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 - jamie9
With the standard law school application comes an authorization to contact your employer should they need to verify any information in the app. My question that I wanted some other people's take on was what the risk of this actually happening would be, and whether there is anything I can do to mitigate this. I am of course truthful, but would prefer any schools wishing to verify my employment to do so only after deciding that I would be admitted presuming that what I have said is truthful. Would indicating this in any way, as a matter of courtesy only, cast negatively on an application?
If a law school were to contact my employer to verify anything in my application, I am virtually certain that it would result in my termination. I'm a tax accountant at a CPA firm and another accountant at the firm was fired for a substantially similar reason. They don't want to invest in us if we're not committed to the career.
I realize that an employer contact may very well be unlikely, but I can't afford to wind up without a job particularly if I'm also left without an offer.
While you're certainly entitled to your opinion of Kaplan, let me correct this. , I can tell you that Kaplan does differentiate between sufficient assumptions and justify questions...and specifically tells students that they CANNOT negate justify questions. While they do lump them into the same "assumption" question type, they do differentiate the two.
You learn more from the questions you got wrong than from the questions you got right. For the ones you got wrong, look at the CR and figure why LSAC thinks the CR is the CR. Learning how LSAC thinks differently than you thought is the best way to learn.
I would agree, but would also add the ones you got right...but had trouble deciding on or were marginal on . Then there's some who suggest going over every single problem, but I think that's overkill, and if you're doing as many practice runs as you should be, it's also a distraction from what you really need to be focused on.
« on: January 29, 2008, 12:37:39 PM »
Sept 07 Real: 178
No offense to the active mormons on here, there's some incredibly great people in the LDS churcho including my parents, and like any church, things that are very good and some not-so-great things about it; but I've read the book of mormon several times and not only is it incredibly boring and repetitive, but until the recent change, historically and scientifically disprovable.
It actually offers more of an explanation as to the origin of the Native Americans than does anything else I've ever read.
Maybe more interesting but certainly not more accurate. Jews turned into Native Americans? Right.
Honestly, if I had to study that much to get a 180, or whatever score I wanted, I'd just move on to another field. I don't do the whole studying for tests thing (and yeah, I know, in law school I'll have to, but I actually find law really interesting so I won't mind reading tons of case law). In fact, between my September test and this one, I didn't study at all, all I did was take a couple of games sections to make sure I was still sharp and hope for the best.
Sad. A profession where you have to do 10 hours (albeit annoying hours) a week for a couple months to kick start isn't worth getting into? Even when you find it really interesting? Sad.
I had a schedule much like that, and it seemed to work out for me, but as said there are no guarantees. It also depends where you start out. I'd say you could raise your score on average 10-15 points with that kind of schedule, but it's different for everyone and who knows what test day will bring.
Just to add my 2 cents, I got a 164 on my first test cold too, 178 on the real thing (1 stupid mistake off 180 ).
Just do a lot of preptests, at least 15-20 at a very minimum, reviewing all mistakes and questions that gave you trouble, and you should do very well. The only thing I can say I really learned from my "class" and books was how to quickly form contrapositives in formal logic, the LSAT is mostly a reflection of practice and innate ability.
As for the person who only took a couple preptests and stayed at a 166...that's all well and good, but a few in I hit a 161, would have hated for that to be test day.
Everyone scores poorly LG their first time, I had in the 40% right range on the diag, didn't miss a single one on the real thing (Sept 07) despite only taking 15 minutes, and by the time I'd taken 10-12 tests, if I missed 1 it was rare and because I'd simply made an oversight. LG is really easy to learn, it just takes a lot of repetition to spot the same patterns, learn to diagram properly, and get your pace up. If you can get most right on LR, chances are you can dominate LG too.
Get the LG bible to help diagram a bit, but don't feel bound to do exactly what they say. Once you get used to it, just do your own thing. Don't bother memorizing a step-by-step process or any of that BS, that just takes up your time if you're already scoring at a high level.
« on: November 01, 2007, 03:49:38 PM »
Was it June 2007? Even I scored a 165 on that one, despite being a 170 test-taker. Disregard it: I challenge you to find one person that likes that test.
I liked it too, tied for my least number wrong (-3) with the real thing, and got a 177 which was within my target range.
unfortunately no!!... i haven't even taken that one yet. it was september 2006. record-low for both LR sections.
that was the one i bombed, even got -8 on one of the LR sections