I'm going to try to give the other side of the story: what an essay really is, and how you write one. Or at least, how I write one.

most obvious difference between real essays and the things one has to write in school is that real essays are not exclusively about English literature

study of modern literature. There was a good deal of resistance at first. The first courses in English literature seem to have been offered by the newer colleges, particularly American ones

What tipped the scales, at least in the US, seems to have been the idea that professors should do research as well as teach. This idea (along with the PhD, the department, and indeed the whole concept of the modern university) was imported from Germany in the late 19th century. Beginning at Johns Hopkins in 1876, the new model spread rapidly.

Writing was one of the casualties. Colleges had long taught English composition

how do you do research on composition? The professors who taught math could be required to do original math, the professors who taught history could be required to write scholarly articles about history, but what about the professors who taught rhetoric or composition? What should they do research on? The closest thing seemed to be English literature

how do you do research on composition?

late 19th century the teaching of writing was inherited by English professors

professors who taught math could be required to do original math, the professors who taught history could be required to write scholarly articles about history, but what about the professors who taught rhetoric or composition? What should they do research on? The closest thing seemed to be English literature.

two drawbacks: (a) an expert on literature need not himself be a good writer, any more than an art historian has to be a good painter, and (b) the subject of writing now tends to be literature, since that's what the professor is interested in.

late 19th century the teaching of writing was inherited by English professors

High schools imitate universities.

two drawbacks: (a) an expert on literature need not himself be a good writer, any more than an art historian has to be a good painter, and (b) the subject of writing now tends to be literature, since that's what the professor is interested in.

High schools imitate universities

seems to the student a pointless exercise, because we're now three steps removed from real work: the students are imitating English professors, who are imitating classical scholars, who are merely the inheritors of a tradition growing out of what was, 700 years ago, fascinating and urgently needed work.

big difference between a real essay and the things they make you write in school is that a real essay doesn't take a position and then defend it

That principle, like the idea that we ought to be writing about literature, turns out to be another intellectual hangover of long forgotten origins

mistakenly believed that medieval universities were mostly seminaries. In fact they were more law schools

after the lecture the most common form of discussion was the disputation

at least nominally preserved in our present-day thesis defense: most people treat the words thesis and dissertation as interchangeable, but originally, at least, a thesis was a position one took and the dissertation was the argument by which one defended it.

Defending a position may be a necessary evil in a legal dispute, but it's not the best way to get at the truth, as I think lawyers would be the first to admit. It's not just that you miss subtleties this way. The real problem is that you can't change the question.

this principle is built into the very structure of the things they teach you to write in high school.

topic sentence is your thesis, chosen in advance, the supporting paragraphs the blows you strike in the conflict, and the conclusion-- uh, what is the conclusion? I was never sure about that in high school.

Good writing should be convincing, certainly, but it should be convincing because you got the right answers, not because you did a good job of arguing.

When I give a draft of an essay to friends, there are two things I want to know: which parts bore them, and which seem unconvincing.

boring bits can usually be fixed by cutting. But I don't try to fix the unconvincing bits by arguing more cleverly. I need to talk the matter over.

in the course of the conversation I'll be forced to come up a with a clearer explanation, which I can just incorporate in the essay. More often than not I have to change what I was saying as well. But the aim is never to be convincing per se. As the reader gets smarter, convincing and true become identical, so if I can convince smart readers I must be near the truth.

sort of writing that attempts to persuade may be a valid (or at least inevitable) form, but it's historically inaccurate to call it an essay. An essay is something else.

Michel de Montaigne, who in 1580 published a book of what he called "essais."

doing something quite different from what lawyers do, and the difference is embodied in the name.

Essayer is the French verb meaning "to try" and an essai is an attempt. An essay is something you write to try to figure something out.

you can't begin with a thesis, because you don't have one, and may never have one.

An essay doesn't begin with a statement, but with a question. In a real essay, you don't take a position and defend it. You notice a door that's ajar, and you open it and walk in to see what's inside.

If all you want to do is figure things out, why do you need to write anything, though? Why not just sit and think? Well, there precisely is Montaigne's great discovery. Expressing ideas helps to form them.