stanford university essays

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

6 Stellar Stanford Essay Examples

What’s covered:, essay example #1 – letter to your future roommate, one-second videos, essay example #2 – letter to your future roommate, study and fun, essay example #3 – letter to your future roommate, k-pop and food, essay example #4 – something meaningful, 1984, essay example #5 – something meaningful, ramen, essay example #6 – significant challenge short answer, where to get your stanford essays edited.

Stanford is one of the most selective colleges in the nation, with an acceptance rate typically under 5%. If you want to snag a spot at this renowned university in sunny California, you’ll need to write standout essays.

Stanford is known for it’s short and whimsical prompts that give students a lot of freedom to let their creativity shine through. In this post, we will be going over three essays real students have submitted to Stanford to give you an idea of how to approach your essays. We will also share what each essay did well and where there is room for improvement.

Please note: Looking at examples of real essays students have submitted to colleges can be very beneficial to get inspiration for your essays. You should never copy or plagiarize from these examples when writing your own essays. Colleges can tell when an essay isn’t genuine and will not view students favorably if they plagiarized. 

Read our Stanford essay breakdown to get a comprehensive overview of this year’s supplemental prompts. 

Prompt: Virtually all of Stanford’s undergraduates live on campus. Write a note to your future roommate that reveals something about you or that will help your roommate—and us—get to know you better. (100-250 words)

Hey roomie!

I’m so excited to meet you and share our first year at Stanford, but I should probably warn you. By the end of fall quarter, I guarantee that you will be sick of hearing me ask, “Do you want to be in my one second?”

For the past couple of years, recording a one-second video every day has been my way of finding excitement in even the most boring days. I promise that while we’re roommates, my one-second clips will make every day an adventure.

Some of my personal favorites:

• Ice skating in Millennium Park in Chicago
• Watching Netflix with my 3 sisters (usually Jane the Virgin)
• Baking a cake in physics class
• Petting my 17-pound rabbit, or my 2-pound rabbit
• Family karaoke night featuring the High School Musical soundtrack and my terrible singing 
• Playing in Pep Band at basketball games with my best friends
• Winning Mario Kart (I am a self-proclaimed professional)
• Playing with a friend’s new puppy
• Selfies with my Target coworkers after handling an army of coupon moms

I’m excited to capture our first year together at Stanford, from Big Game to our first ski trip. Even on days where studying in our dorm seems like the highlight, I’ll suggest a spontaneous ice cream run so we’re not THAT lame.

So when I inevitably ask you to be in my one second, I promise that it’ll be worth it (and you can’t say I didn’t warn you).

Sincerely, 

Your soon-to-be bestie/adventure buddy/one-second-a-day-video-taking roommate

What The Essay Did Well

This is such a fun essay to read because it shows us who this student is outside of her academics and extracurriculars. There isn’t a single mention of her academic interests or the clubs and organizations she is in—ironically, that’s the strength of the essay! By focusing her essay around her one second a day video, it allows her to demonstrate to the reader her most natural self. Outside the confines of a classroom or pursuing extracurricular achievement, these are the things that bring her joy and make her interesting; conveying that idea is the exact point of Stanford asking this question.

Bulleting her most memorable one second videos is a great way to share a wide variety of stories without making the essay too dense. They are quick thoughts—not even fully formed sentences—but they all start with a verb to bring a sense of action to the essay. Not to mention, she was able to work in a good amount of humor. Including her “terrible singing ” at karaoke night, being a “ self-proclaimed professional ” at Mario Kart, and the “ army of coupon moms ” at her job isn’t necessary for each story, but adding it in gives admissions officers an extra little chuckle.

No space is wasted in this essay, even down to the sign-off. She could have ended by saying “ Sincerely, Sara “, but instead, she added an extra line to excitedly describe herself as “ Your soon-to-be bestie/adventure buddy/one-second-a-day-video-taking roommate.”  As if we didn’t get enough of a taste of her personality throughout, this student closes with a run-on thought that conveys her child-like enthusiasm at going to Stanford and meeting her roommate. 

What Could Be Improved

Overall, this is a really strong essay. That being said, there are a few sentences that could be reworked to be a bit more fun and align better with the rest of the essay.

For example, the starting off with an admission that her roommate might get sick of hearing about her one second videos is cute, but it could be made stronger by really leaning into it. “ Hi roomie! Here’s to hoping you aren’t ready to throw my phone out the third-floor window of Branner by finals!”  With this opening, we are immediately asking ourselves what could this student possibly be doing with her phone that would cause her roommate to chuck it out a window. It builds suspense and also adds humor. Not to mention, she would be including a dorm on campus to show she has thoroughly research life at Stanford.

Another sentence that could use some extra TLC is “ I promise that while we’re roommates, my one-second clips will make every day an adventure.”  Again, a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t stimulate the reader’s mind in the same way an example would. She goes into some of the one seconds they will capture at Stanford later on, but it wouldn’t hurt to add another example here. She could write something like this: “ With me everyday will be an adventure; I’ll have the clip of you trying scrambled eggs and strawberries at the dining hall for proof (trust me, it’s how they were meant to be eaten). “

Dear stranger (but hopefully future roomie),

Are you looking for someone that:

S ees you only at night when they are going to sleep?

T hrives being taciturn?

U nnerves you on the eve of your exams?

D oesn’t tell Moroccan fairy tales each night?

Y owls while sleeping?

A bhors lending you their clothes?

N ever nibbles on snacks and won’t bring you Moroccan cookies?

D oesn’t ask you to go for a walk on campus?

F idgets when you need help?

U proots a spider they cross without asking you for help?

N ot ready to sing with you if you play Beyonce’s songs?

Don’t fret if you said no to all of the above. That just means we are the perfect match because I am the opposite of everything I described above! It would be my great pleasure to introduce you to the person with whom you will not just share a room, but also have unforgettable moments. Be ready to spend nights laughing–it is not my fault if I keep you up all night with my jokes. Words cannot express how excited I am to find out what makes you, you! I’ve cleverly hidden our theme within my note. In case you didn’t notice, reread the first letter of each line.

P.S: It may be difficult for you to say the “kh” in my name, especially if you don’t speak Arabic or Spanish. So feel free to call me Yara.

This is a charming way to introduce yourself to a future roommate. Not only did they spell out all the ways they will be a loyal and dependable roommate, but they literally spelled out a secret message! Accomplishing this shows this student took extra time and care into crafting statements to add an extra layer of creativity.

This student also imbued aspects of their personality in these statements—once you flip it around. We see how important their Moroccan heritage is, as they look forward to sharing “ Moroccan fairytales each night ” and “ Moroccan cookies ” with their roommate. We see how caring they are when it comes to  “lending you clothes”  and not fidgeting “ when you need help. ” They also include some humor in some lines: “Yowls while sleeping.” Each sentence helps piece together different aspects of this student’s personality to help us put together a full picture.

Although the idea of presenting a bunch of contradictory statements puts a nice spin on the structure, be cautious about going this route if it gets too confusing for your reader. Certain lines create double negatives—” doesn’t tell Moroccan fairytales ,” “ never nibbles on snacks ,” “ not ready to sing with you “—that take the reader an extra second to wrap their head around what the student is actually trying to say. Admissions officers spend a very limited amount of time on each essay, so you don’t want to include any language that requires additional brain power to digest.

This essay is also missing the closing to the letter. The author includes “ Dear stranger ” and “ P.S. “, indicating they are writing the essay in the format of a letter. Their letter requires a closing statement and a sign-off of their name. Without them signing their name at the end of the essay, the P.S. they include doesn’t make as much sense. If the reader doesn’t know what their name is, how would they understand their nickname? 

Hey, future roommate!

As an INFJ personality type, I value my relationships and genuinely want to know you better:

How do you feel about music? I. Love. Music. My favorite genre is kpop, and since I am an avid kpop lover, I follow many groups (TXT and Twice being my favorites). I apologize in advance if you hear me blasting songs. Admittedly, getting lost in my own little world happens a lot. You can just ask me to tone it down. Or join in!

I am also a sucker for dramas. We could watch sweet heart aching love stories or historical ones together! Both are also my cup of tea.

Speaking of tea, what is your favorite drink to order? I tend to prefer sweet, bitter coffee and teas. I also like trying out new foods and making them. You know…you could be my taste tester. I like to consider myself an amateur cook. If we somehow miss the dining hours, no need to worry. With my portable bunsen stove, we can make hot pot in the dorm or quickly whip something up suitable to both our tastes.

As much as I love all food, Burmese food holds a special place in my heart. I would like to share with you my favorite foods: lahpet thoke (tea leaf salad) and ohn no khao swè (coconut noodle soup). Food is my love language, and I hope that we can share that same connection through exchanging and trying out new foods!

This essay packs a ton of information into just a few paragraphs. We learn about the author’s food and drink preferences, music taste, and favorite TV shows. The vivid language about food, drink, and cooking in particular makes the images of this student’s potential life at Stanford that much clearer and more compelling. 

Another especially strong element of this essay is the author’s personality and voice, which come through loud and clear in this essay. Through varied sentence structure and the way they phrase their stories, we get a great sense of this applicant’s friendliness and happy, enthusiastic style of engaging with their peers. 

Finally, college applications are by their nature typically quite dry affairs, and this kind of prompt is one of the few chances you might have to share certain parts of your personality that are truly essential to understanding who you are, but don’t come across in a transcript or activities list. This student does a great job taking advantage of this opportunity to showcase a truly new side of them that wouldn’t come across anywhere else in their application.

You wouldn’t, for example, want to just rehash all the APs you took or talk about being captain of your sports team. Firstly, because those probably aren’t the first things you’d talk about with your new roommate, and secondly, because that information doesn’t tell admissions officers anything they don’t already know. Instead, approach this prompt like this student did, and discuss aspects of who you are that help them understand who you are on a day to day basis—as the prompt itself hints at, the residential college experience is about much more than just class.

This is a great letter to a future roommate, but it’s important to remember that while the prompt is officially for future roommates, the essay is actually going to admissions committees. So, you want to  think carefully about what kinds of practices you mention in your essays. In most college dorms, students aren’t even supposed to light candles because it’s a fire hazard. So, while your dorm cooking skills might be very impressive, it’s probably not a good idea to advertise a plan to bring a portable stove to campus, as these kinds of things are often against dorm rules.

This may seem like nitpicking, but at a school as competitive as Stanford, you want to be extra careful to avoid saying anything that admissions officers might find off-putting, even subconsciously. For a more extreme example, you obviously wouldn’t want to talk about all the parties you plan on hosting. While this slip-up is much more minor, and the student was clearly well-intentioned, the overall genre of disregard for the rules is the same, and obviously not something you want to highlight in any college application.

Prompt: Tell us about something that is meaningful to you and why. (100-250 words)

I am an avid anti-annotationist; the mere idea of tainting the crisp white pages of any novel with dark imprints of my own thoughts is simply repulsive. However, I have one exception — my copy of George Orwell’s 1984, weathered and annotated in two languages. While victimized by uneven handwriting eating away at the margins, it is the only novel I still hold beloved despite its flaws. 

Two years before reading 1984, I was indulging in the novels of Dr. Seuss, not because of my preferences, but because my reading level was deemed an “A” — the reading level of a toddler. I was certainly anything but that; I was a fresh-off-the-plane immigrant and rising middle schooler who could barely name colors in English. 

After reading the likes of A Very Hungry Caterpillar like a madman, my next step was purchasing more advanced books in both English and Korean, so I could understand the nuance and missing details of novels after I initially read them in English. This crutch worked perfectly until George Orwell’s 1984 — the first novel I purchased and read without the training wheels of a translated copy. It took me weeks to finish the book; it was painfully slow, like a snail inching toward an arbitrary finish line. 

I read the novel twenty-seven times, each reading becoming faster and revealing more information. When I look at my copy of 1984, I still cringe at its weathered and tainted pages, but I can’t help admiring that initial portal between two literary worlds. 

This is undoubtedly an excellent writer who produced an exceptionally strong essay. Right from describing themself as an “ avid anti-annotationist, ” we can tell this is going to be different than you typical essay. While many students will choose something related to their academic or extracurricular passion, this essay choose a specific book. Although 1984 is so much more to them than simply a novel, as they reveal through the essay, the focus on an individual object as something meaningful is such a powerful image.

This student does a beautiful job conveying their journey through the symbol of 1984. They measure time using the book (“ Two years before reading 1984 “), and use well-known children’s novels like A Very Hungry Caterpillar and Dr. Seuss to convey just how far they came without explicitly needing to describe how behind they were. Describing reading 1984 without a translated copy as ditching “training wheels” further emphasizes their growth.

The meaningfulness of 1984 is reinforced through the focus on its “ weathered and tainted pages .” Admitting to the reader at the beginning that they hate marking up books, yet their favorite book is annotated from cover to cover, highlights how 1984 is so much more than a book to them. It is a symbol of their resilience, of their growth, and of a pivotal turning point in their lives. Although the student doesn’t say any of this in their essay, their skilled writing reveals all of it to the reader.

One of Stanford’s deepest values is intellectual vitality (in fact, there’s a whole separate prompt dedicated to the topic!). This student demonstrates this value through establishing a willingness to learn and a love of cross-cultural literature.  All the while, this student is authentic. There’s little posturing here intended to impress the admissions officers with the student’s resilience and deep love for the written word; instead, he is genuine in sharing a small but authentic part of his life.

This essay has very little that needs to be improved on, but there is one crucial question that would have been nice to have answered: why 1984? Out of all the books in the world, why was this the one this student decided to commit to as the first all-English novel? Was it just by chance, did a teacher encourage them to pick it up, or did the premise of the book speak to them? Whatever the reason, it would have been nice to know to further understand its significance.

While most people argue that the best invention is something mechanical or conceptual, I believe it’s the creation of instant ramen. There’s little time involvement, deliciousness, and convenience all included in one package. What more could one ask for? The nostalgia packed within instant ramen makes it a guilty pleasure I can’t live without. 

During a road trip to Yellowstone, this miracle meal followed my family as we took turns sharing an umbrella under the pouring rain and indulging it in its instant delicacy: we were shivering in the cold, but the heat of the spicy soup and the huge portion of springy noodles warmed our souls instantly. It was an unforgettable experience, and eating ramen has since then followed us to Disneyland, Crater Lake, and Space Needle, being incorporated in our frequent road trips. 

It has also come in handy during our wushu competition trips. Often, competitions ended at midnight, making it inconvenient to eat out. In these situations, the only essentials we needed were hot water and instant ramen packages, enough to satiate our spirits and hunger.

Instant ramen is also a way my mom and grandma express their care for me. On late nights of doing homework after wushu practice, I usually ate something—sometimes instant ramen—to have a smoother recovery. My mom and grandma usually paired instant ramen with extra toppings like homemade wontons or fish balls—their motto being “instant ramen always tastes better when someone makes it for you.

By picking such an unusual topic, this applicant grabs the attention and interest of readers straightaway. Picking something as commonplace and commercial as instant ramen and transforming it into a thoughtful story about family is a testament to this student’s ability to think outside the box and surprise admissions officers. It makes for an essay that’s both meaningful and memorable! 

Another great aspect of this response is how information-dense it is. We learn not just about the writer’s fondness for instant ramen, but about their family road trips, their participation in wushu, their close-knit extended family, and their culture. Even though some of these details come in the form of brief, almost throwaway lines, like briefly mentioning fishballs and wontons, they are clearly thoughtfully placed and designed to add depth and texture to the essay. 

While walking the line between maximizing every word available to you and having your essay be cohesive and easy to follow is tricky, this writer does a fantastic job of it. The details they include are all clearly relevant to their main theme of instant ramen, but also distinct enough that we get a comprehensive sense of who they are in just 250 words. Remember, even quick details can go a long way in enriching your overall description of your topic or theme.

This is a very strong essay, but there’s always room for improvement. The first paragraph of this essay, though a good general introduction that you might find in an academic essay, doesn’t actually say much about this applicant’s potential as a Stanford student. Remember, since your space is so limited in the college essay, you want every sentence, and really every word, to be teaching admissions officers something new about you.

Starting a story in media res, or in the middle of the action, can get the reader immersed in your story more quickly, and save you some words that you can then use to add details later on. Avoiding a broad overview in your first paragraph also allows you to get into the meat of your writing more quickly, which admissions officers will appreciate—remember, they’re reading dozens if not hundreds of applications a day, so the more efficient you can be in getting to your point, the better.

Everybody talks. The Neon Trees were right, everybody does indeed talk but in our society no one listens. Understandably, the inclination to be heard and understood jades our respect for others, resulting in us speaking over people to overpower them with our greatest tools, being our voices.

What The Response Did Well

This prompt is a textbook example of the “Global Issues” essay , but with an obvious catch: you have only 50 words to get your point across. With such limited space, this Stanford short answer supplement demands that applicants get their point across quickly and efficiently. This essay does a great job of grabbing one’s attention with an unusual hook that segues smoothly into the main topic. Along with that, the student demonstrates that they have a great vocabulary and sophisticated writing style in just a few sentences. 

While failing to communicate effectively indeed causes a great many problems, failure to listen is an incredibly broad challenge, and therefore, not the strongest choice for this short response. Remember, like with any other supplement, you want your response to teach Stanford admissions officers something about you. So, you ideally want to choose a specific subject that reflects both your knowledge of the world and your personal passions.

Again, your space is limited, but if this student had been even slightly more specific, we would have learned much more about their personality. For example, the sentence that starts with “understandably” could have instead read:

““Understandably, the inclination to be heard and understood jades our respect for others, which causes shortsightedness that, if nothing changes, will soon enough leave our air unbreathable and our water undrinkable.”

This version goes a step further, by not just speaking vaguely about nobody listening, but also pointing out a tangible consequence of this problem, which in turn demonstrates the student’s passion for environmentalism.

Do you want feedback on your Stanford essays? After rereading your essays countless times, it can be difficult to evaluate your writing objectively. That’s why we created our free Peer Essay Review tool , where you can get a free review of your essay from another student. You can also improve your own writing skills by reviewing other students’ essays. 

If you want a college admissions expert to review your essay, advisors on CollegeVine have helped students refine their writing and submit successful applications to top schools. Find the right advisor for you to improve your chances of getting into your dream school!

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, how to write stellar stanford essays: 3 expert tips.

College Essays

Are you hoping to be one of the less than 4% of students admitted to Stanford this year? If so, you'll need to write some amazing essays as part of your application.

In this article, we'll outline the different types of essays you need to write for your Stanford University application and teach you how to write an essay that will help you stand out from the thousands of other applicants. We'll also go over the five short answer questions that are part of the Stanford supplement.

So let's get started!

What Are the Stanford Essays?

Stanford requires that you complete a total of four essays as a part of your application for admission.

You'll need to answer one  prompt provided by the Common Application or Coalition Application , depending on which one you use to submit your Stanford application through. You can find more information about the Common Application essays here , and more info about the Coalition essay prompts here .

You'll also need to respond to three Stanford-specific short essay questions .

The Stanford essay prompts offer you plenty of opportunities to show off your qualifications as an applicant and wow the admissions committee.

2022-2023 Stanford Essay Prompts

You'll need to respond to three Stanford Questions for your Stanford supplement essays. You'll submit the Stanford supplement essays online with your Coalition or Common app.

You need to respond to all three of the Stanford essay prompts for your application. Each one of the Stanford essays has a 100-word minimum and a 250-word maximum.

Here are the 2022-2023 Stanford essay prompts:

#1 : The Stanford community is deeply curious and driven to learn in and out of the classroom. Reflect on an idea or experience that makes you genuinely excited about learning.

#2 : Virtually all of Stanford's undergraduates live on campus. Write a note to your future roommate that reveals something about you or that will help your roommate—and us—know you better.

#3 : Tell us about something that is meaningful to you, and why?

Stanford Essays Analyzed

In this section, we'll be looking at each of the three Stanford supplement essays in depth. Remember, every applicant must answer every one of the Stanford essay prompts, so you don't get to choose which essay you would like to write. You have to answer all three of the Stanford essay prompts well in order for your application to stand out.

Let's take a look at each of the three Stanford short essay questions and see how to write something meaningful for each.

Stanford Essay Prompt 1

The Stanford community is deeply curious and driven to learn in and out of the classroom. Reflect on an idea or experience that makes you genuinely excited about learning. (100 word min, 250 word max)

This Stanford essay prompt is very broad. The structure of the prompt indicates that the committee is interested in learning about your curiosity inside and outside of the classroom, so don't feel like you have to limit the lessons you talk about to ones that occur at school.

The most important thing to remember here is to be specific. The committee doesn't want you to wax poetic about the virtues of remaining eternally curious; they want to see how a real-life example has affected you.

For instance, instead of talking about how a trip to a foreign country opened your eyes to different cultures, pick a specific moment from your visit that really hammered home the importance of curiosity. Go into detail about how that one experience affected you. Being specific is more powerful than speaking in generalized platitudes.

Similarly, you want to write about something that you're genuinely passionate and excited about. After all, it says so right in the prompt! Pick a topic that you truly love, such as a historical fiction book that you read that inspired you to learn about a new era in history or the science fiction movie that sparked curiosity about how time works in space.

Don't feel limited to your potential major. Stanford doesn't require that you pick and stick with a specific major for your application, so you don't have to write about a moment here that relates to your predicted course of study. In fact, picking a learning experience in a different field will better show that you're curious and open to new ideas.

Stanford Essay Prompt 2

Virtually all of Stanford's undergraduates live on campus. Write a note to your future roommate that reveals something about you or that will help your roommate—and us—know you better. (100 word min, 250 word max) 

Stanford's roommate essay question is notorious. While the other two of the three Stanford essays may change from year-to-year, the Stanford roommate essay is always on the application.

First, remember that this essay is written to your future roommate, who will be one of your peers. You can adopt a more informal, fun tone with this essay, because the prompt indicates that it's going to someone who is your age.

The Stanford roommate essay is your opportunity to show a different side of your personality than the admissions committee will see on the rest of your application. This essay is your chance to show yourself as a well-rounded person who has a variety of different interests and talents.

Don't repeat information that the committee can find elsewhere on your application. Take the time to share fun, personal details about yourself.

For instance, do you make awesome, screen-accurate cosplays or have a collection of rock crystals from caving expeditions? Think about what you love to do in your spare time.

Be specific—the committee wants to get a real picture of you as a person. Don't just say that you love to play video games, say exactly which video games you love and why.

The roommate essay is also a great time to show off your community—the friends, family, teammates, etc. who make up your current life. You can talk about the deep bonds you have and how they have affected you. Showing your relationships to others gives the committee a better idea of how you will fit in on Stanford's campus.

All in all, the Stanford roommate essay is a great opportunity to have some fun and show off some different aspects of your personality. Let yourself shine!

Stanford Essay Prompt 3

Tell us about something that is meaningful to you, and why? (100 word min, 250 word max) 

While all three of the Stanford essay prompts are fairly broad, the third Stanford essay prompt is by far the broadest. You can write about anything that's meaningful to you here— the prompt doesn't specify that you have to talk about something academic or personal.

Sometimes, broad prompts can be more intimidating than prompts that have a very narrow focus. The trick here is to (again) pick something specific and stick to it.

Don't, for instance, say that world peace is meaningful to you because it won't sound sincere. You should talk about something that is uniquely important to you, not the other thousands of students that are applying to Stanford.

Pick something that is really meaningful to you. You could talk about your relationship with your grandmother and how she taught you how to cook or a specific musical album that reminds you of an important experience in your life. You might talk about a club or after-school activity that has broadened your horizons or an academic award you won after an extreme challenge.

Whatever topic you choose, your essay should feel sincere. Don't write what you think the committee wants to hear. They'll be more impressed by a meaningful experience that rings true than one that seems artificial or implausible.

Stanford Short Answer Questions Analyzed

Along with your essays, you'll also need to answer five short questions. You'll only have 50 words to answer each one...so you'll need to make it count!

Question 1: The Social Challenge Question

What is the most significant challenge that society faces today?

There are two ways you can answer this question. First, you can choose a significant social challenge that matters to you. For instance, perhaps your parents are essential workers, and the COVID pandemic revealed the unfair labor practices that exist in the US to you. Labor issues are a major social issue both in the US and abroad, and because you're impacted by it, you'll be able to put together a very compelling and powerful answer.

The other approach you can take to this question is linking it to your academic interests. Perhaps you want to major in mechanical engineering. One huge social issue is access to clean drinking water. In your response, you can explain the issue and then talk about how it inspired you to become a mechanical engineer. Maybe you want to develop better water decontamination systems! That would be a great response to this question.

The big thing to remember is you need to include a why in your answer. Why do you think this challenge is significant? And how are you planning to help solve this problem? Make sure you include these answers in your response!

Question 2: The Summer Question

How did you spend your last two summers?

This is a pretty straightforward question. Make a list of everything you did the past two summers, then parse it down so that you're including the most important aspects. For example, say you volunteered at a summer camp for the past two summers, but you also helped your family with chores and volunteered with a political campaign. Our recommendation would be to leave the chores out and focus on the bigger, more notable aspects of your summer vacation.

But maybe you had to work over the summers. Or perhaps you weren't able to take on extracurriculars because your parents needed your help caring for your younger siblings. Don't worry: those are great answers here, too. Your response doesn't have to be flashy —you don't have to have spent two summers participating in scientific research!

The important thing is to include a why in your answer . Why did you spend your summer vacations this way? And what do your choices say about your values? For instance, if you helped care for your younger siblings, you can explain that family is important to you, and that's part of why you're driven to get a college education. Counselors are trying to get a sense of who you are and what you care about!

Question 3: The Historical Moment Question

What historical moment or event do you wish you could have witnessed?

Think back to your history classes. Is there a historical moment you're fascinated with? This is a good time to share it with the admissions committee! Maybe you love legal history, so you would have loved to have attended Ruth Bader Ginsburg's swearing in ceremony. Or perhaps you're more interested in medicine, so you'd have loved to witness Wilhelm Röntgen discover x-rays.

Our best advice for answering this question is to be specific and original. Stay away from popular and obvious answers, like "the signing of the Declaration of Independence" or "Lincoln's Gettysburg address." Pick something more unique so that you stand out from other applicants. Once you've picked your historical moment, explain why you'd want to witness it!

Question 4: The Extracurriculars and Responsibilities Question

Briefly elaborate on one of your extracurricular activities, a job you hold, or responsibilities you have for your family.

The key word in this question is "one." The admissions counselors don't want to read a list of your responsibilities. They want you to talk about one of them and then explain why you participate and/or why it's important to you.

For this question, avoid discussing something that's already evident from the rest of your admissions packet. For instance, if you've already listed band as an extracurricular and talked about it in one of your essays, you don't really need to talk about it here. Give the admissions counselors new information about yourself that they wouldn't be able to learn from other parts of your application.

For instance, maybe you help your dad out with his lawn care business in the summers. That would be a great thing to discuss here, especially if you haven't had a chance to talk about this elsewhere in your application. You could use this opportunity to discuss how helping your family out is important to you, and you also appreciated getting to know the people in your community while cutting their grass.

Whatever activity you choose, be sure to do more than just explain what that activity entails . Go into detail about what it means to you. Why do you participate in that activity? How has it impacted you as a person? You'll have to keep it brief, but these kinds of personal details are what Stanford admissions counselors are looking for.

Question 5: The Stanford Question

Name one thing you are looking forward to experiencing at Stanford.

Answering this question starts with research. What is one—again, just one —thing you can't wait to learn, experience, or participate in as a Stanford student? You'll need to spend some time on the Stanford website looking into the different opportunities available to students.

First things first: limit your answer to academics or academic-leaning extracurricular activities. Yes, Palo Alto is beautiful. And yes, Stanford has a fun football program. But admissions counselors want to see that you're going to be a thoughtful, involved member of the Stanford community. So while these things are true and fun, this question is your chance to explain how you're going to get involved on the Stanford campus ...and maybe even give back, too.

Also, the best answers to this question are going to be specific. Instead of saying that you can't wait to participate in clubs, pick one (like the Food and Agribusiness Club) and discuss why it's so exciting to you. The more specific you are, the more you'll show admissions counselors that you're super serious about being a Stanford student.

How to Write a Great Stanford Essay

Regardless of which Stanford essay prompt you're responding to, you should keep in mind the following tips for how to write a great Stanford essay.

#1: Use Your Own Voice

The point of a college essay is for the admissions committee to have the chance to get to know you beyond your test scores, grades, and honors. Your admissions essays are your opportunity to make yourself come alive for the essay readers and to present yourself as a fully fleshed out person.

You should, then, make sure that the person you're presenting in your college essays is yourself. Don't try to emulate what you think the committee wants to hear or try to act like someone you're not.

If you lie or exaggerate, your essay will come across as insincere, which will diminish its effectiveness. Stick to telling real stories about the person you really are, not who you think Stanford wants you to be.

#2: Avoid Cliches and Overused Phrases

When writing your Stanford essays, try to avoid using cliches or overused quotes or phrases.

These include quotations that have been quoted to death and phrases or idioms that are overused in daily life. The college admissions committee has probably seen numerous essays that state, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Strive for originality.

Similarly, avoid using cliches , which take away from the strength and sincerity of your work.

#3: Check Your Work

It should almost go without saying, but you want to make sure your Stanford essays are the strongest example of your work possible. Before you turn in your Stanford application, make sure to edit and proofread your essays.

Your work should be free of spelling and grammar errors. Make sure to run your essays through a spelling and grammar check before you submit.

It's a good idea to have someone else read your Stanford essays, too. You can seek a second opinion on your work from a parent, teacher, or friend. Ask them whether your work represents you as a student and person. Have them check and make sure you haven't missed any small writing errors. Having a second opinion will help your work be the best it possibly can be.

What's Next?

If you want to be one of the 6% of students accepted to Stanford, you'll have to have a great GPA. Check out our guide on how to get good grades in high school for some tips and strategies!

Confused or intimidated about the college admissions process? Check out our complete guide on how to apply to college.

If you want to stand out from the crowd as an applicant, you'll need a solid resume of extracurricular activities . Learn more about your extracurricular options and why they matter.

Hayley Milliman is a former teacher turned writer who blogs about education, history, and technology. When she was a teacher, Hayley's students regularly scored in the 99th percentile thanks to her passion for making topics digestible and accessible. In addition to her work for PrepScholar, Hayley is the author of Museum Hack's Guide to History's Fiercest Females.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Stanford University Supplemental Essays Guide: 2021-2022

Not sure how to approach the Stanford essay prompts? With tips from an Ivy League graduate, CollegeAdvisor.com’s guide to the Stanford essay prompts will show you exactly how to write engaging Stanford supplemental essays and maximize your chances of admission.

For more CollegeAdvisor.com resources on Stanford,  click here . Want help crafting your Stanford supplemental essays? Create your  free account  or  schedule a free consultation  by calling (844) 505-4682

Stanford  Essay Guide Quick Facts:

• Stanford has an acceptance rate of 5%— U.S. News   ranks Stanford as a  highly competitive  school.
• We recommend answering all Stanford essay questions comprehensively and thoughtfully.

Does Stanford require supplemental essays?

Yes. In addition to the  Common App  personal statement, there are several specific Stanford essay questions. When building your school list, it may be helpful to keep a running tally of which schools require supplemental essays and how many each school requires. You’ll need to create a timeline for each application with realistic deadlines for drafting and editing your essays.

Sometimes, students struggle to find the best topic for their Common App statement. CollegeAdvisor.com’s  article on reflection exercises  is a great place to start. For additional tips on approaching the Common App, we have  a step-by-step breakdown .

How many essays do you need to write for Stanford?

There are eight total Stanford essay questions. There are three short Stanford essays which are between 100 and 250 words, and five short Stanford essay questions, which are a maximum of 50 words each.

Though they vary in word count, it’s important to take each of the Stanford supplemental essays seriously. A 50-word Stanford essay can mean just as much as a 250-word response!

Which essays are required for Stanford?

All of them! No optional Stanford essay prompts here. The Stanford supplemental essays are on  the Common App site , but you can also visit  the main Stanford website  for a full list of application requirements, including the Stanford supplemental essays. Since you’ll be answering eight Stanford supplemental essays of varying lengths, you’ll want to plan accordingly and give yourself enough time to write and edit each response.

What is Stanford looking for in essays?

This guide will break down each of the Stanford essay examples. In general, Stanford wants to see students whose passion and personality shine through. Be authentic in your Stanford supplemental essays. Don’t just say what you think Admissions Officers want to hear—instead, stay true to yourself, starting with the question below!

Stanford Supplemental Essays—Short Essay 1

The Stanford community is deeply curious and driven to learn in and out of the classroom. Reflect on an idea or experience that makes you genuinely excited about learning. (100-250 words)

To answer this Stanford essay, think back to a time when you really enjoyed yourself while you were doing something academic. This could be reading a textbook, taking an exam, writing an essay, or learning about a certain topic in class that really interested you.

Here, you should let your genuine passion shine; you’d do best to think of one specific example. Once you’ve got your example, describe  why  it was so exciting to you. Don’t be afraid to get nerdy on this question and showcase a depth of knowledge about your chosen subject. Your Stanford essays are the place to demonstrate your intellectual drive both inside and outside the classroom.

Stanford Essay Draft Key Questions:

• Does your draft clearly communicate the idea which excites you?
• Do you articulate why your chosen activity matters to you and how it has influenced your growth and identity?
• Does your supplement complement the information present in the rest of your application?

Stanford Supplemental Essays—Short Essay 2

Virtually all of Stanford’s undergraduates live on campus. Write a note to your future roommate that reveals something about you or that will help your roommate—and us—get to know you better. (100-250 words)

Of all the Stanford supplemental essays, this may be the most well-known.

The second of the Stanford essay prompts might just be the most difficult question on the application—it is the most direct invitation to talk about yourself, but specifically, your  inner  self. This is the Stanford essay where you can get the most creative. You might try brainstorming a list of characteristics, hobbies, or habits that you’ve noticed in yourself. Once you have a long list, you can decide whether you want to incorporate all of those traits in your letter or just focus on a specific few.

It also might help you to ask close friends or family members about any unique quirks you might have. You should have fun with your writing. Be honest! What do you genuinely want your future roommate to know? Do you stay up all night after watching horror movies because they scare you so much? Are you a show tunes shower singer? Is your love of plants only equal to your ability to kill any of the ones you’ve purchased?

The second of the Stanford essay questions lets you demonstrate more dimension than any other part of your application. It should be one of the most memorable things the Admissions Officers read—and also the most fun!

• Does your response teach the reader something new about you?
• Have you revealed aspects of your personality that both a roommate and an Admissions Officer should know?
• Is your essay’s tone clear and reflective of your identity and personality?

Stanford Supplemental Essays—Short Essay 3

Tell us about something that is meaningful to you and why. (100-250 words)

Like some of the other Stanford essay prompts, the most important part of this essay is not necessarily the what but the  why.  Stanford wants to understand your underlying passions and drive. In this Stanford essay, you want to demonstrate how you will contribute to the Stanford community. Like with other Stanford supplemental essays, your response should connect back to your overall candidate profile and emphasize the unique skills and interests you bring to the table.

For this Stanford essay, you could pick an activity, club, or academic subject, but be sure you have a compelling reason why your chosen subject is important. You could also talk about a meaningful event or memory. You do not necessarily have to limit yourself to one thing, as long as you can connect each interest or experience you choose to discuss in the same thread. If you choose to talk about an event like a job, internship, or volunteer experience, you should provide tangible evidence of why it was meaningful. Go deeper than generalized statements like “It was challenging,” or “I learned a lot.”

All of the Stanford essay questions aim to let applicants showcase their identities, and this is no exception. Be honest, be genuine, and showcase your values!

• Do you describe in detail something that is unique to you?
• Do you focus on the  why  and not just the  what ?
• Does your essay clearly display what “meaningful” means to you?

Do Stanford supplemental essays change?

From year to year, the Stanford essay questions can sometimes vary, although the notorious “Future roommate” question is almost always guaranteed to appear. You can find all the current Stanford essay prompts on the  Common App website  and all of the Stanford application requirements (including Stanford essay prompts)  here .

While the Stanford essay questions do change, at their core, each of the Stanford essay prompts will always aim to teach the admissions committee more about prospective students on their own terms.

Stanford Supplemental Essays—Short Question 1

What is the most significant challenge that society faces today? (50 words maximum)

The short Stanford essay questions present a particular challenge. After all, a 50-word limit doesn’t give you much space!

With this Stanford essay, you’ll want to pick a topic that you feel passionately about and that you also have some actionable ideas about. Try not to write about something too niche; however, if you choose a broad topic such as climate change, gender inequality, or racism, you’ll want to narrow it down to a more succinct description. You will then want to suggest what you feel could be done to address your chosen challenge.

Many of the short Stanford essay prompts are designed to see how you can think on your feet. Rather than just pointing to a challenge or problem, Stanford wants to see your capabilities for deeper analytical thought and problem-solving. Towards the end of this (very short) answer, you should demonstrate your critical thinking skills. End your Stanford essay on a positive note with changes that could be useful for reframing how our society approaches your challenge.

Stanford Supplemental Essays—Short Question 2

How did you spend your last two summers? (50 words maximum)

This question should be one of the most straightforward to answer. You could approach this Stanford essay in one of two ways. You could write out a list, covering a more expansive array of topics and showcasing your diversity of skills and interests, or you could hone in on one or two specific activities that mattered most to you.

Either way, you’ll want the activities you discuss here to reflect other parts of your application. This helps show consistency in your overall candidate profile. You also do not want to waste the beginning with an intro sentence like “Over the past two summers, I have performed a variety of jobs and activities.” Admissions Officers know the question you are responding to, so dive right in!

Stanford Supplemental Essays—Short Question 3

What historical moment or event do you wish you could have witnessed? (50 words maximum)

The third of the short Stanford supplemental essays are more creative in nature. For this Stanford essay, the historical moment you choose to write about will not be as important as  why  you’ve chosen it. If no historical event immediately jumps into your mind (and it’s alright if not), you might want to flip through an old history textbook or even try some creative googling.

Other applicants may also use Google to help, which means that you’ll want to work a little harder than just clicking on the first link that pops up when you search “important historical events.” The most important thing to do with this Stanford essay is to be sure to describe  why  witnessing this event would be especially impactful to  you .

One way to approach the third of the short Stanford essay questions is to think about what you want to study and how historical events may have impacted your chosen field. Or, perhaps you have older family members who have always told stories about their experience of an event, and you’d like to be there firsthand in order to connect more with these relatives. What will make this Stanford essay stand out for readers is the personal connection or interest you describe in the event. As with other Stanford essay questions, it’s not the  what  that’s important, but the  why .

Stanford Supplemental Essays—Short Question 4

Briefly elaborate on one of your extracurricular activities, a job you hold, or responsibilities you have for your family. (50 words maximum)

As you’ve likely noticed, the Stanford essay prompts oscillate between the abstract and the straightforward. This Stanford essay is more streamlined, giving you the chance to expand on your interests and experiences.

This is an opportunity to elaborate about something in your activities section or to address something that you were not able to list but still is a large part of your identity (such as caring for family members). Whatever you pick, you will want to choose an activity or responsibility that taught you a lot, that pushed or challenged you, or that was particularly memorable.

You don’t get a  ton  of room in the Stanford essays to expand on your chosen activity, so feel free to be straightforward and direct with your language. You don’t have to waste words setting the scene; like all of these shorter Stanford essay questions, you’ll want to get right into your answer.

Does Stanford have a “why us” question?

Yes. This is the classic supplemental essay question, and the Stanford essays are no exception—all colleges want to know what makes them special to you. This is your chance to showcase any research you have done about Stanford while you’ve been writing your Stanford essays or as you’ve been completing the rest of the application.

Stanford Supplemental Essays—Short Question 5

Name one thing you are looking forward to experiencing at Stanford. (50 words maximum)

This “Why Us” question is a bit different from the traditional college essay because it asks you to focus on one thing you’re excited about. This Stanford essay is the space to show off your expert investigation skills and name drop a course, a club, a professor, or an undergraduate-specific event or tradition only available at Stanford. Colleges can tell when you swap out their name for another university and submit the same “Why here?” answer, and Stanford specifically phrases this essay prompt to further discourage that.

You will probably have to spend a bit of time investigating Stanford. You may even want to ask an alum or do some intensive research to find a unique answer. Also, you’ll want to focus on why in particular you are looking forward to whatever you choose, rather than just saying “It’s really cool” or “It seems so fun!”

Be authentic in your response in order to make it stand out from more generic answers. Admissions Officers will likely read a lot of similar answers to the Stanford essay prompts, and the “Why Us” question is no exception.

Stanford Supplemental Essays—Final Thoughts

Completing the Stanford essay prompts can seem daunting, but don’t let that discourage you from applying. The Stanford essay questions are a great opportunity to demonstrate who you are for admissions officers reading your application. Your Stanford essays can boost your application if you have a lower-than-average GPA or  SAT score . Use this guide as a step-by-step aid when approaching the Stanford essay questions and start earlier than you think you should.

This is especially true with the shortest Stanford essay prompts; you might think it will be easy to write five essays that are under 50 words, but the shortest Stanford essay questions can be the most challenging. Don’t be afraid to ask for revisions from someone; it’s helpful to have another set of eyes checking your Stanford essay prompts for grammatical errors, tone, and clarity. Good luck!

This 2021-2022 essay guide for Stanford University was written by  Laura Frustaci . For more CollegeAdvisor.com resources on Stanford and the Stanford supplemental essays,  click here . Want help crafting your Stanford supplemental essays? Create your  free account  or  schedule a free consultation  by calling (844) 505-4682.

Personalized and effective college advising for high school students.

• Advisor Application
• Popular Colleges
• Privacy Policy and Cookie Notice
• Student Login
• California Privacy Notice
• Terms and Conditions
• Your Privacy Choices

By using the College Advisor site and/or working with College Advisor, you agree to our updated Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy , including an arbitration clause that covers any disputes relating to our policies and your use of our products and services.

Stanford University

• Cost & scholarships
• Essay prompt

Want to see your chances of admission at Stanford University?

We take every aspect of your personal profile into consideration when calculating your admissions chances.

Stanford University’s 2023-24 Essay Prompts

Societal challenge short response.

What is the most significant challenge that society faces today?

Summer Activity Short Response

How did you spend your last two summers?

Historical Event Short Response

What historical moment or event do you wish you could have witnessed?

Extracurricular Short Response

Briefly elaborate on one of your extracurricular activities, a job you hold, or responsibilities you have for your family.

Important Things Short Response

List five things that are important to you.

Intellectual Curiosity Short Response

The Stanford community is deeply curious and driven to learn in and out of the classroom. Reflect on an idea or experience that makes you genuinely excited about learning.

Roommate Short Response

Virtually all of Stanford‘s undergraduates live on campus. Write a note to your future roommate that reveals something about you or that will help your roommate – and us – get to know you better.

Diversity Short Response

Please describe what aspects of your life experiences, interests and character would help you make a distinctive contribution as an undergraduate to Stanford University.

Common App Personal Essay

The essay demonstrates your ability to write clearly and concisely on a selected topic and helps you distinguish yourself in your own voice. What do you want the readers of your application to know about you apart from courses, grades, and test scores? Choose the option that best helps you answer that question and write an essay of no more than 650 words, using the prompt to inspire and structure your response. Remember: 650 words is your limit, not your goal. Use the full range if you need it, but don‘t feel obligated to do so.

Some students have a background, identity, interest, or talent that is so meaningful they believe their application would be incomplete without it. If this sounds like you, then please share your story.

The lessons we take from obstacles we encounter can be fundamental to later success. Recount a time when you faced a challenge, setback, or failure. How did it affect you, and what did you learn from the experience?

Reflect on a time when you questioned or challenged a belief or idea. What prompted your thinking? What was the outcome?

Reflect on something that someone has done for you that has made you happy or thankful in a surprising way. How has this gratitude affected or motivated you?

Discuss an accomplishment, event, or realization that sparked a period of personal growth and a new understanding of yourself or others.

Describe a topic, idea, or concept you find so engaging that it makes you lose all track of time. Why does it captivate you? What or who do you turn to when you want to learn more?

Share an essay on any topic of your choice. It can be one you‘ve already written, one that responds to a different prompt, or one of your own design.

What will first-time readers think of your college essay?

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

Go back to all articles

How To Answer Stanford's 2023/24 Supplemental Essays: Tips & Insights

What's New in 2023/24

What Are Stanford's Essay Prompts?

Short Answer Questions

Short essay questions.

General Guidelines

Navigating Stanford University's supplemental essays for the 2023/24 admissions cycle? This guide offers step-by-step advice on tackling each question, from the short answers to the more complex essays. We also include general guidelines to help you craft compelling narratives that answer the prompts, showcase your unique character, and fit with Stanford's community. It is ideal for anyone aiming to make their application stand out in a highly competitive pool.

Stanford’s 2023/24 Supplemental Essay Updates: What's Changed?

Gaining admission to Stanford University , with its acceptance rate of approximately 4% , is an unparalleled accomplishment. In the fiercely competitive world of college admissions, your supplemental essays play a pivotal role in showcasing your unique story and alignment with Stanford's values.

Every academic year, prestigious institutions like Stanford fine-tune their application process to ensure they capture a comprehensive view of their potential students. For the 2023/24 admissions cycle, Stanford has implemented a few notable changes to its supplemental essay questions.

In the short answer section, while four prompts remain consistent with previous years, the question about anticipating an experience at Stanford has been substituted with a prompt asking applicants to "List five things that are important to you." This shift indicates a desire to understand applicants' priorities and values on a more personal level.

The short essay section has also seen adjustments. While the prompts about reflecting on personal learning and penning a note to a future roommate continue to feature, Stanford has amalgamated the questions about defining family and discussing something significant. Now, applicants are invited to describe how their life experiences, interests, and character would contribute to the Stanford undergraduate community.

These revisions highlight Stanford's evolving admissions approach, emphasizing understanding the diverse life experiences and intrinsic values applicants would bring to its dynamic undergraduate community.

What Are Stanford’s Supplemental Essay Prompts for 2023/24?

For the 2023/24 application cycle, Stanford University has thoughtfully designed specific supplemental essay prompts to delve deeper into the profiles of its applicants, complementing the Common App questions. These prompts aim to uncover your societal concerns, personal experiences, academic passions, and how you envision your journey at Stanford.

Stanford's short answer questions provide a snapshot into your perspectives, experiences, and values.

• Societal Challenge : What is the most significant challenge that society faces today? (50 words)
• Summer Activities : How did you spend your last two summers? (50 words)
• Historical Witness : What historical moment or event do you wish you could have witnessed? (50 words)
• Extracurricular Elaboration : Briefly elaborate on one of your extracurricular activities, a job you hold, or responsibilities you have for your family. (50 words)
• Personal Priorities : List five things that are important to you. (50 words)

These essays provide a deeper insight into your intellectual curiosities, personal experiences, and how you'll contribute to Stanford's vibrant community.

• Passion for Learning : The Stanford community is deeply curious and driven to learn in and out of the classroom. Reflect on an idea or experience that makes you genuinely excited about learning. (100-250 words)
• Roommate Introduction : Virtually all of Stanford's undergraduates live on campus. Write a note to your future roommate that reveals something about you or that will help your roommate — and us — get to know you better. (100-250 words)
• Distinctive Contribution : Please describe what aspects of your life experiences, interests, and character would help you make a distinctive contribution as an undergraduate to Stanford University. (100-250 words)

With an acceptance rate hovering around 4% , Stanford's application process is undeniably rigorous. These prompts offer applicants a unique opportunity to showcase their societal insights, personal growth, and the distinct perspectives they'll bring to the Stanford community.

Looking for inspiration? Dive into these Stanford essay examples to see what successful applications look like!

How I Got Into Stanford with Crimson Access Opportunity

How to Answer Stanford’s Short Answer Questions?

What is the most significant challenge that society faces today, - 50 words max.

Stanford seeks students who are not only academically adept but also socially aware and proactive. This question aims to gauge your awareness of global or local challenges and your perspective on their significance . It's an opportunity to showcase your critical thinking and ability to prioritize issues based on their impact.

Selecting a Challenge

The first step is to identify a challenge you genuinely believe is significant. This could be:

• Environmental issues like climate change or deforestation.
• Social challenges such as racial inequality, gender discrimination, or mental health stigma.
• Technological challenges like data privacy concerns or the ethical implications of AI.
• Economic challenges such as income inequality or unemployment.

Articulating the Significance

Once you've chosen a challenge, delve into why you believe it's the most significant:

• Scope of Impact : Is it a global issue affecting millions or a local challenge with profound implications?
• Long-Term Implications : Does the challenge have potential long-term consequences if not addressed?
• Personal Connection : Perhaps you've witnessed the effects of this challenge firsthand or have been personally affected by it.

Being Concise and Specific

With a 50-word limit, precision is key. Avoid generic statements. Instead, focus on specific aspects of the challenge and its implications.

• "The digital divide is society's most pressing challenge. As technology advances, those without access are left behind, widening educational and economic disparities."
• "Mental health stigma is a silent crisis. Many suffer in silence, fearing judgment, which exacerbates the issue and prevents early intervention."

Stanford's first short answer question tests your awareness, perspective, and ability to articulate complex issues succinctly . Choose a challenge you're passionate about, explain its significance, and ensure your response is concise and impactful.

How did you spend your last two summers?

Stanford is interested in how you utilize your free time, as it provides insight into your interests, priorities, and work ethic. This question aims to understand what activities or experiences you value and how you engage with the world when academic commitments are less pressing.

Being Specific and Honest

The key to answering this question effectively is being specific and honest. Instead of saying, "I spent time with family," you could elaborate with, "I explored local hiking trails with my family, fostering my love for environmental science."

Balancing Variety and Depth

You can mention a variety of activities, but remember to be concise. If possible, connect the activities to your intended field of study or personal growth:

• Academic Pursuits : Did you take any courses, attend workshops, or engage in self-study that aligns with your academic interests?
• Work Experience : Did you have a job or internship? What skills did you gain, and how did it shape your understanding of a particular field?
• Volunteering : If you engaged in community service, what impact did it have on you and the community?
• Personal Interests : Did you engage in any hobbies or personal projects? How did they contribute to your skills or well-being?

Appropriateness

Ensure that the experiences you share are appropriate for an academic application. They should be experiences you'd be comfortable sharing with a teacher or in a professional setting.

• "Last summer, I interned at a local tech startup, honing my coding skills and understanding the dynamics of team collaboration. The previous summer, I volunteered at a food bank, which deepened my awareness of food insecurity issues."
• "I spent one summer taking a creative writing course, which fueled my passion for storytelling. The other was dedicated to a family road trip across historical sites, enriching my love for history."

Stanford's second short answer question seeks to understand how you use your free time to engage in meaningful activities or personal growth . Be specific, honest, and appropriate in your response, and if possible, connect your activities to your broader goals or interests.

What historical moment or event do you wish you could have witnessed?

Stanford is keen to explore your intellectual curiosity and how you relate to history, whether it's a globally recognized event or a personal moment in time. This question aims to understand what you find significant or intriguing in the tapestry of human experience .

Unleashing Your Imagination

Don't limit yourself to textbook historical events. This is an opportunity to showcase your unique interests. Whether it's a monumental event like the signing of the Declaration of Independence or something more personal or niche, like a family event or a lesser-known cultural phenomenon, the key is to pick something that genuinely interests you.

Exploring the 'Why'

Once you've chosen the event, delve into why you wish you could have witnessed it.

• What do you think you would learn or gain from the experience?
• Would it offer insights into contemporary issues, personal growth, or your field of study?

The 'why' is as important as the 'what' in this question.

Timing and Context

Consider the timing of the event. Would it be a moment that lasts a few minutes, like witnessing a groundbreaking scientific discovery, or something more prolonged, like being present during a significant cultural festival? The duration and setting can add another layer of depth to your answer.

• "I wish I could have witnessed the Women's Suffrage Parade of 1913. Seeing the courage and unity of women fighting for their rights would deepen my understanding of the struggles that paved the way for the freedoms I have today."
• "I'd love to have been in the audience at the premiere of Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring.' The riot it incited speaks volumes about the power of art to challenge societal norms, something still relevant today."

Stanford's third short answer question is an invitation to share your intellectual or personal interests through the lens of history . Be imaginative and specific, and focus on the event and why witnessing it would be significant to you. This is a chance to offer a glimpse into what excites your curiosity and how you relate to the world and its history.

Briefly elaborate on one of your extracurricular activities, a job you hold, or responsibilities you have for your family.

Stanford wants to see a fuller picture of who you are beyond academics . This question explores another facet of your life you're passionate about or committed to. It's an opportunity to showcase your skills, values, and contributions in a different context.

Choosing the Right Experience

Select an experience you haven't elaborated on in other parts of your application. It could be an extracurricular activity , a part-time job, or even family responsibilities. The key is to choose something that has significantly impacted you and ideally contrasts with your intended major to show the breadth of your interests.

Narrative Over Summary

Instead of listing what you've done, focus on a specific anecdote that encapsulates the essence of your involvement. Describe a moment that was pivotal or enlightening in that experience. This makes your answer more engaging and provides a deeper insight into your role and its significance.

What You Bring to the Table

Discuss the skills or values you've gained from this experience. Whether it's leadership in a club, responsibility in a family setting, or problem-solving in a job, highlight how these skills have shaped you and how they could be applied in a Stanford context.

• "As the editor of our school newspaper, I once had to navigate a controversial article submission. Balancing freedom of speech with the potential for harm taught me the delicate art of ethical journalism."
• "Working in a family-owned restaurant taught me the value of hard work and customer service. It also fueled my passion for business analytics, as I started to see how data-driven decisions could improve our operations."

Stanford's fourth short answer question is a window into your life outside the classroom. Focusing on a specific anecdote and the lessons learned can provide a more vivid and meaningful picture of your extracurricular involvement or responsibilities . This is your chance to show Stanford another layer of who you are and what you could bring to their community.

List five things that are important to you.

This prompt is a straightforward yet revealing way for Stanford to understand your priorities, values, and interests . It's a snapshot of what matters most to you, from personal beliefs to hobbies, relationships, or aspirations.

Selecting Your Five Things

Choose items that genuinely resonate with you and ideally offer a well-rounded view of who you are. The list can include a mix of the profound and the seemingly mundane as long as they are genuinely important to you.

Be Authentic, Be You

This is not the time to list what you think Stanford wants to hear. Authenticity is key. Your list should reflect your true self, as it offers another layer of understanding about you that might not be evident in other parts of your application.

• Family: The cornerstone of my life and my biggest support system.
• Environmental Sustainability: A cause I'm deeply committed to, both in lifestyle choices and activism.
• Music: A universal language that brings me joy and emotional expression.
• Intellectual Curiosity: The driving force behind my academic and personal endeavors.
• Humor: A necessary tool for navigating life's ups and downs.

Stanford's fifth short answer question is a quick but insightful look into your values and interests. By carefully selecting the five genuinely important things to you, you offer Stanford a glimpse into what drives you, what you care about, and what kind of community member you would be .

Interested in learning more? Attend one of our free events

Build your application strategy with the latest 2023-24 admissions trends & analysis.

Friday, May 31, 2024 12:00 AM CUT

Join this exclusive webinar to learn about the latest trends in college admissions and discover the key to getting accepted to top universities in upcoming application cycles!

REGISTER NOW

How to Answer Stanford’s Short Essay Questions?

The stanford community is deeply curious and driven to learn in and out of the classroom. reflect on an idea or experience that makes you genuinely excited about learning., - 100 to 250 words.

Stanford is looking for students who are both academically competent and passionately curious. This essay aims to delve into what genuinely excites you about learning , whether it's a specific subject, a method of inquiry, or an experiential learning opportunity.

Identifying Your Idea or Experience

Begin by pinpointing the idea or experience that genuinely excites you about learning. This could be:

• A subject matter that you are passionate about but haven't had the chance to explore in a formal educational setting.
• An experience that sparked your curiosity and led you to further exploration or research.
• A methodology or form of inquiry that you find particularly stimulating.

Narrating the Discovery Journey

Discuss how you came across this idea or experience. Was it through a book, a mentor, an internship, or perhaps a personal experience? If you faced any obstacles or discouragement in pursuing this interest, this is a good place to discuss it.

Connecting to Stanford's Learning Environment

Now, consider how you would continue to explore this interest at Stanford. Would it be through specific courses, research opportunities, or clubs? Are there professors you're excited to work with or facilities you're eager to use?

Formulating Questions and Research Approaches

Discuss the kinds of questions this topic raises for you and how you might go about answering them. Whether it's through lab experiments, fieldwork, or theoretical analysis, indicate how you envision your learning journey unfolding at Stanford.

Collaborative Learning

Stanford values collaborative learning. Briefly touch upon how you see yourself engaging with peers, professors, or even external communities to deepen your understanding of the topic.

Stanford's first short essay question is an opportunity to showcase your intellectual curiosity and enthusiasm for learning. By detailing an idea or experience that excites you and connecting it to Stanford's resources and community, you demonstrate not just your passion but also how you would contribute to the intellectual vitality of the campus. Approach this essay with a focus on specificity, authenticity, and a clear vision of your academic journey at Stanford .

Virtually all of Stanford's undergraduates live on campus. Write a note to your future roommate that reveals something about you or that will help your roommate — and us — get to know you better.

Stanford wants to get a glimpse of who you are outside of your academic and extracurricular achievements. This essay is a chance to showcase your personality, quirks, and the unique traits that make you, you .

Setting the Tone

Approach this essay as if you're writing a letter to a friend. The tone should be conversational; you can incorporate humor, vulnerability, or even self-deprecation to make it engaging and relatable.

Sharing Personal Anecdotes

Instead of using adjectives to describe yourself, share specific anecdotes or experiences that reveal something about you. This could be:

• A ritual or tradition that's important to you.
• A hobby or interest that you're passionate about.
• A challenge you've faced and how you dealt with it.

Examples for Inspiration

• If you have a religious practice, you could talk about how you adapted it during a school trip, perhaps waking up early to pray without disturbing others.
• If you love aesthetics, you might mention how you can't resist picking flowers from your neighborhood to make your space more beautiful.

Incorporating Humor or Poignancy

Feel free to incorporate humor or poignant moments to make the essay memorable. Whether it's a funny story about a family vacation gone wrong or a touching moment from a community service trip, these details help paint a fuller picture of who you are.

Living Together

Since this is a letter to a future roommate, consider mentioning how you approach shared living spaces. Are you neat or messy? An early riser or a night owl? This adds another layer of personal insight.

Stanford's second short essay question offers a unique opportunity to showcase your personality in a more informal setting. By sharing specific anecdotes and experiences, you not only help your future roommate get to know you but also give Stanford a more comprehensive view of what you'll bring to its community . Approach this essay with authenticity, vulnerability, and a dash of humor to make it memorable.

Please describe what aspects of your life experiences, interests and character would help you make a distinctive contribution as an undergraduate to Stanford University.

Stanford wants to understand how you will contribute to its diverse and vibrant community. This prompt allows you to showcase the unique qualities, experiences, and perspectives you bring to the table .

Defining Your Community

Start by identifying a community you are a part of . This could be anything from a school club, a sports team, a religious group, or even a community of hobbyists. What binds this community together? Is it a shared goal, a common interest, or collective challenge?

Your Role in the Community

Once you've defined the community, focus on your role within it. Are you a leader, a supporter, a motivator, or perhaps a creative mind? How have you contributed to this community, and what impact have you had?

• If you've been part of a mentoring program, you could discuss how you nurtured that relationship over the years, the challenges you faced, and the growth you observed in yourself and your mentee.
• If you started a club in school, you could talk about how it originated from a common interest, how it grew, and what steps you've taken to ensure its continuity after you leave for college.

Connecting to Stanford

Now, tie these experiences back to how you will contribute to Stanford.

• Will you bring your leadership skills to a student organization?
• Will your creative thinking contribute to classroom discussions?
• Will your commitment to service find a new avenue on campus?

Character Traits

Don't forget to mention character traits that enable you to make these contributions. Are you empathetic, resilient, innovative, or collaborative? Use specific examples to demonstrate these traits.

Stanford's third short essay question is your chance to showcase how your unique life experiences, interests, and character will enrich the Stanford community. Focusing on your role in a specific community and how you've contributed to it provides a glimpse into how you'll engage with the Stanford community. Approach this essay with introspection and authenticity to effectively convey your potential contributions .

General Guidelines for Answering Stanford's Supplemental Essay Questions

• Research and Specificity : Stanford's essay prompts are designed to gauge your fit within its diverse and intellectually vibrant community. Be specific about courses, professors, or extracurricular activities that excite you. Mentioning these details shows that you've done your homework and that you're genuinely interested in Stanford.
• Show Self-awareness : Stanford values students who are reflective and self-aware. Whether you're discussing a societal challenge, your summer activities, or your future roommate, always tie it back to what these experiences or thoughts reveal about you.
• Diversity of Thought : Stanford prides itself on a diverse student body that brings many perspectives to campus. Highlight how your unique experiences, viewpoints, or background will contribute to this diversity of thought.
• Be Authentic : Authenticity is crucial. Don't write what you think the admissions committee wants to hear. Your genuine interests, challenges, and aspirations will always make a more profound impression.
• Quality Over Quantity : With strict word limits, focusing on depth rather than breadth is essential. Choose a few points and explore them fully to give the admissions committee a more detailed picture of who you are.
• Narrative Storytelling : A compelling narrative can make your essay stand out. Whether you're describing a historical event you wish you'd witnessed or explaining what brings you joy, storytelling techniques can make your essay more engaging and memorable.
• Proofread and Revise : Your essays should be well-crafted and error-free. Beyond grammar and spelling, ensure your essay flows well and effectively communicates your message. Consider seeking feedback from teachers, mentors, or friends.
• Connect to the Bigger Picture : Always relate your answers back to your potential contributions to the Stanford community and how Stanford will help you achieve your personal and academic goals. This shows that you're not just thinking about admission but also about how you'll fit into the Stanford community long-term.
• Embrace the Challenge : These essays are your opportunity to present a fuller picture of yourself beyond just grades and test scores. Use them to show why you and Stanford would be a mutually beneficial match.

Stanford's supplemental essays provide a platform to express your individuality, aspirations, and suitability for the university. By carefully crafting your responses and connecting them to Stanford's resources and ethos, you can effectively demonstrate why you would be a valuable addition to the Stanford community.

For more inspiration, you might want to explore examples of successful Stanford essays to understand what makes an application truly stand out.

Final Thoughts

Embarking on the journey to Stanford is about more than just academic excellence; it's about crafting a narrative that deeply resonates with Stanford's unique ethos and the admissions committee. Your supplemental essays offer a unique lens into your character, aspirations, and the distinct contributions you'll make to the Stanford community.

Every Stanford hopeful has a unique story to tell. This is your golden opportunity to narrate yours. Approach your essays with authenticity, introspection, and a genuine enthusiasm for your narrative.

If you're uncertain whether your essay truly encapsulates your essence or if it will distinguish you amidst the sea of applications, our essay review service is here to assist. Our seasoned experts will meticulously review and provide feedback, ensuring your essay strikes a chord with Stanford's admissions officers.

Want some helpful inspiration? Explore our ebook and discover essays from students like you who have secured places at elite institutions. And for those aiming for Stanford, our collection of successful Stanford essay examples will offer invaluable insights.

For those at the onset of their college application journey, consider booking a free consultation with our experienced college counselors. We're committed to guiding you in crafting an application that amplifies your chances of walking through Stanford's iconic arch. Your dream of becoming a Stanford Cardinal is attainable, and we're here to support you every step of the way.

What Makes Crimson Different

Key Resources & Further Reading

• Everything you need to know about US Application Supplemental Essays
• Acing your College Application Essay: 5 Expert Tips to Make it Stand Out from the Rest
• How to Tackle Every Type of Supplemental Essay
• 2023-24 Common App Essay Prompts
• What are the Most Unusual US College Supplemental Essay Prompts?

More Articles

What would megan fox's (hypothetical) harvard essay look like.

Unleashing Creativity in Research: How High Schoolers Can Find Unique and Engaging Research Topics

Can Colleges See How Many Times You’ve Taken the SAT?

Start Your Journey To Stanford Today!

Crimson students are up to 4x more likely to gain admission into stanford. book a free consultation to learn more about how we can help you.

How to Write Stanford's Essays (with Real 2023 Essay Examples)

Kate Sliunkova

AdmitYogi, Stanford MBA & MA in Education

16 min read

Introduction

Stanford University is one of the most prestigious universities in the world and their admissions process is highly competitive. Writing compelling supplemental essays that stand out from other applicants is key to getting accepted into this top-tier school. However, approaching these essays does not have to be an intimidating endeavor! With some preparation and guidance, you can write powerful and persuasive supplemental essays that will help your application shine among the thousands of other applicants vying for a spot at Stanford University. In this article, we'll look at the supplemental essay prompts for Stanford University and provide an in-depth analysis of how to approach them. We'll also examine real-world examples of successful essays written by past applicants to give you a better understanding of what makes a great supplemental essay. By the end, you'll have all the tools needed to create powerful and persuasive supplemental essays that will make your application stand out from other applicants vying for admission into one of the most prestigious universities in the world. So let's get started!

Stanford's Essay Prompts

Stanford applicants will have to write eight essays in total. This includes writing three longer-form essays (with a 250-word maximum count) and answering five short answer questions (with a 50-word maximum count). Stanford's supplemental essay prompts include the following:

• The Stanford community is deeply curious and driven to learn in and out of the classroom. Reflect on an idea or experience that makes you genuinely excited about learning.
• Virtually all of Stanford’s undergraduates live on campus. Write a note to your future roommate that reveals something about you or that will help your roommate — and us — know you better.
• Tell us about something that is meaningful to you and why.

Short Answers:

• What is the most significant challenge that society faces today?
• How did you spend your last two summers?
• What historical moment or event do you wish you could have witnessed?
• Briefly elaborate on one of your extracurricular activities, a job you hold, or responsibilities you have for your family.
• Name one thing you are looking forward to experiencing at Stanford.

Writing Stanford's Essays

Approaching stanford's intellectual vitality essay.

"The Stanford community is deeply curious and driven to learn in and out of the classroom. Reflect on an idea or experience that makes you genuinely excited about learning."

When approaching Stanford's 250-word essay prompt about an "idea or experience that makes you genuinely excited about learning," it is important for students to take some time to reflect on what truly excites them. Asking yourself questions such as “What topics engage me the most?”, “What have I enjoyed learning recently?”, and “What interests motivate me to take action or dive deeper into a topic?” can help you identify what ideas or experiences make you truly passionate about learning.

Once you have identified at least one idea or experience with which you are passionate, brainstorming specific examples of times when this passion has been demonstrated can be helpful in creating a stronger and more compelling essay. This could include recalling particular moments in school when the topic was discussed, describing challenges that were overcome during research related to the topic, or even sharing reflections on how this idea has impacted your life outside of school.

In addition, it is important to consider ways in which your passions may connect with others, demonstrating how your passions may create new opportunities for collaboration and growth among students at Stanford. For example, if you are passionate about environmental studies and sustainability initiatives, discussing ways in which Stanford could become a more sustainable campus could highlight both your enthusiasm for learning and potential contributions to the overall community.

By taking the time to reflect on moments where their passions have been demonstrated and thinking creatively about potential connections between these passions and Stanford's goals and values, students can effectively craft powerful supplemental essays that demonstrate their genuine excitement for learning.

Here's a great example from Hannah, a Stanford student who was also accepted to UPenn, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, and many other great schools! You can read all of Hannah's essays and activities here.

Whenever I need an extra boost while studying, I listen to iconic film soundtracks. Not only are they beautiful artistically, but the carefully-selected notes and motifs often unknowingly alter your emotions, giving me a subconscious spike in motivation.

I watched Titanic four times in three days because I was entranced by the repetition of musical themes in critical moments. Similarly, I printed out pictures of certain shots in Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby because the color schemes were aesthetically pleasing while also matching up with the characters’ emotions.

As I’ve been exposed to more music and film, I’ve learned how heavily artists can rely on psychology. Not only can certain colors or musical motifs foreshadow events, but they can complete some of the most iconic shots in cinema.

I plan on further exploring this intersection of science and art on Stanford’s campus. As a psychology major, I will study the intricacies of the human brain and its effects on behavior; on the other hand, I can take advantage of the rich creative culture on campus by participating in the Stanford Storytelling Project. By pursuing both, I can learn how masters of cinema capture audiences’ attention and deliver a beautiful, impactful story.

Tackling Stanford's Roommate Essay

"Virtually all of Stanford’s undergraduates live on campus. Write a note to your future roommate that reveals something about you or that will help your roommate — and us — know you better."

To ace the Stanford roommate essay, it's important to focus on personal and intimate details about yourself. The essay is an opportunity to reveal something unique, quirky, and memorable about yourself to your future roommate. As you write, think about what sets you apart from others - what makes you special and interesting. Here are some specific tips for approaching the Stanford roommate essay:

• Highlight your unique quirks: The admissions committee is looking for something that sets you apart from other applicants. Consider what makes you different and let those quirks shine through in your essay. For example, maybe you have an obsession with collecting old maps or you're a huge fan of a lesser-known band.
• Think about your ideal roommate: As you write the essay, think about the kind of roommate you want. What qualities would you look for in a roommate? Reflect on those qualities and think about how you embody them yourself.
• Avoid controversy: While it's important to be authentic in your essay, it's also important to avoid controversial topics or anything that might be offensive to others. Stick to lighthearted, positive aspects of your personality and interests.
• Use imagery and senses: To make your essay stand out, use vivid imagery and sensory details. Engage the reader's senses by describing your favorite flavors, sights, sounds, and smells.

We have some specific tips on approaching Stanford's roommate essay here . In the meantime, read through one of our favorite Stanford roommate essay examples from Atman, a Stanford student who is now studying biology and design! You can read Atman's entire application here.

Don’t mind the morning clutter! I’ll be swapping out jewelry. My daily earring choices are contingent on anything from the outfit to the weather—today, I’ve got on a dangly butterfly and a silver key, but I may shift to some big resin sunflowers to protest this Minnesota cold.

Unfortunately, my beautiful smile won’t greet you some mornings as I’ll be starting bright and early in the lab. If I feel like leaving the excitement, we’ll go rate bubble teas from local shops (my spreadsheet would benefit from more Californian influence).

If you’re the type of person who “doesn’t really listen to music,” that will definitely change. Our room will be playing a variety of sounds 24/7—I’m talking tunes from Tyler the Creator to Thundercat, Michael Buble to Baby Keem. You’ll find me making my viral TikToks dissecting Frank Ocean songs—share your music taste with me and maybe I’ll remember you when I’m famous!

I’ll be passively beatboxing as we study, arbitrarily prompting any stranger to freestyle over my bizarre, yet curiously potent beats. Prepare yourself: You’ve arrived at Stanford’s “Bars 101” class.

You play Ping-Pong? Check again. Against more ill-advised challengers, I’ll replace my paddle with objects around me—a stray shoe, my hospital ID, my wallet, or even your wallet (you’ll grumble now, but true mastery requires complete material detachment). This habit had a shamefully large impact on my decision to buy a larger phone, so meet me at the tables!

How to Write Stanford's "Something Meaningful Essay"

"Tell us about something that is meaningful to you and why."

When writing the "Something Meaningful Essay" for Stanford University, it's crucial to choose a topic that encompasses your personal values and beliefs. Your essay should connect with the reader emotionally and relay how an experience or moment has influenced your character. In order to demonstrate your perspective on life and the world around us, you will want to creatively depict the significance of the moment or experience you have chosen. Here are some specific tips to help you approach the "Something Meaningful Essay" confidently:

• Reflect on your values: The "Something Meaningful Essay" is an opportunity to share something that is important to you. Start by reflecting on your values and beliefs. Consider what matters most to you and how those values have shaped your life.
• Choose a specific moment or experience: Once you've identified your values, think about a specific moment or experience that embodies those values. For example, maybe you volunteered at a homeless shelter and learned the importance of compassion and empathy.
• Write with emotion: The admissions committee wants to see that you care deeply about your subject. Write with emotion and use descriptive language to bring your story to life. Don't be afraid to include dialogue or sensory details if they add to the story.
• Connect to the bigger picture: While your essay should focus on a specific moment or experience, it should also connect to a larger theme. Think about how your experience relates to the world around you. What broader implications does it have?

For inspiration and guidance, read through this beautiful Stanford "something meaningful" essay example below from Apollo. Apollo was accepted to Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton! You can read every single one of his college applications here.

I pull out the piano bench, lift the fallboard, and prop up my music. Today, I'm playing Liszt's "Mazeppa." It's one of the toughest pieces ever written for the piano, but to master it, there’s only one thing I need: the metronome.

First, 48 beats per minute, an easy largo.

I hated practicing. Simultaneously, I was a perfectionist. Those two traits clashed throughout my early piano years, contributing to a "limbo" period full of botched performances. Frustrated by my lack of progress, my teacher began imposing slow metronome practice. Although I was stubborn at first, I gradually learned to steady myself. "48" taught me patience, and encouraged me to seek deeper levels of ability.

Now, 112, a striding allegretto.

When I began competing seriously, I discovered a new enemy: performance anxiety. In practice, I came back to the metronome, setting a moderate tempo where I could be rock-solid. Through "112", I was able to build my confidence.

192, a barrelling presto.

My fingers fly. It’s a speed I once viewed as beyond my capability, but it now feels completely natural. "192" was when practice transformed into performance, freeing me to explore new worlds of artistic growth.

0. In high school, I learned how damaging it is to get caught up in a perpetual cycle of work; by taking breaks, I could open up valuable time to reflect on myself. As the foundation of my practice, "0" taught me balance.

I click the metronome off. Practice is done for the day.

Answering Stanford's Short Answer Questions:

Approaching stanford's "significant challenge" question.

"What is the most significant challenge that society faces today?"

To approach this Stanford essay prompt, consider a challenge that you are passionate about. Be specific in identifying the issue and its impact. Then, focus on developing a unique perspective on the challenge and propose potential solutions. Remember, Stanford values diversity of thought, so be sure to express your individuality in your response. Here's a great example of an amazing Stanford significant challenge essay from Ryan, who got into Stanford, Princeton, Columbia, and Brown. You can read all of Ryan's college applications here.

Through many forms of corruption, the ever-increasing wealth and power of the ultra-rich is seeping its way into our governments, slowly redefining who those in power aim to serve. With no control left in the hands of the people, I worry tyrannical, systematic exploitation is only a few "votes" away.

Answering Stanford's Last Two Summers Prompt

"How did you spend your last two summers?"

To approach Stanford's essay prompt "How did you spend your last two summers?" be specific and focus on highlighting your passions, interests, and how you spent your time productively. Did you volunteer or partake in any internships related to your career aspirations? Did you travel to a new place and discover a new culture? Did you learn a new skill or participate in a program that challenged you? Be sure to explain why these experiences were meaningful to you and how it has contributed to your personal growth. Showcasing your unique experiences and interests can make you stand out in your application. So, be bold, creative, and honest. The example below comes from Emma. You can read all of Emma's successful college applications, including her Stanford application, here.

Taking Fiction Writing at Stanford Summer Session, volunteering for the Aspire Education Project, being mentored by fiction author Deborah Davis, assembling masks for essential workers with my nana. Immersing myself in Northwestern’s Medill program, working as a day-camp counselor, teaching sewing at a children’s fashion camp, crafting inventive short stories.

How to Write Stanford's "Historical Moment" Essay

"What historical moment or event do you wish you could have witnessed?"

To approach Stanford's essay prompt "What historical moment or event do you wish you could have witnessed?" choose a specific moment or event that genuinely interests you. Research the moment or event and provide context on its historical significance. Share why you wish to witness it – what do you hope to learn from that experience? Would it enrich your life experiences or understanding of the world around you? Explain how this moment or event could help you shape your personal and academic path in Stanford. Lastly, showcase your intellectual curiosity and passion to learn by highlighting the specific details you found most fascinating. For more information about writing this essay, read our article here ! Below, we've provided an excellent example of Stanford's historical moment essay from Andrew, who got into incredible schools like Stanford and Columbia. You can read his complete set of college applications here.

The broken concrete of the Berlin Wall, encapsulated by Leonard Bernstein’s An die Freude on Christmas Day 1989, still resonates as a symbol of collective self-determination. I am inspired by the power of music to unite people, especially as we seek strength and reassurance to overcome our own challenges today.

Approaching Stanford's Extracurricular Prompt

"Briefly elaborate on one of your extracurricular activities, a job you hold, or responsibilities you have for your family."

To approach Stanford's essay prompt "Briefly elaborate on one of your extracurricular activities, a job you hold, or responsibilities you have for your family", choose a specific experience that highlights your character. Start by briefly describing your role or responsibilities, then focus on specific instances or achievements that demonstrate leadership, teamwork, or personal growth. Be sure to highlight how this experience has influenced you and contributed to your personal growth. Use concrete examples and quantify your impact, if possible. Remember, the goal is to showcase your unique experiences, skills, and character traits to the admissions committee. This awesome example comes from a Stanford premed student, Jude. You can read all of their applications here!

Heading the lighting department for my school’s theater company is the most difficult and rewarding position I have ever undertaken. Staying at school into the night, I spend hours hanging lights from scaffolding 50 feet in the air and methodically designing each and every lighting cue to tell a story.

How to Approach Stanford's "Looking Forward to Experiencing" Essay

"Name one thing you are looking forward to experiencing at Stanford."

To approach Stanford's essay prompt "Name one thing you are looking forward to experiencing at Stanford", be specific and personal in your response. This question is an opportunity to showcase your individuality, so choose something that genuinely excites you and aligns with your interests and passions. You might describe events, courses, clubs, or traditions at Stanford that you are eager to participate in. Focus on how this experience will impact your academic and personal growth, and how it will help you achieve your goals. Research the specific opportunities at Stanford and show that you have a genuine interest and connection to the university. The incredible example below comes from Thu, who got into Stanford, Yale, and Brown, and also won over $2.5 million in scholarships! You can read about his incredible essays and accomplishments here.

After watching countless videos about it on Youtube, I’ve become obsessed with it. I can clearly picture it in my mind: the bright California sun, the Spanish colonial architecture, and their grief-stricken faces. Rodin’s Burghers of Calais replicated in Memorial Court. It’s my favorite artwork and coincidentally at Stanford.

Reading example essays is an invaluable tool for students when crafting their own college application essays. Remember, the goal is not to copy the examples, but rather to learn from them and apply those lessons to your own unique experiences and perspective. If you want to read more excellent essay examples for Stanford, visit our massive essay database for a wealth of inspiration and guidance.

Writing essays for Stanford University requires more than just good writing skills; it requires ingenuity, creativity, and authenticity. You have the opportunity to showcase your unique experiences, perspective, and personality to the admissions committee. The key is to approach each essay prompt strategically, focus on specific experiences that demonstrate your character and potential, and edit and revise your work thoroughly. Remember that Stanford values diversity of thought, so don't be afraid to express your individuality in your responses. By following these tips, you can craft essays that make you stand out as a candidate and capture the attention of the admissions committee.

Read applications

Read the essays, activities, and awards that got them in. Read one for free !

Yale (+ 20 colleges)

Yale (+ 6 colleges)

Yale (+ 7 colleges)

Related articles

How to Write Harvard's Optional Essay

When it comes to college applications, Harvard is one of the most prestigious schools in the country. If you're hoping to get into this Ivy League institution, you'll want to complete its optional supplemental essay prompt, which asks: Your intellectual life may extend beyond the academic requirements of your particular school. Please use the space below to list additional intellectual activities that you have not mentioned or detailed elsewhere in your application. These could include, but are not limited to, supervised or self-directed projects not done as school work, training experiences, online courses not run by your school, or summer academic or research programs not described elsewhere. In this article, we will provide some tips on how to approach this prompt and write an essay that will impress the Harvard admissions office.

How to Write Harvard's Essays (with Real 2023 Harvard Essay Examples)

Harvard is among the world's most storied institutions, and writing their essays can be a challenging task! In this article, we discuss Harvard's essay prompts and how to approach them, providing real examples along the way!

Stanford University 2023-24 Supplemental Essay Prompt Guide

Early Action: Nov 1

Regular Decision Deadline: Jan 5

You Have: 

Stanford University 2023-24 Application Essay Question Explanations

The Requirements: 3 essays of 100-250 words; 5 short answers of 50 words Supplemental Essay Type(s):  Why ,  Community ,  Oddball

Unshockingly, given that Stanford is the most difficult university to get into in the country, this supplement is a doozie. It puts both your writing and creativity to the test in a myriad ways. One of the most important things to remember about this supplement, as with all supplements that lob a host of essays and short answer questions at you, is that each response is an opportunity to reveal something new about yourself to admissions. Think about the tidbits you have to offer up as you pull together your package and make sure you distribute them across the supplement. Try as hard as you can not to be repetitive. And, as much as you can, have fun with these. If you embrace the challenge laid out in front of you, your answers will be instilled with that positive spirit as well. Trust us.

The Stanford community is deeply curious and driven to learn in and out of the classroom. Reflect on an idea or experience that makes you genuinely excited about learning. (100 to 250 words) 

How hungry for knowledge are you? That’s what Stanford really wants to know. Focus on a subject that stokes your curiosity, a specific concept that has infiltrated your browser history, or an experience that has burned itself into your brain. What homework assignments are you clamoring to complete first? Which topics want to make you open up a new book, google the definition of word you’re not familiar with or hit play on a podcast? Who challenges you to think of issues in new ways? Now consider what about the subject, activity, or experience itself is inspiring your pursuit of knowledge. Are you driven by the pursuit of the truth and nothing but the truth? Maybe more abstract and creative arenas are more interesting to you. Regardless of what floats your boat, Stanford University is aiming to bring self-motivated, deep thinkers into their student body. Admissions officers want to know that you’ll be eager to contribute to lively class discussion and maybe conduct research in your latter years on campus. Show them that you’ll be a valuable addition to any classroom setting.

Virtually all of Stanford’s undergraduates live on campus. Write a note to your future roommate that reveals something about you or that will help your roommate — and us — know you better. (100 to 250 words) 

This, at its essence, is a creative writing exercise. All this time colleges have been asking you to write in a casual but professional voice — until now. Pretend you’re writing an email to a friend. Open your browser window and actually draft in a new message box if it helps you adjust your voice. You are now writing to your peer, not admissions. What might someone you are about to live with want to know about you? And, more importantly, what quirky personal information do you want to convey to admissions that might not be appropriate to reveal in response to a stuffier prompt? Are you a closet botanist who will be bringing 30 plants to your dorm room? Have you been practicing how to make your grandma’s special rice in a dorm room hot pot? This is a great place to inject a little humor in your application — if that’s your style. It is also a great opportunity for you to showcase what it would be like to be friends with you (without the use of emojis and with the addition of perfect grammar).

Please describe what aspects of your life experiences, interests and character would help you make a distinctive contribution as an undergraduate to Stanford University.

College applications are rampant with essay questions about community, so this essay is ripe for recycling (how eco-friendly of you!). If you haven’t already written a Community Essay that you plan to adapt and recycle here, we recommend considering the things that make you unique. What about your experiences, interests, or character might be worth highlighting for an admissions officer? And how can the experience, interest, or aspect of your character you choose enrich the learning environment at Stanford University for others? Maybe you have always been an organizer and the glue that holds your summer camp community together during the school year. How will you bring people together on campus? Maybe you were raised on a farm and developed a strong work ethic at a young age as you helped your parents tend to the fields. Will you be a natural leader in group projects and take initiative in the many clubs (be specific!) that you’d like to join? Be sure to connect your personal story to a future vision of yourself at Stanford.

Short Answers

What is the most significant challenge that society faces today (50 word limit).

Fifty words is not a lot of words. This is going to be a recurring thought as you begin to tackle the Stanford app. How do you explain society’s most significant challenge in just fifty words? You boil it down to its essence and rely on the topic to speak volumes. Think about what nags at you on a daily basis. How would you like to improve the world? Where might we be going down the wrong path? What you choose to write about will give admissions an idea of what you truly care about and how you see the world. Are you concerned that as a species we will never achieve true gender equality? Does climate change keep you up at night? What activities have you participated in or books have you read to educate yourself about this issue? Maybe you even have a solution to offer up. Show admissions that you can turn passion into action.

How did you spend your last two summers? (50 word limit)

Fifty words is not a lot of words. For this response, that means you will likely have to add and prune, add again and prune again. Feel free to take a straightforward approach to this question. Stanford really wants to know what you did last summer (and the summer before)! Just make sure to include the unexpected commitments that will not appear anywhere else on the application, like your babysitting job, your road trip with your family, or your backyard photography habit. Anything you can do to add a layer of understanding to admissions picture of you will help.

What historical moment or event do you wish you could have witnessed? (50 word limit)

Fifty words is not a lot of words. So this answer is really about creating an effective summary of the event in question, and concisely explaining the motivation behind your selection. This is another question in which your selection of topic tells a story. Maybe you want to witness the creation of Gutenberg’s printing press or the swearing in of the first African American president. Whatever you do, try to avoid subjects other students will likely flock to. MLK’s “I Had A Dream” speech is incredible, but it might not make for the best topic here — unless, of course, you have a highly personal story that connects to that moment that you can summarize in 50 words or less. (There are always exceptions to the rules!)

Briefly elaborate on one of your extracurricular activities, a job you hold, or responsibilities you have for your family. (50 word limit)

Like so many other universities, Stanford wants to get a feel for your commitments outside the classroom as well as in. Think about your application as a whole, reading through all of the Stanford prompts before you dig in,  and figure out what you can detail here that hasn’t or will not be addressed in other essays. Also make sure the activity, experience, job, or responsibility you highlight is something you are clearly invested in. Don’t choose to elaborate on a fundraiser to which you contribute five hours of your time, twice a year. This is a good place to feature a work experience if you have one, as that is something that often feels less standard than an internship or activity in which many other students participate. For example, tell admissions about the summer you spent working at a hot dog stand and how it taught you about responsibility, organization, and portable fans. That said, even if you write about a national club or organization that other students may feature, the trick to nailing this essay is personalization. Why is this the activity or experience you have chosen to highlight? How were you a contributor and how will it impact your ability to be a contributor on campus? How has participation made you a more compassionate, assertive, or responsible person overall? And how will this experience impact your future? You don’t have a lot of space here, so make sure you focus on personal and powerful details that other people could not replicate.

List five things that are important to you. (50 word limit)

Write down the first things that come to your mind, then give your brain time to generate some other options. You may be tempted to write “family, friends, football, French fries, and fun,” but answers like those are not going to set you apart in the eyes of admissions officers (even if the alliteration is on point). Make a list (the longer, the better) then try to trim it down by considering the value each “thing” brings to your life and which ones are most likely to add saturation to the artwork that is your application. Remember, your answers should be personal and, if possible, unexpected.

About Kat Stubing

View all posts by Kat Stubing »

Walk yourself through the writing process!

Contact us for information on rates and more!

• I am a * Student Parent Potential Partner School Counselor Private College Counselor
• Name * First Last
• Phone Type Mobile Landline
• Street Address
• Address City State / Province / Region Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czechia Côte d'Ivoire Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Réunion Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Sweden Switzerland Syria Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, the United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Türkiye US Minor Outlying Islands Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Åland Islands Country
• Which best describes you (or your child)? High school senior High school junior College student College grad Other
• How did you find CEA? Internet Search New York Times Guidance counselor/school Social Media YouTube Friend Special Event Delehey College Consulting Other
• Common App and Coalition Essays
• Supplemental Essays
• University of California Essays
• University of Texas Essays
• Resume Review
• Post-Grad Essays
• Specialized Services
• Waitlist Letters
• Private School Essays
• General College Counseling
• School list with priorities noted:
• Anything else we should know?
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

School Stats:

• Agnes Scott College
• Alvernia University
• American University
• Amherst College
• Babson College
• Bard College
• Barnard College
• Baylor University
• Bennington College
• Bentley University
• Berry College
• Bethany College
• Bishop’s University
• Boston College
• Boston University (BU)
• Bowdoin College
• Brandeis University
• Brown University
• Bryn Mawr College
• Bucknell University
• Butler University
• California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
• California Lutheran University
• Capitol Technology University
• Carleton College
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Catawba College
• Centre College
• Chapman University
• Claremont McKenna College
• Clark University
• College of Mount Saint Vincent
• College of William and Mary
• College of Wooster
• Colorado College
• Colorado School of Mines
• Columbia University
• Cornell University
• Culver-Stockton College
• D'Youville University
• Dartmouth College
• Davidson College
• Drexel University
• Duke University
• Earlham College
• Elon University
• Emerson College
• Emory University
• Flagler College
• Fordham University
• George Mason University
• Georgetown University
• Georgia State University
• Georgia Tech
• Gonzaga University
• Harvard University
• Harvey Mudd College
• Haverford College
• Hillsdale College
• Hofstra University
• Illinois Institute of Technology
• Illinois Wesleyan University
• Indiana University Bloomington
• Ithaca College
• Johns Hopkins University
• Kalamazoo College
• Lafayette College
• Lehigh University
• Lewis and Clark College
• Linfield University
• Loyola Marymount University (LMU)
• Lynn University
• Macalester College
• Malone University
• Manchester University
• Marist College
• Mary Baldwin University
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
• Meredith College
• Monmouth College
• Moravian University
• Morehouse College
• Mount Holyoke College
• New York University (NYU)
• North Park University
• Northwestern University
• Occidental College
• Oklahoma City University
• Olin College of Engineering
• Pepperdine University
• Pitzer College
• Pomona College
• Princeton University
• Providence College
• Purdue University
• Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
• Rice University
• Saint Elizabeth University
• Santa Clara University
• Sarah Lawrence College
• Scripps College
• Seattle Pacific University
• Smith College
• Soka University of America
• Southern Methodist University
• St. John’s College
• Stanford University
• Stonehill College
• Swarthmore College
• Syracuse University
• Texas A&M University
• Texas Christian University
• The College of Idaho
• The George Washington University
• The New School
• Trinity College
• Tufts University
• Tulane University
• University of California
• University of Central Florida (UCF)
• University of Chicago
• University of Cincinnati
• University of Colorado Boulder
• University of Florida
• University of Georgia
• University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
• University of Maryland
• University of Massachusetts Amherst
• University of Miami
• University of Michigan
• University of Minnesota
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC)
• University of North Carolina at Charlotte
• University of North Carolina at Greensboro
• University of Notre Dame
• University of Oklahoma
• University of Oregon
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Pittsburgh
• University of Richmond
• University of San Diego
• University of San Francisco
• University of Southern California (USC)
• University of Texas at Austin
• University of Tulsa
• University of Vermont
• University of Virginia (UVA)
• University of Washington
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Vanderbilt University
• Vassar College
• Villanova University
• Virginia Tech
• Wake Forest University
• Washington and Lee University
• Washington University in St. Louis
• Wellesley College
• Williams College
• Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
• Yale University

Want free stuff?

We thought so. Sign up for free instructional videos, guides, worksheets and more!

One-On-One Advising

Common App Essay Prompt Guide

Supplemental Essay Prompt Guide

• YouTube Tutorials
• Our Approach & Team
• Undergraduate Testimonials
• Postgraduate Testimonials
• Where Our Students Get In
• CEA Gives Back
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• Private School Admissions
• International Student Admissions
• Common App Essay Guide
• Supplemental Essay Guide
• Coalition App Guide
• The CEA Podcast
• Admissions Stats
• Notification Trackers
• Deadline Databases
• College Essay Examples
• Academy and Worksheets
• Waitlist Guides
• Get Started

Search Stanford:

Other ways to search: Map Profiles

Main Content

Explore the possibilities of a Stanford education.

Undergraduates

Undergraduate Admission

About 1,700 freshmen and 30 transfer students enroll at Stanford each year. We review each applicant with an eye to academic excellence, intellectual vitality, and personal context.

Undergraduate Financial Aid

Stanford meets the full financial need of every admitted undergrad who qualifies for assistance. Tuition is covered for undergrads with family incomes under $150,000. Tuition, room, and board are covered for undergrads with family incomes below $100,000.

Profile of the Class of 2027

Class of 2027

Graduate Studies

Graduate admission.

More than 200 degree programs are offered across seven schools at Stanford. Admission requirements vary greatly among them.

Graduate Admissions

Financing Graduate Study

The cost of graduate study at Stanford — and the resources available for financial support — vary by degree, school and enrollment status. About 85% of Stanford graduate students receive financial assistance.

Graduate Student Funding

Vice Provost for Graduate Education

The Office of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education offers information for prospective students of the 200+ graduate degree programs offered at Stanford.

Information for Prospective Students

Financial Aid

We are committed to making a world-class education affordable.

Applying To Other Programs

Summer Session

High school students, current Stanford students, and other college students can all apply to participate in eight-week summer academic programs.

Lifelong Learning

Stanford offers valuable opportunities in continuing adult education, executive, and professional programs, and special programs for K-12 students.

Continuing Education Programs

Information for postdoctoral scholars seeking positions at Stanford University.

Postdoctoral Positions

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets & Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Social Impact
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Services
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Get Involved
• Reading Materials
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study

Ilya A. Strebulaev

The David S. Lobel Professor of Private Equity

Additional administrative titles, research statement, research interests.

• Innovation Financing, Venture Capital, Corporate Innovation, Innovation Ecosystems, Private Equity
• Corporate Finance, Financial Decision Making

Teaching Statement

Ilya A. Strebulaev is The David S. Lobel Professor of Private Equity and Professor of Finance at Stanford Graduate School of Business, where he has been a faculty member since 2004, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He also is the founder and director of the Stanford GSB Venture Capital Initiative. He graduated from the London Business School with a doctorate in finance. He also holds degrees from Lomonosov Moscow State University (BSc Economics) and the New Economic School, Moscow (MA Economics). 

Professor Strebulaev is an expert in corporate finance, venture and angel capital, innovation financing, corporate innovation, private equity, and financial decision-making. His work has been widely published in leading academic journals, including   the  Journal of Finance,  the  Review of  Financial Studies,  and the  Journal of Financial Economics.  He has been awarded a number of prestigious academic awards, including the First Paper Prize of the Brattle Award for the best corporate paper published in the Journal of Finance, the Fama-DFA Prize for the best asset pricing paper published in the Journal of Financial Economics , and the Trefftzs Award by the Western Finance Association. His research has also been featured in a variety of media, including the  New York Times,  the  Wall Street Journal and Harvard Business Review .

His most recent research has examined many aspects of the venture capital industry. In the largest ever survey of VCs to date, he and his co-authors analyze all the aspects of decision-making by venture capitalists. He and his co-author developed a valuation framework of private VC-backed companies. In applying this framework to the valuation of highly valued VC-backed companies (called “unicorns”), hey found that these companies on average are overvalued by 50% and that many of the so-called unicorns lose their unicorn status once their fair value is taken into consideration. He has also recently researched the decision making and organizational structure of corporate VC units.

Professor Strebulaev teaches the MBA, MSx, PhD, and executive education programs, and has been awarded the Stanford MBA Distinguished Teaching Award, the Sloan Teaching Excellence Award, as well as the inaugural Masters in Management Best Teacher Award at the London Business School. He developed an MBA-level course on Angel and Venture Capital that he has been teaching for more than ten years. The course enables the students to study many aspects of innovation financing at various stages, including decision making, attracting venture and angel investments, negotiating contractual terms, valuing VC-backed companies, and analyzing the performance of venture capital funds. Recently, he also developed a course on the private equity industry that covers all aspects of the organization and design of PE firms and funds, as well as the relationship between general partners of these funds and their investors, limited partners.

Professor Strebulaev has also led many workshops and executive sessions on new innovation trends, venture capital, the ecosystem of Silicon Valley, corporate innovation, and strategic decision making for senior business and government leaders around the world. He also has been consulting companies and investors around the world on valuation of VC-backed companies, selection of VC investments and managers, and portfolio allocation. He also serves as an expert witness in litigation matters.

When not teaching or doing research, Ilya enjoys spending time with his family, reading, traveling, listening to classical music, and appreciating fine wine and art. 

Academic Degrees

• PhD in Finance, London Business School, 2004
• MA, New Economic School, 1999
• BSc, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 1997

Academic Appointments

• At Stanford University since 2004

Awards and Honors

• Shanahan Family Faculty Fellow for 2021–22
• Dhirubhai Ambani Faculty Fellow in Entrepreneurship for 2014-15
• Shanahan Family Faculty Scholar for 2013–14
• The Sloan Teaching Excellence Award, Stanford, 2013
• First Place, Fama-DFA Prize for Best Paper, Journal of Financial Economics, 2012
• The Masters in Management Inaugural Best Teacher Award, London Business School, 2010
• The MBA Distinguished Teacher Award, Stanford, 2009
• First Paper Prize, Brattle Award for Best Paper, Journal of Finance, 2007
• The Trefftzs Award for the Best Student Paper, WFA, 2004
• Award for Best Paper, Dimitris B. Chorafas Foundation, 2004

Academic Publications

Degree courses, executive education & other non-degree programs, stanford case studies, stanford gsb affiliations, service to the profession.

• Member, American Finance Association
• Member, American Economic Association
• Member, Western Finance Association
• Member, European Finance Association
• In the Media

Insights by Stanford Business

School news.

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Business Transformation
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• Career Advancement
• Career Change
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• Information for Recommenders
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• After You’re Admitted
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• Join a Board
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

• Student Life
• News & Announcements
• Application Requirements
• Tours and Programs
• Cost of Attendance
• Admission Volunteers

Gateways for...

First-year applicants.

• Requirements and Deadlines

Required Application Components

• Common Application
• $90 nonrefundable application fee or  fee waiver request
• ACT or SAT test scores ( test optional )
• School Report form and counselor letter of recommendation
• Official transcript(s) or academic results
• Letters of recommendation from two teachers
• Midyear transcript (due by February 15)

Application Deadlines

Submit your Common Application by 11:59 p.m. (in your local timezone) on the applicable deadline.

Stanford reserves the right to evaluate an application and render a final decision even if all pieces of the application have not been received.

Applicants are limited to a total of three applications for undergraduate admission, whether for first-year admission, transfer admission or a combination of both. If you have submitted fewer than three applications to Stanford, you may reapply.

• Admission Overview
• Holistic Admission
• Admission Statistics
• Regular Decision and Restrictive Early Action
• Academic Preparation
• Application and Essays
• Application Fee/Fee Waiver
• Standardized Testing
• Transcript and Required School Forms
• Arts Portfolio
• Guidelines for Home-Schooled Applicants
• After Submitting Your Application

Transfer Applicants

• Eligibility & Transfer Credit
• Transcripts and College Report
• Letters of Recommendation
• International Applicants

Veterans and ROTC

• Financial Aid and the Yellow Ribbon Program
• Selecting the Appropriate Application Plan
• Key Contacts
• Undocumented Applicants
• QuestBridge
• Admission Forums, Student Programs, and Special Events
• Virtual Campus Visits
• Discover Stanford
• Stanford Preview and Viewbook
• Join the Mailing List
• University Policies

Engage with Us

Stanford complies with the Jeanne Clery Act and publishes crime statistics for the most recent three-year period. View the full report .

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University . Stanford , California 94305 .

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Georg [György] Lukács

Georg (György) Lukács (1885–1971) was a literary theorist and philosopher who is widely viewed as one of the founders of “Western Marxism” and as a forerunner of 20th-century critical theory. Lukács is best known for his Theory of the Novel (1916) and History and Class Consciousness (1923). In History and Class Consciousness , he laid out a wide-ranging critique of the phenomenon of “reification” in capitalism and formulated a vision of Marxism as a self-conscious transformation of society. This text became a reference point both for critical social theory and for many currents of countercultural thought. Even though his later work did not capture the imagination of the intellectual public to the same extent as his earlier writings, Lukács remained a prolific writer and an influential theorist in his later career and published hundreds of articles on literary theory and aesthetics, not to mention numerous books, including two massive works on aesthetics and ontology. He was also active as a politician in Hungary in both the revolution of 1919 and during the events of 1956. Today, his work remains of philosophical interest not only because it contains the promise of an undogmatic, non-reductionist reformulation of Marxism, but also because it combines a philosophical approach that draws on Neo-Kantianism, Hegel, and Marx with an acute cultural sensitivity and a powerful critique of modern life inspired by Weber’s and Simmel’s sociological analyses of modern rationalization.

1. Life and Career

2.1 life and form, 2.2 neo-kantian aesthetics, 2.3 modernity and the loss of totality, 3.1 reification theory, 3.2 standpoint theory and revolution, 3.3 methodology and social ontology in history and class consciousness, 4.1 the critique of history and class consciousness, 4.2 re-reading the philosophical tradition: hegel and the struggle against “irrationalism”, 4.3 the ontology of social being, 4.4 aesthetics: realism and the work of art as a closed totality, biographies, primary sources, secondary sources and selected literature, other internet resources, related entries.

Lukács was born Bernát György Löwinger on April 13, 1885, in Budapest. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Kolozsvár in 1906 and a doctorate from the University of Budapest in 1909. In the following years, Lukács made a name for himself as a literary and aesthetic theorist, working in Budapest, Berlin (where he was influenced by Georg Simmel), Florence, and Heidelberg. In 1910 and 1911, Lukács published his essay collection Soul and Form and, together with Lajos Fülep, founded the short-lived avant-garde journal A Szellem ( The Spirit ). Lukács’s world was sent into turmoil at that time by the death of his close friend Leo Popper and by the suicide of Irma Seidler, who had been his lover. He felt responsible for Seidler’s death, and it proved to have an enormous impact on him, as reflected in his 1911 essay “On Poverty of Spirit.”

During the same period, Lukács developed a close connection with Max and Marianne Weber in Heidelberg, with Ernst Bloch, and with the Neo-Kantian philosophers Heinrich Rickert and Emil Lask. Between 1912 and 1914 he worked on a first attempt to formulate a systematic approach to art, which remained unpublished during his lifetime ( GW 16). In the First World War, Lukács was exempted from frontline military service. In 1914, he married the Russian political activist (and convicted terrorist) Jelena Grabenko.

In 1913, Lukács began participating in the influential “Sunday circle” of Budapest intellectuals, which included Karl Mannheim. After returning from wartime service in the Hungarian censor’s office, he published The Theory of the Novel (1916). In 1917, despite Weber’s support, he failed to receive a Habilitation (teaching qualification) at the University of Heidelberg. Between 1916 and 1918, he also resumed his work on aesthetics, which resulted in the unpublished manuscript of the so-called “Heidelberg Aesthetics” ( GW 17). To the surprise of many of his friends, Lukács joined the Hungarian Communist Party in 1918, although, as his essay on “Bolshevism as a Moral Problem” attests, not without reservations.

Following his rapid ascent as one of the leading thinkers of the Communist Party, Lukács became more involved in day-to-day politics. After the revolution in 1919, he first served as a deputy commissar and then as commissar of public education in Béla Kun’s government. Later, when war broke out, he served as a political commissar in the Hungarian Red Army (in which role he ordered the execution of several soldiers; see Kadarkay 1991: 223). After the communist government was defeated, Lukács fled to Vienna at the end of 1919, where he married his second wife, Gertrud Bortstieber. Charged with coordinating the clandestine activities of the exiled Communist Party, he remained under constant threat of expulsion to Hungary.

In 1923, Lukács published his most famous work, the essay collection History and Class Consciousness . In these essays, Lukács argues forcefully for a philosophically self-reflective version of Marxism as a solution to the problems that vexed modern philosophy, develops the idea of capitalist society as a “totality” that is totally integrated as the value-form, sketches a distinctive Marxist epistemology, and identifies structural unfreedom (rather than exploitation or inequality) as the fundamental problem of capitalism. In these essays, Lukács draws not only on Marxist classics but also on sociological insights into the character of modern societies that he acquired through Weber and Simmel. His reformulation of the philosophical premises of Marxism entails a rejection of the then contemporary forms of materialism and scientism endorsed by many Soviet party intellectuals. Unsurprisingly, the party orthodoxy condemned the book as an expression of ultra-leftism (in spite of Lukács’s pro-Leninist revisions to the articles in the volume that had already appeared previously; see Löwy 1979: 172–179).

Nevertheless, the book had a decisive influence on the early Frankfurt School. Lukács participated in the 1923 “Marxist Work Week,” which laid the foundation for the founding of the Institute for Social Research, and there is evidence that the major critical theorists of the time were all deeply impressed by the reification essay in particular (Stahl 2018). Overall, History and Class Consciousness cemented Lukács’s position as a leading scholar of Marxism, putting him at the forefront of the debates of the time (an example being his quickly written study on Lenin on the occasion of the Soviet leader’s death in 1924). In 1928, however, Lukács had to give up his political activities after he presented the so-called “Blum Theses” (see 1928). In this draft of a party platform for Hungary, which was named after his party alias, he argued for a broad, democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants. These theses were condemned as a right-wing deviation by the party (which denounced him as both a left-wing and a right-wing dissident within a span of five years).

Following another arrest by the Austrian authorities, Lukács left Vienna in 1929, first for Berlin and then for Budapest, where he went underground for three months. He was eventually summoned by the Soviet party leadership to Moscow, where he stayed from 1930 on, leaving only for Comintern missions in Berlin and for Tashkent during the war. In Moscow, Lukács held a position at the Marx-Engels Institute. During this time, he first came into contact with early works by Marx that had previously remained unpublished. As Lukács became (at least outwardly) increasingly subservient to the Stalinist orthodoxy, he publicly retracted the views espoused in History and Class Consciousness (see 1933b). The degree of Lukács’s agreement with Stalinism is disputed to this day (see Lichtheim 1970; Deutscher 1972; Kolakowski 1978; Pike 1988). However, it is clear from his writings that while he publicly defended Stalinist dogmas in both aesthetics and politics during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s (1933a, 1938, 1951), he later repeatedly criticized Stalin and Stalinism (see 1957, 1962).

In 1944, Lukács returned to Budapest and became a professor at the local university. In 1948, he published his two-volume study The Young Hegel (written partly during the 1930s in Moscow). In 1949, he also traveled to Paris to engage in a debate about existentialism and Marxism with Sartre. The works of this period reflect both his allegiance to orthodox Soviet Marxism and his uneasiness with the Stalinist post-war situation. A widely criticized writing from this time is The Destruction of Reason , published in 1954. It denounced much of the German philosophical and literary tradition after Marx as an outgrowth of “irrationalism” and as bearing responsibility for the ascent of National Socialism. During this time, Lukács also continued to defend a conservative ideal of realism in aesthetics (see 1951).

After again being subjected to criticism from the party and virtually excluded from public life in the mid-1950s, Lukács was able to embark on a new chapter following the Hungarian uprising against Soviet rule in 1956. Following Stalin’s death, not only did it become increasingly possible for him to publicly criticize Stalinism and to again voice his vision of the future of Marxism (for the first time since 1928), arguing that the Communist Party should regain public trust by competing with other leftist forces within a multi-party democracy, but he also served in the short-lived Nagy government as minister for public education. After the subsequent Soviet invasion, he was arrested and imprisoned in Romania. Unlike other members of the government, he was not executed but merely expelled from the Communist Party, which he did not rejoin until 1969. From the 1960s on, Lukács—having had to retire from all academic positions—worked on his two-volume Specificity of the Aesthetic and on a Marxist ethics that would later partly become the Ontology of Social Being , which remained unfinished in his lifetime. He also continued to publish extensively on literature and art. Lukács passed away on June 4, 1971, in Budapest.

2. Early Writings

Lukács’s early writings—before his turn to Marxism in 1918—are animated by concerns that are also present, albeit transformed, in his later political thought. In this period, Lukács formulates a sophisticated aesthetic theory and critique of modern culture, which he diagnoses as being characterized by an insurmountable abyss between objective cultural forms and the richness of “genuine life.”

He takes up the issue of the relationship between “form” and “life” in three different but closely interconnected discussions. First, there is the question of how the element of “form” distinguishes art as a separate sphere of value. This is most explicitly discussed in his two attempts at a systematic philosophy of art. Second, there is the sociological-historical question about the relation between (individual and collective) life and aesthetic and ethical forms in modern bourgeois society. This topic is dominant both in the History of the Modern Drama (1909) and in the Theory of the Novel (1916). A third strand concerns existential and ethical questions, most explicitly discussed in Soul and Form and in the essay “On Poverty of Spirit.”

Alongside “form”, two central concepts in Lukács’s early thought are “totality” and “life.” By “totality” Lukács means a whole set of elements that are meaningfully interrelated in such a way that the essence of each element can only be understood in relation to the others. “Life” denotes the intrinsic richness and potentiality of experiences and actions. Both individual and social life are in principle capable of forming an integrated totality. However, this is only the case if the essential properties of life’s elements are intelligible in terms of their relations to other particulars of life. Lukács claims that this was the case in Homeric Greece, where a totality of meaning was immanent to life itself. This immanence of meaning and the totality it constituted were lost in subsequent historical developments, however, as form became external to life.

In regard to the relation between form and life, we can distinguish between forms that are forms of life itself, produced by that life, and abstract forms which are imposed onto life from the outside. When a form is imposed on life that is not a form of that specific mode of life (or if the form in question cannot be realized in empirical life), such an imposition always runs the risk of distorting the meanings of the particular actions or persons. But at the same time, form is necessary for life to become intelligible and unified (see Bernstein 1984: 77–80). Within the sphere of individual agency, persons face this dilemma in regard to the choice of either authentically expressing the particular meanings of their own life, risking the loss of form and, consequently, the loss of intelligible access to these meanings, or of imposing an external form as a normative demand on their life, risking distortion, inauthenticity and even the denial of life itself.

Except for the History of the Modern Drama (1909), Lukács’s earliest work is self-consciously essayistic in form. As Lukács explains in “On the Nature and Form of the Essay” (1911a), this is because the essay addresses life through the medium of form (1911a: 8) and takes form (in particular, the form of a work of art) seriously as a subject. Essayistic writing is not only writing about form, however; it must always examine the conditions under which life can be given form in the first place. Modernity has made this problem more virulent insofar as the existing means by which life can give itself form have become problematic, such that we now experience them as abstractions.

Following Weber, Lukács characterizes the bourgeois form of life in terms of the primacy of an ethics of work and inner strength. Corresponding to this form of life, Lukács claims, there was once a form of art that was capable of expressing an unproblematic relationship between life and form (for example, in Theodor Storm’s case, the insight that the bourgeois citizen must concentrate on work and entrust the formation of life to fate; see 1910a: 60). However, when that bourgeois life-form disappeared, the remaining bourgeois “way of life” was transformed into a kind of asceticism that grew hostile to life itself. The same holds for the corresponding movement, within art, of rejecting life in favor of “art for its own sake,” that is, a form of artistic production that self-consciously (and with justification) refuses to express life because it has no foundation in a corresponding life form.

Lukács thus argues that modern art is caught in the dilemma of having to achieve harmony between life and form, either at the expense of life’s intensity or at a purely symbolic and imaginary level—by effectively withdrawing from life (an idea he discusses in reference to Novalis; see 1908: 50; see also Butler 2010: 9). In both cases, art turns against life. By contrast, a genuine attempt to give “real” or “absolute life” (that is, genuinely meaningful life as opposed to the chaos of “empirical life”; see Kavoulakos 2014: 22–26; Márkus 1983: 11; Löwy 1979: 104) a distinct form necessarily involves the rejection of the meaningless necessities of ordinary life. In “The Metaphysics of Tragedy” (1910b), Lukács ascribes this task to modern tragedy. When nature and fate have become “terrifyingly soulless” (1910b: 154) and any hope for a “friendly order” (ibid.) has disappeared, the tragic becomes a task—that of rejecting ordinary life in favor of the opportunity to “live within the periphery of tragedy” (1910b: 173).

The ethical dimension of the relation between life and form is made most explicit in Lukács’s essay on Kierkegaard and in “On Poverty of Spirit.” Kierkegaard’s rejection of Regine Olsen’s love is lauded for its expression of the need to give one’s own empirical life a definite, unambiguous form, thereby transforming it into absolute life—in Kierkegaard’s case, by attempting to perform an authentic gesture (1910c: 28). Yet Kierkegaard’s ethical position suffered from a defect: he attempted to reconcile ordinary life with a form that was only appropriate for genuine, “absolute” life. Due to its inherent ambiguity and foreignness to form, ordinary life cannot ever be successfully lived in such a way (1910c: 40). Thus, Kierkegaard’s attempt to live a genuine life was doomed from the start.

The conclusion of this line of thought seems to point towards an insoluble dilemma. But the 1911 essay “On Poverty of Spirit”—a fusion of an autobiographical reflection on Lukács’s role in Irma Seidler’s suicide and an examination of theoretical issues—points to a different conclusion: the rejection of an “ethics of duty.” Lukács argues that our adherence to a formal, rule-based ethics is to be blamed for our alienation from life. Even though the submission to “form” that is implicit in adopting a formalist ethics is the basis from which social life becomes possible in the first place, it prevents people from forming “human relationships.” As Lukács writes, “[f]orm […] is like a bridge that separates” (1911b: 44). Lukács contrasts such an ethics with the ideal of “goodness,” which represents “real life.” “Goodness” involves a rejection of rules and duties towards others in favor of pure actions that may be sinful, chaotic, and futile. The soul of the good person, Lukács claims, “is a pure white slate, upon which fate writes its absurd command” (1911b: 48). This anti-consequentialist and anti-deontological ethics of pure action ultimately culminates in a conception of “works.” Only by sacrificing themselves for the sake of works can people (or, as Lukács’s narrator claims, “men”) empty themselves of the psychological content of everyday life and prepare themselves for the grace of goodness. This final line of thought points towards a social utopia: by overcoming the alienated world of “mechanical forces” (1911b: 45) through works that transform life, we may recover a genuine community with and a direct knowledge of others wherein “subject and object collapse into each other” (1911b: 46). This vision of a final overcoming of alienation seems to offer a way out of the theoretical impasse of Lukács’s earlier position, but at the cost of endorsing ethical decisionism.

While Lukács’s cultural criticism seeks to capture distinctively modern phenomena, its claims are backed up by an aesthetic theory that aims to discover transcendental conditions of the aesthetic that are immune to historical variability. Even though Lukács’s early work draws on Georg Simmel’s theory of culture and on the Nietzschean idea of an intrinsic tension between life and form, its central anchoring point is a Neo-Kantian framework (for a detailed discussion of the influence of Emil Lask in particular, see Kavoulakos 2014). This framework is most clearly evident in his two systematic attempts to produce a philosophy of art in Heidelberg ( GW 16 and 17). Here, Lukács seeks to provide a philosophical explanation of the conditions of the possibility of art that takes the work of art as the fundamental locus of aesthetic meaning, rather than deriving this meaning from either artistic creation or aesthetic experience.

In his early aesthetic thought, Lukács distinguishes—taking up Neo-Kantian terminology—between different spheres of reality. The most immediate sphere is the “reality of experience,” in which everything appears as an object of qualitative experience, or (in the 1916 version) as having a given object character ( Gegenständlichkeit ) that is fundamentally heterogeneous. Lukács envisages two arguments concerning the role that art can play in relation to this sphere: in the 1912 Philosophy of Art , he argues that any adequate communication of meaning between people must appear impossible from within the experiential sphere, since the infinite qualitative particulars of experience cannot ever be successfully communicated. However, the desire to communicate meaning drives people to adopt different means of communication that, although inadequate for expressing the reality of experience, enable them to overcome their separateness by relating to each other in terms of other spheres of reality (for example, the sphere of logical validity). While logic and ethics constitute “pure” spheres of communicable meaning, however, the categories of the aesthetic cannot be fully separated from experience.

In the 1916 Aesthetics , Lukács adopts a more radical version of this Neo-Kantian argument: whereas the reality of everyday life is characterized by a heterogeneity of forms of objects, the aesthetic sphere of validity is characterized by a distinct form of objectivity that is legislated as a norm by experience itself. Thus, the contrast between everyday life and art is not one between experience and validity but one between the heterogeneity of everyday life and the homogeneous form that is appropriate to the autonomy of experience ( GW 17: 36). Consequently, in comparison to the logical and ethical spheres of validity, aesthetics has a distinct status. While in these other spheres of validity objective norms and subjective attitudes are fully separable, the autonomy of experience legislates a normative standard that involves a specific relationship between subjective experience and objective norm.

The value that defines the aesthetic sphere, Lukács claims, can only be derived from the concept of the work of art since this concept is presupposed by all descriptions of artistic production or aesthetic experience. Even though neither production nor reception is constitutive of the value of works of art, they can still serve as a basis for reconstructing the independent normative status of aesthetics. The result of this analysis is a conception of the work of art as an ideal homogeneous unity of form and material . In the 1912 Philosophy of Art , this unity is characterized in terms of the experiential content’s becoming completely communicable and containing all possible aspects of a possible experience, thus forming a “concrete totality” ( GW 16: 83, 91, 112 and GW 17: 110) of its own world within itself. By contrast, in the 1916 Aesthetics , it is brought about through a process in which the constitutive function of experience becomes completely autonomous, determining both form and content. Such an ideal work of art is, in virtue of this harmony, a Utopian fulfillment of the attitudes that are already operative in the ordinary world of experience ( GW 16: 82).

Works of art therefore present us with an “immanent utopia” of experience, that is, with the vision of a form of experience that is ordered and unified by a constitutive “standpoint” ( GW 16: 82) such that form and content are completely appropriate for each other. Because of these features, such an experience embodies a maximum of objectivity in the subject’s relation to an object that is completely appropriate to its subjectivity ( GW 17: 100). This finally answers the question regarding the a priori conditions of art: as an ideal of a particular kind of possible experience, the work of art is always historically specific. However, both the potential to become a totality in virtue of their form and the normative demand to do so are timeless, a priori conditions of the possibility of works of art in the Neo-Kantian sense ( GW 16: 168).

Another aspect of Lukács’s early work concerns the historical changes undergone by our relation to form. In his early analysis of the history and sociology of drama ( History of the Modern Drama , 1909), Lukács develops an account of the connection between aesthetic genres and historical changes. He argues that drama is connected to specific historical circumstances: for drama to exist, there needs to be a prevailing Weltanschauung ( GW 15: 44) that seeks drama as its preferred mode of expression. This tragic Weltanschauung only exists in periods of societal disintegration, when individual emotions and objective facts are so mismatched as to elicit heroic forms of denial of social reality.

In The Theory of the Novel (1916), Lukács turns towards the philosophy of history in order to clarify the relationship between the historical changes undergone by transcendental standpoints and the “pure forms” of aesthetic genres. The primary object of his discussion is the epic: Lukács claims that works of art that belong to this genre—for example Homeric epic poetry and the modern novel—must always express the objective reality of social and individual human life as it is (1916: 46). However, because of the distinctive “metaphysical conditions” of different epochs, they express this objective reality in radically different ways. Homeric epic poetry takes as its starting point a world that constitutes a closed totality (1916: 33), that is, a world in which life, culture, meaning, actions, and social institutions form a harmonious whole. In particular, Lukács claims that in Ancient Greece the “essence” of being was immanent to life rather than having to be sought out in a transcendent realm. Furthermore, there was no gap between individual consciousness and objectified meaning in the world that would have required the individual to project meaning onto the world. Individuals in Ancient Greece only had to accept the totality of meaning within their world, even if they were, in some particular situation or another, unable to understand it. By contrast, modern society is constitutively alienated: merely conventional social institutions devoid of meaning are disconnected from individuals and their highly individualized self-understandings. Therefore, in modern society meaning can only be found within the inner life of the individual (1916: 61).

Starting from this description of a closed totality, Lukács claims that the intellectual history of the modern world was prefigured in the cultural history of Ancient Greece, in the movement from epic poetry to tragedy and then ultimately to philosophy. In the course of this movement, the sources of meaning became increasingly more external to immediate life. As a consequence, Lukács argues that these three genres inhabit three different “transcendental loci ” (1916: 36). Tragedy and philosophy reflect the loss of a meaningful totality, whereas the possibility of epic poetry depends on its immanence. As Lukács claims, this is why “art forms become subject to a historico-philosophical dialectic” (1916: 39).

The cause of this development is a loss of totality through historical changes that transform the objective institutions of social life into mere conventions and into a purely external “second nature” (1916: 62f., 112). This alienation of the individual from the world leads to a situation of “transcendental homelessness” (1916: 40, 60) in which individuals must take up a purely normative “should be” (1916: 47) stance toward the world. The novel is always related to the development of such individuals. This development can take the form of a subjective-idealist illusion (e.g., as in Don Quixote ) or of a disillusion, that is, of individuals understanding the impossibility of finding meaning in the world. Lukács consequently argues that the novel is the form of epic writing that is appropriate to a specific moment in history. In modernity, epic writing no longer has a distinct form that can express a particular relation between life and essence within a totality. Rather, the form of the novel is an attempt to deal with the absence of this relation (1916: 59; see Jameson 1971: 172).

Lukács’s understanding of alienation as a historical loss of totality and the consequent problem of form allows him to formulate the kernel of a Utopian vision: the very form of the novel points to the possibility of a renewed relation between the individual and the world in which meaning can again be found.

3. History and Class Consciousness

Not only did Lukács’s 1918 conversion to communism and his subsequent engagement with philosophical Marxism confound his friends, but even today’s readers can find it difficult to track the many shifts in Lukács’s theoretical commitments between 1918 and 1923.

In the December 1918 article “Bolshevism as an Ethical Problem,” Lukács draws a connection between his newfound Marxist convictions and his previous ethical views: whereas the historical necessity of class struggle is only a descriptive claim in Marxism, the normative , ethical requirement to establish a classless society must be separated from issues of truth and recognized as a utopian form of ethical idealism, appropriate for the expression of a pure will. In 1918, Lukács still thought that this insight led to a paradox: In order for the proletarian “messianic class” (1918: 218) to overcome class society, it must first seize power by creating the most extreme form of class dominance, i.e., a dictatorship. Bolshevism thus presupposes that evil actions can produce good outcomes, or, as Lukács puts it in the essay “Tactics and Ethics,” that tragedy cannot be avoided in revolutionary politics (1919a: 10). By the time History and Class Consciousness appeared, however, Lukács seems to have thought of himself as having found another conception of revolutionary action that paved the way for a new approach to political practice.

At the foundation of this new conception lies the theory of reification that Lukács introduces in the essay “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat.” This essay is credited not only with being one of the foundational texts of “Western Marxism” (Anderson 1976), but also with spelling out the paradigmatic “central problem” (Brunkhorst 1998) of critical theory.

Lukács frames his argument as an extension of Marx’s analysis of the “fetishism of the commodity form” in Capital I (Marx [1867] 1992: 163–176), where Marx refers to the fact that social relations between producers of commodities appear in capitalism under the guise of objective, calculable, properties of things (“value”).

While in Marx the form that social relations acquire due to this fetishism (i.e., a form that furnishes commodities with features that make taking an instrumental, quantifying attitude towards them—and ultimately towards social relations themselves—appropriate) is analyzed mainly with regard to how it distorts the relationship between subjects and their economic circumstances, Lukács adopts a far more radical claim. The commodity form, he argues, has gradually become the “universal category of society as a whole” (1923a: 86). In capitalist societies, the commodity form even becomes the dominant form of objectivity itself ( Gegenständlichkeitsform ). Drawing on debates in contemporary Neo-Kantian thought (see Lotz 2020: 27–31; Feenberg 2017: 113; Kavoulakos 2018), Lukács remains committed to the Kantian idea that the condition of the possibility of synthesizing our experience into an experience of objects depends on our having access to “forms,” which thus have a transcendental status. In contrast to Kant, however, Lukács understands these forms as both socially shared and historically variable. In capitalist societies in particular, the commodity form thus becomes the transcendental determining factor of both objectivity and subjectivity.

Both the objective and the subjective dimension of the emergence of the commodity form are analyzed by Lukács as emerging from concrete changes to the economic structure. On the objective side, when industrial work processes become rationalized as a result of their subsumption under the dominance of commodity exchange, these processes no longer display the typical “unity” of intentionally integrated human work. As each individual labor effort can in principle constitute an input to many products, each operation is related to a “set of heterogeneous use-values” (1923a: 89) and thus no longer forms part of a unique, unified work process. On the subjective side, reification entails the fragmentation of human experience, leading to an attitude of “contemplation” in which one passively adapts to a law-like system of social “second nature” and to an objectifying stance towards one’s own mental states and capacities.

As Lukács writes concerning the commodity form:

[it] stamps its imprint upon the whole consciousness of man; his qualities and abilities are no longer an organic part of his personality, they are things which he can “own” or “dispose of” like the various objects of the external world. And there is no natural form in which human relations can be cast, no way in which man can bring his physical and psychic “qualities” into play without their being subjected increasingly to this reifying process. (1923a: 100)

Lukács calls this development “reification.” It is a process that primarily affects the objective way in which human beings relate to the totality of social relationships that is constitutive of the meaning of their actions, separating this totality (and thus the meaning of their actions) from their self-understanding and establishing it as a form of objective reality. Derivatively, the socially created features of objects (primarily their features as commodities), relations between individual people, and their relations to themselves also acquire the character of a subject-independent, alien objectivity (Stahl 2011). The objective and subjective dimensions of the dominance of the commodity form constitute a complex of reification because the properties of objects, subjects, and social relations become “thing-like” in this particular way. These properties become independent, quantifiable, non-relational features that must remain alien to any subjective meaning that one could attach to them.

With this description of the way in which the dynamics of capitalist society affect not only people materially but the very form of objectivity by which they can relate to the world, Lukács combines Weber’s theory of rationalization, Simmel’s theory of modern culture, and his own idea of a modern contradiction between “form” and “life” (see Dannemann 1987) with Marx’s theory of value. The resulting theory of reification as a socially induced pathology not only had considerable influence on the Frankfurt School (Stahl 2018; on Lukács’s influence on Adorno, see Schiller 2011 and Braunstein/Duckheim 2015; on the engagement of the later generations of Frankfurt School criticism with Lukács, see Habermas 1984: 355–365; Honneth 2008; cf. also Chari 2010, Kavoulakos 2017) but also led Lucien Goldmann to speculate that Heidegger’s Being and Time should be read as an answer to Lukács (Goldmann 1977).

The theory of social rationalization on which Lukács’s argument rests goes beyond a mere description of economic relations, towards a theory of cultural change. The core of this argument is the claim that the dominance of the commodity form in the economic sphere must necessarily lead to the dominance of rational calculation and formal reason in society as a whole and will consequently involve a break with the organic unity and totality of previous forms of human existence. By forcing politics and law to adapt to the demands of capitalist exchange, the commodity form transforms these spheres into a mode of rational calculability (a line of thought that clearly stems from Weber)—which helps to explain the rise of the bureaucratic state and the dominance of formal, positive law that continues to alienate individuals from society and encourages their passivity in the face of objectified, mechanical rules (1923a: 98).

This development leads to a contradictory situation on both the practical and the theoretical level: because the process of rationalization precludes grasping society as a totality, it cannot ever succeed in making society subject to rational calculation in its entirety, for it must exclude all irrational, qualitative dimensions from such calculation. Here, Lukács rephrases his earlier argument regarding the tension between form and life in Marxist terms (López 2019: 72), as an inability of theories that express a reified perspective to grasp the concrete, material content of history. One example, Lukács alleges, is the inability of economics as a science to explain the movements of the economy (1923a: 105–107). The same holds for formalist models of law, which cannot theoretically acknowledge the interdependence of their principles and their social content and must therefore treat this content as an extra-legal, irrational foundation (1923a: 107–110).

This analysis of the social and cultural features of reification allows Lukács, in a third step, to present an analysis of the “antinomies of bourgeois thought” (1923a: 110)—defending the radical claim that the unsolved epistemological problems of the entirety of modern philosophy are rooted in its failure to break through capitalist reification. In attempting to achieve a rational system of principles, Lukács claims, modern philosophy is always confronted with the issue of there being a “content” necessary for the application of its formal principles of knowledge, a content which cannot be integrated into a formal philosophical system—a prime example of which is Kant’s “thing in itself” (see Bernstein 1984: 15–22). Kantian dualism is nothing other than the most self-conscious expression of this “hiatus” between subject (the source of rational unity) and object (the source of non-rational content). This dualism between subject and object—and, in ethics, between norms and facts—haunts modern philosophy. As Fichte and Hegel partly recognize, Lukács argues, this problem arises only because modern thought takes the contemplative subject of reified self-world relations as its paradigm, ignoring the alternative of an active subject that is engaged in the production of the content. Fichte’s proposal to postulate an “identical subject-object” (that is, a subject that produces objectivity by positing objective reality as distinct from itself) is also the key to Lukács’ answer. But Fichte’s solution still suffers from an inadequacy in that he conceives of the constitutive activity still as the act of an individual subject confronted with an external, alien reality (1923a: 124).

An alternative is to be found in the idealist conception of art as an activity directed at the creation of a meaningful totality and in Schiller’s view of artistic activity, which is not an application of external, given laws but a form of play (1923a: 138). However, the conceptualization of practice from the standpoint of aesthetics obscures its historical dimension. Lukács acknowledges Hegel as the thinker who came nearest to finding a solution to this problem by recognizing that it is the totality of concrete history , understood as the expression of a subject, of a “we”, which is the only standpoint from which the antinomies between form and content can be overcome (1923a: 146f.). But Hegel adopts a mythologizing view of this subjectivity in terms of a “World Spirit” that lies beyond any concrete historical agency. The subject Hegel desperately tried to find could only be discovered by Marx—it is the proletariat to which Lukács assigns the role of the “subject-object” of history (1923a: 149).

In the “Reification” essay, Lukács is one of the first authors defending what has later come to be called a “standpoint theory” and thereby has become an important forerunner especially of models in feminist epistemology (Jameson 2009).

In particular, Lukács argues that the position of the proletariat is one of epistemic advantage concerning the acquisition of knowledge about society. Both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are confronted, Lukács argues, with a reified social reality (1923a: 164). They will therefore form correct beliefs about this reality, but only insofar as they understand it in the form in which it is immediately (“ unvermittelt ”) given to them. This is contrasted by Lukács to a different understanding which realizes that the nature of all the individual elements of social reality is ultimately to be explained in terms of their role and relationships within the totality of society, which is governed by the commodity form as its structuring principle. Although the “empiricist” beliefs that are immediately accessible to all members of society are thus not strictly speaking false, they are incomplete, insofar as they are insufficient to comprehend the ultimate nature of social phenomena, and they are misleading, insofar as theorists will tend, on the basis of these beliefs, to adopt further, false beliefs about that nature. Lukács emphatically does not state, however, that the proletariat, merely in virtue of its social position, has access to this superior understanding, but that the proletariat is capable of achieving it. While the bourgeoisie must remain “imprisoned within this immediacy” (1923a, 147), the proletariat is “forced” to go beyond it.

Which feature of the proletariat’s existence gives rise to this advantage is a matter of interpretive disagreement. While many later forms of feminist standpoint theories assume that social positions give rise to epistemic opportunities in virtue of the distinctive experiences they make available that are positively contributing to acquiring knowledge (see, for example, Jaggar 1983, 371, Smith 1974, 7), other feminist authors, such as Hartsock (1983), draw on the idea that the distinctive proletarian standpoint might be one that is closer to use-value than exchange value, since workers have to interact more directly with material objects, rather than just exchanging them. While some authors (such as Jameson 2009) also read Lukács as endorsing the claim that it is the distinctive experience that members of the proletariat have which gives rise to a higher probability of forming correct beliefs, more recent interpretations (see Teixeira 2020, Feinberg 2020) emphasize that Lukács characterizes the experience of workers as identical to that of members of the bourgeoisie. However, whereas the latter can integrate that experience into a consistent self-understanding, in the case of workers, the experience of society as something alien and objective includes understanding themselves and their own activities. In Lukács’s words, the worker “appears to himself immediately as an object and not as the active part of the social process of labour” (1923a, 167). The epistemic privilege of the proletariat is not rooted in the fact that this experience would make some truth accessible to them, but rather in the fact that this necessitates workers to acquire a “bifurcated consciousness” of themselves as subject and as pure objects which is inconsistent and thus drives them beyond accepting reality as it appears immediately. Therefore, the distinctive epistemic position of the proletariat is not that it is uniquely situated in a way that is conducive to forming correct beliefs, but that it is uniquely situated in a way that makes it increasingly difficult to continue to hold a set of true beliefs that restrict themselves to immediate appearances.

The epistemic possibility of gaining insight into the mediated nature of social phenomena, however, cannot be realized merely by individual proletarians revising their beliefs. Ultimately, the epistemically superior perspective is one in which the proletariat not merely discovers this nature, but also discovers itself, as the collective author of the structures of social reality. By realizing that it is the “subject-object of history”, the proletariat discovers itself to be the subject of the process of social reproduction (see 1923a: 181; Jay 1984: 107f). As Lukács writes, this “act of consciousness overthrows the objective form of its object” (1923a: 178). The proletariat can thus overcome reification only through a practical engagement with totality—by consciously transforming reality into the product of the proletariat’s collective action —which this totality in its essence has always already been. This process is, in Lukács’ mind, nothing other than the communist revolution. As many critics of Lukács have remarked (Adorno 1973: 190f., Bewes 2002; Jay 1984; Rose 2009), this seems to commit Lukács to the view that there can be a complete overcoming of reification resulting in a totally transparent society. However, this interpretation downplays Lukács’ insistence that the resistance against reification must be understood as a never-ending struggle (see 1923a: 199, 206; Feenberg 2011; Feenberg 2014: 116; López 2019).

As Lukács’ essay on the “Problem of Organisation” (1923b, written shortly before the reification essay) shows, the distinction between “empirical” and “imputed” class consciousness had not entirely been resolved by the introduction of a dialectics of consciousness that is supposed to ground the spontaneous process that is to lead the proletariat beyond immediacy. Non-reified consciousness remains only an objective possibility, always threatened by the seductions of the immediate consciousness.

This has political consequences, as it seems to establish that the communist party has the function of expressing and disciplining the already achieved forms of consciousness. This does not lead Lukács to endorse the Leninist party conception, however, mainly because Lenin’s vision of politics is incompatible with his radical criticism of bureaucracy in the reification essay (Arato and Breines 1979: 154). In his political writings immediately preceding History and Class Consciousness , Lukács rather seems to endorse at different points either a qualified Luxemburgian view of proletarian spontaneity (for example in 1920b) or an elitist conception of party vanguardism (a “party myth”, Arato and Breines 1979: 145), not arriving at an overall consistent position on this question.

It is easy to see that the resulting conception of society that Lukács articulates owes as much to Hegel as to Marx. This inheritance commits Lukács to a number of methodological claims which put him into stark opposition not only to social democrats like Eduard Bernstein but also, perhaps unintentionally, to the orthodoxy of the Soviet party.

In his essay “What is Orthodox Marxism?” (1919b), Lukács contrasts his method with social democratic economic determinism. He describes Marxism as a purely methodological commitment to Marx’s dialectics rather than as depending on any belief regarding the truth of Marx’s economic theory. In his essay on Luxemburg, Lukács even goes so far as to claim that “it is not the primacy of economic motives in historical explanation that constitutes the decisive difference between Marxism and bourgeois thought, but the point of view of totality” (1921: 27).

This primacy of the social totality not only affects the Marxist method, but also the conception of practice and the underlying social ontology: by insisting on a foundational role of practice in the social totality, Lukács makes political action rather than labor into the foundation for overcoming reification (Feenberg 1998). Within his social ontology, Lukács is finally committed to the claim that the totality of historical processes, rather than individual facts, are the foundation of objective reality (1923a: 184; for the resulting view of history, see Merleau-Ponty 1973), leading him to a rejection of all “contemplative” epistemologies (such as Lenin’s) which rely on the idea of a simple correspondence between thoughts and facts (1923a: 199ff; see also Lichtheim 1970: 62–65; in addition, it follows from the premise that only the perspective of the social totality solves the epistemological problems of classical philosophy that Lukács must reject Engels’ claim that the experimental method is a model for the type of defetishizing praxis that can overcome the subject-object divide, see 1923a: 131–133). This ontology of pure processuality finally entails a normative conception of society that is critical towards all forms of institutional rationalization which are rejected as forms of alienation across the board. At the same time, in insisting that the emancipated society must be capable of presenting itself as a totality for its subjects, Lukács is unable to discover any resources for progress in the differentiation of social spheres (Arato and Breines 1979: 155).

4. The later Lukács: Praxis, Totality, and Freedom

By many of those who were looking for a sophisticated Marxist philosophy, History and Class Consciousness was judged to be a supremely important book (as for example by Karl Korsch and Ernst Bloch, see Bloch 1923). The party orthodoxy, was not quite so enamored with Lukács, however. In Germany and Hungary, party intellectuals disapproved of the book because of its idealist tendencies, culminating in its condemnation by Grigory Zinoviev in his opening address to the June 1924 World Congress of the Third International (see Arato and Breines 1979: 180). Lukács’s hastily composed study on Lenin (1924) ultimately resolved the tension between a Luxemburgian view of revolutionary politics as an expression of the spontaneity of the proletariat and a Leninist conception of the party as a vanguard agent—a tension that characterizes History and Class Consciousness (see Feenberg 1988)—in favor of the latter. This anticipated a theoretical development towards a more traditional form of Marxism to which he subscribed for the remainder of his life (see also the unpublished defense of History and Class Consciousness in 1925a and Löwy 2011).

While the condemnation of Lukács’s work by party intellectuals and Lukács’s reaction may have been motivated by political expediency, the conception of society and of political practice contained in History and Class Consciousness had real shortcomings. Jay (1984: 106–115) argues that the idea of the proletariat as the “subject-object” of history seems to entail a Fichtean conception of the self-constitutive capacities of the revolutionary agent, unlimited by historical circumstances, and, correspondingly, of a self-constitutive practice that is hostile to all objectivity, an objection that is echoed by many of his more recent interpreters (e.g., Rose 2009: 30–1; for a criticism of this interpretation, see López 2019: 134).

That the reification essay is characterized by a problematic insistence that it is the very objectivity of social relations that is to be rejected is bolstered by Lukács’s own evaluation in the 1967 preface to the new edition of History and Class-Consciousness . Here, Lukács claims (alongside a number of exercises in self-criticism, which appear both unjustified and externally motivated) that his earlier arguments involved a confusion between objectification ( Vergegenständlichung ), externalization ( Entäußerung ), and alienation ( Entfremdung ). Lukács argues that Hegel was essentially correct to view objectification (that is, the fact that the objects of our labor and the institutions of society are independent of our consciousness) not as a deficiency but as a necessary stage in the development of self-consciousness. Extending this argument, he claims that the fact that social relationships appear external is not problematic in itself. Rather, it is alienation (the causes of which Marx uncovered) that should be the object of the critique of reification: “Only when the objectified forms in society acquire functions that bring the essence of man into conflict with his existence […]. This duality was not acknowledged in History and Class Consciousness ” (1967, xxiv; see also Pitkin 1987; see López 2019 for an argument that this self-critique was unjustified).

The distinction between objectification and alienation entails i) the possibility of a critique of reification that does not require a complete reappropriation of objective social forms by a collective subject and ii) a conception of political praxis that acknowledges the mutual dialectical dependence of subject and object (an insight that, according to Feenberg 2014 and López 2019, is already present in History and Class Consciousness ).

These problems motivated Lukács’s turn to another model of practice—a model of political and social practice that he attempted to work out up until the end of his life. While the critique of Fichteanism in his writings between 1923 and 1928—for example in his review of an edition of Lasalle’s letters (1925b) and in a piece on Moses Hess (1926)—constituted a significant step towards such a model, it was impossible for him to write anything controversial on contemporary Marxism after the hostile reception of his 1928 “Blum Theses.” Instead, he tackled the philosophical foundations of these problems in the context of a new reading of the philosophical tradition, especially of Hegel.

In the reification essay, Lukács describes Hegel’s philosophy as the only “bourgeois” theory of history and freedom that comes close to solving the problem of reification due to its insight that the abyss between subject and object can only be overcome by seeing both as elements within a process that actively produces the very distinction between them. Thus, Lukács remains committed to the claim that Marxist social theory must be read as a critical completion—rather than a rejection—of Hegel. This means, however, that he must show that the Hegelian idealist metaphysics that Marx rejects does not exhaust Hegel’s philosophy. His writings on Hegel, most prominently The Young Hegel (1948) and the relevant sections of the Ontology of Social Being , can be read as a defense of this commitment. In the former work, Lukács argues that Hegel’s development of dialectics was informed by his reading of the British economists Steuart and Smith. According to Lukács, this empirical grounding enabled Hegel’s dialectics to draw on the idea of objective, social-historical progress and to understand modern society and economy as a processual totality that is structured by contradictions. Hegel’s view of an ontological dialectics must therefore be read as reflecting the structure of objective social reality. The resulting “objectivism” allowed Hegel to avoid the subjectivist conception of dialectics to which (as Lukács alleges) Kant and Fichte still subscribed. Hegel, however, subordinated this objectivist ontology to logic in the course of the development of his system. It is this “logicism,” i.e., the primacy of categories over being, that led Hegel to postulate the idealist conception of the “subject-object” that is needed to explain the identity of logical categories and ontological determinations. This split between a “genuine” dialectics that reflects the objective contradictions of society (even if in an idealist manner) and a “logicist” system is the main argument in Lukács’s discussion of Hegel in the Ontology (see GW 13: 489f., 506, 520–523).

A second, much more problematic set of commitments was made explicit in Lukács’s writings between the 1930s and the 1950s. This concerns his conviction that, after Hegel, modern thought had become sharply divided into two opposing tendencies: “Marxist dialectics” and “bourgeois irrationalism.” Lukács’s view that virtually all non-Marxist theorists after Hegel—including Schelling, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Heidegger—can be subsumed under the label of irrationalism (a blanket term which, depending on the context, refers to everything from theories of “intellectual intuition,” ontological subjectivism, and “aristocratic” epistemological positions to the denial of progress in history) was perhaps motivated by an earnest desire to apply the method of immanent critique (see Aronowitz 2005) to developments within philosophy that had facilitated the rise of National Socialism. Some of his arguments against Heidegger also resemble Adorno’s critique (see also Adorno 1997). Overall, however, his philosophical arguments for the simplistic distinction between progressive materialism and irrationalism—in particular those that he presents in The Destruction of Reason (according to George Lichtheim, “the worst book he ever wrote”; Lichtheim 1970: 68)—are dogmatic and superficial. A number of particularly problematic claims are made in the postscript to the Destruction , where Lukács not only defends the Soviet Union under Stalin but also accuses Bertrand Russell of being secretly religious (1954: 808) and Wittgenstein and the pragmatists of being proponents of a form of subjectivism that had facilitated the rise of a new form of fascism (1954: 782ff.; for other examples, see the unpublished 1933a).

The most fundamental level on which Lukács develops his revised model of Hegelian Marxism is that of ontology, or, more specifically, an “ontology of social being.” Lukács claims that, as far as ontology is concerned, we can distinguish three levels of being in the world: material or inorganic being, organic life, and social reality ( GW 13: 22). All three levels are distinguished by a division between the genuine essence of entities and their appearance. While on all three levels entities appear as fixed objects, their real essence is always that of interrelated, irreversible processes ( GW 13: 240). This entails that the basic form of all being is temporality and historicity ( GW 13: 228).

While this general ontology remains underdeveloped and is not informed by much knowledge of concurrent philosophical developments, Lukács’s theory of social reality has contemporary relevance. Social reality, Lukács claims, differs from the other levels of reality not only insofar as it is governed by causal, non-teleological laws but also insofar as it contains an element of teleology as a result of “teleological positing” ( GW 13: 20; 1971c: 12ff.). Due to their ability to perform labor, humans can “posit” functions or goals that are to govern the natural, causal processes they manipulate. By choosing one of the potential results of the employment of their natural and technological capacities as the correct one, individuals can draw a distinction between successful and unsuccessful executions of their intended actions in labor. This, Lukács argues, introduces normative distinctions or values into the world (see 1971b: 75f and 153–156; 1968: 140). In particular, Lukács claims that the objectification of human intentions in institutions enables us to understand the existence of objective values as products of social-historical developments without sliding into historical relativism. However, as some of his own students noted, this explanation remains too unclear to solve the problem of normativity for Marxism (see Fehér et al., 1976). The same doubts remain with regard to Lukács’s further claim that there is one fundamental, immanent value of social history, namely the unfettered development of human capacities ( GW 14: 153).

Because Lukács sees the process of labor as the foundation of all social and normative phenomena (see also 1971c: 65; Thompson 2011), the totality of society can be described as the totality of all relations between the teleological acts of “positing” conditions of success in labor. However, even though Lukács thus acknowledges intentional consciousness as an irreducible factor in these acts (see Lukács 1968: 138), their meaning is ultimately determined by the objective, historical development of social relations.

From these ontological commitments it follows that intentionality, which guides individual acts of labor, is a condition for the existence of the totality of social facts, and vice versa (see Tertullian 1988). In particular, he describes language and institutions as media of “indirect” teleological positing because they enable forms of action that do not directly modify nature but that indirectly aspire to bring others to do so ( GW 14: 172; 1968: 142). Although he remains committed to the primacy of labor, Lukács allows that these linguistic and institutional mediations acquire a dynamic of their own over time, becoming independent of the goal of dominating nature, in particular because they allow for a generalization of the cognitive grasping of particular phenomena (see GW 13: 47; GW 14: 165ff, 342–357) and for greater distance between subject and object (1971c: 100).

Lukács’s conception of individuality as a product of the choice between alternatives within a socially determined totality ultimately led to a theory of alienation that partially replaced the theory of reification of his younger years. Whereas the latter theory was closely connected to the ideal of the collective reappropriation of society, Lukács describes alienation in the Ontology as primarily the result of social conditions that turn individuals into merely “particular” personalities ( GW 14: 530) instead of allowing them to develop their capacities to the degree that the present development of productive forces could make possible. This means that alienation (for instance the alienation brought about by excessive professional specialization) must be understood as the socially induced incapacity of individuals to participate in “species being” or the social totality. The overcoming of alienation thus always demands—along with social changes—subjective transformation, i.e., individual change ( GW 14: 551). This points towards the ethical dimension of the Ontology . Lukács claims that there is a normative ideal immanent in society as such, namely, the ideal of social relations that allow all to fully participate in the social totality with their whole personality, thereby realizing their universal nature. This suggests a conception of political praxis that amounts to a form of democratic politics.

While Lukács made his ontological commitments explicit only towards the end of his life, they informed the development of his aesthetics from the 1930s on. From the general materialist premises of his ontology and from his rejection of the epistemology of History and Class Consciousness in favor of the Leninist alternative (see 1938), it follows that cultural and mental phenomena must always be seen as reflections (or “mirroring,” Widerspiegelungen ) of an objective reality ( GW 11: 22, 55).

Like science and ethics, art breaks with the immediacy of our everyday practical engagements that dominates more common forms of reflection ( GW 11: 207, 214). Yet aesthetic reflections on reality differ from science (or more generally from conceptual and theoretical reflections) in three respects: First, while scientific knowledge presupposes the “deanthropomorphization” of the subject matter (meaning that reality is presented as independent of human desires or subjectivity), the aesthetic subject matter remains anthropomorphized insofar as art presents reality in the form of inner experience. Thus, aesthetic representation always remains connected to a possible “evocation” of a human subject’s reactions ( GW 11: 438). Second, while science is always conceptually mediated, art breaks with the immediacy of everyday life in favor of a new immediacy of experience ( GW 11: 237, 509, 513). And third, while science reflects reality in the form of general laws, aesthetic representation is always bound to represent universal aspects of the essence of reality in the form of the individuality (or specificity) of the work of art (Lukács’s term for individuality is Besonderheit , a concept which he takes from Hegel’s Science of Logic , where it describes the dialectical sublation of both generality and particularity within the “notion”).

According to this conception of art as a mode of reflection, the function of a work of art is to present humans with the totality of the objective, historical reality within an “homogeneous medium” (such as pure visibility in painting or poetic language in poetry; see GW 11: 642). The employment of such a medium makes it possible for art to single out and represent the universal aspects of a given form of human reality as a “closed world-in-itself” or as an “intensive totality” ( GW 11: 238, 461, 774; GW 12: 232). As Lukács argues ( GW 11: 660), the medium of each specific form of art establishes strict laws that allow the work of art to adequately present the world of humanity from a specific standpoint. For this reason, such works of art allow us to comprehend the universal aspects of our existence and to consciously participate in the collective life of humanity ( GW 11: 519–530). Lukács describes this effect as “defetishization” ( GW 11: ch. 9), anticipating the ethical call to overcome alienation formulated in the Ontology . A successful work of art can thus have the effect of “catharsis” ( GW 11: 811), transforming the “whole person” of everyday life (the person who is entangled in their diverse relationships) into a “person as a whole” (the person who realizes their humanity by acquiring a sense of self-consciousness regarding the richness of the human relations that constitute the historical development of humankind).

Even though they represent objective reality, works of art are, in virtue of this mode of reflection, subject-dependent because their character is constituted by their capacity to evoke a subjective reaction: i.e., an understanding of how and why the world revealed in art is appropriate to the comprehending subject in its universal nature ( GW 11: 305). This reaction is not only one of passive acknowledgment; it also actively transforms the subject by facilitating consciousness of that very universal nature. Thus, in the work of art, subjectivity and objectivity are mutually constitutive of each other. In a transformed sense—as Lukács explicitly acknowledges ( GW 11: 582; GW 12: 217)—the subject-object of idealism is an appropriate concept for works of art (which, one might add, fulfills Lukács’s aspirations for the socialist revolution he had to renounce, both politically and philosophically). Of course, in this new sense the term “subject-object” no longer signifies a privileged agent becoming self-conscious, but only the interdependence of subjectivity and objectivity in a specific sphere of experience.

Lukács makes a similar conceptual move by endorsing the claim that all consciousness is a reflection of reality. On the one hand, this signals a revision of the epistemological position he defended in History and Class Consciousness (where he criticized the distinction between a seemingly objective reality and purely subjective forms of perception) in favor of Lenin’s theory of consciousness. On the other hand, Lukács is keen to make room—at least within the boundaries of the aesthetic—for the idea that some insights can be had only in relation to a totality that encompasses subjectivity and objectivity.

At this point, Lukács no longer derives his aesthetic commitments from purely philosophical premises—as he did in his early Heidelberg writings—instead building on anthropological premises (especially concerning the concept of everyday life, in regard to which he notes the similarity between his analysis and Heidegger’s notion of practical engagement; see GW 11: 68–71; for related points on the Ontology see Joós 1982), psychological theorizing (proposing an extension of Pavlov’s behaviorist classification of signal systems; see GW 12: 11–191), and a speculative notion of world history. The most important concept binding these premises together is the idea of mimesis . Mimetic behavior, Lukács argues, is a fundamental way of coping with the world and a source of both magic and art. Through the mimetic imitation of natural processes, humans acquire the ability to represent the salient aspects of the world in a closed and totalizing manner, gradually learning to separate such imitations from the necessity of immediate reaction. In contrast to magic, which does not separate reflection and objective causation, mimesis in art is consciously taken as reflection and has an aesthetic effect on its audience specifically in virtue of this feature ( GW 11: 382). In other words, while both art and science overcome the superstition of magic, only art can retain the mimetic dimension of representation.

Lukács’s commitment to a conception of the work of art as a closed totality structured by the strict laws of its medium and objectively reflecting the development of humanity in the mode of mimetic evocation had considerable implications for his own judgments as an aesthetic theorist. His writings on literary realism published from the 1930s to the 1950s—especially “Realism in the Balance” (1938), The Historical Novel (1955), and The Meaning of Contemporary Realism (1955)—display to various degrees a mixture of philosophical insight and Stalinist orthodoxy. In any case, they are animated by a strong commitment to the superiority of realism, as exemplified by Balzac, Tolstoy, Gorky (see GW 5), and Thomas Mann (see 1949), which he contrasts with the “decadent” avant-garde literature of his time. This position drew sharp criticism, for example from Seghers, Brecht, and Adorno (see Lukács 1981; Brecht 1977; Adorno [1958] 1977; on the Lukács-Brecht debate, see Pike 1985).

However, to the extent that Lukács’s commitment to realism reflects a commitment to the notion that works of art should present a totality of meaning that is not alien to the life of individuals but rather overcomes the alienation they suffer in everyday life, it expresses (even in its most distorted versions) an intuition that sustained his work from the beginning: a desire to overcome the tension between human life and the objective social forms that constitute modern society.

The only English-language biography of Lukács is Kadarkay, A., 1991, Georg Lukács. Life, Thought, and Politics , Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. In German, there is an extended autobiographical interview in Lukács, Georg, 1980, Gelebtes Denken , Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, and a collection of photographs and original sources in Raddatz, F., 1972, Georg Lukács in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten , Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1972.

Collected Works

There is no complete edition of Lukács’s works in English. The most accessible collection is the (incomplete) German edition of his works:

Lukács, Georg, 1968–1981, Gesammelte Werke, Darmstadt: Luchterhand (cited as GW ).

Cited Primary Sources

This list comprises the bibliographical entries for the works by Lukács that are cited in the main article. English translations are cited where available. If no translation is available, the Gesammelte Werke are cited. In the remaining cases, the original publication is cited. Sources are listed by original publication date.

• 1908, “On the Romantic Philosophy of Life. Novalis,” in Soul and Form , A. Bostock (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 42–54.
• 1909, The Sociology of Modern Drama , Oshkosh, WI: Green Mountain Editions, 1965 (A chapter from Lukács’ dissertation which is published in its entirety in GW 15).
• 1910a, “The Bourgeois Way of Life and Art for Art’s Sake. Theodor Storm,” in Soul and Form , A. Bostock (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 55–78.
• 1910b, “The Metaphysics of Tragedy. Paul Ernst,” in Soul and Form , A. Bostock (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 152–174.
• 1910c, “The Foundering of Form against Life. Sören Kierkegaard and Regine Olsen,” in Soul and Form , A. Bostock (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 28–41.
• 1911a, “On the Nature and Form of the Essay,” in Soul and Form , A. Bostock (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 1–18.
• 1911b, “On Poverty of Spirit,” in The Lukács Reader , A. Kadarkay (ed.), Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995, pp. 42–56.
• 1916, The Theory of the Novel , A. Bostock (trans.), London: Merlin, 1971.
• 1918, “Bolshevism as an Ethical Problem,” in The Lukács Reader , A. Kadarkay (ed.), Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995, pp. 216–221.
• 1919a, “Tactics and Ethics,” in Tactics and Ethics, Political Writings 1919–1929 , R. Livingstone (ed.), London: NLB, 1972, pp. 3–11.
• 1919b, “What is Orthodox Marxism?,” in History and Class Consciousness , R. Livingstone (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 1–26.
• 1920a, “Class Consciousness,” in History and Class Consciousness , R. Livingstone (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 46–82.
• 1920b, “The Moral Mission of the Communist Party,” in Tactics and Ethics, Political Writings 1919–1929 , R. Livingstone (ed.), London: NLB, 1972, pp. 64–70.
• 1921, “The Marxism of Rosa Luxemburg,” in History and Class Consciousness , R. Livingstone (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 27–45.
• 1923a, “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat,” in History and Class Consciousness , Rodney Livingstone (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 83–222.
• 1923b, “Towards a Methodology of the Problem of Organisation,” in History and Class Consciousness , R. Livingstone (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. 294–342.
• 1924, Lenin: A Study on the Unity of his Thought , Nicholas Jacobs (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971.
• 1925a, A Defence of History and Class Consciousness: Tailism and the Dialectics , S. Žižek (ed.) and E. Leslie (trans.), London: Verso, 2000.
• 1925b, “The New Edition of Lasalle’s Letters,” in Tactics and Ethics, Political Writings 1919–1929 , R. Livingstone (ed.), London: NLB, 1972, pp. 147–177.
• 1926, “Moses Hess and the Problems of Idealist Dialectics,” in Tactics and Ethics, Political Writings 1919–1929 , R. Livingstone (ed.), London: NLB, 1972, pp. 181–223.
• 1928, “Blum Theses,” in Tactics and Ethics, Political Writings 1919–1929 , R. Livingstone (ed.), London: NLB, 1972, pp. 227–253.
• 1933a, Wie ist die faschistische Philosophie in Deutschland entstanden? , L. Sziklai (ed.), Budapest: Akadémiai Kiad, 1982.
• 1933b, “Mein Weg zu Marx,” Internationale Literatur , No. 2, 185–187 (reprinted in Schriften zur Ideologie und Politik , Neuwied: Luchterhand, 1967, 323–329).
• 1938, “Realism in the Balance,” in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism , V.B. Leitch (ed.), New York: Norton, 2001, pp. 1033–1058.
• 1948, The Young Hegel , R. Livingstone (trans.), London: Merlin, 1975.
• 1949, Thomas Mann , Aufbau: Berlin.
• 1951, “Hegel’s Aesthetics”, in Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal , 23 (2), 2002: 87–124.
• 1954, The Destruction of Reason , London: Merlin, 1980.
• 1955, The Historical Novel , London: Merlin, 1962.
• 1957, “Postscriptum 1957 zu: Mein Weg zu Marx,” in Marxismus und Stalinismus. Politische Aufsätze. Ausgewählte Schriften IV , Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1970, pp. 161–171.
• 1962, “Reflections on the Cult of Stalin,” in Survey , No. 47, 1963: 105–111.
• 1967, “Preface to the New Edition,” in History and Class Consciousness , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971, pp. ix–xl.
• 1968, “The ‘Vienna Paper’: The Ontological Foundations of Human Thinking and Action,” in Lukács’s Last Autocriticism: The Ontology , E. Joós, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1982, pp. 135–148.
• 1971a, Ontology of Social Being, Vol. 1: Hegel’s False and his Genuine Ontology , D. Fernbach (trans.), London: Merlin, 1978 (see part III in GW 13).
• 1971b, Ontology of Social Being, Vol. 2: Marx’s Basic Ontological Principles , D. Fernbach (trans.), London: Merlin, 1978 (see part IV in GW 13).
• 1971c, Ontology of Social Being, Vol. 3: Labour , D. Fernbach (trans.), London: Merlin, 1980 (see part I in GW 14).
• 1981, Essays on Realism , R. Livingstone (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Anderson, Perry, 1976, Considerations on Western Marxism , London: NLB.
• Adorno, Theodor W., 1973, Negative Dialectics , London: Routledge.
• –––, [1958] 1977, “Reconciliation under Duress,” in Aesthetics and Politics , F. Jameson (ed.), London: Verso, pp. 151–176.
• –––, 1997, “Ad Lukács,” in Gesammelte Schriften , Vol. 20.1, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 251–256.
• Arato, Andrew, and Paul Breines, 1979, The Young Lukács and the Origins of Western Marxism , New York: The Seabury Press.
• Aronowitz, Stanley, 2015, “Georg Lukács’s Destruction of Reason,” in S. Aronowitz (ed.), Against Orthodoxy: Social Theory and Its Discontents . Political Philosophy and Public Purpose. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 59–72.
• Bernstein, Jay M., 1984, The Philosophy of the Novel: Lukács, Marxism, and the Dialectics of Form , U of Minnesota Press.
• Bewes, Timothy, 2002, Reification. Or the Anxiety of Late Capitalism , New York: Verso.
• Bloch, Ernst, 1923, “Aktualität und Utopie: Zu Lukács’ Philosophie des Marxismus,” Der Neue Merkur , 7: 457–77.
• Brecht, Bertolt, 1977, “Against Georg Lukács,” in Aesthetics and Politics , F. Jameson (ed.), London: Verso, pp. 68–85.
• Braunstein, Dirk, and Simon Duckheim, 2015, “Adornos Lukács. Ein Lektürebericht,” Lukács 2014/15. Jahrbuch der Internationalen Georg Lukács-Gesellschaft , 2014/2015: 27–79.
• Butler, Judith, 2010, “Introduction,” in Soul and Form , J. Sanders, and K. Terezakis (eds.), New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1–15.
• Brunkhorst, Hauke, 1998, “Paradigm-core and theory-dynamics in critical social theory: people and programs,” (translated by Peter Krockenberger), Philosophy & Social Criticism , 24(6): 67–110.
• Chari, Anita, 2010, “Toward a political critique of reification: Lukács, Honneth and the aims of critical theory,” Philosophy & Social Criticism , 36(5): 587–606.
• Dannemann, Rüdiger, 1987, Das Prinzip Verdinglichung: Studie zur Philosophie Georg Lukács , Frankfurt a. M.: Sendler.
• Deutscher, Isaac, 1972, “Georg Lukács and ‘Critical Realism’,” in Marxism in our Time , T. Deutscher (ed.), London: Jonathan Cape, pp. 283–294.
• Fehér, Ferenc, Ágnes Heller, György Márkus, and Mihály Vajda, 1976, “Notes on Lukacs’ Ontology,” Telos , 1976(29): 160–181.
• Feenberg, Andrew, 1988, “The Question of Organization in the Early Marxist Work of Lukács. Technique or Praxis?,” in Lukács Today. Essays in Marxist Philosophy , T. Rockmore (ed.), Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 126–156.
• –––, 1998, “Dialektischer Konstruktivismus: Zur Aktualität von Lukács’ Konzept der transformierenden Praxis,” Jahrbuch der Internationalen Georg-Lukács-Gesellschaft , 1998/99: 52–63.
• –––, 2011, “Reification and its Critics,” in Georg Lukács Reconsidered. Critical Essays in Politics, Philosophy and Aesthetics , M. J. Thompson (ed.), London: Continuum, pp. 195–209.
• –––, 2014, The Philosophy of Praxis: Marx, Lukács and the Frankfurt School , London: Verso.
• –––, 2017, “Why Students of the Frankfurt School Will Have to Read Lukács,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Theory , M.J. Thompson (ed.), New York: Palgrave, pp. 109–133.
• Feinberg, Joseph Grim, 2020, “Georg Lukács’s Archimedean Socialism,” in G.R. Smulewicz-Zucker (ed.), Confronting Reification: Revitalizing Georg Lukács’s Thought in Late Capitalism . Leiden: Brill, pp. 186–202.
• Goldmann, Lucien, 1977, Lukács and Heidegger. Towards a New Philosophy , London: Routledge.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1984, The Theory of Communicative Action , Vol. 1, T. McCarthy (trans.), Boston: Beacon Press.
• Hartsock, Nancy, 1983, “The Feminist Standpoint,” in S. Harding and M.B. Hintikka (eds.), Discovering Reality . Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 283–310.
• Heller, Ágnes, 1983, “Lukács’s Later Philosophy,” in Lukács Revalued , Á. Heller (ed.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 177–190.
• Honneth, Axel, 2008, Reification: A New Look at an Old Idea , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jaggar, Alison M., 1983, Feminist Politics and Human Nature , Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld.
• Jameson, Fredric, 1971, Marxism and Form , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2009, “History and Class Consciousness as an ‘Unfinished Project’,” Rethinking Marxism , 1(1): 49–72.
• Jay, Martin, 1984, Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to Habermas , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Joós, Ernest, 1982, Lukács’s Last Autocriticism: The Ontology , Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
• Kavoulakos, Konstantinos, 2014, Ästhetizistische Kulturkritik und ethische Utopie. Georg Lukács’ neukantianisches Frühwerk , Berlin: de Gruyter.
• –––, 2017, “Lukács’ Theory of Reification and the Tradition of Critical Theory,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Theory , M.J. Thompson (ed.), New York: Palgrave, pp. 67–86.
• –––, 2018, Georg Lukács’ Philosophy of Praxis: Reconsidering His Early Marxist Work. , London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Kolakowski, Leszek, 1978, The Main Currents of Marxism. Vol III: The Downfall , Oxford: Clarendon.
• Lichtheim, George, 1970, Lukács , London: Collins.
• López, Daniel Andrés, 2019, Lukács: Praxis and the Absolute , Leiden: Brill.
• Lotz, Christian, 2020, “Categorial Forms as Intelligibility of Social Objects: Reification and Objectivity in Lukács,” in G.R. Smulewicz-Zucker (ed.), Confronting Reification . Brill, pp. 25–47.
• Löwy, Michael, 1979, Georg Lukács—From Romanticism to Bolshevism , London: New Left Books.
• –––, 2011, “Revolutionary Dialectics against ‘Tailism’: Lukács’ Answer to the Criticisms of History and Class Consciousness ,” in Georg Lukács Reconsidered. Critical Essays in Politics, Philosophy and Aesthetics , M. J. Thompson (ed.), London: Continuum, pp. 65–72.
• Márkus, György, 1983, “Life and the Soul: the Young Lukács and the Problem of Culture,” in Lukács Revalued , á. Heller (ed.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 177–190.
• Marx, Karl, [1867] 1992, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy E. Mandel (ed.), New York: Penguin.
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 1973, Adventures of the Dialectic , Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
• Mészáros, István, 1972, Lukács’ Concept of Dialectic , London: Merlin Press.
• Pike, David, 1988, “The Owl of Minerva: Reappraisals of Georg Lukács, East and West,” German Studies Review , 11(2): 193–225.
• –––, 1985, Lukács and Brecht , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
• Pitkin, Hannah, 1987, “Rethinking reification,” Theory and Society , 16(2): 263–293.
• Rockmore, Tom, 2001, “Lukács, Marxist Aesthetics and Truth,” Jahrbuch der Internationalen Georg-Lukács-Gesellschaft , 2001: 139–159.
• Rose, Gillian, 2009, Hegel Contra Sociology , London: Verso.
• Schiller, Hans-Ernst, 2011, “Tod und Utopie: Ernst Bloch, Georg Lukács,” in R. Klein, J. Kreuzer, and S. Müller-Doohm (eds.), Adorno-Handbuch: Leben – Werk – Wirkung . Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, pp. 36–45.
• Smith, Dorothy E., 1974, “Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology,” Sociological Inquiry , 44(1): 7–13.
• Stahl, Titus, 2011, “Verdinglichung als Pathologie zweiter Ordnung,” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie , 59(5): 731–746.
• –––, 2018, “Lukács and the Frankfurt School,” in The Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School , P.E. Gordon, E. Hammer, and A. Honneth (eds.), London: Routledge, pp. 237–250.
• Teixeira, Mariana, 2020, “The Revolutionary Subject in Lukács and Feminist Standpoint Theory: Dilaceration and Emancipatory Interest,” in Confronting Reification , Brill, pp. 227–251.
• Tertulian, Nicolas, 1988, “Lukács’ Ontology,” in T. Rockmore (ed.), Lukács Today: Essays in Marxist Philosophy , Sovietica, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 243–273.
• Thompson, Michael, 2011, “Ontology and Totality: Reconstructing Lukács’ Concept of Critical Theory,” in Georg Lukács Reconsidered. Critical Essays in Politics, Philosophy and Aesthetics , M. J. Thompson (ed.), London: Continuum, pp. 229–250.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Internationale Georg Lukács-Gesellschaft ( International Lukács Society , in German).

feminist philosophy, interventions: epistemology and philosophy of science | Fichte, Johann Gottlieb | Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich | Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: aesthetics | Kant, Immanuel: aesthetics and teleology | Kierkegaard, Søren | Marx, Karl | Weber, Max

Copyright © 2023 by Titus Stahl < titus . stahl @ rug . nl >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

2024 Cohort

Main navigation, meet the 2024 cohort.

The scholars in the 2024 cohort come from 30 countries, including the first scholars with citizenship from Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Bulgaria, France, and Sri Lanka. They have earned degrees from 60 institutions, including 12 outside of the United States. At Stanford, they will pursue graduate degrees in 45 degree programs across all seven schools. For more about the cohort, view the 2024 cohort announcement .

All content reflects scholar interests at the time of selection into the cohort. 

2024 cohort highlights

Nathan Abraham

Ank Agarwal

David Akanmu

Luke Anderson

Daviana Berkowitz-Sklar

Tilly Brooks

Jasper Burns

Maryanne Chege

Tyler Colenbrander

Vittorio Colicci

Danny Collins

Andrew Couch

Chris Dylewski

Sarahi Espinoza Salamanca

Charlotte Falletta

Amelia Faraco-Hadlock

Ryunosuke (Ryan) Goto

William Heap

Erez Hochdorf

Carina Hong

Haolie Jiang

Andrea Jimenez Flores

Kylie Jones

Hadi Juratli

Yana Kalmyka

Venny Kojouharov

Wasan Kumar

Victoria Kyveryga

Gabriel Lee

Marina Luccioni

Khushi Malde

Bryce Marion

Greta Markey

David Millman

David Morency

Amanda Morrison

Tanajia Moye-Green

Qusay Omran

Aneesh Pappu

Hannah Park-Kaufmann

Krishna Pathak

Rahul Penumaka

Carla Ramazan

EmJ Rennich

Armin Rezaiean-Asel

Adrien Richez

Sina Sadeghzadeh

Diego Salazar Guerra

Isha Sanghvi

Alina Santander Vinokurova

Monique Santoso

Reed Shafer-Ray

Coleman Sherry

Umar Siddiqi

Kritika Singh

Henry Smith

Ivan Specht

Afi Tagnedji

Katherine Tang

Kavindya Thennakoon

Hannah Thomas

Soudaba Wahabzada

Josh Waldman

Madeline Young

Barkotel Zemenu

Linda Zhang

SUNetID Login

Search form

Prospective postdocs.

• How To Apply

Open Postdoctoral Positions

• Finding a Faculty Mentor
• Cost of Living
• Fellowships at Stanford
• Fellowships outside Stanford
• Postdoc Benefits
• Open Postdoc Positions
• Diversity in Postdoctoral Scholar Training
• Postdoc Emergency Resources
• Verify Appointments
• Funding Guidelines
• Budgeting for Fellowships

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

Vigorous debate, civil discourse key to Stanford’s academic mission, leaders say

The 2023-24 Annual Meeting of the Academic Council featured a panel discussion on the importance of fostering civil discourse in a diverse society. The meeting also included reports from the Senate of the Academic Council and the president.

The 2023-24 Annual Meeting of the Academic Council featured insights from university leaders on enhancing dialogue skills among students. (Image credit: Andrew Brodhead)

During the 2023-24 Annual Meeting of the Academic Council, Stanford Provost Jenny Martinez highlighted the importance, and difficulty, of fostering an environment conducive to the open and respectful debate of diverse ideas.

“The goal of civil discourse isn’t enforced agreement or consensus, but understanding and genuine engagement with one another in a pluralistic society,” Martinez said. “We hope to support our students in building the skills of engaging across difference that are fundamental tools to their learning here at Stanford and to their participation in civic life.”

Martinez moderated a panel discussion on “Building the Capacity for Civil Discourse in Our Universities and Our Society,” featuring insights from university leaders on enhancing dialogue skills among students. The meeting, conducted virtually this year, also included remarks from the president and the chair of the Faculty Senate.

Despite encouraging survey data about students’ willingness to engage in difficult conversations with each other, they remain uneasy about discussing controversial topics, with fears of online backlash, said Lanier Anderson , vice provost for undergraduate education, the J.E. Wallace Sterling Professor in the Humanities, and a professor of philosophy.

Students must come to the university with “serious open-mindedness,” Anderson said, and build subsidiary skills such as active listening, mindfulness, self-understanding, and emotional regulation that will help them contribute to fruitful discourse.

The university is supporting students’ development of these skills through several initiatives, such as summer dialogue groups with the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society, the Civic, Liberal, and Global Education (COLLEGE) program , activities during New Student Orientation, and substantive training for residential fellows and residential advisors.

Data collected from participants in the COLLEGE sequence shows what is working and not working, providing “almost a little laboratory for what we’re trying to do,” said Dan Edelstein , the William H. Bonsall Professor in French. For example, feedback suggests that delivery can sometimes be more important than content in affecting how people respond to controversial speech.

Edelstein said instructors must discuss the underlying reasons for free speech and pluralism with students. “Because this generation has grown up in such a hyperpolarized environment, it’s no longer self-evident to them that there is a lot to be learned from people you disagree with.”

C. Matthew Snipp , interim vice provost for student affairs, underscored the importance of the residential experience in cultivating civic discourse skills. Toward that end, the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education (VPUE) is developing programs for student leaders in the dorms to help foster dialogue.

“It’s really time for us to look carefully at that experience and try to reinvigorate the intellectual life that we find in the dorms,” said Snipp, who is also the vice provost for faculty development, diversity and engagement, and the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences.

Snipp also shared the ground rules he sets to encourage robust discussion in his course on race and ethnicity in the U.S. These include asking students to be mindful of nonverbal cues such as their body language and facial expressions, mandating participation, and announcing early on that the course will confront uncomfortable truths about American society.

“Trying to avoid the ugliness and the terribleness of some of these things is a little like trying to teach students in a medical school to become doctors without ever letting them see a sick person,” Snipp said. “That knowledge and that experience is something that gives them power rather than weakens them.”

Debra Satz , the Vernon R. and Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences , expressed concern that no institution is doing a good job of modeling civil discourse and engagement at this time.

“People are more motivated to manipulate facts, the loudest voices get heard the most, and there’s a lot of demonizing of the opposition,” said Satz, who is also the Marta Sutton Weeks Professor in Ethics in Society.

She emphasized the need for citizens who are open-minded, humble, and willing to admit their lack of knowledge and learn from others.

Satz highlighted a spring quarter class she is co-teaching, Democracy and Disagreement , which showcases experts who hold opposing viewpoints and model civil dialogue on contentious issues such as Israel and Palestine, gun regulation, and institutional neutrality. “It’s really important to know that most of our students, most of the community, really relishes the ability to learn and listen,” Satz said.

Encouraging discussion

During the Q&A session, Snipp addressed the complexities of classroom power dynamics and the effect they can have on student discussions.

“I’m sure many of you have seen this, where you see a pecking order that will develop in a classroom,” he said.

Snipp said it is important for instructors to be proactive in recognizing and correcting these power imbalances. He suggested interventions such as publicly acknowledging the contributions of students who are less frequently heard by saying, “Thank you, that was very insightful. I really appreciate that thought.”

Someone asked about whether there’s any effort to signal the importance of civil discourse during the admissions process. Edelstein said a new question on the Law School’s application probing how applicants responded to ideas they found disagreeable elicited revealing answers. “We’re hoping that we could get some similar results with 17-year-olds, versus 20- to 23-year-olds,” he said.

Panelists also discussed how optimistic they were about their ability to make a difference despite challenging times. They noted that the growing awareness among students of a need for better engagement tools represents an opportunity.

“The fact that they feel the need for that is our opening to make these programs be successful,” Anderson said.

Addressing challenges

During President Richard Saller’s annual report to the Academic Council , he discussed the past “tumultuous” year, which included the ongoing Israel-Hamas war in the Middle East and the dissolution of the 109-year-old Pac-12 conference.

Saller said that following the Hamas terrorist attack on Oct. 7, he and Martinez prioritized the safety of the campus community while preserving space for the expression of First Amendment-protected free speech. “It was not to announce our personal judgments or claim to speak for the institution, since members of our community hold different and sometimes sharply conflicting views,” he said. “Preservation of the safety of the campus required that we be sensitive to the changing context both locally and nationally.”

Efforts by multiple departments to increase security, monitor developments, and regularly discuss strategy have been integral to avoiding violence and minimizing disruptions. Saller also acknowledged the need for ongoing efforts to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia. “I am grateful to the two committees who are gathering information and providing recommendations to improve the campus climate,” he said.

Saller said the university’s transition to the Atlantic Coast Conferenc e (ACC) following the dissolution of the Pac-12 was necessary for Stanford athletes to compete at the highest level. He highlighted a task force focused on minimizing the academic impact of increased travel for athletes and navigating the many significant changes affecting college sports, particularly concerning athlete compensation and Title IX obligations.

Saller also showcased notable academic and research achievements, including advances in treating depression ; expanding the potential habitats for life in the universe ; and using technology to reduce social inequity .

Despite challenges, Saller noted that Stanford emerged stronger from challenges during the Vietnam War era, “rising from a good regional university to become a world-leading university.”

A busy year

Faculty Senate Chair Mary Beth Mudgett provided the annual report of the Senate of the Academic Council and praised the senate’s “tradition of rigorous questioning of leadership” and the administration’s responsive engagement.

Significant updates heard by the senate this year involved the launch of the Curriculum Transformation Institute from the Center for Teaching and Learning, which allows faculty teams to reimagine their introductory curriculum to better support students; the evolution of the Stanford neighborhood residential system; new educational programming in the residences through the Academic-Residential Co-Curriculum ; and insights from the Associated Students of Stanford University about students’ views on life in the neighborhoods. Senators also learned more about how the arts play a vibrant multidisciplinary role on campus.

Mudgett said the senate managed a heavy agenda this year, and its Steering Committee worked to ensure timely consideration of important topics, such as adjustments in academic planning following Stanford Athletics’ move to the ACC; undergraduate admissions in light of the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action; and a petition to rescind a 2020 senate resolution on Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Scott Atlas, which Mudgett described as the year’s “ most complex discussion .”

As the academic year concludes, the senate is set to review updates on university finance, university speech policies, and undergraduate admissions.

Mudgett is also the senior associate dean for the natural sciences in the School of Humanities and Sciences, where she is the Susan B. Ford Professor and professor of biology.

Stanford University

The Center for International Security and Cooperation is a center of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies .

Holding one’s nerve in the face of Russian nuclear threats

• Steven Pifer

Russia has again raised the prospect of nuclear war with regard to Ukraine. On May 6, the Russian Defense Ministry announced an exercise near Ukraine involving the possible use of non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons. This comes as the Russian army struggles to make major gains on the battlefield while the West continues to support Kyiv with arms and ammunition.

The Kremlin seeks to unnerve both Ukrainians and the West, but the actual use of non-strategic nuclear weapons—those with smaller warheads and intended for use on the battlefield—in Ukraine would contradict both Russian doctrine and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s own comments. Moreover, Russian use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine would raise the prospect of significant and unpredictable costs for Moscow.

What prompted the threat?

More than 26 months have passed since Russia launched an all-out invasion that transformed a simmering Russia-Ukraine conflict into Europe’s largest and bloodiest war since World War II. While the Russian military this year appears to have momentum, its army has failed to turn tactical gains in the Donbas region, such as the capture of the town of Avdiivka in February, into a major breakthrough.

Moreover, the past two weeks have brought unpleasant news for the Kremlin. The U.S. Congress finally approved $61 billion in assistance for Ukraine, and the White House promptly announced the allocation of $7 billion for weapons . French President Emmanuel Macron affirmed that he would not rule out sending French troops to Ukraine , though Paris denied that French troops were already in the country. British Foreign Secretary David Cameron disclosed that London would allow Kyiv to use British-provided weapons to strike targets in Russia .

The Russian Defense Ministry’s announcement said that Putin had directed the exercise to “increase the readiness of nonstrategic nuclear forces to carry out combat missions.” Russia will conduct the exercise in its Southern Military District, which adjoins Ukraine and has substantial responsibilities for commanding and supporting Russian forces fighting there.

So, how worried should we be?

A bit perhaps, but not too much.

As Lawrence Freedman has noted, the actual use of non-strategic nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be inconsistent with Russian nuclear doctrine and with what Putin himself has said. Russia’s 2020 nuclear policy statement provided that the Kremlin could use nuclear weapons in the event of “aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” No serious military analyst believes that Russia’s existence is imperiled.

Freedman points out that when Putin raises nuclear weapons, he directs the threat against the United States and its allies that are supporting Ukraine, not against Ukraine itself. He seeks to dissuade Kyiv’s supporters from committing their own forces to the conflict—something that Ukraine’s partners, Macron’s remarks notwithstanding, do not appear to be considering. Since September 2022, when fears of possible Russian nuclear use peaked, Putin has several times denied an intention to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, most recently in a March interview in which he observed : “So, why do we need to use weapons of mass destruction [in Ukraine]? There has never been such a need.”

In October and November 2022, Moscow appeared to figure out that its nuclear threats were not achieving their objectives. First, they had no impact on Kyiv’s resolve to keep fighting. Ukrainians view this war as existential. If they lose, Ukraine as they know it is gone. The threat to use non-strategic nuclear weapons does not appear to have altered their determination, and Ukrainian military operations do not present obvious targets that would justify a nuclear strike.

Second, while concerns about possible Russian nuclear use have slowed Western decisions about providing arms to Ukraine, they have not prevented those decisions. Ukraine is receiving increasingly sophisticated weapons, with F-16 fighters soon to arrive. When Russia’s nuclear threats peaked in fall 2022, Western officials publicly warned against using nuclear weapons, citing “severe consequences” though correctly leaving those consequences unspecified. The United States, Britain, and France—NATO’s three nuclear weapons states—reportedly sent coordinated private messages to Moscow underscoring the risks.

While not effecting a real change in Ukrainian or Western policy, the nuclear threats alarmed other countries that matter to Moscow, in particular, China and India . Putin seems to have adjusted to the fact that he is ostracized by the West. The use of nuclear weapons in a conventional war that he started, however, would very likely make him a global pariah. He very much wants to avoid that.

A Pandora’s box

Russian officials also must consider that the use of a nuclear weapon, against any target, would open a Pandora’s box full of unpredictable but potentially very significant consequences. No one knows what would happen. A nuclear weapon has not been used in anger for nearly 79 years—and then it was used by the United States, then the only country with nuclear arms, not in a world of multiple nuclear weapons states. The risks and potential costs of such an action for Moscow would be immense. Why would Putin chance that when Russian territory has not been, and almost certainly will not be, lost?

Putin does not want a nuclear war. He does want Ukraine and the West to believe that he is prepared to risk one in order to undermine their resolve and determination. Of course, it can be unnerving when a nuclear state rattles its nuclear saber, particularly against a peaceful neighbor it has invaded. But Ukraine and the West can choose to keep their nerve.

Originally posted to brookings.edu

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The History That New York City Takes for Granted

By Kenneth T. Jackson

Dr. Jackson is professor emeritus of history at Columbia University, president emeritus of the New-York Historical Society and editor in chief of both editions of The Encyclopedia of New York City.

New York City has an image problem. The nightly news typically has a Big Apple spot about unprovoked street violence, subway attacks, drive-by shootings, shoplifting gangs and homeless encampments. But all of this gives a false impression. Gotham is per capita almost the safest of American cities. But most citizens of the United States do not know it.

The upcoming 400th anniversary of New York City in 2025 offers a great opportunity to change the prevailing narrative. A world-class party could attract more tourists to the world’s greatest city. And there are dozens of ways to do this. My favorite would be a giant 400th themed balloon in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.

Four-hundredth birthdays are no ordinary occasions, and this is not an ordinary time. Hundreds of museums, historical societies, businesses, churches and professional associations are eager to do their part. And Gotham has thousands of citizens who care deeply about the past and who would eagerly embrace the opportunity to show their love for the city.

But instead of planning for a great commemoration, we may be confronting a lost opportunity. In his state of the city speech in January, Mayor Eric Adams said his administration would start planning for what he called this “major milestone in history.” But we’ve heard almost nothing publicly since then and 2025 is only eight months away. This should be a major priority.

(A city official involved in the process said committees had been formed to coordinate planning among all city agencies and outside groups, including civic and historical organizations, and to invest money in events.)

When I co-chaired Columbia University’s 250th anniversary 20 years ago, committees had been meeting 10 years before the 2004 event. Other major cities, from Venice to Moscow to Sydney, have regarded anniversaries as an occasion to party on an international scale. Does anyone really think that Boston will allow its founding in 1630 to pass unobserved in 2030? Or that Philadelphia will take a pass on its establishment by William Penn in 1682?

New York has never sufficiently communicated its historical record over its many centuries. While the city is regarded as an extraordinary place to view tall buildings, experience crowded streets, and thrill to world-class museums and performing arts venues, “American history” as an experience has been better captured by Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, Newport, and half a hundred other places.

In fact, no other “city” in the United States is so old or so historic. The Second Mesa in Arizona has had a few hundred residents on its exposed site for more than 800 years, but it has never been a promising place to put a larger settlement. St. Augustine dates from 1565, but it was insignificant even in Florida until the 20th century. Jamestown, founded in 1607, in Virginia, and Plymouth Plantation, begun in 1620 in Massachusetts, may be dates we learned in school, but both disappeared and survive simply as small tourist attractions.

For more than two centuries, the Hudson River settlement has been the dominant American metropolis. Along the way, it became the planet’s busiest harbor, its manufacturing hub, its media center, business heart and financial capital. It remains the greatest city in the world; it is fitting that the United Nations has its permanent headquarters here.

Of course, its history has had a dark side, too.

In the 18th century, New York was a slave center second only to Charleston, S.C. Wall Street financed the slave economy in the U. S. after New York State abolished human bondage in 1827. The Draft Riot of 1863 remains the worst civil disturbance in all of American history. Slum housing, in the mid-1800s, was as bad as anything, anywhere. The world depression of the 1930s began on Wall Street. And, unbeknown to most residents, New York played a central role in the American Revolution. It was the site of the largest battle — a crushing defeat for the Continental Army — the focus of both British and American strategy, the site of the tragic prison ships and the headquarters of the British Army and Navy.

And, let’s not forget, the 400th anniversary celebrates the colonized New York. Native Americans made their home in what is now the city long before that.

Most important, as the historian Thomas Kessner has demonstrated, New York has throughout its history offered more opportunity than other American cities. In 1625, the Dutch traders, though slave owners and traders, set a new standard of toleration, diversity and the acceptance of human difference, no doubt in the pursuit of business. The problem in New York history is not how to find something important to highlight, but how to choose among so many thousands of competing possibilities.

History not only reminds us how we got to where we are now; it also provides clues as to where we are going and how to get there. No doubt, New York faces a host of challenges. But history also reminds us that New Yorkers, through grit and hard work, have overcome difficult obstacles throughout the centuries. The Civil War, devastating fires, economic depressions, market crashes, epidemic diseases and the 9-11 World Trade Center attack failed to bring Gotham to its knees.

No other place on the planet has shown so clearly that different cultures, races, classes, religions, political causes and languages can exist in proximity without setting off mayhem. The record of this most heterogeneous of cities shows that diversity, toleration and the acceptance of human differences, even amid the density in which its residents reside, have usually led to peace. What has always counted most is effort, talent, creativity and opportunity.

New York was the first capital of the United States, the place where George Washington was inaugurated as the first president, where Congress passed the Bill of Rights in Federal Hall on Wall Street, where the world’s dominant stock exchange was founded, where regularly scheduled shipping service was invented, where above ground public transit in America began, where the Civil War was financed, where tenement laws first began to impose restrictions on slumlords, where Black culture and leadership first began to thrive, and where the Stonewall Riot in Greenwich Village in 1969 came to be regarded as the turning point in the L.G.B.T.Q. rights movement. And it builds on that history every day.

Recognizing New York City’s 400th birthday calls for a celebration worthy of a great metropolis that remains a beacon of opportunity. The entire city ought to come together to make the world aware of New York’s uniqueness. Mayor Adams and Gov. Kathleen Hochul need to make sure that happens.

Kenneth T. Jackson is professor emeritus of history at Columbia University; president emeritus of the New-York Historical Society and editor in chief of the Encyclopedia of New York City .

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .