LSAT Diary: Lessons from a 170+-Scorer

LSAT Blog Diary Lessons 170+ ScorerThis 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"

LSAT Blog Diaries Method Work Use ItThis 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

LSAT Blog Law School Getting In Ebook PDFThe 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

Law School Getting In InterviewI 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

LSAT Blog Studying During Political ScandalThis 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]