Top Law Schools

Prompt: We know that you have many options when applying to law school. Tell us why you are interested in the School of Law at University of California, Irvine. What do you believe we have to offer you? What will you bring to the School of Law? How would your experiences and perspectives enhance and enrich the quality and breadth of our law school community?

Thanks to those who offered suggestions. No thanks to the useless trolls.
Enjoy your holiday TLS!

drop every reference to harvard, yale and stanford.

It's like saying, "and just to prove just how much I am willing to matriculate into your lowly institution, I would not even go to Harvard if admitted! "

Focus on this aspect:

I also understand that UCI Law School is relatively new and is working to establish itself. Incidentally, I’ve spent the last four years helping to establish a new school, and I absolutely cherished the experience. Because of my role in shaping the programs, culture, reputation of my school, I felt personally invested its outcomes. I am especially enthusiastic about the prospect of making these contributions at my Alma Mater. That UCI Law School is new is an attractive quality, something I will not find at other schools.

Being a UCI grad and wanting to stay in Orange County are strong reasons for wanting to go there, but I think just a line or two about those would suffice. Your experience establishing a school makes you unique. I'd honestly get rid of almost everything else and expand on this. Just my $0.02. Above all else though, remember that you need to sound like a sophisticated, mature law school candidate.

Also, I don't think you gain anything by making claims like "I'd turn down Harvard for you." If UCI is a "longshot" for you, HYS are probably not possible, and they'll know that. It also costs you credibility, because any reasonable person would at least consider those options. The opening line really is dramatic, and while it's okay to say you have a strong preference, it's not okay to sound ridiculous.

Finally, edit. Edit, edit, edit.


Good luck!!!!!!!!!

it's good, minus the first and last paragraphs.

crabcakes wrote:it's good, minus the first and last paragraphs and everything in between.

ftfy

thatkid wrote:Focus on this aspect:

I also understand that UCI Law School is relatively new and is working to establish itself. Incidentally, I’ve spent the last four years helping to establish a new school, and I absolutely cherished the experience. Because of my role in shaping the programs, culture, reputation of my school, I felt personally invested its outcomes. I am especially enthusiastic about the prospect of making these contributions at my Alma Mater. That UCI Law School is new is an attractive quality, something I will not find at other schools.

Being a UCI grad and wanting to stay in Orange County are strong reasons for wanting to go there, but I think just a line or two about those would suffice. Your experience establishing a school makes you unique. I'd honestly get rid of almost everything else and expand on this. Just my $0.02. Above all else though, remember that you need to sound like a sophisticated, mature law school candidate.

Also, I don't think you gain anything by making claims like "I'd turn down Harvard for you." If UCI is a "longshot" for you, HYS are probably not possible, and they'll know that. It also costs you credibility, because any reasonable person would at least consider those options. The opening line really is dramatic, and while it's okay to say you have a strong preference, it's not okay to sound ridiculous.

Finally, edit. Edit, edit, edit.


Good luck!!!!!!!!!

Oh yes, I'm sure they know I'm not being courted by HYS.

Hey while we're on the subject, is there a real place for humor in admission essays? The fact of the matter is I'm more of a Lloyd Bentsen than I am a Dan Quayle (Youtube it if you don't get the reference), and the general reaction I've gotten from any sort of humor in LS document over TLS is very Quayle-ish.

That's not to say I think sounding professional isn't important (obviously, I need to be professional at my current job), but am I better to eliminate any traces of "Lloyd Bentsen" in my essays? It shouldn't be a problem.

Army2Law wrote:

crabcakes wrote:it's good, minus the first and last paragraphs and everything in between.

ftfy

Hey, you're from Texas! Big surprise.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

Army2Law wrote:

crabcakes wrote:it's good, minus the first and last paragraphs and everything in between.

ftfy

Hey, you're from Texas! Big surprise.

?

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

Army2Law wrote:

crabcakes wrote:it's good, minus the first and last paragraphs and everything in between.

ftfy

Hey, you're from Texas! Big surprise.

well, it's not jaw-dropping, but it has enough good points that it's ok to submit. and you should probably be turning your app in ASAP anyway, as it's getting kind of late in the game yaddamean.

This ranks among the worst law school personal statement essays that I have ever read. Try a more sincere, down-to-earth approach. Discuss yourself, not the school.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:Oh yes, I'm sure they know I'm not being courted by HYS.

Hey while we're on the subject, is there a real place for humor in admission essays? The fact of the matter is I'm more of a Lloyd Bentsen than I am a Dan Quayle (Youtube it if you don't get the reference), and the general reaction I've gotten from any sort of humor in LS document over TLS is very Quayle-ish.

That's not to say I think sounding professional isn't important (obviously, I need to be professional at my current job), but am I better to eliminate any traces of "Lloyd Bentsen" in my essays? It shouldn't be a problem.

I get the reference, I love the reference, I've used the reference, but sir, you're no Lloyd Bentsen.

I feel like natural sounding, well-placed humor is usually okay if used sparingly. I think the 'humor' in the posted "Why UCI" could hurt you, if only because the person reading it may not like it.

Everyone likes to read solid, professional essays. Not everyone likes jokes, and even among those that do, not everyone has the same sense of humor. You have good reasons for wanting to go to UCI. I wouldn't risk it.

CanadianWolf wrote:This ranks among the worst law school personal statement essays that I have ever read. Try a more sincere, down-to-earth approach. Discuss yourself, not the school.

I doubt that's true, and with all due respect, that's rather caustic "criticism," in the vein of the idiot jackass from Texas above. I understand you may not need the help, but if you did I wouldn't just dismissively insult something you wrote. Now I don't think it's perfect, and I'm well aware that what I have is risky, but I also know it's not the worst PS you've ever read. In fact, did you even read anything in it? It's not PS btw, it's a "Why X" essay.

I love helping people on this board, and I do, but if all you can offer with your 6000+ posts is just "that's worst PS I've ever read...generic didn'treadit advice..." maybe you could be doing something better with your time.

thatkid wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote:Oh yes, I'm sure they know I'm not being courted by HYS.

Hey while we're on the subject, is there a real place for humor in admission essays? The fact of the matter is I'm more of a Lloyd Bentsen than I am a Dan Quayle (Youtube it if you don't get the reference), and the general reaction I've gotten from any sort of humor in LS document over TLS is very Quayle-ish.

That's not to say I think sounding professional isn't important (obviously, I need to be professional at my current job), but am I better to eliminate any traces of "Lloyd Bentsen" in my essays? It shouldn't be a problem.

I get the reference, I love the reference, I've used the reference, but sir, you're no Lloyd Bentsen.

I feel like natural sounding, well-placed humor is usually okay if used sparingly. I think the 'humor' in the posted "Why UCI" could hurt you, if only because the person reading it may not like it.

Everyone likes to read solid, professional essays. Not everyone likes jokes, and even among those that do, not everyone has the same sense of humor. You have good reasons for wanting to go to UCI. I wouldn't risk it.

I appreciate the candid advice sir!
OUCH on the "you're no Lloyd Bentsen" zinger. Well played

crabcakes wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

Army2Law wrote:

crabcakes wrote:it's good, minus the first and last paragraphs and everything in between.

ftfy

Hey, you're from Texas! Big surprise.

well, it's not jaw-dropping, but it has enough good points that it's ok to submit. and you should probably be turning your app in ASAP anyway, as it's getting kind of late in the game yaddamean.

Absolutely, nawayamean. I'm gonna trim this thing up, rid of anything risky, and hopefully have it all submitted in a day or two. This after a nice long nap of course
Thanks!

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:This ranks among the worst law school personal statement essays that I have ever read. Try a more sincere, down-to-earth approach. Discuss yourself, not the school.

I doubt that's true, and with all due respect, that's rather caustic "criticism," in the vein of the idiot jackass from Texas above. I understand you may not need the help, but if you did I wouldn't just dismissively insult something you wrote. Now I don't think it's perfect, and I'm well aware that what I have is risky, but I also know it's not the worst PS you've ever read. In fact, did you even read anything in it? It's not PS btw, it's a "Why X" essay.

I love helping people on this board, and I do, but if all you can offer with your 6000+ posts is just "that's worst PS I've ever read...generic didn'treadit advice..." maybe you could be doing something better with your time.

Okay, look. This PS isn't "risky." Risky implies there is a chance of high reward, that someone will read it and go, "Whoa, this was dangerous, but I can see why he did it." This PS isn't risky - it's just full of things you ought to not have in it. Don't talk about other schools, don't pile on meaningless adjectives and plead with them to believe that you are being extra special honest with a cherry on top. It won't work.

Tanicius wrote: Okay, look. This PS isn't "risky." Risky implies there is a chance of high reward, that someone will read it and go, "Whoa, this was dangerous, but I can see why he did it." This PS isn't risky - it's just full of things you ought to not have in it. Don't talk about other schools, don't pile on meaningless adjectives and plead with them to believe that you are being extra special honest with a cherry on top. It won't work.

1st- does the fact that it's not a PS change anything? It's a "Why X" essay.

2nd- yes, the "HYS" thing did strike me as potentially risky/dangerous, with the risk being perhaps a little laugh, and the danger being...well... you know. I'm getting rid of it.

3rd- what specifically (other than the egregious stuff, the "dangerous" stuff) would you get rid of?

BTW, did I just piss off some secret T14 cult? This essay brought the haters out!

PMed you.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

Tanicius wrote: Okay, look. This PS isn't "risky." Risky implies there is a chance of high reward, that someone will read it and go, "Whoa, this was dangerous, but I can see why he did it." This PS isn't risky - it's just full of things you ought to not have in it. Don't talk about other schools, don't pile on meaningless adjectives and plead with them to believe that you are being extra special honest with a cherry on top. It won't work.

1st- does the fact that it's not a PS change anything? It's a "Why X" essay.

2nd- yes, the "HYS" thing did strike me as potentially risky/dangerous, with the risk being perhaps a little laugh, and the danger being...well... you know. I'm getting rid of it.

3rd- what specifically (other than the egregious stuff, the "dangerous" stuff) would you get rid of?

BTW, did I just piss off some secret T14 cult? This essay brought the haters out!

Alright, glad you're on board with the HYS paragraph being cut. This first one also needs to go:

"At the risk of sounding dramatic, I can positively, unequivocally, and sincerely assert that University California Irvine Law School is my priority choice for legal education, and were I offered seats at Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, even with generous scholarships, I would turn them all down in favor of UCI Law School. I am aware that this statement may be misconstrued as hyperbole. However, if one were to compare my history to the mission of UCI Law School, they would find that this statement is actually quite supported."

When you explicitly acknowledge a risk or weakness in the structure or rhetoric of an essay, all it does it cause the reader to nod along and say, "You're right, this sure does sound ridiculous. Thanks for telling me not to believe you before we get to anything substantial." I'm not trying to hate on you - that's just the way it will be read.

Piling on a ton of adverbs that all mean the same thing won't cause your readers to pay special attention - they'll just tune out because repeating the same meaning with different words doesn't say anything that makes your essay more credible. By the time you stop begging them to believe you and make the claim that your desire to go to UCI is in fact "well supported," you're just stringing along on empty words. Don't tell us that you want to go there - show us.

Your second paragraph is a much better starting point. To strengthen what you say and truly show your interest, come up with some actual examples that demonstrate what you're talking about. What does a "stated emphasis on public interest law" mean? Is there a speech or certain faculty member you're familiar with? Those kinds of examples add a depth of credibility and make them believe that you actually know some things about their school because you care.

Tanicius wrote: Alright, glad you're on board with the HYS paragraph being cut. This first one also needs to go:

"At the risk of sounding dramatic, I can positively, unequivocally, and sincerely assert that University California Irvine Law School is my priority choice for legal education, and were I offered seats at Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, even with generous scholarships, I would turn them all down in favor of UCI Law School. I am aware that this statement may be misconstrued as hyperbole. However, if one were to compare my history to the mission of UCI Law School, they would find that this statement is actually quite supported."

When you explicitly acknowledge a risk or weakness in the structure or rhetoric of an essay, all it does it cause the reader to nod along and say, "You're right, this sure does sound ridiculous. Thanks for telling me not to believe you before we get to anything substantial." I'm not trying to hate on you - that's just the way it will be read.

Piling on a ton of adverbs that all mean the same thing won't cause your readers to pay special attention - they'll just tune out because repeating the same meaning with different words doesn't say anything that makes your essay more credible. By the time you stop begging them to believe you and make the claim that your desire to go to UCI is in fact "well supported," you're just stringing along on empty words. Don't tell us that you want to go there - show us.

Your second paragraph is a much better starting point. To strengthen what you say and truly show your interest, come up with some actual examples that demonstrate what you're talking about. What does a "stated emphasis on public interest law" mean? Is there a speech or certain faculty member you're familiar with? Those kinds of examples add a depth of credibility and make them believe that you actually know some things about their school because you care.

Agreed. The whole purpose of the first paragraph was to make the comically bold statement, so if that needs to go, the whole paragraph can go.

As far as the school's emphasis on public interest, It's everywhere, but I believe one of the deans dropped it in an interview. Good suggestion, and that's definitely going to be in the next draft.

One caveat to this course of action, however, is that it's quite likely the name "Erwin Chemerinsky" has been dropped so many times in these essays that the effect is broken. Do you still think it would be wise to get his name in there, or do you think it would come across as ass kissing?

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

Tanicius wrote: Alright, glad you're on board with the HYS paragraph being cut. This first one also needs to go:

"At the risk of sounding dramatic, I can positively, unequivocally, and sincerely assert that University California Irvine Law School is my priority choice for legal education, and were I offered seats at Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, even with generous scholarships, I would turn them all down in favor of UCI Law School. I am aware that this statement may be misconstrued as hyperbole. However, if one were to compare my history to the mission of UCI Law School, they would find that this statement is actually quite supported."

When you explicitly acknowledge a risk or weakness in the structure or rhetoric of an essay, all it does it cause the reader to nod along and say, "You're right, this sure does sound ridiculous. Thanks for telling me not to believe you before we get to anything substantial." I'm not trying to hate on you - that's just the way it will be read.

Piling on a ton of adverbs that all mean the same thing won't cause your readers to pay special attention - they'll just tune out because repeating the same meaning with different words doesn't say anything that makes your essay more credible. By the time you stop begging them to believe you and make the claim that your desire to go to UCI is in fact "well supported," you're just stringing along on empty words. Don't tell us that you want to go there - show us.

Your second paragraph is a much better starting point. To strengthen what you say and truly show your interest, come up with some actual examples that demonstrate what you're talking about. What does a "stated emphasis on public interest law" mean? Is there a speech or certain faculty member you're familiar with? Those kinds of examples add a depth of credibility and make them believe that you actually know some things about their school because you care.

Agreed. The whole purpose of the first paragraph was to make the comically bold statement, so if that needs to go, the whole paragraph can go.

As far as the school's emphasis on public interest, It's everywhere, but I believe one of the deans dropped it in an interview. Good suggestion, and that's definitely going to be in the next draft.

One caveat to this course of action, however, is that it's quite likely the name "Erwin Chemerinsky" has been dropped so many times in these essays that the effect is broken. Do you still think it would be wise to get his name in there, or do you think it would come across as ass kissing?

I think it will be okay. Quoting something a specific person said is usually a good thing, and it's not like you're telling them the reason you want to go to UCI is because the dean wrote a bunch of books on Conlaw. That's more on the absurd ass kissing side of things.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:This ranks among the worst law school personal statement essays that I have ever read. Try a more sincere, down-to-earth approach. Discuss yourself, not the school.

I doubt that's true, and with all due respect, that's rather caustic "criticism," in the vein of the idiot jackass from Texas above. I understand you may not need the help, but if you did I wouldn't just dismissively insult something you wrote. Now I don't think it's perfect, and I'm well aware that what I have is risky, but I also know it's not the worst PS you've ever read. In fact, did you even read anything in it? It's not PS btw, it's a "Why X" essay.

I love helping people on this board, and I do, but if all you can offer with your 6000+ posts is just "that's worst PS I've ever read...generic didn'treadit advice..." maybe you could be doing something better with your time.

I read it and it wasn't very good. You should be giving adcomms a window into you, not your desire for the school.

This seems desperate. You're putting UCI on a pedestal.

YourCaptain wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:This ranks among the worst law school personal statement essays that I have ever read. Try a more sincere, down-to-earth approach. Discuss yourself, not the school.

I doubt that's true, and with all due respect, that's rather caustic "criticism," in the vein of the idiot jackass from Texas above. I understand you may not need the help, but if you did I wouldn't just dismissively insult something you wrote. Now I don't think it's perfect, and I'm well aware that what I have is risky, but I also know it's not the worst PS you've ever read. In fact, did you even read anything in it? It's not PS btw, it's a "Why X" essay.

I love helping people on this board, and I do, but if all you can offer with your 6000+ posts is just "that's worst PS I've ever read...generic didn'treadit advice..." maybe you could be doing something better with your time.

I read it and it wasn't very good. You should be giving adcomms a window into you, not your desire for the school.

Ok, maybe I should have put this at the top, but here's the prompt.

Prompt: We know that you have many options when applying to law school. Tell us why you are interested in the School of Law at University of California, Irvine. What do you believe we have to offer you? What will you bring to the School of Law? How would your experiences and perspectives enhance and enrich the quality and breadth of our law school community?

I have a PS where I talk about myself and demonstrate my thought process all day. Again, this is a "Why UCI?" essay.

Somehow I think you and a bunch of other people in here missed that because, other than the ridiculous stuff, I think I answered those questions in a generally agreeable way. You in particular: "You should be giving adcomms a window into you, not your desire for the school." In all fairness, you didn't see the prompt, but you're basically telling me to do the exact opposite of what it's asking. Thanks anway.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:
Ok, maybe I should have put this at the top, but here's the prompt.

Prompt: We know that you have many options when applying to law school. Tell us why you are interested in the School of Law at University of California, Irvine. What do you believe we have to offer you? What will you bring to the School of Law? How would your experiences and perspectives enhance and enrich the quality and breadth of our law school community?

I have a PS where I talk about myself and demonstrate my thought process all day. Again, this is a "Why UCI?" essay.

Somehow I think you and a bunch of other people in here missed that because, other than the ridiculous stuff, I think I answered those questions in a generally agreeable way. You in particular: "You should be giving adcomms a window into you, not your desire for the school." In all fairness, you didn't see the prompt, but you're basically telling me to do the exact opposite of what it's asking. Thanks anway.

show not tell friend.

look, youre interested in PI and mentioned youre an educator. comeon theyll love that just mix it up and explain how they go together and reference in passing uci's commitment to PI or something.

Please for the love of God do not send that to UCI or any other school.

This is how I feel about your statement: http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0