. Forum

[SauceCastillo]

Thank you for the help!

[cheesy145]

I think its a good topic and I can see the connection between journalism and law but I think more showing and not telling could strengthen that. Also try to avoid cliques like "I knew what had to be done" and "voice for the voiceless"

[barley]

I like it! You do a great job of showing how you stepped up to the plate, and you write very well. My two small changes would be to spell out "forty" and remove the "this must be breaking news" bit in the beginning - it's kind of awkward.

Other than that, good job!

[SauceCastillo]

.

[debdeb2]

Hi SauceCastillo -

I'd recommend an introduction that is focused on you, and is written "in medias res." Something that shows you in action, mediating the drama, working to find solutions.

Right now, the essay is focused on the "now what" portion of the drama: someone lobbed a problem your way, now what? But that's not the hard work part of the story, that's just the cortisol injection. At the end of the day, you don't need a whole paragraph on the unexpected phone call - you need half a sentence at most. Ex: P1: humorously detailing some sort of hectic scene, with you at the center as the conductor. P2: "I'd received the unexpected phone call that our editor was quitting just 48 hours before; I could not have predicted this situation...description etc etc." The emergency meeting is a flat scene - not sure you need to keep it, unless there are details to add that result from that meeting.

The stuff that will show the adcomms that you're up to the challenge is the guts of the issue. Ex: you would show yourself knee-deep in newsprint, up against a deadline, with a hysterical web master and a doubtful faculty advisor. The tension and resulting satisfaction for the reader will be you illustrating how you actually got out of a specific mess. Right now, you summarize the mess, and so spare the reader the good stuff - the grime and terror and adrenaline of it all. But we want the adrenaline! Because that's where the win will come from. That's what will make the adcomms want to root for you.

Play with time and structure - there's no reason to tell this story in a linear, true-to-timeline way. Moving elegantly from action to observation to analysis and back out to action will show the adcomms that you are able to synthesize, deduce and act.

The last sections on "why law" could use some beef. Those sections aren't working hard for you right now, so they could either be cut all together, or you could reflect more deeply on the relationship between media, the law, the first amendment, what have you. Right now, the why law section appears to focus on the implied argument "I'm pretty sure I'm tough enough to get through law school." But law school isn't about excelling at law school - it's about building a career that will benefit from a rigorous education in the law. What's your best of all possible worlds? Where could you see yourself in ten years? Think really big - embarrassingly big - and then scale it back.

(This narrative briefly reminded me of the episode of Gilmore girls [my memory is foggy] where Paris melts down and Rory has to take over the Yale Daily.)