Please share your wisdom with me 1L's...

[CRDFNSKY]

I often think of alot of things I never should have mentioned on my applications. I.E. - I never should have used "not enough time to complete" as an excuse for a low LSAT score. I now realize law school exams are done under tremendous time constraints, and you must be able to think on your feet. The amount of time (or lack thereof) provided to take the various sections of the LSAT test that skill. If you b-tch about not having enough time, that could be construed as a red flag.

That's just an example of one.

[Julie Fern]

Grasshopper, you have much to learn.

very convincing argument. im only repeating what ive heard from experienced students. feel free to ignore it and waste your time if you wish.

well, he here, not he?

[Julie Fern]

I often think of alot of things I never should have mentioned on my applications. I.E. - I never should have used "not enough time to complete" as an excuse for a low LSAT score. I now realize law school exams are done under tremendous time constraints, and you must be able to think on your feet. The amount of time (or lack thereof) provided to take the various sections of the LSAT test that skill. If you b-tch about not having enough time, that could be construed as a red flag.

That's just an example of one.

most people not be "completing" lsat anyway.  (but yes, guess undone.)  and score speak for itself as to such factors.

[Paperback Writer]

I wonder if the people who are against prepping for law school prepped for the LSAT?  The LSAT, which is an even more ambiguous than the law, is something I'm sure they studied for.

[CRDFNSKY]

I'm not sure I would have really understood any of the material I was looking at if I had tried to prep for law school. I really don't think its all that necessary to prep. You could read cases, but you'd have no idea what you're looking for. Trying to teach yourself personal jurisdiction or future interests and estates (two of the harder concepts) would be an effort in futility.

Everybody I've talked to who tried to prep said it was a waste of their last few weeks of freedom.

[tegra8]

the only prepping i did was skimming throuh LSC and i dont even use anything I learned from it and through all the midterms and papers so far I am doing better than most

[Paperback Writer]

I wonder if the people who are against prepping for law school prepped for the LSAT?  The LSAT, which is an even more ambiguous than the law, is something I'm sure they studied for.

i doubt the two are that analogous.  prepping for the LSAT is based on material (previous test) written by the same people who write the test you'll be taking, and it will be the same for every person taking the test ... not so for law school prep.  also, the LSAT is not ambiguous.  it's a multiple choice test with only one credited response per question, and the same concepts and logic are tested every time.

But the law is the law.  If you read the E&E's, then you are going to have a fairly good grip on the material.  The content on the LSAT is completely different from one test to the next.  You have no idea what kind of games you are going to get, and they are still the deal-breaker for most people.

I think it makes as much sense, if not more, to prep for law school as it does to prep for the LSAT.

[Paperback Writer]

But the law is the law.  If you read the E&E's, then you are going to have a fairly good grip on the material.  The content on the LSAT is completely different from one test to the next.  You have no idea what kind of games you are going to get, and they are still the deal-breaker for most people.

of course you have an idea of what to expect on the LSAT.  in case you didn't notice, there are a limited number of types of games, LR, and RCs.  all you have to do is apply the basic reasoning tested by the LSAT, which is the same every time only with different subject matter.  the weaknesses and pointlessness of trying to memorize the law before going to law school have already been pointed out in this thread.

Those who prep are probably slow to admit it.  They just do what needs to be done, and will probably pull down the highest grades in their class.

Like I said before, let's see what the first semester grades are of those who pooh-pooh prepping.

[Paperback Writer]

Those who prep are probably slow to admit it.  They just do what needs to be done, and will probably pull down the highest grades in their class.

Like I said before, let's see what the first semester grades are of those who pooh-pooh prepping.

the people to whom im referring are people in know IRL, not on this board, and they get good grades.

here's a thought... many people on xoxohth.com are 2Ls and above, why not go ask them what they think of prepping before law school?

They'd never admit it.  They want people to think they are naturally brilliant.

[jimmyjohn]

I wonder if the people who are against prepping for law school prepped for the LSAT?  The LSAT, which is an even more ambiguous than the law, is something I'm sure they studied for.

i doubt the two are that analogous.  prepping for the LSAT is based on material (previous test) written by the same people who write the test you'll be taking, and it will be the same for every person taking the test ... not so for law school prep.  also, the LSAT is not ambiguous.  it's a multiple choice test with only one credited response per question, and the same concepts and logic are tested every time.

But the law is the law.  If you read the E&E's, then you are going to have a fairly good grip on the material.  The content on the LSAT is completely different from one test to the next.  You have no idea what kind of games you are going to get, and they are still the deal-breaker for most people.

I think it makes as much sense, if not more, to prep for law school as it does to prep for the LSAT.

Define "completely different."  If you mean different questions from a material standpoint, then yes.  But the template always stays the same.  If you know how to attack types of questions you are undoubtedly better off than people who have no idea that assumption or flaw questions are even on the test.  Why do you think things like the LGB and LRB are so wildly popular?  Because they teach you how to answer certain TYPES of questions, not the questions themselves.  Most people use them with at least some degree of success, so I don't really buy your point there.

You can read the E & E's if you want but it will not help you because you won't know what you're reading or what to look for.  E & E's by themselves will not substitute for other crucial aspects of the law school experience.  Sure they'll teach you some elements of black letter law, but it won't tell you how to approach fact patterns or compete against 100 of your peers (who by the way will know everything you know regardless of whether they "prepped" or not).

I don't really understand your hubris considering you're not even in law school.  And I also have to ask why you are a 3rd year Pre-1L.  Are you just going to be an armchair pre-law advisor rather than actually attend law school?