removed Forum

[rpfote]

.

[Nekrowizard]

This is a very bad and dull idea. I'd write out why, but Yale did it for me.

[rpfote]

.

[lawlorbust]

To hit home on Nekrowizard's point: No, it's not a good idea, nor is it amusing.

[Redamon1]

This is a very bad and dull idea. I'd write out why, but Yale did it for me.

Yes, that is what is being subverted, hence my 'meta' comment. That blog post is talking about 'argument' in the colloquial sense of the word, I am using the sense of the word associated with formal arguments and mathematical proofs. From that blog post, there is the line "Good lawyers don't argue, they construct good arguments. There's a difference." The main point is that constructing a good argument is the same whether you do it writing proofs in a graph theory, game theory, algorithms or formal logic class, or are in law school.

I probably won't write this PS because it's a bit too cute for my tastes, but I thought it was a good (and amusing) idea.

Whatever nuanced distinction you are drawing here between the bad "I love arguing" essays and yours will be lost on AdComms. Don't do it.

[rpfote]

.

[acr]

So is there no connection between the types of formal arguments made in mathematical proofs and in the types of arguments one constructs in law?

There might be, but an adcom would still roll their eyes after reading the first line

[Mack.Hambleton]

It is a bit cheeky on a meta level, but wouldn't that make it fun?

[clovis]

I absolutely think an essay about your exploration of formal argumentation could work. It could be a very interesting account of an intellectual journey, as long as it's true.

What I do agree with, though, is that you should not play this up as a cheeky metacommentary on the classically ill-judged "I love to argue" personal statement. That angle is not cute or funny, and even if it were, it would not further your cause.

But don't be scared away from the topic simply because you think the admissions committee will not be able to differentiate between the two senses of "argue." Of course, make sure you signal clearly which sense you're talking about.

[rpfote]

.

[lymenheimer]

So is there no connection between the types of formal arguments made in mathematical proofs and in the types of arguments one constructs in law?

There might be, but an adcom would still roll their eyes after reading the first line

this is cr...def rolled my eyes at the first line.

[cbbinnyc]

You're clearly a smart person and a good writer. IMO, this essay is pretty unexciting and not very personal.

[rnoodles]

Please don't do this, OP. Please.

[Indifference]

Don't do it

[elterrible78]

You're clearly a smart person and a good writer. IMO, this essay is pretty unexciting and not very personal.

Several weeks later and you've decided to go through with it, eh? This is not the most inept PS I have ever seen, but it's definitely one of the most boring. It's not particularly well-written. It kind of reminds me of one of those movies that thinks it's making some kind of statement, but actually is not even interesting enough to get pissed off about.

TL;DR: This essay might not have much downside, but I don't think it has any upside at all.

[RaceJudicata]

"One of the reasons for my desire to go to law school, and why I believe I will excel, is my love of arguments. "

Stops reading.

[rpfote]

.

[emkay625]

Aside from being a little bit dry, as other posters have pointed out, I think the largest problem is that the personal statement merely explains what subjects you find interesting. It fails to do the most important two things a personal statement should do: describe one or more achievements of yours in a colorful way that a resume cannot, and give the reader a sense of your personality and what kind of individual you are/what you'd bring to the class.

Right now, you seem smart and intellectual after I read this. But my guess is your GPA and LSAT score already tell ad comms that. A personal statement should tell them something your LSAT score cannot, and a high LSAT score already says "I'm smart and good at logic/formal arguments." So this isn't really adding anything to your application package.

[fats provolone]

sounds like a good way to get modus pwned

[rpfote]

Aside from being a little bit dry, as other posters have pointed out, I think the largest problem is that the personal statement merely explains what subjects you find interesting. It fails to do the most important two things a personal statement should do: describe one or more achievements of yours in a colorful way that a resume cannot, and give the reader a sense of your personality and what kind of individual you are/what you'd bring to the class.

Right now, you seem smart and intellectual after I read this. But my guess is your GPA and LSAT score already tell ad comms that. A personal statement should tell them something your LSAT score cannot, and a high LSAT score already says "I'm smart and good at logic/formal arguments." So this isn't really adding anything to your application package.

Thanks. This is incredibly helpful and enlightening.