Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:20 pm

Kilpatrick wrote:TLS isn't just 0ls. Plenty of people on TLS have gone through admissions cycles and have shared their experience. The conventional wisdom that LSAT>GPA>>>everything else (unless URM) has been shown to be true time and time again.

You're debating against yourself. Nobody in their right mind would disagree with this: LSAT>GPA>>>everything else (unless URM). But TLS takes it too far, saying: "Because your major doesn't matter as much your GPA, it doesn't matter at all." TLS would miss this one on the LSAT, lol.

Kilpatrick wrote:You can't listen to admissions officers, they're not going to admit that its 99% numbers based.

Of course. But Anna Ivy is no longer an admissions officer; so I don't see how this is relevant. It seems like you've never read the book. She spends an inordinate amount of time emphasizing that it's primarily numbers based.


Kilpatrick wrote:You certainly can't listen to Ann Ivy, she's trying to sell books for christs sakes.

Good point. I'll throw out Getting to Maybe and my E&Es, too. Because, as you've said, you can't trust something if it's in a book, because the author is just trying to make a sale.

Kilpatrick wrote:and also thousands of people who have been through the process.

Surely you realize that the plural or anecdote isn't data. TLS has legitimate advice on LSAT preparation and on how to excel in law school. This is because they can get feedback, critique their methods, adjust their methods, and then try again. But you don't rinse and repeat with law school admissions. People don't spend time going over practice applications like they do practice LSATs. Therefore many of the conclusions and advice on TLS re: law school admissions is dubious.

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:23 pm

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:While it is generally true that GPA outweighs you major, if I could rewind time I would have declared a double major. A hard science and a “traditional” area of the humanities that requires a lot of writing (e.g., English, Philosophy, History). I would also have structured my classes in a way that mirrored the classical liberal arts model.

This was my undergrad experience. I had a double major in mathematics and philosophy.


I'm jealous.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10576
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby CanadianWolf » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:24 pm

Susan Estrich's How To Get Into Law School (noted above by another poster) stresses a few points:

The concept of a Top 18 (she taught at USC's law School).

She disliked the practice of law.

"What makes great lawyers is not always what makes great LSAT takers and great law students." p.13 of her book.

Certain challenging undergraduate courses help one to do well on the LSAT & in law school, but should not be taken at the expense of one's GPA.

"Think of the LSAT not as a burden but as a chance to get ahead by being more committed than other people." p.50 of her book How To Get Into Law School.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:26 pm

Patriot1208 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Why would you avoid vocational majors when you are applying to vocational school (law school).

Also, as far as WE goes, vocational majors are more likely to get you jobs out of the vast majority of schools.


Yep, this is true at every school were the name of the school won't get you a job. So basically HYP.

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:32 pm

fanmingrui wrote:Unless your "attitude" led you to win a Nobel Prize or cure a disease, adcomms aren't looking for an attitude, they're looking for someone to boost their medians. Unless they are once-in-a-cycle phenomenal, softs are just softs.

How do you know this? You don't, frankly. This is just a line that is parroted on TLS.


fanmingrui wrote:They may help you beat out a candidate with similar numbers but they won't get you in if your numbers aren't already competitive.

Of course. But at the top isn't it about beating out candidates with similar numbers? For instance: I had 4 numbers twins on TLS last cycle. None got HYS. Some got CCN. All except one got a different combo of MVPB. We each got a different combo of the lower 14. You can't completely discount softs.

User avatar
Kilpatrick
Posts: 1073
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:06 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby Kilpatrick » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:41 pm

die Zauberflote wrote:
Kilpatrick wrote:TLS isn't just 0ls. Plenty of people on TLS have gone through admissions cycles and have shared their experience. The conventional wisdom that LSAT>GPA>>>everything else (unless URM) has been shown to be true time and time again.

You're debating against yourself. Nobody in their right mind would disagree with this: LSAT>GPA>>>everything else (unless URM). But TLS takes it too far, saying: "Because your major doesn't matter as much your GPA, it doesn't matter at all." TLS would miss this one on the LSAT, lol.

Kilpatrick wrote:You can't listen to admissions officers, they're not going to admit that its 99% numbers based.

Of course. But Anna Ivy is no longer an admissions officer; so I don't see how this is relevant. It seems like you've never read the book. She spends an inordinate amount of time emphasizing that it's primarily numbers based.


Kilpatrick wrote:You certainly can't listen to Ann Ivy, she's trying to sell books for christs sakes.

Good point. I'll throw out Getting to Maybe and my E&Es, too. Because, as you've said, you can't trust something if it's in a book, because the author is just trying to make a sale.

Kilpatrick wrote:and also thousands of people who have been through the process.

Surely you realize that the plural or anecdote isn't data. TLS has legitimate advice on LSAT preparation and on how to excel in law school. This is because they can get feedback, critique their methods, adjust their methods, and then try again. But you don't rinse and repeat with law school admissions. People don't spend time going over practice applications like they do practice LSATs. Therefore many of the conclusions and advice on TLS re: law school admissions is dubious.


You are right, I didn't read the Ann Ivey book because why would I waste time reading a whole book about dumb shit like how to write a personal statement. And why would I pay for it? I can find articles and examples on TLS for free. What could someone get from the Ann Ivy book that they couldn't get here? If you learned stuff in that book other than the conventional wisdom that "your major doesn't matter at all" then the book is wrong.

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:45 pm

Kilpatrick wrote:You are right, I didn't read the Ann Ivey book because why would I waste time reading a whole book about dumb shit like how to write a personal statement. And why would I pay for it? I can find articles and examples on TLS for free. What could someone get from the Ann Ivy book that they couldn't get here? If you learned stuff in that book other than the conventional wisdom that "your major doesn't matter at all" then the book is wrong.

Okay. At least you've made an informed decision. You are obviously qualified to judged materials you've never looked at. Do you have any other advice about things you know nothing about?

User avatar
fanmingrui
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:59 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby fanmingrui » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:48 pm

Kilpatrick wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:
Kilpatrick wrote:TLS isn't just 0ls. Plenty of people on TLS have gone through admissions cycles and have shared their experience. The conventional wisdom that LSAT>GPA>>>everything else (unless URM) has been shown to be true time and time again.

You're debating against yourself. Nobody in their right mind would disagree with this: LSAT>GPA>>>everything else (unless URM). But TLS takes it too far, saying: "Because your major doesn't matter as much your GPA, it doesn't matter at all." TLS would miss this one on the LSAT, lol.

Kilpatrick wrote:You can't listen to admissions officers, they're not going to admit that its 99% numbers based.

Of course. But Anna Ivy is no longer an admissions officer; so I don't see how this is relevant. It seems like you've never read the book. She spends an inordinate amount of time emphasizing that it's primarily numbers based.


Kilpatrick wrote:You certainly can't listen to Ann Ivy, she's trying to sell books for christs sakes.

Good point. I'll throw out Getting to Maybe and my E&Es, too. Because, as you've said, you can't trust something if it's in a book, because the author is just trying to make a sale.

Kilpatrick wrote:and also thousands of people who have been through the process.

Surely you realize that the plural or anecdote isn't data. TLS has legitimate advice on LSAT preparation and on how to excel in law school. This is because they can get feedback, critique their methods, adjust their methods, and then try again. But you don't rinse and repeat with law school admissions. People don't spend time going over practice applications like they do practice LSATs. Therefore many of the conclusions and advice on TLS re: law school admissions is dubious.


You are right, I didn't read the Ann Ivey book because why would I waste time reading a whole book about dumb shit like how to write a personal statement. And why would I pay for it? I can find articles and examples on TLS for free. What could someone get from the Ann Ivy book that they couldn't get here? If you learned stuff in that book other than the conventional wisdom that "your major doesn't matter at all" then the book is wrong.

This is awesome. I like you. Great 'tar btw.

User avatar
Kilpatrick
Posts: 1073
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:06 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby Kilpatrick » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:48 pm

die Zauberflote wrote:
Kilpatrick wrote:You are right, I didn't read the Ann Ivey book because why would I waste time reading a whole book about dumb shit like how to write a personal statement. And why would I pay for it? I can find articles and examples on TLS for free. What could someone get from the Ann Ivy book that they couldn't get here? If you learned stuff in that book other than the conventional wisdom that "your major doesn't matter at all" then the book is wrong.

Okay. At least you've made an informed decision. You are obviously qualified to judged materials you've never looked at. Do you have any other advice about things you know nothing about?


You are right, perhaps I was mistaken. I was under the impression that "The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions: Straight Advice on Essays, Resumes, Interviews, and More" contained information about insignificant parts of the law school application such as essays and resumes, and therefore didn't need to read it.

094320
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby 094320 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:54 pm

..

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:57 pm

Kilpatrick wrote:You are right, perhaps I was mistaken. I was under the impression that "The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions: Straight Advice on Essays, Resumes, Interviews, and More" contained information about insignificant parts of the law school application such as essays and resumes, and therefore didn't need to read it.

You're pretty sure of yourself. Which law school has the privilege of hosting your wisdom?

User avatar
Kilpatrick
Posts: 1073
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:06 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby Kilpatrick » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:58 pm

acrossthelake wrote:I got the Anna Ivey book for free from my local library. She's actually consistent with TLS wisdom.

Both Anna Ivey & TLS emphasize this point: "It's mostly numbers, but the rest are useful when you're at the edge."
But TLS doesn't have much to say about what to do when you're at the edge. I actually found some of her guide on personal statements and the resume useful. It's not *just* numbers--or you would see on LSN that people with similar numbers would all have the exact same cycles, but this isn't so. By the time you get to this book, there shouldn't be anything you can do with your GPA anymore, and for most people they're done with their LSAT. Even if there's only 5-10% left, why not take the effort to make sure that 5-10% is solid?


If you found the book helpful then that's good (especially if you didn't pay for it), I won't shit on it anymore. I guess I just lump all admissions guides in with scams like admissions consulting. I found the advice available on TLS to be sufficient.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby PDaddy » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:17 pm

Both montauk and TLS'ers are right. In close-calls, which is what the admissions process is for a large number of applicants due to similarities between them, a tough course load will get an applicant a nod over an otherwise similar candidate. However, so will diversity or socioeconomic hardship.

For the most part, I believe strength of course load matters less and less after the classes are 75% full. After that, the adcoms are just shoring up their numbers for the rankings.

I think adcoms do their due dilligence in the process (i.e., taking a "holistic" approach), but it's to varying degrees at various schools, and never sustained throughout the cycle at any school. Hence, the qualified answer is that the schools tell the truth when they say they approach admissions holistically, but they neglect to tell consumers that this holistic process is not sustained or applied in all cases.

Montauk is also correct because he advises all applicants to apply early, in which case the adcoms are fresher, energized and in position to take a holistic approach (and greater "risks") - which is why people with sub-25% numbers have a better chance at the beginning of the cycle than at the end. It also depends on the prestige of the school. Harvard and Yale can afford to be more holistic, whereas middle first-tier schools trying to move up the ladder (like Indiana, UC-Davis or Alabama) are probably hunting more for numbers. Schools just below the T14, like Vandy, are also susceptible to hunting for numbers because they believe they belong with the Virginias and the Northwesterns, and the like.

The caveat here is that, the more people who follow Montauks advice, (1) the fewer people the people who benefit from holistic admissions, and (2) the fewer people admitted early and (3) the longer the process takes. We are starting to see all three trends in recent years.
Last edited by PDaddy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
bport hopeful
Posts: 4935
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby bport hopeful » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:24 pm

die Zauberflote wrote:
Kilpatrick wrote:TLS isn't just 0ls. Plenty of people on TLS have gone through admissions cycles and have shared their experience. The conventional wisdom that LSAT>GPA>>>everything else (unless URM) has been shown to be true time and time again.

You're debating against yourself. Nobody in their right mind would disagree with this: LSAT>GPA>>>everything else (unless URM). But TLS takes it too far, saying: "Because your major doesn't matter as much your GPA, it doesn't matter at all." TLS would miss this one on the LSAT, lol.

Kilpatrick wrote:You can't listen to admissions officers, they're not going to admit that its 99% numbers based.

Of course. But Anna Ivy is no longer an admissions officer; so I don't see how this is relevant. It seems like you've never read the book. She spends an inordinate amount of time emphasizing that it's primarily numbers based.


Kilpatrick wrote:You certainly can't listen to Ann Ivy, she's trying to sell books for christs sakes.

Good point. I'll throw out Getting to Maybe and my E&Es, too. Because, as you've said, you can't trust something if it's in a book, because the author is just trying to make a sale.

Kilpatrick wrote:and also thousands of people who have been through the process.

Surely you realize that the plural or anecdote isn't data. TLS has legitimate advice on LSAT preparation and on how to excel in law school. This is because they can get feedback, critique their methods, adjust their methods, and then try again. But you don't rinse and repeat with law school admissions. People don't spend time going over practice applications like they do practice LSATs. Therefore many of the conclusions and advice on TLS re: law school admissions is dubious.

This is plain moronic.

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:28 pm

bport hopeful wrote:This is plain moronic.

Certainly no more so than your insightful comment.

Wow, I'm grouchy. Maybe I need to go eat.

User avatar
Kilpatrick
Posts: 1073
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:06 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby Kilpatrick » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:29 pm

die Zauberflote wrote:
Kilpatrick wrote:You are right, perhaps I was mistaken. I was under the impression that "The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions: Straight Advice on Essays, Resumes, Interviews, and More" contained information about insignificant parts of the law school application such as essays and resumes, and therefore didn't need to read it.

You're pretty sure of yourself. Which law school has the privilege of hosting your wisdom?


I'm not going to get into a pissing match over what law schools we go to. I go to Illinois, its clear in my posting history. Let's just agree to disagree

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:31 pm

KevinP wrote:From excerpt:
Based on interviews with dozens of admissions officers

I don't think most, if any, admissions officers will admit that they don't take a holistic approach. I don't blame them considering the nature of rankings.

TLS is correct.


yeah, this reminds me of all the adcomms telling taxguy that his son's softs would matter. they didn't. boy was he in for a surprise! adcomms never say it's just your lsat and gpa because it would look bad, but it is the truth. they won't admit it though.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby PDaddy » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:32 pm

Hawkeye Pierce wrote:
This. Just spend some time looking at LSN and I think it will become patently clear that LSAT and GPA are by far the two most important factors.


Just remember this: the fact that LSAT and GPA are more important than one's course load and/or major does not diminish altogether the importance of course load and/or major. "Less important" does not mean "unimportant".

It's a flaw in the reasoning of many TLS'ers to assume that adcoms are ignoring major and course load just because they clearly value LSAT and GPA more.

User avatar
bport hopeful
Posts: 4935
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby bport hopeful » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:33 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
KevinP wrote:From excerpt:
Based on interviews with dozens of admissions officers

I don't think most, if any, admissions officers will admit that they don't take a holistic approach. I don't blame them considering the nature of rankings.

TLS is correct.


yeah, this reminds me of all the adcomms telling taxguy that his son's softs would matter. they didn't. boy was he in for a surprise! adcomms never say it's just your lsat and gpa because it would look bad, but it is the truth. they won't admit it though.

Truth.

LS is a business and schools try to make their business look the best. How do you do that? By showing that your numbers are the most competitive. People like numbers. They are more conclusive. Showing that your school does things holistically doesnt do shit to attract prospective students.

Wise up duders

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:35 pm

bport hopeful wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:
KevinP wrote:From excerpt:
Based on interviews with dozens of admissions officers

I don't think most, if any, admissions officers will admit that they don't take a holistic approach. I don't blame them considering the nature of rankings.

TLS is correct.


yeah, this reminds me of all the adcomms telling taxguy that his son's softs would matter. they didn't. boy was he in for a surprise! adcomms never say it's just your lsat and gpa because it would look bad, but it is the truth. they won't admit it though.

Truth.

LS is a business and schools try to make their business look the best. How do you do that? By showing that your numbers are the most competitive. People like numbers. They are more conclusive. Showing that your school does things holistically doesnt do shit to attract prospective students.

Wise up duders

But you don't understand. I'm different!

User avatar
bport hopeful
Posts: 4935
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby bport hopeful » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:36 pm

PDaddy wrote:
Hawkeye Pierce wrote:
This. Just spend some time looking at LSN and I think it will become patently clear that LSAT and GPA are by far the two most important factors.


Just remember this: the fact that LSAT and GPA are more important than one's course load and/or major does not diminish altogether the importance of course load and/or major. "Less important" does not mean "unimportant".

It's a flaw in the reasoning of many TLS'ers to assume that adcoms are ignoring major and course load just because they clearly value LSAT and GPA more.

Theres a flaw in your reasoning dude, you didnt do any. Your course load may matter sometimes, if theres one seat left, and you and one other person have the exact same numbers and softs. However, that doesnt happen which makes your course load unimportant.

Also, if your numbers are what you are picked because of, which is the truth, and you get good numbers, than again, your course load is unimportant.

User avatar
bport hopeful
Posts: 4935
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby bport hopeful » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:37 pm

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:
bport hopeful wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:
KevinP wrote:From excerpt:
Based on interviews with dozens of admissions officers

I don't think most, if any, admissions officers will admit that they don't take a holistic approach. I don't blame them considering the nature of rankings.

TLS is correct.


yeah, this reminds me of all the adcomms telling taxguy that his son's softs would matter. they didn't. boy was he in for a surprise! adcomms never say it's just your lsat and gpa because it would look bad, but it is the truth. they won't admit it though.

Truth.

LS is a business and schools try to make their business look the best. How do you do that? By showing that your numbers are the most competitive. People like numbers. They are more conclusive. Showing that your school does things holistically doesnt do shit to attract prospective students.

Wise up duders

But you don't understand. I'm different!

:lol:

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:18 pm

Kilpatrick wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:
Kilpatrick wrote:You are right, perhaps I was mistaken. I was under the impression that "The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions: Straight Advice on Essays, Resumes, Interviews, and More" contained information about insignificant parts of the law school application such as essays and resumes, and therefore didn't need to read it.

You're pretty sure of yourself. Which law school has the privilege of hosting your wisdom?


I'm not going to get into a pissing match over what law schools we go to. I go to Illinois, its clear in my posting history. Let's just agree to disagree


But you’ve made it into a pissing match. I wouldn’t copy the exam-taking strategy of someone who ranked outside of the top 10%, so why should a t-14 hopeful listen to your advice re: admissions? Who are you to claim that parts of the application are insignificant? Perhaps you could have learned something from those books; perhaps those books could help other people; perhaps TLS doesn’t have all the answers; but you’ll never know because you’re so damn sure that those books are shit. Why? What on earth makes you believe that you are capable of such an uniformed prophesy?

I think that hopefuls can benefit tremendously from TLS. They can benefit by identifying good strategies and testing them out for themselves. Hopefuls on TLS can also learn by witnessing the foolish mistakes and loosing strategies of others, which are shamelessly touted by you, bport hopeful, and a few others in this thread.

Claiming that (a) better decisions result from less information and resources and (b) less significance equals no significance shows incomprehensible stupidity….not ignorance, but stupidity.
Last edited by die Zauberflote on Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby bjsesq » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:21 pm

die Zauberflote wrote:I wouldn’t read exam-taking advice from someone who ranked outside of the top 10%


That's your bad. I've said it a million times: you read whatever you can on what other people did, then throw it out the window and responsibly figure out what works for you.

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:22 pm

bjsesq wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:I wouldn’t read exam-taking advice from someone who ranked outside of the top 10%


That's your bad. I've said it a million times: you read whatever you can on what other people did, then throw it out the window and responsibly figure out what works for you.


You're right. Sloppy writing. The rest of my comment shows that I don't genuinely advocate that approach.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hammy393, mycoxsafloppin and 11 guests