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 - TheMaddRapper
« on: December 20, 2007, 10:05:42 AM »
Ok I'll bite. I have some friends up in Canada. They have no equivalent to LSN but just go on lawstudents.ca and they will know what you should do.
Anything 160+ can get you in somewhere. Try a 164 for the Queens/Western level, maybe high 160s for Osgoode. 170+ for U of T. Some Canadian schools are complete crapshoots (soft factors, etc.) because they don't have the cynical USNews system we have down in the states.
« on: December 20, 2007, 09:53:59 AM »
Seriously folks, I prepared for the LSAT just about as hard as anyone else, and I really do care what my score is, but I do not understand the hysteria. It's not like being a lawyer is such a great job. For many of us, including me, there's a very good chance that going to law school could make our lives much worse.
In addition to all that, because of the new retake policy, the importance of what you do on test day has dramatically diminished. As long as you don't misbubble everything and get a 132, you can just try again if you didn't get the score you wanted and no school will look at you funny. You have 3 chances! That's a lot! So you'd lose a year in the worst scenario. Well, in that year you could find something better to do than be a lawyer, or just have a lot of fun. If you don't make biglaw, you probably won't make much less (if any less) this year than you would as a lawyer anyway. And if you do make biglaw, there's a 90% chance you won't be making biglaw dollars your whole life, so you're still not losing much money by sitting out a year.
I suppose the other source of anxiety is worrying about what people will think if you studied so hard for a rather elementary and random test and managed to screw it up. Or screw it up by your standards, anyway--for those who don't aspire to be trained monkeys, the difference between a 169 and a 173 is really tiny, although some people think the latter is fine and the former is the end of the world. I had to restrain myself from thinking that way. So can you.
« on: December 20, 2007, 09:40:38 AM »
You're welcome. I guess the answer would be much stronger if they said "most national political candidates" or "most national political candidates in a general election." Because, like, you could argue that a congressional candidate is a national political candidate because it involves a federal office with federal responsibilities. Many such candidates win their seats at party conventions.
By saying "national political candidates" they mean "some," which really could be just one.
« on: December 20, 2007, 09:32:28 AM »
I don't remember if I got this one right or wrong, but I remember doing it. I think C is clearly wrong. The key premise here is the "fair-minded and trustworthy" bit so C strengthens that in a pretty obvious way.
If A is right, I hope the other answers are real bad. This one has weakening impact but not in the way you usually see. I think the key word in the answer is "no." If candidates typically have NO control over what's being excerpted, then that strips this strategy of having some possible advantageous impact under typical conditions. I say "possible" because you don't really know how the national media is relevant to national political candidates. Who are the politicians talking to and why? Maybe they're speaking at an event of undecided voters that happens to be closed to the media. Maybe the news media doesn't have any relationship with candidates for national political office at all. Far-fetched, but we don't know that.
Another quibble with this answer: Usually a weaken or strengthen does not lead to an eventually extreme or absurd conclusion. If you buy that the weakening impact is direct, why does any typical politician say anything at all? If he has no control over what the media will say, and the media is so important, why doesn't he just say his name 100 times, or read random words from the phone book? They could have just written A) NO for similar effect.
You have to just accept a few things and chalk them up to common sense in order to make this answer work. I always feel uncomfortable when I have to do that.
When under time pressure, I have messed up and chose answers like C on occasion. When I found out I did that, it usually means I got away from the fundamentally sound instincts I've tried to establish for so long. And LR is usually my strength. This is one of the most frustrating types of mistakes to make.
« on: December 06, 2007, 11:48:08 PM »
I just consider myself an informed citizen. I consider it superior to randomly belittling those who I don't agree with.
« on: December 06, 2007, 11:44:56 PM »
Wallace, didn't you take the Dec. LSAT? So Feb. would be your third try?
In any case, you are absolutely right to re-take your 169. You worked hard for that 4.0 GPA, and you need to maximize it. As far as teaching TM/Powerscore, for a low GPA moron like me, if I don't get into Northwestern I might actually make more money teaching that than I could being a lawyer. Hence, I might re-take if I don't like my December score, but with my low GPA I have less to gain than you do.
I feel like I could have gotten anywhere from a 168 on up, depending on the scale. If I'm consistent with my practice mean and median, I should at least hit the low 170s with a -10 scale. You need a 172 for Powerscore, right?
The trouble is, a 172 could be -5 or it could be -8. And while practicing I felt the same after a -5 or -8 performance (or -3, or -10). Maybe with more practice I could become a more consistent player. As of now, I really have no clue what I'm going to get.
« on: December 06, 2007, 11:19:26 PM »
Most of the advice on this thread is pretty bad. The legal industry is not only oversaturated, it is also inefficient. So not only are there more attorneys than there are jobs, there are currently more jobs and small firms than the market can support (on the low end, anyway).
So not only is a non-T14 JD usually useless, for many people it actually has negative value. I suppose if you can sell a refrigerator to eskimos you might be able to hustle yourself up a small-time job of some sort, or get into a small niche for which you may have a specialized skill (hard science MS/PhD, an exotic foreign language, previous employment experience, etc). The vast majority of non-T14 law students, though, will not find a job that pays them more than they could have made otherwise with only a BA if you factor in student loan cost.
Of course there are government jobs like the person from WUSTL described. However, the applicants-to-hires ratio for government jobs might be even worse than biglaw. Without special connections or luck, chances of getting a DA or PD job are slim, and remember these only pay $40K/year in most states. Sure, with some perseverance you can get an insurance defense gig, but I don't think ID is a better job than most people with only a BA could get. (ID firms are often euphemistically called "medium sized firms.")
Other than hard-to-find government jobs and ID, the real bottom of the barrel is personal bankruptcy filings, collections, small-time criminal defense/traffic court, divorces ("family law"), and court-appointed work. These areas are the last resort for the underemployed lawyer, and generally the work is unsteady, low-paying and volatile. Draw your own conclusions. What's more, as more and more unemployed new lawyers hit the market, it's likely to get even worse.
There is also document review, which up until recently was fairly easy to find and paid OK. Don't hold your breath though, doc review is considered a career killer and by the time LSDers graduate most of it will be shipped off to India anyway.
So yes, unless you are independently wealthy or you go to school for free, you really need to make the cutoff. For but a handful of schools ranked 14 and below this is around 10%; after #50 or so, this number dwindles down to about 0 when you hit the 4th tier. (Exceptions: GULC, UT, UCLA ~50%; USC, Vandy, Texas ~40%; WUSTL, GW ~33%; BC, BU, Illinois, Hastings ~25%; it depends on the local market, this isn't really accurate but you get the idea.)
If you are such a good "hustler" that you think you can make it in small-time law, then there is a much easier way for you to make money: start a sales career. The law is a busted industry. For those who can't make it in the top schools, it's a fool's game.
« on: December 03, 2007, 10:11:13 PM »
Do you have to get some kind of specialized job up there to qualify for a work visa? Or any job will do?
I think if you went to Canada as an American...what if you couldn't find a job right away after you graduate? They'll kick you right back to the states?
« on: December 03, 2007, 09:20:23 PM »
First, I just want to get something straight about multiple scores. I'm not really an admissions junkie so I don't exactly know what's going on. But the new rule means that for US News purposes, your highest score is the only score that matters, right? If so, it's not really in your best interest to cancel. Wallace Stevens--you seem like you know what you're talking about, can you confirm this?
Some T14s care about things like UG prestige, or at least pretend to. Such schools might possibly care about your lower LSAT score, especially if it would be considered embarrassing (sub-167 or something), I suppose. But if your highest score is the only one US News sees, that's all they probably care about, whether or not they give off that impression.
I guess there are exceptions, like Boalt or Stanford or Yale, that don't make it the point of their existence to game the rankings. But most do, T14 or not.
For me, I have real doubts about my score but I don't think I'll cancel. First, I think the scale will be generous, maybe even -10 for 170. Second, this test really reminded me of #51 from this time a year ago, and for whatever reason I got a -4 on that test, which is a little better than my usual -6, -7, -8 "WTF was I thinking there??" performance.
I thought I had momentum coming into this test, in that I had been making good decisions in PTs late last week. But I can think of at least a couple things I potentially flubbed on Saturday. It doesn't matter, though. I'm not cancelling. (Easy for me to say, I guess. I'm not gunning for any particular school and I have a low GPA anyway.)
« on: December 01, 2007, 09:43:17 PM »
December 06 was -10 for a 170, but the high scores were unusually high. I did not think the clown game was too bad; there's a similar game from around 1999 or so that is like a more complex version (2 people with hats, jackets and skirts in different colors).
December 07's LGs didn't include anything blatantly new, but the debate teams combination game had a couple uncommon wrinkles.
It could just be me, but I can't tell if one RC is particularly harder than the next. June 07 is supposed to be easy compared to Dec 06...seemed just the same to me.
This didn't feel like a hard test, but for some reason I don't think it's one of those -7,8 for 170 scales. Probably one or two better than that--I predict -10.