Discussion
Resources
|
Show Posts
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.
711
Law School Applications / Re: GULC PT?« on: November 12, 2007, 04:56:10 PM »
I applied to the part-time program ED. I applied on the 25th of October. I'm not yet complete. Anyone else waiting to go complete? They did say that they would let the ED candidates know by, I think, the end of December?
712
Law School Applications / Re: UMD« on: November 08, 2007, 11:17:18 AM »
I know you're talking about Maryland (or at least that's which school you're talking about) but I've had the same problem with American. Applied over two weeks ago, and haven't heard a thing; they're the only school on my list who has not requested a report.
Anyone else going through this with American? When is it appropriate to contact the school? 713
Law School Applications / Re: How do you know you've gone complete?« on: November 08, 2007, 12:11:00 AM »
Any number of methods: some schools send you something in the mail, some schools email you, and some have a status check thing where it will tell you when you're complete.
For me, I think the majority of my complete notices have come by email. Second would be by mail. 714
Law School Applications / Re: Can somebody explain "complete" for me?« on: November 07, 2007, 10:39:40 PM »Nischay You can submit your apps without the letters but you won't go complete at a school that requires them until they are in. LSDAS will send an updated copy of your file once your letters do come in. As for whether it'll prevent you from getting in time for the ED deadline, like Eveman said, it really depends on the school. Call the school and tell them your situation and maybe they'll make some sort of allowance for you. If your letters aren't close to being in (as in, not sent yet) then it might take you awhile because it takes up to two weeks to process after they receive them. I don't know if there's any way to hasten the process for LORs. And remember, not going through ED isn't the end of the world. Some people have said that they've heard a lot of schools don't really give that much of a boost to candidates who apply ED. But I'm not sure, take it for what it is. Either way, I wish you the best of luck this cycle. By the way, where were you thinking of applying ED? 715
Law School Applications / Re: Can somebody explain "complete" for me?« on: November 07, 2007, 06:32:45 PM »
If you want to do ED, I'd submit that app. right now. It's still possible and likely that the school, itself, will attempt to hasten its process in light of the fact that you are doing ED. At worse, if you don't meet the deadline, they'll throw in the RD pile (which is what you would probably do anyway, right?)
716
Law School Applications / Re: Can somebody explain "complete" for me?« on: November 07, 2007, 05:35:39 PM »
Even if you have all the required materials in at LSDAS, after you send in your application (by pressing "send"), you are not automatically "complete."
The length of time to go complete at a school varies from school to school. Some schools want a paper copy of all your documents sent in. Some schools take a long time to even request your report. I've had my reports requested and sent in at many schools, and I still haven't heard anything from a lot of them. With some schools, you go complete really soon after you submit. But, don't count on being complete at all your schools really soon just because you have all your materials sent in. 717
Studying for the LSAT / Re: June 1994 Weaken LR- Can you explain the correct answer??« on: November 07, 2007, 02:11:36 AM »
The guy is arguing that harvesting trees from old-growth forests can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because if they die in the forest they release their stored CO2.
In a weakening question we want to show that "it is not the case" that the conclusion follows from the premise(s). In this argument, we would want to show that "It is not the case that harvesting trees from old-growth forests can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere." So the "hole" in the argument here would be that it assumes that harvesting trees will not release CO2. TCR basically tells us that the harvesting from old-growth will decompose anyway (and thereby releases CO2). Thus, it is not the case that harvesting these trees will lead to a lessening of CO2. Hope that helps.. 718
Acceptances / Re: ACCEPTED TO U of MIAMI!!!!!!! 2008« on: November 06, 2007, 06:55:30 PM »
I just got my acceptance letter in the mail also! First one..woo-hoo!! haha.. good luck to everyone else..
719
Studying for the LSAT / Re: flaw question« on: November 05, 2007, 10:51:04 PM »
I'll give it a shot..
The guy is basically arguing that people's intentions, on the whole, can't be more bad than good. This is because if people did BELIEVE that other people's intentions were more bad than good, then society could not survive. The flaw here is that he's assuming that just because someone believes that something can lead to the end of society that it cannot be true. I need to get better at explaining.. 720
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LRQ« on: November 01, 2007, 03:04:47 AM »
I don't know if this is the type of break-down you're looking for, but here goes nothing:
The argument here is claiming that at least some of Hana's brothers must have been at her party. Why? Because they planned on giving her some recording, and that was one of the gifts that she received at the party. We are looking for a flaw. I think it's an obvious flaw in that it is more than possible that someone other than her brothers could give her that recording. The tricky part is the way they phrase their answer choices. I think the answer choice D best represents the flaw. "Fails to establish that something true of some people is true of only those people." Something true of some people = her brothers planned to give her the record True of only those people = only her brothers were going to give her this record NOTE: if she did in the argument show that only her brothers would give her that record, then it would be a valid argument. But she never does express this. |
