Jump to content

legallybrunette3

Members
  • Content Count

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

273 Good People

About legallybrunette3

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This was almost exactly my experience with it, except instead of close reading it helped me with high level reading, which ended up being key for me.
  2. They should really set up the admissions page like the domino's pizza tracker. I wanna know who is looking at, when it's in the oven, and when it's being delivered in real time.
  3. It seems like you aren't convinced, which is fair, you should never rely on internet forums for advice, but some of these folks have actually worked on admissions committees and they wouldn't lie to you when they say that no they will not look at your degree any differently, as long as it's accredited. But what you should probably do is e-mail the law schools you're interested in to confirm, maybe that will make you feel better? The advisors at the schools are helpful and quick to reply. And if you're still apprehensive after that, maybe don't go to that school?
  4. If you can retake courses you did "poorly" in again sometimes they will replace that grade with the higher grade (check with your advisor on this one), that is by far the fastest way to increase it. If you just take new courses it takes forever. I suggest putting it into a GPA calculator to see just how many A+'s you'll need. However since you already have a pretty solid GPA I would avoid this plan because if you slip up, one bad grade can drop you down pretty hard and fast, not to mention the money. I would also take an LSAT practice test ASAP just to see where you stand there.
  5. I would definitely suggest spreading the days off throughout, it's better to do a PT and figure out your weaknesses and then review questions of that type before you take the next PT. You wouldn't be able to do that same level of analysis in one week. I don't have any experience with tutors but you'll for sure be able to find one to work with you at any time, there are no shortages of tutors, for what they charge they'd probably come to your house at night and read you LSAT bibles in bed to sleep. The key is finding a good one. If I were to not go the self-study route, I'd probably choose a class instead of a tutor, but others might have more advice on this. What is your diagnostic score?
  6. I think it's just an unfair test, certain demographics are going to score better, in fact they do (big surprise on which one!): https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562656.pdf (page 5) LSAC also gets sued often for various access reason. I mean they're getting rid of the entire logic games section because it discriminates against the visually impaired. I don't think there's anything innate (maybe to an extent but that's not the whole story). I don't believe there is an LSAC gene, or a fold in the brain that allows certain people to excel at the test. It makes more sense to me that there are definitely bio-psycho-social factors involved, and some people have been learning these skills over time, and others haven't as a result of those factors (this does a better job of explaining the demographic differences data as well). The ones who haven't have a lot more to learn, that's obviously going to take a long time. It's also in some cases going to be impossible, because the test is really expensive, people have jobs, or motivation is low because who the fuck wants to study for it? On an anecdotal note if comparing it to language learning or other commonly thought of as innate skills: my parents for example were refugees and their lives depended on learning english, they learned within 1 year, I see it time and time again with immigrants. I in earnest tried to learn French and I said fuck this within a week, now if I had to or I would be homeless it might have worked out differently. I do think it's good for people to be aware of what they really have to do before investing tons of time and money into it. All of this isn't to diminish how impressive it is to get a 170+ because I'm genuinely impressed by those who can (not I).
  7. idk if it was more interesting but rather equally uninteresting I did actually gain some good insight, but from like 3 posts. Hopefully others gained something as well.
  8. It's not even my point, but I don't think that matters with their point, which I think is that the easiest combo to go with for getting into law school is "easy" undergrad + maximum LSAT study time, and the easier undergrad would maximize that study time. MY only point is that you already argued about this and it seemed like it was about to repeat. Anyway... as you were. edit: sorry I meant since the point was made it was argued not you specifically, shouldn't have said you.
  9. Isn't that @HopefulLawyer97 OG point? If they didn't do the rigorous STEM they could have spent more time on the LSAT? I don't particularly agree with it being easier to get a 4.0 with an arts degree, it might actually be harder to get a 4.0 and an elective isn't reflective of what it takes. It just seems y'all are going in circles about this.
  10. I really don't know what magical answer I was looking for, I've been posting/lurking here long enough that I know how all of the arguments are going to go about rankings, lsat performance, better undergrad. I have officially learned my lesson on this, and I apologize. Edit: maybe the magical answer I was looking for:
  11. Actually though. Which bathrooms have paper towels not just those fans that dry nothing?
  12. I think Ryerson takes your best 20 courses no matter when they were taken. You might be able to apply as a mature since you've been working for more than 5 years, or discretionary if you have financial barriers that made you have to work. That's a really good LSAT, so I would say it's worth trying.
×
×
  • Create New...