PS critique pls? Rough draft Forum

[TAD]

.

[34iplaw]

Not sure about your overall theme TBH.

I think there are ways to convey that you work hard without demeaning yourself in almost every other respect. Perhaps, others can provide some insight on this. Could be high risk high reward or high risk low reward. Not sure which.

[cavalier1138]

I think there's the seed of a good statement in here, but it needs revision (which seems to be your style, so I assume you knew that was going to be the case).

I actually like this theme, and I think it could be really powerful. My advice is going to be pretty general, though, because I think you need to restructure the entire statement. I think the best flow for this is to start with the image of the "natural" who just gets everything right away. Deal with your frustration/jealousy that this isn't you. Then move on to discovering that most people aren't naturals (this is true, by the way) and talk about how that influenced you to buckle down and put in the work you needed to put in. And most importantly, explain what it is that makes you want to do well at these things.

Incidentally, some food for thought: Allen Iverson practices his ass off. Einstein's early work was rejected by his colleagues. Stephen King forces himself to write every single day, even if he feels like he's got nothing to put on paper. So while there are certainly people with more of an affinity for certain things, that ability needs to be nurtured through diligent work.

Anyway, I think that the core idea is solid. It just needs to flow better and have a more upbeat feel.

[TAD]

I think there's the seed of a good statement in here, but it needs revision (which seems to be your style, so I assume you knew that was going to be the case).

I actually like this theme, and I think it could be really powerful. My advice is going to be pretty general, though, because I think you need to restructure the entire statement. I think the best flow for this is to start with the image of the "natural" who just gets everything right away. Deal with your frustration/jealousy that this isn't you. Then move on to discovering that most people aren't naturals (this is true, by the way) and talk about how that influenced you to buckle down and put in the work you needed to put in. And most importantly, explain what it is that makes you want to do well at these things.

Incidentally, some food for thought: Allen Iverson practices his ass off. Einstein's early work was rejected by his colleagues. Stephen King forces himself to write every single day, even if he feels like he's got nothing to put on paper. So while there are certainly people with more of an affinity for certain things, that ability needs to be nurtured through diligent work.

Anyway, I think that the core idea is solid. It just needs to flow better and have a more upbeat feel.

Your criticisms are in line with mine. Having written it at work though I'm sure it can be ten times better. And I agree with u about iverson'and einstein working hard and what not, which is why I tried to squeeze it at the end but I'll re work it to make sure it's more emphasized. Thanks a lot for the advice tho. It pree much confirmed everything I thought was good and bad about this. But st least I can stick it out with this topic.

[TAD]

Not sure about your overall theme TBH.

I think there are ways to convey that you work hard without demeaning yourself in almost every other respect. Perhaps, others can provide some insight on this. Could be high risk high reward or high risk low reward. Not sure which.

Would you suggest playing it safe then? Also did it really come across as demeaning myself? Because I was trying to simply say that while I'm not a natural, I will get it if u give me time

[34iplaw]

Not sure about your overall theme TBH.

I think there are ways to convey that you work hard without demeaning yourself in almost every other respect. Perhaps, others can provide some insight on this. Could be high risk high reward or high risk low reward. Not sure which.

Would you suggest playing it safe then? Also did it really come across as demeaning myself? Because I was trying to simply say that while I'm not a natural, I will get it if u give me time

I got that. I'll give it another read to check it out after I'm done running through games. Demeaning yourself may have been a bit strong. I do agree with the other poster that it is an interesting topic, but I'd be careful with it. I guess it lends itself to coming across as demeaning yourself.

I'll post again later tonight.

[34iplaw]

More in depth review / close read, but I'm going to ignore specific grammar issues, typos, and such unless it really bugs me. I'll sort of address it as I go through it as if you should absolutely go with it [as I'm still undecided at this point].

To be able to just sit down and write an exquisite piece of work, to be able to just sit down and ace a test, to be able to just score 25 points or more in a game of basketball after not having practiced in a while... I have never been able to accomplish any of these feats, but I have always been able to write well after hours of painstaking revisions, I have always been able to ace a test after 8 hours of mind numbing studying, and I have been able to score 25+ points in basketball games, but only after 6-8 hours a day of gruesome, sweat drenching workouts.

This is a really clunky sentence. If you *really* want to go for this theme, I think it will sell it a lot more if you accentuate it... make them read it three times and have the structures and cadence be consistent [think when you read it it should be bah dum bah dum bah dum. bah dum bah dum bah dum. BUT...) and then [relatively] quickly punctuate why it doesn't really matter. i.e. something like...

'I have never been able to write an exquisite piece of work in one sitting. I have never been able ace a test without preparation. I have never been able to score 25 points in a game of basketball without practice. These tasks have always been outside of my natural skillset, but, with due effort, I have been able to surpass all my limitations. I am capable of exquisite writing with hours of painstaking revision. I always ace an exam with eight hours of mind numbing studying. I have scored 25 points in basketball games, but only after days of gruesome workouts.'

other note...numbers under ten should be typed out like this... also 6-8 is just oddly specific when we have a feeling it is just an estimation

Why would anyone put themselves through such mind and or physical strain? The answer to this question is to each individual their own.

I don't really like the wording of the answer to this question. Use a better word than 'put'. Use something like 'subject'. I like the idea of the question and the answer being unique to an individual [and thus you]. I just don't like the wording/syntax of the latter half..

My self infliction of strain, however, is a result of envy. Envy of the Allen iverson's that have been able to score 25+ points in a basketball game after months of not practicing, envy of the Newton's and Einsteins that have been able to sit and ace a test without studying, envy of the Stephen Kings and John Grishams that have been able to sit and write mastery pieces on the spot. Envy of the innately talented - or perhaps more accurately stated, envy of those that are more naturally predisposed towards success in specific fields.

I don't like 'self infliction of strain'. If you are going to stick with envy, I would prefer envy to be the subject driving the sentence. Perhaps, get rid of the answer being unique for everyone, and simply say something like 'For me, envy of the naturally gifted drives me. Envy of this person, envy of that person, envy of that person.' I think you need to make sure the last sentence of this paragraph remains if you keep the envy of this and that, otherwise it reads as implying that their accomplishments aren't significant - i.e. Iverson, Newton, Einstein, etc. didn't work hard they were just gifted. I hope this makes a bit of sense. I'm trying to think of a better way to word the last sentence. I'm not really a fan of the naturally predisposed towards success in specific fields. I was watching the Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee with Aziz & Jerry, and it reminds me of that... Aziz was basically saying how much it pisses him off that people label his success as luck...yes, in part, it was luck and he knows that, but labeling it as luck diminishes all of the work, pain, etc. that went into it. I'm quite certain that Iverson has spent thousands of hours doing grueling workouts.

This has led me to question what fields I am naturally suited for? Is it Basketball? Writing? Law? I searched for the answer to this question all throughout high school. Yet it wasn't until my university years that I came to the realization that I am naturally suited for neither of these.

I think this was another sentence that initially bugged me. It's okay to say I have to work hard to get A's, but to specifically say "I'm not naturally suited for law" is kind of a weird thing to say in a law school personal statement.

Surely they are all within my interests - the finesse that exists as a player crosses over his opponent and shoots the jump shot, the beauty and immersion produced by an elegant piece of writing, and the pride received as justice and the legal system prevail - however, my success or ability to pursue each of these fields has been guided, not by any natural talent, but by my insanely demanding work ethic.

Insanely demanding work ethic doesn't make sense to me. It also bothers me that your things change. Given there is a sort of prose element to this, it should be the same three throughout IMO - writing, ace a test, and basketball in that order. This applies to your examples of experts in those fields and it should be - kings and grishams, einsteins and newtons, and iverson in that order. The order can be worked around, but I think it should be consistent.

I have never been able to just score 25 points in a basketball game, however, after early wake up calls to go workout in the gym, to late nights coming back from the gym, I have accomplished even more than this, going from limited playing time in early high school, to captain of the team my senior year, to subsequently receiving college offers. I have never been able to just sit and write exquisite master pieces, however, after early wake up calls straight through to late nights revising my paper, I have been able to go from barely passing my papers to receiving multiple A's on them during my undergraduate tenure. I have never been able to just sit down and ace a test, however, after early wake up calls straight through to late nights studying and reviewing for the test, I have excelled academically. I have never been able to just sit down and assert my knowledge of the law and the legal system, however, after early wake up calls straight through to late nights, I can say with confidence that I will be able to excel in the intellectually rigorous tasks the profession demands.

The sentences are kind of a mess, but I think this is a necessary paragraph. Again, keep the order consistent IMO . I think this was a good way to introduce the law.

Perhaps then my abilities are suited not towards the likes of the Iverson's, the Newton's, the Einsteins, the King's or the Grishams. Rather instead, perhaps I am better suited towards the likes of the Walt Disney's, the J.K Rowling's, or the Oprah Winfrey's - the likes of those that did not falter and persisted even when told that they lacked talent, creativeness, and innovation.

I like this relation to other people.

My envy then, was a blessing in disguise. One that likely served as a motivational factor for my work ethic.

No. It was the singular motivation and driving force behind your work ethic. Don't undermine the entire statement like that.

A desire to be a success like those who had come before me. While many things may not come naturally for many people, because even the Einstein's and Newton's have things they are not well naturally gifted at, success still remains possible - one's means towards an end need not be the same as everyone's else, because while I have never been able to one way, I have always been able to another way.

I don't like this. I don't think success was any of their ends, and I don't think it should be yours... at least not in this personal statement. I think this is where you need to sell why you want to be a lawyer. Your statement doesn't say why you want to be a lawyer or why you need to be a lawyer. All of those people just followed their passion. Their passion is what allowed them to persevere through the troughs and brought them to success.

Your personal statement reminds me of the quote in the beginning of MK's LSAT Trainer. I forget the exact wording... but something along the lines of "May you be so fortunate that no one recognizes that your talent is actually just hard work." Something of that nature.

I'm not sure. I think there is something here, but I do think it is tricky. I would keep exploring this, but I would also try typing something else up just to see what you get. I liked it more through the second read through, but I'd get other first opinions. I don't think they really reread these all that often. The demeaning yourself wasn't as nearly as evident, and I suppose I wasn't really doing a close read of it. I'd also play around with different orders... like how quickly you get to how you overcame a lack of innate talent.

[Mr. Archer]

I would agree with the criticisms above. The writing is a little awkward and needs revision. More importantly, as another poster mentioned, the theme is unclear. If the theme is that you have to work hard to do well, I think that's a really weak topic. That makes you like almost everyone who applies to law school.

Also, I didn't really like the discussion of people at the top of their fields. Yeah, they might have more talent than others. But all of those people you mentioned worked hard to accomplish what they did, probably even harder than you worked to accomplish what you have. That's why they're famous for being good at their jobs.

[TAD]

More in depth review / close read, but I'm going to ignore specific grammar issues, typos, and such unless it really bugs me. I'll sort of address it as I go through it as if you should absolutely go with it [as I'm still undecided at this point].

To be able to just sit down and write an exquisite piece of work, to be able to just sit down and ace a test, to be able to just score 25 points or more in a game of basketball after not having practiced in a while... I have never been able to accomplish any of these feats, but I have always been able to write well after hours of painstaking revisions, I have always been able to ace a test after 8 hours of mind numbing studying, and I have been able to score 25+ points in basketball games, but only after 6-8 hours a day of gruesome, sweat drenching workouts.

This is a really clunky sentence. If you *really* want to go for this theme, I think it will sell it a lot more if you accentuate it... make them read it three times and have the structures and cadence be consistent [think when you read it it should be bah dum bah dum bah dum. bah dum bah dum bah dum. BUT...) and then [relatively] quickly punctuate why it doesn't really matter. i.e. something like...

'I have never been able to write an exquisite piece of work in one sitting. I have never been able ace a test without preparation. I have never been able to score 25 points in a game of basketball without practice. These tasks have always been outside of my natural skillset, but, with due effort, I have been able to surpass all my limitations. I am capable of exquisite writing with hours of painstaking revision. I always ace an exam with eight hours of mind numbing studying. I have scored 25 points in basketball games, but only after days of gruesome workouts.'

other note...numbers under ten should be typed out like this... also 6-8 is just oddly specific when we have a feeling it is just an estimation

Why would anyone put themselves through such mind and or physical strain? The answer to this question is to each individual their own.

I don't really like the wording of the answer to this question. Use a better word than 'put'. Use something like 'subject'. I like the idea of the question and the answer being unique to an individual [and thus you]. I just don't like the wording/syntax of the latter half..

My self infliction of strain, however, is a result of envy. Envy of the Allen iverson's that have been able to score 25+ points in a basketball game after months of not practicing, envy of the Newton's and Einsteins that have been able to sit and ace a test without studying, envy of the Stephen Kings and John Grishams that have been able to sit and write mastery pieces on the spot. Envy of the innately talented - or perhaps more accurately stated, envy of those that are more naturally predisposed towards success in specific fields.

I don't like 'self infliction of strain'. If you are going to stick with envy, I would prefer envy to be the subject driving the sentence. Perhaps, get rid of the answer being unique for everyone, and simply say something like 'For me, envy of the naturally gifted drives me. Envy of this person, envy of that person, envy of that person.' I think you need to make sure the last sentence of this paragraph remains if you keep the envy of this and that, otherwise it reads as implying that their accomplishments aren't significant - i.e. Iverson, Newton, Einstein, etc. didn't work hard they were just gifted. I hope this makes a bit of sense. I'm trying to think of a better way to word the last sentence. I'm not really a fan of the naturally predisposed towards success in specific fields. I was watching the Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee with Aziz & Jerry, and it reminds me of that... Aziz was basically saying how much it pisses him off that people label his success as luck...yes, in part, it was luck and he knows that, but labeling it as luck diminishes all of the work, pain, etc. that went into it. I'm quite certain that Iverson has spent thousands of hours doing grueling workouts.

This has led me to question what fields I am naturally suited for? Is it Basketball? Writing? Law? I searched for the answer to this question all throughout high school. Yet it wasn't until my university years that I came to the realization that I am naturally suited for neither of these.

I think this was another sentence that initially bugged me. It's okay to say I have to work hard to get A's, but to specifically say "I'm not naturally suited for law" is kind of a weird thing to say in a law school personal statement.

Surely they are all within my interests - the finesse that exists as a player crosses over his opponent and shoots the jump shot, the beauty and immersion produced by an elegant piece of writing, and the pride received as justice and the legal system prevail - however, my success or ability to pursue each of these fields has been guided, not by any natural talent, but by my insanely demanding work ethic.

Insanely demanding work ethic doesn't make sense to me. It also bothers me that your things change. Given there is a sort of prose element to this, it should be the same three throughout IMO - writing, ace a test, and basketball in that order. This applies to your examples of experts in those fields and it should be - kings and grishams, einsteins and newtons, and iverson in that order. The order can be worked around, but I think it should be consistent.

I have never been able to just score 25 points in a basketball game, however, after early wake up calls to go workout in the gym, to late nights coming back from the gym, I have accomplished even more than this, going from limited playing time in early high school, to captain of the team my senior year, to subsequently receiving college offers. I have never been able to just sit and write exquisite master pieces, however, after early wake up calls straight through to late nights revising my paper, I have been able to go from barely passing my papers to receiving multiple A's on them during my undergraduate tenure. I have never been able to just sit down and ace a test, however, after early wake up calls straight through to late nights studying and reviewing for the test, I have excelled academically. I have never been able to just sit down and assert my knowledge of the law and the legal system, however, after early wake up calls straight through to late nights, I can say with confidence that I will be able to excel in the intellectually rigorous tasks the profession demands.

The sentences are kind of a mess, but I think this is a necessary paragraph. Again, keep the order consistent IMO . I think this was a good way to introduce the law.

Perhaps then my abilities are suited not towards the likes of the Iverson's, the Newton's, the Einsteins, the King's or the Grishams. Rather instead, perhaps I am better suited towards the likes of the Walt Disney's, the J.K Rowling's, or the Oprah Winfrey's - the likes of those that did not falter and persisted even when told that they lacked talent, creativeness, and innovation.

I like this relation to other people.

My envy then, was a blessing in disguise. One that likely served as a motivational factor for my work ethic.

No. It was the singular motivation and driving force behind your work ethic. Don't undermine the entire statement like that.

A desire to be a success like those who had come before me. While many things may not come naturally for many people, because even the Einstein's and Newton's have things they are not well naturally gifted at, success still remains possible - one's means towards an end need not be the same as everyone's else, because while I have never been able to one way, I have always been able to another way.

I don't like this. I don't think success was any of their ends, and I don't think it should be yours... at least not in this personal statement. I think this is where you need to sell why you want to be a lawyer. Your statement doesn't say why you want to be a lawyer or why you need to be a lawyer. All of those people just followed their passion. Their passion is what allowed them to persevere through the troughs and brought them to success.

Your personal statement reminds me of the quote in the beginning of MK's LSAT Trainer. I forget the exact wording... but something along the lines of "May you be so fortunate that no one recognizes that your talent is actually just hard work." Something of that nature.

I'm not sure. I think there is something here, but I do think it is tricky. I would keep exploring this, but I would also try typing something else up just to see what you get. I liked it more through the second read through, but I'd get other first opinions. I don't think they really reread these all that often. The demeaning yourself wasn't as nearly as evident, and I suppose I wasn't really doing a close read of it. I'd also play around with different orders... like how quickly you get to how you overcame a lack of innate talent.

Wow I didn't expect you to be so thorough but I actually appreciate it a lot. I'll fully take all this into consideration as I re work my ps. Thank you

[TAD]

I would agree with the criticisms above. The writing is a little awkward and needs revision. More importantly, as another poster mentioned, the theme is unclear. If the theme is that you have to work hard to do well, I think that's a really weak topic. That makes you like almost everyone who applies to law school.

Also, I didn't really like the discussion of people at the top of their fields. Yeah, they might have more talent than others. But all of those people you mentioned worked hard to accomplish what they did, probably even harder than you worked to accomplish what you have. That's why they're famous for being good at their jobs.

What if I re worked it to emphasize that my theme is not necessarily that I work hard, but that rather than being naturally gifted at something specifically, I naturally thrive in situations where I'm not great at it, but have to put in hours to succeed? Or is that the same thing?

And I know I didn't make it clear, as I did it at work, but I am not saying those people don't work hard, as the other poster mentioned they do, but that for something I may have to work 10hrs for to succeed in, they might only have to work 3hrs in it. Like Lebrun James works hard, but I'd argue what he can learn in basketball in 2 hours, the other athlete can learn in the same time frame? Does that make sense. If not please let me know? Your comments are much appreciated

[Mr. Archer]

Yeah, I think what you're saying about situations you're not great at is just saying you work hard. You're not naturally great in those situations. But then you work hard, overcome the lack of natural ability, and thrive. Based on how the essay is written now, I think that it's a weak topic overall and doesn't set you apart because it applies to a significant number of people applying to law school. Just think about how many people aren't naturally good at the LSAT but put in a lot of hours and get a high score. Maybe if you told a specific story like going from barely playing in high school to playing in college would the PS would be better. Right now it's pretty general.

Also, I know you're not trying to say those people don't work hard. It just kind of comes off like that, or just that those people have it easier. I'm not saying you shouldn't use a comparison like that. I just think it has to be done carefully so it doesn't look like a person's accomplishments are being cheapened just because he's naturally good at something when others are not.

[TAD]

Yeah, I think what you're saying about situations you're not great at is just saying you work hard. You're not naturally great in those situations. But then you work hard, overcome the lack of natural ability, and thrive. Based on how the essay is written now, I think that it's a weak topic overall and doesn't set you apart because it applies to a significant number of people applying to law school. Just think about how many people aren't naturally good at the LSAT but put in a lot of hours and get a high score. Maybe if you told a specific story like going from barely playing in high school to playing in college would the PS would be better. Right now it's pretty general.

Also, I know you're not trying to say those people don't work hard. It just kind of comes off like that, or just that those people have it easier. I'm not saying you shouldn't use a comparison like that. I just think it has to be done carefully so it doesn't look like a person's accomplishments are being cheapened just because he's naturally good at something when others are not.

Oh alright that makes Sense. Thanks for the advice I'll see what I can come up with.

[galadriel3019]

I think you have the start of something interesting. But I would have liked a little but more depth in say one area, instead of hearing about basketball, writing, etc. I understand you are trying to make a point about how hard you work. But I don't come off learning that much more about you because the examples paint in such broad brush strokes and move on.

[cavalier1138]

Would you suggest playing it safe then? Also did it really come across as demeaning myself? Because I was trying to simply say that while I'm not a natural, I will get it if u give me time

Just one additional comment on this: you may not want them to reach that conclusion. A lot of the tasks you'll be asked to perform in law school will be under heavy time constraints. Telling people that you do great without a deadline may not instill confidence.

[TAD]

Would you suggest playing it safe then? Also did it really come across as demeaning myself? Because I was trying to simply say that while I'm not a natural, I will get it if u give me time

Just one additional comment on this: you may not want them to reach that conclusion. A lot of the tasks you'll be asked to perform in law school will be under heavy time constraints. Telling people that you do great without a deadline may not instill confidence.

Oh good call. Thanks for catching that

[TAD]

I think you have the start of something interesting. But I would have liked a little but more depth in say one area, instead of hearing about basketball, writing, etc. I understand you are trying to make a point about how hard you work. But I don't come off learning that much more about you because the examples paint in such broad brush strokes and move on.

I already took your advice and started on that. Thank you

[34iplaw]

No problem - good luck and feel free to post revisions. I felt a little bad since my first response was a bit terse, and I do enjoy being thorough on reading through the personal statements. I wanted to give you the feedback for what I think you should do if you continue with this statement which, while I am more favorable towards now, I still harbor some reservations. Many of which have been indicated by other posters. Archer brought up a point I hadn't initially considered, and I definitely agree - the one that being a hard worker isn't something that unique to you in the world of law school applicants. Those who get the 180s and As without trying are not a majority.

I think you are fine to keep fleshing this one out, but I would still explore other topics or, possibly, a specific experience that can serve as a vessel for this. Granted, that will put it into more treaded territory of law school applications. In the end, I think it also hits a little bit on the nose in a way, and I still think you need to really work on conveying why you want to go to law school.

[TAD]

No problem - good luck and feel free to post revisions. I felt a little bad since my first response was a bit terse, and I do enjoy being thorough on reading through the personal statements. I wanted to give you the feedback for what I think you should do if you continue with this statement which, while I am more favorable towards now, I still harbor some reservations. Many of which have been indicated by other posters. Archer brought up a point I hadn't initially considered, and I definitely agree - the one that being a hard worker isn't something that unique to you in the world of law school applicants. Those who get the 180s and As without trying are not a majority.

I think you are fine to keep fleshing this one out, but I would still explore other topics or, possibly, a specific experience that can serve as a vessel for this. Granted, that will put it into more treaded territory of law school applications. In the end, I think it also hits a little bit on the nose in a way, and I still think you need to really work on conveying why you want to go to law school.

I already started make significant changes to it. I'll take you up on your offer and post a revision on here in several days or so. If I'm still getting advice that it needs a lot of work I'll prolly starting digging into another topic. You've really been a big help

[gery0n]

Personally, I feel like this topic makes it seem like you're choosing law as a last resort. I don't see how being so self-deprecating can work in your favor; focus instead on talents you do have, or positive impacts you've had on your community. It doesn't need to be "Allen Iverson" level; plenty of people write great personal statements about "average" topics.