In the tower library of his family château in the Dordogne, Michel de Montaigne inscribed Greek and Latin maxims on the ceiling beams above his writing desk. One from Sextus Empiricus read: "To any reason an equal reason can be opposed." Another, from Pliny the Elder: "There is nothing certain except that nothing is certain." It was 1571, and the retired magistrate was embarking on an unprecedented intellectual project—an attempt to capture the shifting, contradictory, irreducibly particular nature of a single human consciousness. The essays he produced over the next two decades would invent a literary form and establish a radical proposition: that the careful examination of one's own idiosyncratic experience could reveal something universal about human existence.

Four and a half centuries later, more than a million American high school seniors face a not dissimilar task. The Common Application essay—650 words maximum, submitted to nearly a thousand colleges and universities—asks young people to do what Montaigne spent twenty years attempting: to render themselves knowable through the written word. The seven prompts available to applicants in the 2025-2026 cycle range from questions of identity and obstacle to intellectual passion and gratitude. But beneath their varied surfaces lies a single, Montaignian challenge: Can you reveal, through the particular textures of your lived experience, something both genuinely individual and recognizably human?

This challenge has grown more urgent and more fraught. The advent of large language models capable of producing fluent, competent prose has transformed the essay from a demonstration of writing skill into something more fundamental—a test of authentic self-knowledge. Admissions officers increasingly report that they can detect essays that read as "polished but hollow," technically proficient but lacking what one counselor called "the fingerprints of a real person thinking." In an era when artificial intelligence can simulate competence, authenticity has become the scarcest commodity.

Yet authenticity is precisely what cannot be manufactured. The question facing every applicant is not merely what to write, but how to think about oneself honestly enough to produce writing that resonates as true. This is more difficult than it sounds. Most seventeen-year-olds—most people of any age—have not spent substantial time in systematic self-examination. The essay demands, in a compressed period, the cultivation of a capacity that philosophers and essayists have treated as the work of a lifetime.

• • •

The philosopher Charles Taylor has written extensively about what he calls the "ethics of authenticity"—the modern ideal that each person should discover and express their own unique way of being human. This ideal, Taylor notes, emerged from the Romantic period and has become so embedded in contemporary culture that we rarely examine its assumptions or its difficulties. We believe, almost reflexively, that we have "true selves" waiting to be discovered and expressed, and that self-expression is inherently valuable.

The college essay embodies this faith while also testing it. The prompts invite applicants to share stories that reveal their identity, their values, their particular perspective on the world. But as anyone who has attempted genuine self-reflection knows, the self is not a fixed object waiting to be described. Montaigne understood this acutely: "My self is changeable and fragmented," he wrote, and "the valorization and acceptance of these traits is the only guarantee of authenticity and integrity."

The essay, then, requires not the discovery of a static truth but the construction of a coherent narrative from the flux of experience. This is why the prompts matter less than applicants typically assume. Admissions counselors consistently advise students to identify their most meaningful stories first and select an appropriate prompt afterward. The prompt is a frame; the essay is a portrait. And the portrait's power depends not on which frame contains it but on whether the subject has been honestly observed.

Consider the seven prompts available for the 2025-2026 application cycle. The first asks about "a background, identity, interest, or talent" so meaningful that the application would be incomplete without it. The second concerns setbacks and failure. The third invites reflection on a time when the applicant challenged a belief or idea. The fourth—the newest addition, introduced in the post-pandemic era—asks about unexpected gratitude. The fifth concerns personal growth and realization. The sixth explores intellectual obsession, those topics so engaging that time dissolves. The seventh offers complete freedom: any topic of the applicant's choosing.

These prompts can be understood as seven doors into the same room. Each offers a different angle of approach, but all lead to the same destination: a moment of genuine self-revelation that illuminates character. The most popular choice, Prompt One with its broad invitation to discuss identity, carries the greatest risk of cliché precisely because its breadth encourages superficiality. Essays that begin "As a first-generation American..." or "Ever since I was young..." have become so common that they must work twice as hard to escape the gravity of convention.

The paradox is that the prompts meant to guide students often lead them astray. Applicants focus on finding the "right" prompt rather than the right story. They treat the essay as a puzzle to be solved rather than an exploration to be undertaken. The result, frequently, is writing that addresses the prompt's letter while missing its spirit—essays that describe backgrounds without revealing perspectives, that recount obstacles without illuminating character.

• • •

What It Means to Write Honestly

What does it mean to write about oneself honestly? The personal essay, as a literary form, has always grappled with this question. Montaigne insisted on what he called "the immediacy and the authenticity" of his testimony. He described his essays as "consubstantial with his natural self"—not performances of selfhood but records of actual thinking. Yet he also revised obsessively, adding marginalia and entire passages to earlier essays as his views evolved. The authentic self, it seems, is not discovered once but continuously constructed.

This tension illuminates the challenge facing applicants. The essay must sound natural and spontaneous while also being carefully crafted. It must reveal genuine vulnerability while maintaining appropriate boundaries. It must be specific enough to be memorable and universal enough to resonate. These competing demands cannot be reconciled through technique alone. They require what the essayist Phillip Lopate calls "the willingness to examine one's life, not to reduce it to a recitation of events, but to reveal its continuing meaning."

The distinction between recitation and revelation marks the boundary between competent and compelling essays. Recitation produces essays that describe: I did this, then this happened, then I learned that. Revelation produces essays that embody: here is how a particular moment felt from the inside, here is what it disclosed about who I am, here is why it still matters. The difference is not merely stylistic but epistemological. Recitation treats experience as material to be reported; revelation treats experience as material to be understood.

Consider the role of specificity. Admissions counselors universally advise applicants to be concrete and particular rather than abstract and general. This is good counsel, but the reasons behind it often go unexplained. Specificity matters because abstract claims about oneself—"I am passionate about helping others," "I learned the value of perseverance"—could be made by almost anyone. They reveal nothing distinctive. But a particular image, a specific scene, an individual moment—these cannot be replicated. They carry the weight of actual lived experience.

An essay about the smell of a grandmother's kitchen is not interchangeable with an essay about the concept of family heritage. An essay about the precise embarrassment of mispronouncing a word in a second language is not interchangeable with an essay about the challenges of bilingualism. The concrete detail functions as what might be called a parable in miniature—a small, specific story that opens onto larger meanings without stating them directly.

The writer Ethan Sawyer, who has analyzed thousands of successful application essays, describes this as the difference between the "one biscuit shop" essay and the "my life experiences" essay. The former zooms in on a particular place, time, and sensory experience; the latter surveys the landscape from such altitude that no individual feature becomes visible. The paradox is that the narrow focus produces broader resonance. By making the experience vivid and particular, the writer invites readers to find their own memories and meanings in the story.

• • •

AI and the Question of Authorship

Into this already demanding task has arrived a new complication. Since the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, students and admissions offices have been navigating uncharted territory. Surveys suggest that roughly a third of applicants now use AI tools in some capacity during the essay process. Many institutions have begun employing detection software, though these tools remain imperfect and prone to false positives. The Common Application itself considers the use of AI to generate essays a form of fraud under its policies.

The question of how to use AI appropriately in essay writing is not merely regulatory but philosophical. It touches on fundamental questions about authorship, authenticity, and the nature of the writing process itself. A useful analogy, suggested by several admissions counselors, is to consider what forms of human assistance have always been acceptable. Parents, teachers, and counselors have long helped students brainstorm, edit, and refine their essays. Grammar-checking tools have been used for decades. The question is where AI falls on this spectrum.

The emerging consensus distinguishes between AI as an editing tool and AI as a ghostwriter. Using AI to check grammar, suggest structural improvements, or generate brainstorming prompts parallels traditional forms of assistance. Using AI to draft substantial portions of the essay—to produce text that the student then lightly edits—constitutes something more problematic. CalTech's guidelines offer a clarifying rule of thumb: if you would not ask a trusted adult to perform the task, you should not ask an AI to perform it either. A parent might check your spelling; they should not write your essay for you.

This distinction matters not only ethically but practically. Experienced admissions readers report that AI-generated essays exhibit telltale patterns: vagueness where specificity is needed, generic examples, an absence of the quirks and imperfections that mark genuine voice. The Washington Post conducted an experiment in which an Ivy League admissions counselor reviewed essays without knowing which were AI-generated. He identified the AI essays by their lack of concrete detail, their tendency toward cliché, and their failure to sustain a coherent perspective.

The deeper issue is that the essay's purpose—to reveal something true and particular about the applicant—cannot be fulfilled by a tool that has no access to the applicant's actual experience. AI can simulate the conventions of personal essay writing. It can produce sentences that sound reflective and phrases that gesture toward insight. What it cannot do is remember the specific quality of light in your childhood bedroom or the exact words your grandfather used or the precise feeling of a particular failure. These are not stylistic elements to be imitated but the irreducible material of authentic self-expression.

• • •

New Prompts and What They Mean

The 2025-2026 application cycle introduces one significant change: the replacement of the COVID-19 question with a broader "Challenges and Circumstances" prompt. This optional section, limited to 250 words, asks applicants to describe external hardships that may have affected their education—family disruptions, housing instability, natural disasters, discrimination, caregiving responsibilities. The expansion reflects a recognition that adversity takes many forms and that the pandemic, while significant, was one challenge among many.

The new prompt serves a practical function: it provides space for applicants to explain anomalies in their records without forcing these explanations into the personal statement. A dip in grades during a family crisis, the absence of extracurricular activities during a period of housing instability, gaps that might otherwise raise questions—these can be addressed directly and factually in the Challenges and Circumstances section.

This division of labor clarifies something important about the personal statement itself. The main essay is not the place for explaining difficulties or providing context for weaknesses. It is the place for showing who you are when you are most fully yourself. Adversity can certainly appear in the personal statement, but the focus should be on what the experience revealed rather than what it imposed. As one counselor puts it, the goal is to present "a positive portrait of YOU, your passions, your growth, your transformation"—not to catalog hardships for sympathy.

The 650-word limit enforces this discipline. There is simply not enough space to both explain circumstances and reveal character. Applicants who try to do both often accomplish neither. The constraints of the form, frustrating as they may feel, serve a purpose: they force writers to make choices, to decide what matters most, to privilege depth over breadth. The Additional Information section has also been revised, with its word limit reduced from 650 to 300 words. This change discourages the tendency to treat the section as a second essay. It is now clearly a space for brief, factual clarifications.

• • •

What a Successful Essay Accomplishes

What, finally, should a successful essay accomplish? The question admits no universal answer, but certain principles have emerged from the accumulated wisdom of admissions readers, essay counselors, and the applicants themselves.

First, the essay should reveal rather than tell. This is not merely the familiar creative-writing advice to "show, don't tell," though that matters too. It is the deeper recognition that character is revealed through action, thought, and response rather than through assertion. An essay that claims "I am resilient" is less convincing than one that shows the writer persisting through a specific difficulty. Claims about oneself require evidence; the evidence takes the form of story.

Second, the essay should reflect genuine thinking. The most memorable essays are not those that present polished conclusions but those that capture the process of reflection itself. Montaigne understood that the essay form—the "attempt" or "trial," as the word's etymology suggests—is inherently exploratory. The writer does not know where the thinking will lead; the reader accompanies the writer in finding out. This quality of live thought, of mind in motion, distinguishes essays that linger in memory from those that slide away.

Third, vulnerability matters—but strategically. Admission to this principle requires care. The goal is not confession for its own sake but honesty in service of insight. The best essays acknowledge complexity, imperfection, and uncertainty. They do not present the writer as heroic or flawless. But they also maintain boundaries; there is a difference between revealing vulnerability and trauma-dumping, between honesty and oversharing. The distinction lies in purpose: vulnerability that serves understanding is welcome; vulnerability that seeks sympathy or shock is not.

Fourth, the essay should sound like the writer. This is perhaps the most elusive principle and the most important. Voice cannot be taught, only cultivated. It emerges from the particular rhythm of a person's thoughts, the words they naturally reach for, the way they see connections others miss. An essay written in a voice that feels performed—too formal, too casual, too relentlessly clever—fails at the fundamental task. Readers can sense when someone is posing. The practical implication is that revision should refine rather than replace the original voice. Many applicants, receiving feedback that their essay needs work, revise away whatever was distinctive about it in the first place. They sand down the rough edges, eliminate the idiosyncratic phrases, smooth everything into an acceptable blandness. This is precisely wrong. The goal of revision is to make the genuine voice clearer, not to substitute a generic voice that seems safer.

• • •

The Deeper Value of the Exercise

The college essay occupies a peculiar position in contemporary American culture. It asks adolescents to do in weeks what philosophers have spent lifetimes attempting: to render themselves knowable, to identify what is essential about their experience, to craft from the chaos of memory and identity a coherent and revealing account of who they are. The task is absurdly difficult, and the stakes—or so it seems to applicants—are terrifyingly high.

Yet there is something valuable in the attempt, regardless of outcome. The exercise of genuine self-examination, honestly undertaken, cultivates capacities that matter far beyond the admissions process. The ability to reflect on experience, to find meaning in the particular, to communicate something true about oneself—these are not merely useful for getting into college. They are essential for living a thoughtful life.

Montaigne, nearing the end of his essays, wrote that "every man carries the entire form of the human condition." What he meant, in part, is that the honest examination of any individual life, however ordinary, reveals truths that apply more broadly. The applicant who writes compellingly about Sunday dinners at their grandmother's house illuminates something about family and memory and loss that resonates beyond the particular circumstance. The applicant who captures the exact sensation of a specific failure helps readers understand their own failures better.

This is the deeper purpose of the personal essay, whether written at seventeen or seventy: not to impress but to illuminate, not to perform but to share, not to prove worthiness but to reveal humanity. The admissions process, with all its anxieties and pressures, can obscure this purpose. But the essay itself, approached with honesty and care, remains an invitation to do something genuinely worthwhile: to look at one's own life closely enough to understand what it means, and then to offer that understanding to others.

The seven prompts will be waiting when the application opens on August 1. They are seven doors into the same room, seven opportunities to attempt what cannot be taught but can be practiced: the art of being genuinely, specifically, illuminatingly oneself on the page.

Sources