Any criticisms would be greatly appreciated Forum

[Anonymous User]

Though I'm officially new here on TLS, I've been lurking around in the past few months. After a few drafts, this is what I came up with for my PS. If you guys can give me any feedback, I'll be very thankful!

In my college years, I have developed an exceptional fondness for philosophy - a fondness that returned the favor by developing me. Through solving logical puzzles and tediously evaluating philosopher’s arguments from the past three thousand years, I attained a better grasp of logic, an understanding of the history of thought, and analytical skills that, at times, resemble obsession. I would like to tell you about one such obsession, as it is not only of legal concern, but because it is so basic to our daily decisions. Also, it still concerns me today.

In Spring of 2014, I took a class about ancient Chinese philosophy. The writings that I found most interesting were those that dealt with questions of good and evil, right and wrong. It came as no surprise to me that many of the writers of these ancient arguments had day jobs as lawyers and judges. One particular idea stood out among the rest that semester - the ethic principle of reciprocity, commonly known as the Golden Rule. However, it was not the rule itself that led to my infatuation, but how it was stated by Confucius. He said, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Being accustomed to Western culture, I always thought of the Golden Rule as a directive that tells one to act towards others as one wants others to act towards one’s self. Although many of my classmates did not see a contrast between the two beyond phrasing, I instantly began applying both of them to daily situations and noting the different resulting behaviors. How ignorant and selfish, I thought, I have been in believing that I know how people want to be treated simply because I know how I want them to treat me.

As lecture devolved into discussion, it became clear that I was holding an unpopular position. The majority of my classmates believed that the same idea was being communicated in two ways - the first was telling one how to act, while the second was telling one not to do the opposite of the first. I remained unconvinced, and argued that the two rules have different implications. While conceding that the varying semantics of the Golden Rule do not necessitate that different behaviors follow, I used multiple real-life scenarios to demonstrate the difference between directing someone to act and diverging one from the opposite of that act. Unfortunately, class came to an abrupt end and I did not get to experience the effect of my argument on our debate.

Later that day, I was driving home on autopilot, as my mind was riddled with thoughts. The simplest things, such as street signs, would send me spiraling into deliberations. I realized that both variations of the Golden Rule are already in use. As I passed by a yield sign, I recognized that it is directing me to give way to approaching traffic. On the other hand, a speed limit sign tells me how fast I should not go, i.e. above the speed on the sign. It would not be difficult to reformulate either of these, though, such that the opposite statement of the Golden Rule is used. However, ethical principles are not so black and white. If I am to believe that generosity is good, for example, then I can only do good by sharing my wealth. In contrast, if I hold that I should not be greedy, then I can either be generous or do nothing, and still be considered good by that norm. The important thing I took away from this lesson by Confucius is that simple rephrasing of a statement warp its implications in ways that are not immediately apparent.

I protract the discussion of this matter because it demonstrates the level of critical thinking I intend to bring to your school. I have a high interest in matters of right and wrong, and as centuries of philosophical thought have shown, the two are not easily discernible. As a result, the legal process demands strong reasoning skills in order to be an effective means of settling disputes and delivering justice. I believe I have a good grasp of these skills in the theoretical environment that is philosophy. I would like to develop them through the study of law and be able to apply them to better the society in which I live.


Am I emphasizing too much on my "qualifications?" Since I lived a pretty mediocre life, I have not had any extremely personal experiences, so I chose to write on a more academic subject. Also, is the last paragraph too cover-letter-y?

[Christina AA]

I'm not sure this is your best topic for a personal statement. No life is mediocre - including yours - and this statement doesn't give me a very good sense for who you are and what drives you.

[ChemEng1642]

I'm not sure I like this topic. This topic is very tricky because you do not want to come off as pretentious. Definitely get multiple opinions though because perhaps I am not in the majority. I will say though that at least this personal statement gives me an idea of why want to pursue law (or at least why you like law) so that is a good start.

There are a few comments in your essay that stood out to me though - and not in a good way. Don't take this personally - I am rather nit picky.

In my college years, I have developed

It should be "I developed" to match "returned". A grammatical error off the bat is not good.

tediously evaluating philosopher’s arguments

Tedious has a negative connotation - I would replace it.

resemble obsession

I'm not sure mentioning obsession in a personal statement is ever a good idea.

I would like to tell you about

You don't need to say this - just do it!

How ignorant and selfish

Don't forget that you are thereby calling the majority of your classmates and anyone else who believes this ignorant and selfish. You don't want to come off this way.

I was driving home on autopilot, as my mind was riddled with thoughts. The simplest things, such as street signs, would send me spiraling into deliberations.

Maybe this is just me but I read this and thought "Oh no this person is not paying attention on the road and is going to get into an accident!" I would rephrase so it sounds less like you are driving distracted...

I protract the discussion of this matter

I dislike the word "protract". It sounds unnatural.

To answer your questions - no I didn't get the impression that you were emphasizing too much on your "qualifications" or that your last paragraph was too cover-letter-y. Actually after I read this again, the topic grew on me. It is a risky PS subject matter though so move forward with caution.

[Joseph]

This is my first time critiquing another personal statement. I'm doing this based off of ones that I've found to be strong on these forums and ones I particularly enjoyed reading from the TLS book. Please take this with a grain of salt and excuse me if I'm a bit harsh.

The topic itself is a bit hard to write about, but with enough work on it, I'm sure it can be written into a stronger statement. The first paragraph doesn't really capture my attention when I'm reading. The first part that thats to capture my interest is the third paragraph, where you start telling the story about a debate during a lecture. When I go back to look through your personal statement, a large portion of it is explaining your perspective on the phrasing of the golden rule. The story of the lecture is even interrupted with a sentence re-explaining your perspective on it.

But I think the biggest problem I have with this personal is that I don't really learn anything about you. Not to be harsh, but I could probably sum up your personal statement as: "I developed interest in philosophy in college, lesson I learned from a debate over the meaning and phrasing of the golden rule, please accept me based on this level of critical thinking I can demonstrate". It might be helpful to try and look at the debate from a different perspective. You could try and focus more your interactions with other individuals in your personal statement. This could tell me a bit more about yourself and why you're a strong candidate. For instance, if you look at it like "did I have an impact on someone else's perspective on this?" But again, the topic is a bit difficult to write on.

[scoobysnax]

um, were we classmates? lol

as a previous poster mentioned, i would be very cautious about writing a personal statement focusing on ethics. it's very difficult to write about without coming off as preachy.

also, stay away from phrases like "[this] demonstrates the level of critical thinking I intend to bring to your school." it's assumed that your ps should be able to show your level of critical thinking, so no need to say it. take out "high interest in matters of right and wrong" too because it's kind of cringe-worthy.

[AnonymousAlterEgoC]

As a fellow philosophy person, I'm happy to tee off.

Through solving logical puzzles and tediously evaluating philosopher’s arguments from the past three thousand years,

I read the comments, but none of them mentioned that you're referring to a single philosopher's arguments because of your failure to properly use an apostrophe to demonstrate the plural possessive. It should be philosophers' arguments. Also, who were you reading from three thousand years ago? It's a stretch to go beyond 2,600...

- the ethic principle of reciprocity, commonly known as the Golden Rule.

Ethical

However, ethical principles

The word normative is more appropriate than ethical, IMO.

If I am to believe that generosity is good, for example, then I can only do good by sharing my wealth.

Assuming you have wealth and there is only one good?

The important thing I took away from this lesson by Confucius is that simple rephrasing of a statement warp its implications in ways that are not immediately apparent.

I think you mean "warps." The devil is in the subject-verb agreement.

I protract the discussion of this matter because it demonstrates the level of critical thinking I intend to bring to your school. I have a high interest in matters of right and wrong, and as centuries of philosophical thought have shown, the two are not easily discernible. As a result, the legal process demands strong reasoning skills in order to be an effective means of settling disputes and delivering justice. I believe I have a good grasp of these skills in the theoretical environment that is philosophy. I would like to develop them through the study of law and be able to apply them to better the society in which I live.

Am I emphasizing too much on my "qualifications?" Since I lived a pretty mediocre life, I have not had any extremely personal experiences, so I chose to write on a more academic subject. Also, is the last paragraph too cover-letter-y?

Well, you chose a topic in philosophy that is often covered in intro-level courses. I don't think that's necessarily emphasizing too much on your academic experience.

I think you have a strong instinct--that explaining a complex idea in simple terms will show that you are an effective communicator and intelligent person. To some extent, that comes through. But, at the same time, the quotes you used to separate yourself from your classmates were quite obviously distinct. (1) was almost a legislative statement about control over others whereas (2) is, as you say, "the golden rule." I dislike your formulations of the two of them, but I've not studied Confucius.

Re your "takeaway": is that the intended takeaway? Law school, in my limited experience, is about what seeing what everyone else sees and being able to explain it better.

I also agree with ChemEng's evaluation

[tier3]

anonymous,

This personal statement doesn't tell me much about you. That is what you want to emphasize.

Some phrases just don't sound right. This one for instance "a fondness that returned the favor by developing me."

Some words you want to stay away from, this word for example has a bad connotation "tediously."

If any of your professors have a background in psychology some of these terms don't flatter your personality such as:

1) obsession
2) infatuation

Do not talk negatively about yourself in your own personal statement: "ignorant and selfish."

The third paragraph is preachy and you want to stay away from that.

I wouldn't use the word "devolved."

This sentence sounds awkward "Unfortunately, class came to an abrupt end and I did not get to experience the effect of my argument on our debate."

You want those reading this PS to believe your responsible this sentence conveys the opposite "I was driving home on autopilot, as my mind was riddled with thoughts." Riddled is not a word you want to use as well.

I would start over and try a different approach that talks about you.