Evaluate my "Why X School" Addenda: Questions + General Advice Forum

[klinepk]

Hey everyone. I'm in the middle of preparing various "Why X School" Addenda and am hoping for some feedback on the essays and to have some questions answered. I have included one of the essays below.

First, some potentially helpful info:

-I'm writing/considering writing addenda for Berkeley, Columbia, Duke, Michigan, NYU, Penn, and UVA.
-My numbers are not high enough to worry about being yield protected by any of the schools in the above list.
-My numbers are a bit low for Columbia, NYU, and Penn, so I'm actually hoping that the essay might give me a little boost (as opposed to defend against any hypothetical YP).
-Columbia, NYU, Michigan, and Berkeley are my top choices (listed in order of preference) because of this background that I will be writing about in the "Why X School" addenda.
-Specifically regarding my background: I spent the last four years abroad in China. I have a Master's in Chinese politics and foreign policy, and wrote my thesis under the guidance of a Chinese legal scholar. To a greater or lesser extent these schools all have well-regarded centers on Chinese/Asian Law and scholars working in law/related areas with whom I am familiar.

Questions:

1.) Should I write this many addenda? I'm writing them to emphasize a specific background I have that is very much in line with the expertise and resources present at these schools. I know schools like Columbia and NYU (and I'm even considering doing one for Stanford) do not generally encourage "Why X School" addenda partly because they're not really concerned with YP. Nonetheless, I'm considering writing them anyway because I genuinely feel that given my background I have reason to emphasize it and because I would like to write about something less school-specific and more personal in my personal statement.

2.) Should I fold the "Why X School" essay, or parts of it, into the personal statement for schools that generally don't ask for/want "Why X School" essays and just skip adding a separate addendum?

3.) Some of the scholars I write about being interested in are not law professors, per say. They are involved in the China/Asia Law Centers but are often members of Political Science or History departments, though their past research has often included work on Chinese law. Given many of these law schools' emphasis on interdisciplinary work, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. But what do you think? Is this a problem?

4.) Is the essay too academic in focus? Ultimately, I don't feel that they'll mind that I have a more academically-centered focus/background as long as I don't present myself as being closed to alternatives. But I wonder whether or not you all feel this reads too much like someone who's interested in a PhD?

5.) To a greater or lesser extent (based on the stated or inferred preferences of the schools), I am worried about the length of my "Why X School" addenda as it now stands. My Columbia essay, for example, is two pages double spaced. My Penn essay I have gotten down to about one page double spaced, partly because the essay only asks what I would do for the program and not what it would do for me. What do you all think?

Why Columbia Essay:

Over the last four years living and studying in China I have developed a passion for Chinese politics and law. Performing near the top of my class during my Master’s, I was given the opportunity to work with Professor Yu Xiaohong, a Chinese legal scholar, for my thesis research. Through her unwavering guidance and support, I began my study of Chinese law, moving through the classic works on Chinese legal history and into the academic literature situated at the intersection of China’s politics, society, and law. My thesis research examined the effects of politically-motivated mediation campaigns on the behavior of an increasingly market-oriented legal profession.

As an advisor, Professor Yu was intellectually demanding, uncompromising in her expectations, yet ceaselessly engaging as an individual and mentor. More so than anyone else in my life, she instilled in me a dedication to academic excellence, a passion for research, and an enjoyment for plain-old hard work. However much I embody these qualities now, much of that must be attributed to her. Just as my expression of these qualities reflects her hard work, so too do I believe that her ability to instill in me these qualities reflects her experiences as a doctoral student at Columbia University. Professors Benjamin Liebman and Andrew Nathan both mentored Professor Yu during her time at Columbia, and Professor Liebman in particular has influenced me as well. In developing a research question and writing the actual thesis, Professor Liebman’s work on the connection between China’s social stability and court reforms proved invaluable. In contemplating the continued evolution of Chinese law and legal institutions, much of his work remains a touchstone.

More than anything else, though, it is the law school’s long-standing emphasis on an internationalized and multidisciplinary legal education that attracts me. Columbia Law possesses what is probably the best Chinese law program in the country. The Center for Chinese Legal Studies is dedicated to high-level legal research on China and invests seriously in cross-cultural exchange with Chinese law students and legal professionals. It remains committed to promoting legal education and the development of law abroad. I believe my international background and extensive interdisciplinary work put me in position to contribute to Columbia Law and the China Center in similar fashion. My Chinese language ability, experiences engaging fellow international students on challenging political and social topics, and my passion for the study of foreign law and legal institutions will all add to the breadth of perspectives and voices in the 2017 entering class. Beyond interactions with my classmates, I also hope to add this voice to those already present at the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and the Society for Chinese Law.

I am deeply invested in further developing my understanding of law as it pertains to the continued political, social, economic, and legal development of China. To that end I remain open to the possibility of pursuing work in legal academia. At the same time, I cherish my interactions with and exposure to people from different cultures, especially those leading to collaboration towards solving real problems. The life of a practitioner working in legal development and public service in China is therefore also especially appealing to me. Ultimately, however, it is the thought of pursuing work in both these areas that proves the most inspiring – working at once to develop the scholarship on Chinese law while at the same time contributing as a legal professional to the betterment of Chinese society in any way I can. I believe that a legal education at Columbia would see me more well-placed to pursue these aims than at any other school of law. This is why Columbia Law School remains my absolute top choice.

===============

As of now, the "Why X School" essays all possess this general format.

Paragraph one: I discuss my background and thesis work.
Paragraph two: I discuss China-related things about the school (professors, history of engagement, specific programs).
Paragraph three: I further discuss more general features of the law school and connect them to my background/expertise.
Paragraph four: I discuss my future plans and how a legal education at "X" school would help fulfill them.

Other notes: I am assuming that admissions will be familiar with any specific professors I mention in the essays.


Thanks in advance for all the help! You all are the best.

[Blueprint Mithun]

1.) Should I write this many addenda? I'm writing them to emphasize a specific background I have that is very much in line with the expertise and resources present at these schools. I know schools like Columbia and NYU (and I'm even considering doing one for Stanford) do not generally encourage "Why X School" addenda partly because they're not really concerned with YP. Nonetheless, I'm considering writing them anyway because I genuinely feel that given my background I have reason to emphasize it and because I would like to write about something less school-specific and more personal in my personal statement.

2.) Should I fold the "Why X School" essay, or parts of it, into the personal statement for schools that generally don't ask for/want "Why X School" essays and just skip adding a separate addendum?

3.) Some of the scholars I write about being interested in are not law professors, per say. They are involved in the China/Asia Law Centers but are often members of Political Science or History departments, though their past research has often included work on Chinese law. Given many of these law schools' emphasis on interdisciplinary work, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. But what do you think? Is this a problem?

4.) Is the essay too academic in focus? Ultimately, I don't feel that they'll mind that I have a more academically-centered focus/background as long as I don't present myself as being closed to alternatives. But I wonder whether or not you all feel this reads too much like someone who's interested in a PhD?

5.) To a greater or lesser extent (based on the stated or inferred preferences of the schools), I am worried about the length of my "Why X School" addenda as it now stands. My Columbia essay, for example, is two pages double spaced. My Penn essay I have gotten down to about one page double spaced, partly because the essay only asks what I would do for the program and not what it would do for me. What do you all think?

1) Yes, I think so, give that what you include in your addendum doesn't overlap with your personal statement very much. You do have a solid topic and I like the example you gave for Columbia. You were specific in the way you described the school's Chinese Law program, clear about what you could bring to the community, and clear about your goals.

2) If you feel like you could do so without compromising the focus of your personal statement, then that certainly isn't a bad idea. Though I thought your example was strong enough to warrant its inclusion as a standalone addendum. If you touched on some of these topics in your personal statement, perhaps you could edit down this addendum, perhaps the third and fourth paragraphs in particular?

3) Hmm, this seems a bit out of my depth. I wouldn't think that it would be a big problem - it still shows that you are aware of/interested in the school's association with the field that you want to pursue. But I'm not the best person to answer this.

4) Well, your interest in academia definitely shines through, though I don't see how that can be avoided (not that you should particularly want to avoid it), considering that your background in the field is academic to begin with. Whether or not it's a "professional" degree, law school is a graduate program, so I don't think this is a problem. And you do mention in the last paragraph that you're open to multiple career possibilities.

5) I think you could cut down on the length a bit. In paragraph 3, I'd cut down on most of the fluff describing the program and get straight to discussing what you can contribute to the school. You could easily cut out sentences 2-4 in that paragraph. I'd also cut out the third sentence in paragraph - the previous sentences describe your appreciation of her well enough, and you don't want to come off as overly deferential.

Hope that helps! Overall, I think your addenda will be strong given that you're not treading on ground that you've already covered elsewhere.

[klinepk]

Thank you so much - and I'm thrilled to see that your evaluation is overall so positive. Not that I don't welcome criticism. It's just that it means I'm probably headed in the right direction. I'll look into cutting down some of the descriptions of their programs, though. I think I may have been excessive in what I included/described partly because I wanted to avoid seeming like I had just read things off of their website. Hopefully my background signals that I'm invested in this specialty enough such that fairly brief descriptions of programs/professors of interest don't come off as superficial interest.

Do you mean cut out the third sentence in paragraph two? I included that to emphasize the connection between the values she instilled and Columbia - and also to make a connection between her and a professor of interest. I could remove the deferential flourishes and just discuss the professor of interest. That's one possible solution.

The other "Why X School" addenda will be much the same but without that connection between my advisor and a professor of interest.

Thanks again!