Top Law Schools

Please, don't hold back. I am particularly interested in if anyone else thinks the last paragraph comes off trite/pretentious. I appreciate the advice.

“A morally right business decision represents a claim justifiable by some system of ethics.” This quote is a less verbose, more direct version of a former student’s end of semester reflection. The student submitted this response to a survey, which asked him to list one idea he learned during my class. After initially reading the student’s reply, I was shocked and amused, but I find the familiar underlying sentiment ripe for analysis.

I disapprove of the point of view my student expressed, and I have attempted to deflate this particular suggestion while teaching PHIL 2254: Business Ethics (B.E.). I would wager more than half the students who take B.E. ponder some version of the quoted thought, at least once during the course. Those students, however, seldom articulate this sentiment openly in writing. The final exam I wrote for B.E. asks students to analyze a contentious ethical business scenario. The exam provides the student a hypothetical space to develop an ethical scheme in response to my prompt. I score these exams based on the student’s ability to effectively argue a detailed course of action within a coherent ethical framework. Dissecting student answers is a process I find fascinating.

The original quoted thought errs in asserting a moral conclusion from ethical justification. Minimally, a person who insists her actions are morally right because of a given system of ethics sloppily deploys language. At worst, this person mistakes what is merely ethically permissible as morally obligatory. Unlike moral codes, ethical codes function with an inherent dependence on others, with their truth-value set relative to a system of conventions. Most meta-ethicists hold that you cannot derive an ought from an is, so my student stumbled in claiming to deduce what’s right by considering what is.
A considerable portion of the curriculum I designed for B.E. forces students to explore the implications of their opinions and beliefs, to vet their own ethical compasses. These types of assignments tend to produce confrontations between their entrenched points of view and consequences they find ethically unappealing. I pair conceptual exercises of this sort with real-world stories of practical application of problematic ethical principles; stories that involve judicial precedent are particularly useful. Once students are exposed to the pragmatic implications of certain ethical beliefs, I find the task of conveying what is questionable about a given ethical policy much easier.

Like most people, my family played a central role in the development of my own ethical compass. During my childhood, one of the ways this compass developed was via my exposure to the law, as both my father and grandfather are litigators. My proximity to this profession help me to explore the role of belief in conjunction with rules applied to a set of facts. Graduating from law school would make me a fourth generation attorney. My adolescent exposure certainly, to some degree, grounds my appreciation of law and my desire to follow in my father's and grandfather's footsteps.

Nevertheless, my childhood experience does not exhaust my motivation to pursue a J.D. My experience teaching B.E. has highlighted another aspect of my motivation to attend law school. What I find desirable about a career in law is the chance to work within a sophisticated ethical system that demands well-honed skills in conceptual analysis, and additionally presents the prospect of participating in developing a given rule's application to circumstance. Philosophy offers me a similar path, but one restricted to the ivory tower. I invested time in deepening my interest and knowledge of philosophy, but this beneficial experience has not diminished my enthusiasm to pursue a legal education and career.

djjf39 wrote:Please, don't hold back. I am particularly interested in if anyone else thinks the last paragraph comes off trite/pretentious. I appreciate the advice.

“A morally right business decision represents a claim justifiable by some system of ethics.” This quote is a less verbose, more direct version of a former student’s end of semester reflection. The student submitted this response to a survey, which asked him to list one idea he learned during my class. After initially reading the student’s reply, I was shocked and amused, but I find the familiar underlying sentiment ripe for analysis.

I disapprove of the point of view my student expressed, and I have attempted to deflate this particular suggestion while teaching PHIL 2254: Business Ethics (B.E.). I would wager more than half the students who take B.E. ponder some version of the quoted thought, at least once during the course. Those students, however, seldom articulate this sentiment openly in writing. The final exam I wrote for B.E. asks students to analyze a contentious ethical business scenario. The exam provides the student a hypothetical space to develop an ethical scheme in response to my prompt. I score these exams based on the student’s ability to effectively argue a detailed course of action within a coherent ethical framework. Dissecting student answers is a process I find fascinating.

The original quoted thought errs in asserting a moral conclusion from ethical justification. Minimally, a person who insists her actions are morally right because of a given system of ethics sloppily deploys language. At worst, this person mistakes what is merely ethically permissible as morally obligatory. Unlike moral codes, ethical codes function with an inherent dependence on others, with their truth-value set relative to a system of conventions. Most meta-ethicists hold that you cannot derive an ought from an is, so my student stumbled in claiming to deduce what’s right by considering what is.
A considerable portion of the curriculum I designed for B.E. forces students to explore the implications of their opinions and beliefs, to vet their own ethical compasses. These types of assignments tend to produce confrontations between their entrenched points of view and consequences they find ethically unappealing. I pair conceptual exercises of this sort with real-world stories of practical application of problematic ethical principles; stories that involve judicial precedent are particularly useful. Once students are exposed to the pragmatic implications of certain ethical beliefs, I find the task of conveying what is questionable about a given ethical policy much easier.

Like most people, my family played a central role in the development of my own ethical compass. During my childhood, one of the ways this compass developed was via my exposure to the law, as both my father and grandfather are litigators. My proximity to this profession help me to explore the role of belief in conjunction with rules applied to a set of facts. Graduating from law school would make me a fourth generation attorney. My adolescent exposure certainly, to some degree, grounds my appreciation of law and my desire to follow in my father's and grandfather's footsteps.

Nevertheless, my childhood experience does not exhaust my motivation to pursue a J.D. My experience teaching B.E. has highlighted another aspect of my motivation to attend law school. What I find desirable about a career in law is the chance to work within a sophisticated ethical system that demands well-honed skills in conceptual analysis, and additionally presents the prospect of participating in developing a given rule's application to circumstance. Philosophy offers me a similar path, but one restricted to the ivory tower. I invested time in deepening my interest and knowledge of philosophy, but this beneficial experience has not diminished my enthusiasm to pursue a legal education and career.

The shift to your family threw me off.

“A morally right business decision represents a claim justifiable by some system of ethics.” This quote is a less verbose, more direct version of a former student’s end of semester reflection. The student submitted this response to a survey, which asked him to list one idea he learned during my class. After initially reading the student’s reply, I was shocked and amused, but I find the familiar underlying sentiment ripe for analysis.

I disapprove of the point of view my student expressed, and I have attempted to deflate this particular suggestion while teaching PHIL 2254: Business Ethics (B.E.). I would wager more than half the students who take B.E. ponder some version of the quoted thought, at least once during the course. Those students, however, seldom articulate this sentiment openly in writing. The final exam I wrote for B.E. asks students to analyze a contentious ethical business scenario. The exam provides the student a hypothetical space to develop an ethical scheme in response to my prompt. I score these exams based on the student’s ability to effectively argue a detailed course of action within a coherent ethical framework. Dissecting student answers is a process I find fascinating.

The original quoted thought errs in asserting a moral conclusion from ethical justification. Minimally, a person who insists her actions are morally right because of a given system of ethics sloppily deploys language. At worst, this person mistakes what is merely ethically permissible as morally obligatory. Unlike moral codes, ethical codes function with an inherent dependence on others, with their truth-value set relative to a system of conventions. Most meta-ethicists hold that you cannot derive an ought from an is, so my student stumbled in claiming to deduce what’s right by considering what is.
A considerable portion of the curriculum I designed for B.E. forces students to explore the implications of their opinions and beliefs, to vet their own ethical compasses. These types of assignments tend to produce confrontations between their entrenched points of view and consequences they find ethically unappealing. I pair conceptual exercises of this sort with real-world stories of practical application of problematic ethical principles; stories that involve judicial precedent are particularly useful. Once students are exposed to the pragmatic implications of certain ethical beliefs, I find the task of conveying what is questionable about a given ethical policy much easier.
My experience teaching B.E. has highlighted an aspect of my motivation to attend law school. What I find desirable about a career in law is the chance to work within a sophisticated ethical system that demands well-honed skills in conceptual analysis, and additionally presents the prospect of participating in developing a given rule's application to circumstance. Philosophy offers me a similar path, but one restricted to the ivory tower. I invested time in deepening my interest and knowledge of philosophy, but this beneficial experience has not diminished my enthusiasm to pursue a legal education and career.[/

dabbadon8 wrote:The shift to your family through me off.

I agree that the transition is disjointed. Thanks for the input.

I would try to refrain from using a quotation to open your PS. Just about all the advice I have read so far would agree with this. It's called a personal statement for a reason, so begin with your own words. IMO, I would be fine with using the quote later on in the first paragraph if you feel it is an essential part to your essay.

I wanted to stop reading after seeing the quote in the first line. I wouldn't be surprised if an admissions committee felt the same way.

That said, the chronology is additionally confusing. Maybe start with an anecdote from childhood to bring that piece in that fits with the teaching idea and then talk about what you learned from teaching/how it motivated you to pursue law?

This reads more like an analytical discussion of a quote before a transition to personal family without a strong connection between the two. I think you have the basis of a solid story here, but it needs some development. I would love to see another draft.

This is not an effective personal statement if its purpose is to bolster your law school applications. This writing is presented in a slightly confused manner since there is no clear logical structure. Doesn't offer much insight as to who you are and how you view the world. Reads as if you are trying too hard to impress the reader with words & concepts that are used in an awkward fashion that raises questions about your understanding of the topic. This is a very poorly constructed and highly ineffective personal statement in my opinion.
Write in crisp, clear sentences that show clarity of thought.

IMHO, that quote sucks.

buckythebadger wrote:I would try to refrain from using a quotation to open your PS. Just about all the advice I have read so far would agree with this. It's called a personal statement for a reason, so begin with your own words. IMO, I would be fine with using the quote later on in the first paragraph if you feel it is an essential part to your essay.

Unless it's really really really really good, and it must be relevant to the subject matter within the PS.

I would be interested to know if law professors read your essays (as supposedly with other graduate degree applications) or if there is a devoted admissions staff that makes the admissions decisions. If the latter, definitely do not overestimate their intelligence and/or willingness to engage with a complicated topic and/or wording. I am analogizing to a lesson I learned on the GRE, where I scored the 99th percentile in the multiple choice section, yet 14th percentile in the seemingly-correlated writing section, (in which my essay sailed way over the head of the reader)

If you do stick with this topic. I would really condense the non-quote of the first paragraph. Maybe something like "...a student submitted this, much to my chagrin, as what he learned in my class.". leave it as that and then start the next paragraph something like, "what I actually taught was..."