Deleted

[jessicaf]

In retrospect, I'm not sure I'll be able to get this topic to work as much as I'd like it to, so I'm scrapping it.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Jessica,

My first impression of your personal statement is that it focuses too much on the negatives. Essentially, your story boils down to this: you worked as a staffer on the Hill, became disillusioned with the legislative process (you and everyone else , and so you've decided that a career in law will be more suitable given your career aspirations. Unfortunately, law school sounds like a Plan B. It shouldn't. I'd be interested in knowing how your work in the US senate informed your decision to go to law school in a positive way: did you become particularly interested in certain policy issues? Would you like to go into politics after law school? What about public interest/advocacy?

Also, I'm afraid your career plan (as you described it from the perspective of a college freshman) sounds both overly ambitious and slightly misguided: few college students move to the Hill and immediately start shaping public policy. (Most have graduate or law degrees, so your decision to go to law school is essentially correct. You do, however, need to work on how you present it.) It is overly premature to declare your "career in politics" over, especially since you only worked for the US Senate for two years after college. It gives the impression that you give up too easily, which not only plays into the stereotype of the fickle Millennial, but it also raises a red flag about whether you'll be happy as an attorney.

Keep in mind this is all purely subjective, and others might have a different view on this issue

Good luck!

[jessicaf]

As you can see, I've decided to scrap the topic because as much as I want to get across the idea that law school isn't actually plan B, I don't know that focusing on the career change is going to accomplish what I want it to.

I did just want to say that you'd be shocked at how few staffers have graduate degrees and/or law degrees. In fact, I know at least a few Chiefs of Staff for senators who don't have either. Advanced degrees are surprisingly unnecessary for employment and advancement on the Hill, unless we're talking about committee staff. Also, there are many young 20-somethings who are, in fact, shaping public policy pretty soon out of college. The Hill is so weird and I think people have a lot of misconceptions about how it works and what staffers are like.

There's really no point to this other than like, 'the more you know' and whatnot.

Thanks for the feedback!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey Jessica,

I hear what you're saying. I know lots of people who've worked as staffers on the Hill, and while you're essentially correct in that you don't need a graduate degree to advance, it's quite helpful if you do (especially a law degree). It opens up a whole new world of opportunity that wouldn't be available otherwise.

I must say, though, that the transition from working on the Hill to law school is quite common: law school doesn't have to sound like a "Plan B" unless you make it sound like a Plan B (which, I'm afraid, you did in your first draft). Part of the problem was how critical - even disillusioned - you sounded when describing your work experience there. It sets the wrong tone, and sends the wrong message, namely, that you have decided to go to law school because you believe politics is a lost cause. If you could turn that around and explain why law school is the natural "next step" in your career, your statement would sound a whole lot better.

Anyway, good luck on the second draft... let us know if we can help in any way!