pancakes3 wrote:Rasiedbyapikey wrote:I'm looking to start law school next year.
Congrats?
Taking the LSAT in a few days. I'm not scoring very well at all on the PT. For the love of humanity I can't seem to stop from missing an average of 8 questions per section. I even spend hours reviewing what I did wrong.
See, you say the LSAT isn't important but you clearly know that it's at least of SOME relevance or else you wouldn't bother to include this. Is this a solicitation of LSAT advice (a day before the test)?
*For someone who thinks they have the right stuff you are failing to see many avenues of my argument. I never said it wasn't important to the application process - I said it wasn't the end all be all in life's endeavors and that the application process is one of MANY MANY cogs in the wheel. And I'll give you an example. My first job out of the Marines someone who went to Harvard Law was working for me - I wonder if she thought her LSAT prep was worth it?*
Secondly, I would think solicitation of LSAT advice would be valid at any time in relation to the test. Not sure what your reasoning is here future counsel. Please just don't respond to my points because you don't like them - please respond to them because you have something valid to add - life experience would be a good example*
I can usually whittle them down to the last two contenders but I just don't see things at all the way LSAC seems to think I should
It's not the way LSAC seems to think you should, but logically that's what the syntax of the passage suggests. If you can't pick up what the author in passage A is trying to convey, you also might not able to pick up what C.J. so-and-so is trying to say in his opinion. Yeah, it's tough to accept that you're not 100% logical 100% of the time but that's exactly what the LSAT is testing.
*HA! They really have you brainwashed to think that logic wins arguments?! Remember the glove that didn't fit, you must acquit?! Come on dude! In the whitewashed sterile environs of LS its probably true. And I'm certainly NOT saying that logic doesn't help but there is much much more to it and you know that*
The bottom line is I have no desire to practice law at all.
Not off to the greatest start for law school where you spend the entirety of your time devoted to learning how to practice law.
*Restatement - no desire to litigate or represent clients. Being a lawyer to me means one knows the law and how to navigate them*
I very simply would like to augment my current professional experience with a JD.
Well this is kind of a problem. A JD pretty much only augments the professional experience as it pertains to lawyers. I can't imagine an executive HR position requiring, or even advantaged through a law degree. If there was a legal issue, you would just ship it over to the legal dept. I don't think you can/should be 1-stop shopping for a business as HR and Legal all in one go even if you had the credentials.
*And you have experience to make this determination how?*
No way am I going to find myself working 60 hours a week for some firm at the 20% chance of becoming a partner.
...
Ultimately I would like to do International Mergers and Acquisitions.
Well now it goes completely off-track. In this hypo, you're not working in HR anymore, definitely taking a job as a lawyer, will definitely work 60+ hrs a week, and will require a top LSAT to get into the top 14 and eventually biglaw, correlation be damned. Even a 23 year old fresh out of college with no work experience can make that connection.
*Although its probably true, legal firms do a lot of M&A due diligence so do top accounting firms should I become an accountant than too? HR (with the right experience) is in a very good position to asses Human Capital value of firms being acquired - this is often hard to do. I disagree that this is off track mandates me being a lawyer. You are making some pretty broad leaps in logic - for one, you don't even know my professional experience. See thinking outside the box isn't something the LSAT can teach you my friend. Again, I'm not looking for career advice - have plenty of that.
To do international mergers and acquisitions? Very much so.
*If you are going to state something, please provide factual information, not opinion.*
To do international mergers and acquisitions? Very much so.
*If you are going to state something, please provide factual information, not opinion.*
Much in the same way you can go play in the Canadian Football League and transfer to the NFL if you show the right stuff.
*OK you are admitting its possible. Thank you - and BTW Joe Theismann started in the CFL first.*
Further, I've got a pretty good personal statement - I was decorated for valor in combat in the middle east, meritoriously promoted started my own consulting company, philanthropy hard knock life etc....
How much can I count on this to help me get into a good school?
The military softs and work experience definitely do give you a boost but without your GPA/LSAT we can't even begin to read the tea leaves for you.
*The best damn point you've made yet. 3.2/LSAT 160*
Its already becoming obvious that I'll need to retake in december but I'm not willing to wait another year to go to law school. I'm already too old for that bs.
What would you guys do in my situation? I just need to know how to put my energy to good use because I'm not a typical case.
Oh and my law school is already paid for so I don't need scholarships at all.
Things you have in your favor: Military.
Things against your favor: Everything else (LSAT, reasons to go to law school, expectations of how law school is, expectations of the legal market in general, attitude towards admissions process, applying late in cycle, etc.).
I know a couple ex-military people in my class and they all come in cocky as hell because they think they've got the discipline and that they can grind through LS through sheer will and determination. To an extent, they can and all ended up around median or better. However LS is also about natural aptitude. If you don't do well in the LSATs you probably don't recognize patterns very well and you don't parse information very quickly. Those are essential exam skills. If you didn't do well in undergrad it means you aren't a natural grinder and need the strict regimen of the military to kick your ass into grinder gear. I'm not saying you embody those examples specifically but those are the guidelines under which adcomms are operating.
or will it put a 3 year gap in your resume and a professional degree that's tangentially related at best? Would a MD make you more competitive? PE license? 
