Top Law Schools

Hi. Would anyone be able to provide some feedback to my PS? I hope the names involved aren't a no-no for personal statements/essays in general. I already did some revision on this and hope it is a good premise to write about. Thank you for any help you can provide. As it stands it is exactly 2 pages.



On a late September Friday as I was preparing to leave for the weekend, every Volkswagen Group of America employee across every brand received an email about an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board regarding a failure to meet emissions requirements. At the time most of my colleagues didn’t think much of it at the time. We all went home for the weekend without any idea that we would be affected by one of the largest automotive scandals in recent history, the details of which would contravene some of my most deeply held moral beliefs.

Up until this point, my engineering career focused on safety and the well-being of the customer. As a graduate student, I helped design an environmental monitoring robot in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster. As an aircraft structural engineer at FedEx I was tasked with ensuring continued airworthiness of an aging aircraft fleet. Most recently, my objective at Audi was to identify vehicle issues to maintain safety and customer satisfaction. It was made very clear to me early in my career at FedEx that any mistakes in my work could lead to plane crashes and potential deaths. This meant that my concern was to never compromise safety regardless of external factors.

One of the most difficult choices I’ve made as an engineer is the decision to resist pressure from a superior in order to maintain safety and liability. In one such situation, I was approving a simple repair of an aircraft that was down for maintenance in Singapore. The repair was very straightforward and required the use of a previous “modification drawing”, but I noticed the drawing was yet to be approved, and as a result, was not valid for referencing. This meant that all repairs to any aircraft referencing that drawing would be invalid and could potentially cause the FAA to ground all aircraft containing it, easily causing millions of dollars in losses. I informed my supervisor and the on-site engineer in Singapore about the setback and immediately began the approval process for the drawing with t, which could take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months depending on any setbacks with the design. As time inched closer to the planned release of the aircraft I received increasing pressure from the on-site engineer and maintenance managers to finish the approval. This culminated in a heated conversation with those individuals criticizing me for my obstinacy and how I was wasting their time. Although I knew the drawing was acceptable, I made sure to wait for the final confirmation from Airbus before prematurely sending out my repair approval. I refused to compromise the safety of the aircraft and violate regulations in the event that Airbus came back with changes and have the plane in active service. Although the modification was approved on time, I was put in various difficult situations quite early in my career.

Admittedly, while my work was not on the same scale as the design of an entire engine platform, it was still jarring to find out the news that Volkswagen and Audi were being investigated for using software to artificially bypass emissions tests. My colleagues and I felt a mix of shock, embarrassment, and betrayal because we never expected such a blatant disregard for regulatory compliance. This went against our hard work and dedication. Whether or not there was a directive to ignore emissions requirements, there should have been a stronger incentive to comply with the law and do what was ethically right. Billions of dollars in fines, half a million vehicles recalled, and years of trust were lost as a result of the choices of a few individuals in a global company. This showed me the struggle companies face in order to maintain an edge and the depth that the law penetrates. The relationship between technology and business is increasingly curious, and my cumulative exposure to law as an engineer led me to pursue law school with an interdisciplinary approach. This event further reaffirms my decision and strengthens my interest on the interaction between technology, business, and law.

I think it starts great, but it comes on a bit strong at the end. The second half of the third paragraph starts getting wordy and you lose focus on the end goal. Remember, your PS is telling a story about why you are a good law school candidate, not why the FedEx planes haven't been grounded. Keep in mind that your story is a tool to tout your skills, so you want to get rid of superfluous stuff like:

As time inched closer to the planned release of the aircraft I received increasing pressure from the on-site engineer and maintenance managers to finish the approval. This culminated in a heated conversation with those individuals criticizing me for my obstinacy and how I was wasting their time. Although I knew the drawing was acceptable, I made sure to wait for the final confirmation from Airbus before prematurely sending out my repair approval. I refused to compromise the safety of the aircraft and violate regulations in the event that Airbus came back with changes and have the plane in active service. Although the modification was approved on time, I was put in various difficult situations quite early in my career.

The above sentences all say the exact same thing about you in 5 different ways. That's 4 sentences that can be used to tell the admissions counselor that you're awesome for a different reason.

Admittedly, while my work was not on the same scale as the design of an entire engine platform, it was still jarring to find out the news that Volkswagen and Audi were being investigated for using software to artificially bypass emissions tests.

Bolded part adds nothing to the PS.

My colleagues and I felt a mix of shock, embarrassment, and betrayal because we never expected such a blatant disregard for regulatory compliance. This went against our hard work and dedication. Whether or not there was a directive to ignore emissions requirements, there should have been a stronger incentive to comply with the law and do what was ethically right. Billions of dollars in fines, half a million vehicles recalled, and years of trust were lost as a result of the choices of a few individuals in a global company.

This part is interesting. I think you have some good stuff lurking under the surface here, but it's plastered over with attention grabbing words like "shock", "betrayal", "blatant disregard", and "years of trust." I'd tone the emotional language down a touch, and point it back to your development. You try to do that in the remaining sentences of that paragraph, but I think you can do more.

Here's the impression I get from your last paragraph: I was tangentially involved in this awful thing that made national headlines, and it was an embarrassment for all involved. People who cut corners really suck. I want to be a lawyer because I don't cut corners.

Here's the impression I want to get from your last paragraph: Yes, it was embarrassing and surprising that such a massive coverup was going on at my company, but this just steeled my resolve, because I've always been the guy who insists on doing the right thing, even when it's not the easiest thing to do. I'm a great candidate for law school because I can have a bigger impact on making sure that people and companies are doing the right thing.

I tell a lot of people on this forum the same thing, and you can benefit from it, too. Every sentence and every paragraph should point back to why you're a good candidate for law school. If it doesn't help paint that picture in the minds of your readers, it's fluff and it needs to go.

I appreciate the feedback! I edited it around with your suggestions. I hope it is improved, and I hope you dont mind if I liked your wording "steeled my resolve" because it works well. If you are not comfortable with it please let me know.

On a late September Friday as I was preparing to leave for the weekend, every Volkswagen Group of America employee across every brand received an email about an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board regarding a failure to meet emissions requirements. Most of my colleagues didn’t think much of it at the time. We all went home for the weekend without any idea that we would be affected by one of the largest automotive scandals in recent history, the details of which would contravene some of my most deeply held moral beliefs.

Up until now, my engineering career focused on safety and the well-being of the customer. As a graduate student, I helped design an environmental monitoring robot in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster. As an aircraft structural engineer at FedEx I was tasked with ensuring continued airworthiness of an aging aircraft fleet. Most recently, my objective at Audi was to identify vehicle issues to maintain safety and customer satisfaction. It was made very clear to me early in my career at FedEx that any mistakes in my work could lead to plane crashes and potential deaths. This meant that my concern was to never compromise safety regardless of external factors.

One of the most difficult choices I’ve made as an engineer is the decision to resist pressure from a superior in order to maintain safety and liability. In one such situation, I was approving a simple repair of an aircraft that was down for maintenance in Singapore. The repair was very straightforward and required the use of a previous “modification drawing”, but I noticed the drawing was yet to be approved, and as a result, was not valid for referencing. This meant that all repairs to any aircraft referencing that specific drawing would be invalid and could potentially cause the FAA to ground all aircraft containing it, easily causing millions of dollars in losses. I informed my supervisor and the on-site engineer in Singapore about the setback and immediately began the approval process for the drawing, which could take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months depending on any setbacks. As time got closer to the deadline I received increasing pressure from the on-site engineer and maintenance managers to release the approval to get the aircraft back in the fleet; culminating in heated calls and criticism directed at me. However, I firmly held my ground and refused to compromise the safety of the aircraft and violate regulations in the event that Airbus came back with changes while the plane is in active service. Because this was my first corporate engineering job, I was worried about the ramifications of refusing a superior’s request; would it hurt my reputation or upward potential? It is a very difficult situation for anyone who needs to say no to someone above them, but in this case it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Because I was placed in a similar situation, it was disappointing find out that Volkswagen and Audi were being investigated for using software to artificially bypass emissions tests. This went against my hard work and commitment to safety. Whether or not there was a directive to ignore emissions requirements, there should have been a stronger incentive to comply with the law and do what was ethically right. This showed me the struggle companies face in order to maintain an edge in the market and the depth that the law penetrates. More importantly, this cover-up steeled my resolve to enter law because of its direct proximity to my own experiences and how I have always been someone who believes in doing the right thing, even when it is not easy to do. My cumulative exposure to these unique situations as an engineer me affords a unique perspective between the increasingly curious relationship between technology, business, and law. It is these experiences, my natural scholastic curiosity, and desire to have a bigger impact on the people and companies that work with technology and its effect on the general public that make me a great and driven law school candidate.

I like your revisions! Two things:

1) Don't start your sentences with "Because." If it sticks out to me (former engineer), imagine what would happen if an English major was reading it.

2) Introduce your interest in law prior to the "steeled my resolve" sentence, preferably prior to the VW/Audi paragraph. It'll just make the "steeled my resolve" sentence pop a little better.