Would appreciate help on PS! Forum

[80eight]

What are your thoughts? My biggest concern is that I might need to make a clearer case for law (over public policy or social work, I suppose). I think I can do that, but I'd need to cut something-- right now its just hitting 2 pages double spaced. Unless, of course, I get 100% negative criticism here, in which case I'll probably scrap the topic and start over. I appreciate your help and honest feedback.

Please don't quote, I will delete this all soon!

---
removed

[Moomoo2u]

It's not bad.

I think the beginning is a little too narrative and repetitive "you wont be able to get anything done" doesnt need to be repeated twice, etc... I'm also not clear on how her memorizing it is really relevant (it didn't immediately connote learning disability to me).


The transition from working with Anisa -> bank stuff is a little jarring as well and leaves me wondering what happened to anisa. paragraphs 4/5 could probably be merged more succintly. My issue with those is that they are just repetition of what you've done with little information about how it affected you or furthered your interest in child advocacy.

I do like how you connect your specific evaluations of banks to how it would have affected anisa. I think a little more about how your work affected the grants/system would be useful and you could expand on that as an initiation into the whole child advocacy law thing.

The case for PI law, as you mentioned, is a little weak. I especially dislike the part where you talk about polishing the English in contracts as to me it sounds like you are glamorizing it a little too much. It also doesnt seem to have a lot of connection to child advocacy (if you say its intellectual property and international arbitration).

all in all I think it's pretty good, you have a compelling story but I think a little more reflection on these events could improve the draft substantially, and the end needs to be reworked.

EDIT: after a quick re-read I think the Anisa story really falls flat. You present a case of someone with a learning disability and never really do much with it, you don't help her, and you end the anecdote by saying "you wont be able to get anything done". After that I expect you to show me how you really did get something done (and you did policy wise) but it's not really apparent to me. You should at least end it with some evaluation, were you frustrated you couldn't help her? Angry at her teacher? Sad that she couldnt get the education assistance she needed? How did you plan to help her? What happened to her?

You try to connect it later but you just ask rhetorical questions. I think if you make a direct connection or specifically say how what you did will help kids like Anisa, then the example will be much stronger (e.g. by recommending grants to schools with little funding teachers like anisa's teacher will be able to devote more time to helping her etc etc).

[80eight]

Thank you! It hurts me to cut the last part because I think it shows that I've been thorough in confirming that law is the path for me, but I see what you're saying and other people have told me the same.

I'm going to add in something about what programs receive grants, and try to tie that back into Anisa. Does anyone else have other feedback?