I had posted a different statement a few days ago and it was fairly generic and lackluster, and I decided to go a different route. Can you guys read this and give me some feedback on it?
EDITED OUT.
I appreciate everyone for their helpful advice! I'm working to improve my statement based on what was said. I SHALL RETURN!
Can you tell me what you think of my Statement Forum
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Can you tell me what you think of my Statement
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
nothingtosee
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 12:08 am
Re: Can you tell me what you think of my Statement
Edit
Last edited by nothingtosee on Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
TheodoreKGB
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:46 pm
Re: Can you tell me what you think of my Statement
.
Last edited by TheodoreKGB on Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 428548
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Can you tell me what you think of my Statement
Thank you both for your input. I will make the changes yall have suggested to make it more specific, and remove the fluff.
As far as the "why law?" question goes, I was trying to suggest that doing so would allow me to continue to work in science and help maintain the quality of it that I admire (its progression of scientific development and innovation) by protecting the intellectual property of innovators. This would make sure that scientists and entrepreneurs have an incentive to keep researching and innovating, and that "order continues to emerge out of chaos" ( I know it kind of sounds cheesy).
But I will try to see how I can emphasize that more strongly. I really appreciate the advice.
If anyone has anything they could add, please do so. I welcome all the help and criticism I can get.
**Nothingtosee: Can you please, edit my statement out of your post?
As far as the "why law?" question goes, I was trying to suggest that doing so would allow me to continue to work in science and help maintain the quality of it that I admire (its progression of scientific development and innovation) by protecting the intellectual property of innovators. This would make sure that scientists and entrepreneurs have an incentive to keep researching and innovating, and that "order continues to emerge out of chaos" ( I know it kind of sounds cheesy).
But I will try to see how I can emphasize that more strongly. I really appreciate the advice.
If anyone has anything they could add, please do so. I welcome all the help and criticism I can get.
**Nothingtosee: Can you please, edit my statement out of your post?
-
dnptan
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:33 pm
Re: Can you tell me what you think of my Statement
As a fellow science guy, I have to say you're taking a risk with the "order out of chaos" argument. Your interpretation of the Miller-Urey experiment violates the second law of thermodynamics. It was more of chance that things ended up that way. Without getting into the specifics, the proteins just happened to be of a lower energy level than the free particles.
It's a risk because if there a science-inclined adcom reads your essay, it may raise a red flag.
As for your essay itself, it seems more of a science-is-awesome essay. I don't see why you would be interested in law. Even if your 'order' argument were sound, at best it conveys passing interest in the subject. Kind of like how you delve into economics because you find it interesting.
Oh, and as a professional in intellectual property: a significant number of patents out there defy the laws of nature. The classic "standing on the shoulders of giants" doesn't apply here. Instead, it's more of trying to find the only colored t-shirt that hasn't been worn yet (it's called design-around). Innovation almost exclusively happens in laboratories. In general, patents are filed after lab results have come (but before anything is published). Also, there's no provision in the patent system saying something actually has to work. There is only one class of devices that HAS TO WORK to be patented: perpetual motion machines. Yes, the system is that ridiculous. Sorry to burst your bubble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Patents
Either way, try to avoid passion/desire for something you haven't fully researched as a reason to attend law school. Risky gambit.
It's a risk because if there a science-inclined adcom reads your essay, it may raise a red flag.
As for your essay itself, it seems more of a science-is-awesome essay. I don't see why you would be interested in law. Even if your 'order' argument were sound, at best it conveys passing interest in the subject. Kind of like how you delve into economics because you find it interesting.
Oh, and as a professional in intellectual property: a significant number of patents out there defy the laws of nature. The classic "standing on the shoulders of giants" doesn't apply here. Instead, it's more of trying to find the only colored t-shirt that hasn't been worn yet (it's called design-around). Innovation almost exclusively happens in laboratories. In general, patents are filed after lab results have come (but before anything is published). Also, there's no provision in the patent system saying something actually has to work. There is only one class of devices that HAS TO WORK to be patented: perpetual motion machines. Yes, the system is that ridiculous. Sorry to burst your bubble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Patents
Either way, try to avoid passion/desire for something you haven't fully researched as a reason to attend law school. Risky gambit.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
rstahl
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:15 pm
Re: Can you tell me what you think of my Statement
Hello again AnonymousUser from last time...
Sorry I got lazy on the other PS and didn't comment on it.
I agree with what was said. I knew from the content that you were at some point going to transition to patent law. I was just expecting it much earlier. And I figured the order out of chaos thing was going to then be applied to the study of law as a sort of parallel to why you should love law as well, but that didn't really happen either, at least not to a satisfying degree.
Also, patent law was painted with far too broad a stroke to the point that it might make an adcom familiar with patent law wonder whether you really understand patent law. I should know. My PS briefly (thank goodness only briefly) mentioned patent law. This was before I started actually working in patent law. I look back at my statement and wish I could edit it to be more specific. I spoke of patent law and intellectual property as if they were different entities (which they kind of are, but one comprises the other) and listed them together, which probably read weird. Point is, if the point of your science statement is leading to patent law, do it justice on the statement.
Sorry I got lazy on the other PS and didn't comment on it.
I agree with what was said. I knew from the content that you were at some point going to transition to patent law. I was just expecting it much earlier. And I figured the order out of chaos thing was going to then be applied to the study of law as a sort of parallel to why you should love law as well, but that didn't really happen either, at least not to a satisfying degree.
Also, patent law was painted with far too broad a stroke to the point that it might make an adcom familiar with patent law wonder whether you really understand patent law. I should know. My PS briefly (thank goodness only briefly) mentioned patent law. This was before I started actually working in patent law. I look back at my statement and wish I could edit it to be more specific. I spoke of patent law and intellectual property as if they were different entities (which they kind of are, but one comprises the other) and listed them together, which probably read weird. Point is, if the point of your science statement is leading to patent law, do it justice on the statement.
-
rstahl
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:15 pm
Re: Can you tell me what you think of my Statement
Just curious, dnptan, as a patent law professional, what words or phrases have you come to hate (or can't look at anymore without thinking of patent law) as a result of how often you have to use them in patents.dnptan wrote:As a fellow science guy, I have to say you're taking a risk with the "order out of chaos" argument. Your interpretation of the Miller-Urey experiment violates the second law of thermodynamics. It was more of chance that things ended up that way. Without getting into the specifics, the proteins just happened to be of a lower energy level than the free particles.
It's a risk because if there a science-inclined adcom reads your essay, it may raise a red flag.
As for your essay itself, it seems more of a science-is-awesome essay. I don't see why you would be interested in law. Even if your 'order' argument were sound, at best it conveys passing interest in the subject. Kind of like how you delve into economics because you find it interesting.
Oh, and as a professional in intellectual property: a significant number of patents out there defy the laws of nature. The classic "standing on the shoulders of giants" doesn't apply here. Instead, it's more of trying to find the only colored t-shirt that hasn't been worn yet (it's called design-around). Innovation almost exclusively happens in laboratories. In general, patents are filed after lab results have come (but before anything is published). Also, there's no provision in the patent system saying something actually has to work. There is only one class of devices that HAS TO WORK to be patented: perpetual motion machines. Yes, the system is that ridiculous. Sorry to burst your bubble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Patents
Either way, try to avoid passion/desire for something you haven't fully researched as a reason to attend law school. Risky gambit.
For me:
"comprises"
"without limiting or deviating from the spirit or scope of the present invention"
"includes, but is not limited to..."
"should not be seen as limiting, merely exemplary."
"said" for claims (I ditched it for "the" recently)
-
dnptan
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:33 pm
Re: Can you tell me what you think of my Statement
"Plurality"rstahl wrote:Just curious, dnptan, as a patent law professional, what words or phrases have you come to hate (or can't look at anymore without thinking of patent law) as a result of how often you have to use them in patents.dnptan wrote:As a fellow science guy, I have to say you're taking a risk with the "order out of chaos" argument. Your interpretation of the Miller-Urey experiment violates the second law of thermodynamics. It was more of chance that things ended up that way. Without getting into the specifics, the proteins just happened to be of a lower energy level than the free particles.
It's a risk because if there a science-inclined adcom reads your essay, it may raise a red flag.
As for your essay itself, it seems more of a science-is-awesome essay. I don't see why you would be interested in law. Even if your 'order' argument were sound, at best it conveys passing interest in the subject. Kind of like how you delve into economics because you find it interesting.
Oh, and as a professional in intellectual property: a significant number of patents out there defy the laws of nature. The classic "standing on the shoulders of giants" doesn't apply here. Instead, it's more of trying to find the only colored t-shirt that hasn't been worn yet (it's called design-around). Innovation almost exclusively happens in laboratories. In general, patents are filed after lab results have come (but before anything is published). Also, there's no provision in the patent system saying something actually has to work. There is only one class of devices that HAS TO WORK to be patented: perpetual motion machines. Yes, the system is that ridiculous. Sorry to burst your bubble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Patents
Either way, try to avoid passion/desire for something you haven't fully researched as a reason to attend law school. Risky gambit.
For me:
"comprises"
"without limiting or deviating from the spirit or scope of the present invention"
"includes, but is not limited to..."
"should not be seen as limiting, merely exemplary."
"said" for claims (I ditched it for "the" recently)
"THE at least one"
"skilled in the art appreciates that the device disclosed herein could be applicable" to everything under the sun
Tech specific:
"Actuator"
"Device"
"Medicament"
"in communication"
"body"
In general it's less the terminology I hate, but the organization. I hate spending hours on a single patent trying to figure out what button 5574 does only to find out it's not in the disclosure at all. And in a related patent, skimming the text because button 5574 is presumably not there, but later finding out it was called "trigger mechanism" - since formatting is different now than it was 12 years ago.
