Page 1 of 2

Time Off

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:25 pm
by karloswhelms
-

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:31 pm
by FSK
I think you'll have better luck finding Policy work without one of those JDs. Skip to the career you actually want.

.

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:37 pm
by Gray
.

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:44 pm
by cron1834
160 should be attainable for anyone who does well at a reasonable university, barring some problem with reading comprehension. You're not studying well enough. I don't think that 170 is attainable for everyone who is of passable intelligence, but you should be able to practice your way into 160, unless your college courses were actual jokes.

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:10 pm
by Mack.Hambleton
cron1834 wrote:160 should be attainable for anyone who does well at a reasonable university, barring some problem with reading comprehension. You're not studying well enough. I don't think that 170 is attainable for everyone who is of passable intelligence, but you should be able to practice your way into 160, unless your college courses were actual jokes.
this. 3.72 in econ at a respectable university means you should be able to get at least in to the 160s and whatever UW's median is. but of course it sounds like you dont really want to be working with the law much at all, just doing it because all politicians are lawyers or whatever, so I'd probably advice going at all unless you had clear, law specific goals

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:02 pm
by karloswhelms
-

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:33 pm
by Mack.Hambleton
karloswhelms wrote:
cron1834 wrote:160 should be attainable for anyone who does well at a reasonable university, barring some problem with reading comprehension. You're not studying well enough. I don't think that 170 is attainable for everyone who is of passable intelligence, but you should be able to practice your way into 160, unless your college courses were actual jokes.
Yes I definitely agree. The hardest part is to sit myself down and put in the time to study throughout this summer. I did not study much the first time, in part because of summer classes and such, but that still is not an excuse for a low score. I am also much more motivated this time around as well.

My classes were of moderate difficulty, with some econometrics, game theory, calculus, statistics and the works. I hope that the two PowerScore bibles and about twenty prep tests are enough to raise my score by at least ten points. What advice do each of you have for that?
james.bungles wrote: this. 3.72 in econ at a respectable university means you should be able to get at least in to the 160s and whatever UW's median is. but of course it sounds like you dont really want to be working with the law much at all, just doing it because all politicians are lawyers or whatever, so I'd probably advice going at all unless you had clear, law specific goals
It is useful to have a law degree to work in public policy. For example, there are legal counsel positions in the Washington State legislature that I would enjoy working in and they offer public affairs internships for law school students as well. However, I could also work in public administration and potentially pursue a masters of public policy or an MPA, but that requires taking the GRE. Additionally I would miss out on that look of disdain from the general American populace when they learn that I attended law school and built a professional network comprised of evil corporate lawyers.
that makes it sound like taking the GRE is a bad thing. its a hell of a lot easier than the LSAT

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:39 pm
by cron1834
Dude, if you can get As and Bs in calc, econometrics, and game theory, there's literally no way you should be failing to get a 160 with some decent studying. Again, this is assuming you're not a super-slow/terrible reader.

Also, Bungles is right - the GRE is easier. Anyone who has done well in college-level math/econ should be able to kill the quantitative section, at a minimum. I didn't study for the GRE at all, and I got roughly similar percentile ranks as I did on the LSAT with a lot of studying.

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:52 pm
by Rigo
I'm a little confused. If you don't indicate otherwise, does that mean you took the PT untimed?
If so, stop that. You should not be wasting that many recent PTs.

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:59 pm
by WichitaShocker
Dirigo wrote:I'm a little confused. If you don't indicate otherwise, does that mean you took the PT untimed?
If so, stop that. You should not be wasting that many recent PTs.
This. Never take untimed practice tests.

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:02 pm
by TheSpanishMain
Dirigo wrote: If so, stop that. You should not be wasting that many recent PTs.
This. An untimed test doesn't really tell you anything.

.

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:03 pm
by Gray
.

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:51 pm
by Rigo
smccgrey wrote:
WichitaShocker wrote:
Dirigo wrote:I'm a little confused. If you don't indicate otherwise, does that mean you took the PT untimed?
If so, stop that. You should not be wasting that many recent PTs.
This. Never take untimed practice tests.
I wouldn't say never take them. I think your first couple can be untimed, as long as you keep track of how far over you go for each section. I decided to do my diagnostic untimed, and I'm doing alright now. But the scores definitely do not count.
I don't have a problem with taking an untimed PT--especially if it's an earlier one. However, taking almost every LSAT given in the last five years in untimed conditions is not that savvy. But it's already been done. OP should take the remaining PTs he has under TIMED conditions...then take all the time he needs during BR.

Re: Time Off

Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:32 pm
by karloswhelms
-

Re: Time Off

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:44 am
by tortsandtiaras
karloswhelms wrote:I just received my score and I'm kind of disappointed. I only had a 14 point increase to score a 159 this time around. I only studied for one-and-a-half to two months around 20 hours a week taking mostly untimed practice tests, but I was aiming for at least 160. I knew I had at least 70 correct and I thought this would put me at 160/161, but with the curve getting the 72 raw correct that I did only received a 159.

I should have timed more of the practice tests. Five of the eight points I lost on the logic games were likely due to poor timing on my part. I know for sure that if I studied diligently, then I could get a score up to 165 by December. Unfortunately, with work I do not see much opportunity to study more, and I blew a large amount of recent practice tests already.
Don't beat yourself up about it. You can retake :) TLS believes in you!

Re: Time Off

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:21 am
by ChemEng1642
.

Re: One Year Off

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:55 am
by sfoglia
smccgrey wrote:In your situation, I think it might be worth it to find a good prep course or tutor. To get an LSAT score that will get you into a school worth attending, you'll need someone to teach you successful strategies. Drilling and taking PTs won't help as much if you're not approaching the questions effectively.
Yes, agree. Your scores are everywhere. You should not be jumping from 160 to 170 and back again like that, unless you are not studying effectively.

Re: Time Off

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:08 am
by karloswhelms
-

Re: Time Off

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:12 am
by Kratos
karloswhelms wrote:I got in at the University of Oregon today with a $33,000 per year merit scholarship that is not contingent upon performance in law school. Since I am only really looking at going to schools in the pacific northwest, this is a little promising. I know it is not the highest ranked school, but I'll probably only end up footing a portion of my living expenses and I really appreciated the hand written note from the dean. If I has any chance of going to a top 25 school then that would encourage me to leave to PNW.

I am still considering taking the LSAT again in February.
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/oregon/2013/

you should probably still retake

Re: Time Off

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:30 am
by karloswhelms
-

Re: Time Off

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:33 am
by whitespider
karloswhelms wrote:Well the admission cycle has just begun. Those numbers aren't too bad considering I would graduate with a total of 15-19k in debt including from undergraduate.
I'm confused. Do you have your parents paying most your living expenses? Because living expenses alone would be like 50k total for three years of law school, and thats completely ignoring the remaining tuition costs or your existing UG loan.

Re: Time Off

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:36 am
by karloswhelms
-

Re: Time Off

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:37 am
by Rigo
OP, what are your career goals?
Also, I thought you were taking a few years off so this apparent change of heart is confusing. Especially for a school with a 47% LST employment score.

Re: Time Off

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:42 am
by whitespider
karloswhelms wrote:I have family nearby in Oregon.
Even then, if you budget yourself to live on only $100 a week total, you'll still have more loans than that.

100 a week to sustain life
x 52 weeks
x 3 years
-----------
$15,600

$2,500 additional tuition and fees
x 3 years (ignoring tuition increases)
-------------
$7,500

Right there, you're already at $23,000 in loans (pre-interest) and that's totally ignoring health insurance, your pre-existing loans, emergencies, transportation costs, books, etc.

I'm not trying to make a judgement about whether or not this is a good idea, just wanting to encourage you to really look closely at the numbers.

Re: Time Off

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:49 am
by karloswhelms
-