Your supposed "mistakes" aren't mistakes but rather errors due to a lack of education. When I make a mistake it is just a simple mistake that I did not make intentionally. The difference is, you do not make unintentional errors, you just make errors due to you believing the errors are actually correct. Whereas I make mistakes due to a lack of attention on my part as I am not focusing totally on the error made but rather other things. Hope that helps.

Not in NYC. I have been to New York and can honestly say, the only way I will ever go back is if I am accepted into Harvard. If not, I will never step foot in that state again. The upside to New York is the great food you have easy access to, the museums, the models, and that is about it. I hate dealing with that large infestation of people and endless amount of Taxis. Do not drive in New York nor take the subway. The subway was grimy, looked like it had cockroaches ready to ride on the train with you, the people looked a bit mischievous, and I did not sit nor touch anything when I was on the subway. I hated it. So, for the rest of the trip there the family used a limo service, DJ's, I recommend them.

If you do plan on living in New York, ditch the car and pocket the money. You will not need it nor will you use it due to the hassle of parking and the like.

... good for you.

Anyway, you could prepare for the LSAT in a number of ways, just figure out what best suits you.

I have a good one for you, sonofapickle, if you're so intelligent and above all of this, then why the hell do you spend so much time on here arguing pointlessly? Oh, and to act like you:

1.) It is continually, not continuously.
2.) You contradict yourself all the time.
3.) You give opinions no one wants.
4.) You obviously have trouble making friends (bad for a lawyer).
5.) Perhaps I was wrong about my interpretation of your character- but as I see it, the only other possibility is that you're a sociopath.
6.) I am not touching your last post with a ten foot pole, but I will say that everyone thinks you're an ass and if this is your strategy for successfully practicing law, you better get a new one because unbeknowst to you, the legal field (like many other fields) is based on establishing good relationships and being "likeable." You are not. You should know (if you're as intelligent as you claim) that truth is more often than not a social construct and no matter how intelligent you believe that you are, if you're constantly at odds with 99.99999999% of the population, you're essentially an idiot. If you were intelligent enough, you might be able to convince them of your strange worldview, but apparently you cannot.

I wasnoi't gng to respond, but after working 15 hours in a row, I suppose I am feeling a bit punchy. Don't expect me to respond to your next series of ramblings (BTW I think you would enjoy the book The Secret History). I don't care. As my dad would say, I should be studying for the exam instead.

I do not care if you read this or not, but your inability to compare your arguments to life is very limited and rather more inclined to tunnel vision than a broader perspective. You have shown this twice.

1) Continually and continuously are both used under different circumstances within grammar. There was nothing wrong with my diction at the time.

2) That I did contradict myself, but not centered around my argument nor point. It was a non-argumentative contradiction.

3) The OP asked for opinions, so my opinion was well within the guidelines of this topic. Again, you encompass tunnel vision when trying to state your points and fail to see the obvious.

4) Assumption; unfounded. Petitio Principii; in other words, begging the question. Fallacy of presumption. You won't be a good lawyer making unfounded and erroneous accusations.

5) You have no idea what a sociopath is; a sociopath is or was often in trouble with the law at an early age in life, a sociopath often acts on impulse (I do not), a sociopath entails antisocial personality characteristics, etc... Those traits do not fit my character as I do not exhibit anything a sociopath exhibits other than arrogance which everyone has to some degree. Again, you commit various fallacies within your posts. Try to limit them.

6) Because I am not likable on this site does not mean I will also be unlikable in the field of law outside of the internet. You are obviously making a generalization based on your own assumption which is another fallacy. Try again.

7) "If you were intelligent enough, you might convince them of your world view." Quite the contrary. People who believed in flat Earth still existed in the 80s with the flat Earth Society. People who still believe blacks are genetically inferior to Caucasians, still hold onto their views despite biological facts. People who still believe in extraterrestrial life forms being superior to humans are still prevalent despite various physics and cosmological facts pointing to the contrary.  People still believe homosexuals are committing a grave sin are still prevalent. People who believe abortions are acts of murder are still prevalent. The point of all this? You obviously have a lot of learning to do before coming at me with weak statements attempting to attack my character.

I won't say much aside from what you have posted. You have shown, on two occasions, instances of tunnel vision, you are either too angry thus clouded, or have a limited reasoning capacity. Either way, construct better arguments, limit the fallacies, and be more intuitive. I love arguing so bring your A game or don't respond.

I disagree with your topic title. Other law schools generate more cash by being attached to Universities. Cooley does partner up with Oakland University though to offer dual degrees, so that doesn't take away much from the school. However, its acceptance rate is very high due to it needing large sums of money to actually make it as a law school. I say it is a bad thing unless you have a large backing, but given the times, being attached to a University is much better financially and academically than being solo.

Lol, also taken out of sheer ignorance. So, those people protesting the enslavement of Africans weren't wrong? How about those people praising and pleading to Hitler to kill all the Jews, were they not wrong as well? Oh, oh, this is a nice one, how about those people stating the world was flat, were they not wrong as well? Lastly, are the people who say homosexuality is a crime against humanity not wrong?

/argument