Subscription pricing
my question is : why don't more ppl quit their jobs to study for the LSAT -- if they are financially able to do so?
i understand that for many ppl, they need to work to pay off loans, living expenses, etc (which are all reasons to do have a job). But I'm more asking for those who have enough savings, family support, etc (where finances would not be a problem).
I'm in favor of part-time work and volunteering when full-time studying for the LSAT (much needed mental breaks is important). But what I'm really confused is why people with demanding 60-hour a week jobs who can't get enough LSAT studying in don't just quit their jobs to study for the LSAT?
the LSAT is the most important part of your application. It's like weighted 4-5 times more than your GPA.
If someone has military experience, tons of prestigious extracurricular activities and awards, and other additional amazing work experiences, but has a 150 LSAT score, it's going to be really tough to get into a t14 law school.
Contrast that to a K-JD candidate who has no work experience but a 175 LSAT score -- who will most likely get into many if not most of the T14.
--
A 170+ LSAT score can literally change your life -- and save you hundreds of thousands of dollars. It will allow you attend a T14 law school and open up many many doors to you --BigLaw, federal clerkships, etc. Many T-20 law schools will also give you full scholarships worth up to $200,000 for a 170+ LSAT score.
Given how important the LSAT is, why don't more people devote themselves to it? The expected rate of return for a 170+ LSAT score and its impact it'll have on saving you money (potentially 200k) and opening up doors for you is MUCH MORE than working as paralegal making 30k a year and not having enough time to adequately prep for the LSAT.
We all know how much work the LSAT takes. Many ppl do upwards of 60 PT's before they take the real test.
Why do people settle for less and allow a 50-hour a week paralegal job (for example) prevent them from reaching their goals?
Financially, those 50 hours are much more valuable when used studying for the LSAT (considering how many hundreds of thousands of dollars you'll potentially save with a 170+ Lsat score)
3
60 comments
Didn't read every single comment but I want to largely echo everyone else's comments of underestimating the weight of responsibilities and financial barriers while also adding in my own personal experience ....
I am in a position where if I wanted to study full time, due to my immigrant parents eating the American dream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner; and, largely, a huge stroke of luck, I could. Yet, I choose not to because I am someone who needs structure, and quite frankly, I like to work. More importantly, everyone has different goals. This is paramount to keep in mind when trying to compare two hypothetical candidates. For instance, while I have dedicated over a year studying (I vow not to take the LSAT until I feel 110% ready, and like I have reached my full potential) and have my heart set on one specific t14 school, I have no desire to enter big law. So, instead, since I know more or less which exact field I want to enter, I have been working, since undergrad, on crafting myself into a candidate who's cumulative application is proof of my desire to be a public servant. From internships, fellowships, and research positions at think tanks. It is not enough to simply state your desire to be an agent of change, specifically in the public sector, you have to walk the talk or else good luck getting a summer placement after 1L with no work experience. So,Yes, your LSAT score carries the most weight, but there are also other factors that influence what prospective law school students choose to do with their time, irregardless of feasibility.
@tristandesinor505 said:
This entire thread got me like...
https://media2.giphy.com/media/tyqcJoNjNv0Fq/giphy.gif
I was about to say that haha :)
@jsohn0305774 said:
someone should really close this thread...it's getting out of hand and is no longer productive.
I have to disagree. I think people are arguing their point of view - some of which I don't agree with - but I don't think anyone is bashing anyone else or calling names or being exceptionally rude or getting personal. People feel strongly about OPs post and want to comment for the benefit of others. Its ok to disagree and have arguments and have all weigh in whether we are in agreement or not.
@vincelee000629 said:
@mickeycaleb788
I've edited my posts to your request. I did try to confirm my numbers by visiting your website before posting, and could not find open price information so I assumed the $5k+ numbers I had seen thrown around on other forums put your firm in a similar strata to the other very expensive admissions consulting companies.
Sincere apologies. I wasn't trying to misrepresent the price of your services, rather to make a point that people spend a lot of money on these services and your excellent branding led me to assume your firm was the cream of the crop in admissions consulting, the "Rolls Royce" of law school admissions if you will.
No worries at all. I appreciate your kind words and agree that when I hear the 10k price tag for other firms and look at their backgrounds, I cringe. I really have tried not to make anything I have ever said on this board a plug for our business so I'll stop here. Again, thanks for the course correction!
-Mike
someone should really close this thread...it's getting out of hand and is no longer productive.
@mickeycaleb788
I've edited my posts to your request. I did try to confirm my numbers by visiting your website before posting, and could not find open price information so I assumed the $5k+ numbers I had seen thrown around on other forums put your firm in a similar strata to the other very expensive admissions consulting companies.
Sincere apologies. I wasn't trying to misrepresent the price of your services, rather to make a point that people spend a lot of money on these services and your excellent branding led me to assume your firm was the cream of the crop in admissions consulting, the "Rolls Royce" of law school admissions if you will.
@vincelee000629 said:
@sunnytsao313794 said:
I agree I don’t understand the purpose of the thread. As with pretty much anything in life, maximizing the amount of time you can take on something will give you the best results in the shortest period of time. This is obvious. Not everyone can do so bc they have responsibilities. I’m not really sure who this thread is addressed to bc not many people can just stop working.
Do a search for "quit job" on the 7sage forums and you'll find dozens of threads from students who are considering quitting their job for a short period of time to study for the LSAT. This is a real choice that many students can make, and it has a lot of pros and cons attached to it. I think a discussion like the one we're having on this thread is actually quite fruitful.
This post just feels like conservatives yelling at poor people to just save money. In the US we don’t get free healthcare or education so idk why anyone would assume that the average person can just quit their job to study...on a basis of a possible way far future financial gain.
I mean, I can completely sympathize with the students who are not able to take off work to study for this exam. I think it's RIDICULOUS that this exam requires 500-1000+ study hours of preparation. I think it's CRIMINAL that LSAC continues to charge absurd amounts of money for test licensing which makes all prep material extremely expensive. And it's a straight up INSULT to the supposedly meritocratic admissions process that applicants are allowed to shell out $10,000+ for consulting packages from Spivey and similar companies. The entire LSAT is just one gigantic class barrier that unapologetically and unambiguously gives the middle finger to the less privileged in society.
But it's precisely for this reason that students can and should approach preparing for the exam in the best/most efficient ways possible. For those that can take time off work to study for the exam (and that is who the OP addressed this post to, no less no more), then it is an option that is definitely worthy of consideration. In purely financial terms, taking time off work to study for the LSAT can be well worth it -- that's why we're having this discussion.
Hi, I'm not going to get involved in this debate, none of my business and I can see both sides for sure. But since the price amount you suggested we charge is exceptionally more than our highest package, I would ask that you not make up that number for the sake of an argument. You are correct, there is at least 1 firm that charges in that ballpark, but it isn't us. Many thanks, -Mike
@tristandesinor505 said:
This reeks of privilege. I understand that the thread comes with the caveat of only applying to those who are financially able to do so, but so few people truly are, and it's not even a matter of "things will be tight but I won't buy my coffee from Starbucks daily and I'll make it through." This post vastly underestimates lower-class and middle-class life, and makes generalizations that sound like those of us forced to work simply don't want a good score badly enough.
I don't think that anyone on this thread is making generalizations. I shared my experience because I am a first gen college graduate who comes from lower-middle class upbringing and through sacrifices I made during my undergrad years I was able to save money to enable myself to study full time.
A lot of people in this thread are acting as if taking time off work to study for the exam is fundamentally different from many other ways of preparing for this exam -- that it's somehow significantly more expensive than other methods of studying.
But really, it's not. An in-person LSAT prep course from Kaplan in my area costs almost $1500 dollars. That's a 7 week course, 28 hours total class time. Week for week and month for month, taking time off work and spending down my savings would actually be LESS EXPENSIVE than that Kaplan LSAT course, and a hell of a lot more effective at raising my score.
Fundamentally, taking time off of work and spending down savings/taking on debt is no different from the other methods of preparing for this exam. People spend thousands of dollars on courses from Kaplan/Powerscore/Ace/etc. People spend thousands of dollars on private tutoring (I've seen tutor rates as high as $200/h!). People spend tens of thousands of dollars on admissions consulting services. These are all successful companies that have thousands if not tens of thousands of paying customers each year.
Why do all these people pay so much money for these services? Because it's an investment in their future. A $900 7Sage course might enable you to raise your score and get a $10,000++ scholarship to a good school. It might enable you to get into T14 and significantly enhance your job prospects after graduation. Taking time off work to focus on the LSAT is exactly the same.
@tristandesinor505 said:
"Why do people settle for less and allow a 50-hour a week paralegal job (for example) prevent them from reaching their goals?
Financially, those 50 hours are much more valuable when used studying for the LSAT (considering how many hundreds of thousands of dollars you'll potentially save with a 170+ Lsat score)"
Financially, working 50 hours a week is much more valuable because it allows me to have food to put on a plate, and also a plate, and also a roof over my head in the kitchen where I can eat my plate of food.
It's not that folks who haven't quit their jobs aren't thinking about their goals. My goals require me not to be literally homeless. I can't care about hundreds of thousands of dollars in the future if I starve right now.
This reeks of privilege. I understand that the thread comes with the caveat of only applying to those who are financially able to do so, but so few people truly are, and it's not even a matter of "things will be tight but I won't buy my coffee from Starbucks daily and I'll make it through." This post vastly underestimates lower-class and middle-class life, and makes generalizations that sound like those of us forced to work simply don't want a good score badly enough.
How much money do you think it takes to scrape by for LSAT studies? I am a first-gen college graduate that had limited savings from my year of teaching English abroad after graduation. When I returned to the states, I moved out to some country area 3.5 hours away from the nearest city and found the cheapest 250sqft studio i could (with 2 cats), stopped driving my car, switched to the bare minimum phone plan, and walked to a place that I could get internet when I needed... You can actually live off of $750/mo or less if you are willing to do what it takes. Luckily, my gf was understanding of what I was trying to do and I would sometimes take a train home on weekends to visit. Taking comforts away is a great motivator and also helped maintain focus on the goal.
I'm sure I could've begged a friend or family member for a spot in a basement/attic but getting away from everything was a better choice imo. I had the savings, but if I did not, there were several routes to obtain the very small loan that would be needed to accomplish this, whether it was a bank or just credit...
My sacrifices yielded me a score jump from 151 to 172 in 4 months TOTAL time that resulted in a full-ride to a top20 that I was able to negotiate into a full-ride + a $32,000/yr living stipend guaranteed, no GPA requirements. perhaps showing that level of commitment was... dare i say... INCREDIBLY BENEFICIAL to my outcome?!
PLEEEEASE convince me (or really, keep fooling yourself) about how having a gap in employment hurt my app... or that even if i didnt have savings and had to take a bank loan of $750 x 6 mo (it's $4,500 because i couldn't find a month to month) that I am somehow in a worse-off position....
i could barely afford the starter package on 7sage....
not to mention, i've already been getting multiple PM's from members that don't wanna get hammered by the lifelong 7sage members putting in their 3 hours/wk for advice about this kinda thing.... so this topic is incredibly relevant and is clearly something that needs to be talked about.
something that i haven't even mentioned yet either is the recent uptick in applicants to law school... the last few years has seen the lowest number of law students/applicants since the early 1980's following the recession. this year, as salaries continue to rise and job prospects are very high, we are seeing people flooding back towards the law profession. we had a HUGE increase of high-scoring applicants (https://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2017-2018-cycle-data-as-of-6-27-18/) showing that there are people who scored high but did not apply in previous years and are returning to enter the market now. this has many schools overenrolled and sending out e-mails to students asking them to defer until next year (taking up spots), and causing a lot of great applicants to pull-out and reapply next year as cycle veterans polishing apps and avoiding rookie mistakes. the last couple years would have been the ideal time to get in the market and it's only gonna get harder from here! the time to act is now.
if you get bogged down in the employment gap (which doesn't mean crap) or continuing to live your current lifestyle (making whatever excuses you want, though some are legit ie children to feed) you MIGHT be hurting yourself in this current climate. there are a LOTTT of variables that need to be considered and weighted properly in terms of priority.... OP opening the conversation questioning people who are "on the fence" about whether they could take the dive and give everything to their future career in the law is about as relevant now as it will ever be... 2010-2013 might have been a good time period to keep your job while slowly working up that LSAT score and all the advice the lifelong 7sagers would be perfectly valid, but that is not the environment of today. you make your own bed...
@btate87833 said:
thanks for following up! well during college, one has 3 summers. Usually, for your junior summer, if you do a summer analyst position at an investment bank or a consulting firm, you can make approximately 15k. And if you worked those two other summers (let's say you made 5k a summer for those summers), that's another 10k. So that's 25k. If you subtract like 5k for living expenses and other stuff during those summers, that's still 20k left.
so it's doable to use that 20k to full time prep for the LSAT. again, these are also very rough numbers in a rough hypothetical example.
I'd like to point out, also, that the VERY REALITY of this is really not true for probably 80% of folks. First of all, how did you land that "summer analyst position at an investment bank or consulting firm"? If you did, you probably came from a place of privilege -- and I'm speaking for myself, as I worked some pretty nice internships in college. Oftentimes, you had the connections to get the position or interview. At the very least, you had the background - class, education - that made you seem like a good fit for the position or gave you the past experience that you put on that resume application. You probably didn't come from a socioeconomic background that would make you stand out like a sore thumb among your investment bank/consulting firm colleagues. You live in a city where those companies exist, or you have the financial ability to relocate for the summer. You don't have to go home and help your family run their business/take care of your siblings while your parents work multiple jobs/etc.
Secondly, how did you save all that money? You only subtract 5k for living expenses and other stuff during "those summers." But what if your summer money includes supporting yourself the whole year round? It also assumes that you're not sending that money to your family, who needs it/using it for medical bills for yourself or your family/etc.
OP, I'm guessing you might be pretty young. At the very least, given that you use the words "usually" and act like these summer activities are a given, I'm guessing you don't have a lot of friends who come from outside your socioeconomic background. But OP, as someone who did many of the above activities you suggest, I'm telling you that summers like these/ours are really, really not the "usually" for many or most folks.
@a342 said:
@tristandesinor505 said:
This entire thread got me like...
https://media2.giphy.com/media/tyqcJoNjNv0Fq/giphy.gif
Puleeeze pass the popcorn!
hahaha!
@tristandesinor505 said:
This entire thread got me like...
https://media2.giphy.com/media/tyqcJoNjNv0Fq/giphy.gif
Puleeeze pass the popcorn!
@btate87833 said:
@jsohn0305774
Thanks for following up.
This is straight from JY in:
https://classic.7sage.com/how-to-get-into-law-school/
“The one thing you need to know about how to get into law school
The answer can be summed up in four letters. LSAT. You need to demolish the LSAT. That's the one thing you need to know.
In the topsy-turvy world of law school applications, LSAT is king.
What about Personal Statements, Recommendations, Extracurriculars, Job Experience and Interviews? They make a difference, but not that much. If you have a lame-duck recommendation or a douchey personal statement, it can tank you. If you were the President of your home country it'll really help.
Most of the time these aren't going to make a big difference. At least not compared to the LSAT. Most of the time, you should put effort into making these shine only after you've taken the LSAT.“
But still...I am not disagreeing that it is the most important consideration. That is 100% true. What I am disagreeing with is that it is the only consideration. That is not true. There are other parts of your application that are important too. Not only that, having a holistic application matters much more if you are a URM.
This reeks of privilege. I understand >that the thread comes with the >caveat of only applying to those >who are financially able to do so, >but so few people truly are, and it's >not even a matter of "things will be >tight but I won't buy my coffee from >Starbucks daily and I'll make it >through." This post vastly >underestimates lower-class and >middle-class life, and makes >generalizations that sound like those >of us forced to work simply don't >want a good score badly enough.
-slow claps-
"Why do people settle for less and allow a 50-hour a week paralegal job (for example) prevent them from reaching their goals?
Financially, those 50 hours are much more valuable when used studying for the LSAT (considering how many hundreds of thousands of dollars you'll potentially save with a 170+ Lsat score)"
Financially, working 50 hours a week is much more valuable because it allows me to have food to put on a plate, and also a plate, and also a roof over my head in the kitchen where I can eat my plate of food.
It's not that folks who haven't quit their jobs aren't thinking about their goals. My goals require me not to be literally homeless. I can't care about hundreds of thousands of dollars in the future if I starve right now.
This reeks of privilege. I understand that the thread comes with the caveat of only applying to those who are financially able to do so, but so few people truly are, and it's not even a matter of "things will be tight but I won't buy my coffee from Starbucks daily and I'll make it through." This post vastly underestimates lower-class and middle-class life, and makes generalizations that sound like those of us forced to work simply don't want a good score badly enough.
@leahbeuk911 said:
This thread be like
"Hey, why don't we go to the ball game this weekend, that could be fun. Do you have any pros or cons about why we should do this?"
"Not everyone has the money to do that, so how can you even ask that question?"
More like why don’t you go to the ball game starting this weekend for an indefinite period of time
This thread be like
"Hey, why don't we go to the ball game this weekend, that could be fun. Do you have any pros or cons about why we should do this?"
"Not everyone has the money to do that, so how can you even ask that question?"
@kimberleemcmillin935 said:
I don’t think anyone is scoffing at the idea of taking time off, but rather at OP’s seeming inability to understand why everyone doesn’t take the time off. As I’ve said, if you have savings or parents to pay for your time off, that is absolutely fantastic!! But that can’t be a consideration for everyone, which is why I’m confused about the purpose of the thread. I just don’t even know what it’s accomplishing.
He's obviously not implying you should starve to death or be evicted if you don't have the needed funds. It also doesn't help answer the obvious point of the thread, which actually is relevant to my interests, which is "What are some of the benefits, and some of the downfalls, if you do in fact have this opportunity?" I see plenty of people who have this opportunity who don't even consider taking it. Maybe it's worth putting the idea in their mind, presenting them with another option? He even did some math to explain why it may be beneficial.
@sunnytsao313794 said:
This post just feels like conservatives yelling at poor people to just save money. In the US we don’t get free healthcare or education so idk why anyone would assume that the average person can just quit their job to study...on a basis of a possible way far future financial gain.
Doesn't sound like he's making that assumption at all. He's asking why people who have that chance may not. It's literally in the first sentence of his post. And within three posts, we had people playing class warfare. Doesn't sound like conservatives saying anything, but it's telling that that is where you take it.
This entire thread got me like...
https://media2.giphy.com/media/tyqcJoNjNv0Fq/giphy.gif
@sunnytsao313794 said:
I agree I don’t understand the purpose of the thread. As with pretty much anything in life, maximizing the amount of time you can take on something will give you the best results in the shortest period of time. This is obvious. Not everyone can do so bc they have responsibilities. I’m not really sure who this thread is addressed to bc not many people can just stop working.
Do a search for "quit job" on the 7sage forums and you'll find dozens of threads from students who are considering quitting their job for a short period of time to study for the LSAT. This is a real choice that many students can make, and it has a lot of pros and cons attached to it. I think a discussion like the one we're having on this thread is actually quite fruitful.
This post just feels like conservatives yelling at poor people to just save money. In the US we don’t get free healthcare or education so idk why anyone would assume that the average person can just quit their job to study...on a basis of a possible way far future financial gain.
I mean, I can completely sympathize with the students who are not able to take off work to study for this exam. I think it's RIDICULOUS that this exam requires 500-1000+ study hours of preparation. I think it's CRIMINAL that LSAC continues to charge absurd amounts of money for test licensing which makes all prep material extremely expensive. And it's a straight up INSULT to the supposedly meritocratic admissions process that applicants are allowed to shell out $10,000+ for consulting packages from admission consulting companies. The entire LSAT is just one gigantic class barrier that unapologetically and unambiguously gives the middle finger to the less privileged in society.
But it's precisely for this reason that students can and should approach preparing for the exam in the best/most efficient ways possible. For those that can take time off work to study for the exam (and that is who the OP addressed this post to, no less no more), then it is an option that is definitely worthy of consideration. In purely financial terms, taking time off work to study for the LSAT can be well worth it -- that's why we're having this discussion.
@kimberleemcmillin935 said:
I don’t think anyone is scoffing at the idea of taking time off, but rather at OP’s seeming inability to understand why everyone doesn’t take the time off. As I’ve said, if you have savings or parents to pay for your time off, that is absolutely fantastic!! But that can’t be a consideration for everyone, which is why I’m confused about the purpose of the thread. I just don’t even know what it’s accomplishing.
I agree I don’t understand the purpose of the thread. As with pretty much anything in life, maximizing the amount of time you can take on something will give you the best results in the shortest period of time. This is obvious. Not everyone can do so bc they have responsibilities. I’m not really sure who this thread is addressed to bc not many people can just stop working.
Also, anyone who is mentioning living frugally during undergrad — not everyone realizes they want to go to law school during undergrad nor do they realize how much time lsat studying takes. And, living frugally while making probably minimum wage at a part time job...is not going to save much, if anything. If anything is saved it would go toward student loans.
People also need to save money FOR law school so even if you can take time off, this is just contributing to financial struggle DURING law school.
Just bc taking time off “always” increases ones score, doesn’t mean that it increases one score up to what they want. Going from a 140 diagnostic to a 163 on the test is great but it’s not great for someone who wants a t14.
Great to know for a lot of people commenting on here who probably haven’t entered the workforce — it’s very hard to get a job when you are not currently employed. Hands down you get 2x as much interviews when you’re looking for a job while you’re employed, rather than while you’re unemployed. Even if it’s a brief gap of unemployment. People who take a gap and then want to go back to work are going to have trouble finding a job.
This post just feels like conservatives yelling at poor people to just save money. In the US we don’t get free healthcare or education so idk why anyone would assume that the average person can just quit their job to study...on a basis of a possible way far future financial gain.
@vincelee000629 said:
@kimberleemcmillin935 said:
TLDR: Attending law school earlier won't get you more years at a Big Law salary in the event that you get Big Law, but it will make those years earlier. If you are smart and invest the money the interest will therefore start compounding earlier so it will be financially better.
I like your post and I think you bring up a great point, but you might've understated it just a tad. A few years of extra savings from Big Law earlier in life can make an enormous difference.
Say we have two students who both score highly on their LSATs, and are able to attend UChicago on full-ride scholarships. The students are such that:
Student (A) is a K-JD starting law school at 22 years of age. Student (A) took 4 months off from work to study full-time for the LSAT, and in doing so burned through $4,000 dollars of savings.
Student (B) began working as a paralegal after graduating from undergrad, and the office they are in has grueling hours. These hours have interfered with their ability to adequately prepare for the LSAT. Nevertheless, after 3 years and several takes student (B) finally achieves a superb LSAT score.
Both students work Biglaw in NY for 3 years before moving on to a different job. They both save 20% of their income, investing mostly in equities with a compound annual interest rate of 8%.
At retirement age....
Student (A)'s savings from their time in Biglaw will equal approx. $3,370,000.00
Student (B)'s savings from their time in Biglaw will equal approx. $2,650,000.00
Now of course student (A) has an opportunity cost of spending that $4,000 back when they began school. Compounded for 43 years, the future value is approx $125,000.00
Even so, student (A) is still at a net gain of $600,000.00. That's future value though -- accounting for TMV gives a present value of around $22,000.00.
So essentially by spending down their savings and entering law school earlier, student (A) "earned" $600,000.00 more by retirement age just by virtue of beginning to save earlier.
And all of this is assuming that student (A) and student (B) have similar outcomes. What if student (B)'s work interfered so much that they never scored 175+ and instead paid full-ticket price to go to UChicago rather than a full scholarship? In such a scenario student (A) is coming out millions of dollars ahead of student (B).
i was going to bring up compound interest too but you did such a great job i'll just smile at your example.
btw, i'm not someone who took 6months off to study for the LSAT but i am someone who wishes they would have last summer :expressionless:
@kimberleemcmillin935 said:
I don’t think anyone is scoffing at the idea of taking time off, but rather at OP’s seeming inability to understand why everyone doesn’t take the time off. As I’ve said, if you have savings or parents to pay for your time off, that is absolutely fantastic!! But that can’t be a consideration for everyone, which is why I’m confused about the purpose of the thread. I just don’t even know what it’s accomplishing.
i think you need to read OP's first two paragraphs again. he does not say "everyone" and he is merely trying to broach the topic of conversation about why some people who could quit their job, in fact, do not.
in doing so, the OP has already had many replies with people who have put WAYYY too much emphasis on the effect a short gap period will have on their chance of admissions. this could be especially useful because the most frequent posters on 7sage are people studying for the LSAT long term who have not been through the admissions process and, frankly, are spewing personal opinions about what the effect a gap would have based on speculation. after going through the admissions process myself, reading a variety of forums for the past year, and talking with admissions offices around the country / Q+A panels / books interviewing admissions officers, i have NEVER seen someone who under performed their numbers because they took time off to study for the LSAT. i'm not saying it has never happened, but i've read / heard admissions officers say that taking time off "to volunteer, travel, or even just relax" before starting law school is fine as long as you feel fully prepared to start it when you do. so, if they can see it as a positive and share those sentiments publicly, i can feel fairly confident that it would take an extraordinary situation for them to view it as a negative.
this has been one of the best threads on 7sage not related to specific LSAT instruction in a long time.
I don’t think anyone is scoffing at the idea of taking time off, but rather at OP’s seeming inability to understand why everyone doesn’t take the time off. As I’ve said, if you have savings or parents to pay for your time off, that is absolutely fantastic!! But that can’t be a consideration for everyone, which is why I’m confused about the purpose of the thread. I just don’t even know what it’s accomplishing.
Shout out to people getting offended by a legitimate strategy to do better, cash in those economic victimhood points on an anonymous forum
I got a little bit lucky, and was able to take the summer off. Took some planning. I took a summer course to qualify for government loans as a part of it, giving me a bit more freedom for a small return of time with one course. It's obviously not an option for everyone, but if it is something you can work out, I'd recommend it.