Cheers, mate

Mad_Twatter · February 19, 2011, 5:09am

cartercl · February 19, 2011, 5:34am

You walk a fine line here my friend, but this is definitely one of the most unique personal statements I’ve read on TLS (and I’ve read quite a few). You do an outstanding job keeping the reader engaged, in my opinion; I could actually put myself in your shoes while reading this. I don’t think many people are willing to take their PS where you just did (I could be wrong). I think it’s gutsy and I foresee you being rewarded well for this risk.

FWIW, I’m a Christian and I loved this. Well done.

d34d9823 · February 19, 2011, 5:34am

Mad_Twatter:

Any criticism is welcome and appreciated.

“Evolution is only a theory, not a fact.” I first read that sentence inside the cover of my high school biology textbook. I was brought up to believe that evolution, the backbone of biology, was incompatible with religion. I was skeptical, but I could not speak out when my teacher intentionally skipped the chapter on evolution. I did not want to be ostracized, or to be called an atheist in my exceedinglydon’t like this word - pretentious. no more than one adjective in any case - it’s cleaner writing religious hometown—Dayton, Tennessee, the site of the Scopes Trial. I wanted to fit in with my peers. I regret that, and often wonderthis is cliche how many other young students, with a passion for science, face the same dilemma today.too many commas leaves the reader gasping for air.

Growing up, I earnestly tried to believe in the religion of my friends and neighborsfamily? or not, but that would bring it home more (no pun intended). I went to church and studied scripture. I prayed, hoping that I would eventually feel something. I desperately wanted to find the faith that my community reveredawkward word choice. Butyou need a better pivot point than “but” I never did. No one knew about my disbelief. I could not eliminate my religious doubtunclear. doubt of religion? motivated by religion?, but I also could not admit thisawkward - “it” might be better, but rephrase would be best to those around me. They insisted that morality was impossible without religionthis is really absolute and simplistic. try to communicate more nuance, but I just could not believecliche in that doctrine. ton of I openings in this graf. I know it’s hard (see), but you need to rephrase.

During college, my curiosity led me to the forbidden topic of my youthstrange image. rephrase., evolutionary biology. Evolution explained the diversity of life and interconnectedness of all living organisms in great detaifiller wordsl. More importantly, evolution did not require faithreally? epistemological debate incoming, merely the acceptance of well-testedneed better adjective evidence. It all made sensecliche. For the first time, I imagined a world that fit my skeptical worldviewunclear. I no longer felt guilty for not believing in the religion of my family, friends, and hometownyou repeat this phrase almost identically. It was okayi wouldnt use a colloquialism in formal writing to be skeptical of religion. It was okay to think critically about all things, especially the most sacred thingscontinued theme of vague statements. try to bring more clarity to your ideas. I was certain that morality was possible with or without religionagain, very sweeping. how was this personal?.

However, an extensivei don’t think you mean extensive? career in biology was not for me,comma splice it did not suit my aptitude or passion. I stillthis kind of nostalgia is very cliche enjoy learning about evolutionary biology, but I am more passionate about the preservation of science education in public schoolsthis is a great point, but the phrasing is flat. this should pop. I should have been taught evolution in high school. I personally experienced the effects of the deterioration of the separation of church and state in my small townthis is a ridiculous sentence. don’t make normative judgements like this. instead, explain your passions/point of view. It is tragic that many potential biologists or scientists, living in similar towns, are forced to seek out evolution on their owni’m like "really? evolution is a transcendental, life-changing idea? maybe it was for you, but don’t overstate it. it’s one facet of an education, instead of in their high school biology classrooms, because of the religious views of the majoritymore clause run-on. you can trim this.. Science and religion can coexist peacefully, in their separate realms. There should be no conflict between the two.i think most would agree, but you’re spouting unsupported platitudes.

I do not naively believe that I will become an evolution-protecting attorneywhere would one find such a creature? seriously, why not? this could be interpreted a bunch of different ways (including lack of confidence). i would just say what you want to do.. That level of specialization is not realistic. Nonetheless, in some capacity, I aspirethree mildly cliche phrases in a row = one very cliche sentence to become an advocate for the separation of church and state and proper science education in public schools. I am certain that my skepticism and self-motivation, which led me to question my religious upbringing and study evolution, will become great assets in law school and as a lawyeryou’re chaining clauses again. History demonstrates, with legal battles in Dayton, Dover, and the Supreme Courtthis is great. first time i come down from cloud platitude in a while, that the survival of evolution educationsay: effective biology education depends upon legislation and evolution advocatesyou are mixing your noun types here. awkward. i expect two types of people or two types of objects. I want to contributethis is weak. good concept, need more original phrasing.

This is pretty good writing. That said, I don’t think you have two pages here, and I think you could say what you said in half the space. Think about the major, interesting concepts that you have in here. We get them all in the first two grafs and then you are just reheating the same leftovers. You need some more ideas to include here.

You also need more details. I don’t want this platitude stuff, I want details about what happened to you. Show, don’t tell. A convenient tool is SBO - Situation, Behavior, Outcome. Describe the events in this format, and they will “pop”, unlike the platitudes that everyone and their mother puts in their PS.

system · February 19, 2011, 5:53am

well you’re a lock for the Darrow

sparty99 · February 19, 2011, 6:03am

This essay is a good start. However, it is far from perfect and you need to do a better job with your sentence structures. Too many sentences sound awkward and distract the reader. In addition, this should be your diversity statement, not your personal statement.

“Scopes trial” - you can end the sentence without mentioning this detail. I have no idea what this trial is.

“interconnectedness” - this word is a mouthful and a distraction.

“I desperately wanted to find the faith that my community revered” - get rid of “desperately.” Be succinct. Might want to use a better word than “my community revered”

“I could not eliminate my religious doubt” - how does one eliminate doubt?

“I could not eliminate my religious doubt, but I also could not admit this to those around me.” - weak sentence

“During college, my curiosity led me to the forbidden topic of my youth, evolutionary biology” - weak sentence. Specifically, “the forbidden topic of my youth.” Speak clearly, man.

“I personally experienced the effects of the deterioration of the separation of church and state in my small town” - what?! huh?! Speak clearly…This makes no sense.

“I do not naively believe that I will become an evolution-protecting attorney. That level of specialization is not realistic.” - 1) Do not state this and 2) The sentence does not sound clear. “naively believe.” - gross, come on now.

“History demonstrates, with legal battles in Dayton, Dover, and the Supreme Court, that the survival of evolution education depends upon legislation and evolution advocates. I want to contribute.” - you introduce this new topic. It does not flow with the rest of the essay. Get rid of it.

This is a good start. Your sentence structures need to be more tight. Also, I wish you could add a little more depth into the statement. I feel like I get an understanding of your religion background, but I also think there’s something missing.

system · February 19, 2011, 6:08am

i’m gonna go out on a limb here and say anyone in the position to make decisions about your acceptance to law school is going to know what the Scopes Trial is

sparty99 · February 19, 2011, 6:11am

Not everyone on the admissions team has a JD/legal background…

d34d9823 · February 19, 2011, 6:11am

This is his best point and crucial to his transition to his law school goals. Maybe you should read up on your history?

d34d9823 · February 19, 2011, 6:11am

If you don’t know what the Scopes trial is, you’re certifiably ignorant.

Army2Law · February 19, 2011, 6:13am

I like it, OP. Looks like you have some room to add a little school specific blurb if you feel like it, too.

rose711 · February 19, 2011, 6:17am

This PS lacks emotion/passion - it feels too cut and dried. I think you need a better opening paragraph and you need to cut the repetitive parts. I also would focus more on why you want to be an attorney or why advocates for evolution teaching are essential - but you don’t really have to be a lawyer to do that - but not say upfront that you know you will never get to do this work. There are a number of organizations that promote the teaching of evolution…maybe you should join a couple or look at their materials.

BTW: evolution is a theory - scientific theories can never be 100% proven, they can only be disproven ( I can explain this more if you want but you probably learned that in college somewhere…if not high school.) Natural selection, as a process that drives evolution is an accepted fact. And we know evolution happens…

Just be careful that what you write about evolution shows a rigorous understanding of the concepts. And you managed a paragraph on evolution without mentioning Darwin? or Richard Dawkins?

Its late and maybe I read it too quickly so forgive me if I overlooked something. If you post the next draft I will try to do in-line suggestions, but I hate to do that for a first draft.

I may take a relook again in the morning,

d34d9823 · February 19, 2011, 6:19am

cartercl · February 19, 2011, 6:21am

Scratch that. RC fail.

rose711 · February 19, 2011, 6:22am

Dude - this is true, you need to understand the concept of theories in science and the scientific method. A theory - like the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution is never considered absolute fact it is only considered the best explanation based on rigorous testing.

But I am not going to argue about this - the only reason it is relevant is for this guys PS. I just didn’t want him to make an obvious error that a scientist will catch.

cartercl · February 19, 2011, 6:24am

Good advice. However, I think these two sentences are perfectly fine given the overall the tone of this essay. I think the second sentence here probably could be structured a bit better; however, I do understand what OP is saying.

d34d9823 · February 19, 2011, 6:24am

d34d9823 · February 19, 2011, 6:25am

Yeah, they are intelligible, but definitely some of the weakest sentences in the piece.

cartercl · February 19, 2011, 6:26am

Agreed.

JazzOne · February 19, 2011, 6:27am

OP, I like the PS. That’s really saying something because I think 99.9% of these are absolute garbage. The only reason I am weighing in is that the Scopes Trial is certainly relevant to the topic, and I would guess that most people who work in legal academia (including the admissions deans) will know what you’re talking about. Leave it in.

cartercl · February 19, 2011, 6:27am

So the law of gravity was never a theory? I have no clue, but I am curious.