To the full-time workers.. Forum

[whereskyle]

Not working: Strong Advantage.
Working: Severe Disadvantage.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

Not working: Strong Advantage.
Working: Severe Disadvantage.

I'm sorry, but studying for the LSAT is not a 40 hour/week endeavor.

[shntn]

Not working: Strong Advantage.
Working: Severe Disadvantage.

Nope.

[totoro]

Not working: Strong Advantage.
Working: Severe Disadvantage.

I disagree with this. I studied for the LSAT full-time over a condensed period and it was very difficult, because you get stressed out by the need to improve every day, and there is a limited amount of learning that you can do every day (probably around 3 hours)... there are definitely diminishing returns. From my experience, a more ideal situation would have been to study for the LSAT maybe 20ish hours a week over an extended period of time (i.e. 4-7 months). Also, do not quit your job if you don't have to - the money is important and many schools will still ask you what you were doing during that gap in your resume - it is totally doable to study for the LSAT with a 45hour/week job. 60-70hours/week like I had, it gets tough, so that one's up to you.

[Mik Ekim]

I'll add a couple of additional tips --

1) try to study a bit in the morning before work, if possible - especially if you have a job that's mentally draining - i know some people who habitually just started waking up a couple of hours earlier (i know that's tough!) but at least your mind is fresh, and you can go through the day knowing you've already gotten some studying under your belt.

2) try to get in short, concentrated, focused study sessions -- I get drained pretty easily, so I would tend to keep my sessions at 1 to 1 1/2 hours. I'm sure some people on here can study with a high level of focus for much longer. And don't just spend that time doing random stuff (I'm sure none of you would) but rather make sure you have very specific goals for each study session. Studying for short amounts of time consistently is much better than, say for example, devoting 10 hours one weekend day a week to prep.

[shntn]

I did games over my lunch break and a PT or two after work twice a week, plus usually a PT on Saturday at around test time. Worked splendidly, though my job didn't leave me mentally exhausted for the post-workday PTs.

[cinephile]

there's never a situation where not earning money is better than earning. Unless you're dead. But that doesn't make much. Maybe if you died and someone stole your social security number.

[bizzybone1313]

Don't listen to these guys OP. In fact, let's play a game.

PT 65, S2

In terms of law school admissions, the most heavily weighted component is the LSAT. Most people perform so poorly that they are unable to attend an elite law school. At top-law-schools.com, there are individuals who frequently score in the 97% percentile on the test. Many of these individuals are predisposed to do well on the LSAT, however. Regardless, this means anyone can score in the 97% percentile on the LSAT.

What is the flaw in the reasoning?

A. the argument assumes that the results from a self-selected, unrepresentative sample will apply broadly.

The answer is A. I win the game!!!!

[alwayssunnyinfl]

Don't listen to these guys OP. In fact, let's play a game.

PT 65, S2

In terms of law school admissions, the most heavily weighted component is the LSAT. Most people perform so poorly that they are unable to attend an elite law school. At top-law-schools.com, there are individuals who frequently score in the 97% percentile on the test. Many of these individuals are predisposed to do well on the LSAT, however. Regardless, this means anyone can score in the 97% percentile on the LSAT.

What is the flaw in the reasoning?

A. the argument assumes that the results from a self-selected, unrepresentative sample will apply broadly.

The answer is A. I win the game!!!!

I hope I never have to meet you in real life.

[drive4showLSAT4dough]

Don't listen to these guys OP. In fact, let's play a game.

PT 65, S2

In terms of law school admissions, the most heavily weighted component is the LSAT. Most people perform so poorly that they are unable to attend an elite law school. At top-law-schools.com, there are individuals who frequently score in the 97% percentile on the test. Many of these individuals are predisposed to do well on the LSAT, however. Regardless, this means anyone can score in the 97% percentile on the LSAT.

What is the flaw in the reasoning?

A. the argument assumes that the results from a self-selected, unrepresentative sample will apply broadly.

The answer is A. I win the game!!!!

How and why?

[shntn]

Don't listen to these guys OP. In fact, let's play a game.

PT 65, S2

In terms of law school admissions, the most heavily weighted component is the LSAT. Most people perform so poorly that they are unable to attend an elite law school. At top-law-schools.com, there are individuals who frequently score in the 97% percentile on the test. Many of these individuals are predisposed to do well on the LSAT, however. Regardless, this means anyone can score in the 97% percentile on the LSAT.

What is the flaw in the reasoning?

A. the argument assumes that the results from a self-selected, unrepresentative sample will apply broadly.

The answer is A. I win the game!!!!

huh

[bizzybone1313]

I am being obnoxious, because ya'll are giving horrible advice. If someone wants to be a lawyer, they will never do anything more important than study for the LSAT. For people who have scored so high on this test, ya'll should be able to reason well enough to know that most people aren't going to score 170+. The only schools worth going to in this legal market are the T-14 and even that is a risky proposition. So why shouldn't someone study full time for the most important component in this equation?

[Theopliske8711]

Look, it's simple: if you have people who are willing to sustain all of your expenses while studying for the LSAT (which will also include a plethora of study material that easily reaches in the hundreds, never mind tutoring which many people may need), then go ahead, study while not working; however, should you have financial responsibilities that you must meet, that is not the end of the world.

[Theopliske8711]

Look, it's simple: if you have people who are willing to sustain all of your expenses while studying for the LSAT (which will also include a plethora of study material that easily reaches in the hundreds, never mind tutoring which many people may need), then go ahead, study while not working; however, should you have financial responsibilities that you must meet, that is not the end of the world.

[shntn]

I am being obnoxious, because ya'll are giving horrible advice. If someone wants to be a lawyer, they will never do anything more important than study for the LSAT. For people who have scored so high on this test, ya'll should be able to reason well enough to know that most people aren't going to score 170+. The only schools worth going to in this legal market are the T-14 and even that is a risky proposition. So why shouldn't someone study full time for the most important component in this equation?

Given how far out the OP is starting to study, there is absolutely no reason why studying full-time (whatever that means) is necessary. But it might be, for him or her. We're all just speculating here.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

I am being obnoxious, because ya'll are giving horrible advice. If someone wants to be a lawyer, they will never do anything more important than study for the LSAT. For people who have scored so high on this test, ya'll should be able to reason well enough to know that most people aren't going to score 170+. The only schools worth going to in this legal market are the T-14 and even that is a risky proposition. So why shouldn't someone study full time for the most important component in this equation?

A lot of people are held back by stress or nervousness. Not having a life outside of the LSAT is a surefire way to go crazy and burn out.

[drive4showLSAT4dough]

I am being obnoxious, because ya'll are giving horrible advice. If someone wants to be a lawyer, they will never do anything more important than study for the LSAT. For people who have scored so high on this test, ya'll should be able to reason well enough to know that most people aren't going to score 170+. The only schools worth going to in this legal market are the T-14 and even that is a risky proposition. So why shouldn't someone study full time for the most important component in this equation?

Because (1) burnout is an actual thing and (2) studying for the LSAT 40 hours a day is not necessary.

[cinephile]

I am being obnoxious, because ya'll are giving horrible advice. If someone wants to be a lawyer, they will never do anything more important than study for the LSAT. For people who have scored so high on this test, ya'll should be able to reason well enough to know that most people aren't going to score 170+. The only schools worth going to in this legal market are the T-14 and even that is a risky proposition. So why shouldn't someone study full time for the most important component in this equation?

Sweetheart, you need help. Many people have dreams that will never come true. For some, that means going to law school. So you can delay your entry into the real world to study for a meaningless test, or you can take the test and take it seriously, but also be working on a back up plan. This is what grown ups call taking responsibility. I'm sorry you haven't gotten here yet, but hopefully you'll make it someday.

[totoro]

I am being obnoxious, because ya'll are giving horrible advice. If someone wants to be a lawyer, they will never do anything more important than study for the LSAT. For people who have scored so high on this test, ya'll should be able to reason well enough to know that most people aren't going to score 170+. The only schools worth going to in this legal market are the T-14 and even that is a risky proposition. So why shouldn't someone study full time for the most important component in this equation?

I understand you're trying to be helpful to OP, but if I remember correctly, you haven't even taken the LSAT yet So coming from someone whose taken the LSAT twice and put in several hundred hours for it, I can tell you that's it's not usually a good idea to study for this test full-time. The reason is that people who study full-time usually do it over a condensed period. You will really burn out, reach a point of diminishing returns, and in addition stress yourself out, because the LSAT is all you think about. In addition, if you're unemployed for so long, you will have to explain the reason to schools (some schools require it on the application). This is not to say that the LSAT isn't important; just that it literally doesn't help someone to devote like 10 hours a day to studying when they could put in 2-3 hours a day over a longer time. I don't consider myself someone who was "predisposed" to get a 170 - I sucked at the first 30 PT's I took - but I still think the ideal situation is to work 40ish hours a week while studying for the LSAT over a period of several months. I understand if you are debating between an ibanking job vs. quitting to study for the LSAT, it might be worth quitting, but a regular 9-5 full-time job should not be something to quit over for most people.

[bizzybone1313]

I think a lot of these guys OP are saying for you work full time and study for the test, because their jobs wern't all that demanding. I graduated with a technical undergrad degree. After graduating from undergrad, I had a "real" job where I was responsible for tens of millions of dollars in projects. I also had a consulting job where I jetted across the country and the world. In both of these jobs, I was doing about 45-50 hours of mentally draining work. Trying to balance the LSAT with these jobs was impossible. If you are going to be stirring white chocalate mochas at Starbucks, then I agree working a full time job shouldn't be a problem.

[shntn]

Wow. But basically what others have said. And it all depends on the OP's job.

[WhiteyCakes]

How is this thread still alive?

[whereskyle]

Not working: Strong Advantage.
Working: Severe Disadvantage.

If your job is teaching or being a paralegal.

[iteachtenthgrade]

Not working: Strong Advantage.
Working: Severe Disadvantage.

If your job is teaching or being a paralegal.

I second the part about teaching.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

I think a lot of these guys OP are saying for you work full time and study for the test, because their jobs wern't all that demanding. I graduated with a technical undergrad degree. After graduating from undergrad, I had a "real" job where I was responsible for tens of millions of dollars in projects. I also had a consulting job where I jetted across the country and the world. In both of these jobs, I was doing about 45-50 hours of mentally draining work. Trying to balance the LSAT with these jobs was impossible. If you are going to be stirring white chocalate mochas at Starbucks, then I agree working a full time job shouldn't be a problem.

Talk about making assumptions. But thanks for agreeing with us.