- Posts: 3
- Joined: Jan 05, 2014
- Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:25 pm
#14338
Hello,
This is my personal statement. I was hoping I could get some help on it. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!!
Alejandro
Sometimes I argue just to differentiate myself. I find joy in showing others that I am not the person they think I am. The arguments do not have to be about politics, religion or the like, they can be about anything. Like one instance when my two roommates were arguing over Chris Christie’s competence as governor. A couple of beers in and the argument had escalated into a competition to see who could shout the loudest. Insults were thrown around between the two, and one of them, Tom, who is 6’2 185 pounds exploded like a bull towards the other, Steve, who is much smaller. Fortunately, my friends were able to hold Tom back but that did not settle Steve who we know to be a bit of a loudmouth. Spewing expletives and other insults toward Tom, Steve made sure not to exclude any thoughts he had about Tom’s girlfriend. Suddenly, almost like I had lost control of my mouth I shouted, “Steve you do not know anything about his girlfriend, shut up and don’t bring that up again”. Why did I have to say that? No one else tried to step into the argument; they were trying to end it. I only included myself in it. Yet, I felt as if I had to get my point across and in the process show Steve and Tom the more aggressive side of me they had never seen.
Do I like confrontation? No, but I do like showing others my complexities, something that when I was younger few people got to see. It seemed my parents where steering me towards becoming something you only see in college brochures: that student with books in one hand and a baseball cap and glove in the other. The prototypical student athlete who is studious, virtuous, religious, athletic, good looking and all around perfect. And it was not just them, half of the Latino families in Miami were putting on the same display. I was encouraged to uphold that side of me to such an extent that I would even lie about trivial matters like how I did on progress reports (nobody cares about progress reports) to relatives so that I could maintain that squeaky clean image of what I was supposed to be. However, after a while I began to envy my friends who could talk about their struggles in school or in life without fear of tarnishing the image that had been set up for them. Growing up, it felt like everything I did had to be a reflection of what the prototypical student athlete would do.
It came as no surprise then, that when the time came to choose a college I chose ________, a liberal arts college far from my home in Miami that encouraged exposure to different ideas, philosophies, theories, and the like. Like a sponge, I absorbed everything I could. From cynical theories about why the United States intervened in Latin America to philosophers’ view on religion, particularly Catholicism, and its detriment to the masses. While taking political philosophy I was introduced to the works of Montaigne, a French philosopher who lived during the 1500’s in France. His writings stick out in my mind the most because they went hand in hand with theories I was looking in to outside of class. In a nut shell, the theories revolved around Christianity and the Catholic church and how putting your faith in something otherworldly negatively affected human potential. Similarly, Montaigne saw Christianity as a way for rulers to justify violence and senseless laws. My teacher would dive into Montaigne’s beliefs so eloquently, always using present day examples to show how Montaigne to a certain degree was correct. I would routinely walk out of the class both convinced about what I been taught and eager to learn more. Yet, frustration stemmed from the fact that I could not reconcile what I had been taught growing up with what I was learning in college. I had grown up in a strict Roman Catholic environment. My family and I made sure to always attend church on Sunday evenings and I knew that anything contrary to what the church and my parents had taught me growing up was taboo. Whats worse was that I felt alone. I could not seek my parent’s bias guidance because I did not want to worry them of the possibility of losing my faith. Nonetheless, my thirst for answers ensued and the more I learned the more I stepped out the bubble I had resided in growing up. The more I stepped away from the virtuous, religious, alway certain student athlete I was supposed to become.
Today, I look at the steep learning curve I went through at ______ and I am thankful. Yes, it introduced doubt into, among other things, what I had been taught about religion, but it also changed who I was and who I want to be. I look at myself now and I am a student athlete but to solely use that label falls well short of who I truly am. I am also a Latino Catholic, educated in an American setting who has undergone conflicting ideologies. The best thing about this is that I have not had to choose one over the other. I have absorbed all I could and drawn from each to form a new identity. I cannot fit into one label because my experiences take me far beyond that. That is why I feel the need to break out of the labels that I am put in. As I look towards attending law school next fall, I hope to continue exposing myself to new ways of thinking and growing.
This is my personal statement. I was hoping I could get some help on it. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!!
Alejandro
Sometimes I argue just to differentiate myself. I find joy in showing others that I am not the person they think I am. The arguments do not have to be about politics, religion or the like, they can be about anything. Like one instance when my two roommates were arguing over Chris Christie’s competence as governor. A couple of beers in and the argument had escalated into a competition to see who could shout the loudest. Insults were thrown around between the two, and one of them, Tom, who is 6’2 185 pounds exploded like a bull towards the other, Steve, who is much smaller. Fortunately, my friends were able to hold Tom back but that did not settle Steve who we know to be a bit of a loudmouth. Spewing expletives and other insults toward Tom, Steve made sure not to exclude any thoughts he had about Tom’s girlfriend. Suddenly, almost like I had lost control of my mouth I shouted, “Steve you do not know anything about his girlfriend, shut up and don’t bring that up again”. Why did I have to say that? No one else tried to step into the argument; they were trying to end it. I only included myself in it. Yet, I felt as if I had to get my point across and in the process show Steve and Tom the more aggressive side of me they had never seen.
Do I like confrontation? No, but I do like showing others my complexities, something that when I was younger few people got to see. It seemed my parents where steering me towards becoming something you only see in college brochures: that student with books in one hand and a baseball cap and glove in the other. The prototypical student athlete who is studious, virtuous, religious, athletic, good looking and all around perfect. And it was not just them, half of the Latino families in Miami were putting on the same display. I was encouraged to uphold that side of me to such an extent that I would even lie about trivial matters like how I did on progress reports (nobody cares about progress reports) to relatives so that I could maintain that squeaky clean image of what I was supposed to be. However, after a while I began to envy my friends who could talk about their struggles in school or in life without fear of tarnishing the image that had been set up for them. Growing up, it felt like everything I did had to be a reflection of what the prototypical student athlete would do.
It came as no surprise then, that when the time came to choose a college I chose ________, a liberal arts college far from my home in Miami that encouraged exposure to different ideas, philosophies, theories, and the like. Like a sponge, I absorbed everything I could. From cynical theories about why the United States intervened in Latin America to philosophers’ view on religion, particularly Catholicism, and its detriment to the masses. While taking political philosophy I was introduced to the works of Montaigne, a French philosopher who lived during the 1500’s in France. His writings stick out in my mind the most because they went hand in hand with theories I was looking in to outside of class. In a nut shell, the theories revolved around Christianity and the Catholic church and how putting your faith in something otherworldly negatively affected human potential. Similarly, Montaigne saw Christianity as a way for rulers to justify violence and senseless laws. My teacher would dive into Montaigne’s beliefs so eloquently, always using present day examples to show how Montaigne to a certain degree was correct. I would routinely walk out of the class both convinced about what I been taught and eager to learn more. Yet, frustration stemmed from the fact that I could not reconcile what I had been taught growing up with what I was learning in college. I had grown up in a strict Roman Catholic environment. My family and I made sure to always attend church on Sunday evenings and I knew that anything contrary to what the church and my parents had taught me growing up was taboo. Whats worse was that I felt alone. I could not seek my parent’s bias guidance because I did not want to worry them of the possibility of losing my faith. Nonetheless, my thirst for answers ensued and the more I learned the more I stepped out the bubble I had resided in growing up. The more I stepped away from the virtuous, religious, alway certain student athlete I was supposed to become.
Today, I look at the steep learning curve I went through at ______ and I am thankful. Yes, it introduced doubt into, among other things, what I had been taught about religion, but it also changed who I was and who I want to be. I look at myself now and I am a student athlete but to solely use that label falls well short of who I truly am. I am also a Latino Catholic, educated in an American setting who has undergone conflicting ideologies. The best thing about this is that I have not had to choose one over the other. I have absorbed all I could and drawn from each to form a new identity. I cannot fit into one label because my experiences take me far beyond that. That is why I feel the need to break out of the labels that I am put in. As I look towards attending law school next fall, I hope to continue exposing myself to new ways of thinking and growing.
She may be worth arguing over, but admissions officers don't need to know that. You may prefer to avoid confrontation and show others your complexities, but this story showed exactly the opposite: that you like confrontation for its own sake, and there is nothing "complex" about that. Not to mention that there is a significant disconnect between the opening story and the rest of your argument.