Linguica Jul 13, 2000 You're already dead









2. Before Law School and Applying to Law School: deciding whether law is right for you; applying and getting into law school; the LSAT; essays, teacher recommendations, applications, etc. "My GPA is X.XX and my LSAT is YYY. Will I get into ____ Law School?"



Q: Should I become a lawyer? Should I go to law school?



A: Probably not.

Sarah Waldeck posted: Because I am visiting at another law school this semester, I dont have to attend any admissions events this spring. Yet Ive been thinking hard about what advice I would give prospective students and this is where Ive landed: Only go to law school next year if (1) you have always dreamed of being a lawyer; or (2) you are accepted by a very prestigious institution; or (3) you are offered a full scholarship.



This is not advice Ive arrived at easily. Fifteen years ago, such advice likely would have discouraged me from even considering law school. But the economics of my decision are likely very different from the economics of the decisions that will be made this spring. I went to a state university and graduated without a penny of debt. Partly this was because I worked for three years after college and managed to save money, but mostly it was because my in-state tuition averaged about $5,000 per year. Today, in-state tuition at the same institution would cost more than $16,000 per year. If I went to a private school in the metropolitan area where I usually teach, Id be looking at a yearly tuition of about $45,000.



Tuition has been rising steadily for some time now. There is a perennial worry about whether prospective students understand what it is like to be a practicing lawyer or what the law firm jobs that enable them to pay off their debt really entail. But now there is an additional and even more serious concern about whether and to what extent graduating students will have legal opportunities in the first instance. As the Times article suggests, this concern encompasses both opportunities in private law firms and in the public sector, including some of the public interest jobs that students have traditionally taken to qualify for federal debt forgiveness programs.



Forty-five thousand dollars per year (plus other costs) seems like a lot to pay for such uncertain prospects. But the number of people sitting for the LSAT this year suggests that quite a few will be willing to pay it; soon well have a clearer picture of how many LSAT scores will materialize into actual applications.



Of course, this year law school applications will be partly driven by the lack of opportunity costs. Graduating college students face generally dismal employment prospects regardless of what field they want to enter. But I suspect that optimism bias plays just as large a role in student decision-making. No matter what the economy, some lawyers will be wildly successful. Many prospective students are inclined to think that they will be part of this group, no matter how daunting the odds against it. On the more rational side of the analysis, its also true that law school historically has proven itself a relatively good place to weather out bad economic times.



What is different this time around, however, is that no one is yet sure whether the changes in legal markets and in law firms are permanent, or whether things will eventually return to what we had come to think of as normal. If you havent always wanted to practice law, or if youre considering a law school that is not one of the best in the nation, or if the law school isnt offering to pay for you to attend, my advice is to wait to see how this plays out.



Law schools know that many prospective students will ignore this kind of advice, at least for now. The decision to admit studentsand to encourage them to attendhas a moral component, especially when law schools know that some students (many? most?) will face diminished prospects upon graduation. Law schools, the ABA and the AALS have a continuing dialogue about what constitutes a quality legal education. Now they should be talking about concrete steps that are responsive to the changing legal market. In the short term, and at a minimum, law schools would seem to have the obligation to hold tuition steady. In the long term, and if these market changes are permanent, universities need to ask hard questions about whether the number of law school seats should be determined by how many people want to go to law school or how many lawyers the market can absorb. This, in turn, would raise a series of questions about class size as well as the propriety of establishing new law schools.



Given the current legal climate, one would hope that decreasing applications would force law schools to grapple with these questions. But markets, including those for law students, are imperfect. The most I can hope is that prospective students think hard about whether, at this particular point in time, a legal degree is worth the investment.

quote: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be...Lawyers

quote: This isn't a cycle. It's the start of what could very well be a permanent change in the legal industry. There was just no way this industry could perpetuate itself with the churning out of fifty thousand new lawyers year after year after year with not enough jobs to employ all of them. You've got the ABA accrediting new schools every single year, because that's their cash cow, and the problem just keeps compounding.



The jobs that do exist are changing and becoming fewer in number. We outsource work to India. People are seeing fewer lawyers for matters like tax, divorce, and probate because of software packages and pre-built forms sufficient for 90% of the populace. Mandatory arbitration is taking a lot of disputes out of the courtroom and not letting lawyers participate.



Large firms stopped pricing attorney salaries at anything approaching a reasonable fashion and firms couldn't keep up. Lockstep increases are a huge cause of all of the recent firm failings and mergers. I think lockstep will disappear within five years, as a matter of mere survival, but it's somewhat a question of whether it's too late to go back to the good ol' days of merit pay.



At some point the dam was going to burst, and here we are. But we've still got three years of fledging attorneys in the hopper, and at least a few more years after that of undergrads who are still convinced that law school is the best thing ever, and so long as there's an industry built on selling that myth and an economy so far in the shitter that graduate school becomes an attractive alternative to unemployment (at least for three years), it ain't gonna get better.







Want to fix the industry? Unaccredit the entire third and fourth tiers. And not because of some elitist statement of quality, but because we don't need 200 law schools in this country, even if they were all as good as Yale. Shrink class sizes in the remaining 100 law schools. Law school itself needs to become the barrier to entry, just like medical schools operate now.



Unfortunately, that means that all of the unique snowflakes might not be able to go to law school. It means that I probably would not have been able to go to law school. I started at a T3. Things turned out okay for me, but go talk to my friends who are all unemployed with zero prospects five months after graduation. Most of them admit they would have been better off had they never been admitted to a law school in the first place. Sometimes industry paternalism is a good thing.



A woman that will be paying off debt until she retires posted: Im on a one-woman mission to talk people out of law school. Lots of people go to law school as a default. They dont know what else to do, like I did. It seems like a good idea. People say a law degree will always be worth something even if you dont practice. But they dont consider what that debt is going to look like after law school. It affects my life in every way. And the jobs that you think are going to be there wont necessarily be there at all. Most people I know that are practicing attorneys dont make the kind of money they think lawyers make. Theyre making $40,000 a year, not $160,000. Plus, youre going to be struggling to do something you might not even enjoy. A few people have a calling to be a lawyer, but most dont.[1]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/law_...ho_dont_succeed posted: Law schools are exploiting any students who arent successful, according to a law school dean who spoke at a program on law school rankings earlier this month.



We should be ashamed of ourselves," said Richard Matasar, dean of New York Law School.



Matasar said schools need to take responsibility for the failures of their students, according to an account of his Jan. 9 remarks by TaxProf Blog. Matasar said a law school education can cost as much as $120,000 for a students who are making a lottery shot at being in the top 10 percent of their class so they can get high-paying jobs.



He spoke during a program sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools that is available in a podcast. TaxProf Blog noted Matasars remarks and highlighted a Forbes article that questions whether students are being misled into believing that large school debt translates into a life of economic privilege. The article featured a lawyer couple divorcing amid overwhelming stress because of $190,000 in student debt.



We own our students' outcomes," Matasar said at the AALS program. "We took them. We took their money. We live on their money. And if they don't have a good outcome in life, we're exploiting them. It's our responsibility to own the outcomes of our institutions. If they're not doing well ... it's gotta be fixed. Or we should shut the drat place down. And that's a moral responsibility that we bear in the academy.



At 50 law schools, 20 percent of the students either flunked out, cant find jobs or have unknown outcomes, according to another speaker at the program, Indiana University law professor William Henderson. TaxProf Blog also transcribed some of his remarks.



Matasar questioned whether students are beginning to understand that law school does not guarantee a good job. He said registrations for the law school admissions test are flat or below the norm for this year. That's never happened in a downturn in the economy before, he said. They're catching on. Maybe this thing they are doing is not so valuable. Maybe the chance at being in the top 10 percent is not a good enough lottery shot in order to effectively spend $120,000 and see it blow up at the end of three years of law school.

http://www.jdunderground.com/thread.php?threadId=38589 posted: My firm recently was looking to replace a paralegal, and the hiring partner figured that, given the current job market, we could get a licensed attorney for the price of a paralegal, and get the benefit of having somebody to do all the idiotic court appearances none of the actual lawyers felt like wasting time on. So we placed an ad for an attorney, with the only requirements being "licensed in New York" and "some firm experience" (we'd accept somebody with summer intern experience). The salary offered was $50K. Entry level all the way. We were totally expecting to hire some recent BLS or Fordham grad just looking for a place to start out.



Within 24 hours of putting the ad out -- one day, people -- we had received over 200 responses. For one job. At least half of them were from people with V200 firm experience. It felt like we got resumes from every single associate who used to work at Thacher Proffit before they imploded, along with about a dozen people from Latham Watkins. We had a smattering of former Proskauer, Shearmen Sterling, Hogan Hartson, and Dewey Lebouf associates. And a lot of them weren't particularly recent graduates; while the majority of applicants were 2008 or 2007 grads, we got some people applying from as early as 2001. And from basically every top school.



In the end, we went with a UVA grad who'd been laid off from Cadwalader last Christmasish because he'd failed the bar the first time, and hadn't been working since. We didn't want to hire anybody with too much experience, since somebody used to making $200K over the last couple years would likely jump ship the second a better offer came along. Also, somebody who'd spent only four months at a big firm would be used to doing grunt make-work paralegal stuff, and wouldn't complain about it.

Ainsley McTree posted: Did you notice the last page or so of posts in which we were all jizzing about a public defender position available in Barrow, Alaska? I couldn't speak for anyone else but I for one was not entirely exaggerating, I am not completely uninterested in the prospect and I went into law school saying to myself "the one thing I don't want to be is a public defender, I don't have the fortitude for it" but after 3 months of unemployment (well 5 technically but I started the count after I finished the bar, not graduation because at least when I was studying for the bar I had something to do) it's honestly starting to sound pretty good. Barrow, Alaska is located here:







Getting a job in law is hard and unlikely. Getting a stable job is considerably harder and unlikelier. Getting a job in the Federal Government is a pipe dream. According to usajobs.gov there are 158 jobs available in the country under the category "legal and claims examining". There are more than 158 law schools in the country, much less yearly law grads. I don't know if you meant to phrase it this way but I get the feeling like you feel like getting a job with the federal government would be settling for mediocrity somehow. gently caress you. I would literally suck a dick for a cushy federal government job and I'm not even joking about that. Women and gay dudes do it all the time (well not for jobs usually but you get my point), I'm so much better than them that I can't do it once and be set for life? If only I had that opportunity.



You don't know why exactly you want to go to law school, well let me help you answer that question, you want to go to law school because you don't know what else to do with your degree and law school seems like the obvious next thing to do. That's the reason I went too and now that I'm done with it and unemployed and overqualified for any vaguely decent mediocre office job that would pay off my $150k-ish debt I feel like I have to tell you that you're thinking about making a huge mistake, don't go you idiot



I didn't mean to come off so hateful and angry when I started writing this reply but gently caress, every time I read a post about someone wanting to go to law school it just comes out, I'm sorry, I don't literally hate you, but I do hate the part of your brain that tricked you into thinking that law school is remotely a good idea right now.













Q: OK, let's assume I still want to go to law school.



A: OK. Some good reasons to go: You have a specific interest in practicing law



You enjoy working long hours



You're a detail-oriented person



You have a strong sense of perseverance in the face of agony



You have qualifications for a subspecialty of law that you're interested in (e.g. tax law, patent law, etc.) Bad reasons to go:



"Everyone says I'm a good arguer."

Great, then go join the debate team. Being a lawyer has very little to do with spontaneous arguing and everything to do with extensive, meticulous research and mind numbing document preparation / review.



"Why not?"

Why not dance around a bonfire of C-notes, it'll be cheaper and more enjoyable. Speaking from personal experience, "why not?" is the absolute worst possible reason to pursue a degree in something.



"I majored in Poli Sci/ History / Philosophy / whatever, and what else am I going to do?"

You and 90% of law students. Fair enough I guess.



"I want to earn cash money and live the good life."

First, the chances of you landing a job that pays at the top of the scale are poor, and if you're not at a top-tier law school, pretty close to nil. Second, even if you do someone get lucky and manage to make that cash money, you'll probably be working so much that your "good life" will be getting an air mattress for your office instead of a cot.



"I don't really want to be a lawyer, but I think having a JD would be neat."

A law degree is expensive, time-consuming, and not nearly as flexible as your mother makes it out to be. Law school is generally not a thoughtful, policy-oriented, intellectually gratifying experience. It's also a very herd-oriented experience, and if you go you will probably end up as a bloodsucking lawyer, despite your best intentions.



If you want to spend a lot of time studying policy, go to school for that. If you're interested in politics or non-profit work, there are routes into both that don't require a law degree. If you want to start a business, do that instead of taking on a bunch of additional debt. If you want to backdoor your way into an MBA program...ok, that might be reasonable...but even then, make sure you'd be ok being a lawyer if your application to the joint degree program is rejected.



"Daddy is a senior partner at Dewey, Cheatham & Howe, so I've got a corner office waiting for me."

That doesn't mean you'll be any good as a lawyer, or enjoy it. However, it's basically impossible to change your mind on this so whatever.



"My family will disown me if I don't go to law school and blah blah."

See above.



<--- This guy said I should."

gently caress HIM.



"I want to get laid."





Q: If you're warning against becoming a lawyer, why the hell did you all go to law school?

A: Because we're overeducated Type-A neurotics. Lawyers have some of the highest rates of clinical depression of any profession, and substance abuse is far from rare.[/i]

being_a_happy_lawyer.pdf posted: "A study of North Carolina lawyers found that 37% reported feeling depressed in the past few weeks, and 42% reported feeling lonely. 11% experienced suicidal ideation at least once a month for the past year."











Feel free to post a question about your particular situation, and we'll happily tell you if you're full of poo poo or not.







Q:Is law school right for me?



A: This is an excellent question to ask before you get involved in the stress and financial burden of the law school admissions process, and the answer is not as simple as you might think. First of all, in the OP, I listed several good and bad reasons to go to law school. READ THEM! The very, very worst reason to go to law school is, "Why the hell not? I don't know what else to do!" While this isn't a bad reason to look into legal studies, you'd better drat well find a better reason by the time you show up at law school, or else you'll have trouble staying focused, motivated, and productive.



You also need to take a long, hard look at your admissions profile: what is your GPA like? what college did you attend? how well do you think you can do on the LSAT? do you have notable extracurriculars, or do you do nothing but study? are you an underrepresented minority? do you have good teachers who know you well enough to write a good recommendation for you, or will you be getting a note from "Uncle Jack" who works for 1-866-ACCIDENTES? Law school is an expensive and difficult undertaking, and if you think the best school you can get into is in the bottom tier, then you'd better have some serious motivation to fuel your studies.



That's not to say that you can only go to law school if you've "wanted to be a lawyer since childhood" or whatever. You don't even have to like law school once you're there. But if you do poorly in school, and it's not a great school, you will graduate unemployed (or underemployed) and in huge debt. Don't go to law school "just because"--have a clear goal in mind, and you'll be glad you did!



Q: Say, I've got the chance to spend a summer in college working for a local attorney. Will I learn a lot? Will this wow admissions committees?



A: Working for an attorney is nice, but it's never super impressive to law school admission committees. Pretty much as a matter of law, attorneys can't hand any really substantive work to non-law (or non-law student) employees. So by all means take the job, but if your boss tries to feed you some crap line about "I'm paying you peanuts because you're learning so much about the legal system!" then go to Starbucks for a job.



Q: Will spending an extra year in college help me get into law school?



A: This question has come up quite a lot, to my surprise. I've heard it both from people who had originally planned to graduate from college early (3 years) but were considering spending the full 4 years, and from people who spent 4 years in college and were considering a 5th year.



The short answer is: if you take more than 4 years to graduate college, admissions committees will take notice. This isn't necessarily a bad thing--you just have to make sure they notice all the awesome things you did in that 5th year. You know, like leadership positions on organizations or committees, getting promoted at your job, bringing up your GPA by taking cool and high-level courses (not fluff)), doing community service, learning a new language, etc. You were planning to do all this stuff in your extra year, right?



Q: Hey, my neighbor's cousin's mistress' landscaper's best friend is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Dakota! If I can get Mr. Chief Justice to write me a recommendation letter, will I get into Stanford Law?



A: No. If you haven't actually done any work for Mr. Chief Justice (or the attorney general, or Clarence Darrow, or Jack McCoy, or whichever famous lawyer), that letter is useless. It's even more useless if the person doesn't even know you. Admissions committees want to read about your skills, maturity, and potential for success in law. Most famous people who hardly know you can't really write about those things. Go ask your professor and/or boss for a letter. Better yet, plan early to impress at least 1 professor and/or supervisor enough that you'll feel comfortable asking for a rec letter when the time comes!



Q: So I'm taking the LSAT cold tomorrow, anything I should know?



A:



Q: How do you study for the LSAT effectively?



A: Here's the general consensus: PowerScore LSAT Logic Games Bible



PowerScore LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible



Actual Official LSATs (there are several compilations) entris posted: General LSAT Strategy and General Questions

The LSAT has five multiple choice sections and one writing sample. Forget about the writing sample, it is largely irrelevant for your purposes. It doesnt impact school rankings, and law school admissions people dont particularly care about it. Of the five relevant sections: 2 are logical reasoning, 1 is reading comprehension, 1 is logic games, and 1 is experimental.



Question: Should I try to guess which section is experimental?



No. The experimental section will come in one of the first three sections of your test, before the break, but you should not try to guess which section it is. It is nigh impossible to determine which section is experimental; even people who are very familiar with the LSAT are unable to guess accurately.



Question: Should I guess on the LSAT?



Yes. When you are nearing the end of your time, make sure you set aside time to fill in the remaining questions. There is no penalty for guessing. Always pick a guess letter ahead of time, so that you can just quickly bubble in that letter when you are running out of time.



Question: Is one letter statistically better than others when guessing?



No. The people who create the LSAT spend a lot of time analyzing the questions. They would never allow one letter to occur more than the others, so dont listen to any rumors that B is the right answer 22% of the time! or somesuch. Just pick a letter you like.



Question: How much time do I need to study?



This is somewhat dependent on your own personal quirks. Generally, you want to shoot for a minimum of 16 hours a week, for a couple of months, leading right up to the test. The LSAT is a standardized test, and it is very very difficult to improve significantly. Most people experience an immediate improvement, when they learn a few little logical tricks that they didnt have before, and then they plateau for a while. If you want to see real improvement, and not just a small bump of five points or so, then you need to understand that studying for the LSAT requires consistent effort.



Take the LSAT seriously. It is a difficult test, and you should approach it like you would a difficult research project or paper  you will have to learn lots of little concepts, then bring those little concepts together into a cohesive structure. Then you have to take that structure and apply it under timed conditions. This process takes time  more than a month or two. I heard once that one of the LSAT makers stated that he believes people should study for six months if they really want to do well on the test. Most prep courses run for two to three months, and most students see improvement in that time. The key to studying is to give yourself anywhere from two to six months, and to study consistently.



It is important that you study a little bit every day, rather than a whole bunch of hours on one day. If you study every day, you train yourself to quickly drop into the LSAT mindset. The easier it is for you to get into the LSAT mindset, the calmer and clearer you will be. Then, on test day, you can sit down and get to work without needing much warm up time. If, on the other hand, you only study once a week, you arent practicing that transition. So, study consistently, even if it is just a little bit at a time. Obviously, if you can put aside three or four hours a day, that is great, but not everyone can do that.



Question: Whats the best way to spend my study time?



The first thing you need to realize is this: the LSAT requires you to think in a particular way. If you are not used to thinking in this way, you will need to practice it. The second thing you need to realize is that there are actual concepts that you need to learn for the LSAT. You must understand how basic logic works: you must understand the significance of words like if, only if, unless, necessary and sufficient. Therefore, in the beginning of your LSAT studying, it is far more important that you learn the underlying logic of the material, rather than trying to speed through a bunch of old practice exams.



Your study session should look something like this:



1. Pick an area of the test you want to focus on: Logical Reasoning, Logic Games, or Reading Comprehension.



2. Pick a concept in that area that you want to focus on. Let is assume you chose Logical Reasoning for #1. Now you decide, what kind of questions do I want to practice today? Do I want to practice inference questions? Parallel reasoning questions?



3. Review your study materials for that kind of question.



4. Do practice problems that only use that question type. Repeat the questions a few days later. Repeat them again if you do your other homework and find you have some free time.



This is the general process. You have to break the test down into manageable pieces, and spend time mastering each piece. If you take a complete LSAT section, you will not be learning the material in a systematic way; instead, you will be testing yourself on a random collection of concepts, and this isnt going to help you focus and master each concept. So, use study materials that organize questions around central concepts. As mentioned above, the PowerScore books are generally the best self-study guides available.



Additionally, keep in mind that you are learning: A) how to answer questions accurately and B) how to answer questions quickly. You will only become quicker by understanding the concepts, and by understanding how to apply the concepts in an efficient manner. Your study materials should have all sorts of helpful tips on how to become more efficient.



Do not be afraid to repeat questions! You will not remember every question, and it is helpful for your brain to walk through the same steps of logic, because it makes each step easier. Repeat a logic game at least three or four times before you decide you are completely done with it. Each time you do it, you will learn something, I promise.



Question: What should my emotional experience be like, when Im checking my answers?



Im glad you asked! This next bit of wisdom is not mine, but comes from an expert in this field. There are only two emotions you should feel when you check your answers: complete surprise or complete apathy. When you do a problem, you should go over every answer choice and either eliminate it or select it. If you cross of an answer as a wrong choice, you should have a reason for crossing it off. Do not say Oh, it seems wrong. Do not say Oh, I feel like its wrong. You should say to yourself This answer choice is wrong because it supports the argument and Im trying to weaken the argument. This answer choice supports the argument because ______. Similarly, you should have a reason for why you selected your final answer for the question. Do not guess when you are studying.



So, lets say you have gone through the five choices, and you have gone over them and over them. You should now be absolutely certain that you have the right answer selected. There should not be any doubt in your mind. If you are not certain, then do not go to the answer choice. Review the question. Review the argument. Review the answer choices. Once you are certain youve made the right choice, only then should you check your answer.



When checking your answer, you ought to be so completely sure of your choice that checking the answer seems like a waste of time. If you get the answer correct, your emotional response ought to be something like Of course thats the answer, why did I bother checking? If you get the answer wrong, you ought to be completely taken by surprise. Getting a wrong answer, while you are studying, should be a shocking, shocking experience.



You should never check your answer, get it right, and feel relief that you got it right. That just means you werent certain, which means you didnt really understand the question.



Perhaps now you understand how it is possible to spend hours and hours studying. If you do it with this process, you will really immerse yourself in the material.



Additionally, you should make sure that the reasons you gave for eliminating wrong answers and selecting right answers are the same reasons that your study materials give for those answer choices. If you eliminate D because you think X, and your study material tells you that D is wrong because of Y, then you just got that part of the question wrong.





Question: Should I study easy questions? I should just study the questions that I dont get right, right?



You should study every question type, both easy and hard. Your goal is to be as efficient as possible. Easy questions should take less time, hard questions should take more time. In a typical Logical Reasoning section, you will have about 1.8 minutes per question. Some hard questions are going to take longer than that. Where do you get that time? From the easy questions! It is easier for students to improve their efficiency with easy questions, which is why it is important to improve techniques for those questions. It is a lot easier to shave 20 seconds off of an easy question than it is to shave 20 seconds off of a hard question. If you can shave 20 seconds off 3 easy questions, that frees up 1 minute for a harder question later in the section.



A lot of natural high-scorers think that they can skip the easy questions in their materials, because they can get those questions right. Remember, the issue isnt whether you can simply get the questions right. The issue is: Can you get the right answer in the shortest possible time? For example, a student who scores in the mid-160s may be able to get the first ten questions correct in 40 seconds each, but if he can shave the time down to 30 seconds each, thats a free 100 seconds for later in the section. Well worth the study time.



Incidentally, special truncated courses that are targeted for high scorers are generally in violation of the above principle, and should be avoided for that reason.



Question: Should I ever take timed LSAT sections from old exams?



Yes. Although the bulk of your studying should be a slow, laborious process, there is a place for taking timed LSAT sections. You should take a full LSAT at regular intervals in your studying  something like 6 total timed exams for your total studying period. This will help you gauge where you are throughout your studying. Please note that students typically score six to eight points higher on self-administered timed LSAT practice exams. If you really want an accurate diagnostic experience, you should have someone else proctor the exam for you, and you should do it in an unfamiliar environment. Doing a full, timed LSAT at your desk at home, where you start the timer, is going to skew your results in your favor.



You should also take timed LSAT sections if you suffer from anxiety about the time pressure. If you are learning the material just fine, but the time constraints are wrecking your focus, then taking timed LSAT sections can help you adjust to the pressure. Simply being more familiar with the pressure can help. (If you suffer from really strong test anxiety, consider consulting with a professional therapist about that.)



Other than these two reasons, there isnt really a good reason to just repeat old LSATs. You learn very little and you waste a lot of time that could have been spent studying more efficiently.



Question: Should I take a prep course? Should I hire a tutor?



Probably. Prep course and private tutors are expensive, and you can buy old LSATs and other study materials from Amazon. There are a couple of reasons for doing a course. Courses generally organize the material for you, so that you dont have to waste time putting together your own study schedule. If you are the kind of person who needs structure in order to stay focused, a live class is the way to go.



In theory, course instructors are supposed to be attuned to the individualized needs of each student; your instructor should be able to give you good, specific feedback for your issues. You, the LSAT novice, are not going to know where your weaknesses are. You may think to yourself, Im bad at games, those are my weaknesses. But an instructor will give you more specific advice: Hey, Ive noticed that you have trouble setting up games in a timely manner, let me give you some ways to improve that piece of the game process. You may not always be aware of your weaknesses. You may not be able to figure out how to diagnose your little issues, and an instructor should be able to do that for you.



A course is also going to cover (hopefully) everything you need to know, and you will be forced to learn things that you otherwise may ignore. (For example, a course will cover the easy questions which you may not think you need to study.)



Also, most courses will conduct formal, timed old LSAT exams. This service is invaluable, because you will get a real test experience and can truly gauge how you are doing.



Hiring a good tutor is always useful, especially when combined with a formal course. 1 on 1 attention is always great, and a good tutor should be able to give you really personalized advice.



Logical Reasoning



Logical reasoning questions will comprise 50% of your exam, and so they are very important. There are many, many different types of LR questions, and you should become familiar with all of them. You should spend a lot of time working on LR questions. Most people want to spend most of their time on the games, but in my opinion the bulk of your time should be spent here.



Since there are so many different types of LR questions, you should consider a formal prep course that covers all of them. This is one of the reasons that a prep course can be helpful.



The general process for the logical reasoning questions is this:



1. Read the question stem first: Skip over the paragraph and read the question below it: What is the conclusion of the argument above? etc. You want to read the stem first because it will tell you what kind of question it is. Once you know the type of question that you are dealing with, then you read the paragraph. This way, your mind will already be on the lookout for the relevant information.



2. Read the paragraph. Pay particular attention to words like all, every, none, if, unless, only if, some, most, etc. These words will play important roles in the argument. As you read, keep in mind what the question is asking you to do.



3. If the paragraph presents an argument, identify the conclusion of the argument. This is absolutely key. If you do not know what the conclusion of the argument is, then you need to re-read. Do not proceed without the conclusion. (Some paragraphs will simply be statements of fact that you must draw a conclusion from, and you neednt identify the conclusion for these questions.)



4. Evaluate the argument. Make sure you understand the relationship between the premise(s) and the conclusion. If there is a flaw, this is when you spot it.



5. Prephrase an answer. Dependent on the type of question, you should already have in your head a sample answer. If you cant predict the answer at this point, then you havent understood the argument and you need to reread.



6. Finally, go to the answer choices. First look for your prephrase, or something similar to it. If you have no luck, then start crossing off answer choices.



This is the general process. There are many special processes for the various LR question types, so the technique varies. Generally, however, this is the process that you should go through with every question.



Reading Comprehension



You will have one section of RC, with four passages. One of these passages will be a comparative passage question, where you are given two short passages and asked various questions that compare the two.



Some courses will teach you about the various templates that the LSAT uses for its RC passages. These are sometimes helpful. You will see passages that discuss a specific artist or writer, and or passages that evaluate a proposed solution to a particular problem. You will see passages that discuss an academic movement. If you are familiar with the basic templates, you will sometimes find it easier to read the passages, but the real work for RC studying isnt memorizing templates.



The real work is learning to active read. Active reading is a fancy way of saying Think while you read. As you read a sentence, think to yourself What does this sentence mean? How does it fit with what I read before? Is this an important piece of the structure of the passage, or is it a detail? Is this important? Active reading means that you really understand how the passage fits together, structurally, and you understand the overall purpose of the passage.



Most people think that underlining or highlighting equals active reading. It does not. Think of it this way: If you come across a sentence that you think is important, and you underline it, you are telling your brain: Please, make sure that my hand and fingers accurately manipulate this pencil so that it draws a line under this set of words right here. You are not saying to yourself I think this is important because _____. You are not saying to yourself This important sentence means _______. So, when you get to the end of the passage, you have a number of important sentences highlighted but you cant remember what they actually say. This means you have to go back and reread your highlighted poo poo. What a terrible waste of time.



Instead, make a note to yourself in the margin. If the sentence is the authors main point, maybe rephrase the authors main point in your own words. Jot down your rephrase, and maybe make a note to yourself that it is the MP. So, you would have a note that says MP: Author criticizes Impressionists. (You must use shorthand: MP: Auth crit Imp.) Now you have a useful note that you can use for reference later.



You should make further notes for any important topic sentences. If an entire paragraph is about Aztec art and symbolism, and Aztec art and symbolism are not mentioned anywhere else in the passage, note down Aztec. Now if a question asks about Aztecs, you know where you can go to reread. The purpose of the notes is to create a series of signposts for the passage, so that you can instantly reread the relevant portion and locate any details. You should never try to memorize details, you can always reread to find them. If you have good notes, finding the important details will be quick. Incidentally, skim over sentences that are giving examples or details of broader points. Skim over long explanations of scientific processes. You will reread those parts if you need to.



By making notes in this manner, you are engaging with the passage in a way that underlining does not. You will finish the passage with a much clearer idea of the structure and general flow of the passage, which will help you answer questions. Do not be afraid to reread! If a question references a specific line number, you should reread. If a question references a small detail, you should reread. The key to saving time while rereading is actively reading the passage the first time around, and giving yourself guides for finding information in the passage.



Logic Games



You get four logic games per LSAT, which comes out to roughly 8.5 minutes a game. Some games will be easier, and you should do them quickly so that you can devote more time to the harder games. Heres the general process:



1. Identify the game type. To do this, read both the paragraph and the rules. Is it a sequencing game? A grouping game? If you can identify the common game types without much thought, you will be able to set up the games much quicker.



2. Symbolize the rules. You should spend a lot of time decoding rules and learning how to symbolize them. You dont want to reread the rule in English a bunch of times, so learn methods for turning them in to shorthand.



3. Make some initial deductions. Do the rules combine in a meaningful way? Can you figure out where certain variables can go? Generally, you want to front-load your effort by figuring out how the game works before you go to the questions. Often, if you find a meaningful deduction up front, there will be a question or two that uses that deduction.



4. Go to the questions.



Review the PowerScore games book, or whatever materials you have. There are lots of game types, but they are easy to familiarize yourself with. Remember, take the time to really learn the mechanics of the games. Dont rush through them to see if you can do them in under 8.5 minutes. The two easiest ways to save time on games are to improve your set-up and improve your rule symbolization. Q: My GPA is X.XX and my LSAT is XXX. What are my chances at getting into _____ law school?



A: Law school admissions - especially outside the T14 - are very, very number-heavy. That is to say, almost all law schools are generally much more interested in your LSAT and GPA than your extracurricular activities, work experience, letters of recommendation, and admissions essay. That's not to say that these other things are irrelevant, or even unimportant. But unlike undergraduate admissions, having absurdly high test scores and GPA will get you most of the distance in terms of law school admissions.



Having said that, the process is not completely numbers-based. If your GPA/LSAT index (a mathematical composite of the two numbers, the exact calculation of which varies from school to school) are anywhere above the 25th percentile for a given school's applicant pool, you will go into a "maybe" pile and a human being will read your application. This is where your brilliant writing skills, the professors that wrote love letters about your brilliance, and visiting with Mother Teresa during summer break will come in--they're still no guarantee of anything, but they definitely help.



So what are your chances? Look at Law School Numbers for an idea of where you'd be competitive. This grid isn't the Final Judgment of God, of course--not only will your extra stuff get read at some point if you're at all competitive (see preceding paragraph), but bear in mind that to some degree you can "buy" GPA points with exceptional LSAT points, and vice versa. However, there is no hard and fast rule about this, and your results may vary depending on how many times you took the LSAT, the quality and competitiveness of your undergrad institution, the law school you're applying to, etc.



The bottom line is this: if your GPA/LSAT are at or above the 50th percentile of admitted students for a given law school, don't be afraid to apply. If you're above the 25th percentile and can afford to apply to a lot of schools, go ahead. If you're below the 25th percentile, save your time and money and consider a lower-ranked/less-competitive law school.



Case study: let's look at a LSN graph for Vanderbilt, a very good school just outside the T14:







Keep in mind these are self-selected data points, but the trend is undeniably clear. In the vast majority of cases, applicants in each of the three regions got the predictable outcome.



Why did I parse out the T14? Because those schools have such a wide pool of excellent applicants that they can afford to pick and choose a little more and the lines are subsequently fuzzy. Nonetheless, a 3.9 / 178 is likely to get in everywhere (except maybe Yale or Stanford, which are never sure things).



[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/01/16...chool-naysayer/ Linguica fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Dec 18, 2010