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 - dsds3581
« on: March 20, 2004, 03:20:52 PM »
If I were in the Chicago area more frequently (I actually just left there last weekend), I would study with you. I did take Kaplan, and they helped me partially get to my goal...now I'm working towards the rest. I've pretty much increased 20 points since my diagnostic, using Kaplan's materials and a lot of other books...so it's not out of the question that you can. If you want to discuss more, send me a pm.
« on: March 18, 2004, 09:36:21 PM »
I agree with Jgruber. After the top 15, it might not be a big deal to some people (though it actually DOES bother me that UIUC dropped in ranking...#25 was about as low as I was willing to go if that's what it came down to), but it IS going to be a big deal to most schools if they drop. What they'll probably do is start rejecting more people to get a lower percentage of students accepted in order to seem more competitive and/or increase their standards in terms of GPA and LSAT. I know that's what my alma mater for undergrad is doing with their law school since their ranking dropped some.
« on: March 18, 2004, 01:53:49 PM »
No, non-trads are like people who have a family, have been out of school for quite a long time and things like that. I am kind of like you in that I'm only taking a couple years off and working before going to law school. Taking a couple years off and working and/or doing another degree isn't anything out of the ordinary, especially these days. In fact, I'm still trying to figure out how you're 22 yrs old, already done with college, had time to work (and leave) a job and then get into a Masters program you'll be done with next year (did you graduate early, or do you just have a late birthday, like May/June/July? Did you apply for a Masters program while in college?). I'm wondering because most people I know who graduated in May, including myself, are 23 right now. Honestly, I wasn't sure whether or not people like us were considered non-traditional at first, either, because I've only recently started to realize that OLDER people/people with families attend law school more frequently than I assumed (I kind of thought law school was going to be a bunch of 20-somethings, but that's not necessarily so).
Now, there are other ways to stand out. You don't have to go out of your way to do so. Whoever you are should be enough--you just have to highlight the best and most unique things about you than indicate you can succeed in law school--and this is something a lot of people don't understand (most people seem to think they have to be a minority to stand out). If you want to know what kinds of things/qualities law schools are looking for in their applicants and what can make you stand out, check out Richard Montauk's "How To Get into the Top Law Schools." It's an excellent book with information on everything you'll need to know since I can tell you need a lot of guidance. I know it sucks to be around people who don't know what they're talking about, so that's why I've spent years reading what I can about law school.
Okay, now to talk about the LSAT (and this is just my opinion here...)...like a lot of people who just don't know/haven't been advised well, your approach seems kind of backwards to me. First thing, you shouldn't take the LSAT to see how you'll do because that does more damage than you know. Most schools average LSAT scores; they don't take the highest one. You should ONLY take it when you are ready! But what's done is done.
Next...a lot of people you'll find on law school message boards are, what I like to refer to as, "elitist" when it comes to law school. Admittedly, I advocate this approach for myself...but not necessarily for everyone because some people truly don't care about going to the "best" or top-ranked law schools or just can't do that. But...I STILL think that no one should look at law school as one entity...there are a bunch of law schools out there and they're not all equal/the same, and that's the approach I always advise people to take...meaning...don't say, "I want to go to law school," then take the LSAT, get a score and then prep to get a better score or--also like a lot of people do when they don't realize any better--take the LSAT and THEN say, "What schools can I get into?" which kind of sounds like what you'll be doing after you're done with Princeton Review.
I say think about WHAT law schools you'd be interested in attending right after you make the decision to go to law school, be them top 20 or third tier or a mixture, then look up what LSAT scores they accept people with...THEN go to a place like PR and work towards getting into those score ranges. Don't work towards getting to avg PR score improvement; try to get the best score you can. Like Xray said, it'll be essential, especially depending on what schools you'll be interested in.
Xray is also right in that most people don't do a "pre-law" major...at most schools, there's not even any such thing. A lot of people equate Political Science with pre-law, but so many people study other things--I studied Psychology/Neuroscience with minors in English and Philosophy. In general, law schools don't pay too much attention to your major, unless you've studied something traditionally seen as really challenging or something they view as really bs (which Communications IS, by some schools, as you will see if you do check out Montauk's book). Everything else in between, they don't care too much. It doesn't matter in being seen traditional/non-traditional.
Feel free to send me a private message if you want to talk more or have any questions.
« on: March 18, 2004, 03:03:57 AM »
Ummm...but "diversity" doesn't just mean "race," which is one of the biggest misunderstandings/misconceptions people applying to law school have. If you don't differ from the rest of the applicants in some way, then you're just boring...all admissions officers want to know is how you differ, regardless of race. You have to stand out in law school admissions, period.
« on: March 18, 2004, 12:11:52 AM »
Probably one reason why you're not getting an answer is that this post is not in the best section. You should have posted this in the Studying for the LSAT section.
Anyway, why take their course? It's probably not that much different than their book but costs a helluva lot more.
« on: March 17, 2004, 03:02:10 PM »
Hehe, are you talking to me? If so...
Yeah, I was supposed to take the Feb one, but I switched to the June test. I realized I had spent too much time practicing Games and not enough practicing RC and LR. I'm glad I switched the date because now that's going to really make a difference in the score I would have gotten and the score I can get. In Feb, I probably wouldn't have hit 160, but now I definitely will get 160+.
I used to miss a lot on ALL the sections...but now, it really just depends on the Games I get, but that's still probably my best section (everything out there is sooo geared towards Games). RC is next, and so I'm really trying to improve on LR. It never really looks like I'm missing a lot on LR, but since there are two LR sections...adding them together makes a difference! lol. I want to get to a point where I don't miss more than 3 or 4 there COMBINED. I also still have the goal of missing a little bit fewer on the RC section, as well.
But I would love to discuss the LSAT, tips, good books and things like that through e-mail...so I will e-mail you, and anyone can IM me to get one of my main e-mail addresses so we can work together.
« on: March 17, 2004, 02:45:59 PM »
In addition to everything you said (I do a LOT of practice questions and pay careful attention to the newspaper, particularly the editorial sections, to sharpen my skills)...
I find myself applying LSAT skills to what people say more and more. Even the most mundane TV shows, I'm taking apart what people say. Like, it might have been yesterday or Monday, and I was watching General Hospital on ABC...though I wasn't paying complete attention to the last few episodes I'd watched, which means--definitely with soaps--you miss even 30 minutes of the show and you miss quite a bit. So when you tune in again, you have to fill in the gaps by using what the characters do say. So I'm sitting there drawing inferences and making assumptions...lol...rather than running to a website that would just tell me what happened on Friday.
All this to say--pay attention to people when they talk...people around you, people on the news, people on TV shows. For example, people are always drawing analogies or mistaking correlation for causation...next time you catch someone doing that, analyze whether or not the two things being used in the analogy are REALLY analogous...see if you can find a flaw, a strengthener or weakness there...or whether just because something precedes something else that really means it caused it...because, just like the LSAT testmakers frequently like to have as an answer choice, they both could be caused to co-occur by something else.
When someone is speaking about something, pay attention to words they use and see if you can figure out their tone/attitude towards what they are talking about. Make sure you understand exactly what they are mainly trying to get across or why they are even talking about something. Think about what statements they would agree with or disagree with given what they are saying.
This helps because this is exactly what you have to do on the LSAT and what you'll have to do when you're in law school and again when you're an attorney. It's good practice all-around, and it makes for interesting conversations with people when you point out these things and also verify your reasoning through their response...because on the LSAT, you don't really get to verify with anyone...you just have to trust that you got that answer correct. Doing this should probably give you more confidence that you are thinking the right way when you take the LSAT. Plus, when people speak, their logic/reasoning/responses is/are often so imperfect that when you see perfect reasoning on the LSAT or, even, imperfect reasoning on the LSAT, it will make it easier to identify.
« on: March 17, 2004, 02:23:49 PM »
I think the price on ebay is the cheapest you'll find for it, though, unless you can find someone who has used it and will sell it to you for less than $30 (which is doubtful).
It seems like this book is most helpful for those who are pretty bad with Games instead of those who are getting, maybe, 3/4 Games done in the time and do basically understand the logic and diagrams but are just slow...? In which case, practicing on real Games from past LSAT's seems the best thing to do. But it sounds like, if you need help with logic and diagramming, this is the book to get.
Personally, after taking Kaplan and studying the Games section of Nova's "Master the LSAT" (which gave even more helpful info than my Kaplan course did), I was good to go with Games and decided I didn't need to shell out $30-$45 for the LG Bible like I initially thought I might have to do when I read the reviews on amazon...so before spending all that money on the LG Bible, see if something cheaper might help you out first. I bought Nova's book on half.com for about $11 when it actually costs $30. It helped me with logic and diagrams VERY much, but I can't compare it to the LG Bible since I never used it...they are probably both great.
« on: March 17, 2004, 01:18:54 PM »
I've never heard any students admit that their school is competitive or cutthroat, not even ones at Harvard or Columbia...
But I did read on top-law-schools.com an interview with a Boalt admissions officer who said he transferred from Boalt to Harvard...then back again to Boalt because Harvard was too intense while Boalt was more laidback. I think I remember him also voicing his take, like one person said here, that people usually do NOT transfer out of top schools like Harvard, even if they are unhappy.
I do know someone who visited NYU and Columbia and chose Columbia because Columbia seemed more "serious" than NYU in terms of students and academics. She says from the people she knows at Chicago, Chicago is even worse than Columbia (but she didn't get into Chicago). Everything I've heard and read about NYU leads me to believe it's a pretty laidback school, too, and I'd definitely choose it over Columbia and Chicago. Other things I've read or been told lead me to believe that the top public and/or Southern schools (UVA, Texas, Boalt, Duke) tend to be more laidback than the top private ones.
Finally, I have a story about Yale. Once, I was at this law school forum, and the Yale table was packed (Harvard's had almost no one there...lol). EVERYONE at the Yale table was SUPER serious (the students, not the admissions officers...the admissions officers were actually really cool, funny and relaxed). They were scaring me to death because I was smiling and trying to be cordial to these people and they just stared at me (or ignored me) like emotionless, overdressed machines. So I asked some people from Yale what was up with that and told them what happened, wanting to know if people who attend Yale are like that. They told me that these are the kinds of people who don't get into Yale, that the people at Yale are really--for the most part--pretty great and not to worry about it. A lot of Yalies also say that the student body is more at ease there than at schools like Harvard because of their grading system, no class rankings and not having to worry as much about financial aid--from what I understand, if you make a certain salary and below, Yale will pay your loans and will help pay part of it if you make more than that certain salary but still not a lot...if you want to go into public interest or maybe even government, that's basically a free ride, too...and things like this that ease their minds.
« on: March 14, 2004, 11:26:12 PM »
That goes for me, too. I wish you had posted this a year ago when I DID live in ATL, lol.