Final Version - Please Have a Look Forum

[AKenter]

Thanks!

On a windswept and chilly November afternoon, I stood beside Paul, his client, and her husband at the top of the courthouse steps. The jury had reached a favorable decision some minutes before and, after a year of paperwork, physical therapy, and worry, Paul’s client had been awarded damages and compensation for her medical expenses. As we prepared to part ways, she thanked Paul one more time and hugged him. There were tears in her eyes as she and her husband turned and walked away. I could tell that there was more to this surge of emotion than happiness for having achieved a monetary award. Along with sustaining severe physical injuries in the automobile accident, she also suffered the indignity of being held partially responsible for it. With victory in the courtroom, then, came the greater reward of moral vindication. Paul, through his efforts, had been able to secure this for her. As he and I walked to the parking lot, he told me that it was on days like this when he felt most proud to be a lawyer.

I wanted to understand ethics and so studied philosophy as an undergraduate. I was convinced that only through the study of moral philosophy could I discover what constituted the good life. In speaking of the good life I do not mean the life of ease and pleasure. On the contrary, I mean the life of constant self-reflection and self-improvement; of striving towards the limits of my potential in a manner that also benefits my family, friends, and community. After four years of study, I had made progress, yet the complete answer remained elusive. Graduate study in philosophy, therefore, was the natural option for me. However, as graduation neared, I began to reconsider as I came to believe that studying the good life and trying to live it are two distinct endeavors. I abandoned my plans for further study in philosophy, and, when graduation arrived, I was unsure what path I would pursue.

After completing my degree, I decided to work and travel for a year while I rethought my future. To this end, I began working for Paul at his small personal injury law firm as an assistant. I expected the work to be interesting but did not anticipate the dramatic effect the experience would have on me. While I was at the firm, Paul introduced me to nearly every aspect of his practice. I drafted letters to clients and opposing counsel, conducted an initial witness interview, and accompanied Paul to some of his trials. Though my contributions were small, I found it gratifying to know that the work I was doing served to help wronged and injured people. I began to see Paul’s work as deeply moral in character. Everyday, he endeavored to bring relief to the injured and hold to account those who had harmed them. While there are likely many avenues which lead to the good life, I could not help but believe that Paul’s was certainly one of them.

Working with Paul left me with a profound respect for the legal profession and the desire to join its ranks. I want to pursue an education in law because I want to have a tangible positive impact on the lives of others, and I believe that I am best suited to do so as a lawyer. Through my studies in philosophy, I have developed keen analytical skills and a love of research. I am confident that, with these qualities and my work experience in a law firm, I will excel in law school. As a lawyer, I will serve my community by focusing on helping those most in need. I will strive to make the kind of difference in people’s lives like Paul did that windswept and chilly November afternoon. With hard work and dedication, I can accomplish this and, in so doing, live a truly good life.

[PinkCow]

"I wanted to understand ethics and so studied philosophy as an undergraduate" --This sounds awkward

The semicolon in the next sentence or two is incorrect

"I began to reconsider as I came to believe that studying the good life and trying to live it are two distinct endeavors" Reconsider what? I don't understand.

work to be interesting"," but...

Some of your sentences are a little wordy and complex, which seems to be a no-no on this board. I, however, thought the wordiness was well-put, so I personally wouldn't change it.



Overall, I thought this essay was great. It was personal, connected, and well themed. I honestly wouldn't change a thing except for the few grammatical issues I mentioned. Good job!

[zephyr36]

I agree with everything above. Also, I would rework your first sentence. The people you refer too gets confusing. When you say Paul, his client, and her husband I understood it as saying that Paul was the client of some ambiguous "his." I would just shift it to say "Paul, Paul's client,...."

[AKenter]

Thanks a lot for your comments. I am glad you both liked it. Your suggestions are very helpful and I will make them.

Thanks again!

[oliverdarcy]

I liked the essay a lot. Great job.

[AKenter]

I liked the essay a lot. Great job.

Thanks! I am glad that I am getting a lot better feedback than I did with my original!

[ShuckingNotJiving]

i'm personally against any phrases in these things that refer to tears in peoples' eyes. like where the f else would they be. imo this statement gets the job done. it could be a bit more interesting, sure, but it's effective in conveying why you would be a good candidate for law school. i was a little put off by the "good life" reference explication. seems a bit condescending. however, that comes from the way you explain it, not the explanation in and of itself.

[AKenter]

i'm personally against any phrases in these things that refer to tears in peoples' eyes. like where the f else would they be. imo this statement gets the job done. it could be a bit more interesting, sure, but it's effective in conveying why you would be a good candidate for law school. i was a little put off by the "good life" reference explication. seems a bit condescending. however, that comes from the way you explain it, not the explanation in and of itself.

Thanks for the comment. Would you mind explaining what you mean by "that comes from the way you explain it, not the explanation in and of itself."? Also, what about it do you find off putting?

[ShuckingNotJiving]

u say "and by that i don't mean....on the contrary i mean" the way you word it comes off a bit pompous. that's what was off-putting. i'm not sure why you mention what you DON'T mean -- just explain it the way you DO mean the first time. ya know?

[AKenter]

u say "and by that i don't mean....on the contrary i mean" the way you word it comes off a bit pompous. that's what was off-putting. i'm not sure why you mention what you DON'T mean -- just explain it the way you DO mean the first time. ya know?

My response is that, on occasion, it is helpful to describe something by saying first what it is not.

[ShuckingNotJiving]

what it's not? you're not talking about what something is or what it's not. you're not referring to a universal definition. you're referring to what something means to you. i don't know why you need to first explain the commonplace understanding of the "good life" which--by virtue of the fact that its understanding is commonplace, most people will already know--then explain your understanding of it. why not just say -- "i could discover what constituted the good life which, to me, means the life of constant self-reflection...." furthermore, you use "on the contrary" to transition when your understanding of the good life isn't necessarily antithetical to the life of "ease and pleasure." the wording is poor, and the tone is pompous. it's def a weak point in the essay which for the most part is strong.

in the end, u asked for suggestions. i gave them. itz no problem if u don't agree. ur essay.

[AKenter]

what it's not? you're not talking about what something is or what it's not. you're not referring to a universal definition. you're referring to what something means to you. i don't know why you need to first explain the commonplace understanding of the "good life" which--by virtue of the fact that its understanding is commonplace, most people will already know--then explain your understanding of it. why not just say -- "i could discover what constituted the good life which, to me, means the life of constant self-reflection...." furthermore, you use "on the contrary" to transition when your understanding of the good life isn't necessarily antithetical to the life of "ease and pleasure." the wording is poor, and the tone is pompous. it's def a weak point in the essay which for the most part is strong.

in the end, u asked for suggestions. i gave them. itz no problem if u don't agree. ur essay.

I love people like you!

[ach24]

.

[AKenter]

Thanks for the comment.