scribelaw wrote:Borhas wrote:If I were you I'd play up the transgendered aspect of your life, etc not just how you were oppressed, but how you overcame it and became a better person because of it, but you are going to do that anyway I hope. Just realize that a unique life isn't enough, you also need to write creatively, and succinctly. But even if you do that, your PS probably won't help THAT much.
Practice more for LSAT. LS admissions is a numbers game, it's not just, it's not fair, it doesn't measure your intelligence, it just is. So what if the LSAT is not what you are good at? Think of it as another obstacle to overcome.
If the LSAT is one thing, it's fair. It's a straightforward standardized test that anyone with the basic skills to be a decent law student can prepare for and get good at. There are no tricks. What wouldn't be fair is if law schools admitted people on whim, or tried to peer into the souls of people like the OP and divine that they are special snowflakes who would be better lawyers than people who actually studied for and performed well on the LSAT.
Also, these people who complain that the LSAT isn't a good judge because they don't do well under pressurized testing conditions -- what do you think law school is? And then BigLaw after that?
fair in the sense that everyone is judged by the same standard? yes I grant that, it's by far the biggest merit of the LSAT. God knows folks like me probably couldn't have competed in the olden days when the biggest test was the WASP?.
But, is it fair in the sense it's weighted in accordance with what it actually tests? No. Law schools seem to use it as an aptitude test. The way people study, take exams, and practice law seems to bear very little resemblance with the LSAT, but because it is standardized, and quantified, the test is given an unfair amount of weight. I used "fair" in that sense.
edited to be coherent