October 2011 LSAT vs. December 2011 LSAT

The October LSAT test date is approaching, and you've been planning on taking it then, but maybe you're not sure whether you'll be ready.

Should you push off to December and subject yourself to a few more months of studying?

Or do you go forward and assume you'll be ready by October?

Like most difficult decisions, each route has its pros and cons. It's a bit of a toss-up with no obvious answer.

However, some thoughts:

October Pros

1. You can be done with the LSAT sooner. If the October LSAT goes well, you can be done for good.

2. You have more chances to retake. If the October LSAT doesn't go well (or if you're sick, have a family issue, someone vomits on you during the test, etc.) and you have to retake, you can retake in December and still apply this cycle.

3. It's better for your law school admissions chances because it allows you to apply early in the admissions cycle. Applying early in the cycle is especially important for top law schools.

4. The weather likely won't be as cold as it will be in December (depending on where you live, of course). Less chance of noise/discomfort from heating pipes (or lack of heating). Relatedly, less chance of snow-related test day issues.


December Pros

1 - ? More time to study. If you really need that time, and postponing will give it to you, this is priceless.



Re: October Pro #1
If you've been studying for a while, being done with it for good probably seems very appealing. However, don't take it JUST to get it over with. If you get a crappy score, you'll probably either end up retaking, going to a crappy law school, or not going to any law school at all.


Re: October Pro #2
Even if you're ready as you'll ever be, sometimes things outside your control can go terribly wrong. If you think you're capable of achieving a score you'd be happy with, it likely makes sense to take as soon as possible so you'll have another chance, just in case.


Re: October Pro #3
Again, if you feel you can get a score you'd be happy with, earlier is better. However, better to take in December and get a better score than to apply earlier with a worse score.


Re: October Pro #4
Not a huge issue (and Feb weather is even worse), but it's still a minor consideration.


Re: December Pros #1 - ?
Of course, if you think you might not be ready for October, having more time to study is key.

However, having 3 more months doesn't guarantee you'll actually study a lot during that period.

If you're still in school, the December LSAT will likely come close to finals time, so you may want to give yourself a lighter courseload ASAP if you go this route.

If you're not in school and have been busy with work, life, or procrastination, and these factors did not allow you to adequately study, you may determine whether things will significantly change over those 2 extra months.


***

Now, to the specifics on whether you'll be ready:

If something came along like a busy period at work, a life crisis, a thesis/dissertation, this probably knocked you off schedule.

Depending on how much it impacted you, you might be able to get back on the horse for October, you might not. It all depends on your other obligations and how quickly you pick things up (in other words, your natural aptitude for this stuff).

About one month before each LSAT, people will start asking me, "I have one month left. Can I improve ___ (5/10/15/20) points with a lot of hard studying?"

All I can say is, "maybe, maybe not." Without knowing you, I can't begin to guess what you're capable of. However, the more you study (without overdoing it), the more likely it is that you'll make some kind of significant score improvement. With a month remaining, the game's far from over.

Keep in mind, though, that cramming isn't the most effective way to learn. For best results, postponing is generally the safest bet to allow yourself more time. Obviously, this consideration needs to be balanced with the fact that you'll want to take the LSAT at some point.

However, if you haven't given yourself adequate time to study, you won't achieve your fullest potential. It's just that simple. I'm of the opinion that praying is less effective than putting in hard time with the books. When it comes to logic, miracles are unlikely.

Ideally, you'll spread out your studying in the remaining time. 5 practice exams per week is too much. You don't want to burn out.

If the impending test date is giving you the willies, don't freak out just yet. Again, you still have time to decide whether to postpone your test date.

The best indication of your ability at that time would be something like the average of the 5 practice tests you've taken most recently. Make sure they're recently-administered ones (preferably from the past few years), so they adequately reflect the modern exam.

If you've put in at least a few months of prep, built a strong foundation in effective techniques, taken several practice exams, and improved significantly from your starting point, you have a good chance of being ready. However, if your practice test scores aren't at least at the median of the schools you want to attend, you may want to put in a few more months of prep or reconsider the schools to which you have a realistic shot at gaining acceptance.

Good luck!

(This post is based upon the assumption that you're taking the LSAT less than a year before you intend to apply to law school. If you're planning way ahead, this doesn't really apply to you.)

Photo by asmythie

Complete LSAT PrepTest Explanations PDF

UPDATE: LSAT explanations for these exams are now available in various bundles as PDFs.

Please disregard the below.

***

Complete Explanations for LSAT PrepTests 47-59 (October 2005 LSAT - December 2009 LSAT) are now available for instant PDF download.

One of the most common requests I get from my students and blog readers is for explanations of particular LSAT questions.

Although I'll explain any question in my LSAT tutoring, there's a limit to the amount I have time to write down.

Fortunately, I just learned that fellow LSAT tutor Matt has written complete explanations for every single question in each section of LSAT PrepTests 47-59 (October 2005 LSAT - December 2009 LSAT). The explanations for each PrepTest are over 50 pages in length. Not only do these explain why the right answer is right, but they also discuss why each wrong answer is wrong.

At the moment, each exam's complete explanations are only

Enjoy!

***
You can download complete explanations for the free June 2007 LSAT PrepTest (PDF) to see what they're like. Download the June 2007 LSAT PrepTest (PDF) to follow along.

Rather than having to add over a dozen different sets of PrepTest explanations to your cart one-by-one, you can save time by clicking the range of sets of explanations you'd like:


Explanations for LSAT PrepTests 47-59

Explanations for LSAT PrepTests 47-51

Explanations for LSAT PrepTests 52-59


Also click the relevant link below to add each individual set of complete LSAT PrepTest explanations to your cart.


LSAT PrepTest 63 Explanations (June 2010 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 62 Explanations (December 2010 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 59 Explanations (December 2009 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 58 Explanations (September 2009 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 57 Explanations (June 2009 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 56 Explanations (December 2008 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 55 Explanations (October 2008 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 54 Explanations (June 2008 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 53 Explanations (December 2007 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 52 Explanations (September 2007 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 51 Explanations (December 2006 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 50 Explanations (September 2006 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 49 Explanations (June 2006 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 48 Explanations (December 2005 LSAT) PDF

LSAT PrepTest 47 Explanations (October 2005 LSAT) PDF

***

Please note:

-In order to benefit from these, you must separately get the related LSAT PrepTests. This download does not include the actual LSAT questions from these exams.

-These are PDFs available for instant download after submitting payment via PayPal. You can use Adobe Reader to open the files.

-If you're already registered with PayPal, the instant download link will be sent to your PayPal email address. Otherwise, it'll be sent to whichever email address you submit.
-Due to the nature of digital downloads, LSAT Blog cannot offer any refunds. All sales are final.

LSAT Diary: Using the LSAT Blog Study Schedule

Derek, a blog reader who serves in the military, already shared some of his LSAT reflections in his first LSAT diary. In his second, he shares some thoughts about my day-by-day study plans.

If you want to be in LSAT Diaries, please email me at LSATUnplugged@gmail.com. (You can be in LSAT Diaries whether you've taken the exam already or not.)

Thanks to Derek for sharing his experience and advice, and please leave your questions for him below in the comments!

Derek's 2nd LSAT Diary:

For the second installment of my LSAT Diary, I was unsure as to what I wanted to emphasize. As far as chronology is concerned, we recently completed our deployment and are now back in the glorious United States of America. Being abroad and working within the boundaries of another country’s laws most certainly made tangible the notion that a society and its legal system have a mutually constructive relationship. It was fascinating, and frustrating, to experience that what may be rational and fair to one society would be decisively rejected as irrational and unfair by our own.

I’ll quit on the musings and move on…

For the last three months of the deployment the operational tempo was so high that I ran out of both energy and time to accomplish any worthwhile LSAT studying. Reading Scott Turow’s One L was my attempt to maintain some semblance of optimism while abroad. Yes, I know that reading it has become almost cliché amongst pre-law students, but I thought it was a really entertaining read and provided some welcome distraction.

Since returning, I purchased Steve’s 3-Month Day-By-Day LSAT Study Schedule. I have to say, I was conflicted about the purchase. Despite being a military officer, I hate being told how to do something, including studying. However, because LSAT Blog has always outdone the best commercial study guides in terms of efficiency and practicality, I decided to fork over the dough.

THE REVIEW: Definitely worth the purchase; thorough and well-structured, particularly for the majority of us who have the most difficulty with Logic Games. For each day, Steve includes links to his pertinent blog posts according to what is to be studied; this helps mitigate the time you would otherwise spend hunting down each individual post that pertains to that day’s subject.

The only thing that would make the study plan more efficient (for me at least) is if the actual text and diagrams from each of the cited blog posts were placed in an appendix and attached to the study schedule for easy reference. Although if Steve were to include that “appendix”, his “schedule” would quickly begin to suspiciously resemble a commercial study guide, subsequently causing a spontaneous and dramatic increase in price.

[Ed. If I were to include every blog post referenced, it would be far too long a document! I do link to everything for easy reference, though.]

I’ve taken the schedule, printed off the pertinent blog posts and placed everything in a three-ring binder. The three-ring binder is divided by week/LSAT subject and within each partition I have Steve’s schedule and associated blog posts and Logic Games. At the front of the binder, I have an overview of the schedule, LSAT FAQ, Logic Games Cheat Sheet and the Logic Game Categorization by Type. Once I get to the Logical Reasoning portion of the schedule, I’ll put similar documents in the “all-applicable” front section. For now, it has become my primary supplement to the PrepTests, containing all relevant blog posts and tips.

As far as actual studying goes, the logic games are getting a little easier for me. The devil is most certainly in the details. It has taken me a month or so of hard studying to finally be able to quickly filter and absorb all the rules/variables that apply to each game. It’s so rewarding to go from clueless to effectively organizing the information and nailing the questions. I am far from perfect, just hinging on proficient, but improvement is the most powerful encouragement in my book. Categorizing the games into four or five different types has helped to to alleviate the stress that I experienced when I attempted to classify the question using a system that had nearly sixteen types.

On another note, since returning, I have also read Andrew McClurg’s One L of a Ride. In it he mentions the importance of personality type in studying effectively. Within that context, he briefly describes the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and learning to curtail your studying to your mental function preferences. Just to prompt some dialogue, Has anybody studied the MBTI or believe in its credence? What are the trends as far as MBTI type entering law school these days? If you know your personality type, what effect do you think this has had on your LSAT studying? Do you think that certain personality types are more intuitive or better than others at certain sections of the LSAT?

Photo by deerleap

Logic and Games

* Several pundits debate the concepts of law school and legal education. [NYTimes]

* Thomas Jefferson Law School defends its employment statistics reporting.

* We're susceptible to flawed and stupid arguments in advertisements and everyday life. Shocker. [Lifehacker; Lifehacker]

* Women sues airline after being forced to prove she was wearing short-shorts under her t-shirt. [ABA Journal]

* Lawsuit claims black student prevented from being valedictorian due to race. [Gawker]

LSAT Logic and the New Cigarette Warning Labels

LSAT Blog "Reader-of-the-Decade" Caleb already wrote an LSAT diary and a Logic Game for all of us.

He's back, and this time he's got an LSAT-style analysis of the reasoning behind the upcoming cigarette warning labels required by the FDA (PDF).

Thanks for Caleb for sharing his thoughts, and be sure to leave some comments letting him know what you think of his arguments.

Caleb's analysis:

If the LSAT gods smiled kindly upon you (they won’t) and said that an entire logical reasoning section was going to be based on the new Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, where would you start your studying?

Since you are a LSAT study-monster with aspirations of lawyerin’, this trip to fantasy land (my second home) could be beneficial in your preparation. After all, a key to crushing the LSAT is the ability to objectively analyze arguments without your personal opinions on the subject interfering with your ability to reason. And lots of people have strong views on smoking, right? “Eww! Smoke stinks and stays in my hair for days!” and “I do what I want” are two key opinions that come to mind.

First, let’s get a hold of the basic argument. You can read the text of the bill here (which I recommend), but since you’re lazy busy practicing for the games section I’ll try and give an objective summary. Then, we’ll take a look at pieces of the argument and try to bend and twist them to our will. And, since you will encounter varying levels of difficulty on LSAT questions, we’ll try and get as fiendish and dastardly clever as possible. Because you know the sadistic hobgoblins at the LSAT factory surely will. So let’s start with a summary:

Smoking is bad, mmkay. Tobacco causes damage both in terms of human health and economic impact. Tobacco use costs the US billions of dollars in healthcare and lost productivity. Tobacco companies target young smokers with their advertising. Nicotine is addictive and people who want to quit using it find it very difficult to do so. Lawmakers have an obligation and mandate to protect citizens- especially children- and should oversee and regulate the tobacco industry. An effective strategy to lower the number of smokers and stop underage children from starting is to place graphic images and warnings on tobacco products and advertising, and to ban any flavored cigarettes. Except menthols [true story].

I trained like a Jedi master for the LSAT- with Steve’s LSAT Blog as my lightsaber, of course- so I can’t even type that summary without my brain pumping out fifty different questions and counter-arguments that all bottleneck somewhere in my Broca’s Area (look it up, lazy). I’ll just step out for a second, have a smoke, and come back so we can start in!

Ahh, that’s the stuff.

Now, let’s start with the immortal words of me:

“All reasoning starts with questioning.” –Caleb Shreves

You’re welcome. Here are a few obvious questions that popped into my head while typing that summary:

1. Why is there an economic impact from healthcare and lost productivity?
2. Is tobacco advertising responsible for people smoking? If so, to what degree?
3. How are tobacco companies targeting minors?
4. Why is regulation and, specifically, using graphic warnings an effective deterrent to smoking?
5. Why should legal adult practices be regulated by Government?
6. Why does banning flavored tobacco lower smoking rates?
7. How is “lost productivity” defined and measured?

Add a few of your own. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Now let’s take some of the questions I posed and think of how an LSAT test-maker might think to incorporate them. Here are some easy ideas:

Strengthen: Other countries have implemented similar policies and found them to be effective in deterring tobacco use.

Necessary Assumption: Flavored cigarettes are attractive to minors

Conclusion (inference): The fewer minors who start smoking, the more money the country will save.

Try a few on your own! You should be able to come up with quite a few of these easy ones pretty quickly, and you’ll likely face a few test questions built off these types of low-hanging fruit. But let’s take it up a notch and expand some of these arguments to make them a little more complex. Here’s something based off my dad’s cynical argument, which I call “dying is cheaper.”

End of life care is, by far, the most expensive piece of the healthcare pie. Tobacco users die, on average, ten years sooner than non-users. Thus, tobacco users are doing everyone else a favor.

Great work, dad. Any questions spring to mind when you read that argument? How about a sample LSAT setup to help you out:

Dr. A: “Healthcare costs should be a primary concern when dealing with tobacco regulation. Hence, we should find ways to reduce the number of smokers.”

Dr. B: “I agree that healthcare costs are a primary concern, which is why I encourage more people to start smoking.”

See any conflicting assumptions here? This could be the start of a “the two doctors disagree about…” type question, or a “which statement, if true, would lend support to Dr. A’s conclusion…” type question. Now that we’re this far, let’s scramble the answer up, LSAT style, and get tricksy. Consider which Dr. would be validated by the following evidence:

“Recent studies have shown that treatments for certain common long-term illnesses requiring regular hospital care increase in total healthcare cost at an exponential rate as the person with the illness ages.”

Tricksy indeed! Read the setup again; the doctors are disagreeing about whether the costs of a tobacco-related death outweigh the costs of living an additional 10 years, tobacco-free. If common illnesses cost a crap-ton more every year as you age, then people dying early would, in fact, probably save money! This would be good for Dr. B (surprise- that was dad’s side of the argument!). But you can see how a few questions about an argument, combined with some assumptions, and sprinkled with fuzzy language can give you a pretty nasty LSAT question.

Finally, let’s work together and come up with something really nasty. How about we start with the FDA’s argument about minors:

A primary reason that minors begin using tobacco is the prevalence of advertising they are exposed to. Thus, we should require that tobacco advertisements on billboards and posters contain gruesome and graphic pictures of the consequences of tobacco use.

Allllllrighty then, FDA. What are the assumptions here? Well, first we would assume that minors actually see tobacco advertising, right? Do they? We would need to assume that the advertising that minors see actually affects whether or not they use tobacco wouldn’t we? Why would graphic images stop a minor from smoking? Don’t minors see graphic images on TV and in video games every day? What if studies showed that minors actually become desensitized by graphic imagery and were more likely to use tobacco if this policy were in place? Asking questions like this can immediately help point out the assumptions of any argument- and, accordingly, help you determine how an LSAT question might be framed by them.

Fun (and true) fact: tobacco brands that are heavily-advertised are much more likely to be used by minors than adults. But what if this were reversed? If minors were less likely than adults to smoke heavily-advertised brands, wouldn’t that mean that the advertising doesn’t affect them? (if you’re questioning even this, then you are well on your way to true LSAT dominance). Going with this theme, I would expect a test answer to include a convoluted piece of evidence that showed a link between advertised brands and what minors actually smoked. For starters, we could weaken the FDA’s argument with a statement like:

“A recent study of smokers aged 12-16 found them to have a distinct preference for Brand X cigarettes, a brand that advertises its products far less than its area competitors.”

Okay, we can grasp that. Kids smoke even without the advertising, so advertising ain’t a big deal like the FDA said. But let’s step out farther and imagine some of the fiendish tricks used by the LSAT hobgoblins. How would the LSAT refute this last statement?

“Legislation passed in the last year has forced Brand X to dramatically reduce its advertising budget.”

Now hold on a minute. Maybe these kids had already been exposed to Brand X! Timeline trickery, that is (and one that the LSAT uses sometimes, trust me). Imagine a “which answer, if true, would provide the LEAST support for…” type question on this, using evidence to prove something that is counter to what’s true in the real world, couching it in fuzzy language, and throwing a trick answer in to boot. You can see how the LSAT can take simple things and make them vastly more complicated. Reminds me of my girlfriend.

What’s the point of all this hypothetical nonsense you ask? The more you can quickly and automatically pre-form arguments and assumptions in your mind, the better you’ll do on test day. If every day you take an issue like this and spend 10-15 minutes thinking of how you would create test questions, you will make neural pathways in your brain that will give you X-ray logic-vision when reading new and unfamiliar arguments.

And that sounds good, right? Plus, you might just start seeing the issues you encounter in daily life in a new light, too. Like smoking. Whatever your views on smoking happen to be, I challenge you to look critically at the reasoning behind the decisions made by our Government on this issue. If you can come away saying “nope, looks like they’re air-tight!” then good luck on test day. But I would wager my Xbox and all my Halo games that you’ll at least be a bit more skeptical of these policies and the true rationale behind them if you take the time to examine them. And I don’t wager my Halo-goodness lightly, either.

Caleb

P.S. While I encourage you read the full text of H.R. 1256, I can’t resist showing you item #4 in the “findings” section of the bill:

“Virtually all new users of tobacco products are under the minimum legal age to purchase such products.”

I started smoking at age 26. Should I call my senator?

LSAT Logic Games Explanations PDF

I've written explanations for over 1,000 LSAT questions.

You can get the full LSAT PrepTest explanations for TONS of exams HERE.

LSAT Diary: Lessons from a 170+-Scorer

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Samson, who scored a 174 on the December 2010 LSAT.

He's got some great LSAT advice for you about how he did it.

Enjoy, and if you want to be in LSAT Diaries, please email me at LSATUnplugged@gmail.com. (You can be in LSAT Diaries whether you've taken the exam already or not.)

Thanks to Samson for sharing his experience and advice, and please leave your questions for him below in the comments!

Samson's LSAT Diary:

I am an investment-banking analyst in New York City. I graduated from Duke in 2009. I decided to enter law school after two years on Wall Street. In fall 2010, I studied for the December LSAT. Balancing work duties with LSAT studies was very challenging. But with hard work and the right resources, I comfortably cleared 170. I will attend Yale Law School this fall.

In my preparation, I benefited from LSAT Blog. Steve has an intimate understanding of the infrastructure of the test. Reading his posts, I came to understand the content and “the texture” of the LSAT.

In this post, I will do two things: (i) I will outline my experience; and (ii) I will list some lessons from my experience.


My experience with the LSAT:

In July 2010, I decided to take the October 2010 test. Work, however, consumed my time in July and August. By September, I had completed only two uninterrupted weekends of studying. This worried me.

My vacation (week of 9/20/10) was an important inflection point. First, I decided not to take the October LSAT (10/9/10); I reset my studies and decided to take the December LSAT (12/11/10). Second, I endured a self-imposed LSAT boot camp. During my vacation week, I studied 14 hours a day.

After “training week” I had a close working knowledge of the test. I was not completing the Logic Games section on time, but I was systematically attacking each game. Logical Reasoning questions played to my academic strengths; Reading Comprehension questions seemed uncomplicated.

Then I returned to work. I knew that I could not let October and November slip, as I did July and August. I let my manager and my teams know about my law school plans. When others learned of my commitment, they were sensitive to my time. Weeknights and weekends were sacred.

October and November were productive months, but by early November, however, I still was not completing the LG section on time. This concerned me. I was five weeks away from the test; I needed to button this up.

Thus came a second inflection point. One Friday in early November, I went to the library after work. I decided that any issues I had with the LG section would be sorted before Monday morning, at any cost. I stayed in the library Friday until 1AM. I returned Saturday at 9AM and stayed until 1AM. I returned Sunday at 9AM and that afternoon, I had a breakthrough: I completed a new LG section with 100% accuracy, with time to spare. Then I did it again. And again. And once more. At this point, I had confidence in my ability to complete this section.

The week before the December test, I took off work. I returned to my hometown of Charlotte. There I had registered to take the test: I was very serious about home-court advantage. A week before the test, I took two practice tests; this was tiring. On the following days, I took only one practice test per day. On the day before the test, I did no practice tests: I occupied my time with some practice LG and LR questions but did not otherwise exert myself. The next morning, I had a full breakfast and walked in fully prepared.


Lessons from my experience with the LSAT:

Show enthusiasm in your preparation efforts. The LSAT is so important that its only purpose is to determine your future. You should treat the test with respect. Be bold in your preparation efforts. If others mock your zeal, cast them aside: they are not your true supporters.

If you are a professional, do not conceal your LSAT plans at work. Transparency is the key to balancing your commitment to the LSAT and your commitment to your job. You will be surprised by how helpful your co-workers are.


Comparative difficulty of the sections. Steve makes a great point that the most difficult section is different for each person. For me, this was the LG section. If you’re like me, you’re in luck: with commitment, this is the section on which you can improve the most. This requires an intensive commitment to learning the architecture of the games and the diagramming techniques. After you have prepared sufficiently, though, your work on this section will be purely mechanical and possibly fun.


Historical difficulty of the sections. I completed most of the practice tests since the mid-1990s. Compared to their predecessors: the current LG section is slightly easier (less abstract); the current LR section is substantially easier (less dense); and the current RC section is slightly more difficult (longer).


More on Logic Games. No single logic game, looking back, was very difficult. The most “difficult” games were those that I had diagrammed incompletely or inefficiently. As Steve has emphasized, your diagram is key. From your diagram, a cascade of deductions will follow. Take several weeks to master your technique. If certain variables “are not in the forest,” derive which variables are in the forest. Recognize the unrestricted variables. Know when to stop diagramming and move on to the questions. Know when to stop working on a question and move on to the next game (agonizing over the last question of a game can be ruinous). If you’re thinking through three levels of abstractions with clauses that start with “if,” you’re thinking too much. There should be an automatic quality to your movement through the LG section. You want to complete this section like a machine.


More on Logical Reasoning. For all LR questions: one and only one choice is suitable; the others are garbage. For me, this was an important guiding principle. I dismissed non-correct choices as nonsense. I barely recognized non-correct choices as coherent English. Mentally pre-phrasing answers can help. But don’t consciously spend time doing this. Pre-phrasing should happen in that split-second when your eyes move from the stimulus to the question. In fact, “pre-phrasing” can occur mentally without words; that is, the idea of the right answer can fill your mind without effort. Thus: reading the stimulus, pre-phrasing, and identifying the credited response can and should occur in a wave. As you practice, identify which types of questions you are answering incorrectly. This is where the taxonomy of the LR Bible helps. I recall initially slipping up on identify-the-assumption questions (I kept selecting what followed from the argument, not what must necessarily precede the argument). Going back to the “theory” of the questions can be quite useful.


More on Reading Comprehension. My approach to the section was to treat the passages like “evidence.” If you can use the text of the passage to anchor your response, your response is probably correct. In addition, several of the questions are answered directly in the text. Isn’t that great?


Miscellaneous notes. Exercise regularly: physical fitness is important for your mental acuity. Do not drink alcohol: even small amounts inhibit peak mental performance. Do not drink coffee or soda: water is superior. Do not take a practice test within an hour of waking up: you will not fully concentrate. Practice with the watch you will use on test day: reset your watch to 12:00 for each section (stay away from bezel watches, which are difficult to read). Practice using wooden pencils: no mechanical pencils are allowed. Do diligence on your test center and visit in advance. Stay calm during the test: you are extremely well prepared. Stay calm after the test: do not visit on-line discussion boards – nobody can approximate what the scale will be.

The above are some key lessons that might be useful to others. Good luck. Do not dream about stained-glass windows [Ed. The topic of a game on the December 2010 LSAT]. But do dream.

Photo by deerleap

Logic and Games

* Law schools are businesses and function as a cash cow for universities. [NYTimes; Above The Law]

* Growth in lawyer population, state-by-state. [ABA Journal]

* Webcomic about correlation and causation related to cell phones and cancer. [xkcd]

* The U.S. government may soon require insurance companies to fund birth control as preventive care. [Jezebel]

* Rupert Murdoch's wife protects him from a pie-throwing protester. [The Guardian]

* Seems like Apple has a bit of a legal issue on its hands here. [NYTimes]

* Someone with a last name similar to mine downloaded too many articles from JSTOR and is in trouble now. [Ars Technica]

LSAT Logical Reasoning Explanations PDF

I've written explanations for over 1,000 LSAT questions.

You can get the full LSAT PrepTest explanations for TONS of exams HERE.

New LSAC Law School Application: FlexApp

Beginning with the Fall 2011-2012 law school admission cycle, LSAC will use a new online format for law school applications, called FlexApp.

Here are some details directly from LSAC:

The format for LSAC online law school applications is changing. The new FlexApp is being introduced for use by law school applicants starting in August 2011.

FlexApp is not a common application. Each law school may include school-specific information requirements in addition to the many standard FlexApp questions.

Completing a FlexApp will be easier thanks to user-friendly features, including

· standard information flowing from the first electronic application to all other applications;

· a listing of all components of each application so that requirements are clear;

· a completion bar that tracks progress as an applicant fills out an application;

· a review process that requires applicants to examine the completed application before submission; and

· the ability to retain a printed copy of each application.

This streamlined process allows easier monitoring of electronic applications, a standardized user interface, visual indicators of the progress of completing an application, and the advantage of standard information flowing among applications. Each application will identify the law school and list school-specific information about deadlines, application fees, and the school’s requirements for letters of recommendation and evaluations.

When an applicant begins the electronic application process and selects the first school, tabs appear on the school’s form with instructions, application questions, necessary attachments, and required forms. Each application section is listed so that applicants may complete the form in whatever order they prefer, and the progress indicator will clearly show which sections remain to be completed.

Applicants should read each school’s instructions carefully because they will vary. Standardized sections include biographical information, contact information, demographics, education, employment, family, financial aid, law school interest, military, and standardized tests. Schools will include other questions about character and fitness, terms, programs, degrees, attendance plans, and any other school-specific information required. Attachments will vary, but could include personal statements, essays, and other documents. Schools may also require additional forms which will be printed, submitted for completion to a third party, then sent to the law school, such as financial aid forms or dean’s certification forms.

Law schools have the option of not including some standardized information in their applications (one example is schools that are not allowed to collect race/ethnicity data). Therefore, applications will vary according to the law school’s needs and requirements. Law schools may also customize the order of their application sections.

FlexApp is intended to serve the needs of all applicants and streamline the process of completing applications. It also provides flexibility to the law schools to require all of the information the school needs in order to make informed admission decisions. LSAC believes that applicants will find the process easy to use, straightforward and clear, with a user-friendly interface. Applicants may send inquiries about using FlexApp directly to LSAC [Ed. Email LSACinfo@lsac.org]. Questions about application content will be addressed to each law school.

LSAT Diaries: "If A Method Doesn't Work For You, Don't Use It"

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Charles in West Virginia, who took the June 2011 LSAT.

If you want to be in LSAT Diaries, please email me at LSATUnplugged@gmail.com. (You can be in LSAT Diaries whether you've taken the exam already or not.)

Thanks to Charles for sharing his experience and advice, and please leave your questions for him below in the comments!

Charles' LSAT Diary:

Loathsome Satanic Armageddon-like Test. I was convinced, when I initially started LSAT prep, that the LSAC should substitute these words for what the test’s acronym really stood for. However, when I reflect back on where I was to where I am now, this isn’t quite as accurate. I’ll explain.

I equate prepping for the LSAT to the first time I ever tried coffee. My first coffee was black, nothing added to it, and I hated it. It was bitter, unappealing, and left a bad taste in my mouth. Soon I accepted the reality that coffee would help me achieve my overall goal of waking up in the morning. I began by adding different things to it (i.e. sugar, creamer, milk, etc.) to make the bitterness go away while improving the overall taste. Trial and error ensued, to the point where I nearly gave up on coffee and began to contemplate other ways to help me. Eventually, I found the perfect combination of additives that could be put in my coffee to make for the perfect wake-up mechanism.

My first diagnostic LSAT exam was much like my first coffee, I left it feeling bitter and with a bad taste in my mouth. A 155 was good for some people, and was supposedly really good for a diagnostic score, but I wasn’t comfortable with settling for good. I started to experiment with the “additives” to my LSAT coffee. Since I’m a penny pincher, I chose to go the cheaper route and invested in a variety of LSAT prep books, which combined to make a tower of terror on my bookshelf.

By dipping into each book, I gradually began to improve. I started to average around a 165 by the time I was three months into my preparation. This would still not suffice. I wanted the coveted 170. The gradual improvement leveled off for a while and I was frustrated. I thought to myself that, if I gave up now, I could still begin studying for the GRE and pick a different career. This was a bit too radical even for me, a West Virginian planning to go out of state for college. The mere thought to most Appalachian Americans is mind-blowing at the very least.

What I credit to be the most helpful aspect of my studying, and what eventually led to the perfect coffee combination (stick with the metaphor), was meeting with an actual tutor who laid down some hard facts to me: that the prep I was using was not really helping me at this point, but there was a solution. He coached me through Logical Reasoning problems, where I learned the most important LSAT test-taking skill: develop a method of solving the problems that works and stick with it. Some books have you conform to their method, which isn’t helpful if it doesn’t work for the test-taker. The same thing applies to the Logic Games (Analytical Reasoning section), if a method doesn’t work for you, don't use it. I was able to finally boost my score in logic games significantly, missing only one each time I took a practice exam.

The last six months of my life culminated in this one exam. I was instructed not to talk to anyone in the testing center before the test, in order to achieve the proper mindset and not get distracted. I was doing very well with this until I came across a person who was extremely vocal, and also extremely uninformed.

“Yeah, hopefully the people around me will do poorly and it’ll help the curve. I wonder if I can inadvertently distract them? Just kidding… sort of, ha-ha.” exclaimed one particularly outspoken test-taker. I couldn’t resist. It was too much. I HAD to say something.

“The curve is pre-determined,” I casually said, then sat back down in silence. It was enough. I felt I did a service for the rest of the group, because the ill-informed LSAT taker was silent the rest of the waiting period.

I walked into the testing room confident. My coffee was good, and I was ready. Taking the actual LSAT was similar to when I taught children how to use e-mail in Africa. One must be patient and work at a steady pace. The solar energy it takes to power Kenyan computers runs out quickly, much like the 35 minutes in each section of the test.

Photo by bdorfman

Logic and Games

* Law enforcement is increasingly obtaining warrants to access all the information in suspects' Facebook accounts. [Thomson Reuters via ATL]

* Another U.S. Senator asks the ABA to address problem areas.

* EBay can be held liable for sales of counterfeits on its site if aware but failed to take action. [NYTimes]

* Pros and cons of having a smartphone, in comic strip form. [The Oatmeal]

* The various types of people who "don't have TVs." [The Awl]

Casey Anthony Release In Less Than 1 Week - Your Thoughts?

For those of you who haven't been following the Casey Anthony trial, take a moment to catch up on it (NYTimes, Wikipedia, and the Associated Press).

According to Nancy Grace, "The devil is dancing tonight."

Long story short, the judge was only able to sentence Ms. Anthony to the 4-year maximum and fine her $4,000. Due to time already served, she'll be out on the street in less than a week.

What do you think? Has the CSI effect decimated our chances at convicting those who are clearly guilty? Has the burden of proof to convince a jury become too high? What role does a defendant's race play in media coverage and jury convictions/acquittals?

What should be done? What, if anything, can even be done?

Leave your thoughts in the comments!

Photo by myeye

Law School: Getting In, Getting Good, Getting the Gold | Ebook PDF

The vast majority of content here on LSAT Blog is, unsurprisingly, about the LSAT.

However, plain common sense tells me that just about all of you are considering law school.

As such, I asked lawyer/author Thane Messinger to make his excellent book, Law School: Getting In, Getting Good, Getting the Gold (Amazon), available to all of you for instant PDF download. He graciously agreed.

You can read this excerpt about personal statements from the book as well as this interview I conducted with the author.

***

At the moment, this 374-page guide to law school is only $6.97.

***

Here's a description of the book directly from the publisher:

Nearly all law school books steer students in the wrong directions: ubiquitous case briefs, extensive notes, "color coding," cramming, and bad behavior against other students. None of that is good, and none of that will work. At best it creates a needlessly negative environment for many if not most law students. More deeply, it feeds an environment seen later in unethical behavior towards clients and peer professionals alike. The focus in the middle of the book is in cutting half of the makework that passes for a "study" workload, yet leaving more time for genuine comprehension. This approach draws upon how real lawyers learn law; they can hardly waste time as law students routinely do.

No other book offers a method to study law, well, in less time, with a focused, realistic approach. This book, which builds upon rather than competes with these other titles, is written by an attorney and educator with decades' experience in learning law concisely, and it is this approach that will be so beneficial to law students.

Please note:

-This is a PDF available for instant download after submitting payment via PayPal. You can use Adobe Reader to open the file.

-If you're already registered with PayPal, the instant download link will be sent to your PayPal email address. Otherwise, it'll be sent to whichever email address you submit.

Law School: Getting In | Personal Statement Excerpt

The below excerpt is from Thane Messinger's Law School: Getting In, Getting Good, Getting the Gold.

The Perfect Personal Essay
Personal essays might be the only form of cruel and unusual punishment never raised to the Supreme Court. How to find your soul—and then package it just right—for some unknown admissions committee? How to do so when you’re busy enough with part-time jobs, classes, crushes, and the occasional all-nighter?

First, your essay cannot be rushed. You should, optimally, think about it for years. If you’re reading this while contemplating law school once you graduate college (or high school and then college), that’s time enough to think about what it is that’s important to you, and then how you might—with at least some literary flair—present that to a faceless group of senior law school professors, deans, and admissions officers.

What if you don’t have years? Well, this is hardly theoretical as most of us end up throwing something together in months, if not weeks. You must think of something unique. Not off-the-wall. But unique. This means unique to you. The admissions committee will have read, hundreds if not thousands of times over, about “Why I love the law!” and “Why me ’cause I’m gonna’ save the world!” And so on. Does this mean you should not say that you love the law or that you’re planning to save the world? Well, unless you have some way to convincingly explain that love, or that passion for utopia…that’s correct. You should not attempt a “standard fluff” essay.

You should also not read any book on “best” essays for admission to law school. The moment they hit the shelves, they become exactly the type of essays not to use. Why? Because admissions folks then see hundreds of essays that practically plagiarize. No, no, no.

I was surprised when I spot-checked some of these. The essays I read were such a turn-off that I would have been hard pressed not to toss the entire application into the Reject pile, regardless of the LSAT. This is deeply personal, true, but what they should see is a glimpse of your better self—or your not-so-better self, with some indication of self-awareness, critique, and general ethical value. In other words, are you a decent person? Not perfect. Decent.

What the admissions committee is looking for is some indication of what type of lawyer you will be—the type of person you are. While this might seem like a tall order—how can thousands upon thousands of essays be “unique”?—in reality it’s a taller order for them than for you. After all, you need to write just one.

So, writing an essay about a childhood experience with, say, a grandparent’s involvement in a lawsuit and the impact that that had on you, and the reasons that affected your thinking about what the law should be—that might be more effective than a fluffy “I wanna’ save the world” (which is easy to read as “I really wanna’ make a lot of money but I’ll pretend to want to save the world”).

Now, don’t everyone write about your grandparents. It should be something unique. To you. Something that, while it might and should strike a chord in anyone who reads it, is intensely personal. No one other than the committee (and whoever you ask) will read it. As with the LSAT, this is something you should take exceedingly seriously, and it is something you should want to be proud of. It should be an essay that will knock your socks off when you find it in a box fifty years later.

It’s not much of an exaggeration to state that, aside from your LSAT score, your personal essay is the most important part of your application. It almost goes ahead of your GPA. Even with a stellar LSAT score and GPA, a bad essay will kill your application. And if there’s anything to save a mediocre LSAT score or GPA, it’s your personal essay.

As to asking others to read your essay, it’s common to ask parents, family, or friends to read your drafts. This is a mistake. Even if they are exceptional writers, they’re the wrong ones to give advice. First, they’re too close. That means they’re probably too subjective about whatever it is you’re writing. Second, they’re probably not from the academic or law school worlds, which means that what guides them might (and probably will) be different than what guides the admissions committee. Finally, they’re almost certain to be too gentle. Yes, that is worse. Unless they tell you “This is crap!” as a standard response to any situation (in which case see “they’re too subjective,” above), chances are they won’t tell you what really does need to be redone.

So who, then? Most likely, you should ask professors who have known you at least reasonably well, and you should make it clear that you want genuine criticism—and you should be prepared to take it. If you even start to talk back when they do critique your work, pinch yourself. Hard. If you can slap yourself without being noticed, do that too. You need help. And what you write will almost certainly not be good enough…not yet. This willingness to honestly review and then to revise is the essence of high-quality writing. You should accept with genuine appreciation a real critique, meaning a higher-order “This is crap…and here’s what you might do to fix it.”

The result should be an essay that you read, re-read, and re-re-read many times over, smiling as you wonder who on Earth wrote such a lovely piece. My goodness, how can they not let you in?

***

Check out Thane Messinger's Law School: Getting In, Getting Good, Getting the Gold for more.

You can also read more Law School Personal Statement Tips on the blog.

Excerpt/interview for LSAT Blog / © Thane Messinger 2008-2011

Photo by Allie Brosh / CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Law School: Getting In | Interview

I recently interviewed Thane Messinger, author of Law School: Getting In, Getting Good, Getting the Gold.

Our discussion follows.

1. What are your thoughts on the importance of law school rankings?

Law school rankings have become almost a hypnotic focus among both students and administrators. Curiously, it is of only indirect (but serious) interest within the profession. It might thus pay to also look at just how legal employers view rank.

The law is an intensely status-oriented profession. Much has been written, and much is said (and not said) in everyday conversations among lawyers and law students, each of whom is aware of—if not consciously promoting—a pecking order of legal status. Less is said on why this is so. First, let’s get a few points out the way.

Are rankings meaningful? Yes, they are.

So they describe real differences among law schools? Yes, they do.

Should they be used to decide which law school to attend? Well, in true lawyerly fashion: yes and no.

To treat law school rankings as unimportant—whether out of ignorance or indignation—is foolish. Rankings do reflect qualitative differences between and among law schools. On the other hand, looking only to rankings is equally foolish, and treating law schools with rankings within a half-dozen places of each other as hugely different is simply nonsense. Both extremes set up a bit of a straw man, as few take either approach.

Still, it’s important to keep the value of rankings firmly in mind, as a decision about attending one law school or another can make a big difference. Moreover, as to the last point, it is quite common to use rankings to highlight close difference—But this school is three points higher!—rather than treat them as they should be treated.

Rankings reflect gross, not fine, distinctions, based on both objective and (hugely) subjective criteria with wide margins of error. So, comparing #12 with #37 or #37 with #92 are fair comparisons worthy of consideration. Comparing #12 with #16 is seductively easy—and qualitatively incorrect. Within a half-dozen, other attributes are more important.


2. I’m glad you’re bringing the practitioners’ view into the discussion. So what are some of these qualitative differences?

Law school is not just some combination of buildings, faculty, students, and graduates. Instead, a twofold reality heightens the sensitivity of lawyers to status. The first is the highly competitive nature of law school. The second is the highly risk-averse nature of law practice. These two factors combine to create a system that is nearly a caste system in its orientation and effect.

Is this right? Wrong question. I happen to believe it is foolish. Many others decry it. But the reality is that it is. To hope that we can wish it away—without substantive changes in how our profession operates—is simply that, wishful thinking. For our purposes, wishful thinking is worse than silly. It will set you up for failure, as it’s easy to mistake the “wishful” part for something approaching reality.

There’s a paradox in this debate, and that is that law practice has elements of egalitarianism that are almost the opposite of all of the above. In litigation especially, it is the nature of persuasion and of winning, and of a consistent superiority at both, that marks the superior attorney. The paradox comes in that one’s pedigree is of little importance in the real world of the courtroom (and even, for a corporate lawyer, boardroom)—but of great importance in getting there.

Even more, the airs of a fancy law degree, or of a superiority complex, can work very much against us. Few jurors like being condescended to, and as a result, many top litigators look as if they just arrived to the courthouse via Trailways. Quite a few affect a less-than-holier-than-thou appearance, so as to connect to the individuals who will ultimately, if indirectly, decide their case (and earnings). Even in corporate offices, while senior executives expect a pedigreed counsel (and get it), they generally prefer down-to-earth, let’s-get-the-job-done consigliere, not snippy bluebloods.


3. I can certainly agree with that. Law students are very, very smart, and it’s good to hear this advice. How does this tie in with the “name brand” aspect of rankings?

There are two ways to approach this: the “egghead” answer and the just-the-facts-ma’am answer. Law schools are status-conscious because of professors, and because of lawyers. Together—along with a society that knows only brand-name schools—these support a self-reinforcing structure built on status.

So who sets these standards? Law professors are an obvious starting point. But, because their worlds are generally focused in, well, law school, there’s another group that heightens this already-strong orientation towards status. That is the world of lawyers and law practice. Firms are populated with individuals who have attended law school, of course. The better the firm, the more likely its inhabitants have attended the top schools. But, in most cases, the experience with law school begins (and ends) there. As a result, the practitioner takes a nearly-monochromatic view of the law school world: there’s “my” school…and then there’s everyone else’s.

The “law schools for everyone else” are clearly worse than my school…unless everyone else “knows” that such-and-so school is better. Drats. So, if one attends, say, a well-regarded regional law school, its graduates will relish the ego-boost of admiration from others, especially if practicing in that region. What happens when someone walks in from, say, Stanford? Well, sure, that’s an okay school too. And so it goes.

How many law schools can most non-lawyers (or even lawyers) mention? Hmm. There’s Harvard, of course. And, oh yes, Yale, Stanford. Columbia and NYU, for those on the East Coast. And the Universities of [insert nearest states here]. See where this goes? Chances are most of us can name the top dozen or so schools. We could probably come up with another dozen, and if someone named a few others, we’d get those too. But two hundred? No way. Only one group knows even a substantial fraction of that total: those about to apply to law school. Even law school deans focus only on schools near and above them.

So, what that means is that the entire population relies on “name brand” and on “me-and-better” to decide status (above the general status of being a law graduate). This is one reason law schools have begun to spend serious money in branding—to improve name recognition among those who might apply (and, ahem, among those who might be asked by U.S. News and World Report.)

In short, there’s a very real emotional pressure to believe one’s own school is better than it is—and to help others to believe so too—and so there’s constant pressure to connect with those schools higher above. This, in turn, heightens the value of schools—geometrically if not exponentially—the higher they are. Winner take all.

It’s an academic version of what happens in locker rooms from junior high on. Perhaps it shouldn’t be, but it’s hardly likely that we’ll change this little aspect of our psychology. More to the point, what this means is that the law practice world—which accounts for the vast majority of lawyers—feeds the weight given to objective measures, which in turn are driven by standards such as how many books are in the library (and you thought measurements would stop), how much money is spent on faculty (of obvious interest to law professors), and professors’ own views of their world.

Professors deal with the same human emotion: the school they went to is best, while the others range from dreck to okay. And it doesn’t matter who you’re talking with. If they attended the University of Virginia, their many glories are front and center, and only schools clearly better than UVA are in The Club (i.e., the Ivy League.) In this sense, it’s like looking through the wrong end of a pair of binoculars: everything around what you’re looking at is squished to nothingness.

An important point: the less secure one is, the more important status is. I’ve seen lawyers almost visibly sizing each other up by their law schools. This happens more often among younger lawyers; this is a no-no among older and better lawyers. Indeed, after working with excellent lawyers from “lesser” schools—and poor lawyers from top ones—few senior attorneys get hung up on pedigree. Among law students, it’s often a one-upmanship about their LSAT or undergraduate school or, amazingly, prep school. I remember one attorney in particular who it seemed was thinking for a split second how to respond when hearing that a more-junior associate attended a better school. It was actually far better, and both were playing games with the other in terms of one-upmanship. It was a game both lost, by the way. Why a focus on this? Why can’t we just say “law school is law school” and be done with it?

Well, for one thing, it’s not true. For another, there’s that human element again. Once one has graduated, there’s a natural inclination to live in the reflected glory of that school. This can be for practical reasons (getting a job), or for ego-driven ones. (You went there!?) But still…why? Because our sense of self-worth, particularly for lawyers, is tied up with how we perceive ourselves as smart, and how much we depend upon others seeing us as smart. If we can reflect in academic glory, we feel the warm glow of that self-worth.


4. Another question I get asked a lot is related to whether there is a difference between the quality of material actually taught in different law schools.

Yes, indeed. The “Don’t Top Law Schools Teach Law Better?” question.

The answer? Nope. This used to be a common refrain among (you guessed it) graduates of the top schools. The accusation and assumption was that good law schools taught theory—the ability to “think like a lawyer”—while lesser schools taught mere mechanics of black letter law, like a trade school. This was often said (and written) with a proverbial sneer: a “real” law school taught manly law (i.e., theory), while piddling law schools taught sissy law (i.e., how to go to court).

Although this might have been true at one time, it is no longer. All law schools now teach the same law, the same way. The bulk of law professors come from the same background: Top 5 law school, top clerkship, a year or two at a top firm, and then on to an assistant professorship. Even the lowest-ranked law schools can get, with today’s job market, the same caliber of astonishingly pedigreed new professor. They have all sipped from the same well, and even “local schools” that have an interest to focus on the laws of that state now focus as well on exactly the same doctrines that the “big boys” do. And even if all their professors didn’t come from a Top 5 school, they all want to have come from one…so they’ll be even more sensitive to teaching “theory,” just like the big boys.

This prejudice carries forward in odd ways. One book states that “top J.D. programs require a lot of work.” Um, all J.D. programs require a lot of work. It’s just that they don’t require as much work as everyone seems to believe—and they certainly don’t require makework. Top or otherwise. So, if you’re going to go to one school over another, don’t let it be for this reason.

LSAT Diaries: Studying During Political Scandal

This installment of LSAT Diaries comes from Victoria, who took the June 2011 LSAT.

If you want to be in LSAT Diaries, please email me at LSATUnplugged@gmail.com. (You can be in LSAT Diaries whether you've taken the exam already or not.)

Thanks to Victoria for sharing her experience and advice, and please leave your questions for her below in the comments!

Victoria's LSAT Diary:

It's definitely hard for me to balance LSAT studying with three jobs, a full time course schedule (because I took the June LSAT, a lot of my LSAT studying took place at the same time as my regular academic obligations, plus my internships).

As for obstacles that stood in my way, a lack of money was definitely a problem. Because two of my jobs are unpaid internships, and the other is a minimum-wage IT job, I could never afford any fancy LSAT prep courses, or even the more expensive self-study tools (that is, buying many prep books, prep tests, etc.). As you can tell, the financial limitations were definitely frustrating...it's hard to hope for a really high score, when you can't afford more than half of the resources to help you do well on the test!

However, I tried not to let that dissuade, frustrate, or otherwise piss me off (much)--especially since I'm the type that prefers to study alone. I never understood the point of having study buddies, especially for something like the LSAT.

So I bought a few (and by a few, I mean three of each) PrepTests and LSAT study guides/books. During my free time at work, I would work on Logical Reasoning questions (always my strongest point) and during my lunch break, I would practice on Reading Comprehension (another strong subject for me, as a literature minor) and Analytical Reasoning / Logic Games questions (ugh, don't even talk to me about these monsters!).

Being the (sometimes) terrible summer student I am, I focused mainly on RC and LR (in my defense, these subjects cover 3/4 of the test, after all), and more or less tried to ignore AR/LGs' existence. (If I don't see it, it doesn't exist, la la la~) Also, in my defense (again), focusing on RC and LR really helped to boost my test day confidence--after all, if you're sure you can do well on at least 75% of the test, you won't freak out or have a breakdown in the middle of the test (in theory).

As I said, I took the June 2011 LSAT test, so I'm still waiting anxiously for my scores...so hopefully I'm not just blabbering on pointlessly. In any case, I have a very decent undergrad GPA (a respectable 3.7, hopefully a 3.75 or higher after my summer internships are graded), I am a research assistant for one of my major professors, I have tons of work experience and experience juggling many things at once (internships included), and I have a long record of volunteer/community services experiences.

All of my PrepTests put me in the very decent score range of 162 to 168--better than the score that would compare to my first choice law school's 75% percentile LSAT scores. I was feeling very good about my numbers, LSAT included.

That was, until June 1st. I won't go into details (as I'm sure that a decent Google search will fill you in on the details), but I somehow found myself being tagged in some very...odd Twitter posts. From reporters, and Twitter accounts for newspapers, tabloids, you know the kind. Apparently, because one politician follows me on Twitter (I'll leave you to guess whom I am referring to), I found myself in a media frenzy. I was getting emails, calls, all sorts of things from media-type people...all trying to get a quote or soundbite from me.

The next day, it escalated. I found my Twitter handle, full name, and even my picture (an old Facebook profile picture) being published online, and printed in newspapers and magazines. Needless to say, it was pretty damned difficult to focus on my last minute LSAT studying, when I was suddenly being implicated in some random, ridiculous political "sex" scandal. Luckily, by Saturday (or thereabouts), I decided I was over it. I was ignoring my Twitter account, locking down my Facebook, and screening all of my phone calls until test time.

Or at least, I tried.

The point is, despite a painful lack of money, somehow being implicated in the most ridiculous, lack-of-sex-involving political "sex" scandal this year, and being absurdly over-scheduled, I somehow managed to get through LSAT studying, the LSAT itself, and even the first part of the painful waiting game.

I suppose, after all of this, I should be grateful; after this, I should be able to take on anything! Law school, here I come!

Photo by tonythemisfit

Logic and Games

* Casey Anthony, sentenced to 4 years in jail, will be free in less than a week due to time already served. What are your thoughts? [NYTimes; The Guardian]

* Why law school is harder than undergrad. [Law School Academic Support Blog]

* Law firms poach each others' rainmakers. [NYTimes]

* Best Buy threatens NewEgg.com for creating a commercial that mocks them. [ABA Journal]

* Sketchy journalism practices lead Murdochs to shut down British tabloid News of the World. [Mashable]

* American Apparel has to pay $343,000 for supervisor's racial slurs against an employee. [Gawker]