PS Topic Choice - Thoughts appreciated Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am vacillating between two PS topics and I wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on which might be better.

1. I have been working as a paralegal for the past 3 years and I have sat second chair as a trial technician in 6 jury trials. It could be as many as 9 by the time I actually submit applications. My work experience is substantive and I have good war stories. Also, I am very certain of what path I'd like to take in law school.

2. I did a National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) backpacking course in Alaska the summer going into my senior year of college and the last 4 days were spent without instructors. I was group leader of my group of 4 and I had a "lost in the wilderness" experience that makes for a pretty good story and it genuinely was one of the most important formative experiences of my life.

I can provide more details on either one if necessary but I am just looking for initial thoughts on which topic to choose.

Thanks in advance.

[papercut]

I am vacillating between two PS topics and I wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on which might be better.

1. I have been working as a paralegal for the past 3 years and I have sat second chair as a trial technician in 6 jury trials. It could be as many as 9 by the time I actually submit applications. My work experience is substantive and I have good war stories. Also, I am very certain of what path I'd like to take in law school.

2. I did a National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) backpacking course in Alaska the summer going into my senior year of college and the last 4 days were spent without instructors. I was group leader of my group of 4 and I had a "lost in the wilderness" experience that makes for a pretty good story and it genuinely was one of the most important formative experiences of my life.

I can provide more details on either one if necessary but I am just looking for initial thoughts on which topic to choose.

Thanks in advance.

I'd go with #2. The info for #1 will be in your resume.

[phillywc]

I think both would be fine, so write whatever you think would make a good PS. It is probably easier to write about 2, but if they are of the exact same quality 1 would probably be more helpful to your app.

[doing_it_in_a_car]

Your PS topic should depend upon your application as a whole - think about what your work experience/transcript/letters of recommendation/LSAT score say about you - and write your PS to round out your application as a whole.

For example, I was a traditional splitter (high lsat and low gpa, especially due to bad grades senior year). I was aware that the typical presumption of splitters is that they are smart but immature/lazy. Thus, I wrote my PS to focus on my work experience (similar to your topic #1) to overcome this presumption. To pull off an essay like this - you must be SPECIFIC and PERSONAL. In my PS, I told the story of a negotiations matter that I worked on as a paralegal, the moral challenges I faced in advocating for our client, reconciling those challenges with my personal values, and ultimately tied it into why I want to pursue a career in law. I was careful to tell this story in a way that was not merely a regurgitation of my resume and not some flowery, abstract musing about what the law is. I wrote about specific tasks I worked on and my thoughts as the case progressed. I think this PS served me well, as I got into my first choice (ED Penn).

If you have a solid GPA and a solid LSAT score, then you would have more license to be creative, since your academic achievements speak for themselves. In that case, you should probably go with topic #2 to show that you're not only qualified, but that you're interesting/fun.

However, if you are a splitter or reverse splitter (or have an C+F or other issues that call your maturity into question), I think you should seriously consider topic #1. It is often repeated that you do not have to write about "why law" in your PS, but if you have issues in your app regarding your maturity or motivation, a PS about your substantiated, genuine interest in the law could help ease adcom's concerns about you.

[papercut]

Your PS topic should depend upon your application as a whole - think about what your work experience/transcript/letters of recommendation/LSAT score say about you - and write your PS to round out your application as a whole.

For example, I was a traditional splitter (high lsat and low gpa, especially due to bad grades senior year). I was aware that the typical presumption of splitters is that they are smart but immature/lazy. Thus, I wrote my PS to focus on my work experience (similar to your topic #1) to overcome this presumption. To pull off an essay like this - you must be SPECIFIC and PERSONAL. In my PS, I told the story of a negotiations matter that I worked on as a paralegal, the moral challenges I faced in advocating for our client, reconciling those challenges with my personal values, and ultimately tied it into why I want to pursue a career in law. I was careful to tell this story in a way that was not merely a regurgitation of my resume and not some flowery, abstract musing about what the law is. I wrote about specific tasks I worked on and my thoughts as the case progressed. I think this PS served me well, as I got into my first choice (ED Penn).

If you have a solid GPA and a solid LSAT score, then you would have more license to be creative, since your academic achievements speak for themselves. In that case, you should probably go with topic #2 to show that you're not only qualified, but that you're interesting/fun.

However, if you are a splitter or reverse splitter (or have an C+F or other issues that call your maturity into question), I think you should seriously consider topic #1. It is often repeated that you do not have to write about "why law" in your PS, but if you have issues in your app regarding your maturity or motivation, a PS about your substantiated, genuine interest in the law could help ease adcom's concerns about you.

Quality post.

[Anonymous User]

Your PS topic should depend upon your application as a whole - think about what your work experience/transcript/letters of recommendation/LSAT score say about you - and write your PS to round out your application as a whole.

For example, I was a traditional splitter (high lsat and low gpa, especially due to bad grades senior year). I was aware that the typical presumption of splitters is that they are smart but immature/lazy. Thus, I wrote my PS to focus on my work experience (similar to your topic #1) to overcome this presumption. To pull off an essay like this - you must be SPECIFIC and PERSONAL. In my PS, I told the story of a negotiations matter that I worked on as a paralegal, the moral challenges I faced in advocating for our client, reconciling those challenges with my personal values, and ultimately tied it into why I want to pursue a career in law. I was careful to tell this story in a way that was not merely a regurgitation of my resume and not some flowery, abstract musing about what the law is. I wrote about specific tasks I worked on and my thoughts as the case progressed. I think this PS served me well, as I got into my first choice (ED Penn).

If you have a solid GPA and a solid LSAT score, then you would have more license to be creative, since your academic achievements speak for themselves. In that case, you should probably go with topic #2 to show that you're not only qualified, but that you're interesting/fun.

However, if you are a splitter or reverse splitter (or have an C+F or other issues that call your maturity into question), I think you should seriously consider topic #1. It is often repeated that you do not have to write about "why law" in your PS, but if you have issues in your app regarding your maturity or motivation, a PS about your substantiated, genuine interest in the law could help ease adcom's concerns about you.

Thanks for the reply. I am in a similar situation to yours (ha, minus applying ED to Penn) so I think I am going to go with topic #1 . Your advice about avoiding flowery musings about the law is on point because I am guilty of that in some of my first drafts.

Thanks again.