Please objectively tell me the realities for T3, T4 grads? Forum

[dingbat]

I simply cannot comprehend logic games no matter how it is explained to me.

I want to work in criminal defense and I would ideally like to work for the PD office during law school and eventually get a position there and take advantage of LRAP.

I feel sorry for your future clients. If you're unable to figure out logic games, how are you going to figure out how different pieces of evidence fit together?
Either you can figure out causality from disjointed clues, or you can't.
There's no harm in not having a certain ability, but there is harm in putting someone else's life on the line based thereupon.

Piecing together what did or did not happen tends to be one big logic game, so unless you plan on only representing admittedly guilty clients, or hope to get every case thrown due to a technicality, please do not go into criminal defense

I don't quite understand/agree your argument dingbat. I myself always struggled with games and missed 9 questions on the games section of my highest LSAT. I thought I had a better handle on games than I actually did; and come test day, combined with nerves, I struggled with a notoriously difficult games section. But, I only missed a combined nine ofther questions on the remaining sections of the test. Does this mean that if I can even make it through law school (what kind of a dummy goes -9 on LG, right?), and I can secure gainful legal employment (what kind of person with an LSAT below 170 gets a job these days?), I am going to make a horrible attorney and do a serious diservice to my clients and the legal profession as a whole? So by your logic, now the LSAT is not a reliable metric for one's future success as a law student and attorney. Instead, the logic games section of the LSAT has taken its place. Fantastic.

There's a difference between bombing a section on a test and not understanding the concepts.
My sister can't do logic games at all. Her mind is just not wired that way. Doesn't mean there's something wrong with her, but that she should not choose a field that requires a lot of logic reasoning (such as crim defense).
Again, I differentiate between failing a test and not having an ability (as OP stated) as well as differentiating between a job that relies heavily on that ability bs a job that doesn't rely as heavily on that ability

[Scotusnerd]

I see your problem. It's pretty simple:

STOP TELLING YOURSELF YOU CAN'T DO LOGIC GAMES!!!!!

It's only impossible if you make it impossible. Man up, figure out your stuff, do well on the test, get scholarships. It is as simple and as difficult as that. If you can make it, great. If you can't...go find another career.

And I don't wanna hear about how 'I've tried many ways and I just don't get it'. Figure out your stuff or move on. Because honestly...no one cares but you. I'm sorry if this sounds assholish, but it's really the truth.

Edit: As a side note, this is not going to stop when you actually get into school. Very much the same philosophy applies to getting jobs and getting grades. The people who are getting those jobs are hustling to get them. Best of luck!

[seancris]

There's a difference between bombing a section on a test and not understanding the concepts.
My sister can't do logic games at all. Her mind is just not wired that way. Doesn't mean there's something wrong with her, but that she should not choose a field that requires a lot of logic reasoning (such as crim defense).
Again, I differentiate between failing a test and not having an ability (as OP stated) as well as differentiating between a job that relies heavily on that ability bs a job that doesn't rely as heavily on that ability

This is pretty much nonsense, IMO. Seems like someone who does well on LG pumping himself up about his career prospects by putting other people down. A few of my good friends in UG would make fine lawyers and I would be proud to have them represent me in the future, despite knowing that they can't break 160 on the LSAT. There are plenty of qualities that I would prefer my lawyer to have other than his/her ability to finish a puzzle in under 9 minutes.

I've done just fine on the LSAT and LG section, but I don't think it's indicative of much other than your own perserverance. If you push through it and truly learn how to diagram all types of games (and drill those games for months before the exam) I think you can obtain a score much closer to -4 or better on an LG section no matter where your personal strengths/weaknesses are. It really doesn't require much skill when you can just recognize basic patterns and game types and then diagram everything. Most of the questions in the LG set will answer themselves when you use an effective diagramming method.

[dingbat]

Seems like someone who does well on LG pumping himself up about his career prospects by putting other people down.

actually, the field I intend to work in has little to do with logic.

I think being able to solve logic games is a learnable skill that requires some innate ability and that it actually does have real world applications, particularly regarding criminal investigations and prosecution/defense.

However, if others are unable to see the correlation, then I will agree to disagree
(I'd say respectively, but unfortunately my post that started this whole shebang was not as written in a respectful tone - for which I would apologize, but it is a little late for that)