Top Law Schools

Hello everyone-

As you all may or may not have gotten the lawschool-i email today, we'll probably get our scores back today, tomorrow or definitely Monday.
I've been thinking about re-taking since I took the test, and told myself if I scored below 160 I would. Granted, that may be a lower cutoff than most of the rest of you have set, considering the nature of "top law schools" and all.

Any suggestions for some re-take prep? I originally prepped with LSAT Trainer, and really liked it. I could buy another copy and re-work it all, but that seems to be silly since there are other great prep resources available.

I'm not taking til February (or June... not applying for a full year), so I have plenty of time to study and re-prep.

Thanks!

EW2_0 wrote:Hello everyone-

As you all may or may not have gotten the lawschool-i email today, we'll probably get our scores back today, tomorrow or definitely Monday.
I've been thinking about re-taking since I took the test, and told myself if I scored below 160 I would. Granted, that may be a lower cutoff than most of the rest of you have set, considering the nature of "top law schools" and all.

Any suggestions for some re-take prep? I originally prepped with LSAT Trainer, and really liked it. I could buy another copy and re-work it all, but that seems to be silly since there are other great prep resources available.

I'm not taking til February (or June... not applying for a full year), so I have plenty of time to study and re-prep.

Thanks!

lawskewlee is annoying as hell, dump them.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=195603

Start here and see if this works for you!

Louis1127 wrote:

EW2_0 wrote:Hello everyone-

As you all may or may not have gotten the lawschool-i email today, we'll probably get our scores back today, tomorrow or definitely Monday.
I've been thinking about re-taking since I took the test, and told myself if I scored below 160 I would. Granted, that may be a lower cutoff than most of the rest of you have set, considering the nature of "top law schools" and all.

Any suggestions for some re-take prep? I originally prepped with LSAT Trainer, and really liked it. I could buy another copy and re-work it all, but that seems to be silly since there are other great prep resources available.

I'm not taking til February (or June... not applying for a full year), so I have plenty of time to study and re-prep.

Thanks!

lawskewlee is annoying as hell, dump them.

why is this?

Jgoods wrote:

Louis1127 wrote:

EW2_0 wrote:Hello everyone-

As you all may or may not have gotten the lawschool-i email today, we'll probably get our scores back today, tomorrow or definitely Monday.
I've been thinking about re-taking since I took the test, and told myself if I scored below 160 I would. Granted, that may be a lower cutoff than most of the rest of you have set, considering the nature of "top law schools" and all.

Any suggestions for some re-take prep? I originally prepped with LSAT Trainer, and really liked it. I could buy another copy and re-work it all, but that seems to be silly since there are other great prep resources available.

I'm not taking til February (or June... not applying for a full year), so I have plenty of time to study and re-prep.

Thanks!

lawskewlee is annoying as hell, dump them.

why is this?

probably because they want to cater to the crowd that doesn't take the LSAT too seriously so they can make more money because they hated their biglaw jerbs so much and never want to go back. just a guess.

Louis1127 wrote:

Jgoods wrote: why is this?

probably because they want to cater to the crowd that doesn't take the LSAT too seriously so they can make more money because they hated their biglaw jerbs so much and never want to go back. just a guess.

well just because they "hated their biglaw jerbs so much and never want to go back" and "cater to the crowd that doesn't take the LSAT too seriously" doesnt mean they dont have legit suggestions and advice no? who people aim at helping or the majority of people who listen to them doesnt automatically mean its useless and such, no?
not nec defending just trying to understand.

EW2_0 wrote:Hello everyone-

As you all may or may not have gotten the lawschool-i email today, we'll probably get our scores back today, tomorrow or definitely Monday.
I've been thinking about re-taking since I took the test, and told myself if I scored below 160 I would. Granted, that may be a lower cutoff than most of the rest of you have set, considering the nature of "top law schools" and all.

Any suggestions for some re-take prep? I originally prepped with LSAT Trainer, and really liked it. I could buy another copy and re-work it all, but that seems to be silly since there are other great prep resources available.

I'm not taking til February (or June... not applying for a full year), so I have plenty of time to study and re-prep.

Thanks!

Buy the cambridge packets if you haven't already.

Jgoods wrote:

Louis1127 wrote:

Jgoods wrote: why is this?

probably because they want to cater to the crowd that doesn't take the LSAT too seriously so they can make more money because they hated their biglaw jerbs so much and never want to go back. just a guess.

well just because they "hated their biglaw jerbs so much and never want to go back" and "cater to the crowd that doesn't take the LSAT too seriously" doesnt mean they dont have legit suggestions and advice no? who people aim at helping or the majority of people who listen to them doesnt automatically mean its useless and such, no?
not nec defending just trying to understand.

Jgoods, settle down.
Twas an opinion. No need to white knight this.

Dirigo wrote:

Jgoods wrote:

Louis1127 wrote:

Jgoods wrote: why is this?

probably because they want to cater to the crowd that doesn't take the LSAT too seriously so they can make more money because they hated their biglaw jerbs so much and never want to go back. just a guess.

well just because they "hated their biglaw jerbs so much and never want to go back" and "cater to the crowd that doesn't take the LSAT too seriously" doesnt mean they dont have legit suggestions and advice no? who people aim at helping or the majority of people who listen to them doesnt automatically mean its useless and such, no?
not nec defending just trying to understand.

Jgoods, settle down.
Twas an opinion. No need to white knight this.

lol I'm plenty settled, just curious as to why the opinion exists

Dirigo wrote:

Jgoods wrote: well just because they "hated their biglaw jerbs so much and never want to go back" and "cater to the crowd that doesn't take the LSAT too seriously" doesnt mean they dont have legit suggestions and advice no? who people aim at helping or the majority of people who listen to them doesnt automatically mean its useless and such, no?
not nec defending just trying to understand.

Jgoods, settle down.
Twas an opinion. No need to white knight this.

I agree w/ Rigo that there's no need to do what you're doing, but since you did, I'll respond.

None of the stuff they give for free is new, innovative, or worth anything. They want you to pay to be in an LSAT study group, and they advertise it by saying "Our study group is better because you don't have trolls like on TLS!". The shit on their website is just plain advertising and an update that says "There's only 25,978 days until the February 2087 LSAT!"

The LSAT is learnable? The LSAT is important? This is stuff that's been on TLS for 5 years. Their LSAT prep page is just ways for them to make money. I just went to it fort 15 minutes.

And by the way lawskewleey gets major $ when people click on prep materials that they put in their substanceless (hey, thefreedictionary.com says this is a word) articles. TLSers, such as Jeffort, don't get jack shit. Hell, we don't even know who (s?)he is IRL so even his (/her?) private tutoring can't be helped by his over 1500 posts packed with loads of free no-strings-attached LSAT prep.

TLS kicks lawskeleey's ass in the department of free LSAT prep advice. Lawskewleey dot com offers nothing and gets rich doing it.

We'll create a different thread or something if this discussion needs to go on (although I have no idea how it could).

Post removed.