Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Personal Statement For Law School Applications
Personal Statement For Law School Applications
Had my synthesis reaction worked—yes or no? It was a simple question, but I had already spent
hours trying to answer it in vain. As much as I loved chemistry, my patience was wearing thin. Midnight had
come and gone three hours ago, and the long evening had taken its toll. With bleary eyes I pored over page
after page of cluttered data, trying to make sense of the results. Occasionally my heart would leap as I
chanced upon a promising tidbit, but no sooner would I get my hopes up than the morsel would reveal itself
as a false lead. I was at once eager to move forward yet hesitant to do so: the right judgment about a piece of
data could spring the analysis toward a conclusion, but the wrong judgment could push it just as far in the
opposite direction.
My inner pragmatist and inner perfectionist were duking it out to see who would decide my approach
to the problem. At this juncture, I honestly didn’t know which one to obey. The pragmatist dangled the
allure of compromise: if only I overlooked a few inconsistencies here and there, the remainder of the data
would fall neatly into place. Admittedly, the conclusion might not be entirely right, but neither would it be
entirely wrong. The perfectionist, on the other hand, insisted on rigor: if even one piece of data proved
incompatible with a theory, then I would have to reshape that theory to take it into account. To do anything
In principle, making sense of the results of nuclear magnetic resonance, or NMR, spectroscopy called
for the perfectionist’s approach. Even though the technology allowed chemists to deduce the structures of
unknown molecules with more precision than ever before, reaching that high-hanging fruit required one to
tease meaning from reams of data that bordered on the cryptic. Without going into detail, suffice it to say
that NMR spectroscopy uses the magic of physics to transform a molecule into a line on paper. This line,
called the NMR spectrum, forms a series of peaks and valleys and encodes all the information a chemist
The challenges of the interpretation process, however, meant that the pragmatist often held sway.
Although each peak corresponds to a specific feature of the molecule in theory, in practice an NMR spectrum
can look indecipherable: frenzied clusters of peaks vie for space and crowd each other out, producing
ambiguities that riddle every step of the analysis. In particularly nasty cases, a subtle difference between two
otherwise identical molecules can give rise to wildly different results. Likewise, two otherwise unlike
molecules might give similar results if they share a few key similarities. Scientific instruments can also
introduce artifacts—for example, by merging two separate peaks into one. Neglecting a small but telling
detail often spelled woe for the unwitting chemist; the intricate nature of the analysis practically invited
unwarranted assumptions.
I had bogged down in the process of deciding which features to consider relevant. If I chose to
ignore one detail, then the rest would form a plausible conclusion. If I chose to ignore a different detail,
however, the result might well be something entirely contrary. If reconciling such possibilities had seemed
like finding a needle in a haystack when I started, it now felt downright Sisyphean. The lack of progress was
all the more exasperating because I had foreseen the difficulties: despite starting early and budgeting extra
time, the work had still bloated into the wee hours. With each passing minute the pragmatist’s approach
The perfectionist, however, refused to give up. Just as I readied myself to take the easy way out,
instinct told me to keep working. I had come so far, it said, and all the work I had invested would go to
waste if I accepted a half-baked conclusion now. Reinvigorated by this new thirst for the answer, I drove
onward. Four o’clock, then five o’clock, melted away as I inched toward the truth. Several times I started to
stretch the facts, but each time I caught myself and forced my reasoning back onto solid ground. When the
last piece of the puzzle finally fell into place, I looked up and realized, almost surprised, that the seemingly
impossible task had come to an end. I checked my work one last time and knew, with great satisfaction, that
my synthesis reaction had worked. Despite all the false starts, the apparently intractable data, and the