haus wrote: P.J.Fry wrote:
I do not work in admissions, but I have done quite a bit of hiring. It is likely best to stay away form the explanation that you would have done better in school if it would not have been for the illegal gambling that you were focused on. Trust me, the notion that you turned away from the illegal gambling once it appeared that the chances of getting caught had increased does little to sell the story to your benefit.
It was completely legal where I'm from (and still is). I quit after the Act passed in the US because an enormous number of casual (re: bad) players had to give it up making the games far less lucrative.
Honestly, for most employers, it would not matter if it was legal or not (or if you thought is was legal), the reference would have your correspondence about a job sent directly to the recycle bin. Perhaps some schools might be interested in taking a walk on the wild side, but I suspect that the number who would will be far smaller than the number that would walk away from an application that had such a reference.
Regardless, good luck with your cycle.
That was the type of response I wanted to hear, thanks. I really don't know how adcomms would view something like that. To be honest, until you mentioned it, I had forgot it was technically illegal in the States even before the Act. Everyone just did it anyway.
Would your response be any different if instead of playing online, I was a TV pro that played live games? Or is gambling in general something that is probably best to be avoided?
For what it's worth, the reason I would want to include it is because to be successful at it, it requires a high level of intelligence, emotional control, dedication, study, and financial management skills. Many or all of those can be directly or indirectly applied to success in other professions (including law IMO).