb 25th, are you ready to make a mark in the prestigious john locke essay competition.

Join us for an exclusive information session that unveils the secrets to success in this renowned competition.

During this enlightening info session, you will:

📚 Discover what the John Locke Essay Competition is all about and why it's a golden opportunity for aspiring writers.

🎓 Uncover the winning strategies and techniques to ace the competition and stand out from the crowd.

🌐 Engage with experts who have excelled in the competition and get valuable tips on crafting an impressive essay.

🤝 Q&A…and so much more!

The John Locke Essay Competition is your gateway to excellence, and we invite you to a special information session to guide you on the path to success!

Register today, and receive a special GIFT for attending the webinar!

Fill in your details below to sign up for the event.

I agree to the privacy policy

I want to receive study pathways, free resources and admissions guidance from Crimson Education Group.

Who should join?

Ambitious students

who aims for top universities

Session 1: 5 PM (GMT-0) Feb 24th

Session 2: 3 AM (GMT-0) Feb 25th

Online via Zoom

(aka anywhere!)

Meet the Speaker

Benjamin Goldstein

• A Fulbright Scholar, a graduate of Oxford, Columbia, and Cambridge
• A former head coach for the Concord Review history journal
• Has personally overseen essay submissions by many past John Locke winners
• Extensively working with hundreds of students over the past five years tutoring students in historical research and writing skills

What is the John Locke Essay Competition?

The John Locke essay competition is a famous, worldwide essay competition. Winners and honorably mentioned individuals in this competition have gone on to Oxford, Princeton, and other Ivy Leagues.

Even getting an honorable mention, not to mention achieving a top 3 spot in the competition, is an incredible addition to your admissions profile, recognized by admissions officers from Harvard to Stanford and beyond as one of the most prestigious achievements possible for a high school student!

Crimson Students’ Success

Every year we celebrate our students’ outstanding results in this highly competitive essay competition. Working with their dedicated mentors, they submit work that has already been shortlisted with numerous student recipients of the major prize(s).

From Law to Economics to History, our students have been shortlisted across numerous categories with a special mention for junior prize winners (Crimson Rise students!) from across the US, Asia, and all over the world.

In 2023, a 35% Global Shortlist Rate in comparison to the global average of < 10% was achieved after taking our most recent John Locke Essay Competition Masterclass!

Ready to join?

Sharpening your writing skills and boosting your chances of success in the john locke essay competition.

+1 (603) 932 7897

[email protected].

Complete Guide to John Locke Essay Competition 2024

• Last modified 2024-04-05
• Published on 2021-04-01

1. What is the John Locke Essay Competition?

The John Locke Essay Competition is organized by John Locke Institute, an independent education organization located in Oxford, UK. Professors at the John Locke Institute are from famous universities like Oxford, Princeton, Brown, and Buckingham University.

The John Locke Institute encourages young people to cultivate characteristics of great writers: independent thought, depth of knowledge, clear reasoning, critical analysis, and persuasive style. Students are challenged to explore a wide range of questions beyond their school’s curriculum.

Obtaining prizes in the competition can greatly enhance the competitiveness of undergraduate applications at American, Canadian, and British universities. College admission for past winners include Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Chicago, Oxford, Cambridge, University of Toronto, and other world-renowned schools.

2. When does the John Locke Essay Competition start?

The John Locke Essay Competition typically releases essay questions in February. Participants are given several months to submit their essay, with the submission deadline typically set for June 30 each year.

However, if for any reason students miss the June 30 deadline, they can make a late entry by paying $20, and submitting their essay before July 10 11:59 pm BST.

For 2024, the submission deadline is June 30, 2024.

• Registration opens on April 1, 2024.
• Registration deadline: May 31, 2024. (Registration is required by this date for subsequent submission.)
• Submission deadline: June 30, 2024.
• Late entry deadline: July 10, 2024. (Late entries are subject to a 20.00 USD charge, payable by July 1)
• Notification of short-listed essayists: July 31, 2024.
• Academic conference & awards dinners: September 21, 2024.

3. Who is eligible for the contest?

Students from any country are eligible to submit essays to the competition. However, only students whose 19th birthday falls after June 30 of the current year (which is the submission deadline). Candidates for the Junior Prize must be fourteen years old, or younger, on that date. For example, if the current deadline for the 2024 competition is June 30, 2024, only students who are 18 years old or younger before June 30, 2024 will be eligible for a prize or a commendation. In the case of the Junior Prize category, only students who are 14 years old or younger before June 30, 2024 will be eligible for a prize or a commendation.

4. Who should participate in the competition?

The competition welcomes students who are passionate about philosophy, politics, economics, history, psychology, theology, or law to participate. Regardless of your academic background or level of expertise, if you’re interested in writing and willing to delve deeper into thought-provoking topics and complex societal issues, the John Locke Essay Competition is an excellent opportunity for you.

5. Is the John Locke Competition free?

Yes, the John Locke Essay Competition is free to enter. Participants are not required to pay any fees, and they can submit as many essays as they please across any or all categories.

6. Is the John Locke Essay Competition prestigious?

The John Locke Essay Competition has always been a prestigious competition, attracting talented writers around the world. All of the competition’s essays are judged by a panel of senior academics drawn from leading universities, including the University of Oxford (#5 in Best Global Universities) and Princeton University (#1 in National Universities in the U.S).

In addition, the judges will choose their favorite essay from each of the seven subject categories, along with a junior category for under 15s, which is a very rigorous evaluation process.

Moreover, the essay topics chosen for the competition often tackle current issues and challenges facing society today, requiring students to be well-rounded and up to date with the topics that they’re interested in.

7. How competitive is the John Locke Essay Competition?

With approximately 19,000 entries in total, the John Locke Essay Competition attracts a pool of excellent participants from around the world. Each year, a select few—typically 24-25 individuals—are awarded prizes. 

For more context, in 2021, the competition received 4,000 submissions, yet only 24 prizes were awarded, indicating a marked increase in competitiveness over time.  With a win rate of approximately 0.6%, securing a prize in the John Locke Essay Competition is definitely an exceptional achievement.  Notably, each category witnessed a substantial number of submissions, with Philosophy shortlisting 108 candidates, Politics 55, Economics 239, History 190, Junior Essay 93, Law 80, Theology 50, and Psychology 100. In total, these categories shortlisted 915 candidates, which is 23% of all submissions. Within 915 shortlists, there were only 24 students being awarded, representing 3% of all shortlists. This data paints a vivid picture of the competitiveness among participants, and the academic rigor demanded by the competition in order to be shortlisted and finally rewarded. In 2022, there were 6805 participants and 20% were shortlisted.

8. What are the categories in the competition?

Students are required to submit an argumentative essay of fewer than 2,000 words. The overarching themes of the competitions are: philosophy, politics, economics, history, psychology, theology, and law.

9. What are the questions in the competition?

For 2024, the questions for John Locke Essay Competition are: 

Philosophy  

Q1. Do we have any good reasons to trust our moral intuition?

Q2. Do girls have a right to compete in sporting contests that exclude boys?

Q3. Should I be held responsible for what I believe?

Expert Guide to the John Locke Essay Competition Philosophy Questions

Q1. Is there such a thing as too much democracy?

Q2. Is peace in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip possible?​

Q3. When is compliance complicity?

Economics  

Q1. What is the optimal global population?

Q2. Accurate news reporting is a public good. Does it follow that news agencies should be funded from taxation?

​Q3. Do successful business people benefit others when making their money, when spending it, both, or neither?

Expert Guide to the John Locke Essay Competition Economics Questions

Q1. Why was sustained economic growth so rare before the later 18th century and why did this change?

Q2. Has music ever significantly changed the course of history?

Q3. Why do civilisations collapse? Is our civilisation in danger?

Expert Guide to the John Locke Essay Competition History Questions

Psychology  

Q1. According to a study by researchers at four British universities, for each 15-point increase in IQ, the likelihood of getting married increases by around 35% for a man but decreases by around 58% for a woman. Why?

Q2. There is an unprecedented epidemic of depression and anxiety among young people. Can we fix this? How?

Q3. What is the difference between a psychiatric illness and a character flaw?

Q1. “I am not religious, but I am spiritual.” What could the speaker mean by “spiritual”?

Q2. Is it reasonable to thank God for protection from some natural harm if He is responsible for causing the harm?

Q3. Does God reward those who believe in him? If so, why?

Expert Guide to the John Locke Essay Competition Theology Questions

Q1. When, if ever, should a company be permitted to refuse to do business with a person because of that person’s public statements?

Q2. In the last five years British police have arrested several thousand people for things they posted on social media. Is the UK becoming a police state?

​Q3. Your parents say that 11pm is your bedtime. But they don’t punish you if you don’t go to bed by 11pm. Is 11pm really your bedtime?

JUNIOR prize (for age 14 and younger)  

Q1. Does winning a free and fair election automatically confer a mandate for governing?

​Q2. Has the anti-racism movement reduced racism?

​Q3. Is there life after death?

​Q4. How did it happen that governments came to own and run most high schools, while leaving food production to private enterprise?

​Q5. When will advancing technology make most of us unemployable? What should we do about this?

Q6. Should we trust fourteen-year-olds to make decisions about their own bodies?

10. How to win the John Locke Essay competition?

With the competitiveness of this competition, it’s crucial for students to have a clear structure for approaching their question of choice. We will take an example from the grand prize-winning essay “Is tax theft?” by Hosai Kishida as an example to provide winning tips from Aralia teachers:

Analyze the question and link them to John Locke’s philosophy

Take the time to understand the essay prompt and what the question is asking for. Approaching the question “Is tax theft?”, some of the outstanding themes are the ethical implications of taxation and theft, the legal definition of theft within the context of taxation, and the redistribution of wealth and socioeconomic inequalities. Students could approach this question in several ways, but it should always link to John Locke’s philosophy. In their essay, Hosai linked the taxation issue with John Locke’s “Two Treatises on Government” idea of social contract.

Clear reasoning with evidence drawn from extensive research :

Once you decide on your stance about the question, it’s important to present your argument with logical reasoning and strong evidence from reputable sources. Students can utilize a variety of reputable sources, including academic journals, books, and scholarly articles, to gather relevant information and develop a well-informed argument. In addition, make sure that your structure and ideas are presented clearly and allow your reader to navigate your essay with ease.

For example, in Hosai’s essay, they laid out foundational principles of state power and the requirement of rational consent for legitimizing state authority. Then, they logically deduce that taxation, as an exercise of state power, necessitates the consent of taxed individuals to avoid being considered theft. The author supports their argument with references to Locke and Kant, renowned philosophers and scholars.

Engage in critical analysis

In addition to providing reasoning and evidence that support students’ arguments, students can also examine alternative perspectives to show that they have the ability to evaluate evidence critically– specifically the strengths and weaknesses of different viewpoints.

For example, Hosai evaluates opposing viewpoints and potential objections to their argument that taxation is theft. They brought up David Friedman’s concept of privatized approaches to order, and Michael Huemer’s critique of the state’s neutrality to provide a well-rounded analysis of the issue. They also reference historical events, such as the Holocaust under Nazi Germany, to illustrate potential abuses of state power.

Refine Your Writing Style

This type of essay falls under the argumentative essay type. This essay type requires a third person perspective throughout the introduction, body, and conclusion. Students should also use headings and transitions to create a smooth flow and overview of ideas without providing an excess of information, like how Hosai provides a heading for each of their arguments such as “Rational consent as a justification of state power” or “Taxation and hypothetical returns.” Don’t forget to use the active voice to make your writing more direct and engaging. Active voice sentences are clearer and more concise than passive voice, allowing you to communicate your ideas more effectively.

Proofreading and Editing

Before submitting your essay and throughout the writing process, always seek feedback from peers and teachers to gain valuable insights and perspectives on your essay to help you make revisions and create the best essay you possibly can.

11. How will your essay be evaluated?

According to the competition, your essay will be evaluated on 7 criteria, with the overarching goal of writing an essay that can change somebody’s mind in a way that’s as precise and direct as possible. Let’s go into detail about what those criteria are:

• Knowledge and Understanding of the Relevant Material: This criterion assesses students on their ability to understand the question and the relevant concepts and theories related to the topic.
• Competent Use of Evidence : The judges will evaluate the essay upon participants’ ability to use credible and relevant evidence to support their arguments.
• Quality of Argumentation : This criterion examines the quality and overall strength of the reasoning provided by the participant.
• Originality : In this criterion, the judges evaluate the originality of the ideas and arguments. In addition, all essays will be checked for the use of Artificial Intelligence. AI normally reiterates common knowledge and repeats well-established arguments without providing fresh ideas. If your essay is generated by AI, your essay will be disqualified.
• Structure: The judges will evaluate your essay based on how well you structure and organize the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion, as well as transitions between paragraphs.
• Writing Style : This criterion evaluates the participant’s writing style– from grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure to the coherence and clarity of sentences.
• Persuasive Force : Persuasive force refers to the participant’s capability to persuade the audience of their arguments. Methods of persuasion can range from their use of persuasive techniques to emotional appeals, and more.

12. What abilities of students are examined through the John Locke Essay Competition?

• The foundational understanding of concepts and structures in philosophy, politics, economics, history, psychology, theology, or law 
• The mastery of basic writing format and the skills to write argumentative essays 
• The independent thinking, logical analysis methods, persuasive writing skills  

13. What’s the general structure of the argumentative essay?

An argumentative essay is different compared to other types, because it requires a straightforward and easy-to-follow structure, with a clear point of view and reasoning. We will use an example of an essay from 2020 achieving the First Prize in the Junior Category from the John Locke Essay Competition. The prompt for that year was “Who should own your data? The companies with which you agree to share your data, everybody, just you, or nobody?” The link to the essay can be viewed here .  

A good argumentative essay should follow this structure: 

Introductory paragraph:

This paragraph should outline the topic of discussion with background information related to your argument.  

Today, we produce unfathomable amounts of data, leading the OECD to call data a “key pillar of 21st-century growth.”[1] Legislators, politicians and the popular press have increasingly called for ownership of data.[2] 

Outline the topic of discussion and background information. Here, the author explains the current state of data ownership.

Ownership is generally defined as “full and complete control with recognised legal rights,” with legal discretion for the rightsholder to exploit, change, destroy, possess, exclude others from and transfer their property.[3] An ownership right for personal data does not currently exist in the legal statutes of any industrialised country.[4] Property laws intentionally exclude personal data from subject matter definitions and newly introduced regulatory frameworks do not specify data ownership.[5] [6]

Define the subject matter at a high level. In this paragraph, the writer discusses the definition of ownership and the problem of data ownership not specified in the ownership regulation. 

The thesis statement

This is where students should state their thesis, along with the evidence they will present. The thesis statement should be a concise summary of your main point and introduce the main arguments that will be discussed in the body paragraphs: 

In 1893, Sir William Blackstone noted the human fascination with ownership, saying we desire “sole and despotic dominion … in total exclusion of rights of other individuals in the universe.”[7] In this case, that fascination detracts from the problems and solutions surrounding personal data today. An ownership right should not be created for data. To illustrate this, I shall explore the implications of assigning a data ownership right to corporations, everybody, individuals and then discuss why data should not be owned at all.

State your perspective on the matter and provide an overview of your evidence for the argument. In responding to who should own the data, the writer stated that data should not be owned by corporations, individuals, and everybody, which he discusses later in the body paragraph.

Body paragraph:

A body paragraph explains the main reasons for your thesis. If you have three main points you want to discuss, each body paragraph should cover each one (and only one) idea. You can support your claims with examples, research, studies, statistics, and any other information to add credibility and gain trust from readers. In the body paragraphs, you can also bring up opposing claims and provide explanations for why you disagree with the claims. The overall idea of the argument is to convey your idea, explain why the reader should agree, and present opposing claims with evidence-based arguments.

In the winner’s essay, he provided four main arguments why data should not be owned by corporations, individuals, and everybody, as well as why data should be owned by nobody. He also discussed the consequences of data ownership by these groups.

The conclusion should summarize your arguments and restate your thesis. A good conclusion also expands the reach of the paper to include themselves and their audience, making it both personal and showing why their audience should care about the implications of their argument. An example of making your conclusion personal is including an anecdote or a personal story related to the topic.

Today, policy makers must strike a balance between individual rights and extracting societal benefits of data. It is the subject of age-old philosophical debate; whether to prioritise a categorical imperative of privacy at the expense of utilitarian societal progress. Assigning data ownership to a single party means choosing a side, one side will inevitably lose out – sacrificing progress or privacy. Thankfully, reality does not reflect this simplistic trade-off. Ergo, legislators must continue to push for a sector-specific rights-based regulatory framework to complement existing efforts and forgo the need to legislate through assigning data ownership. Therefore, I believe, data should remain as is, res nullius – “property of no one.”

This is an example of a great conclusion, as the writer restates what would happen if you provide data ownership to people, and restates his original thesis that data should not be owned by anyone.

14. What are the prizes of the John Locke Essay Competition?

• The prize for each winner of a subject category will receive a scholarship worth $2000 (US Dollars) towards the cost of attending any John Locke Institute program
• The best essay overall will receive a $10,000 (US Dollar) scholarship to attend one or more of our summer schools and/or gap year courses.
• The essays will be published on the Institute’s website.
• Networking opportunities with judges and other faculty members of the John Locke Institute.

Aralia's Course

In this John Locke Essay Competition Prep course, students will learn the ins and outs of essay writing, in preparation for entering the competition. We offer prep classes in all categories: philosophy, politics, economics, history, psychology, theology, and law. Students will choose one topic, compose an original thesis and argument, and write an essay for submission. Students will engage in a guided analysis of primary and secondary sources, develop critical thinking skills, and discover interesting insights. In addition to the group lecture classes, students will receive guidance on their individual projects from the instructor, in one-on-one sessions.

What's next

How can I improve my writing? 20 Tips to Improve Your Writing

Interested in participating in High School Writing Competitions? There are 27 Writing Competitions for High School Students in 2021! 

How can I stand out in writing competitions? The only 5 tips you need to know is here: 5 Tips to Stand Out in a Writing Competition

Finished your writing work but not sure where to submit it? Where to Submit Your Writing Works: 5 Main Platforms will answer your questions

• Competitions

Interested in learning more?

Aralia Education is an innovative online education platform for ambitious middle and high school students worldwide. Aralia’s instructors propel students forward by helping them build a strong foundation in traditional academic courses. They also actively engage and guide students in exploring personal interests beyond their school curriculum. With this holistic approach, Aralia ensures its students are well-prepared for college and equipped for success in their future careers.

• College Accelerator Program
• Comprehensive Introduction to High School
• Academic Empowerment Program
• Test Preparation Bootcamp
• Private Lessons
• Student Awards

Give us a call: +1 (603) 932 7897

Email us: [email protected]

Add us on WhatsApp:

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

7 Essay Writing Contests to Look Out For in 2023

• 7-minute read
• 28th December 2022

Essay contests are not only a great way to exercise your essay-writing skills but also an awesome way to win cash prizes, scholarships, and internship or program opportunities. They also look wonderful on college applications as awards and achievements.

In this article, you’ll learn about 7 essay writing contests to enter in 2023. Watch the video below, or keep reading to learn more.

1. Tom Howard/John H. Reid Fiction & Essay Contest 

Deadline: Now–April 30, 3023

Who may enter:

This is an international contest for people of all ages (except for residents of Syria, Iran, North Korea, Crimea, Russia, and Belarus due to US government restrictions).

Contest description:

●  The contest is organized by Winning Writers, located in MA, USA.

●  They accept stories and essays on any theme, up to 6,000 words each. This contest defines a story as any short work of fiction and an essay as any short work of nonfiction.

●  Your stories and essays must be submitted in English.

●  You may submit published or unpublished work.

Entry fee: USD 22 per entry

●  Story: First Prize is USD 3,000.

●  Essay: First Prize is USD 3,000.

●  10 Honorable Mentions will receive USD 300 each (any category).

●  The top 12 entries will be published online.

Official website

Please visit the competition’s official website for more information on judges and submissions.

2. 2023 Calibre Essay Prize 

Deadline: Now–January 15, 2023, 11:59 pm

Who may enter: All ages and any nationality or residency are accepted.

●  This contest is hosted by the Australian Book Review.

●  Your essay must be between 2,000 and 5,000 words.

●  You may submit nonfiction essays of all kinds, e.g., personal, political, literary, or speculative.

●  You may enter multiple essays but will need to pay separate fees for each one.

●  Your essay must be unpublished.

Entry fee: AU 30 for non-members

Prize: AU 7,500

Official website:

For more information on this contest, please visit its official website.

3. John Locke Institute Essay Competition 

Deadline: June 30, 2023

●  Students from any country.

●  Students aged 15 to 18 years by the competition deadline.

●  Students aged 14 years or younger by the competition deadline are eligible for the Junior prize.

●  The contest is organized by the John Locke Institute.

●  Your essay cannot exceed 2,000 words.

●  There are seven subjects or categories for essay submissions: Philosophy, Politics, Economics, History, Psychology, Theology, and Law.

Entry fee: Free to enter

●  The best overall essay winner receives an honorary John Locke Fellowship, which comes with a USD 10,000 scholarship to attend one or more summer schools or gap year courses.

●  There is also a prize for the best essay in each category. The prize for each winner of a subject category and the Junior category is a scholarship worth USD 2,000 toward the cost of a summer program.

●  All winning essays will be published on the Institute’s website.

For more information about this competition and the John Locke Institute, please visit the official website . Also, be sure to check out our article on all you need to know about this contest.

4. The American Foreign Service Association 2023 Essay Competition 

Deadline: April 3, 2023

●  Students in grades 9–12 in any of the 50 states, DC, the US territories, or if they are US citizens or lawful permanent residents attending high school overseas.

●  Students attending a public, private, or parochial school.

●  Home-schooled students.

●  Your essay should be 1,000–1,500 words.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

●  You will select a country or region in which the United States Foreign Service has been involved at any point since 1924 and describe how the Foreign Service was successful or unsuccessful in advancing American foreign policy goals – including promoting peace – in this country or region and propose ways in which it might continue to improve those goals in the coming years.

●  Your essay should follow MLA guidelines.

●  Your essay should use a variety of sources.

●  The first-place winner receives USD 2,500, a paid trip to the nation’s capital from anywhere in the U.S. for the winner and their parents, and an all-expense-paid educational voyage courtesy of Semester at Sea.

●  The runner-up receives USD 1,250 and full tuition to attend a summer session of the National Student Leadership Conference’s International Diplomacy program.

Please visit the American Foreign Service website for more information.

5. The Jane Austen Society of North America (JASNA) 2023 Essay Contest 

Deadline: Mid-February 2023–June 1, 2023

Who may enter: High school (including homeschooled), college, and graduate students worldwide.

●  The 2023 essay contest topic is marriages and proposals.

●  High school students may focus on Pride and Prejudice only or bring in other Austen works.

●  Undergraduate and graduate students should discuss at least two Austen novels of their choice.

●  Your essay must be in MLA format and 6 to 8 pages (not including your Works Cited page).

●  Your essay must be written in English.

●  First place wins a USD 1,000 scholarship.

●  Second place wins a USD 500 scholarship.

●  Third place wins a USD 250 scholarship.

●  Winners will also receive one year of membership in JASNA, publication of their essays on this website, and a set of Norton Critical Editions of Jane Austen’s novels.

For more information and submission guidelines, please visit JASNA’s official website .

6. 2023 Writing Contest: Better Great Achievements by EngineerGirl

Deadline: February 1, 2023

●  Students in Grades 3–12. If international or homeschooled, please select your grade level based on if you were attending a public school in the U.S.

●  This contest is organized by EngineerGirl.

●  Students should write a piece that shows how female or non-white engineers have contributed to or can enhance engineering’s great achievements.

●  You should choose one of the 20 Greatest Engineering Achievements of the 20th Century as a topic and explore the technologies developed in the last century and the new ones being developed today. Make sure to follow the specific guidelines for your grade level.

●  Essays should be 650–750 words based on your grade level.

●  Please visit the contest’s website to see specific requirements based on your grade.

Winners in each grade category will receive the prizes listed below:

●  First-place winners will be awarded USD 500.

●  Second-place entries will be awarded USD 250 .

●  Third-place entries will be awarded USD 100 .

For more information and submission guidelines, please visit the official website .

7. World Historian Student Essay Competition

Deadline: May 1, 2023

Who may enter: Students enrolled in Grades K–12 in public, private, and parochial schools and home-study programs worldwide.

●  Your essay must address the following issue: In what way has the study of world history affected my understanding of the world in which I live?

●  Your essay should be 1,000 words.

Prizes: USD 500

For more information and submission requirements, please visit the contest’s official website.

Essay contests are a great way to expand your writing skills, discuss a topic that is important to you, and earn prize money and opportunities that will be great for you in the long term. Check out our articles on writing thesis statements, essay organization, and argumentative writing strategies to ensure you take first place every time.

If you need help with your essays and would like to make sure that every comma is in place, we will proofread your first 500 words for free !

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Is intuition to philosophy as observation is to science?

Ethan Christian Tan, Anglo-Chinese School, Singapore

Winner of the 2020 Grand Prize ​| 7 min read 

I. Introduction

Science and philosophy share the fundamental goal of knowledge production. The former explains and predicts the material universe, [1] and the latter seeks to answer questions within the fields of logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and axiology. [2] This common objective will contextualise my discussion of observation and intuition as means to the end of producing scientific and philosophical knowledge respectively.

Observation and intuition can both be thought of as independent sources of knowledge. When we observe, we receive information either via direct sensory perception or with the aid of instruments. [3] Intuition, on the other hand, is best defined by what it is not. An intuition does not result from inference, memory, testimony, reason, or observation; [4] of these sources, a knower still believes intuitions to be a priori truths. [5] in the absence

The question of whether intuition is to philosophy as observation is to science can be broken down into three sub-questions:

What roles do observation and intuition play in scientific and philosophical knowledge production respectively?

How reliably do they fulfil these roles?

How exclusively do they occupy these roles?

These sub-questions correspond to the bases of comparison of role, reliability, and exclusivity respectively. The extent to which the set of answers for observation coincides with that of intuition is then the extent to which intuition is to philosophy as observation is to science. With this condition in mind, I propose the following answers.

Firstly, observation and intuition both play evidential roles in supporting and refuting scientific and philosophical claims, and productive roles in producing them. They differ, however, in that evidential observation is used deductively when falsifying scientific knowledge claims, while evidential intuition lacks a deductive function.

Secondly, both observation and intuition possess unreliabilities in precision and accuracy. While certain problems can be accounted for in both cases, observation and intuition still feature seemingly unresolvable issues with accuracy, which therefore threaten reliability.

Lastly, the evidential and productive functions of both observation and intuition are non-exclusive, in that they can, in some cases, be substituted by other sources of knowledge.

Thus, I contend that intuition is largely to philosophy as observation is to science, save for the fact that intuition, unlike observation, is not used deductively.

II. What roles do observation and intuition play in scientific and philosophical knowledge production respectively?

In the production of scientific knowledge, the roles of observation are twofold. When applied to a pre-existing claim, observation is evidential, and can be used to support or falsify said claim. Observation can also precede and bring about the production of knowledge, in which case its function is productive. These roles are not mutually exclusive; observation can produce and later support the same claim.

Observation is used as supporting evidence when corroborating a scientific hypothesis. That is to say, if a specific observation P (“This beaker of water boils at 100°C”) corroborates a general claim Q (“Water boils at 100°C”), we have increased confidence that Q is correct. [6] Moreover, as written by Hume, our confidence in Q tends to grow as more instances of P are observed. [7] In this way, through the corroboration of hypotheses, scientists use particular observations of the natural world to support general explanations of its behaviour.

It is important, however, to differentiate between the deductive and inductive uses of evidential observation. To conclude with epistemic certainty that “all swans are white” from observing any number of white swans is to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent, whereas the mere observation of one non-white swan would suffice to seductively falsify the claim. [8] Therefore, while observation can only serve inductively to support a hypothesis, scientists employ evidential observation deductively when falsifying them. [9]

The productive role of observation is illustrated well by one of science’s most famous anecdotes. One summer, a young Isaac Newton observed an apple fall from a tree. He wondered "why... that apple [should] always descend perpendicularly to the ground", which would later inspire his work on gravity. [10] Science seeks to describe the natural world; the observation of a natural phenomenon can therefore produce scientific knowledge regarding said phenomenon.

Does intuition share the evidential and productive functions of observation? The latter is a significantly less controversial question among philosophers—it seems that, at least sometimes, our intuitions do produce our beliefs. Many philosophers adhered to the justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge, but adjusted their stances after learning of Gettier-type counterexamples, which produce the intuition that the justified true beliefs they describe do not count as knowledge. [11] If beliefs in the JTB account had caused intuitions regarding knowledge, then Gettier cases would have been dismissed as unintuitive.

The thesis that intuition is used as evidence for and against philosophical beliefs is dubbed Centrality by Cappelen. [12]  Opposing Centrality,   Cappelen argues that the description ‘intuitive’, when applied to philosophical claims, can be removed or substituted without loss of meaning. [13] Ichikawa explains in support of this claim that we use intuitive propositions not because they are intuitive, but because they are true. [14]  As  Climenhaga notes, these objections are refuted by the fact that our intuitions tend to coincide with our beliefs, and that our confidence in a given belief does not decrease even with the awareness that it has been caused by our intuitions. [15] Centrality provides the best explanation for this phenomenon. Moreover, beyond treating their own intuitions as evidence, philosophers frequently 'explain away' others' intuitions when used to justify opposing claims or as counterexamples to their own; if intuitions were not seen as evidential, this would be unnecessary. [16]

Like observation, intuition thus serves as evidence for and against philosophical claims. Examples of both cases are ubiquitous in philosophical dialogue; [17] other than the aforementioned Gettier problem, which is an instance of the latter, Searle uses the ‘Chinese room’ intuition pump to support his claim that machines cannot understand—they only simulate the ability to do so. [18]

It appears, however, that evidential intuition is not employed deductively. Sound deductive claims rely on true premises, yet Gutting notes that philosophers tend to avoid this requirement with intuitions, neglecting to account for their truth and simply expecting their audience to share the same intuitions. [19] In many occasions, the deductive premise-conclusion structure is not even adhered to, philosophers instead supporting general claims with individual examples and counterexamples of intuitions. [20] Hence, this is where the evidential role of intuition diverges from that of observation: while observation is used deductively to falsify and inductively to support, the role of intuition is limited to that of support.

III. How reliably do they fulfil these roles?

Sources of unreliability can be split into two categories: imprecisions, referring to qualitative or quantitative inexactitudes or variations, and inaccuracies, meaning distance from the truth. The most apparent hindrance to the reliability of observation is the problem of imperfections in our senses and scientific instruments, classified as random and systematic error.  21]  The former results from unpredictable changes in experimental conditions that usually affect precision, while the latter arises from consistent instrumental defects that typically affect accuracy. [22] account for these errors. [23] Nonetheless, scientists are able to analyse and mathematically account for these errors. [23]

A more pressing inaccuracy arises in the theory-ladenness of observation: that our observations are always interpreted through the subjective 'lenses' of the beliefs, or theories, to which we subscribe, [24] limiting our ability to accurately observe a subject in its entirety. Kuhn outlines three types of observational theory-ladenness:

Firstly, our beliefs can directly affect what we perceive. In an experiment by perceptual psychologists Bruner and Postman, subjects repeatedly mistook wrongly-coloured playing cards for their normal counterparts when viewed quickly. [25] This, according to Kuhn, depicts how our perceptions are affected by pur conceptual resources. [26]

Secondly, our beliefs also influence our semantic understanding of the descriptions of observations. [27] For example, a Newtonian physicist would interpret the word 'mass' to refer to a constant, while an Einsteinian would believe the value described by the same term to depend on the velocity of the object in question. [28] This prevents observers subscribing to different theories from truly understanding descriptions of each other's observations.

Lastly, separate aspects of the same observation may vary in salience based on the theories of the observer. Kuhn proposes the thought experiment of Galileo and an Aristotelian physicist observing a pendulum. The Aristotelian, viewing the pendulum’s bob as falling under a string’s constraint, would have given attention to the bob’s weight, vertical displacement, and time taken to come to rest. [29] In contrast, Galileo would treat pendular motion as restricted circular motion, measuring the string's length, angular displacement, and time per swing. [30]

Our intuitions, like observation, also appear to feature ‘imprecision’, or varying intuitions in response to the same stimulus. Experimental philosophers Petrinovich and O’Neill, when surveying participants, found that moral intuitions varied based on how a dilemma was phrased and the order in which different dilemmas were presented. [31] However, Zamzow and Nichols observe that people are less confident in their responsive intuitions to thought experiments when influenced, even unknowingly, by philosophically irrelevant factors. [32] Confidence, therefore, may be a mechanism to qualitatively determine the imprecision of our intuitions, reminiscent of the calculable experimental uncertainty of observations.

In terms of accuracy, Kahneman suggests that like our observations, our intuitions are also influenced by our beliefs and theories that are 'trained' by our environment. [33] A professional chess player can be said to act on highly accurate intuitions during a game due to the regular environment of chess and repeated practice within it. [34] Contrarily, it is difficult to call philosophy a regular environment: philosophical intuitions span a huge range of topics, and may sometimes extend into non-philosophical domains that provide contextual knowledge. [35] Neither can philosophers reliably practice intuiting, as the accuracy of corrective feedback is hard to determine due to the general lack of consensus in the philosophical community (as opposed to chess, which has easily analysable games and binary win-lose outcomes). [36] Like observation, intuition thus also features an accuracy problem, in that it is difficult to define standards by which the truth of intuitions can be determined in the first place.

IV. How exclusively do they occupy these roles?

Although observation is a heavily utilised evidential source for most of the empirical sciences, [37] exceptions exist in abstract disciplines like theoretical physics. Ellis and Silk criticise string theorists and proponents of the many-worlds interpretation for relying on the "elegance"  and explanatory power of their theories, rather than empirical observation, as supporting evidence for their veracity .[38] Since their theories describe unobservable phenomena, an observation also loses the ability to falsify their claims. [39] Regardless of the normative question of whether observation ought to be used as scientific evidence, that the scientific community has, in fact, appealed to alternative sources of evidence shows the non-exclusivity of observation’s evidential role.

Describing non-observational causes of scientific knowledge production may be more difficult as many scientific claims fundamentally result from observation; even theoretical claims like string theory seek to explain observed phenomena. [40] Accounts exist, however, of other unconscious processes producing knowledge claims, such as August Kekulé's dream of an ouroboros inspiring him to describe the ring-shaped structure of benzene, [41] which was only confirmed directly by observation in the following century. [42]

The emergent field of experimental philosophy illustrates well the non-exclusivity of intuition’s evidential role in philosophy. Beyond intuition, contemporary evidential sources have expanded to encompass reaction times, [43]  neuroimaging, [44] and human behaviour, [45] using observation, in fact, to support philosophical claims.

Experimental philosophy also features alternative sources of philosophical knowledge production. Schwitzgebel and Rust questioned if ethics professors behaved with higher or more consistent moral standards than their non-ethicist colleagues; only after collecting behavioural data could they formulate the claim that there is generally no variation between ethicists' and non-ethicists' moral behaviour. [46]  As a whole, therefore, observation and intuition do not exclusively fulfil their evidential and productive functions.

V. Conclusion

Of the three bases of comparison—role, reliability, and exclusivity—intuition and observation are similar on all counts, with the exception that intuition, unlike observation, does not play a deductive role in philosophy. Thus, I conclude that less the aforementioned difference, intuition is to philosophy as observation is to science.

1 Richard Purtill, “The Purpose of Science,” Philosophy of Science 37, no. 2 (1970): 301-06, www.jstor.org/stable/186678.

2 Archie J. Bahm, “What is Philosophy?” The Scientific Monthly 52, no. 6 (1941): 553-60, www.jstor.org/stable/17261.

3 Roberto Torretti, “Observation,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37, no. 1 (1986): 1-23 , www.jstor.org/stable/686995.

4 Nevin Climenhaga, “Intuitions are used as evidence in philosophy,” Mind 127, no. 505 (2018): 69-104, https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/127/505/69/3800471.

5 Ernest Sosa, "Postscript to 'Proper Functionalism and Virtue Epistemology,'" in Warrant in Contemporary Epistemology: Essays in Honor of Plantinga's Theory of Knowledge, ed. Jonathan L. Kvanvig (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996), 151.

6 Peter Ellerton, “What exactly is the scientific method and why do so many people get it wrong?” School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry - University of Queensland, last modified November 30, 2016, accessed June 17, 2020,

https://hpi.uq.edu.au/article/2016/09/what-exactly-scientific-method-and-why-do-so-many-people-get-i t-wrong.

7 David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg, 2006), 36, https ://www.gutenberg.org/files/9662/9662-h/9662-h.htm.

8 A. C. Grayling, The history of philosophy (New York: Penguin, 2019), 397.

9 Ellerton, “Scientific method.”

10 Steve Connor, “The core of truth behind Sir Isaac Newton’s apple,” The Independent, January 18, 2010, accessed June 18, 2020, https ://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-core-of-truth-behind -sir-isaac-newtons-apple-1870915.html.

11 Stephen Hetherington, "Gettier Problems," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed July 05, 2020, https ://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/

12 Herman Cappelen, Philosophy without Intuitions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 3.

14 Jonathan Ichikawa, "Who needs intuitions? Two Experimentalist Critiques," in Intuitions, ed. Anthony Robert Booth & Darrell P. Rowbottom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 236. 15 Climenhaga, “Intuitions are used as evidence in philosophy.”

17 Joel Pust, Intuitions as Evidence (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.), 2.

18 John Searle, “Minds, Brains and Programs,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, no. 3 (1980): 417-57, doi:10.1017/S0140525X00005756.

19 Gary Gutting, "Can Philosophical Beliefs Be Rationally Justified?" American Philosophical Quarterly

19, no. 4 (1982): 315-30 , www.jstor.org/stable/20013972.

21 John Robert Taylor, An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements (Sausalito, California: University Science Books, 1999), 94.

22 “Random vs Systematic Error,” UMD Department of Physics - UMD Physics, accessed July 06, 2020, https ://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html.

23 “Random and Systematic Errors,” Mathematics & Statistics | Texas Tech University, accessed July 06, 2020 , http://www.math.ttu.edu/~gilliam/ttu/s08/m1300_s08/downloads/errors.pdf

24 A. Franklin et al., "Can a Theory-Laden Observation Test the Theory?" The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40, no. 2 (1989): 229-31 , www.jstor.org/stable/687514.

25 Thomas S. Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962), 63.

27 Ibid., 127

28 Franklin et al., "Can a Theory-Laden Observation Test the Theory?"

29 Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions, 123.

30 Ibid., 124.

31 L. Petrinovich & P. O’Neill, “Influence of wording and framing effects on moral intuitions,” Ethology & Sociobiology 17, no. 3 (1996): 145-71.

32 Jennifer L. Zamzow & Shaun Nichols, “Variations in Ethical Intuitions,” Philosophical Issues 19 (2009): 368-88.

33 Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011), 241. 34 Matthew Allen DeStefano, "The Reliability and Nature of Philosophical Intuitions" (University of Missouri-St. Louis, 2014).

37 James Bogen, "Theory and Observation in Science," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2020), ed. Edward N. Zalta, accessed July 07, 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/science-theory-observation/.

38 George Ellis & Joe Silk, "Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics," Nature 516 (2014): 321-23, doi:10.1038/516321a.

40 Matthew Chalmers, "The roots and fruits of string theory," CERN Courier, October 29, 2018, accessed July 11, 2020, https://cerncourier.com/a/the-roots-and-fruits-of-string-theory/.

41 Albert Rothenberg, "Creative Cognitive Processes in Kekulé's Discovery of the Structure of the Benzene Molecule," The American Journal of Psychology 108, no. 3 (1995): 419-38, doi:10.2307/1422898.

42 Lonsdale, K.. "The Structure of the Benzene Ring in Hexamethylbenzene". Proceedings of the Royal Society 123A (1929): 494-515. doi:10.1098/rspa.1929.0081.

43 Jonathan Phillips & Fiery Cushman, "Morality constrains the default representation of what is possible," PNAS 114, no. 18 (2017): 4649-54, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619717114.

44 Joshua Green et al. “An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment,” Science  293 (2001): 2105-8, doi:10.1126/science.1062872.

45 Eric Schwitzgebel & Joshua Rust, “The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior,” Philosophical Psychology 27, no.3 (2014): 293-327, doi: 10.1080/09515089.2012.727135

Bibliography

Cappelen, Herman. Philosophy without Intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Grayling, A. C. The history of philosophy. New York: Penguin, 2019.

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg, 2006. https:// www.gutenberg.org/files/9662/9662-h/9662-h.htm.

Ichikawa, Jonathan. "Who needs intuitions? Two Experimentalist Critiques." In Intuitions, edited by Anthony Robert Booth & Darrell P. Rowbottom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Pust, Joel. Intuitions as Evidence. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Sosa, Ernest. "Postscript to 'Proper Functionalism and Virtue Epistemology.'" In Warrant in Contemporary Epistemology: Essays in Honor of Plantinga's Theory of Knowledge, edited by Jonathan L. Kvanvig. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996.

Taylor, John Robert. An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements. Sausalito, California: University Science Books, 1999.

Journal articles

Bahm, Archie J. "What Is Philosophy?" The Scientific Monthly 52, no. 6 (1941): 553-60. www.jstor.org/stable/17261.

Climenhaga, Nevin. "Intuitions are used as evidence in philosophy." Mind 127, no. 505 (2018): 69-104. https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/127/505/69/3800471.

DeStefano, Matthew Allen. "The Reliability and Nature of Philosophical Intuitions." University of Missouri-St. Louis, 2014.

Ellis, George & Joe Silk. "Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics." Nature 516 (2014). doi:10.1038/516321a.

Franklin, A. & M. Anderson & D. Brock & S. Coleman & J. Downing & A. Gruvander & J. Lilly et al. "Can a Theory-Laden Observation Test the Theory?" The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40, no. 2 (1989): 229-31 . www.jstor.org/stable/687514.

Green, Joshua & Sommerville, R. & Nystrom, Leigh & Darley, John & Cohen, Jonathan. “An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment.” Science 293 (2001): 2105-8. doi:10.1126/science.1062872.

Gutting, Gary. "Can Philosophical Beliefs Be Rationally Justified?" American Philosophical Quarterly 19, no. 4 (1982): 315-30 . www.jstor.org/stable/20013972.

Lonsdale, K.. "The Structure of the Benzene Ring in Hexamethylbenzene". Proceedings of the Royal Society 123A (1929): 494-515. doi:10.1098/rspa.1929.0081.

Purtill, Richard. "The Purpose of Science." Philosophy of Science 37, no. 2 (1970): 301-306. www.jstor.org/stable/186678.

Petrinovich, L. & P. O’Neill, “Influence of wording and framing effects on moral intuitions.”

Ethology & Sociobiology 17, no. 3 (1996): 145-71.

Phillips, Jonathan & Fiery Cushman. "Morality constrains the default representation of what is possible." PNAS 114, no. 18 (2017): 4649-54. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619717114.

Rothenberg, Albert. "Creative Cognitive Processes in Kekulé's Discovery of the Structure of the Benzene Molecule." The American Journal of Psychology 108, no. 3 (1995): 419-38. doi:10.2307/1422898.

Schwitzgebel, Eric & Joshua Rust. “The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior.” Philosophical Psychology 27, no.3 (2014): 293-327.

doi:10.1080/09515089.2012.727135.

Searle, John. “Minds, Brains and Programs.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, no. 3 (1980): 417-57, doi:10.1017/S0140525X00005756.

Torretti, Roberto. "Observation." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37, no. 1 (1986): 1-23 . www.jstor.org/stable/686995.

Zamzow, Jennifer L. & Shaun Nichols. “Variations in Ethical Intuitions.” Philosophical Issues

19 (2009): 368-88.

Bogen, James. "Theory and Observation in Science." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2020), edited by Edward N. Zalta. Accessed July 07, 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/science-theory-observation/.

Ellerton, Peter. “What exactly is the scientific method and why do so many people get it wrong?” School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry - University of Queensland. Last modified November 30, 2016. Accessed June 17, 2020.

https://hpi.uq.edu.au/article/2016/09/what-exactly-scientific-method-and-why-do-so-many-pe ople-get-it-wrong.

Hetherington, Stephen. "Gettier Problems." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed July 05, 2020, https:// www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/.

“Random and Systematic Errors.” Mathematics & Statistics | Texas Tech University. Accessed July 06, 2020, http://www.math.ttu.edu/~gilliam/ttu/s08/m1300_s08/downloads

/errors.pdf.

“Random vs Systematic Error.” UMD Department of Physics - UMD Physics. Accessed July 06, 2020. https:// www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/Error Analysis.html.

News articles

Chalmers, Matthew. "The roots and fruits of string theory." CERN Courier. October 29, 2018. Accessed July 11, 2020. https://cerncourier.com/a/the-roots-and-fruits-of-string-theory/.

Connor, Steve. “The core of truth behind Sir Isaac Newton’s apple.” The Independent. January 18, 2010. Accessed June 18, 2020. https:// www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ the-core-of-truth-behind-sir-isaac-newtons-apple-1870915.html.

• Coronavirus
• Covid-19 In-depth
• Navigate Bermuda
• RG Fantasy League
• Classifieds
• Drive For Change
• Terms of Service

BHS students win honours in global essay competition

Sienna Spurling learnt about embryonic stem cell research in biology class at the Bermuda High School.

The 14-year-old was intrigued by the controversy. Embryonic stem cells are the building blocks of the body and can become any kind of cell. Scientists want to use them to research a range of diseases but harvesting them kills the embryo.

“There is a global debate with so many different views political, religious, and scientific,” she said. “It is very similar to the abortion debate in that there are opposing pro-life and pro-choice camps.”

Two thousand words on the topic won her a distinction in the prestigious John Locke Institute 2023 Global Essay Competition , based in Oxford, England.

Her classmate, Joy Yammine, also received a distinction in the Under-15 category; 13-year-old Aditi Varwandkar was shortlisted.

Each year 19,000 students from around the world enter the competition; 100 are shortlisted. Three winners are chosen; the top 15 per cent receive distinctions.

Essays were judged on the writer’s understanding of the relevant material, the use of evidence, quality of argumentation, originality, structure, writing style and persuasive force.

The contest was named for the English philosopher John Locke and asks students 18 and under to ponder questions such as why John Locke is considered the father of liberalism; why safety is more important than fun; and if you had $10 billion, how would you use it to make the world better.

Sienna and Joy wrote in response to the question, what is something important that people are often wrong about?

Joy took a philosophical angle, making her essay about happiness.

“It is something I have been interested in for a while,” she said. “My essay was about how people pursue happiness. Often happiness is looked at as a destination, when it is really a journey. It is not a tangible feeling. You do not know if you have reached happiness.”

The 14-year-old looked at the correlation between money and happiness.

“Beyond the point where all your basic needs are met and you are comfortable with food and shelter, there is no correlation with happiness,” she said. “Money does not make you any more happy.

“In my conclusion, I said that if you want to pursue happiness over a long period of time, you first need to find fulfilment, and contentment.”

Aditi tackled the question what, if anything, do parents owe their children?

“My take on it was that a parent owes their child the best life possible and the tools to succeed in life,” she said.

The teenager discussed central things that children need, such as food, water, clothing, and love. She felt they also needed practice for the real world and tools such as education.

“All children deserve a parent but not all parents deserve a child,” Aditi said. “It’s just about making sure that you’re in the position where you can give your child that better life.”

Their prize was a weekend seminar at Oxford University and admission to a prizegiving reception and gala dinner there.

The girls were scheduled to be in England for the weekend of September 16, but Hurricane Lee intervened, brushing past Bermuda with high waves and power cuts.

“Our flights were pushed back,” said Sienna. “Joy and I arrived a day late.”

That meant they missed the gala dinner and workshops arranged for the Saturday morning.

“At least we got to go to most of the seminars and the main award ceremony on Saturday evening at the Sheldonian Theatre,” Joy said. “That was really great.”

The awards ceremony was very formal.

“They don’t make you walk across the stage to receive your certificate [but] they call your name,” Sienna said. “It is very exciting to see so many people from around the world.”

It was her second time attending after she was shortlisted last year for an essay on taxes.

“We were told we were in the room where students take exams,” Sienna said. “There was a giant clock on the wall. The instructor told us that if we went to Oxford this would be one of the most stressful places for us.”

Seminar topics covered everything from essay writing, to tips on the United Kingdom university application process, to application to Oxford and Cambridge. The winning students also shared their essays.

“Getting into Oxford or Cambridge is not my main goal but that was very interesting,” Sienna said. “There were lots of people at the awards ceremony. It was good that BHS could be represented.”

Students took part in the competition with the help of BHS global politics and history teacher Amy Dingley-Jones.

“I’ve directed students to the John Locke essay prize for the last eight or nine years while working in different countries,” she said.

She added that the competition was a great opportunity for students to explore subjects they were interested in.

“They have to cut it down and structure it in a way that is readable but also different to the other thousands of entries,” Ms Dingley-Jones said. “They also have to give references. It is really impressive that they have been not only shortlisted but received distinctions, as well.”

Reading and writing about embryonic stem cell research cemented Sienna’s fascination with science. “I might go into biology or medicine,” she said.

Joy would like to take courses in psychology. “As a career, I might go into medicine or dentistry,” she said.

Meanwhile, Aditi was also considering psychology, or law.

• For more information on the John Locke Institute Global Essay Competition see www.johnlockeinstitute.com/essay-competition

You must be Registered or Signed in to post comment or to vote.

• Electronic Edition
• Registration
• Privacy Policy

Summer 2024 Admissions Open Now. Sign up for upcoming live information sessions here (featuring former and current Admission Officers at Havard and UPenn).

Discourse, debate, and analysis

Cambridge re:think essay competition 2024.

Competition Opens: 15th January, 2024

Essay Submission Deadline: 10th May, 2024 Result Announcement: 20th June, 2024 Award Ceremony and Dinner at the University of Cambridge: 30th July, 2024

We welcome talented high school students from diverse educational settings worldwide to contribute their unique perspectives to the competition.

Entry to the competition is free.

About the Competition

The spirit of the Re:think essay competition is to encourage critical thinking and exploration of a wide range of thought-provoking and often controversial topics. The competition covers a diverse array of subjects, from historical and present issues to speculative future scenarios. Participants are invited to engage deeply with these topics, critically analysing their various facets and implications. It promotes intellectual exploration and encourages participants to challenge established norms and beliefs, presenting opportunities to envision alternative futures, consider the consequences of new technologies, and reevaluate longstanding traditions. 

Ultimately, our aim is to create a platform for students and scholars to share their perspectives on pressing issues of the past and future, with the hope of broadening our collective understanding and generating innovative solutions to contemporary challenges. This year’s competition aims to underscore the importance of discourse, debate, and critical analysis in addressing complex societal issues in nine areas, including:

Religion and Politics

Political science and law, linguistics, environment, sociology and philosophy, business and investment, public health and sustainability, biotechonology.

Artificial Intelligence 

Neuroengineering

2024 essay prompts.

This year, the essay prompts are contributed by distinguished professors from Harvard, Brown, UC Berkeley, Cambridge, Oxford, and MIT.

Essay Guidelines and Judging Criteria

Review general guidelines, format guidelines, eligibility, judging criteria.

Awards and Award Ceremony

Award winners will be invited to attend the Award Ceremony and Dinner hosted at the King’s College, University of Cambridge. The Dinner is free of charge for select award recipients.

Registration and Submission

Register a participant account today and submit your essay before the deadline.

Advisory Committee and Judging Panel

The Cambridge Re:think Essay Competition is guided by an esteemed Advisory Committee comprising distinguished academics and experts from elite universities worldwide. These committee members, drawn from prestigious institutions, such as Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, and MIT, bring diverse expertise in various disciplines.

They play a pivotal role in shaping the competition, contributing their insights to curate the themes and framework. Their collective knowledge and scholarly guidance ensure the competition’s relevance, academic rigour, and intellectual depth, setting the stage for aspiring minds to engage with thought-provoking topics and ideas.

We are honoured to invite the following distinguished professors to contribute to this year’s competition.

The judging panel of the competition comprises leading researchers and professors from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cambridge, and Oxford, engaging in a strictly double blind review process.

Keynote Speeches by 10 Nobel Laureates

We are beyond excited to announce that multiple Nobel laureates have confirmed to attend and speak at this year’s ceremony on 30th July, 2024 .

They will each be delivering a keynote speech to the attendees. Some of them distinguished speakers will speak virtually, while others will attend and present in person and attend the Reception at Cambridge.

Why has religion remained a force in a secular world? 

Professor Commentary:

Arguably, the developed world has become more secular in the last century or so. The influence of Christianity, e.g. has diminished and people’s life worlds are less shaped by faith and allegiance to Churches. Conversely, arguments have persisted that hold that we live in a post-secular world. After all, religion – be it in terms of faith, transcendence, or meaning – may be seen as an alternative to a disenchanted world ruled by entirely profane criteria such as economic rationality, progressivism, or science. Is the revival of religion a pale reminder of a by-gone past or does it provide sources of hope for the future?

‘Religion in the Public Sphere’ by Jürgen Habermas (European Journal of Philosophy, 2006)

In this paper, philosopher Jürgen Habermas discusses the limits of church-state separation, emphasizing the significant contribution of religion to public discourse when translated into publicly accessible reasons.

‘Public Religions in the Modern World’ by José Casanova (University Of Chicago Press, 1994)

Sociologist José Casanova explores the global emergence of public religion, analyzing case studies from Catholicism and Protestantism in Spain, Poland, Brazil, and the USA, challenging traditional theories of secularization.

‘The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere’ by Judith Butler, Jürgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, and Cornel West (Edited by Eduardo Mendieta and Jonathan VanAntwerpen, Columbia University Press, 2011)

This collection features dialogues by prominent intellectuals on the role of religion in the public sphere, examining various approaches and their impacts on cultural, social, and political debates.

‘Rethinking Secularism’ by Craig Calhoun, Mark Juergensmeyer, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen (Oxford University Press, 2011)

An interdisciplinary examination of secularism, this book challenges traditional views, highlighting the complex relationship between religion and secularism in contemporary global politics.

‘God is Back: How the Global Rise of Faith is Changing the World’ by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (Penguin, 2010)

Micklethwait and Wooldridge argue for the coexistence of religion and modernity, suggesting that religious beliefs can contribute to a more open, tolerant, and peaceful modern world.

‘Multiculturalism’ by Tariq Modood (Polity Press, 2013)

Sociologist Tariq Modood emphasizes the importance of multiculturalism in integrating diverse identities, particularly in post-immigration contexts, and its role in shaping democratic citizenship.

‘God’s Agents: Biblical Publicity in Contemporary England’ by Matthew Engelke (University of California Press, 2013)

In this ethnographic study, Matthew Engelke explores how a group in England seeks to expand the role of religion in the public sphere, challenging perceptions of religion in post-secular England.

Gene therapy is a medical approach that treats or prevents disease by correcting the underlying genetic problem. Is gene therapy better than traditional medicines? What are the pros and cons of using gene therapy as a medicine? Is gene therapy justifiable?

Especially after Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, gene therapy is getting more and more interesting approach to cure. That’s why that could be interesting to think about. I believe that students will enjoy and learn a lot while they are investigating this topic.

The Hall at King’s College, Cambridge

The Hall was designed by William Wilkins in the 1820s and is considered one of the most magnificent halls of its era. The first High Table dinner in the Hall was held in February 1828, and ever since then, the splendid Hall has been where members of the college eat and where formal dinners have been held for centuries.

The Award Ceremony and Dinner will be held in the Hall in the evening of  30th July, 2024.

Stretching out down to the River Cam, the Back Lawn has one of the most iconic backdrop of King’s College Chapel. 

The early evening reception will be hosted on the Back Lawn with the iconic Chapel in the background (weather permitting). 

King’s College Chapel

With construction started in 1446 by Henry VI and took over a century to build, King’s College Chapel is one of the most iconic buildings in the world, and is a splendid example of late Gothic architecture. 

Attendees are also granted complimentary access to the King’s College Chapel before and during the event. 

Confirmed Nobel Laureates

Dr Thomas R. Cech

The nobel prize in chemistry 1989 , for the discovery of catalytic properties of rna.

Thomas Robert Cech is an American chemist who shared the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Sidney Altman, for their discovery of the catalytic properties of RNA. Cech discovered that RNA could itself cut strands of RNA, suggesting that life might have started as RNA. He found that RNA can not only transmit instructions, but also that it can speed up the necessary reactions.

He also studied telomeres, and his lab discovered an enzyme, TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase), which is part of the process of restoring telomeres after they are shortened during cell division.

As president of Howard Hughes Medical Institute, he promoted science education, and he teaches an undergraduate chemistry course at the University of Colorado

Sir Richard J. Roberts

The nobel prize in medicine 1993 .

F or the discovery of split genes

During 1969–1972, Sir Richard J. Roberts did postdoctoral research at Harvard University before moving to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where he was hired by James Dewey Watson, a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and a fellow Nobel laureate. In this period he also visited the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology for the first time, working alongside Fred Sanger. In 1977, he published his discovery of RNA splicing. In 1992, he moved to New England Biolabs. The following year, he shared a Nobel Prize with his former colleague at Cold Spring Harbor Phillip Allen Sharp.

His discovery of the alternative splicing of genes, in particular, has had a profound impact on the study and applications of molecular biology. The realisation that individual genes could exist as separate, disconnected segments within longer strands of DNA first arose in his 1977 study of adenovirus, one of the viruses responsible for causing the common cold. Robert’s research in this field resulted in a fundamental shift in our understanding of genetics, and has led to the discovery of split genes in higher organisms, including human beings.

Dr Aaron Ciechanover

The nobel prize in chemistry 2004 .

F or the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation

Aaron Ciechanover is one of Israel’s first Nobel Laureates in science, earning his Nobel Prize in 2004 for his work in ubiquitination. He is honored for playing a central role in the history of Israel and in the history of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology.

Dr Ciechanover is currently a Technion Distinguished Research Professor in the Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute at the Technion. He is a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the Russian Academy of Sciences and is a foreign associate of the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 2008, he was a visiting Distinguished Chair Professor at NCKU, Taiwan. As part of Shenzhen’s 13th Five-Year Plan funding research in emerging technologies and opening “Nobel laureate research labs”, in 2018 he opened the Ciechanover Institute of Precision and Regenerative Medicine at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen campus.

Dr Robert Lefkowitz

The nobel prize in chemistry 2012 .

F or the discovery of G protein-coupled receptors

Robert Joseph Lefkowitz is an American physician (internist and cardiologist) and biochemist. He is best known for his discoveries that reveal the inner workings of an important family G protein-coupled receptors, for which he was awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize for Chemistry with Brian Kobilka. He is currently an Investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute as well as a James B. Duke Professor of Medicine and Professor of Biochemistry and Chemistry at Duke University.

Dr Lefkowitz made a remarkable contribution in the mid-1980s when he and his colleagues cloned the gene first for the β-adrenergic receptor, and then rapidly thereafter, for a total of 8 adrenergic receptors (receptors for adrenaline and noradrenaline). This led to the seminal discovery that all GPCRs (which include the β-adrenergic receptor) have a very similar molecular structure. The structure is defined by an amino acid sequence which weaves its way back and forth across the plasma membrane seven times. Today we know that about 1,000 receptors in the human body belong to this same family. The importance of this is that all of these receptors use the same basic mechanisms so that pharmaceutical researchers now understand how to effectively target the largest receptor family in the human body. Today, as many as 30 to 50 percent of all prescription drugs are designed to “fit” like keys into the similarly structured locks of Dr Lefkowitz’ receptors—everything from anti-histamines to ulcer drugs to beta blockers that help relieve hypertension, angina and coronary disease.

Dr Lefkowitz is among the most highly cited researchers in the fields of biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and clinical medicine according to Thomson-ISI.

Dr Joachim Frank

The nobel prize in chemistry 2017 .

F or developing cryo-electron microscopy

Joachim Frank is a German-American biophysicist at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate. He is regarded as the founder of single-particle cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM), for which he shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2017 with Jacques Dubochet and Richard Henderson. He also made significant contributions to structure and function of the ribosome from bacteria and eukaryotes.

In 1975, Dr Frank was offered a position of senior research scientist in the Division of Laboratories and Research (now Wadsworth Center), New York State Department of Health,where he started working on single-particle approaches in electron microscopy. In 1985 he was appointed associate and then (1986) full professor at the newly formed Department of Biomedical Sciences of the University at Albany, State University of New York. In 1987 and 1994, he went on sabbaticals in Europe, one to work with Richard Henderson, Laboratory of Molecular Biology Medical Research Council in Cambridge and the other as a Humboldt Research Award winner with Kenneth C. Holmes, Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg. In 1998, Dr Frank was appointed investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). Since 2003 he was also lecturer at Columbia University, and he joined Columbia University in 2008 as professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics and of biological sciences.

Dr Barry C. Barish

The nobel prize in physics 2017 .

For the decisive contributions to the detection of gravitational waves

Dr Barry Clark Barish is an American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate. He is a Linde Professor of Physics, emeritus at California Institute of Technology and a leading expert on gravitational waves.

In 2017, Barish was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics along with Rainer Weiss and Kip Thorne “for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves”. He said, “I didn’t know if I would succeed. I was afraid I would fail, but because I tried, I had a breakthrough.”

In 2018, he joined the faculty at University of California, Riverside, becoming the university’s second Nobel Prize winner on the faculty.

In the fall of 2023, he joined Stony Brook University as the inaugural President’s Distinguished Endowed Chair in Physics.

In 2023, Dr Barish was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Biden in a White House ceremony.

Dr Harvey J. Alter

The nobel prize in medicine 2020 .

For the discovery of Hepatitis C virus

Dr Harvey J. Alter is an American medical researcher, virologist, physician and Nobel Prize laureate, who is best known for his work that led to the discovery of the hepatitis C virus. Alter is the former chief of the infectious disease section and the associate director for research of the Department of Transfusion Medicine at the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. In the mid-1970s, Alter and his research team demonstrated that most post-transfusion hepatitis cases were not due to hepatitis A or hepatitis B viruses. Working independently, Alter and Edward Tabor, a scientist at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, proved through transmission studies in chimpanzees that a new form of hepatitis, initially called “non-A, non-B hepatitis” caused the infections, and that the causative agent was probably a virus. This work eventually led to the discovery of the hepatitis C virus in 1988, for which he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2020 along with Michael Houghton and Charles M. Rice.

Dr Alter has received recognition for the research leading to the discovery of the virus that causes hepatitis C. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, the highest award conferred to civilians in United States government public health service, and the 2000 Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research.

Dr Ardem Patapoutian

The nobel prize in medicine 2021 .

For discovering how pressure is translated into nerve impulses

Dr Ardem Patapoutian is an Lebanese-American molecular biologist, neuroscientist, and Nobel Prize laureate of Armenian descent. He is known for his work in characterising the PIEZO1, PIEZO2, and TRPM8 receptors that detect pressure, menthol, and temperature. Dr Patapoutian is a neuroscience professor and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California. In 2021, he won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine jointly with David Julius.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why should I participate in the Re:think essay competition? 

The Re:think Essay competition is meant to serve as fertile ground for honing writing skills, fostering critical thinking, and refining communication abilities. Winning or participating in reputable contests can lead to recognition, awards, scholarships, or even publication opportunities, elevating your academic profile for college applications and future endeavours. Moreover, these competitions facilitate intellectual growth by encouraging exploration of diverse topics, while also providing networking opportunities and exposure to peers, educators, and professionals. Beyond accolades, they instil confidence, prepare for higher education demands, and often allow you to contribute meaningfully to societal conversations or causes, making an impact with your ideas.

Who is eligible to enter the Re:think essay competition?  

As long as you’re currently attending high school, regardless of your location or background, you’re eligible to participate. We welcome students from diverse educational settings worldwide to contribute their unique perspectives to the competition.

Is there any entry fee for the competition? 

There is no entry fee for the competition. Waiving the entry fee for our essay competition demonstrates CCIR’s dedication to equity. CCIR believes everyone should have an equal chance to participate and showcase their talents, regardless of financial circumstances. Removing this barrier ensures a diverse pool of participants and emphasises merit and creativity over economic capacity, fostering a fair and inclusive environment for all contributors.

Subscribe for Competition Updates

If you are interested to receive latest information and updates of this year’s competition, please sign up here.

2022 Winning Essay by Theodora McGee

2022 Winning Essay List of Winners, Finalists, Semifinalists, and Honorable Mentions

José Tomás Canales: An Early Voice for Reform

By Theodora McGee Moorestown High School in Moorestown, New Jersey

While the 2020 death of George Floyd focused the nation’s attention on the inequalities in law enforcement, this is not the first time police brutality and racism have been put on trial. Over 100 years ago, José Tomás Canales, a representative in the Texas State House, took a stand against violent acts by law enforcement. In 1919, Canales accused the Texas Rangers of killing innocent Mexican-Americans in South Texas. In the early 1900s, Texan law enforcement officers and the Texas Rangers responded to Mexican raids into Texas with extreme violence, killing not only raiders, but also Tejanos, landowners who had become American citizens when the  Texas-Mexico border shifted south (Lira Ramirez). It is estimated that the Rangers killed up to 5,000 Hispanics between 1914 and 1919 (Rangers and Outlaws). On January 15, 1919, Canales introduced a bill in the state legislature to address the violence by reforming the Rangers (Victoria Smith). The bill failed, but an investigation of abuses by the Texas Rangers was launched. Through his bill and the role he played in the subsequent investigation, Canales exhibited remarkable personal and political courage.

Canales' main obstacle in his pursuit of reform was lack of support for his people. Despite delivering impassioned speeches to gather support from his colleagues, he encountered almost unanimous resistance in the legislature (Lira Ramirez). As the only Latino in the legislature, Canales' ethnicity contributed to his isolation. During his years in the House, Canales found himself distanced from “leading Caucasian men who called him a ‘greaser from Brownsville.’” “His ethnicity generated an incredible hostility” (Lira Ramirez).

The lack of legislative support for Canales' bill reflected lack of public interest in the issue. The press was apathetic towards violence against Tejanos; “the discovery of Mexicans’ dead bodies had reached the point where it created little or no interest to media outlets” (Victoria Smith). The public, which tolerated violence by law enforcement, felt that Canales was blowing the issue out of proportion. Both politicians and the public perceived Canales’ reform proposals as extreme (Lira Ramirez).

Canales also faced an uphill battle because he was criticizing a well-liked organization. Canales was strongly criticized for attacking “an idealized force” that protected the public (Lira Ramirez). The judicial system had a history of turning a blind eye to the Rangers’ violence (Monica Martinez). The Rangers also enjoyed the support of prominent politicians, some of whom served on their defense team for the investigation.

Faced with opposition from fellow legislators and an unsupportive public, it became clear that pursuing reforms would jeopardize Canales' political future. Commitment to reform threatened his relationship with Canales' most influential political ally, Texas Governor William Hobby. Canales was personally loyal to Hobby and actively supported his election. When the Hobby administration fought against the reform bill, however, Canales did not back down (Sonia Hernandez and John Moran Gonzalez).

By refusing to abandon his reform efforts, Canales also put his life on the line. Advocates of previous efforts to reform the Rangers had been assaulted, including one attorney who had been pistol-whipped by a Ranger (Rebecca Onion). Canales himself was accosted on the street and threatened with violence by a prominent Texas Ranger who warned, “You are hot-footing it here, between here and Austin and complaining to the Governor and the Adjutant General about the Rangers, and I am here to tell you that if you don’t stop that you are going to get hurt” (Proceedings). At one point, Canales expressed his belief that if his efforts were not successful, “he would not live another six months” (Sonia Hernandez and John Moran Gonzalez).

Canales' reform bill failed when the legislature concluded there was a lack of evidence of the Rangers’ misdeeds. During the investigation that followed, the Rangers’ defense team twisted the review of the Rangers’ abuses into a debate over whether the Rangers should be disbanded. The other primary defense strategy was attacking Canales' credibility and integrity. He was painted “as a delusional, hypocritical shill for ‘larger interests’ and as an unpatriotic Mexican, with all the negative connotations the term held at the time.” (Richard Ribb). After twelve days of testimony, the investigation concluded that the Rangers should not be disbanded, though they acknowledged a “‘gross violation of both civil and criminal laws’” (Victoria Smith). The legislature then passed a watered-down reform bill that placed fewer restrictions on the Rangers.

Canales' efforts to reform the Texas Rangers had repercussions for Texas history, for the Rangers, and for Canales himself. The “Proceedings,” the official transcript of the investigation, provided an official documentation of racial violence perpetrated against Mexicans and Tejanos, thus memorializing the voices of the witnesses.

 Although the bill that ultimately passed did not contain a number of the reforms Canales had fought for, the resulting reforms and attention drawn to the issue resulted in a decrease in Ranger violence against Mexicans and Tejanos. There were even instances when the Rangers stopped racially fueled violence by private citizens (Victoria Smith). The investigation also increased public awareness and outrage by the press. After the investigation ended, the prominent Dallas Morning News concluded that “only Canales' courage and sense of responsibility prevented the continuation of ‘shocking and intolerable conditions’” (Sonia Hernandez and John Moran Gonzalez).

While Canales' fight to reform the Texas Rangers helped reduce violence against Mexicans and Tejanos, it spelled the end to his political career. Due to his diminished status in the legislature and the threats against him, Canales decided not to seek re-election to the Texas House (Lira Ramirez). This was not the end for Canales’ public contributions, however, as he continued to fight for equal rights in education, politics, and society (Sonia Hernandez and John Moran Gonzalez).

José Tomás Canales was “willing to meet crushing defeat rather than compromise his principles” (John F. Kennedy). By initiating and then persevering in his efforts to prevent violence against Mexicans and Tejanos, Canales exhibited extraordinary personal and political courage. Despite threats of physical violence and the near certain end of his political career, José Tomás Canales took a stand against the misuse of official power, thus serving as an inspiration to current and future politicians.

Works Cited

Canales, J. T. (Jose Tomas), et al. “Proceedings of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House in the Investigation of the Texas State Ranger Force, Volume I.” University of Texas Rio Grande Valley University Library Special Collections & Archives , https://scholarworks.utrgv.edu/lrgv/10/.

Hernández Sonia, et al. “José Tomás Canales and the Paradox of Power.” Reverberations of Racial Violence: Critical Reflections on the History of the Border , University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 2021, pp. 168–187.

“The History of Racial Violence on the Mexico-Texas Border.” Refusing to Forget , 17 Sept.2021, https://refusingtoforget.org/the-history/.

Kennedy, John F. Profiles in Courage . Harper, 1961.

Martinez, Monica Muñoz. “Recuperating Histories of Violence in the Americas: Vernacular History-Making on the US–Mexico Border.” American Quarterly , vol. 66, no. 3, 2014, pp. 661–689., https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2014.0040.

Onion, Rebecca. “America's Lost History of Border Violence.” Slate Magazine, Slate , 5 May 2016, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/texas-finally-begins-to-grapple-with-its-ugly-history-of-border-violence-against-mexican-americans.html.

Ramirez, Lira. “José T. Canales, Conflict and Compromise, Tejano Identity in Politics,” Senior Division Historical Paper, National History Day, Texas State Library and Archives Commission , 2018, https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/arc/thrab/2018liraramirez.pdf.

“Rangers and Outlaws.” Texas State Library and Archives Commission , 10 Apr. 2019, https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/law/index.html.

Ribb, Richard. “A Reader’s Guide to the ‘Proceedings of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House in the Investigation of the Texas State Ranger Force’ (1919).” Refusing to Forget , Aug. 2020, https://refusingtoforget.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/ENDNOTESReaders-Guide-to-the-Canales-Investigation.doc.pdf

Smith, Victoria. “The Canales Investigation: A Turning Point for the Texas Rangers.” The Measure: An Undergraduate Research Journal, Sam Houston State University , 9 Sept. 2020, https://measure-ojs-shsu.tdl.org/measure/index.php/measure/article/view/59.