Rip my PS a new one Forum

[Anonymous User]

.

[ballcaps]

this is some kind of statement, but not a personal one. you offer not a glimpse into what you're actually like.

if you ever end up with a paragraph that is literally just analysis, with nothing whatsoever to do with you (i.e. the penultimate one), you're doing it wrong.

[kcdc1]

With a PS like this, your sales pitch is: I do molecular entomology research -- I'm easily smart enough to handle law school. IMO, that could be good sales pitch, but you need to make it stick better.

(1) You took out all of the science that would have made you sound smart, and instead tried to use words like 'complex' and 'arcane' to make up the difference. Don't tell me that your work was difficult. Explain what you did and let me connect the dots. That said, don't go overboard on technical details. A 2-sentence explanation written for a 10-year-old should do the trick. Also, if what you did wasn't actually impressive, pick a new topic.

(2) The 'why law' transition at the end is weak. Gov't cut funds for my research --> I need to study law so I can make changes. Meh. I don't believe that this is really what motivates you. I think you want to go to law school to make more money than you would as a lab tech, which is fine, but don't lie to the reader in your PS. You don't need to say 'why law' at all in your PS. On the other hand, if you do a 100% 'research science is amazing' essay, you present a risk that your readers will react by wondering 'okay, why don't you just keep doing that?' It's up to you to strike that balance. Perhaps talk about your science experience and discuss your plan to transition into IP law. Maybe your prof filed a patent application and you thought that was super cool. If you say 'why law,' make it believable.

(3) The narrative is so boring. I did some work, then I did some more, then our grants got cut, now law school. Is the narrative about you, or is it about university funding? If it's about you, say something interesting about yourself. If it's about university funding, make me care about university funding. Without more information, I'm perfectly happy cutting gov't funding of insect research. (Don't make it about university funding unless you're really and truly passionate about university funding. The PS should be about you, but if this is an issue that you care deeply about, discussing the reasons for your passion can help the reader understand you better if done well.)

(4) 'Regulatory and intellectual property law' isn't really a thing. Yes, there are people that set policy for patent law. But there aren't many, and you don't interview for that job at OCI. My advice: just say IP law. That said, IP law is not closely related to university funding, except that universities get patents and sometimes make money off of those patents. And I suppose there are sometimes ownership/licensing issues when the gov't funds the research that results in valuable patents. I'm guessing you only used the university funding angle as a 'why law' transition, and it wasn't good there, so I'd just cut it entirely and focus on your intent to parlay your scientific expertise into a career in patent law.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the feedback, it was much appreciated.