Roast my PS, Part II: The Reckoning Forum

[llb-k-jd]

Fellas, the first thread is here http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... #p10390736

The title says what to do. I did some soul-searching, tore down my old personal statement, and rebuilt it mostly from scratch in accordance with the great advice in that last thread, with more dynamism, no colons, and only one semicolon. This statement explains progressive debating accessibly (I hope), focuses more on my personal development, and avoids the question of 'why law.' I'm feeling good about it, but is that feeling justified? Let me know.

Also, apologies if this is too soon after the last one, idk what the required etiquette is. Here goes:



My debating career began, stereotypically, with an idolization of Atticus Finch and a love of performance. I imagined that my time would be spent delivering elegant speeches in the company of blazered politicians-to-be, each standing behind their own lectern, probably in an auditorium somewhere. Refreshments would be provided. What I did not then know, and what I would soon discover, was that debating would be the weirdest hobby I would adopt, and the one which would give me the courage to be different. It’s cliché, but true.

My two-year-old team, which had stuck to competitive speaking, was unable to provide training when I first joined. Determined to debate anyway, I consulted Wikipedia, a very reliable source, which in turn led me to R/Debating and Cross-X.com. I learned everything I could. Several weeks later I showed up to my first local competition, legal pad in hand, and proceeded to lose four rounds out of four. Although I had come to understand the structure and norms of competition well, and although I received complementary feedback on my presentation, it immediately became clear that I lacked the breadth of recent research available to competitors from more established programs.

So, I went back to the forums, where I discovered the K, or the argument from critical theory. First, the speaker contends that the topic, the language it contains, or some aspect of their opponent’s advocacy furthers an idea or tendency in the real world. Then, the furtherance of that idea or tendency is proven to be harmful. Finally, it is demonstrated that, by voting against the offending person or motion, whatever harms would otherwise occur will be prevented. Successfully using K’s would be beneficial for several reasons. They are tangential, and as a result can be applied to several topics per year, allowing a depth of research otherwise unavailable to an individual debater. They involve real world harms and are therefore more impactful than conventional arguments. Most importantly, their abstractness makes them difficult to predict, mitigating the efficacy of an opponent’s preparation, and thereby helping to level gaps in resources between schools.

That is not to say that using critical theory would be easy. K’s were developed at national competitions where jargon is expected and where speaking is rapid; convincing laypeople requires eloquence. All but the most important evidence would have to be culled, as would any jargon, and what remained would have to be technically sound and rhetorically effective. I buckled down. With hard work, a lot of feedback, and even more trial and error, I produced arguments that were unconventional without being inaccessible to ordinary people. In my fourth competition, I placed third. In my fifth, first. I soon qualified for nationals and, by the time of my graduation, simplified K’s had become common in my circuit.

I cannot say whether debating in the same way as everyone else would have eventually worked. What I do know is that treading the road less travelled was at least as effective as, and probably more fun than, the alternative. Debating unconventionally taught me to be curious, adaptable, and unafraid of thinking differently. In short, it gave me courage. Without that courage, I would not have committed to earning my bachelors abroad, and in English Law, before ever having left North America. I would not have been able to adapt, after arriving, to a manner of learning, writing, and thinking unlike anything I had previously experienced. And I certainly would not be applying to law school at the tender age of twenty. It is because of high school debating, as silly as it might have been, that I have become the person I am today. Law is a conservative profession, and no one in their right minds would prefer a creative lawyer to a sensible one. But in a period of increasing globalization, automation, and privatization of law, the need for attorneys capable of being both creative and sensible, of buckling down and of thinking forward, is greater than ever. I believe that my experiences have demonstrated the ability to live up to that standard.

[cavalier1138]

I'm not sure this has fixed any of the initial problems with the first piece, even though you've changed all the wording. A few bullet points:

-It's extremely inaccessible. I got bored after the first description of you going to specific online resources, and delving into the esoteric details of one particular theory of debate just made things worse.

-Still sounds like you put most of these sentences through an arbitrary thesaurus to sound "smart." Good writing sounds smart. Overuse of big words doesn't.

-I don't learn anything about you through this statement. It's a personal statement, and it feels more like a very short and boring delve into debating technique. It's fine if you want to talk about yourself through the lens of debate, but if this is the only way you can do that, find a different topic. This is the single biggest issue with the piece. It feels like you want to educate the reader instead of truly reveal something about yourself. No one gives a shit about debating technique; they want to learn something about you that they can't learn from reading the rest of your application.

-Honestly, the decision to earn the LLB is far more interesting, so I wouldn't tease that if you stick with this topic.

-Don't tell adcomms what the practice of law is.

On a totally separate note, you're super-young. If you can get an apprenticeship (or whatever the specific term is for the first legal job you get in England), do that. Stay in England and live a little. American law schools aren't going anywhere.

[llb-k-jd]

I'm not sure this has fixed any of the initial problems with the first piece, even though you've changed all the wording. A few bullet points:

-It's extremely inaccessible. I got bored after the first description of you going to specific online resources, and delving into the esoteric details of one particular theory of debate just made things worse.

I was trying to address the clarity complaints from the first piece by including that explanation. I don’t think I’m capable of making this more accessible than it currently is. It may be that the topic itself is too technical. It sounds like I’ll have to pick another.

-Still sounds like you put most of these sentences through an arbitrary thesaurus to sound "smart." Good writing sounds smart. Overuse of big words doesn't.

I don’t understand the thesaurus feedback. No thesaurus was used. I typed feverishly and words appeared

Is it necessary to remove them? That seems inauthentic, but I will do it if I have to.

-I don't learn anything about you through this statement. It's a personal statement, and it feels more like a very short and boring delve into debating technique. It's fine if you want to talk about yourself through the lens of debate, but if this is the only way you can do that, find a different topic. This is the single biggest issue with the piece. It feels like you want to educate the reader instead of truly reveal something about yourself. No one gives a shit about debating technique; they want to learn something about you that they can't learn from reading the rest of your application.

This is concerning. I tried very hard to make this draft about my development rather than externalities. I’m not sure how to fix this, notwithstanding the topic. I’m not used to talking about myself.

-Honestly, the decision to earn the LLB is far more interesting, so I wouldn't tease that if you stick with this topic.

Writing a PS about that is becoming increasingly attractive. I will probably give it a try, assuming that the feedback for this one remains mostly negative.

-Don't tell adcomms what the practice of law is.

you rite

On a totally separate note, you're super-young. If you can get an apprenticeship (or whatever the specific term is for the first legal job you get in England), do that. Stay in England and live a little. American law schools aren't going anywhere.

This may not sound believable, but I’ve really enjoyed studying law, and I would like to keep doing it for the foreseeable future? Working will probably be cool, but I’m really in the groove of university rn.

Anyway, thank you so much for reading both drafts, that takes incredible dedication. I will take your feedback into account ~

[cavalier1138]

It may be that the topic itself is too technical.

Yep.

I don’t understand the thesaurus feedback.

Maybe you just enjoy using flowery or technical language (for example, "externalities"). That's totally fine, but it doesn't come off well. It makes the reader feel like you're either trying to sound smart or trying to talk down to them.

This may not sound believable, but I’ve really enjoyed studying law, and I would like to keep doing it for the foreseeable future? Working will probably be cool, but I’m really in the groove of university rn.

That doesn't sound unbelievable, but you will benefit immensely from taking the time away from school to do something else. You'll also be a much more attractive candidate for a future job.

[pszszsz]

First ever post for me on this forum, but I’ve browsed here for years and gotten tons of helpful information doing so. The initial feedback you got on this second draft compelled me to finally post and really push back and offer my own thoughts. Aside from just a few clauses that I’d cut (e.g., “no one would prefer a creative lawyer to a conservative one” - you have no way of knowing whether that’s true and don’t really make clear what you mean), I thought your second go was great and I found it really compelling and clear. Would personally cut a couple more minor things I’m not going to get into now, and I’d also steer clear of any self-deprecation or insecurity (e.g., “tender age of 20” - don’t make this sound line a problem if you don’t feel it is), but at least to me, on the whole, this worked really well. Also, just to be clear, I agreed completely with almost all the initial critiquing you got in your first attempt. This was a huge step forward imo. I’d say keep working on it and rereading/editing, but imo you already have a very effective PS.

Fwiw, I’m an employed, fairly recent T14 graduate (last few years) who also gambled a bit on the PS when applying.

[llb-k-jd]

First ever post for me on this forum, but I’ve browsed here for years and gotten tons of helpful information doing so. The initial feedback you got on this second draft compelled me to finally post and really push back and offer my own thoughts. Aside from just a few clauses that I’d cut (e.g., “no one would prefer a creative lawyer to a conservative one” - you have no way of knowing whether that’s true and don’t really make clear what you mean), I thought your second go was great and I found it really compelling and clear. Would personally cut a couple more minor things I’m not going to get into now, and I’d also steer clear of any self-deprecation or insecurity (e.g., “tender age of 20” - don’t make this sound line a problem if you don’t feel it is), but at least to me, on the whole, this worked really well. Also, just to be clear, I agreed completely with almost all the initial critiquing you got in your first attempt. This was a huge step forward imo. I’d say keep working on it and rereading/editing, but imo you already have a very effective PS.

Fwiw, I’m an employed, fairly recent T14 graduate (last few years) who also gambled a bit on the PS when applying.

I have to say, reading your feedback has really changed my outlook on this in the best possible way. Thank you for sharing it, esp. for your first post

[pszszsz]

Couple other quick thoughts after retreading: I’d maybe add a paragraph or two expanding on how the creative approach you took to debating represents or is emblematic of you are or who you've become as a person. I agree with the suggestion that elaborating on who *you* are and what you bring to a school might make this an even stronger PS. But that’s your call, and at the end of the day you have to be happy with what you’re submitting and feel like it is the best glimpse into yourself that you can give. Still, though, I think what you have so far is good.

And last thing: I’d be really careful about not appearing to criticize your school or its program. Acknowledging a lack of resources is okay, for me, but maybe it would be even better to briefly explain - in a way sympathetic to your school - why that was the case.

[pszszsz]

Happy to share and hopefully be of some help. Good luck!

[pszszsz]

Happy to share and hopefully be of some help. Good luck!

[deference]

It was a very difficult read, especially the parts where you talk about debate terms that doesn’t say anything at all about you. Also to give you some perspective, you devoted 2 out of 5 (40%) paragraphs of your PS on something that doesn’t educate the reader about you.

[llb-k-jd]

Couple other quick thoughts after retreading: I’d maybe add a paragraph or two expanding on how the creative approach you took to debating represents or is emblematic of you are or who you've become as a person. I agree with the suggestion that elaborating on who *you* are and what you bring to a school might make this an even stronger PS. But that’s your call, and at the end of the day you have to be happy with what you’re submitting and feel like it is the best glimpse into yourself that you can give. Still, though, I think what you have so far is good.

I think this got lost in the ‘conservative lawyer’ bit. I’m going to remove everything from there down, and to create a closing honing in on who I am (a creative thinker) and what I offer to a school (perspective).

And last thing: I’d be really careful about not appearing to criticize your school or its program. Acknowledging a lack of resources is okay, for me, but maybe it would be even better to briefly explain - in a way sympathetic to your school - why that was the case.

That’s a good point. I loved my team, it just happened to be new and focused on speech, and researching topics that change every month thoroughly is difficult as one person. They did help to improve the quality of my speaking itself, and I think I will compound that to the sentence about them being unable to offer training in debating specifically. That should make it clear that criticism is not intended.

Good luck!

Thanks!

[ghostoftraynor]

I'm somewhat in the middle of the two opinions you've received here. I definitely found the piece significantly more entertaining that your previous one and think it could work has a personal statement. But, it still comes off a bit too much as a love poem to debate. I'm probably biased a bit too because the idea of derailing a debate with critical theory seems obnoxious to me, but I'm sure plenty in admission offices eat that up.

I do agree with Cav on the language; I think you have pretentious prose. I know you probably just think you are writing your authentic style, but nothing about writing is authentic. It is a highly learned skill and deliberate process. You are educated and verbose, and it seems natural to "show" that off. I'm sure you aren't consciously trying to do that. But, you are doing it all the same.

Just work on toning it down. I was in a similar boat, and I've simplified my writing overtime. It doesn't need to be your natural impulse, but you should always try to be aware of the tone your are conveying to others.

[llb-k-jd]

I do agree with Cav on the language; I think you have pretentious prose. I know you probably just think you are writing your authentic style, but nothing about writing is authentic. It is a highly learned skill and deliberate process. You are educated and verbose, and it seems natural to "show" that off. I'm sure you aren't consciously trying to do that. But, you are doing it all the same.

Just work on toning it down. I was in a similar boat, and I've simplified my writing overtime. It doesn't need to be your natural impulse, but you should always try to be aware of the tone your are conveying to others.

I think this is good advice. It’s helpful (if concerning) to hear honestly how my choice of words comes off, and I will work on it. Thanks!

[Pneumonia]

Fellas, the first thread is here http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... #p10390736

My debating career began, stereotypically, with an idolization of Atticus Finch and a love of performance. Punchier: "I idolized Atticus Finch and loved performance, so I entered debate." In general you need more "I" sentences, and also to eliminate passive voice. I imagined that my time would be spent this is the kind of filler that you should hunt down relentlessly delete delivering elegant speeches in the company of alongside blazered politicians-to-be, each of us standing behind their our own lectern, probably in an auditorium somewhere. Refreshments would be provided. Passive, and not sure what it adds? What I did not then know, and what I would soon discover, "had yet to learn" is better and saves words was that debating would be the weirdest find a better word, or explain why it is weird hobby I would adopt, and the one which would give me the courage to be different. It’s I would avoid contractions. Law, as you say, is conservative. "A cliche, but true" works just fine. cliché, but true.

My two-year-old team, which had stuck to competitive speaking, was unable to provide trainingwhen I first joined. Determined to debate anyway, I consulted Wikipedia, a very reliable source, which in turn led me to R/Debating and Cross-X.com online debating forums. I learned everything I could. Several weeks later I showed up to my first local competition, legal pad in hand, and proceeded to lose lostfour rounds out of four. Although I had come to understand the structure and norms of competition well, and although I received complementary feedback on my presentation, it immediately became clear that I lacked the breadth of recent research available to competitors from more established programs. this sentence could be 50% shorter

So, I went back to the forums, where I discovered the "K"K, or the argument from critical theory. First, "This mode required me to" or similar the speaker contends that the topic, the language it contains its terminology, or some aspect of their myopponent’s advocacy furthers an idea or tendency in the real world. "idea or tendency" is repetitive. This sentence is a good example of how you can change boring descriptions of debate into something that YOU did Then, the furtherance of that idea or tendency is proven to be I would show that the idea washarmful. Finally, it is I woulddemonstrated that, by voting against the offending person or motion, whatever harms would otherwise occur will be prevented. fix the rest of this sentence Successfully using K’s would be beneficial for several reasons. They are tangential, and as a result can be applied to several topics per year, allowing a depth of research otherwise unavailable to an individual debater. They involve real world harms and are therefore more impactful than conventional arguments. Most importantly, their abstractness makes them difficult to predict, mitigating the efficacy of an opponent’s preparation, and thereby helping to level gaps in resources between schools. Make this not passive, cut it by 50%, and make it about you, as above.

That is not to say that Butusing critical theory would be was noteasy. K’s were developed at change from passive national competitions where jargon is expected and where speaking is rapid; convincing laypeople requires eloquence. All but the most important evidence would have to be culled passive. Say instead "I had to cull all but the most important evidence, as would any jargon, and what remained would have to be technically sound and rhetorically effective. I buckled down. With hard work, a lot of feedback, and even more trial and error, I produced arguments that were unconventional without being inaccessible to ordinary people. Great sentence for a PS. In my fourth competition, I placed third. In my fifth, first. I soon qualified for nationals and, by the time of my graduation, simplified K’s had become common in my circuit.

I cannot say whether debating in the same way as everyone else would have eventually worked. What I do know is that treading the road less travelled was at least as effective as, and probably more fun than, the alternative. Debating unconventionally was fun, and it taught me to be curious, adaptable, and unafraid of "confident in" or similar; use positive words "un" and "afraid" are both negative, though in aggregate they make a positive thinking differently. In short, it gave me courage. Without that courage, I would not have committed to earning That courage drove me to earnmy bachelors abroad, and in English Law, before ever having left North America. I would not have been able to If helped meadapt, after arriving, to a manner of learning, writing, and thinking unlike anything I had previously experienced. again, use words that are positive. And Without it, I certainly would not be applying to law schoolat the tender age of twenty. It is because of high school debating, as silly as it might have been, that I have become Debate helped make methe person I am today. Law is a conservative profession, and no one in their right minds good advice for everyone: don't talk about who is and isn't "in their right minds." would prefer a creative lawyer to a sensible one. But in a period of increasing globalization, automation, and privatization of law, the need for attorneys capable of being both creative and sensible, of buckling down and of thinking forward, is greater than ever. I believe that my experiences have demonstrated the ability to live up to that standard.

This draft is much improved. You turned it around pretty quickly; good job. There is a lot you could cut, so I would focus on that for now. Personal statements are like everything else that isn't GPA/LSAT: being in the bottom 5% might hurt you, being in the top 5% might help, and everything in between is essentially a wash. If you are aiming for Y/S/B then you need to make substantial revisions or find a new topic. Otherwise, this is ho-hum enough that it shouldn't hurt. I may have missed it last time, and maybe its because I know nothing about debate, but I didn't realize until the end of this version that it was about high school. That's not great. If you stick with this, I would avoid saying that outright.

I agree you should eliminate self-deprecating things like "stereotypically" and "tender age."

[llb-k-jd]

I may have missed it last time, and maybe its because I know nothing about debate, but I didn't realize until the end of this version that it was about high school. That's not great. If you stick with this, I would avoid saying that outright.

I graduated just over two years ago, so the events I’m describing are fairly recent. Is the high school thing still a problem?

I’ll implement those line edits and cut any self-deprication. Thanks for your help!

[Npret]

I don’t like this at all. You sound like writing an esssay not talking about yourself.

I wouldn’t talk about high school debate other than a aragrapg. The distance isn’t time of a couple of years ago by how you’ve grown now you’re an independent college student.

Read some other personal statements. I think even Asa from Yale has some in her blog.

[llb-k-jd]

I don’t like this at all. You sound like writing an esssay not talking about yourself.

I wouldn’t talk about high school debate other than a aragrapg. The distance isn’t time of a couple of years ago by how you’ve grown now you’re an independent college student.

Read some other personal statements. I think even Asa from Yale has some in her blog.

I’ve read Asha’s blog and many of the sample statements available online. I think a lot of the ‘essay’ feel will be fixed by putting in the suggested line edits, reworking the conclusion, and adopting a more active voice, right?

I still don’t get the high school thing. Many successful PSs that I’ve found online focus on events prior to college, and their effect on development.

From Asha:

“A good personal statement provides a coherent narrative of what has brought you to this point (in your life, of applying to law school, or a combination of these two). What this narrative consists of will depend on the person writing it... it may be an intellectual journey, where certain ideas or courses influenced you. And for others it may be one or several experiences, personal or professional, that were meaningful...”

I also worry about the ‘one trick pony’ point she makes. Surely a personal statement about some aspect of studying law abroad would be overkill, given that I plan to submit a resume full of law activities, and recommendations from law professors? My only other options are events prior to undergraduate school.

[Npret]

Ok. It’s to reflect you so stick with what you feel reflects that.

[Bingo_Bongo]

To me, this came across as one of those awkwardly worded passages on obscure topics that they make you read for the LSAT more than it seems like a personal statement. I feel like the next part of this should be: "Which position on debate theory would the author of the passage least agree with..." (You said you wanted to be "roasted", so there you go )

Honestly, I had a really hard time reading the whole thing. I doubt an admissions officer would put in the effort. They'd probably give up after you started explaining debate theory and just settle on looking at your LSAT score.

STYLISTICALLY

You appear to be a good writer from your posts. Channel that. Don't try so hard to sound smart -- trust me, you don't need to. Just write like a normal human being.

As a practical tip, I noticed that your writing is pretty choppy, and I think that's what's largely responsible for making this so difficult to read. Avoiding breaking your train of thought too often with unneeded dependent clauses. For example:

My two-year-old team, which had stuck to competitive speaking, was unable to provide training when I first joined. Determined to debate anyway, I consulted Wikipedia, a very reliable source, which in turn led me to R/Debating and Cross-X.com. I learned everything I could. Several weeks later I showed up to my first local competition, legal pad in hand, and proceeded to lose four rounds out of four.

You have eleven different clauses packed into a few sentences here. That type of writing style is choppy and makes people's brains hurt.

Also, avoid semicolons; they're pretentious.

CONTENT

I'd probably come up with a new topic. Even if you don't want to do that, I would still absolutely avoid lecturing the adcom about debate theory. Trust me, when they start reading it they'll take off their glasses, sigh, rub their temples, and then move onto the next page. They ain't reading that.

Pick something close to you and something interesting. Don't pick a weird topic that you think a boring law school would want to read about (because in all reality, they probably don't). Pick something that your next door neighbor might find interesting. Pick something that you wouldn't be embarrassed giving to your crush to read. Pick something that relates to you at a human level, and lets the reader in with what's going on in your life.

I'd crumple that draft up and start anew.

[llb-k-jd]

To me, this came across as one of those awkwardly worded passages on obscure topics that they make you read for the LSAT more than it seems like a personal statement. I feel like the next part of this should be: "Which position on debate theory would the author of the passage least agree with..." (You said you wanted to be "roasted", so there you go )

roasted and toasted

You have eleven different clauses packed into a few sentences here. That type of writing style is choppy and makes people's brains hurt.

Thank you for pointing that out! Should provide a good reference point for improving readability.

Pick something close to you and something interesting. Don't pick a weird topic that you think a boring law school would want to read about (because in all reality, they probably don't). Pick something that your next door neighbor might find interesting. Pick something that you wouldn't be embarrassed giving to your crush to read. Pick something that relates to you at a human level, and lets the reader in with what's going on in your life.

is it bad that I would give this to my crush...

in all seriousness, I’m not sure what else to write about.i used to do a lot of musical theatre, but not since high school, and I have some awards for that in my CV, so admissions will be otherwise informed. I imagine this is a pretty common topic, too.

I thought of writing a ‘going abroad’ draft, but that’s really really cliché, and anything about my course more specifically would be some combination of boring/repetitive/veering into why law. this would also probably necessitate writing about my actual work, which seems risky, given the taboo of opinions about law on PSs (even though I actually study it).

i could write about my fairly recent self-conversion to Christianity, which might be interesting, but I worry that that might rub some adcomms the wrong way.

i also converted to tea? it’s a big part of my life now.

do any of these things sound more compelling...

[nixy]

I agree with a lot of what everyone has said.

Just to suggest that some of it is very subjective: I liked "Refreshments would be served" because, to me, it got across a kind of naivete/ignorance about debating and the image you had of it in your head. (Then I got lost in the idea that you would use critical theory just to derail other people's arguments, which came across badly to me as well, so I agree generally with the feedback on it.)

I also think contractions are fine in a personal statement - law is conservative, but a PS isn't legal writing. If they fit the tone you're going for, I think you should feel free to use them; they can just be jarring if everything else is quite formal and then you drop in a contraction in one place, but if you write conversationally, they're fine.

I don't think "why law" is necessary in a PS (I've actually seen many people claim it is), but I also don't think it's verboten. So I don't think the topic of going abroad has to be a problem, especially if you focus on the cultural aspects compared to the academic aspects. I get the concern about using a cliche topic, but in the end you might be best off writing a good essay about a cliche topic than struggling to find a non-cliche topic that doesn't really work as a topic.

I also think you could write a perfectly serviceable PS about tea.

[Bingo_Bongo]

is it bad that I would give this to my crush...

in all seriousness, I’m not sure what else to write about.i used to do a lot of musical theatre, but not since high school, and I have some awards for that in my CV, so admissions will be otherwise informed. I imagine this is a pretty common topic, too.

I thought of writing a ‘going abroad’ draft, but that’s really really cliché, and anything about my course more specifically would be some combination of boring/repetitive/veering into why law. this would also probably necessitate writing about my actual work, which seems risky, given the taboo of opinions about law on PSs (even though I actually study it).

i could write about my fairly recent self-conversion to Christianity, which might be interesting, but I worry that that might rub some adcomms the wrong way.

i also converted to tea? it’s a big part of my life now.

do any of these things sound more compelling...

You could maybe do something with social awkwardness (ie. giving your crush papers on debate theory). Like, don't make that be your whole statement, but maybe open with a professionally appropriate funny/awkward story, explain how that moment pretty much sums you up as a person, and then maybe explain why that person is a good fit for law school. That could be interesting. Just keep it professionally appropriate.

And I'm not quite sure why you think musical theatre accomplishments are a "pretty common topic" for law school admissions statements. I think the vast majority of people who want to be lawyers have probably never set foot on stage. I think there was like one student in my class of 150+ who was a theatre major in undergrad. If there's something there, go for it.