john locke institute essay competition awards

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

Enter your email address below to:

Register (if this is your first time here)

or Login (if you have already registered).

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

Indigo Research Team

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

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

What is the John Locke Essay Competition?

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

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

Why should you participate?

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

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

Essay topics 

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

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

• Philosophy 

Tips for Students 

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

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

Important dates

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

For students passionate about Philosophy, Politics, Economics, History, Psychology, Theology, or Law, our next IRIS summer program offers a unique opportunity. You will have access to a specialized course taught by esteemed Harvard faculty, designed to teach you how to articulate and reason through sophisticated arguments effectively. This program is ideal for anyone looking to excel in competitions like the John Locke Essay Competition and beyond. Join us to sharpen your analytical skills and bring your critical thinking to the next level.

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

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

Outline Thoroughly

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

Clear arguments 

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

Revise Strategically

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

Seek Feedback

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

Common Questions Related to the John Locke Essay Competition

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

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

What are the awards for the John Locke Essay Competition?

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

This essay competition is one of the best ways to bring out the essence of youth, freedom of expression, and a student’s critical thinking ability. Thus, we encourage high school students to take part in it and convey their enthusiasm and revolutionary thoughts to shape the world. Participating in the John Locke Essay Competition 2024 demands innovative ideas and clever solutions. To hone these skills, begin with some research. Indigo offers a platform for curious high school students eager to explore more and transform their bright ideas into reality. If you're interested in learning to write about politics, consider joining this summer's IRIS Program . You'll be mentored by Harvard faculty who will help you excel in writing your argumentation.

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

By Jin Chow

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

2 minute read

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

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

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

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

Eligibility

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

JLI Essay Competition Topics

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

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

Philosophy : Is tax theft? 

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

Economics : What would happen if we banned billionaires?  

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

Psychology : Can happiness be measured?

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

Law : Are there too many laws?

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

John Locke Writing Contest Requirements

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

Timeline and Deadlines

January - New essay questions are released

April 1st - Registration opens

May 31st   - Registration deadline

June 30th - Essay submission deadline

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

John Locke Institute Essay Competition Judging Criteria

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

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

Research and Essay Writing Tactics

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

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

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

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

Research and Prepare for your Competition or Fair

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

American citizens give away more than $300 billion each year in charitable donations. Only a tiny fraction of this (less than 0.001%) is donated to federal, state, and local governments. Politicians claim that they spend taxpayers' money efficiently, to accomplish the most good with the budgets at their disposal. But if this were true wouldn't governments be able to compete more successfully with private charities? What are the implications of your answer?

Helny Hobbs, Newstead Wood School, United Kingdom

Winner of the 2020 Politics Prize ​| 7 min read 

Introduction

Americans are one of the most philanthropic peoples in the world with their voluntary giving exceeding the total GDP of nations such as Israel and Chile. However, donations to federal, state and local governments are astronomically low, despite the aim of government being to advance social good in the same way as the third sector. Government’s inability to successfully compete with non-profits stems, not from lack of efficiency as it would appear prima facie, but from their inability to match the 'warm glow’ provided by private charity and, most of all, philanthropic particularism. The implications of these factors are that America’s welfare system perpetuates the status quo and often does not deliver necessary change. Government and private charity should be provoked to compete on terms of efficiency, to ensure the maximum potential for social good is fulfilled by devising new methods to measure efficiency and informing Americans of their biases. However, in cases where particularism cannot be overcome, it is the duty of government to step in and increase taxation.

A Matter of Efficiency?

When it comes to explaining the gulf between donations to government and private charity, the veracity of the claim that government does not use its money efficiently is inconsequential – instead, it is whether government is perceived as inefficient that may influence how people donate. Since President Carter popularised small-government rhetoric in the seventies, Americans have become notorious for their distrust of government effectiveness (especially at the federal level), with 73% of Americans - both Republicans and Democrats - believing that charities are more cost-effective than government agencies.

However, efficiency is not a significant consideration in philanthropic decisions for most individuals as it is subjugated by human nature. For example, imagine a burning building in which there is a child and $1 million that you have pledged to give to the Malaria Foundation. Would you save the child or the money that could save the lives of many more children? While the latter would be more effective, human nature favours the former demonstrating how humans are motivated by considerations besides efficiency. Singer agrees in his “drowning child” hypothetical. This becomes increasingly evident when looking at the third sector: according to Guide Dogs of America it costs $42,000 to train a guide dog but only $25 to fund 80% effective surgery for sufferers of trachoma in Africa which could restore their sight, however, the former charity still receives donations. Further, even if donors try to be effective, because of the difficulty in evaluating the efficiency of an initiative donors experience an ‘evaluability bias’ (Ord) that sees them prioritise easily measurable factors such as overhead ratio, irrespective of cost-effectiveness. Therefore, even if governments were viewed as on-par with the third sector in terms of efficiency, they would still not be able to compete for funds as there are more powerful factors at play that sway the preference of Americans towards private charity.

The ‘Warm Glow’ of Philanthropy

The first of these factors is the increased emotional reward from donating to charity over governments, or the ‘warm glow’ theory (Andreoni). The dominant motivation behind charitable giving is “the internal satisfaction that individuals derive from the act of giving” (Hernández-Murillo) which economists model as a commodity which individuals shop for in the market of philanthropy, trying to find the best place to get their money’s worth.  Governments are significantly worse at providing this emotional reward; they are large so donors feel disconnected from the end result of their money, seeing it as swallowed up into the great administrative machine, unlike private charities which use advertising to link donors to their work such as: “£5 could pay for a goat for two families” (Oxfam) which gives donors more satisfaction as they feel that they are having a tangible impact. Further, the extensive impact of government schemes is a blessing and a curse as a single victim is better at inducing a strong affective response than a large number of victims presented in a statistical form (Slovic). One only must look to the recent George Floyd protests to evidence how powerful the story of one man receiving injustice is compared to statistics about police brutality that have been available for years.

The prioritisation of emotional reward means that philanthropic competition is reduced to an emotionally driven marketing campaign. However, some warn of the dangers of straying away from this approach, replacing emotion with facts and figures and thereby removing our humanity as "privately funded charity is the only charity stemming from individual compassion” (Tocqueville). However, there is a misconception that less emotional approach eradicates human empathy when it can enhance it. Mill argued that those who must concern themself with society are “those few whose actions have an influence that extends that far”; in the global world we live in today, this applies not to the few but to the majority. Empathy must take on a different form, one that accommodates for the vast information available to us about suffering across the world. To ignore this data and continue to base philanthropic decisions upon how emotionally roused we are by specific issues would be to be unempathetic to the rest of the suffering that happens across the world. While we cannot entirely withdraw emotion from charitable decisions as it is a powerful tool that motivates us to do good in the first place, we must have a measured approach, harnessing this empathy while recognising how it informs our biases: as Singer states, philanthropic decisions must be a “combination of heart and head”.

Philanthropic Particularism

The second and most influential factor is ‘philanthropic particularism’ (Salmon) - where donors tend to prefer certain groups and issues. Americans are much more likely to donate to private charity as it gives them the scope to display their personal preference without the interests of the rest of the country having to play a role, as they do when donating to the democratically elected government. In the US especially, with its laissez-faire neo-liberal attitudes, the impoverished are seen as ‘undeserving’ (a trope fuelled by racial divisions) which sees many Americans prefer to donate to religious organisations (32% of all donations) over redistributive organisations such as governments. The significance of particularism becomes more evident when looking to countries with highly homogenous populations like Scandinavian countries where people derive adequate satisfaction from government ‘charity’ as they relate to the recipients. Therefore, a much larger proportion of Scandinavians are prepared to support growth of the welfare state, unlike America where demographic divisions see more conflicts of interest within the electorate who are averse to an opposing group benefitting at their expense. While one may avoid their donation being used for a cause they are adverse to by specifying what the money should go towards, this is easier to do in private charity where there is more transparency about exactly how the money can be used, unlike governments where information about schemes being undertaken is not readily available.

This partisanship is reinforced by the belief that in America, civic duties are fulfilled through paying tax and that if government needed more money they would raise taxes - a falsehood, as the US government keeps taxes low to keep support amongst the electorate even though they have scope to do good with additional funds. Americans defend their right to income post-taxation, arguing for the liberty to spend it how they wish. However, the inadequate taxes enforced leave government with little capacity to implement social welfare meaning the responsibility falls upon private charities to fill the gaping holes in the social safety net, and thus the responsibility for choosing which issues need attention on donors.

Therefore, particularism has drastic ramifications as it dictates the shape of the welfare system and causes philanthropy to become a plutocracy with billionaires such as Bezos having the power to decide who deserves aid in America. Konkzal highlights that this system “channels aid towards the interests and needs of those who already hold large amounts of power” exemplified in the extortionate amount of charitable giving that goes into political advocacy and elite colleges. Where drastic and transformative change is needed that may be at the expense of those in the upper echelons of society, change will be opposed and the issue disregarded (Reich). Carter would criticize this, arguing that private charity is “democracy in action” with people ‘voting’ with their money, protecting non-mainstream ideas. However, wealth inequality means that not every ‘voter’ is equal, a necessary qualification for democracy.

The Case for Effective Altruism

While competition isn’t to do with effectiveness but emotional reward and particularism, governments and private charity should be competing in the market on the sole term of efficiency, with donors taking a utilitarian approach. The recent, rapidly accelerating effective altruism movement - headed by Peter Singer - argues for a new approach to welfare motivated by efficiency alone, making philanthropy “more about the beneficiaries of our money than our own need for warm and fuzzy feelings” (Fraser). The effectiveness of different charitable organisations can vary by as much as 2000%, suggesting huge scope for improving the effectiveness of welfare by redistributing resources. Once it becomes a competition of effectiveness, market forces will ensure that both charity and governments focus on improving their effectiveness instead of on ways to harness emotion and unimportant factors in advertising (such as reducing their overhead costs).

The easier it becomes to donate effectively, the more Americans will. To eliminate the ‘evaluability bias’ and distrust in government effectiveness, government and private charity must adopt comparable scales of effectiveness (such as the STEPS framework proposed by Eder) and make this information accessible and widely available. This will allow potential donors to realise the areas where government is more suitable to deal with an issue than charity. For example, non-profits such as ‘Ascension’ are trying to remedy issues with healthcare however their work often deals with the symptoms of the issue instead of the root of the problem in the way that government could if they reform the entire structure. This example illustrates how even though political action is often more unpredictable in yielding results, the “benefits of successful initiative are potentially much higher” in many cases (Baron), which will be made evident through these comparable statistics so that individuals have the capacity evaluate the most effective use of their money.

However, donating efficiently involves not just donating to the organisation that is best suited to deal with a chosen issue, but donating towards issues that are most in need. While quantifying effectiveness of institutions that are addressing similar issues is undemanding, it is difficult to compare dissimilar issues - for example, is curing a hundred children of blindness better than saving the life of one child? - so it is unrealistic to deploy statistics in this situation. Instead we must be mildly optimistic that philanthropic individuals have a measure of objective desire to do good with their money, so if informed of biases that are preventing them from doing so, will try to overcome them. Indeed, Americans will receive a heightened ‘warm glow’ knowing that they are donating more effectively, which will be a strong motivator. However, this more subjective approach based upon trusting individuals will not eradicate philanthropic particularism, so in the numerous cases where particularism sees the most important issues being disregarded, it is the duty of governments to protect the needy amongst their electorate and step in, acquiring additional funds through state or federal tax.

By changing the perception of government to an institution bent upon aiding those in need and deserving to be considered by donors in the same way as non-profits, doors will be opened to new approaches to social issues that utilise the power of government. Competition based solely on efficiency should be stimulated, by making it easier to evaluate this factor and by cultivating a culture of effective altruism. However, as ingrained biases mean that Americans cannot shoulder the responsibility of identifying the most pressing social issues, government must begin to step in and obtain the necessary funds through taxation to aid those disregarded by the Americans able to afford charitable giving.

Bibliography

Alesina, Glaeser and Sacerdote. Why Doesn’t The US Have A European-Style Welfare State? Harvard Institute of Economic Research, November 2001.

Andreoni, James. Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving. The Economic Journal, vol. 100, no. 401, 1990, pp. 464–477. JSTOR, < www.jstor.org/stable/2234133 >

Bapanapalli, Satish. Why Forced ‘Charity’ Is Bad Economics. Foundation for Economic Education, 13 May 2020. < https://fee.org/articles/why-forced-charity-is-bad-economics/ >

Baron and Szymanska. Heuristics and Biases in Charity. December 2010.

CAF. Giving Thought Podcast: Philanthropy and the Welfare State. 18 November 2018. < https://www.cafonline.org/about- us/blog-home/giving-thought/podcasts-from-giving-thought/philanthropy-and-the-welfare-state >

Caviola, Everett, Faulmüller, Kahane and Savulescu. The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives? Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 9, No. 4, July 2014, pp. 303–315 < ﷟ttp://journal.sjdm.org/14/14402a/jdm14402a.pdf>

Eder, Paul. How Do You Measure the Effectiveness of Government? Government Executive, 15 July 2015. < https://www.govexec.com/management/2015/07/how -do- americans - measure - effectivenes s- government/117814/>

Fraser, Giles. It’s called effective altruism – but is it really the best way to do good? The Guardian, 23 November 2017 < https://www.theguardian.com/money/belief/2017/nov/23/its -called- effective-altruism-but-is-it-really-the-best-way-to-do- good>

Gneezy, A, Gneezy, U and Keenan, E.A. Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science, October 2014. < https://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6209/632 >

Govindarajan and Ramamurti. How One Nonprofit Is Expanding Health Care for the Uninsured. Harvard Business Review, 11 October 2018. < https://hbr.org/2018/10/how-one-nonprofit-is-expanding-health-care-for-the-uninsured >

Hernández-Murillo and Roisman. The Economics of Charitable Giving: What Gives? Federal reserve Bank of St Louis, October 2005.

Husock, Howard. Why Government Can't Replace Charity. Forbes. 10 April 2014. < https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhusock/2014/04/10/lesson-for-april-15-why-government-cant-replace- charity/#1334b36279e2 >

Independent Sector. How Americans trust and value the charitable sector. Independent Sector, 2016. < https://independentsector.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/United-for-Charity-v5.pdf>

Konczal, Mike. The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity. The Atlantic, 24 March 2014. < https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the - conservati ve-myth -of-a-social-safety-net-built-on- charity/284552/>

Logue, John. The Welfare State: Victim of Its Success. Daedalus, vol. 108, no. 4, 1979, pp. 69–87. JSTOR, < www.jstor.org/stable/20024635>

Lowenstein and Small. Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability. Springer Publishing, January 2003.

Mill, J.S. Utilitarianism. 1863.

Niskanen Center. Why Americans Dislike Government, Even When it Works. 3 September 2019. < https://www.niskanencenter.org/why - american - dislike - government -even -when-it-works/>

Olasky, Marvin. The Tragedy of American Compassion. Regnery Publishing, May 1992.

Oppenheimer and Olivola. The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity. Psychology Press, 19 Jan 2011.

Tanner, M.D. Less Welfare, More Charity. CATO Institute, 20 August 2014.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Philosopher Peter Singer on Ending World Poverty. 20 December 2019. < https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Philosopher -Peter- Singer - on/247738#disqus_thread>

Vilbert, Jean. What If Charity Replaced Taxation? Foundation for Economic Education, July 2019. < https://fee.org/articles/what-if-charity-replaced-taxation/>

Whitford, James. Could government welfare be undermining compassion? True Charity, September 2019. < http://www.truecharity.us/james-whitford-could-government-welfare-be-undermining-compassion/>

Zinsmeister, Karl. Fixing Problems via Philanthropy vs. Government. December 2019. < https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/article/fixing-problems-via-philanthropy-vs.-government

John Locke Global Essay Competition (Standard Prize & Junior Prize)

Our Essay Competition invites students to explore a wide range of challenging and interesting questions beyond the confines of the school curriculum.

Entering an essay in our competition can build knowledge and refine skills of argumentation. It also gives students the chance to have their work assessed by experts. All of our essay prizes are judged by senior academics from the University of Oxford. The judges will choose their favourite essay from each subject category and an overall 'best essay' across seven subjects: Philosophy, Politics, Economics, History, Psychology, Theology and Law.

The Institute awards two separate prizes:

• For the standard prize a prize is awarded for the best essay in each category.
• For the Junior Prize there is only one winner.

The prize for each winner of a subject category, and the winner of the Junior Prize, is a scholarship worth US$2000 towards the cost of attending any John Locke Institute program and the essays will be published on the Institute's website. The prize-giving ceremony takes place in Oxford, at which winners and runners-up will be able to meet the judges and other faculty members of the John Locke Institute. Family, friends, and teachers are also welcome, subject to capacity constraints.

​

The candidate who submits the best essay overall will be awarded an honorary John Locke Institute Junior Fellowship, which comes with a US$10,000 scholarship to attend one or more of our summer schools and/or gap year courses.

Location(s)

• Entries are due no later than June 30

Cost/Compensation

Eligibility requirements.

• Students must be 18 or younger
• Entries are open to candidates from every country

Application or Entry Requirements

• Registration is required, which one can do  here.
• Essays should address only one of the questions in a chosen subject category but students may submit more than one essay so long as they are in different categories.
• Essays must not exceed 2000 words (not counting diagrams, tables of data, footnotes, bibliography, or authorship declaration). 
• Essays should be submitted in pdf format, through the website. 

Notifications of Decisions

• Short-listed contestants announced: July
• Junior Prize announced: August
• Economics Prize announced: September
• Politics Prize and Law Prize announced: September
• Philosophy Prize and Theology Prize announced: September
• Psychology Prize announced: October

Financial Aid Details

Other dates to keep in mind.

• Essay questions released: February

Have other questions?

The John Locke Institute encourages young people to cultivate the characteristics that turn good students into great writers: independent thought, depth of knowledge, clear reasoning, critical analysis, and persuasive style. We work to embolden the best and brightest students to become more academically ambitious and more intellectually adventurous. Through our various programs - residential courses, revision seminars, essay competitions, and special events - we inspire students to aim high and we equip them with the skills they need in order to achieve their goals.

An examination of modern faith and our human nature to want to look beyond scientific fact has earned a Westminster pupil a podium place in a prestigious global essay competition

Selected from hundreds of entries to the Theology category of the 2022 John Locke Institute Essay Competition, Chloe (PP, Sixth Form) was awarded third place for her essay, Is Faith Anything Other than Uncertain Belief on Incomplete Evidence? , a study of the emergence of new interpretations of faith in the early twenty-first century. In considering the New Atheist stance that theological beliefs cannot be supported by logical or empirical evidence and are, therefore, meaningless, Chloe explores why such an approach to faith could be deemed as reductionist to a religious believer. She concludes by suggesting that human nature implores us to find meaning beyond simple scientific explanation and, for many, religious faith is essential in providing the foundations to do so.

The John Locke Institute’s annual, global essay competition invites young scholars to show their depth of knowledge and persuasiveness of writing across seven different subjects: philosophy, politics, economics, history, psychology, theology and law, and gives a chance for work to be read and assessed by experts from the University of Oxford . This year more than 8,000 students entered from across the globe. In the Theology category, Chloe was placed behind only students from Australia and the USA, and across all seven categories just three UK students were placed within the top three.

As a shortlisted essayist, Chloe was invited to attend three days of lectures to debate issues surrounding theology, law and economics at the John Locke Institute, Oxford.

Twitter Post

The defence of faith beyond scientific reasoning explored by Westminster pupil in award-winning essay Selected from hundreds of entries to the Theology category of the 2022 @JohnLockeInst Essay Competition, Chloe (PP, Sixth Form) was awarded third place. https://t.co/aQVDmKPPyv pic.twitter.com/CWPSAK3tNS — Westminster School (@wschool) October 6, 2022

Chloe said of winning third prize: “The news came as a shock to me. I had read the essays of previous winners on the website, all of which were incredible, and I never dreamed that I would be able to produce anything of that level. During the awards ceremony, whilst the judges were announcing the names of people who had received a commendation for their essays, I was shivering all over because I thought they had forgotten about me. I’m still in disbelief.

“As someone who grew up in a largely secular background, I had always wanted to know more about the different and diverse worldviews across the globe. Writing to address a question that required in-depth knowledge about religion thus helped me further my understanding of individual religious communities. Putting academics aside, however, I was aware that the topic I had been exploring was extremely poignant and personal, which made writing it all the more meaningful.

“It took me around a month to research and write the essay. Initially, I had spent a week on my first draft, but afterwards I completely redrafted a second version of the essay where I changed my entire stance.”

Instagram Post

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Westminster School, London (@westminstergram__)

Related News Stories

New humans and artificial thought imagined in pupils’ winning university essays

• Academic Life

Westminster Francophiles win national debating competition

The school celebrates pupils who have shown dedication to the co-curriculum.

• Co-Curriculum

Find out when your child is able to join the School using the personalised age checker and timeline.

Westminster School gratefully welcomes donations to support fundraising efforts across the School community.

• About Westminster
• Policies and Reports
• Job Vacancies
• News Archive
• School Fees
• International Applicants

School Life

• The Curriculum
• The Co-Curriculum
• Exam Results and HE
• Watch Westminster

Quick Links

• Intranet Logins
• Legal and Privacy
• Old Westminsters
• Westminster Under School

Start typing and press enter to search

Alex Chen '23 Wins Third Prize in Global Essay Competition

• Alex Chen '23

Search this Site:

Student announced as john locke institute essay competition finalist.

This weekend she has been invited to Oxford to celebrate her achievement and participate in an academic programme with candidates across the world.

Mr Powell, Head of Sixth Form, said: “We are so proud of Nina. Nina embodies academic resilience and excellence, and her achievements to become a finalist in the John Locke Institute Essay Competition are truly remarkable. She has competed against thousands of applicants around the world to get to this point. This is a fantastic achievement for Nina, and she is a credit to herself and the entire Edmundian Community. Best of luck, Nina!”

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

Discourse, debate, and analysis

Cambridge re:think essay competition 2024.

Competition Opens: 15th January, 2024

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

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

Entry to the competition is free.

About the Competition

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

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

Religion and Politics

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

Artificial Intelligence 

Neuroengineering

2024 essay prompts.

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

Essay Guidelines and Judging Criteria

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

Awards and Award Ceremony

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

Registration and Submission

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

Advisory Committee and Judging Panel

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

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

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

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

Keynote Speeches by 10 Nobel Laureates

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

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

Why has religion remained a force in a secular world? 

Professor Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hall at King’s College, Cambridge

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

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

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

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

King’s College Chapel

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

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

Confirmed Nobel Laureates

Dr Thomas R. Cech

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

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

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

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

Sir Richard J. Roberts

The nobel prize in medicine 1993 .

F or the discovery of split genes

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

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

Dr Aaron Ciechanover

The nobel prize in chemistry 2004 .

F or the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation

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

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

Dr Robert Lefkowitz

The nobel prize in chemistry 2012 .

F or the discovery of G protein-coupled receptors

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

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

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

Dr Joachim Frank

The nobel prize in chemistry 2017 .

F or developing cryo-electron microscopy

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

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

Dr Barry C. Barish

The nobel prize in physics 2017 .

For the decisive contributions to the detection of gravitational waves

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Harvey J. Alter

The nobel prize in medicine 2020 .

For the discovery of Hepatitis C virus

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

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

Dr Ardem Patapoutian

The nobel prize in medicine 2021 .

For discovering how pressure is translated into nerve impulses

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

Is there any entry fee for the competition? 

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

Subscribe for Competition Updates

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