Critique Last Paragraph Forum

[stingray]

Thanks for the comments everyone. Obviously needs to be reworked. Will repost an updated version later.

[horrorbusiness]

Not a very good or interesting ending, IMO. I'm guessing no one replied because it's pretty annoying you only posted the last paragraph. How can we judge without the rest?

But I'll give you my thoughts.

I believe that --------- offers a curriculum that is unique to my interests.

What interests? Legal history? That's the only school that has legal history??

Programs like the Legal Research and Writing Program are especially appealing, teaching a skill set that seems imperative to any great lawyer

it SEEMS that way? this is not too insightful

With the added distinction of having a curriculum that can also be tailored to my interests in legal history, -------- is my first choice in law schools.

you're not very convincing that you absolutely want to go to this school

a sense of purpose—a genuine desire to develop a deep and fundamental understanding of law

just a second ago wasn't your goal to be an excellent lawyer?

[laxbrah420]

It reads like you took sentences from 3 different essays and then just put them together. You never elaborate on any point and in certain cases you contradict yourself

[stingray]

I was reluctant to post the entire PS for privacy reasons, but thanks for the critique anyway. Some of the issues that you you brought up are addressed in the PS. The legal history reference is to the fact that this is one of the few schools that has a legitimate legal history program.
I suppose that I agree about the word "seems" not being very insightful. I have an undergraduate in History, and I don't presume to know what makes a good lawyer. Ask me after I work in the profession for 20 years. I thought that coming right out and saying that a legal writing and research program is essential to becoming a good lawyer for reasons x, y, and z, would give the committee the impression that I'm a know-it-all with established ideas of what constitutes a good legal education. To be honest I have no idea, but it does seem like it would be pretty helpful.
Point taken though, I may leave that part completely out and replace with something else.

Anyone else want to take a look?

[stingray]

It reads like you took sentences from 3 different essays and then just put them together. You never elaborate on any point and in certain cases you contradict yourself

Thanks! The issues of work ethic and interest in legal history are both mentioned previously in the PS, so they are not being introduced for the first time in this paragraph.

In your view, what are the contradictions?

[laxbrah420]

contradict might be too strong, it's just a little bit awkward.
"I want to be an excellent lawyer"
argument: "You have appealing programs that suit me well and seem like they're necessary for becoming a great lawyer. Also, you have a program that matches my sincere interests, but that's less important than my desire to be excellent. That's why I want to go to your school more than any other school"

[stingray]

I guess I didn't do a good job of communicating in the paragraph. This is what I was trying to say:

I have an interest in legal history. I've told you about my interest in legal history, and how it prompted me to return to school and finish my undergraduate degree. But while I have a great deal of interest in legal history, being a legal historian is not my primary goal. I want to be a good lawyer. Your school can make me a good lawyer. For instance, your legal research and writing program is something that could help me attain that goal. Developing those skills seems to pretty important to be a good lawyer. But your school not only has a curriculum that will make me a good lawyer--you actually have a legal history program too! It's like icing on the cake! That's why it is my first choice in law schools.

Laxbrah: Just read your post after typing all of this. That is a better way of saying it. Thanks!!!

[laxbrah420]

dude i was pointing that out because it's not that solid of an argument not because i think you should use that structure

[stingray]

I guess I sort of glazed over it. In any case, your rewording of my poorly structured argument sounds better than mine. Thanks for the comments everyone.