Preparation, Support, and Lessons for the Future
SPASH: How did you prepare for an essay that would be reviewed by scholars through several rounds of blind academic review?
Sue: I spent around two months working on the essay. I began with the prompt commentary and the recommended reading because I wanted to understand the question properly before forming an argument. After that, I read more widely through online academic resources and to pick at last research books by geopolitics and economic titans such as Joseph Stiglitz, Joseph Nye, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ray Dalio, Graham Allison, Benedict Anderson, Zygmunt Bauman, David Held, Kai-Fu Lee, Tim Marshall, Chris Miller to read and undertake analyses to support my essays.
The process was not just about collecting sources. I had to learn how to test whether an idea was strong enough, whether my examples actually supported my argument, and whether the structure of the essay made sense. I went through many drafts. Some versions were too broad, some were too technical, and some tried to include too many ideas.
In the end, I wanted the essay to feel serious but still clear. I was not trying to sound like an expert. I was trying to show that I had read carefully, thought honestly, and built an argument that I could stand behind.
SPASH: How did St. Paul help shape the way you approached this competition?
Sue: St. Paul gave me an environment where difficult questions did not feel like something to avoid. I have been very fortunate to learn from teachers who encouraged me to think more carefully, write more clearly, and not be afraid of complexity.
I am especially grateful to Mr La Roi Williams and Mr Gus Marantos for helping me become more disciplined in the way I structure ideas and connect arguments to the real world. I am also thankful to Ms Stacy Perez, whose encouragement helped me attempt work that I might once not have believed I could do.
For this competition, I needed more than good writing. I needed confidence, patience, and the ability to stay with a difficult question even when I did not yet know the answer. I think St. Paul has helped me develop those habits.
SPASH: What does this recognition mean to you personally?
Sue: It means a great deal, but not because I see it as a final achievement. I see it more as encouragement to continue learning.
As a student from Vietnam, it is meaningful to have my work recognised in an international academic space. But I also know that one award does not make someone complete as a thinker or writer. If anything, it reminds me how much more I still have to read, learn, and improve.
What I value most is that the competition pushed me to take a question seriously even when it was difficult. That experience has made me more confident in approaching topics that feel larger than myself.
SPASH: Some people might think questions about global governance are too advanced for high school students. Why do you think young people should engage with them?
Sue: I understand why these questions can seem distant from high school life. But I also think my generation will inherit many of the consequences of decisions being made now. Climate change, food security, migration, technology, and international conflict are not abstract issues. They will shape our future.
Of course, students do not need to pretend to have all the answers. I certainly do not. But engaging with difficult questions teaches us how to think more responsibly. It teaches us to recognise complexity, listen to different perspectives, and avoid easy conclusions.
For me, that is the real value of competitions like Cambridge Re:think. They invite students not only to write, but to think carefully about the kind of world we are entering.
SPASH: How does this experience connect to what you hope to do in the future?
Sue: I hope to continue exploring the relationship between sustainability, policy, and community impact. My work so far has often begun with environmental questions, but I am increasingly interested in the systems that determine whether solutions can actually reach people.
For example, it is not enough to know that climate solutions exist. We also have to ask how they are financed, who benefits, who is left out, and what institutions are needed to make them work fairly. This competition helped me see that the same question applies at the global level.
In the future, I hope to keep developing as someone who can connect research with real-world responsibility, especially in areas related to climate resilience, sustainable development, and governance.
SPASH: What advice would you give to other SPASH students who want to enter similar competitions?
Sue: I would tell them not to wait until they feel completely ready. Sometimes the point of entering a competition is not that you already know enough, but that the process forces you to grow.
I would also suggest choosing a question that genuinely bothers or interests you. If you only choose a topic because it sounds impressive, it becomes harder to stay motivated. But if the question keeps returning to your mind, then the research process becomes much more meaningful.
Finally, I would say that students should use the support around them. Teachers, school resources, and honest feedback matter a lot. I was very lucky to have that support at St. Paul, and I am deeply grateful for it.
SPASH: Finally, what is one lesson you will carry forward from this experience?
Sue: I learned that serious thinking often begins with discomfort. When I first saw the prompt, I did not feel certain. I felt almost overwhelmed by its scale. But staying with that discomfort helped me grow.
The experience taught me that writing is not only about presenting what you already know. It is also a way of discovering what you think, where your assumptions are weak, and how your ideas can become more responsible.
I am very grateful to Cambridge Re:think for this recognition, and to St. Paul for helping me become more willing to ask difficult questions with patience and humility.
