Agreed. It's derivative, the diction is mediocre (I like what someone called it - was it "thesaurusy"?... something like that), and the subject matter is stale.
It's not that the essay is shallow (although it is); it's that the essay reveals a shallowness of thought. The conclusion is banal and, frankly, a commonplace that isn't worth summarizing for your impressionable siblings, let alone one of the world's premier academic institutions.
Here's a better way to approach it (and I'm copyrighting this, even though I still think it's pretty weak and wouldn't use it as my Yale 250):
Take quotations from various historical "greats". Find ones that sum up the banality you're trying to convey. Then find others that deride the plagiarism that the quotation-used-as-adage truly is. Ironically juxtapose these in a collage of double-marks. Say what you mean to say without saying it yourself; there's a palimpsestuous playfulness about such commentary that Yale cannot fail to recognize. You'll let the world know that curiousity and creativity is dead in general but alive in you in the most original way by not saying anything original at all.
Back to the OP's 250. I didn't really rip into this the first time around because I was too f-ing lazy. I've given it another read, though, and I have to say it's weak. Weak sauce, my friend. Weak sauce.