Would love some feedback on PS Forum

[brookethebrook]

Any comments or critique are appreciated!

--

I have always been fascinated with words: the fact that each one has a black-and-white definition, but can be inserted into countless sentences to portray countless ideas. I’m amazed that the word “exactly” can be found in prize-winning journals and ransom notes, textbooks and text messages. Every piece of writing in the spectrum contains the same universal words, but the content changes drastically depending on the selection and combination of said words. I love that every sentence written is a chemical compound, delicately stringing individual words to create a specific statement, a solution. My fixation on reading and writing enforces the fact that I am hard-wired for a law career.

I started reading chapter books in Kindergarten, I won awards for creative writing in middle school and by the time I began college, I knew my obsession with language arts was only beginning.

Words would test me as I navigated through my four years of studying journalism. I had to learn the hard way that writing is a science, not an art. I remember when I proudly turned in my first hard news assignment in my introductory reporting class. I also remember the shock and hurt that I felt when it was returned to me with a taunting, bright red “C.” A fast learner, as well as having a zero-tolerance for poor grades, I realized that my then-flowery, descriptive style of writing did not belong in an article about a meteorologist presenting her research to the University of Texas campus, and that a pretentious adjective didn’t belong before every single noun. I knew and loved words from the start, but distributing them properly for the content at hand was one of lessons I needed to be ready for law school.

When I became the president of the University Panhellenic Council, the governing of the fourteen sororities on campus, my role required me to compose meeting agendas, speeches, reports, bylaw amendments and even tweets. By the time I had sworn in the following president, exactly two things had occurred: I had been exposed to nearly every medium of communication, and it was confirmed that law school needed to be my next step.

The skills that I have acquired, and enjoyed acquiring, throughout college seem to sync nearly perfectly to those in a career in law.
Studying journalism taught me the value of ethics, vocabulary, extensive research and taking initiative. Serving as an executive officer in the largest women’s organization on campus taught me the values of leadership, organization, building relations and, again, taking initiative. My initial passion for writing, combined with the fine-tuning that I just received through my experiences in college, ignites my desire to channel it toward where it would fit best. I want nothing more than to put both my skills and my heart into the next three years of law school.

[brookethebrook]

Bump. Please? Anyone?

[EarthdogFred]

I think it comes across as a bit naive, if I'm being honest.

The first and lengthiest paragraph is a sort of philological aside that doesn't really present any evidence to support your conclusion (last sentence) without making several key assumptions. I also find some of the phrasing awkward. You take a big risk by focusing on your love of and expertise with language because this invites the reader to be hypercritical of the structure and content of your writing. Think about it - you're telling the committee that you would be a great student because of your writing ability. If they are not impressed by your self-proclaimed chief asset, what assumptions might they make about your other abilities?

The second paragraph is out on an island. I'm not sure what purpose you are trying to accomplish, other than to perhaps score points for creative writing awards in middle school or learning to read at a relatively young age? I would delete it entirely.

The third paragraph discusses how your journalism studies helped refine your writing skills and suggests that you hold yourself to high academic standards. It is the second-longest paragraph and, like its predecessor, doesn't address why you want to be a lawyer.

Your fourth paragraph mentions a leadership position you held but misses an opportunity to discuss specific situations or events. Again, your conclusion here is self-supposing. In your PS, I would focus much more on your work as president of the University Panhellenic Council. This type of discussion dovetails much more nicely with a convincing argument for "why law school."

I would not make your writing skills the main focus of the PS unless you can demonstrate that you are a truly exceptional writer. This piece does not demonstrate that. Here is how I would handle the general progression of the piece:

-I've always had an interest in language and writing.
-In college, I studied journalism and learned how to write more efficiently. Maybe add some other relevant things about journalism
-When I became the president of the UPC, I encountered xyz situation, and I was able to apply the skills I had learned and achieved abc outcomes. This motivated me to pursue a career in law, which I know for a fact is parallel to these experiences because ____.

This is by no means a sexy PS, but in this case I think your objective with the statement should simply be to do no harm.

[brookethebrook]

I think it comes across as a bit naive, if I'm being honest.

The first and lengthiest paragraph is a sort of philological aside that doesn't really present any evidence to support your conclusion (last sentence) without making several key assumptions. I also find some of the phrasing awkward. You take a big risk by focusing on your love of and expertise with language because this invites the reader to be hypercritical of the structure and content of your writing. Think about it - you're telling the committee that you would be a great student because of your writing ability. If they are not impressed by your self-proclaimed chief asset, what assumptions might they make about your other abilities?

The second paragraph is out on an island. I'm not sure what purpose you are trying to accomplish, other than to perhaps score points for creative writing awards in middle school or learning to read at a relatively young age? I would delete it entirely.

The third paragraph discusses how your journalism studies helped refine your writing skills and suggests that you hold yourself to high academic standards. It is the second-longest paragraph and, like its predecessor, doesn't address why you want to be a lawyer.

Your fourth paragraph mentions a leadership position you held but misses an opportunity to discuss specific situations or events. Again, your conclusion here is self-supposing. In your PS, I would focus much more on your work as president of the University Panhellenic Council. This type of discussion dovetails much more nicely with a convincing argument for "why law school."

I would not make your writing skills the main focus of the PS unless you can demonstrate that you are a truly exceptional writer. This piece does not demonstrate that. Here is how I would handle the general progression of the piece:

-I've always had an interest in language and writing.
-In college, I studied journalism and learned how to write more efficiently. Maybe add some other relevant things about journalism
-When I became the president of the UPC, I encountered xyz situation, and I was able to apply the skills I had learned and achieved abc outcomes. This motivated me to pursue a career in law, which I know for a fact is parallel to these experiences because ____.

This is by no means a sexy PS, but in this case I think your objective with the statement should simply be to do no harm.

Thank you so much. That makes a lot of sense. I appreciate you taking the time to write this all out.

[Gefuehlsecht]

I don't like it. It's not your writing, really. The whole statement just seems very generic to me. So you like to read and write and love words. Fine. Why does that mean you're hard-wired for a law career? What about a professional scrabble career? You state that you have learned about pretentious adjectives somewhere in the middle of the statement. However, in your first paragraph, you write about sentences being chemical compounds. What the heck does that even mean? How is that not pure pretentious fluff?

So, cut the fluff. Clearly, you can write. Tell me why you want to become a lawyer (who will likely end up spending much of his or her time copying and pasting in order to churn out another motion or memo). There is so much more to law than writing, and lots of it is painful, miserable and dull. Why do you want to subject yourself to this profession? Tell me.

Think Prometheus, not Aratus.