This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - DunkinsFan
« on: May 08, 2005, 01:15:00 PM »
So I'm registered for the June LSAT and I'm starting to get cold feet. I've been consistently scoring in the 167-169 range on practice tests, but I want to score at least 170 on test day... but I've never gotten that score in practice, after 8 tests or so and being about 2/3 through the LGB (Games is my weakest section, where I miss anywhere from 5-12 questions). Then there's the fact that the majority of people, it seems, score lower on test day than in practice, so to hit 170 you really should be consistently in the 171-174 range or higher.
What would you do? Postpone til October? Take in June and plan on cancelling if it doesn't go well? (About $115 more expensive than postponing I think). Or just buckle down big-time for the next 4 weeks? (I have about 45-50 hrs/week of non-LSAT committments, so pretty average as far as time available is concerned.)
« on: May 03, 2005, 02:38:47 PM »
I'm applying next cycle, but I've started thinking about financial aid- related stuff already, and I'm curious about the prevalence of work-study positions in law school. It seems pretty common for 2L's and 3L's to do research for professors or work similar jobs 15-20 hrs a week. Does anyone know if these positions generally funded by federal work-study funds? I know that most on-campus jobs were in undergrad, and so they weren't available to students who didn't show financial need. No big deal- there were always other jobs available for those who want them, but in law/grad school the campus jobs don't seem to just be envelope stuffing/dish-washing jobs, but positions that actually give you relevant experience toward your career. It would seem pretty unfair, at least IMO, to treat those positions as a form of educational welfare and not give them out on a competitive basis.
The reason I'm curious about this is that I know that for undergrad my family's EFC was quite high, and I didn't qualify for any work-study positions. I'm sure the situation will be quite different this time around, since I will have been financially independent for 3 years, but I'm still not completely sure whether I'd qualify for work-study. Does anyone know how to get a rough idea of what income/asset levels qualify someone? If a student doesn't qualify and they'd really like to research for a professor and the professor wants to hire them, would they have to work for free?
Any info would be greatly appreciated-- this stuff is pretty new to me since I only had a very modest scholarship in undergrad and didn't take out any loans.
« on: April 02, 2005, 04:43:00 PM »
So, this is not a scenario I am facing, but a friend of mine only applied to scohols in Boston and was:
a) Rejected by Harvard
b) Offered a full-ride at BU
c) Accepted at Northeastern (aid unknown as of yet)
d) No news of BC but is irrelevant at this point
So he went to the admitted students thing at Northestern, and fell in love with the place, the co-ops, the non-competitiveness, the focus the faculty has on teaching, the public-interest emphasis, etc etc. And he's actually thinking about attending there, based on all of these environmental considerations, instead of going to BU for free. I think his goals are more or less what could be called public-interest oriented. So my question: is he crazy? Even assuming he's able to leverage a significant amount of money from Northeastern to the point that debt won't really be an issue, is this crazy?
I think what it comes down to is, does it make any sense to choose a school based on the environment there being more in line with your values and what you'd thrive in, even when that means turning down a school ranked 60 places higher?
I'm just curious what ya'll think. It's not that I feel all that responsible for preventing him from making what might be considered a bad decision -- he's an adult and will turn out successful either way I'm sure -- but I'm curious about the general opinion on this kind of choice.
« on: January 27, 2005, 03:53:19 PM »
Say you already have the "Next 10 Actual, Offical LSAT Preptests" (the most recent one). If you only wanted to spend the money for one other book of preptests, would you buy the earliest "10 Actual.." or the one after that, "10 More Actual..." ? Or is it really worth it to buy all 30 tests?
« on: January 10, 2005, 08:35:32 PM »
Alright guys I'm sure someone here can help me.
Here's the question:
"The new agriculture bill will almost surely fail to pass. The leaders of all major parties have stated that they oppose it.
Which of the following, if true, adds the most support for the prediction that the agriculture bill will fail to pass?"
A. Most bills that have not been supported by even one leader of a major party have not been passed into law.
B. Most bills that have not been passed into law were not supported by even one member of a major party.
C. If the leaders of all major parties endorse the new agriculture bill, it will pass into law.
D. Most bills that have been passed into law were not unanimously supported by the leaders of all major parties.
E. Most bills that have been passed into law were supported by at least one leader of a major party.
I chose E; the correct answer is A. But it seems to me that the 2 answers state exactly the same thing, in reversed order. What am I missing?
Thanks much for any help.
« on: January 05, 2005, 09:14:38 PM »
Which zodiac signs have the most apititude for the law, and why? Easy answer might be Libra, the scales, duh. I wonder if Libras get a bump in the admissions process.
« on: January 05, 2005, 12:06:09 PM »
Is it just me, or is everyone over there a bunch of <expletive> snobs? Not everyone who applies to law school is like that, right? (Mostly a rhetorical question- I have enough friends applying to/in law school to know the answer is no).