英國的學(xué)制短、名校多，想要成功申請英國留學(xué)，其實并不是一件容易的事情。在許多方面都得下功夫，下面和出國留學(xué)網(wǎng)小編一起來看看怎樣寫好一封合格的英國留學(xué)ESSAY？
    首先來看看書寫技巧。
    一、做到語言規(guī)范。
    1、英文論文的語言使用規(guī)范可以用來檢測學(xué)生在各個學(xué)歷階段英語學(xué)習(xí)的情況。單詞拼寫錯誤是否明顯，用詞的選擇是否恰當(dāng)，句式上是否仍帶有Chinglish的痕跡，從整個語篇來看是否具有英式思維。
    2、英文論文的語言使用規(guī)范可以用來檢測學(xué)生在撰寫論文時的思路邏輯。語言使用規(guī)范不僅包括字詞句的使用，還有句段和邏輯，以及文體文風(fēng)。不同的論文能看出不同的寫作思路、論證方法，有的是先提出問題，最后下結(jié)論，有的是在文章開頭就給出自己要論證的觀點，然后鋪開陳述和論證。
    3、英文論文的語言使用規(guī)范可以用來檢測學(xué)生上課是否有聽導(dǎo)師的要求和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。有的導(dǎo)師在上課時已給出了模板，和相應(yīng)的要求，如果使用不規(guī)范，導(dǎo)師會生氣的。
    二、語言規(guī)范寫作技巧。
    1、基礎(chǔ)層面。如果將畢業(yè)論文比作宏偉大廈，字詞句就是奠基石，是基礎(chǔ)了，所以強烈建議學(xué)生在平常上課和學(xué)習(xí)，甚至生活中都要不斷地積累學(xué)習(xí)英語，擺脫母語思維的方式，在與人交流、思考問題、論文寫作的時候不要再講漢語作為過渡了。平時多看英文文獻，要記得做筆記積累，多學(xué)多思多練筆。
    2、搭建結(jié)構(gòu)。在開題報告和提綱的幫助下，將要用的資料，包括文獻和自己整理的筆記按照提綱上的順序放好。寫之前和寫作中都要理清頭緒，想好論證的結(jié)構(gòu)，中心明確，詳略得當(dāng)。
    3、形成文風(fēng)。根據(jù)課程的性質(zhì)和選題來體現(xiàn)自己的風(fēng)格，也體現(xiàn)文章的風(fēng)格，這一層是相當(dāng)難的，也可稱作修改潤色階段，力求專業(yè)。
    接著來看看書寫誤區(qū)。
    切記不能撒謊！
    注意前后語境與邏輯要對的上號。招考官都不是傻子，如果你Essay上寫著自己小時候家里很窮，而簡歷上的高中卻是一所貴族學(xué)校，你覺得招生老師會怎么想？如果你的寫作能力夠厲害，完全可以把普通的經(jīng)歷寫的活色生香。所以，提高自己的寫作能力才是王道！
    切忌詞藻過于華麗
    把Essay 寫的漂亮點本無可厚非，但是如果你用的詞太生僻，以至于招生老師還要去查字典才知道是什么意思的話，就不太好了。生僻詞不一定顯得高級，合適的就是最好的。
    英國有位新聞學(xué)教授就曾公開表示他十分討厭“utilize”這個詞，明明“use”就能表達的，何必要用“utilize”呢。
    寫文章的時候永遠都要記?。骸癉on’t use a 10-cent word when a five-cent word will do.”
    不要打官腔
    很多留學(xué)生朋友可能都有這樣的感受，寫Essay時的自己和平常的自己似乎不太一樣，常常不自覺的就打起了官腔。比如在Essay里你可能會寫：“The indication of her rhetorical strategy…”，而在現(xiàn)實生活中，你會直接說：“Her style of persuasion…”哪一種看起來更像是一名20歲的年輕人會說的話？招生老師希望聽到的是你的聲音，你的表達，not someone else.不讓你打官腔，不是說你可以在自己的essay里隨意使用網(wǎng)絡(luò)語言，這點也要注意。
    不要用雞毛蒜皮的例子證明大道理
    從小事入手，但不要寫雞毛蒜皮的事兒。
    不要羅列自己的成就
    在Essay中羅列自己的成就是非常危險的行為。一篇Essay的字數(shù)限制只有500+，并不算多。如果你把這些寶貴的字數(shù)用來寫枯燥的成就，無疑等于降低自己被錄取的勝算。你的GPA成績和課外活動情況都在簡歷上寫明了，無需在Essay上重復(fù)說明。如果說簡歷是一副簡筆畫的話，那么Essay就是上色的過程。Essay的目的是讓招生老師更深入的了解你，可千萬不要絮絮叨叨沒完沒了，要節(jié)約資源又能表現(xiàn)完全。機會不可浪費哦。
    最后來看看參考范文。
    In English law the law making power lies with the parliament. However judges also make law by way of judicial pronouncement. Under the English legal system it is deemed that the decisions given by higher courts are binding on the lower courts. This principle is famously known as ＇stare decisis＇ which means to stand by previously decided cases. The importance of this principle is that courts are bound to follow previously decided cases specially if the decision is given by a higher court. For e.g. the Court of Appeal is bound to follow the decision given by the UK Supreme Court （previously House of Lords）.
    It can also be said that nowadays judicial precedent has been laid down in such a manner that it will be more easier for judges to interpret the law and also to stay on the path of precedent which is now flexible enough to give judges the room to give fair and just judgment according to the demand of time.
    All decisions at least create a persuasive precedent， the degree of persuasiveness depends on the position of the court in the legal hierarchy. For e.g. precedents from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not binding since the Committee is not part of the normal hierarchy of courts in UK （because the Committee is comprised of up to 9 of the most senior judges， Lords of Appeal in Ordinary （or Law Lords）） r sources of persuasive precedents include courts in foreign countries， for example， the decision in （Eliason v. Henshaw）.
    Obiter dicta have formed law in many cases for example， in （Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd） and Pinnel＇s Case.
    There are three main reasons why persuasive precedents are not binding：
    The first is that the doctrine of precedent in similar cases should be treated in the same way. This restriction does not apply with persuasive precedents.
    The second is that there are a huge bulk of persuasive precedents， and it would be impracticable to follow them.
    The third is that persuasive precedents are frequently not considered per curiam as ratio decidendi and even when they are， they are not usually considered. Therefore there is a greater risk that they will be considered ill and thus may be bad law.
    Only points of law are binding. For example， in （Qualcast v. Haynes）， it was decided that the ＇precedent＇ that employers who failed to give instructions on the use of protective clothing were de facto negligent， was a question of fact and therefore not binding.
    There are two main theories of precedent. The first of these is the declaratory theory， which states that the common law does not change - in each case the law is merely re-stated but not added to - the judges are declaring the law on the basis of past decisions.
    The realistic theory is that they do - all principles must originally come from somewhere， and the abstraction of old principles is the creation of ne