Top Law Schools

Okay, so the other introduction I had in my personal statement was all over the place. Here I used one experience to introduce my feelings on animal rights. In the rest of the PS I'm going to talk about how I want to use the law to work for animal rights and different ways to achieve that. Thanks for any critiques, I really appreciate it!


Coming into the sanctuary of air conditioning from her playpen that was bathed in the blaring Southwest sun, Fuzzy knew I had a treat in the way that only a rabbit can know. Despite the loss of mobility in her hind legs, Fuzzy always quickly scooted into sight when she sensed a cheerio or craisin was near. It certainly was difficult to play favorites, being surrounded by three hundred and fifty cuddly rabbits on a daily basis, but Fuzzy always slightly stood out in my mind due to her inexhaustible spirit in the face of her physical disability.

Spending a summer working at the largest no-kill animal shelter in the country, Best Friends Animal Sanctuary is a paradise for animal lovers like myself. But seeing animals like Fuzzy, whose health care had been severely neglected in the past, and Michael Vick’s infamous dogs that have been through horrors most people will never come close to experiencing, served as a stark reminder that the most vulnerable of beings have no legal rights when abused or mistreated.

Applying to GWU ?

No, I wouldn't be able to get in (164 LSAT, 3.6 GPA). Lewis + Clark is my first choice; they have a fantastic animal law program.

Try GWU if animal rights is your intended area of specialization.

Would it even be worth trying with my numbers?

CanadianWolf wrote:Try GWU if animal rights is your intended area of specialization.

GW would be a reach, though not an unreasonable reach, for OP. I'm thinking about a 1/3 shot. I'd send a Why GW and whatnot there.

lol, forgot to critique the intro.

I thought it was great, obviously can't say how well it works with the rest of the PS.

greenfairy wrote:Michael Vick’s infamous dogs that have been through horrors most people will never come close to experiencing

I'd say animals, not people.

Not sure if Vick's dogs are infamous, he's the infamous one. Maybe a different word there.

Thanks 2011Law, I'll make those changes. And hopefully I can post the rest soon, I just hate writing these things. I'd much rather take the LSAT any day :/

greenfairy wrote:Coming into the sanctuary of air conditioning from her playpen that was bathed in the blaring Southwest sun, Fuzzy knew I had a treat in the way that only a rabbit could/can.

I might change the last know. It comes right after a knew and it just flowed a little weird when I read it.

Great point, mala. Thanks.

greenfairy wrote: Coming into the sanctuary of air conditioning from her playpen that was bathed in the blaring Southwest sun, Fuzzy knew I had a treat in the way that only a rabbit can know. Despite the loss of mobility in her hind legs, Fuzzy always quickly scooted into sight when she sensed a cheerio or craisin was near. It certainly was difficult to play favorites, Despite being surrounded by three hundred and fifty cuddly rabbitson a daily basis, but Fuzzy always slightly stood out in my mind occupied a special place in my mind due to her inexhaustible spirit in the face of her physical disability.

Spending a summer working at the largest no-kill animal shelter in the country, Best Friends Animal Sanctuary is a paradise for animal lovers like myself. But seeing caring for animals like Fuzzy, whose past health care had been severely neglectedin the past, and Michael Vick’s infamous dogs that have been through unimaginable horrors most people will never come close to experiencing, served as a stark reminder that the most vulnerable of beings have no legal rights redress (or recourse maybe) when abused or mistreated.

Fuzzy seems like a kind of corny name for a bunny. Can you change that?

Thank you for your revisions, Plan2008. And Fuzzy is her name, I can't change that.

Consider: "exploited, abused & brutally tortured dogs" instead of "infamous".

Consider: "sadistic, perverted & barbarous" when referencing Michael Vick.

Consider: abused animals have "no voice" & "minimal legal protections".

"...and the exploited, abused & brutally tortured dogs maimed & killed by the sadistic, perverted & barbarous actions of their twisted owner Michael Vick...". ("deviant" or "warped" may also be used if further reference to Vick is needed)

Your introduction is too gentle when referencing the disturbingly, stark realities of animal abuse & the deviants who perpetrate such warped offenses. Try to convey your passion about, not your acceptance of, such horrific atrocities.
The first paragraph is fine as is the first sentence of the second paragraph. Consider my above suggestions to achieve a more accurate & dramatic contrast between Fuzzy & that piece of human filth.

I love your style, CanadianWolf

I just worry about alienating people who might not share my views. I want to show that I can be level-headed about the things I'm most passionate about if need be.

I feel that the above suggestions show great restraint while informing the reader of the writer's stance. Passion is an important aspect of advocacy; it just needs to be expressed in a reasonable fashion--which is why the above comments exhibit curbed emotions.

In the real world, one method of approaching cases is to be tough & clear, yet reasonable in your requests. Make a strong case & offer the court solutions that advance your cause without appearing extreme. Another method is to be hauntingly graphic while seeking severe punishments in hope of the court modifying your request to one of "fair" punishment. Your introduction lacks passion & risks being interpreted as acquiesence.

ok now that I read the new one I still think it needs to be uglier. IMO, implant the image in the readers mind of those poor dogs being hung from trees or being electrocuted with jumper cables. make it more powerful, you are not going to offend anybody by saying you are against dogfighting or against electrocuting dogs (unless of course Clinton Portis is on the admssions committee)

Much better. I agree with CanadianWolf. You're passionate and I think you're still holding back, but your voice is stronger in this intro. Good luck, OP.

A few people now have told me to make it more powerful. Maybe I should go for it, since an admissions committee that would be offended by my staunch opposition to animal abuse probably wouldn't be a school I would want to go to anyway. Thanks everyone, I'll work on it over the next couple days and post a draft in its entirety.

greenfairy wrote:A few people now have told me to make it more powerful. Maybe I should go for it, since an admissions committee that would be offended by my staunch opposition to animal abuse probably wouldn't be a school I would want to go to anyway. Thanks everyone, I'll work on it over the next couple days and post a draft in its entirety.

I think too many people put too much stock in crafting a PS that fits the belief system of the adcomms. I think this is a mistake. Sure, you don't want to say that you want to go to law school to fight the injustices that have been played out in such judicial activism as Brown v Board of Education, but I think most people realize that everybody has their passions and it's more important that something is driving you than what is driving you.

As long as you don't come off as a nutbag who thinks that spiders should have the same rights as humans, you'd probably be fine. (btw, did anybody see that story about the scientists that argued that dolphins should have rights equal to humans? That's ridonculous)

I think the more unsettling part of that story is that people think they have the power to give or take away other species' rights. We're not god. But that's way off-topic.

greenfairy wrote:I think the more unsettling part of that story is that people think they have the power to give or take away other species' rights. We're not god. But that's way off-topic.

Eh, that statement implies that certain rights for animals are inherent. I have problems with that argument.

But you're right; that is off-topic and I fear this will turn into an epic shitstorm if we start to argue that.