PS draft, English is not my first language. Any feedback? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Thank you for the feedback

[dumdeedum]

"Joined" not "jointed." "Work papers" not "workpapers." Past tense of "lead" is "led." You should use the word "and" instead of the ampersand (&) in your prose. The word "evidence" is its own plural ("evidences" is not a word). Your use of the word "how" in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph is incorrect--it should be "that" (I can explain why, if you'd like).

You also do some verb-tense switching. I recommend you stick to past tense for the bulk and past perfect (had done, etc) to create a past tense within a past tense. For example: "Yes, I’ve heard that before." I'd change this to "I'd heard that before." There is a lot of tense switching in the fourth paragraph.

"With this dream, I rejected my parents’ desire to have me become a doctor and/or government official. They wanted me to become a doctor or a government official, to avoid having to worry about losing my job. However, I wished to be at the center of the dynamic world of business."<- I think you'd be better off without these sentences. They're not relevant to the bulk of your writing.

If you cut the first paragraph entirely, I think the piece would be better. Also... no need to namedrop specific lawyers (practices?)

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the comments! I do see the points you are mentioning (this is an early draft...) and I even thought the same about the parent part myself.

How about the material? how do you feel about the story as a whole?

[mvp99]

I felt that the whole "being an CPA sucks because it so limiting" its a bad thesis, especially because being a lawyer is not so different.

[Anonymous User]

I felt that the whole "being an CPA sucks because it so limiting" its a bad thesis, especially because being a lawyer is not so different.

Haha well said. Having worked alongside a bunch of biglaw associates, I don't wholely disagree with that statement.

But it is often true that lawyers get to do more "thinking", and get to handle more interesting formulation of arguments (comparing biglaw partners and big 4 accounting firm partners). They are often the ones with more client interaction, and get more credit for work performed. At least in the field of internal investigation, clients often hire a biglaw, and the biglaw hires big 4 like hiring subcontractors.

I'm not trying to start an argument here in this post, but does this make the thesis any more convincing?

[mvp99]

I felt that the whole "being an CPA sucks because it so limiting" its a bad thesis, especially because being a lawyer is not so different.

Haha well said. Having worked alongside a bunch of biglaw associates, I don't wholely disagree with that statement.

But it is often true that lawyers get to do more "thinking", and get to handle more interesting formulation of arguments (comparing biglaw partners and big 4 accounting firm partners). They are often the ones with more client interaction, and get more credit for work performed. At least in the field of internal investigation, clients often hire a biglaw, and the biglaw hires big 4 like hiring subcontractors.

I'm not trying to start an argument here in this post, but does this make the thesis any more convincing?

So yes, big law work is, on average, more interesting and probably requires more thought than accounting work (but not by much) and that's true at a first year level believe it or not (plus more $$$ for similar hours). I'm not a partner but I guess that working with big picture stuff is more interesting than what the accounting partner does but I think it's naive to talk about it in your PS since it's highly unlikely you will ever get to do that kind of work. Stay away from the negative. Maybe say that working in accounting has provided you with discipline and made you into a professional.

[dumdeedum]

Thanks for the comments! I do see the points you are mentioning (this is an early draft...) and I even thought the same about the parent part myself.

How about the material? how do you feel about the story as a whole?

So, I know very little about the realities of being a lawyer, but I was impressed by your ability to point to the exact reason why you wanted to go to law school using examples from your real current life. For you it's a specific career move. I'm going to disagree with mvp99 and guess that admissions committees will have a positive view of this--they're not going to expect you to point out the negatives and pitfalls. "Well, I know that being a lawyer isn't that different, but the benefits outweigh the costs for me because..." etc etc isn't appropriate for a personal statement.

But I would shy away from mentioning specific law things, etc, like in your first paragraph, because you know... leave the lawyering to the lawyers until you are one. If you make a mistake you might sound like a total ass.

[mvp99]

Thanks for the comments! I do see the points you are mentioning (this is an early draft...) and I even thought the same about the parent part myself.

How about the material? how do you feel about the story as a whole?

So, I know very little about the realities of being a lawyer, but I was impressed by your ability to point to the exact reason why you wanted to go to law school using examples from your real current life. For you it's a specific career move. I'm going to disagree with mvp99 and guess that admissions committees will have a positive view of this--they're not going to expect you to point out the negatives and pitfalls. "Well, I know that being a lawyer isn't that different, but the benefits outweigh the costs for me because..." etc etc isn't appropriate for a personal statement.

But I would shy away from mentioning specific law things, etc, like in your first paragraph, because you know... leave the lawyering to the lawyers until you are one. If you make a mistake you might sound like a total ass.

I don't think he/she should point out the negatives and I don't think they expect him/her to know the exact pitfalls but his take on accounting and law shows s/he hasn't done his/her job and figured out what lawyers actually does for a living.

In other words, he/she doesn't have to point out the pitfalls but he/she cannot also make an statement that assumes a reality that does not exist. It's ok to make about a career move, just make it positive. For example, he talks about essentially fact checking being so limiting. This demonstrate to me he does not even know that a substantial amount of work for a new lawyer could be just that, glorified fact checking like due diligence/doc review. I think that he/she could spin what seems negative about his previous career and make it positive. Make about what you've learn, what you've been able to withstand and how that makes you fit for law in addition to how you discovered this new career might be more fulfilling.

[dumdeedum]

Thanks for the comments! I do see the points you are mentioning (this is an early draft...) and I even thought the same about the parent part myself.

How about the material? how do you feel about the story as a whole?

So, I know very little about the realities of being a lawyer, but I was impressed by your ability to point to the exact reason why you wanted to go to law school using examples from your real current life. For you it's a specific career move. I'm going to disagree with mvp99 and guess that admissions committees will have a positive view of this--they're not going to expect you to point out the negatives and pitfalls. "Well, I know that being a lawyer isn't that different, but the benefits outweigh the costs for me because..." etc etc isn't appropriate for a personal statement.

But I would shy away from mentioning specific law things, etc, like in your first paragraph, because you know... leave the lawyering to the lawyers until you are one. If you make a mistake you might sound like a total ass.

I don't think he/she should point out the negatives and I don't think they expect him/her to know the exact pitfalls but his take on accounting and law shows s/he hasn't done his/her job and figured out what lawyers actually does for a living.

In other words, he/she doesn't have to point out the pitfalls but he/she cannot also make an statement that assumes a reality that does not exist. It's ok to make about a career move, just make it positive. For example, he talks about essentially fact checking being so limiting. This demonstrate to me he does not even know that a substantial amount of work for a new lawyer could be just that, glorified fact checking like due diligence/doc review. I think that he/she could spin what seems negative about his previous career and make it positive. Make about what you've learn, what you've been able to withstand and how that makes you fit for law in addition to how you discovered this new career might be more fulfilling.

The point about being more positive is definitely a good one, and will probably hammer out some of the complaining about fact checking. But also... I'm not sure admissions committees will care about the bolded all that much. In my experience, at least, hiring and admissions both tend to favor people who overestimate how wonderful going to that school/getting that job is going to be. They don't want to hear about what you expect to be doing while you're paying your dues, they want to hear The Dream. This writer's aspirations sound grounded enough in reality that I would be impressed.

Mind you, I'm not an admissions officer, nor a lawyer so... you know.

[mvp99]

Thanks for the comments! I do see the points you are mentioning (this is an early draft...) and I even thought the same about the parent part myself.

How about the material? how do you feel about the story as a whole?

So, I know very little about the realities of being a lawyer, but I was impressed by your ability to point to the exact reason why you wanted to go to law school using examples from your real current life. For you it's a specific career move. I'm going to disagree with mvp99 and guess that admissions committees will have a positive view of this--they're not going to expect you to point out the negatives and pitfalls. "Well, I know that being a lawyer isn't that different, but the benefits outweigh the costs for me because..." etc etc isn't appropriate for a personal statement.

But I would shy away from mentioning specific law things, etc, like in your first paragraph, because you know... leave the lawyering to the lawyers until you are one. If you make a mistake you might sound like a total ass.

I don't think he/she should point out the negatives and I don't think they expect him/her to know the exact pitfalls but his take on accounting and law shows s/he hasn't done his/her job and figured out what lawyers actually does for a living.

In other words, he/she doesn't have to point out the pitfalls but he/she cannot also make an statement that assumes a reality that does not exist. It's ok to make about a career move, just make it positive. For example, he talks about essentially fact checking being so limiting. This demonstrate to me he does not even know that a substantial amount of work for a new lawyer could be just that, glorified fact checking like due diligence/doc review. I think that he/she could spin what seems negative about his previous career and make it positive. Make about what you've learn, what you've been able to withstand and how that makes you fit for law in addition to how you discovered this new career might be more fulfilling.

The point about being more positive is definitely a good one, and will probably hammer out some of the complaining about fact checking. But also... I'm not sure admissions committees will care about the bolded all that much. In my experience, at least, hiring and admissions both tend to favor people who overestimate how wonderful going to that school/getting that job is going to be. They don't want to hear about what you expect to be doing while you're paying your dues, they want to hear The Dream. This writer's aspirations sound grounded enough in reality that I would be impressed.

Mind you, I'm not an admissions officer, nor a lawyer so... you know.

I sort of agree. Numbers are what matters the most anyway. Just pointing out details/things he could consider rephrasing.