Jump to content

moneybadger

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About moneybadger

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Is there a distinction between explaining why you think you'd be a good LS candidate vs. why you think you'd be a good lawyer?
  2. Has it been a longstanding practice that colleges not associated with any universities offer Bachelors degrees? Are these Bachelor degrees equivalent to ones obtained at universities? I thought you could only complete those at universities. For example, Seneca College offers a "Honours Bachelor of Crime & Intelligence Analysis". The program actually looks pretty fascinating and Seneca touts it as being a one of a kind degree that you can't get anywhere else. You get a "Honours Bachelor Degree" upon graduating but in its program learning outcomes it refers to it as an applied degree. At first glance you'd think this would be an acceptable degree to complete for subsequent application to law school, but on the other hand, it's Seneca College.* There's even an extensive PDF they released about the program. It was interesting to go through because it draws comparisons to other similar programs at universities and colleges and describes how it's different than them. It mentions that this degree can be used to apply to graduate programs. It also says: "The HBCIA program maximizes the graduates’ potential for employment and promotion in their field and further study. It meets PEQAB’s standard and benchmarks for credential recognition. The program is designed with content and academic rigour that is expected to facilitate credit transfer to and credential recognition by other post-secondary institutions in Canada, the United States, and abroad. Issues of transferability and credit transfer have been a focus of Seneca College’s attention in order to facilitate the mobility needs of its graduates in a global economy. Efforts have been made to ensure that courses are commensurate with undergraduate instruction (at the lower and upper level) at other post-secondary institutions." I guess the question now is, are law schools accepting bachelors degrees like these that are completed at colleges, or is there still a distinction between bachelors degrees completed at universities? I wonder why colleges are doing this, how college bachelor degrees like these are perceived by law schools, and if this is misleading. It looks like Seneca took great effort to show it's just like a university degree, but I'm having trouble making sense of that because they're a college. 🤔 *Not intended to offend anyone at Seneca or come off as elitist. I purely mean this in the context that college is generally considered to have lower academic ranking than university.
  3. Trainer still available? Which edition?
  4. Some applicants have unique circumstances and they post about it in this forum for advice. But I've always wondered, why not email an admissions office of a law school directly and explain one's predicament? Wouldn't they be able to best advise an applicant pursue a second undergrad, take more courses, etc.? To be clear, this is in regards to questions about exceptional circumstances, not annoying them with "what are my chances?" questions. Is this considered bad etiquette or detrimental to one's application? Will my application get flagged if I do this? Lol. Please let me know if I'm making a glaring oversight here!
  5. Hi everyone! I am new here. 👋 I read somewhere that before we start studying for the LSAT we should take a diagnostic/mock LSAT first with simulated test conditions which would be our baseline score. The idea is that this baseline score will act as a yardstick to measure against our progress as we study and retake future diagnostic LSATs. But, is this a good idea? By that I mean, is it useful to know what my score is without any prior studying? Could this be an inadvertent way to set yourself up for failure instead? I'm concerned if I take a diagnostic LSAT first without any prior prep and get a dismal score that it might actually become some self-fulfilling prophecy; because if I score poorly in a particular section it might subconsciously trick me into thinking I always suck at that particular section, thus hindering my chances at doing well or making any meaningful progress. I'm worried I might trip over my initial diagnostic score. While I am firm in my conviction that I am supposed to be a lawyer, I'm a little worried that a horrific diagnostic score could rattle me into thinking that maybe I'm just delusional. I realize scores can be improved drastically through committed studying, I just am concerned how much a diagnostic score could blind me from the possibility in this. Comparatively, maybe even getting an amazing score on a diagnostic LSAT on the first try could also be harmful as it could give someone a false sense of confidence and think they don't need to prepare much. Anyway, am I just being superstitious or overthinking this, or is there some validity to my paranoia? If taking a diagnostic LSAT first is incorrect advice, then what's the right first step? Thanks in advance for your replies. 😀
×
×
  • Create New...