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.
Messages - Anti09
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8  10
« on: May 23, 2012, 02:57:50 PM »
For the love of God, don't pay sticker at a TTT like Vermont. Their employment statistics
are absolutely horrible. There is no scenario where it makes sense to drop $240k on a school that only places 45% of its graduates into full time legal jobs (with no associate salary information provided), and where a full 23% are completely unemployed.
« on: January 31, 2011, 11:58:33 AM »
Coffeebean, if you have been studying for 6 months and understand everything as you say (this means you should be scoring AT LEAST 80% accuracy on your practice problems), then your problems are most likely anxiety related.
The trick to staying calm during the LSAT is to standardize your study habits. Take your practice tests and do your practice problems sitting in the same seat, at the same time, every day. Do the same things. Make it routine enough that when you sit down to take the test, you don't even have to think about it. You should be able to "snap" in and out of LSAT mode. Don't accept a 149 as the lowest you can go, just keep at it! And you should probably skip the Feb LSAT, it won't do anything but hurt you in the long run, and Feb is too late to apply for next cycle anyway.
« on: January 20, 2011, 12:08:35 PM »
The article says 22% either flunked out or choose to leave. Not that there is a mandatory kick out rate.
Good point, except I never actually said anything about a mandatory anything. All I said was... know what, never mind, I'll save myself the trouble.
nearly a quarter of all 1Ls leave or flunk out every year.
You are absolutely right Harvard & Michigan have GREAT name recognition. If you are in the top 25% of schools I think it does have a huge bearing. My point was that outside of the top 50 schools whether you went to Hamline, which might be tier 3 will not make you stand out over Suffolk tier 4. For 75% of schools the name does not mean anything outside of the top 50 or so schools most people have never heard of them. I was not trying to say that Harvard or any T14 school will not open doors for you.
In regards to your oversaturization argument show me an industry that is not over saturated. The population has grown exponentially since your father went to law school. I have posted on other threads MBA's, M.D.'s, nurses, teachers, etc posting how difficult the job market is.
And? I'm not seeing how the state of the medical profession is in any way relevant to a legal profession.
Not to mention there is something called a GLOBAL recession. When something is referred to as global that means more than just the legal field.
Thanks for defining that for me. If I weren't an Economics major, I might have been confused.
Just for your own clarification, the so-called "Global" recession is neither global nor is it even occurring any longer. The U.S. hasn't been in recession since June 2009 ( http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html
) and many countries (Germany, China, and Brazil, to name a few) have seen fantastic growth over the last several years.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/08/19/fin_mba_no_longer_job.html MBA grads facing tough times
Again, irrelevance to the max. If you wanted to find an article about the difficulty of lawyers finding jobs, it would be no farther than a quick google search away.[/quote]
Jobs are competitive and every industry goes through ups and downs. I could post an article about how hard it is now or has been in the past for any profession out there. Hard as it is to believe, but people want to get paid to do something. No matter what job you have you can be replaced and markets are oversatured that is just life. As the national and world population continues to grow it will become even more competitive.
This is my entire point! Law is such an oversaturated market that in order to succeed, its more important than ever to get a good education and really sell yourself. Having a law degree in and of itself no longer makes you a desirable commodity like it did 20 years ago. You need to go above and beyond if you want to make it against such competition.
« on: January 20, 2011, 09:42:40 AM »
Well why doesn't everyone get a 170 then. If it is just work ethic everyone should be able to get a 170 or 175.
First of all, I didn't say I thought everyone could get a 170 or 175 - obviously you recognize the distinction between the 80th percentile and the 99th percentile. And the reason why everyone doesn't get a 170, or a 160, or whatever, is precisely because
of their lack of work ethic. The LSAT is an immensely trainable test, and with enough time and practice, it is possible for most people to improve their score. How much they improve is almost entirely up to them and how hard they are willing to work at it.
Anti improved by 18 points and 151 + 18 as I understand it is 169. Maybe we should set the bar at 170 if you can't get a 170 on the LSAT you should not be in law school. You can set the bar wherever you want and at some point only a few people will be able to achieve it. This is because human beings have limitations I imagine even you cannot pull a 180 on the LSAT no matter how hard you try.
I don't consider a 180 impossible at all. I don't think I'd be ready by Feb, but if I studied all spring I think I'd have a good chance at scoring in the deep 170s by June. To be honest, I feel I could have scored better in Dec, but a stupid mistake on LG cost me my 170.
This is because only 20% of people can finish in the top 20%. If you are not in law school yet you will realize the same thing happens with your grades. On the first day of class everyone is convinced they will be in the top 10% and your grades will be based on work ethic etc. Some people at the beginning go so far as to say they cannot understand how anyone could not finish in the top half of the class. Sadly the people that make those kind of statements don't realize they have a 50% chance of being in the bottom 50% and 50% of the time they end up in the bottom half.sigh
Have you ever taken a statistics class? Maybe... take one.
« on: January 19, 2011, 06:03:36 PM »
It is an IQ test in being able to think a certain way. It is studying patterns etc not facts. This in turn makes it more of an IQ test than a run of the mill law school test. It measures your reading comprehension, ability to figure out patterns, and ability to think quickly. I imagine there are a lot of people that simply run out of time because they cannot think fast enough. Just like when you go to law school people run out of time on exams. It often has nothing to do with how much or little they studied it has to do with their ability to think quickly. This is something that can be refined, but some people think more quickly than others. So yes the LSAT is an IQ test that measures someone's ability to think like a lawyer. It does not measure tangible facts, memorization, it determines if you are capable of thinking a certain way and that is an IQ test.
Let me explain what an IQ test is. The Intelligence Quotient is a ratio of an individual's mental age compared to their chronological age. While having a high IQ is likely corellated with high LSAT scores (and vice versa), this does not mean that the LSAT is in any way designed to test one's IQ. It's just not.
In theory, the LSAT is designed to test one's potential aptitude in characteristics thought to be important for success in Law. It's successfulness at measuring this is debatable, but it is unequivocally not
designed to measure intelligence, or IQ, as it were.
To further demonstrate that is somewhat of an IQ test even if you took 100 people and forced them to do the same exact method of studying. I.E. forced them to take a Kaplan test etc 50% of them would finish in the bottom 50%. Again as surprising as it may be if everyone adopted your method of studying only 20% of people will end up in the top 20%.
Yes, by definition, 50% of people on any individual test will score in the bottom 50% and 20% will score in the top 20%. You are however ignoring (or misunderstanding) my point. I'm not talking about the distribution of any individual test, I'm talking about the performance of one individual
. Barring extenuating circumstances, there is no reason why any reasonably intelligent person should not be able to score in the top 20% with enough practice. I can speak from experience - I started in the low 150s and improved my score 18 points.
« on: January 19, 2011, 05:05:52 PM »
LSAT score is the same thing you are essentially born with the mental abilities to get a certain score. It is for all intensive purposes an IQ test.
It is a standardized IQ test really
Ok right here you need to stop and just... stop. The LSAT is so far removed from an IQ test it's not even funny. At its core, it's a 4 hour reading comprehension test, and doesn't test anything further than how well you can take the LSAT. It is necessary to be intelligent to do well on the LSAT, but it is by no means sufficient, and intelligence alone will not get you a great score. Doing well favors those who prepare and study hard, and your preparation will make a much bigger difference on your score than your inherent intelligence.
You also need to stop confusing what people are capable of doing and what they actually do. Capability implies it is hypothetically possible, not that it is probable or by any means certain. 100% of people have the capability to jump off a bridge, but not many actually do.
« on: January 19, 2011, 03:54:39 PM »
Most people cannot achieve a 163 that is roughly the 80th percentile of LSAT test takers. If my math serves me right it seems only 20% of test takers can achieve a 163 or higher.
I said almost everyone is capable
of achieving a 163, not that everybody will. And for the record, the 80th percentile is a 160, not a 163.
Not everyone is meant for tier 1. If Lebron James came to me and said yo man why don't you just dunk from the freethrow line when your man stays a few foot off you. My answer would be as I imagine anyone on this site woudl be I cannot dunk from the free throw line Lebron. Although I myself am 6'8 260 pounds ( I think I have a bit more body fat than LJ though . The bottom line is me and about 99% of NBA players simply do not have the athleticism to do it. Likewise when someone says anyone can get a 163 or 170 on the LSAT it is the same as Lebron saying why not dunk from the free throw line.
This whole statement is a giant pile of wtf. It makes very little sense to compare free throws (?) to the LSAT. A proper analogy would recognize that while not everyone can step up and dunk like Lebron, with enough practice you might be able to dunk almost
Point being not everyone goes to Harvard law school. The reason Harvard is impressive is because roughly 99% of the population could not attend it. Just like 99% of the population is not a 6'8 260 pound athletic superfreak and Lebron is paid millions for having that skill.
To summarize, Harvard =/= Lebron James. Sports =/= Law. Height =/= LSAT score.
« on: January 19, 2011, 03:38:07 PM »
I am hesitant to believe any school flunks out 25% of their students. It goes directly against the logic of them being a degree mill. http://www.top-law-schools.com/thomas-cooley-school-of-law.html
Cooley’s reputation in the academic community is hardly stellar: in the most recent USNWR rankings, the school received a peer-review score of 1.4, and a lawyers/judges-review score of 1.8 (both out of 5). The school also has one of the highest student-to-faculty ratios in the country, at 23.5. This last statistic contributes to the idea of Cooley as a “degree mill” – a school that denies its students the personal experience offered at many smaller schools. The curve at Cooley is very tough - so much so that 22.4% of 1Ls and 14.5% of 2Ls either choose to leave or flunk out. Even 3Ls are not safe, as 14 of them were forced to leave last year.
In regards to finding a job I have known people that found employment from Cooley I even worked for a guy that went there. He was pretty doing well for himself.
I have no doubt that people who graduated from Cooley 20 years ago were able to find jobs. My own father went to Hamline in MN, another 4th tier, and he's been extremely successful. However, that has very little bearing on the job market today, which is absurdly oversaturated and which punishes all but the most exceptional of students. I'm not saying it's impossible to find a job with a Cooley degree, just very difficult, and finding a good
job will be all but impossible for most.
It is pretty much impossible to be a lawyer unless you attend law school.
Does that mean it is
possible to become one without it? I guess technically you don't have to go to law school to sit the bar, but good luck...
The name of your school generally will not help you at all considering 75% of ABA schools are not tier 1.
...that would lend more credence to the idea that a name would
help you, since there are so many subpar schools. Try and tell me having a Harvard, or even Michigan degree, won't get you points for name recognition alone.
« on: January 19, 2011, 03:25:14 PM »
i was preparing to take the february lsat after 7 months of studying (literally 3-4 hours a day, and i spent 6-9 hours a day during christmas break - not much of a vacation i know) im in a kaplan prep course and i scored a 156 on my 5th practice test tonight (my first score was a 148) and this was the best score i've gotten yet. i know i should probably postpone until june for taking the test but after all of the hard work ive done i almost feel like ill never get the score i want (a 163 or 164 is my ultimate goal) does anyone have any advice? am i being paranoid or am i at all correct in my fears of just never improving my score enough to get to my goal? i may have even been studying TOO hard (didn't know there was such a thing..) and studying along with 18 credits for my college classes has been difficult, to say the least. has anyone else had this same kind of discouragement? i'd appreciate any advice anyone may have (minus the every test gone be hardest ever remarks of course - not that those arent absolutely hilarious)
thanks so much for even reading my post!
It sounds to me like you are overstudying and burning yourself out. Your other problem is that you haven't modified your study habits. If you've spent 7 months (!) and the best you can achieve is a 6 point gain, clearly your study habits aren't working for you. I'm not a personal fan of Kaplan as they don't use the best methods and their instructors are less qualified, so I would recommend going with Testmasters or Powerscore. TM seems to have an edge with LR, while the PS bible is king of LG. However, even if you don't go with another course, you need to change up your study habits or you aren't ever going to see any improvement.
You also need to take more full length practice tests. You should have done way more than 5 in 7 months. A big part of the test is overcoming fatigue and managing time, and that can only be done with full length tests. That does NOT mean doing 9 hours of study a day, which is absurdly overdoing it and probably the reason you're so burned out.
While it is true that everyone has a 'peak' and not everybody is capable of a 180, almost everybody is capable of a 163. Unless you have an extenuating circumstance (i.e., learning disability or are a non-native English speaker), there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to improve another 7 points. I spent ~5 months studying for 2-4 hrs / day most days of the week and improved my score 18 points (151 -> 169)
« on: January 19, 2011, 03:15:12 PM »
First Diagnostic 151, improved to 169 in Dec. I started studying around August and took the Testmasters online course. It was intended for the Oct LSAT but I decided I wasn't ready, decided to wait until Dec. From Aug - Oct I took the online course, which included 4 PTs, several practice sections, and practice problems for ~2 hrs / day, minimum of 5 days a week. After Oct I stepped it up, and until Dec was spending 2+ hrs / day doing practice problems, PTs and sections.
The key is to bring your books with you everywhere, so you get in the frame of mind where you can instantly snap in and out of "LSAT mode." In between classes, during lunch breaks, while my prof was lecturing, these were all opportunities for me to pull out my books and bang out a set of 10 LR Qs.
If you have issues with time, try doing one individual section at 35 minutes, then 34, then 33, and so on. This is especially helpful with LG, where you can break it down even further and try and complete one game in 7:30, then 7, and so on.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8  10