Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mantra

Pages: [1]
Need help deciding a PS topic.  I hate that we have to sell ourselves like this.  At least in a job interview the scope is narrower, the stakes lower, and you've got a better idea what will work.  The classic whine, I suppose.

Am working on all of these simultaneously and hope to have good drafts done soon.  Quality of writing will hopefully help me nix one or two - I'm sure there are just some that are going to sound better in the end - but would like some advice too.


1. "I think about stuff carefully."
  • In short: My answer to the "amg here's my personal story and it's really powerful and FROM THAT DAY ON I KNEW I JUST HAD TO BE A LAWYER!!1"  I talk about how I'm a compulsive planner, researcher, skeptic, devil's advocate, etc. and how it's served me very well in life, academically and otherwise.
  • Pro: It's about my intellect, and would probably depict me as a likely candidate to succeed in law and/or contribute well to classroom discussions.
  • Con: Boring as hell.  I can splash some personal color and imagery in, but the thesis is still dry.

2. "I will practice law with compassion."
  • In short: Talks about my life as both a teacher/instructor and a student, and wanting to be an informative resource for clients.  Putting the "counseling" back in "counsel."  NOT being an alpha-male, prestige-seeking, self-interested, greedy heartless bastard.
  • Pro: Accurate and truthful.  Could strike a chord with Atticus Finch sympathizers, or at least PI departments.
  • Con: Too touchy-feely or idealistic.  Runs the risk of seeming out-of-touch with actual modern law practice, clichéd in its perception.  Then again, AdComs could be pretty high in the ivory tower themselves.

3. "Post-amnesia struggle gave me confidence."
  • In short: I lost my memory early in life and had to rebuild from randomly-occurring flashbacks and secondhand accounts.  It sucked pretty hard.
  • Pro: Establishes strength of character, independence.  Classic overcoming-an-obstacle story.
  • Con: Cliché.  I want to beat the piss out of every writer who's ever used this as a convenient plot device in their work.  Mine was mild and not really as dramatic as it might seem, or at least it's not something I usually think of as major (aside from being careful who I tell).  Doesn't impact my current day-to-day life much at all.

4. "Identity crisis in the face of a new sibling."
  • In short: Family rediscovered a long-lost sibling and I had to reconstruct my identity as the oldest.  Mild philosophizing about truth & honesty.  Maybe a little re:coping with death under such unusual circumstances.
  • Pro: Soap-opera style plot.  Memorable enough to stand out amongst others.
  • Con: Extremely personal, feels manipulative.  An important part of my life, yes, but is the PS really a proper place to be baring one's soul and closet-skeleton?

I'm leaning toward #1 right now, but the Con does really terrify me.  I don't really know how to make intelligence sound sexy outside of a dating context, and most of my competition is going to be in the same boat.  And while I don't generally fault others for making the most of hands they've been dealt, #3 or #4 would feel like playing a sympathy card, which is the last thing I want to do.  They're only on the table because they're unique.  I don't need pity, I need them to understand that I'm awesome.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT46, S2(LR), Q7
« on: October 25, 2009, 06:14:36 PM »
not per "THE RULES" sticky at the top of the forums

Studying for the LSAT / PT46, S2(LR), Q7
« on: October 25, 2009, 03:26:18 PM »
Insects, instincts, behavior, brain size.

My answer: (E) "Only organisms with brains of insect size or smaller engage in purely instinctual behavior."

Credited answer: (B) "Insect behavior is exclusively instinctual."

The credited answer seems much more restrictive.  It's an absolute, which I read no grounds for in the argument.

The argument never cites a binary for behaviors (i.e. instinctual/flexible), so why is it necessary that insect brain size < required size for flexible behavior ----> insect behavior = pure instinct?

I felt the more qualified statement in (E) was appropriate.  Please advise.

Pages: [1]