COTE: The Best Version of Me

Chapter 11 - Parallels of honesty

The bell rang and the room fell into a deep, introspective silence. The exam had begun. 

The blank paper before me seemed to reflect the raw nature of this first challenge. A report on myself. On who I am and how I see myself. The exam itself could be done either on paper to be scanned later for the school, or on the school's own device, but obviously the other functions would be temporarily disabled.

I glanced around quickly, seeing the other students already deep in their own thoughts. Some held their pens hesitantly, while others seemed to already be sketching with an almost forced confidence, and the rest were typing furiously on their devices.

This self-assessment report was not just a formality. It was an opportunity to bare my soul, confronting myself with my own truths. I allowed myself to reflect deeply on what exactly this exam represented. 

By requesting this report, the school intends to assess our capacity for introspection and honesty. More than listing skills and weaknesses, we must demonstrate a deep understanding of ourselves, recognizing areas for improvement and establishing clear goals.

Reporting on oneself. This seemed simple in theory, but the complexity of this task lay in the layers of subjectivity and truth involved. How could a school like this evaluate something as personal and intangible as our perception of ourselves? This thought kept going around in my mind, and the more I thought about it, the more possibilities and theories emerged about how this part worked.

First, it was clear that this exam was not just about superficial honesty. The school was undoubtedly looking for something deeper. There would be an intelligent system behind it, something that would assess not only the content but also the nuances of the words, the internal coherence of each sentence. The first idea that occurred to me was that coherence between the various answers would be essential.

If I wrote about a weakness, for example, and contradicted that idea with something I had already demonstrated in class, that would raise doubts, which would result in increased penalty points for me. The school, therefore, should be paying attention to how each student presented themselves publicly versus how they evaluated themselves on paper.

In addition to the differences in the answers and the penalty system, it is likely that the institution uses other criteria to determine each student's score. If I had to guess, I would think of three different criteria.

1- Coherence: Aligning our words with our past actions.

2- Depth: Evidencing reflection while avoiding superficiality.

3- Sincerity: Being authentic without exaggerating or minimizing our capabilities.

Those are the three points I can think of regarding the report. 

A good approach would be to adopt honesty as a guide. I recognize my strengths, such as my ability to adapt and logical reasoning. I began my report by highlighting my honest views about myself, being transparent enough to align with others' and the school's thoughts about me. The report asked me to talk about myself, about what I believe to be my strengths. I decided to be objective and direct, without dwelling too much on details from the past, focusing on the present.

"Strength in strategic analysis: I can quickly analyze scenarios and formulate plans, predicting possible outcomes and acting accordingly."

"Adaptability: I am able to adjust to changing environments and pressures without losing emotional control."

As I wrote, I realized that this was a point that, no matter how much I avoided it, I always excelled at. My ability to analyze people and situations was a direct reflection of this. It's not a bad strategy to highlight the main qualities and then develop them a little further. In addition to these two, I began to follow this pattern and list in order what I believed the school would evaluate.