Any kinds of feedback would be appreciated, thanks!
When I told my friends at Sciences Po that the main reason I had decided to come to Paris was to avoid having misconceptions about the city, they thought I was not being serious. Well, I was. To me, life felt like an answer sheet on which answers could be written only once. Throughout my six months in Paris as an exchange student, I tried to use up every imaginable option to acquire the impression of the city that best reflected the reality. I used to have a hard time presenting in the least politically incorrect manner that having a better insight into Parisian life was one of the reasons why I gladly decided to live with a French roommate who was homosexual.
My prudent approach in learning about the world allowed me to revel in the process of learning itself, enriching the soil where the curiosity grows. However, it had its own side effect: almost every question that I had come across in life seemed to remain unanswered. I hesitated to make any conclusion until I was convinced that I did my best to assure it was correct. And in many instances, I was not sure if I did.
Issues that revolved around international trade, the main field of interest I developed throughout my college days, were of no exception in this regard. In 2011, Korea was on the verge of ratifying the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Like most other wedge issues, the outlook of the ratification was being exploited by the media to the extent that not having any conclusive opinion about it seemed absurd. Even after simulating endless hypothetical debates in my mind, however, neither side looked overwhelmingly convincing to me. Precisely for this reason, I applied for an internship at the Committee of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Reunification of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, where fervent debates on the ratification were gradually turning into the worst deadlock in the history. As the stalemate seemed unsolvable, witnessing the turbulence first-hand has proven to be a life-changing experience.
One morning, I was getting ready for a seminar on the Impacts of the US-Korea FTA on small and medium-sized Industries after staying up all night at the office of the Committee. Headlines of the daily papers that arrived at the office doorstep pointed out in chorus how violent the confrontation between opposing party members was. Suddenly, loud and urgent voices outside the large glass window shattered the tranquility of the empty building. I carefully approached to see where the voices were coming from.
Outside the window, batches and batches of combat police were dashing towards the Plenary Assembly hall right across the street from the Committee office. The view of countless armed men running up the stairs to besiege the building reminded me of a massive avalanche, only played backwards. The gasping shouts of fully-armed riot police busily getting into battle formation around the building rang out in ridiculous contrast with the ambient silence. That morning, Korea-US FTA was ratified, with myriads of patrol police blocking the hall so that none but the members of the ruling party could enter for the vote.
The long fight had come to an end. Whose fight was it? I was not so sure, nor did I have an answer as to what the anxious policemen were trying to protect and from whom. One thing, however, felt clear; I could not remain an empty answer sheet anymore. I had to discard the pseudo-neutralism and step forward, hoping that the best rational answer at each stage of life would be correct.
What I had witnessed was a small but representative fragment of what democracy looks like in Korea, especially regarding the liberalization of various industrial sectors; people lacked lawyers who could make a good case out of their due rights, and the government lacked a consultant who could grasp key legal issues and align them with relevant discourses. These deficiencies added up to bad democracy, regardless of whether the majority were for, or against the issue.
I am finally ready to answer. Some questions may not be answerable, but I feel like I am at least asking the right one. I want to be a lawyer who specializes in the international trade sector. I want to be able to address the worries that people might have during further stages of globalization. I want to provide legal expertise for the people and governments enabling them to speak for themselves and make legitimate requests in the brutal reality called international trade. I want to be able to negotiate solutions to the stalemate on the world trade stage today. In the meantime, I will continue to step forward with the best possible answers that I can come up with.
(Personal Statement Examples, Advice, Critique, . . . )
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:52 pm
Ok i'll give this a shot. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between your first two paragraphs and the rest of the statement. You were in paris to learn about yourself and you had a gay roommate..then that's all we hear about that. (Also it sounds better to me just to say a french roommate who was gay but i dont think it really matters) Were you in paris while this Korea-US FTA was going on? Try to clear that up or at least give a reason as to why it is all relevant to your learning experience. I feel like you need a better intro overall but I think that goes back to the disconnect between the 1st part and the rest. I liked some of the stuff about the Korea FTA agreement and it seems like it gives a good drive factor for "why law" but could be fleshed out. One last thing is that I feel sometimes you are trying to write in a more sophisticated manner than is necessary. Good writing is great but speaking plainly goes a long way in getting your point across. Its a good building block for a statement so far I think tho. I hope this helped a little!
Who is online
The online users are hidden on this forum.