Critique My PS Draft Forum

[barkgarry]

Hey everyone, I'm putting together my Personal Statement and have just finished my first complete draft. I think it's still pretty rough. Thanks for the help!

Personal Statement

Growing up in Princeton, New Jersey meant that I knew many people who worked in New York City. Like other communities with lots of New York-bound commuters, I had deeply personal experiences with the attacks on September 11th, 2001. My own dad was in the World Trade Center that day to get our summer vacation photos developed – he left about an hour before the first plane hit. Like many Americans, I quickly became exposed to some very basic notions about Islam, the Middle East, and U.S. foreign policy in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Many years later, this experience would set me on an educational path that would take me to law school.

In my sophomore year at McGill, I realized that most of the history I’d ever studied focused on the United States or Europe. I was concerned that my narrow education in history affected my perception of the world. To find out, I resolved to take a history class on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I felt that this was a subject where the little context I had was informed by an apparent consensus on the issue in the United States. American foreign policy had virtually always been staunchly pro-Israel, and it seemed that opinions on Palestinians were shot through with the same assumptions and stereotypes that I first encountered in the wake of 9/11. I wanted to know why. Were Israeli actions in the Middle East basically always justified? Were Palestinians and other Arabs generally angry, freedom-hating jihadists? Sitting in a lecture hall waiting for my economics class to begin, I emailed Professor Parsons, who taught the Arab-Israeli conflict class – the course was over-enrolled and I needed her permission to join.
It turns out I was right. I quickly learned that the mainstream American narrative on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle East in general was massively oversimplified and plagued by ignorance. Beyond giving me a fresh understanding of the Middle East, I fell in love with the subject matter itself. From that point on, nearly every history class I took focused on the Arab world. At the same time I learned about various Arabic cultures, I read about British and French imperialism. Colonial encounters taught me about both the conquerors and subjugated. For example, for most of the 19th century, Egypt did not have a secular legal system. This was seen as “backwards” and “uncivilized” by burdened white men. I saw that many of the stereotypes of Islam and Arabs in the United States were by no means new or a product of 9/11, but rather inherited from an older imperialist tradition that denigrated Arabic civilization.

More and more, I came to realize the extent to which laws could represent a society and constituted a platform to evaluate a civilization. The law became an entirely new lens through which I understood and interpreted events both current and historical. This began to transform my academic work. I have written several research papers examining and integrating legal aspects into historical narratives, ranging from the UN recommending partition of Palestine in 1947 to an unprecedented British-style trial in Egypt after Arab army officers revolted against the Turco-Circassian King. From the perspective of the Middle East, I saw how radical changes in legal systems and institutions imposed by France and Britain contributed to present-day conflicts. Indeed, one of the goals of ISIS is to eliminate any trace of secular government in the Islamic world.

I believe that I could use a legal education to foster a better understanding of the tensions and violence that exist in the Middle East, and possibly even help address these problems – particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am realistic but not cynical about my prospects. Countless people have tackled the issue before me, and yet strife continues. However, I do not think this means that anyone, myself included, should stop trying.

I want to attend law school for two broad reasons. On an intellectual level, I want to study the law as a way to further grow my understanding of my own country and the rest of the world. Laws are often strong reflections of the societies they govern and I feel I would greatly benefit from a deeper knowledge of how laws function at both the national and international level. I then want to use this education for practical purposes. I want to apply my knowledge in an effort to increase justice and reduce violence, especially in the Middle East. I do not want to allow pervasive stereotypes about Muslims and Arabs hinder the ability of the United States to make effective foreign policy decisions, ones that might reduce violence rather than lead to more of it.

[lymenheimer]

Join the Peace Corps? I'm not sure that your goals will be met with law school. I don't know how becoming a lawyer will help you bring peace to the Middle East. You can learn the law without going to law school if it's simply an understanding that you want. PhD in international relations or something might serve your goals better.

To your PS, I'm not sure it appropriately addresses many points that should be in a PS and leaves more questions than it answers. You express your goals in a very good manner, getting at what you want out of law school, but for the above mentioned reasons, I don't think it addresses the questions that are frequently answered, or desired to be answered, by a PS. That being said, I don't think it'll necessarily be taken at a net negative to your application.

[barkgarry]

Thanks for the input!

I guess the sort of broad routes I had in mind would be to become a practicing human rights lawyer or international lawyer, or heck, even someone who helps create policy (think tank, politician, etc.) on these subjects. I don't believe a PhD in IR would be nearly as effective as law school in that respect. So is that something you'd recommend I work into my PS more?

Just to be clear, you're saying that the questions that I should be answering but am not in my PS is why law school is the best path for me to pursue my goals?

[lymenheimer]

Thanks for the input!

I guess the sort of broad routes I had in mind would be to become a practicing human rights lawyer or international lawyer, or heck, even someone who helps create policy (think tank, politician, etc.) on these subjects. I don't believe a PhD in IR would be nearly as effective as law school in that respect. So is that something you'd recommend I work into my PS more?

Just to be clear, you're saying that the questions that I should be answering but am not in my PS is why law school is the best path for me to pursue my goals?

Gotcha. The way I was reading it, I was thinking you'd study international rights and do some policy work/program work, making a phD possibly lend itself well to research/credentials to do that stuff. For think tank, I'm still not sure JD is worth it, and the "International/human rights lawyer" thing is often chided on TLS as a unicorn goal.

I was not necessarily meaning to convey that you should discuss the "why law school" part, but it is a safer route. I think, instead of going for "I think I can do these things with my JD", or "I learned this, and this, and this" (which has no supported basis other than your statement that you learned it), you should focus more on relaying hard facts that could represent you well and could support the idea that you would be successful in law school or mesh well with the other students. Essentially that you could provide something to the law school environment. And that could be anything, from an interesting sport/musical talent, to something that you have interest in. And international relations could be that interest, but I would be wary of seemingly focusing on a singular unicorn job prospect, though you could incorporate this interest into the clinics that a school has, or something else that lends itself to research/further education on the topic.

[barkgarry]

Thanks for the input!

I guess the sort of broad routes I had in mind would be to become a practicing human rights lawyer or international lawyer, or heck, even someone who helps create policy (think tank, politician, etc.) on these subjects. I don't believe a PhD in IR would be nearly as effective as law school in that respect. So is that something you'd recommend I work into my PS more?

Just to be clear, you're saying that the questions that I should be answering but am not in my PS is why law school is the best path for me to pursue my goals?

Gotcha. The way I was reading it, I was thinking you'd study international rights and do some policy work/program work, making a phD possibly lend itself well to research/credentials to do that stuff. For think tank, I'm still not sure JD is worth it, and the "International/human rights lawyer" thing is often chided on TLS as a unicorn goal.

I was not necessarily meaning to convey that you should discuss the "why law school" part, but it is a safer route. I think, instead of going for "I think I can do these things with my JD", or "I learned this, and this, and this" (which has no supported basis other than your statement that you learned it), you should focus more on relaying hard facts that could represent you well and could support the idea that you would be successful in law school or mesh well with the other students. Essentially that you could provide something to the law school environment. And that could be anything, from an interesting sport/musical talent, to something that you have interest in. And international relations could be that interest, but I would be wary of seemingly focusing on a singular unicorn job prospect, though you could incorporate this interest into the clinics that a school has, or something else that lends itself to research/further education on the topic.

Yeah, I see what you're getting at. I'm not 100% dedicated to having my PS be on this topic, but I chose it because I think it is a reasonably good personal growth narrative and my focusing on my Middle East history studies highlights a category of classes which I loved and received perfect grades. One of my LoRs will be from the prof I mention in my PS as well, so I felt like the topic had the potential to mesh well with the rest of my application. But the "I learned this, this, and this" aspect is definitely a valid concern...So in your honest opinion, do you see a way to bring hard/concrete facts into this, or is it basically a lost cause and I should pick something else?

On another note, with respect to the "unicorn goal" thing. I see what you mean. I can totally imagine a reader rolling their eyes at something like that. What I really want is to engage with conflicts in the Middle East and to do it from a legal perspective. Would phrasing it in that manner make my intentions seem less unicorn-y?

Thanks again!

[lymenheimer]

Gonna disclaimer before we get too far: I'm a 0L...but nobody has told me I'm wrong yet.

Yeah, I see what you're getting at. I'm not 100% dedicated to having my PS be on this topic, but I chose it because I think it is a reasonably good personal growth narrative and my focusing on my Middle East history studies highlights a category of classes which I loved and received perfect grades. One of my LoRs will be from the prof I mention in my PS as well, so I felt like the topic had the potential to mesh well with the rest of my application.

I think it definitely opens up your statement well to a valid interest that you have, one that might not be shared (could be unique) to applicants at certain schools, so it is a quality topic, but if you want to change it, I won't fault you at all (I went through 20 topics/directions, many of them to a full 2 pages, before I was comfortable and satisfied with my essay). I think the LOR will be a nice touch, but as is always said, numbers will carry you, barring a superb(ly horrific) representation in your PSes/LORs.

But the "I learned this, this, and this" aspect is definitely a valid concern...So in your honest opinion, do you see a way to bring hard/concrete facts into this, or is it basically a lost cause and I should pick something else?

If you've already done some international work, outside of learning about it in class, I would advise discussing that. If not, then it's possible to do it other ways, but my first thought goes to volunteer work or other such programs.

On another note, with respect to the "unicorn goal" thing. I see what you mean. I can totally imagine a reader rolling their eyes at something like that. What I really want is to engage with conflicts in the Middle East and to do it from a legal perspective. Would phrasing it in that manner make my intentions seem less unicorn-y?

That would probably come off better than straight saying "international/human rights", but I'm not sure it would have a different effect, other than specifying your goals even more. Honestly though, it's not so big an issue (to my version of reading) as the tangibility of your interest. You can do what you want to do before law school and you might change your mind halfway through, so as long as you don't represent it as "I want to go to law school to do this, and that is final", and as long as it doesn't read that way, I think you will be fine. Like I said, it's a noble desire, just be wary that the common wisdom is that its a very niche market.

[CanadianWolf]

Both while & after reading your PS, I wondered why you weren't pursuing a PhD in History or in International Relations.
I think that you are going to be disappointed by the traditional law school curriculum in light of your goals. Johns Hopkins University, for example, offers graduate programs better suited to your career goals.

[oreomilkshake]

deleted.

[Stardust84]

For what its worth my critique is that in your personal statement you are briefly fleshing out a perspective on middle eastern geopolitics and attempting to connect that to the why of going to law school. I think this is a weak connection, there are many ways you can make contributions career wise in this area, law school is not essential in this respect nor is it apparently the best way to do it. I could be mistaken here, if so you may need to make that connection more concrete to the reader, seeing as multiple people reading it have made that observation. Additionally, I would say that the why of wanting to law school has less utility than an explanation (grounded in concrete examples as much as possible) of what about a prospective law student makes them ideally suited for legal studies/law career and what they might add to the dynamic of the classroom. More emphasis of the latter is essential in my opinion.

[barkgarry]

I think it's mainly the last three paragraphs that need to be re-written/re-evaluated. The third to last paragraph gives a really shallow analysis which is going to be a given - there is absolutely no way to begin to write about the Arab Israeli conflict in such a short piece. Also, it's too much about that and enough about you.

Thanks for the suggestions. I rewrote my last three paragraphs, which I'll post and bold below. Let me know what you think/if it's an improvement.

I think your career path and choice of education is fine. Case in point Seattle U professor and former US attorney, John McKay

Hey that's really cool, thanks for the info! Here's my revised PS:

Growing up in Princeton, New Jersey meant that I knew many people who worked in New York City. Like other communities with lots of New York-bound commuters, I had deeply personal experiences with the attacks on September 11th, 2001. My own dad was in the World Trade Center that day to get our summer vacation photos developed – he left about an hour before the first plane hit. Like many Americans, I quickly became exposed to some very basic notions about Islam, the Middle East, and U.S. foreign policy in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Many years later, this experience would set me on an educational path that would take me to law school.

In my sophomore year at McGill, I realized that most of the history I’d ever studied focused on the United States or Europe. I was concerned that my narrow education in history affected my perception of the world. To find out, I resolved to take a history class on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I felt that this was a subject where the little context I had was informed by an apparent consensus on the issue in the United States. American foreign policy had virtually always been staunchly pro-Israel, and it seemed that opinions on Palestinians were shot through with the same assumptions and stereotypes that I first encountered in the wake of 9/11. I wanted to know why. Were Israeli actions in the Middle East basically always justified? Were Palestinians and other Arabs generally angry, freedom-hating jihadists? Sitting in a lecture hall waiting for my economics class to begin, I emailed Professor Parsons, who taught the Arab-Israeli conflict class – the course was over-enrolled and I needed her permission to join.

It turns out I was right. I quickly learned that the mainstream American narrative on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle East in general was massively oversimplified and plagued by ignorance. Beyond giving me a fresh understanding of the Middle East, I fell in love with the subject matter itself. From that point on, nearly every history class I took focused on the Arab world. At the same time I learned about various Arabic cultures, I read about British and French imperialism. Colonial encounters taught me about both the conquerors and subjugated. For example, for most of the 19th century, Egypt did not have a secular legal system. This was seen as “backwards” and “uncivilized” by burdened white men. I saw that many of the stereotypes of Islam and Arabs in the United States were by no means new or a product of 9/11, but rather inherited from an older imperialist tradition that denigrated Arabic civilization.

The more I learned, the more that I began to delve into extremely complicated and contentious discussions. Many of my friends at McGill, including my roommates, were Jewish and had staunchly pro-Israeli upbringings. Rather than shying away from uncomfortable topics during Israel’s 2013 military campaign in Gaza, I was able to spark a constructive conversation with my roommates about the Arab-Israeli conflict without causing arguments. Another time I had to calmly explain to my dad’s friend that “killing all the mullahs” would probably not stop ISIS. In one class, I helped to convince a fellow classmate, an Arab prince no less, that his view of a historical figure was overly nationalistic. I feel the need to have these discussions – and the need to keep them civil – because I realized that such polarizing issues were either not being addressed at all, or that any mention of them would spiral into a political slap fight.

Learning how to engage with complex and politically charged subjects is one of my proudest takeaways from studying the Middle East. I had to be intellectually humble and willing to both admit how little I actually knew and challenge preconceived notions that I had previously been taught. I was able to see entirely different perspectives on the Arab-Israeli conflict, even though not all of them reflected well on my own country. Above all, I discovered how much more could be learned, both inside and outside the classroom, by keeping an open mind and finding ways to truly discuss thorny issues instead of avoiding them or fueling bitter arguments.

I think my ability to be open-minded in my understanding of the history of the Middle East and keep conversations civil would translate well to a career in law. I believe I can bring this same outlook to the classroom in law school and foster valuable debates without excessive tension. Likewise, I would love the opportunity to hear many different views through the lens of legal education. Not only would this be intellectually enriching, but it would also serve to make me a more effective lawyer in the future.

[barkgarry]

For what its worth my critique is that in your personal statement you are briefly fleshing out a perspective on middle eastern geopolitics and attempting to connect that to the why of going to law school. I think this is a weak connection, there are many ways you can make contributions career wise in this area, law school is not essential in this respect nor is it apparently the best way to do it. I could be mistaken here, if so you may need to make that connection more concrete to the reader, seeing as multiple people reading it have made that observation. Additionally, I would say that the why of wanting to law school has less utility than an explanation (grounded in concrete examples as much as possible) of what about a prospective law student makes them ideally suited for legal studies/law career and what they might add to the dynamic of the classroom. More emphasis of the latter is essential in my opinion.

Thanks for the advice, I found it super helpful! I tried to incorporate what you said into my PS by revising the second half (see bolded paragraphs in my above post). I basically cut out any mention of how I wanted the Middle East/Arab-Israeli conflict to specifically relate to my law career and instead tried to focus on why I would do well in the law school environment. Do you feel like it's an improvement or am I still off-base?