Lessons from Brittany Stinson’s Viral College Application

Introduction

In 2016, high school senior Brittany Stinson gained widespread attention when her college application essay went viral. The essay, which helped secure her admission to five Ivy League schools and Stanford, used an extended metaphor comparing her intellectual curiosity to childhood experiences at Costco. The "Costco essay," as it came to be known, transcended its original purpose as an admissions document to become a cultural touchpoint in discussions about college applications, personal narratives, and effective writing strategies. Its success demonstrates how creative approaches to standardized prompts can distinguish applicants in increasingly competitive admissions environments.

This essay analyzes the rhetorical strategies, narrative techniques, and thematic elements that contributed to the effectiveness of Stinson's essay, exploring how it balanced authenticity with strategic self-presentation. By examining this case study in successful application writing, we can identify broader principles about effective personal narratives in high-stakes contexts, the evolving nature of college admissions criteria, and the delicate balance between formulaic expectations and creative risk-taking in application processes. The "Costco essay" ultimately serves as a compelling example of how unconventional approaches, when executed with skill and authenticity, can transform standardized application components into powerful demonstrations of personal identity and intellectual potential.

Rhetorical Analysis of the Costco Framework

The central rhetorical achievement of Stinson's essay lies in her selection and sustained development of the Costco extended metaphor. This choice demonstrates sophisticated rhetorical awareness through its unexpected juxtaposition of the mundane (a warehouse retail store) with the intellectual (her academic curiosity and development). The incongruity between setting and subject creates immediate reader engagement—a crucial achievement in a context where admissions officers review thousands of essays. This "pattern interruption" distinguishes her narrative from more conventional approaches addressing intellectual development through predictable academic experiences or inspirational moments. By selecting a commercial space typically associated with bulk consumption rather than intellectual pursuit, Stinson subverts expectations while establishing a uniquely personal framework that competitors would be unlikely to duplicate.

The essay's rhetorical strength extends beyond its unusual framing to the sophisticated parallelism between Costco's physical layout and her intellectual journey. Stinson's description of navigating Costco's diverse departments becomes an effective vehicle for demonstrating her varied intellectual interests without resorting to resume-like listing of accomplishments. The "rotisserie chicken" section transforms into a discussion of political science interests; the "giant river" of produce illustrates her environmental concerns. This structural parallelism allows her to weave between concrete description and abstract reflection while maintaining cohesive development. The essay thereby achieves the rhetorical virtue of presenting multiple dimensions of her personality and interests within a unified conceptual framework—a sophisticated rhetorical accomplishment that simultaneously addresses the "intellectual vitality" criteria many selective institutions prioritize.

Stinson further demonstrates rhetorical sophistication through strategic incorporation of language reflecting academic potential. Her prose integrates advanced vocabulary and occasional scientific terminology without appearing forced or pretentious, subtly signaling her readiness for college-level discourse. The essay's concluding shift from past to present and future orientation rhetorically reinforces her developmental narrative, positioning her as evolving from childhood wonder to mature intellectual engagement. This temporal movement satisfies the implicit rhetorical demand of admissions essays to demonstrate both reflection on past development and readiness for future growth. Through these multilayered rhetorical strategies, Stinson transforms what could have been a gimmicky concept into a sophisticated self-presentation that addresses the underlying evaluative criteria of selective admissions processes.

Narrative Technique and Voice Development

Stinson's narrative approach demonstrates sophisticated storytelling techniques that elevate her essay beyond clever concept to compelling personal narrative. She employs a non-linear chronological structure that moves fluidly between childhood experiences, adolescent development, and present reflection, creating a dynamic representation of intellectual growth rather than a simplistic progression. This temporal complexity mirrors the actual development of intellectual identity, which rarely follows straight trajectories. By interspersing present reflections with specific childhood memories, she creates narrative depth that demonstrates both self-awareness and storytelling sophistication. Her narrative techniques—including scene-setting, specific sensory details, dialogue snippets, and reflective interludes—create a multidimensional representation of identity development that engages readers at both emotional and intellectual levels.

The development of authentic voice represents perhaps the most crucial narrative achievement in Stinson's essay. College application essays exist in a paradoxical rhetorical situation—applicants must simultaneously present authenticity while strategically crafting self-representation for evaluation. Stinson navigates this tension through a distinctive voice that combines intellectual substance with conversational accessibility and occasional humor. The essay's voice feels simultaneously precocious and age-appropriate, demonstrating intellectual potential without sacrificing authenticity or appearing artificially sophisticated. Her occasional incorporation of childlike wonder ("a high-tech recreational paradise") alongside more sophisticated analysis creates a narrative voice that demonstrates intellectual growth while maintaining consistency. This balance allows her to present intellectual capabilities without the essay feeling like a performance of intelligence—a common pitfall in application writing.

Stinson's narrative effectiveness also stems from her strategic management of vulnerability and confidence. The essay reveals enough personal background to create connection while avoiding oversharing that might distract from her intellectual narrative. She demonstrates self-awareness about her curiosity and intellectual tendencies without self-deprecation or arrogance. This balanced self-representation illustrates an important principle in effective application essays: demonstrating self-knowledge without excessive focus on personal struggles or achievements. By focusing on intellectual engagement rather than obstacles overcome or accomplishments achieved, Stinson creates a narrative centered on potential rather than past performance—a particularly effective approach for institutions seeking students with intellectual vitality beyond standardized metrics. This narrative strategy allows her to demonstrate reflection and self-awareness without diverting from her central theme of intellectual curiosity.

Thematic Development and Intellectual Identity

At its thematic core, Stinson's essay explores intellectual curiosity as both personality trait and developmental process. Rather than simply claiming curiosity as a personal quality, she demonstrates its manifestation throughout her development, from childhood wonder at bulk quantities to more sophisticated academic interests. This thematic approach aligns strategically with selective institutions' emphasis on intellectual vitality as a key admission criterion. Stanford, which received Stinson's essay, explicitly evaluates applicants for "intellectual vitality," defined as engagement with ideas beyond academic requirements. By thematically centering her narrative on curiosity rather than achievement, Stinson addresses this criterion while distinguishing herself from applicants who emphasize accomplishments over intellectual orientation. The essay's sustained exploration of how curiosity manifests across different domains—from scientific interest to political awareness to environmental concerns—demonstrates intellectual versatility that suggests potential for interdisciplinary engagement in university settings.

Stinson further develops this thematic focus through strategic integration of specific intellectual interests without resorting to explicit discussion of academic achievements. References to specific interests—mathematical concepts, environmental concerns, political questions—appear organically within the Costco framework rather than as forced demonstrations of accomplishment. This integration achieves a crucial balance in application writing: demonstrating specific intellectual interests and capabilities without reducing them to achievements or credentials. By embedding these references within reflective narration rather than explicit statements of accomplishment, she creates the impression of genuine intellectual engagement rather than resume-building. This approach particularly suits selective institutions' growing emphasis on authentic intellectual curiosity over credential accumulation in identifying students with potential for meaningful university contributions.

The essay's thematic examination of curiosity extends beyond personal reflection to implicit commentary on educational philosophy. Through references to learning outside formal contexts, Stinson subtly advocates for education driven by internal motivation rather than external requirements—a perspective that aligns with progressive educational values emphasized at many selective institutions. Her repeated emphasis on questioning and exploration over definitive answers demonstrates intellectual humility alongside curiosity, suggesting readiness for university environments that value critical inquiry over certainty. This thematic development demonstrates how effective application essays can transcend pure self-presentation to engage with educational values and philosophy, demonstrating not just qualification for admission but alignment with institutional values. By thematically positioning herself as a self-directed learner who finds intellectual stimulation in unexpected places, Stinson presents herself as someone who will actively contribute to university intellectual culture rather than passively consuming educational resources.

Cultural Significance and Contextual Factors

The "Costco essay" gained viral popularity within specific cultural and institutional contexts that contribute to understanding its effectiveness. The essay emerged amid increasing application volumes at selective institutions, with Common Application adoption enabling students to apply to multiple universities simultaneously. This environment intensified competition while standardizing application components, creating pressure for distinction within constraints. The essay's success partly reflects its strategic response to this context—finding creativity within standardized prompts rather than subverting requirements. Additionally, the essay appeared during a period when admissions offices increasingly emphasized holistic review focusing on personal qualities alongside academic metrics. This institutional shift created space for essays demonstrating intellectual curiosity and unique perspective to significantly impact admissions decisions, particularly at institutions like Stanford that explicitly evaluate for qualities beyond academic performance.

The essay's cultural reception also reflects broader societal conversations about college admissions processes. Its viral spread occurred during intensifying public discussion about admission fairness, with increasing criticism of advantage for wealthy applicants who access specialized application coaching. Stinson's essay—which she reportedly wrote without professional assistance—became symbolic in these discussions precisely because it demonstrated authentic voice rather than formulaic perfection. Media coverage frequently highlighted her public school background when discussing the essay, implicitly positioning her success against narratives about private school advantage in admissions. This cultural context partially explains why the essay resonated beyond admissions offices to broader public discussion about merit, opportunity, and authenticity in selective admissions processes.

The Costco essay's wider influence extended to creating both positive innovation and problematic imitation in subsequent application cycles. College counselors reported increased student interest in unconventional essay approaches following its publication, potentially diversifying application narratives. However, the essay's success also generated countless imitation essays using retail or commercial settings as metaphorical frameworks—a development that ironically diminished the distinctiveness that made the original effective. This pattern demonstrates the paradoxical consequences when successful application components become widely known—inspiring creativity while simultaneously creating new formulaic approaches. This tension between innovation and imitation reflects broader challenges in application processes that simultaneously demand authenticity and conformity to institutional expectations. The essay's cultural impact ultimately raises important questions about individualism, standardization, and creativity within highly consequential evaluation systems that extend beyond college admissions to other competitive selection processes.

Pedagogical Implications for Application Writing

Stinson's essay offers valuable pedagogical insights for students approaching college application writing and for educators guiding them through this process. Perhaps most significantly, it demonstrates the effectiveness of "showing" intellectual curiosity through narrative rather than "telling" through explicit claims. Where weaker essays might directly state "I am intellectually curious" or list achievements demonstrating this quality, Stinson's approach embeds evidence of curiosity within engaging narrative. This technique addresses a fundamental principle of effective writing—that embodied demonstration proves more compelling than abstract assertion. Students can learn from this approach by identifying qualities they wish to demonstrate and then developing narratives that illustrate these qualities in action rather than simply claiming them. This strategy particularly suits the college essay genre, where evaluation criteria often include personal qualities that resist direct measurement or assertion.

The essay also illustrates productive approaches to the constraints of application prompts. Rather than viewing prompts as restrictive limitations, Stinson demonstrates how they can serve as creative catalysts. The Common Application prompt she addressed asked students to describe a place or environment where they are "perfectly content" and what they do or experience there. Rather than interpreting this literally (as many students might), she used it as a springboard for metaphorical exploration of intellectual identity. This approach teaches students to engage with prompts as opportunities for creative interpretation rather than rigid instructions. Educational approaches that help students identify the evaluative purpose behind prompts—rather than focusing solely on literal response—better prepare them to develop distinctive, purposeful essays that address underlying admission criteria while maintaining individual voice.

For educators and counselors guiding students through application processes, Stinson's essay demonstrates the importance of encouraging authentic self-reflection before strategic self-presentation. The essay's effectiveness stems partly from its foundation in genuine experience and personality rather than calculated impression management. Pedagogical approaches that begin with reflection exercises about genuine interests, experiences, and perspectives—before addressing strategic positioning—more effectively generate authentic application narratives. Simultaneously, the essay demonstrates that authenticity need not preclude strategic awareness of audience and purpose. Stinson clearly understood what selective institutions value (intellectual curiosity, academic potential, unique perspective) and developed an authentic narrative that demonstrated these qualities. This balance suggests that effective application guidance helps students identify authentic self-representations that simultaneously address institutional values rather than choosing between authenticity and strategic positioning.

Conclusion

Brittany Stinson's "Costco essay" earned its place in application lore by demonstrating how creative approaches can transform standardized application components into powerful demonstrations of individual identity and potential. Through sophisticated use of extended metaphor, dynamic narrative technique, thematic coherence, and authentic voice, the essay achieved multiple purposes simultaneously: distinguishing her application, demonstrating intellectual curiosity, showcasing writing ability, and presenting a memorable personal identity. Its effectiveness stemmed not from gimmickry but from skillful alignment between creative concept and substantive self-representation. The essay's viral reception and continued reference in application discussions reflect both its inherent quality and its resonance with ongoing questions about how selective institutions identify and evaluate potential in increasingly competitive contexts.

Beyond its significance for individual applicants, the "Costco essay" raises broader questions about tension between standardization and individuality in high-stakes evaluation systems. As competitive opportunities increasingly rely on standardized application processes, the challenge of authentic self-representation within constraints becomes increasingly relevant across contexts from education to employment. Stinson's essay demonstrates that effective navigation of these systems requires neither complete conformity nor radical subversion, but rather creative engagement with institutional expectations that finds space for distinctive self-expression within established frameworks. This lesson extends beyond college applications to numerous contexts where individuals must present themselves for evaluation while maintaining authentic identity. The essay's lasting significance ultimately lies in demonstrating how standardized processes intended to facilitate comparison can still accommodate individual voice when approached with creativity, authenticity, and rhetorical sophistication.

Did you like this example?

276

15