We apply for an admission seat in a graduate school class and get rejected. Or we apply for a position with a company and are passed over. Why? What should we do differently next time? Classical, Aristotelian rhetoric can help give us answers. It suggests that the key lies in whether we established our own credibility and, later, whether we used logic or passion in the right way.
In Rhetoric, Aristotle identifies three kinds of persuasive appeals: logos—reasoned argument; pathos—appeals to emotion; and ethos—the orator’s character and virtue. You demonstrate ethos by showing practical wisdom, goodwill, and an awareness of the cultural expectations of your audience.
As an applicant, you must always demonstrate your ethos. You do this partly by showing that you have researched the organization, considered its goals and needs, and reflected on how you can contribute. Sadly, few people do this research and thus struggle to establish ethos.
As you establish your ethos, you must also consider how to use pathos and logos. Aristotle does not specifically discuss how to address institutions, but he does show how appeals vary depending on characteristics such as age. Can we reasonably consider the ages of institutions when deciding whether to emphasize pathos or logos?
Research suggests that we can. Studies show that younger firms in manufacturing and tech successfully innovate more than older, more established firms. We can conclude that younger firms’ greater ability to innovate reflects their dynamism and willingness to take risks. By contrast, more entrenched organizations are less risk-seeking and more institutionally cautious. At some level, we all intuit this.
This aligns with Aristotle’s observations about the young and the old as individuals: the old focus on prudent reflection and on what directly benefits them; the young look to the future with hope and courage.
How would Aristotle’s reflections on age—and modern research on organizational age—play out in a business school admissions essay for a candidate who wants to highlight their background in machine learning and AI?
Suppose the candidate is applying to a prestigious business school such as Harvard or MIT. They should not limit themselves to discussing their background without linking it directly to the research initiatives, labs, or community partnerships within the business school. Demonstrating this awareness shows ethos.
Then, carefully reasoning about how their skills and interests can contribute, they should lean more on logos than on pathos. For example, if they have successfully monetized an AI product or process, they might explain how this innovation could contribute to a business-school accelerator or entrepreneurship program. They can establish this link through careful argumentation and even data or metrics.
Further, the focus should be on the business school’s existing institutional framework. In such a context, the candidate might not be well-served by proposing wholly new, potentially risky initiatives.
By contrast, if the candidate is applying to a younger, less established school, they might discuss how their skills could help launch a new program—perhaps helping local startups deploy AI to lower operating costs. Here, leaning more into pathos, they could convey excitement and possibility, emphasizing the future they and the institution could build together.
Naturally, “middle-aged” institutions would call for a blend of these approaches. And “age” is relative—one of the cited studies examined tech firms with a median age of only 7.3 years yet still found significant differences in innovation between younger and older organizations.
One might object that the cited research focuses on tech and manufacturing. But the deeper point applies widely: in an era of continual competition, all institutions must innovate. The applicant’s challenge is to decide whether their argument for admission should rest more on passion or on logic.
The broader lesson is simple: as organizations age, they become more careful and conservative, requiring applicants to rely more on logos in explaining how they can contribute. Younger organizations, often staffed by dreamers working toward a better future, may be more receptive to pathos and emotionally evocative appeals.
Conclusion
Aristotle’s rhetorical theories about persuasion, updated with current research on organizations, can teach us a great deal about how to persuade—and how to increase our chances of receiving the letters of acceptance we seek. For many, getting a foot inside the door of an institution is a step toward reshaping their lives.
Have you found this article useful? Set up a time to speak with me. We will use tools from classical rhetoric, storytelling, and communications research to help you get accepted by your chosen institution.
