Law School Personal Statement Samples Why you Should Never Even Read Them

OK, I understand that applying to law school can be a frightening proposition and that you are looking for all the help you can get – and that’s why you are scouring the internet and the book stores for law school personal statement samples.

Well stop it.

You don’t need samples to show you how to write your law school personal statement. Each and every application you are completing tells you exactly what you need to know. The school has defined the rules, including how long the law school personal statement should be, what topics should be addressed, and frequently what topics should be avoided.

But, many ask, shouldn’t I look at what others have done to give me an idea of how to do it? While this is often good advice – and is something I frequently do in my law practice – I fervently believe that it is something that should be avoided when it comes to the law school personal statement.

The main reason you should avoid reading law school personal statement samples is that they all look the same, and you run the very real risk of looking the same if you follow those samples. In every area of life the great reward go to the outstanding people – not the good, or even excellent performers. To be outstanding, you need to do things differently than every one else.

The problem is that everyone is scared to death of screwing up their law school application by not giving the admissions committee what they expect. This kind of thinking probably won’t hurt you, because 99% of the law school personal statements they review are exactly the same. Such thinking will definitely, however, not help you because you cannot be outstanding if you look like everyone else.

Let’s face it, if you are shooting for the moon and trying to get into a law school that is not going to accept you based on your grades and LSAT scores alone, then turning in a bland personal statement isn’t going to do anything for you. You need to do something to set yourself apart, and the personal statement is one of the few areas you have an opportunity to do that.

I’m not recommending that you be crazy and violate the rules set down by the school, but I am recommending that you use those rules as your boundaries and fashion something truly personal, and different. By avoiding the same samples that every one else is reading you stand a better chance of falling in with the sheeple you are competing with.

Your goal is to get into a good law school and its my job to help you achieve that goal. One of the most important pieces of advice I can give is to encourage you to stand out, so make that personal statement yours and not someone elses.

This article may be freely reprinted or distributed in its entirety in any ezine, newsletter, blog or website. The author’s name, bio and website links must remain intact and be included with every reproduction.

My long time friend and mentor H. Jefferson, Jr. is an expert on on law school admission, having applied to and been admitted by 11 of the top law schools in the United States. To learn more about the the techniques and strategies you can use to get into the law school of your choice, visit

Should Stem Cell Research Be Allowed

Stem cell research has been at the forefront of many ethical debates in recent years. The manners in which the cells must be harvested and their usage for advancement in biomedical research along with the use of federal funds to finance the ongoing research has proven to be a debate that is not easily resolved even with the revolutionary advances in the treatment and prevention of disease, injury and birth defects. Although the benefits of continuing work on stem cell research sometimes outweigh its costs the final judgment for this issue should be that stem cell research should not be allowed due to several reasons.

Many of those who oppose ongoing research do so because of a religious stand point regarding life and how much respect an embryo should be awarded. Yet, many of those same individuals acknowledge and approve of in vitro fertilization (the implantation of a human embryo created in a Petri dish) for those who are genetically incapable of having children. Who gets to decide when religious bounds have been crossed and to which religion in the scientific community do we allow these bounds to be standardized upon? The United States Policy on human stem cell research as articulated by President Bush on August 9, 2001 is as follows: Permits federal funding only for research using cells from approximately 60 stem cell lines identified by the National Institute of Health as having been derived from excess human embryos prior to the August 9 announcement. There is currently no federal law or policy prohibiting the private sector from creating stem cells by in vitro fertilization or by the SCNT technique for the purpose of research. The policy of most individual states also permits private funding for the use of embryonic stem cells for the purpose of research, although a few states have banned the continuation of research techniques.

While there is much hope and promise in this research there are many things that need to be understood first. First an understanding of what causes a stem cell to replicate and become a specialized cell needs to be known. Scientists need to know this before they can tell that cell what it must become. Another obstacle that must be overcome is the possibility of immune system rejection. If stem cells are used from a donor the recipient’s immune system may reject and even kill the new healthy stem cells. Science would have to find a way to stop this rejection prior to the use of donor stem cells (National Institutes of Health 2). Many guidelines and safeties need to be put into place by the federal government before any type of research can go forward. President Clinton and his administration realized this need for government control over stem cell research and issued a letter on November 14,1998 to the chairman of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), James Childress, Ph.D. In this letter to Dr. Childress President Clinton asked the NBAC to “undertake a through review of the issues associated with … human stem cell research, balancing all ethical and medical considerations” (Childress 2).

It was from that time until September of 1999, when the commission submitted its report, that the commission spent most of its time investigating the issues associated with stem cell research. The commission believed that it was important to get as clear a picture as possible on both the ethical and scientific issues surrounding stem cell research. The commission first held meetings with Dr. Gearhart and Dr. Thomson as well as several other scientists involved with stem cell research. After these meetings it became very clear to the commission why stem cell research had generated so much interest. The interest was in the use of human stem cells to treat possibly every disease and disorder known to humans. As well as being beneficial to the advancement of new drugs. The commission did realize however that this research raised serious ethical concerns. These concerns involved the two sources of stem cells, fetal tissues from elective abortions as well as surplus embryos obtained from fertility clinics. Realizing its need to explore the ethical issues involved with stem cell research the commission convened again. This time the meeting was held at Georgetown University. The topic was religious perspectives relating to human stem cell research. Altogether eleven scholars in Roman Catholic, Jewish, Eastern Orthodox, Islamic, and Protestant traditions presented formal testimony to the commission. At this meeting as Drenkhahn 6 well as all the others held by the commission the public was invited and encouraged to speak. After the meeting, it was obvious to the commission that there were many different perspectives about research on both the fetal tissues and human embryos (NBAC report 3).

The commission did find an agreement from all parties involved in the meetings that “human embryos deserve respect as a form of human life” (NBAC report 90). They also found though that many of the groups disagreed as to what form of respect and type of protection the embryos should get. Many in the group did think that the sources for stem cells should not be used unless absolutely necessary. In the end though the commission was able to come up with thirteen different recommendations for both the president and the senate subcommittee, the final plan as to this research was produced. Recommendations one through seven are the most important. These recommendations deal with the funding, ethics and guideline need for stem cell research. The first recommendation that is made regards funding of fetal tissue stem cell research. The commission found that it is acceptable for the government to fund fetal tissue research, as long as the choice of abortion was independent and not for the sole purpose of research (NBAC report 3). The second recommendation pertains to funding of embryonic research. The commission found that it is acceptable for the government to fund embryonic cell research, as long as the embryos are surplus embryos left over from fertility treatments. The commission also recommended new regulations and statutes for the ethics involved in this research.

The next two recommendations made by the commission covered the creation of stem cells for research purposes only. The commission recommended that the federal government not fund any project that deliberately creates embryonic stem cells for research purposes only (NBAC report 5). This research includes both invetro fertilization or by a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning (NBAC report 5). Both recommendations five and six deal with specific disclosure information. This information is intended for those who are willing to donate surplus embryos. The commission recommends that donors be advised “stem cell research is not intended to provide medical benefits to the donors” and “a decision to donate or not to donate will not affect future medical care” (NBAC report 4). In addition to that the commission recommends that in federally funded research, the researchers “may not promise donors that stem cells derived from their embryos will be used to treat patients specified by the donors (NBAC report 5) and recommendation seven states, “Embryos and fetal tissues should not be bought or sold” (NBAC report 5). The commission’s recommendations eight through thirteen deal with the formation of different committees, subcommittees, as well as watch dog groups to oversee funding and ethics (NBAC report 6). The NBAC concluded that it would be acceptable for the federal government to fund research of both types of stem cells. They came to these recommendations only if certain guidelines as well as safeguards are in place. They did, however, recommend not funding any project that created embryos just for research.

Several months after the commission presented their findings to the senate subcommittee, it was signed into law. President Clinton also approved these new laws. These laws remained in effect until several months ago when President Bush changed many of the laws already in affect. As the election of President Bush was confirmed, many of those in the scientific field waited in silence. These scientists were waiting for the president’s decision on stem cell research. While these scientists waited, a country that dominated the biotech world was falling behind. The US had up until this point conduced up to 90% of the world’s biomedical research, and US federal dollars and private spending exceeded that of the rest of the world put together (Capell 1). After President Bush announced that federal funding would be cut for stem cell research, the United States started its decline. How much the US started to fall back wasn’t clear until several weeks later. The realization came when the National Institutes of Health announced that 48 of the 64 stem cell lines available for funding were in labs outside the US.

There are several reasons for larger lines of stem cells outside the United States. First, in other countries there are fewer restrictions on stem cell research. Second, there is more funding available for this type of research (Capell 1). With the announcement that came on the ninth of August, many things changed. Stem cell research in the private sector is now unregulated. This should cause concern for many people. With the privatization of research come many different problems. One of the first problems we may see is patenting of stem cells. As large companies buy up the embryos available the price of research will increase (Capell 2). According to an article that appeared in Business Week as research costs rise so will the end cost to the consumer (Capell 3). By deregulating stem cell research, the president has taken control of cost and monopolization from the government and given it to the big corporate companies. President Bush, in his statement to the nation stated he had taken all facts into consideration before making his decision. But yet he still favored the cutting of funding. The president’s reason for cutting this funding was because it is morally wrong. He also stated that it goes against his beliefs. President Bush’s reasons for cutting this funding seem to conflict a precedent long set in this country to keep the state separate from the church. These are most obvious in the ruling of Roe vs. Wade, and the ruling of no prayer in public schools. Yet in the case of stem cell research that doesn’t seem so. The most prominent opposition to this research is the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II, wrote, “It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable biological matter” (Paul II 1).

The Catholic Church has always believed that life begins at conception, or the very moment an egg is fertilized. This is why the church has always opposed stem cell research, and with good reason, they believe it destroys human life. Even with the president’s decision to limit the funding it has still upset the pro-life groups. President Bush’s option to limit funding for stem cell research not only upset pro-life groups but also religious leaders and many scientists. Several of these scientists have fled to Great Britain, which has fewer restrictions on stem cell research (Capell 3). For this reason it is believed that many more scientists and researchers will leave for Great Britain. Meanwhile, the president’s decision left abortion opponents engaged and trying to defend one of their most basic beliefs that life starts at the moment of conception. They believe that this embryo is entitled to the same rights a grown person is allowed (Mitchell 1). The president’s statement of “its ok to experiment on embryos that were destroyed before Aug. 9th” was compared to be as moral as selling the gold teeth of Holocaust victims; after all they are already dead. (Mitchell 2)

Bush says his stem cell policy won’t change, and he promises to veto any legislation that would allow funding on new cell lines (Weiss 2). This hard line approach to stem cells will only cause the United States to fall further behind in this area of bioresearch. “Should the US stop funding this research, it will seriously and adversely affect the prospects for human health for the next 100 years,” according to William A. Haseline, CEO of Human Genome Sciences Inc. and a renowned biotech researcher. If funding stopped the United States would lose more then its leadership position (Capell 3). Contrary to the statements made by the president, members of congress said they would sponsor a bill expanding research. At this time though it looks like no new bills will be introduced this year, which will allow scientists to start working under the new rules. Most people are convinced that President Bush will not keep his current position on stem cell research. They believe that whether the current lines of stem cells are successful or not, pressure to expand the line will be intense. This pressure will not only come from his opponents but from some members of his own part. The fear remains, however that this sort of research will inevitable lead to human cloning and the creation of designer children. Many ethical decisions must be made on this issue before any compromises can be made. Therefore taking into account the experience that we already have concerning most of the technological advancements that lead to ozone depletion and many other environmental problems we should not continue with these experiments in order to think of better future for our children. Most of the cases when humans interact with regular flow of nature and environment humans do not get in full what they expected and the issue of pro’s and con’s is highly controversial.

Produced by ProfEssays ( ) – professional custom essay writing service: custom essays, custom term papers, custom academic papers, custom research papers, compositions, book reports, case study. No plagiarism, high quality, prompt delivery.

Should Local Governments in Nigeria be Scrapped?

Precisely 774 Local Governments exists today in Nigeria but it doubtful indeed if these local governments have lived up to expectations in the development of our country Nigeria. Three tier of government as inherited from the British have come under heavy criticisms from the citizens of Nigeria some of who are now angrily suggesting that the three tier of government be expunged from the nation’s system of government.


A new and sad dimension in the elections of officers into the third tier have just begun, and it would seem that this government at the local levels have inherited from its sisterly federal arm of government the art of selection of candidates and political officers into positions. What happened in Lagos State clearly points to the fact that who should rule in the grass root government was absolutely a decision to be determined by the ruling party or reigning state government. Firstly, the road to the said election of officers for the Local Government began with the handpicking of candidates with absence of any known criteria in the party membership of Action Congress (AC) Action Congress became a model in this business.

No primaries were held, yet party representatives emerged from the blues and honourably defeated all other contestants. Sadly again, we the electorates did not who the candidates whom we had the option of voting for but suddenly began to see posters all around the walls of Lagos, funnily after first sets of posters of campaigners have been seen. We therefore began to wonder who the legitimate candidates of Action Congress were. It amount to the 8th wonder of the modern world if the results of the elections held is pointing to the fact that every of the candidates of Action Congress were acceptable to the generality of Lagosians and in all the localities not minding whether these candidates were known or not.

In the end announcements were made that Action Congress had swept councillorship and chairmanship positions available in the state. The pressmen who were at the event to cover this report and probably the Attorney General of the Federation can tell us more on the event. What this portends for democracy at the grass roots is better imagined than explained here for we all know perfectly well that Lagos serves as a model for all the states of the federation and an idea of emergence of candidates without primaries and candidates of any particular political party winning every available positions could be emulated much to our chagrin.

This brings us to the question of the relevance of the Local Government in Nigeria, time may not permit to delve into its functions as provided for by the constitution of the nation but the sincere ones among us can definitely tell that not one of any Local Government in existence in the country today can boast of making wholesome achievements in this regard. At best, the best vibrant Local Government Area in Lagos is set at seeking every means of extracting the residents of the state in the name of taxation without ever giving back to them.

Once caught on any road as a motorist in the state, what the very first information issued to you is go pay this form of tax for three years and come back for discussions pertaining to your vehicle, the main reason you have been nabbed right or wrong. One is also expected to pay tax even for the air he breaths in Lagos but the question is what do we get back from the Local Governments?

The status of certain settlements in the state are even confusing, for Festac and Satellite town made to sit under two different Local Governments in the state, analysts have the time have wondered whether Festac town posses Federal, State or Local Government status such that should warrant the payment of tenement rates, market rates and other forms of taxes. There are no cemeteries to repair or take care in the town to take care of, no provision of drinkable water, lights are not provided by either the state or the Local Governments yet the people are forcefully put under the oath of tax payment. No single court exists at the local level in the town. The maintenance of the Estate is not carried out by either the federal, state or Local Government yet the headquarters of the Amuwo Odofin Local Government is located in the town.

The Estate has some of the most deplorable roads in Lagos which now cannot be accessed during rainy seasons yet we are told we are under local government and need to pay our tenement rates and ground rents. This situation is very appalling to the residents of the Estate.

Local Governments have been described as money sharing ventures with no feasible purpose to carry out with nothing to show as there are lapses in administration worsened by lack of checks and balances. Many people in the country do not even know the counselors and chairpersons representing them, which is terrible.

The Federal Government should begin to take closer looks on this government at the grass roots and ensure that people at the rural areas benefit immensely with water, roads and other facilities, stringent efforts should also be made to articulate new and better means of carrying out elections at this level to effectively distribute fairness and equity to all the parties involved. Only these will answer whether the operation of Local Governments should be retained in the country. 


What You Should Know About Child Custody Laws

Child custody laws vary from state to state. However, when looking into child custody laws, there are some general laws that apply. It is important that when dealing with a custody case, you have a full understanding of how the different laws will affect your individual case.

Most often, the court that has jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings, also has say so in the custody of the children. Whenever a child is born to parents who are married, they both have equal legal rights to the custody of the child should they separate.

The most important consideration in a child custody case is what is in the best interest of the child. The child’s well being takes precedence over the parents wants and desires. Some states believe it is in the best interest of the child to maintain frequent contact with both Mom and Dad. Often times, the parent who is able to be the most supportive of this notion is appointed as the custodial parent.

The custodial parent is the term used for the parent who spends the majority of time with the child. Therefore, a non-custodial parent is the term used for the parent who spends less time with the child.
Most states have an arrangement is place, should both parents disagree on custody of the child. Often times, the parents are required to attend mediation in order to work out a visitation plan that both Mom and Dad can agree upon. With mediation, the parents meet with a neutral third party, who then helps the parents to try and resolve their differences, as they relate to custody.

However, if mediation fails, the parents can then take matters into court. They can present both sides of their cases to the judge and let him or her make the final decision as to the custody of the child.

Child custody cases can be extremely difficult and expensive. A mutual agreement is preferred, since joint custody is more likely to be utilized, than if a judge were to make the decision for the parents.

There are many factors that come into play in the case of child custody. Since the laws vary from state to state, it is important that a local lawyer be consulted. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the laws of your state, before going forward with a child custody case.

Why You Should Hire an Irvine Family Law Attorney

Family law is an area that involves family relationships and issues. It can encompass anything from adoption finalization to divorce proceedings. No matter what type of family matters need to be decided, an attorney who specializes in this area of law will make the process a little easier.

An Irvine family law attorney should be well versed in all areas of California family law. Major life changes often take place as a result of the decisions made in these cases, and an experienced, compassionate staff can help clients survive the emotionally taxing process and win the case. It is important to choose a lawyer and firm that will handle each client on an individual basis, taking the time to get to know the client and family and understand the extenuating circumstances of each unique case.

An Irvine family law attorney will be experienced in the various aspects of family law. The most common cases handled in this area are divorce settlements, where a competent attorney is essential to protect the rights of the client and ensure the settlement is fair and reasonable. Divorce is one of the most stressful events a person may ever experience, but the right lawyer can make that difficult time a little easier to handle.

Child custody is often an element of divorce proceedings and can be very emotional and stressful for all parties involved, including the children. It may be difficult to determine where the children should be raised – and who should raise them – when parents split up. When the parents cannot agree on this issue, it is up to the court to decide where the children should live. This is usually done in the “best interest of the child”, although this can be difficult to determine. An experienced Irvine family law attorney can help ensure that a child custody case goes as smoothly as possible and that the rights of his client are firmly protected during the process.

Once child custody is determined, child visitation must also be addressed. This agreement will allow the non-custodial parent a prescribed amount of time with the children so that relationships are preserved in the family unit. The standard visitation order will allow the non-custodial parent to have the children one night a week and every other weekend. It also splits time during holidays and school vacations. If changes need to be made to this standard visitation order, an Irvine family law attorney can make sure those changes are done correctly and with the best interest of his client in mind.

Other areas that an Irvine family law attorney may handle include adoption proceedings, paternity cases, prenuptial agreements and restraining orders. Domestic violence is another stressful situation that may call for the services of a lawyer specializing in the area of family law. When searching for an attorney for any of these cases, it is important to look for a firm that specializes in this area of law to ensure the case is handled in the most professional way. The right attorney will make all the difference in dealing with these difficult situations compassionately and competently.