As someone who will take one of these tests, how do you suggest studying then?

henry's dead on about when to contact the girl. all those examples are fine, but talking just to talk isn't a good move. something most guys learn in their early 20s. i'm still leaning against getting lunch with her because she said she'd be in touch with me. i'm also afraid of it not going well as a regular date with alcohol would, in which case it could actually be detrimental.

re tinder: i've had some good success with it in different scenarios. some just want to bang, some want to date, some want something in between. can't say what my secret is but just being kinda funny helps keep them intrigued.

re standardized tests: i agree with henry there too. those tests are designed to be limited teachable. the gre may be different from the SAT and LSAT in that it teaches more substantive stuff, but even then, there's only so much you can do to cram for a test like that. more often than not, people talk about how much they are going to study and end up not studying as much as they say because they realize that it's not going to make a big difference. once you learn the types of questions asked and get down the basic strategy to answering them, there's not a whole lot else you can do to prepare.

I'm probably the least qualified person to answer this as I did nothing to prepare for any of the admission tests I took.

I did teach the LSAT for a short period of time and really the only two things I can say is every version of the test is the same test. As Funky just stated there are a set of types of questions and the wording will change but the questions themselves are the same form. The second is that I figured out how to identify which section of the test didn't count so instead of doing that section just relax

Tinder is hilarious. I've gotten a few numbers on there but they all live far away so I just try to get pics.

lol

This could not be less true. There's a reason that every university in the country offers logic courses through the philosophy department: it's eminently learnable.

Henry, it's no longer possible to tell which section is unscored.

On what do you base this?

Just to be clear it wasn't marked -- not real section. If you asked the other people who took the test before they also would say it wasn't possible. I figured out a really simple way to figure out what section wasn't real. It is possible that enough people figured it out so they got rid of this tell but given it was in the test for at least a decade without it becoming something that needed addressing I'm inclined to say it is still there and people just don't realize it,

Ty Scrolls. Henry, I'm a 20 year old student who is happy to spend about £50 a month on skincare. I've used accutane in the past so my skin isn't the greatest, no spots just kinda dry and I've been using random different moisturisers and exfoiliaters without any thought for the last two years. Also I have a crease in my brow already which is visible when I don't have a fringe. On this budget what would you reccomend? Kinda lost trying to find products myself.

The fact america bases both admisson and bar on standarised tests is a laughable joke. At least Canada has articling when ur done. New Zealand has a proper practical and theory 6 month course when u graduate. At the end of the course after doing real life work you know whether you want to be a lawyer or not. If I had to take some bs 6 hour multiple choice exam I wouldnt have had a clue. Then again I would have never gone to law school in america way to expensive and not worth it.

Zoom$,

I did some economy recommendations before but I would have to look for them later. That you use £ opens up some options as Boots has some very good products (they also have some really bad ones) but I remember they came up in the great bargain product category a few times.


I'm not sure what you think articulating is or how it is helpful?

Articling is basically legalized slavery. The top firms all pay the same and it is a decent amount but at the time I graduated the amount less than half what a comparable first year associate would make at a comparable US law firm. The pay is horrible and you're expected to work at least 80 hours a week and likely more.

The law society is ridiculously paternalistic so that have this match program for top jobs. If you don't match you are now truly ****ed as you'll be working for chump change and in some cases free.

The environment is pretty ****ty because law firms look at article students as cheap labour. They will higher 10+ students and then announce that there are only two positions at the firm. It isn't hard to figure out what that does to group dynamics.

--------------

I think summering after first year could prove useful because at the point you've only invested a year in law school and if you hate it you can quit and avoid two more years of law school. Being exposed to what law is like at the end of law school is too late. You've already spent three years and a ****load on tuition so you're stuck now even if you hate it.

I do think law school can be reduced to 18 months easily but that would be really bad for law schools. As it is we turn out way more law students than we need so making the program shorter will only make that worse.

To be fair Profs in New Zealand (The Bar equivalent) is a joke in terms of how easy it is. I literally did about 1h work a week for the whole 4 month online course outside of the two two week onsite practicals.

I actually like the American system, but only because it's tailored to reward lazy people with innate intelligence like myself. However, it's extremely poor imo in terms of getting a well balanced legal force. In New Zealand you get a good mix of naturally skilled people with innate intelligence and hard working lawyer drones who do all of the ****ty behind the scenes work necessary for any legal team to be successful.

I feel like you wouldn't get those same people making it through the American system due to the fact that there is only so much study you can do.

I do agree with the above in that doing a summer internship is such a smart move. I had done literally no real law when I started my job, it took about 4 weeks to realize I hated it.

I do somewhat agree with what colin is saying though, in that we come into law jobs completely underprepared imo, whereas at least with articling you get a trial period, though from what you are saying it's not the cushy trial we imagine, and is simply the same as being thrown into the deep end that we have except that you get paid **** all.

The only thing I miss about being a lawyer was saying I was a lawyer.

I agree that having some exposure to working in law before would be good but that has to be at the start of law school not the end.

Articling is basically the same as being a first year associate but with much lower pay and the knowledge that only a tiny percentage of your cohort will be offered a job. I think you might be exposed to more areas of the law as an articling student so that is a slight benefit but again I think most people have a good idea what kind of law they want to get into before graduation.

Law school is a trap -- once you've put in three years and spent all the money on tuition you can't just walk away because you don't like it. You can transition from law to business or politics but you are committed to a professional field. You can't go back and decide I really want to do research, teach, be a doctor, etc.

The honestly is the best part.

obv the best part about being a lawyer (at least at a big firm) is the paychecks every two weeks.

re LSAT: henry, when i took it in 2009, they wouldn't tell you what the experimental section was. however, it was pretty easy to figure it out because--as you said--each test has basically the same questions. when they threw in entirely different questions or question types, it was obvious.

finally, minnesota sam, while academic logic may be learnable, LSAT logic is mostly pretty basic. you're either smart enough to figure it out after a certain number of hours (like 30?) or you're not, in which case studying more and more isn't going to really help. besides, the whole test isn't logic and things like reading comprehension are much less teachable (despite classes that teach you idiotic systems to read the passages). with all this said, my girl is taking the GRE, which has significant vocab portions, so maybe flashcarding vocab helps.

As a Canadian that was the disappointing part. I was offered a position at one of the top firms on Bay St and I would have been making $45,000 less than my dad who has no formal education and who at the time couldn't even communicate in English. I've been out of the industry for a while but still have friends so based on what I've picked up from them you basically need to put int 5-7 years to get to the starting salary of a US lawyer.

When you factor in tuition and opportunity cost it's not that spectacular. My pay checks are obviously massive but I'd be better off getting smaller ones since I was 22 or whatever

Also big firm lawyers work enough hours for two jobs lol

school was 50K each year for 3 years. let's say i would have made 45K each of those years. that's a little less than 300K. i'll make that back in about 5 years and the rest is gravy

So I dated this chick like a week before coming back to school. We still text but the day before i left I said we should just go back to school and have fun and well see how it goes at the end of the semester. She sent me this a little while ago:

" Heyy so this might sound like a really silly random question lol but I was curious while we are both anyway at school are we hooking up with other people or no not that I want too or anything bc I don't I just wanna see if we are on the same page and also I'm trying to put pressure on you or anything like tht I'm just wondering hahaa!! "

How do I respond that I obviously want to hook up with other people but not sound like an ******* about it.

Send dick pic and then quickly send whoops wrong number. Then tell her ur faithful

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

Sounds like she doesn't want you to hook up and is still clinging to possibilities. Let her know you don't feel the same imo

I'll give you a more elaborate response, but I've been teaching the LSAT for a few years and 95% of what's being said is objectively false.

RC "systems" definitely are stupid though, we can agree on that.

I'll be as brief as possible (and mods feel free to move to the derail thread or whatever, but seeing as this is SL and there are likely some people in here who are considering taking/preparing for the test, I didn't want to let all of the misinformation dominate).

Again, I've been teaching it for a few years (and obviously studied for and took it before that). I also did the best on it of anyone itt, just to be clear. I would guess that your method involved looking at the number of questions in the section and recognizing that the experimental always occurred in the first three sections, identifying what section type it was, yada yada yada. That used to work, but the experimental no longer occurs exclusively in the first three sections, hence it no longer being possible.

This isn't true, they do not use different question types on the experimental. They have not introduced a new question type since before you went to college, in the scored or experimental sections. I don't know what "entirely different questions" means since every section is comprised of different questions so I'm not sure how to address this, but you are incorrect. They don't release the experimental section so there's no way for you to prepare to identify it and it's written by the exact same people who write the scored questions, they simply haven't been standardized for difficulty yet. In fact, that's what you're doing. I work with many people who have scored 178+ on the LSAT many times (my boss is the 180 record holder); none of them can tell despite decades of experience with the test. I would love to wager lots and lots of money on this.

You can call it pretty basic, but only ~2% of people manage to get 90% on the test. 30 hours is definitely inadequate. And the mentality that something that is "basic" somehow isn't learnable is totally bizarre. The entire test IS logic, that's exactly what it is. That you don't think so isn't surprising, but it's most certainly incorrect and is a reason, I'm sure, why you didn't maximize your score on the test. You're obviously doing extremely well in life and I don't mean that as a personal attack at all, just to clarify. Anyway I have literally hundreds of students of mine that are perfect counterexamples to what you're saying. The number of students who I have seen (as their teacher) make 10 and 20 point increases long after having studied for 30 hours is >100. In fact the vast majority of people do not see their first big increase after 30 hours, it occurs a bit later.

Sorry for the derail, the Law School thread here is more appropriate for LSAT talk, but I wanted to make sure that people didn't take in bad info.

i can remember the experimental section on my test: instead of having 4 big reading sections with questions after each of them, they had more, shorter passages. i had never seen this before and, while i still answered them the best i could, was fairly sure it was the experimental. it was.

You're claiming that your experimental section had more than four passages?

yes, it had shorter passages. i'm fairly certain about this, but it was in 2009 so obv memory isnt 100%