Top Law Schools

I have written this LOCI and need to send it soon. I've included 'why law' due to my non-traditional background and because it wasn't included in my app anywhere.

Currently on WL at a T6. is it good enough to send?

UPDATED LOCI posted below in this thread...
** Please don't quote

You're going to want the words: "if accepted, I will attend" somewhere in this letter.

Is a LOCI supposed to be a second PS? This seems very long and wordy to me (I could see updating with info that wasn't available at the time of your original app but I don't see repeating yourself/adding stuff you could have said originally). But I say that partly because I think the "why law" stuff frequently looks unconvincing.

Don't define public-private partnerships as "PPPs" if you don't then use the the term "PPPs" later in your letter.

.

Monday wrote:I don't think the first paragraph works. The LOCI should be more concise and to the point. And as the name would suggest, it should express interest in that particular school. The first paragraph is generic and as nony implies, unconvincing.

Also, the importance of having "why law" in your application is likely overblown.

This. If a school feels "Why law?" Is a critical question, they will specially ask you to answer it in your PS, meaning the instructions on their app will say something like " Please tell us why you want to study/practice law in 500 words or less."

No one will read this. If your LOCI is longer than five or six sentences, it's too long.

rpupkin wrote:No one will read this. If your LOCI is longer than five or six sentences, it's too long.

Question about this: If you've had significant work experience since the time of your applications, how can you possibly reiterate your love for the school AND update on what's new with you in 5 or 6 sentences?

lula43 wrote:

rpupkin wrote:No one will read this. If your LOCI is longer than five or six sentences, it's too long.

Question about this: If you've had significant work experience since the time of your applications, how can you possibly reiterate your love for the school AND update on what's new with you in 5 or 6 sentences?

Nobody has more than 6 sentences worth of extra work experience in less than a year. Hell, no one has that in more than a year.

lula43 wrote:

rpupkin wrote:No one will read this. If your LOCI is longer than five or six sentences, it's too long.

Question about this: If you've had significant work experience since the time of your applications, how can you possibly reiterate your love for the school AND update on what's new with you in 5 or 6 sentences?

What kind of work experience are you getting in a few months that can't be explained in a couple of sentences?

*Please don't quote

KMart wrote:You're going to want the words: "if accepted, I will attend" somewhere in this letter.

i was hesitant to add this because committing to attend without offer may close out any chances of dropping out later if i am on WL still late in the summer, then i may need to withdraw. i made an addition in the last para below.

B90 wrote:

Monday wrote:I don't think the first paragraph works. The LOCI should be more concise and to the point. And as the name would suggest, it should express interest in that particular school. The first paragraph is generic and as nony implies, unconvincing.

Also, the importance of having "why law" in your application is likely overblown.

This. If a school feels "Why law?" Is a critical question, they will specially ask you to answer it in your PS, meaning the instructions on their app will say something like " Please tell us why you want to study/practice law in 500 words or less."

any specific thing in the first para that doesn't work? how can i fix it?

i needed to explain "why law" because i am almost double the age of typical LS applicants with almost 20-Year long s/w engineering career that currently pays around first-year BL salaries. LS after such long work ex in a non-feeder industry is unusual so I think "why law" should be explained to the school but didn't include it in the app/PS. so i'm using a para here to answer this.
removed the acronym as it's used only once.

UPDATED one is posted below in this thread...

*Please don't quote

You can still basically lose the first paragraph. At least cut it down to the last sentence and push the paragraphs together.

cavalier1138 wrote:You can still lose the first paragraph.

+1

B90 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:You can still lose the first paragraph.

+1

OP here. that's the para that basically answers "why law" due to the reasons in the previous post.

are you suggesting to not include "why law" or include it somewhere?

Anonymous User wrote:

B90 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:You can still lose the first paragraph.

+1

OP here. that's the para that basically answers "why law" due to the reasons in the previous post.

are you suggesting to not include "why law" or include it somewhere?

I'm suggesting to not include it. This is a letter of continued interest in the school. If they didn't understand why you wanted to go to law school, you wouldn't be on the waitlist.

The first paragraph is really generic and to law grads it doesn't actually sound like you have very specific reasons for being interested in law.

cavalier1138 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

B90 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:You can still lose the first paragraph.

+1

OP here. that's the para that basically answers "why law" due to the reasons in the previous post.

are you suggesting to not include "why law" or include it somewhere?

I'm suggesting to not include it. This is a letter of continued interest in the school. If they didn't understand why you wanted to go to law school, you wouldn't be on the waitlist.

This.
OP, you are a 0L tlser, so by definition your are neurotic. It's ok, we understand. Those of us with JDs are simply trying to offer you a tinfoil hat.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:The first paragraph is really generic and to law grads it doesn't actually sound like you have very specific reasons for being interested in law.

op here. one of the statements about experiences may read out-of-context, but in the context of the complete app (PS where I talked about them), it makes sense. but the PS never connected the dots about "why law". that's what the first para does here.

If they didn't understand why you wanted to go to law school, you wouldn't be on the waitlist.

i don't think this is actually true. as you can see my case is highly unusual, and app should have explained why law. the school asks for "any supplemental material" that can strengthen application.

Even if you really do need to explain why law, your explanation is generic and doesn't add anything.

Anonymous User wrote:i cut down on some stuff, here is the updated one. please comment

Your first full paragraph is worse than useless: it's poorly written. Were I an adcomm otherwise inclined to admit you, I would have second thoughts after reading your first paragraph. Seriously, delete the paragraph. Or don't send this at all.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:i cut down on some stuff, here is the updated one. please comment

Your first full paragraph is worse than useless: it's poorly written. Were I an adcomm otherwise inclined to admit you, I would have second thoughts after reading your first paragraph. Seriously, delete the paragraph. Or don't send this at all.

curious about this. it may sound generic without context (isn't exactly that), but what other exactly is wrong with it?

If OP is waitlisted at any T6 other than Columbia (which waitlists everyone) I would seriously question some adcomms judgement. Apart from the fact that this seems like it was written by someone not fully fluent in English, OP has been unanimously told about a dozen times in this thread to axe the first paragraph, but keeps asking for clarification on what is wrong with it. OP does not seem to understand the point of a LOCI, nor to really comprehend that an adcomm is not going to go back and reread the entire application to get a 'whole picture' upon receiving said LOCI.

Either that or maybe this is a flame?

Deserving Porcupine wrote:

op here. i get that first para may not be the most polished. not a flame.
apart from the fact that your post seems written by a 0L, again what precisely you find wrong?

Anonymous User wrote:

Deserving Porcupine wrote:If OP is waitlisted at any T6 other than Columbia (which waitlists everyone) I would seriously question some adcomms judgement. Apart from the fact that this seems like it was written by someone not fully fluent in English, OP has been unanimously told about a dozen times in this thread to axe the first paragraph, but keeps asking for clarification on what is wrong with it. OP does not seem to understand the point of a LOCI, nor to really comprehend that an adcomm is not going to go back and reread the entire application to get a 'whole picture' upon receiving said LOCI.

Either that or maybe this is a flame?

op here. i get that first para may not be the most polished. not a flame.
it seems your post was written by a 0L. again, what precisely you find wrong?

You are correct, my post was written by a 0L. As was yours.

There are a number of issues with the first paragraph, but the fundamental one is that a discourse on 'why law school' has no place in a LOCI. Period. Other commenters have pointed out other issues, but for me there is no reason to go beyond this.

Anonymous User wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:i cut down on some stuff, here is the updated one. please comment

Your first full paragraph is worse than useless: it's poorly written. Were I an adcomm otherwise inclined to admit you, I would have second thoughts after reading your first paragraph. Seriously, delete the paragraph. Or don't send this at all.

curious about this. it may sound generic without context (isn't exactly that), but what other exactly is wrong with it?

It's poorly written. Like, really, really poorly written. I'm not going to walk you through all the problems with it.

I strongly advise you to spend some time with a writing tutor before law school. In the legal world, there's a negative stereotype about engineers who go to law school—namely, that engineers get high LSAT scores but can't write. For that reason, I think that engineers need to be especially vigilant about writing well. Even a hint of poor writing in a cover letter or a writing sample will confirm the biases of people who make hiring decisions.

Good luck.