Are you doing law too?
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 - scooby21322
Well public policy is definately a part of what goes on in Washington, which is related to politics. I enjoy the policy side more than the party strategy stuff anyway. My question isn't so much whether or not that degree is 'needed', but rather, would it be benificial? I just don't want to do something that is a waste of my time.
Well, interesting that you put it that way. My problem at the moment is that I really love politics, but I also really love studying the law. So I've been wanting to get the dual-degree. So, would the dual degree be a good move in order to maybe practice law while I'm young, then move into lobbying when I get older? Or is the public policy part even necessary?
Well from what I understand (and I definately may be wrong), lobbist firms have staffers just like they do on capital hill. I know that there are a few low ranked staffers in my office (i'm an intern right now) that have a lobbying firm as their goal in the next few years. However, they didn't go the law route.
The dumb jock stereotype only applies to high school and a select few high profile athletes. I was a varsity athlete for part of my college career, and I made better grades than my peers AND I was having to miss class on a regular basis. Don't begin to say that it's easy to make good grades when your missing a significant amount of class, because it is not. Professors love to put questions on their tests that you would only know if you were in class, so athletes have to make up for that! Having a job on the side just isn't the same. Believe me, I've done the student athlete and the regular student thing, so I know how both sides have it.
« on: July 27, 2006, 10:08:48 PM »
I took the last LSAT in June. Typically in practice tests, I did aweful on the logic games, the best on the Args, and pretty good on the Reading Comp. On the actual test, I felt that the logic games were a breeze(go figure), the Reading Comp was about normal, and the Args were a lot more difficult than on any practice test I had taken. The reason why I felt the Args were more difficult was because they were a little more wordy than normal, so therefore I was more pressed for time than I was used to. The trend with the reading comp is that there are more questions than there used to be (28 on the June LSAT), but not really any more difficult. So, if I were you, having this under my belt now, I would practice with the most wordy args as possible, and don't worry way too much about the games. I was able to finish all 4 games, and that was something I could never do on the practice exams.
I went to a Kaplan event a few days ago, so this information is according to them. They said that when it comes to letters of recommendation, professors are MUCH better than employers. They say that it is better because the profs have observed you in an academic setting whereas employers have only seen you working. The admissions councelors are more impressed by the profs. So, if I were you, if two of the profs write good letters, I'd use them over the employer.