reasonabledoubt wrote:englawyer wrote:pa.wink wrote:I assure it's both extremely relevant to law and illustrative of several capacities which lend themselves perfectly to the same.
Maybe this is heresy, but if I were an admissions officer looking at your law-relevant work experience and LSAT, I would think, "Okay, he's spent 7 years working in a field where he's been doing legal-type work and could develop his potential in logical reasoning/other legal skills, and yet he's scoring worse on the LSAT than a kid who's basically had 4 years of general education? What does that say about their relative potential to develop those skills further in law school?"
This comment is assuming, of course, that you took the LSAT after accumulating a bunch of work experience.
The guy has been doing executive level work dealing with multi-million-dollar, extremely complex, transactions.... and did this work full-time prior to taking the LSAT. He prepared for about a month, in the evenings. The UG kid who was having his clothes washed by his mom and having meals cooked while living for free and hanging out had a bit more time to focus on ONE singular mission which isn't really an indicator of your potential as an attorney. (just ability to get through 1L, at best)
Again, I understand the reliance on LSAT, but simply don't agree that a few points trump a considerable body of work experience that relates extremely well to law. 10-20 points? Absolutely. A few? No.
So anyone who is not capable of scoring 170+ on LSAT should just go work for couple of years and let the work experience
gain him/her admission to Harvard. Don't think so!
Who are you to say that a kid at undergrad has more time to focus on "ONE singular mission". I find your comment to be extremely offensive, because I worked full time, and was a full time student while preparing for LSAT.
Guess what? Person with 7 years of work experience had 7 years to study for LSAT!