This is a rough draft of my secondary statement for the Loyola application. It is in response to the prompt:
"A good Lawyer has an inquisitive mind." Considering this proposition, describe in a paragraph research you have performed in an academic or non-academic setting. Include in your brief discussion, the type of information, resources and research methods used.
As a research assistant in Dr. Jane Doe's Social Relations laboratory I was asked to participate in the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities (URCA) program that was offered at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In conjunction with my mentor, Jane, I decided to focus my work on members of stigmatized groups and to expand on our department’s current research. The research project began in January of 2004 and lasted through June. This six-month project, titled The Effect of Fairness Beliefs and Group Identification on Motivation and Effort among Members of a Stigmatized Group, involved gathering a subject pool of 64 Latino/a undergraduates that had already been subject to questionnaires as to provide for baseline data to compare experimental results. I constructed questionnaires that target a person’s beliefs in a fair social system, ethnic identity and motivation. I assessed fairness of society by using four items such as “our society is an open society where all individuals can achieve higher status”. I assessed the strength with which a person identifies with his or her ethnic group using four items such as “I often regret that I belong to the ethnic group I belong to”. Motivation was assessed by how much individuals’ view of the self is affected by intelligence tests and their academic performance. The extent to which intelligence tests affect individuals’ view of the self was assessed using three items. For example, “No intelligence test will ever change my opinion of how intelligent I am”. Participants also reported their college grade point averages. The participants rated the following psychological variables and other non-scored questions on a scale from zero (strongly disagree) to six (strongly agree) in a classroom setting. The questionnaire pages were put together in random order to minimize any effects that could result from the order of the questions presented. Also, I introduced myself as a proctor rather than an experimenter to minimize stress during the testing. All information regarding the testing was fully disclosed to the subjects after the completion of the questionnaire. I entered the data from the questionnaires in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for further analysis. The experiment was largely based on correlation analysis between the three variables mentioned above. After completion, I submitted my work to URCA and presented the research at the Undergraduate Research Colloquium.
Any advice, do y'all think it may be too long or not enough research detail. I dont know what they want.