Personal Statement Revision...like 9 or something Forum

[Hannibal]

After dealing with like 8 really personal topics that got pretty bad reviews, some people actually like this one. I don't know why I didn't think about it before.

The T.A. begun: “As you all know, the strike is coming up on the fourth.” Months of political upheaval on campus had led up to this culminating strike. The conflict was over budget cuts in the University of California system, which had already been rife with overfilled classes, layoffs and service reductions. When a 32% tuition increase was announced on top of the cuts, students turned militant, with two highly publicized occupations of administration buildings dominating the school discourse. As the rhetoric of the already ultra-left U.C. Santa Cruz student activists became vicious and the dialogue less practical, I would challenge the conversation itself.

As the T.A. read down a long list of protest justifications given to her by the Graduate Student Assembly, the hope that the assigned reading would be explored faded. Corporatization of the University, U.C. President Mark Yudof's high salary, lack of T.A. hirings, lack of social justice, the list went on. Each point was followed by an awkward and oppressive silence. I found myself motivated; if there's one place where an argument should be based on evidence and reason, it's a college classroom. As she finished a demand for smaller class sizes, I knew that my long-private misgivings about the rhetoric should be made public, despite my own opposition to the budget and tuition actions.

“If you don't think they should accept corporate contributions or take out loans, how would you like them to get the money for more T.A.s and smaller classes?” This statement was followed by an awkward silence of its own kind, as the rhythm of the class was broken. “The point about the loans is that they're being used for buildings which won't be ready for years, instead of T.A.s that are needed now.” I responded, “so you're asking for future students to forgo improved facilities for the sake of students today?” With the discussion turned from emotional rhetoric to practical tradeoffs, the room exploded into debate. I left committed to introducing practicality to the conversation in a bigger way.

Outside of the classroom, I countered the rhetoric by arguing for perspective. Material I created and circulated included comparisons between the costs of T.A.s and new facilities, comparing Mark Yudof's salary to U.C.'s comparatively astronomical budget, and listing the tangible benefits of past corporate donations. The idea was not to counter the student movement, but to show the decisions of the Regents as questionable judgment calls rather than injustices. By changing the conversation from emotional to rational, we could address the shortfalls practically. As my efforts garnered some notice, I was attacked as complacent or dismissed as conservative by many. I received support from those who had before remained silent, one thanking me for making the issues approachable.

When the fourth came, the campus was shut down by throngs of students and workers. A propaganda war between student activists and the administration was fought in the theater of news networks and mass e-mails. As a volley, the Graduate Student Assembly was considering supporting another occupation of Kerr Hall, like the one in November that had caused great damage to the administration building. I attended the next meeting to observe, and if necessary, dissuade.

The GSA, touting itself as representing all students, doubled as an action committee. The posters that blanketed the campus were in stacks in the room, and the rhetoric of social justice permeated their internal conversation over how to proceed with protests. With a lack of consensus over the righteousness of another occupation, they turned the meeting over for questions from the audience of one. “You all agreed the Kerr Hall occupation hurt the student movement's image. Why would you do another one instead of voter outreach?” The Kerr Hall occupiers had circulated a list of demands, such as a return to free tuition, a freeze on layoffs, and more T.A. hirings. While I supported many of the goals, I believed the method to be counterproductive. “The occupation hurt because we let the administration control the conversation,” the same T.A. responded. “After March 4th, you control the conversation. Why would you risk handing it back?” As the call for a new occupation subsided over the next few weeks, I hoped that my challenge had stimulated introspection amongst the Assembly.

With political and personal views so often dominated by the narrative of black against white, it's understandable that emotions would dominate conversations. In law, you must have support and reason backing those emotions to stand a chance. This is the conversation in which I thrive. At X law school, I hope to find a student body who can combine emotion with reason and evidence to create meaningful dialogues.

I think I could either shorten the part about the meeting to include some more strike-day stuff or edit out the meeting entirely, though I think the damage the Kerr Hall protest did is pretty important to the story.

Anyway, yeah. Any thoughts.

[Teoeo]

I wouldn't normally comment on this but I was so annoyed by the very phenomenon that you are talking about (irrational UC hate) that I had to say something. This is good, although I feel like the end transition might need to be explained a little.

P.S. I am pretty damn liberal but people were using ridiculous arguments (saying our chancellor was overpaid - she makes like 350k and is the CEO of a UC campus...)

[Hannibal]

I wouldn't normally comment on this but I was so annoyed by the very phenomenon that you are talking about (irrational UC hate) that I had to say something. This is good, although I feel like the end transition might need to be explained a little.

P.S. I am pretty damn liberal but people were using ridiculous arguments (saying our chancellor was overpaid - she makes like 350k and is the CEO of a UC campus...)

That's what I found. Even really liberal people were annoyed with the rhetoric people were using, but since only the activists were yelling it felt like the consensus.

And yeah I'm trying to figure out a transition from intro to ending.

[CanadianWolf]

This is not a good personal statement in my opinion.

[ShuckingNotJiving]

This reads more like a newspaper article about the event, than a personal statement. You need to find a way to weave more of your insights into the narrative, so the reader finishes with a better idea of who you are, what drives you, etc. etc.

[CanadianWolf]

My impression of your personal statement is that it has a condescending tone & , as noted above, that it reads like a newspaper article.

[maddox86]

I disagree, I don't think it reads as newspaper article..

I think it shows a great strength, you know, the ability to make a dispassionate rational argument etc...

I do think there is some truth over the condescending part, I would also keep the topic but I wouldn't entirely focus on it, it's a singular event not a recurring theme that has brought you to where you want to go to law school.

You may want to talk about other activities, things to show the broad scope of your interests and the depth and richness of your experiences (with some consistency re theme) and would contribute to a compelling and logical argument for why you should go to law school and why you'd be a great addition to the school's classroom....

EDIT: Advice from HLS admissions blog

6. Personal statement (what it should be):

First, your personal statement is a writing sample. It should be well written and free of grammatical errors. It is also your chance to tell us more about you in a way that is not reflected in the other elements of your application. Let us know how your broad range of experiences, coursework, and extracurriculars fit together and suggest law school is the right next step. Let your personality and writing style shine through and tell us what we should know about you.