(^for NYU at least)

Scholarship applications get submitted as part of the jd application (not later)! You’ll opt into being considered for your scholarship(s) of choice in the online form and attach essays (as required)

Adding on, I thought the headphones worked just fine!

Another thing to note would be that if you like to get things over with, the center that I went to at least started admitting testers as they showed up, even if it was before the designated start time. That might vary by center or how busy it is that day tho

Many schools are fine with two! Just check each school’s requirements before submitting. UMich’s Dean Z said in her podcast that unless they specify one page, two is probably fine

I’m not an expert (just another person applying) but I’d be happy to help! Send me a direct message if you’d like me to read!

Hmm yes that is tricky. This may not be helpful given your situation, but I wrote essays to the Harvard prompts (purpose and perspective) and plan to submit my “purpose” as my personal statements and my “perspective” to any schools accepting a diversity statement (as long as it’s w/in their definition of diversity). The guiding questions in Harvard’s prompts helped me narrow what to include in each.

A piece of advice I liked for narrowing your “purpose/why law” is to answer the question: why can’t you not go to law school?

When I had two left, I’d slow down and interrogate each difference between the two options—it often came to comparing individual words and seeing which one actually applied to the context

Does your undergrad’s office of career services support alums? Or do you have a dream school that has a first gen club that you could reach out to? (The latter suggestion might be a bit of a reach but worth a shot)

I think having someone who can walk you through the steps and keep you accountable is huge! I despise essays, so I’d set up meetings w my career services advisor to give me deadlines, and that helped a lot.

And since the applications have so many parts, I made a spreadsheet (lol) w each school I’m applying to and their essays, which I’m using like a checklist.

I’m approaching them like they are the same prompt but I’d also like to hear others’ input!

From my totally unqualified perspective, you’re doing just fine!

That’s a difficult situation and one that I imagine many people are facing given the job market these days. However, if you include all of the things you’re still doing, it’ll show that you’re still keeping busy and helping out your community.

I have watched an interview in which the admissions committee speaker noted that she wants to know what applicants are doing presently, and I think having volunteering, family business (which I would count as work), and paper publication efforts on your resume would satisfy this. If you’re worried about it, I think a concise addendum noting the things that don’t fit on your resume and that you’re seeking full time work would be fine for fuller context!

I feel your pain — just had to shorten mine from 3.5 to 2 pages:( I’d be happy to take a look at yours!

Once I got to that point, I started throwing in a short (5 question) drill of only 4s and 5s whenever I studied to fine tune my learning! I did them untimed to really pick them apart. You may just want to be mindful about rationing unseen 4/5 questions if that’s important to you

Thank you for this thoughtful post!! Good luck to you too!!!

I’m really sorry to hear that — dips are natural since testing is a moment in time measurement and each PT is different. Your dip just came at a particularly unfortunate time. While wrong questions are still a good learning opportunity, I’d say the biggest thing would be to rebuild some confidence before your test. Maybe do a section or a few challenging (whatever that means for you) drills just to remind yourself of all the work you’ve put into this and that that PT isn’t representative of your full ability

I had (D) and switched to (E) after overthinking whether Lichtenstein was for or against emotion. If I were caught on it again, I'd want to notice that (B), (C), and (E) are all suggesting that he is pro-emotion -- suggesting they can't all be the answer at the same time -- whereas (D) is the only one (incorrectly) suggesting his is anti-emotion

@02kimask That said, in terms of underlying the argument, (A) makes the most sense and is directly tied to some of the text whereas the other options I was considering are pretty unrelated to the text's content

I was thrown off (A) based on the author's concession that

Belize is free to develop its common-law jurisprudence on the doctrine of indigenous rights independently of other jurisdictions and their incorporation of international norms

but I can see how they are just stating that that is their right to ignore what others are doing (while the author favors that they don't ignore precedent).

However, I also found the word "should" in (A) to feel too strong. I felt the last sentence of the passage was saying "I think they'll do x" rather than "They should do x"

Using the same agreed upon relationships:

• Plants growing quickly → take in more CO2 than released

• Plants growing very slowly → take in less CO2 than released

• Substantial increase in amount of CO2 released into atmosphere causes -> temperature increase in tropics causes -> plants in tropics, on average, grow more slowly.

I thought (D) could work based on the second bullet (slow plants -> take less CO2 than released = increase CO2 in atm), which then could link in front of the last chain to create:

slow plants -> increase CO2 in atm -> temp increase in tropics

Two issues I'm now finding with this:

Issue 1: The temp in tropics is never said to increase substantially in the stimulus

Issue 2: We'd need to assume that the CO2 increase from plants growing slowly could be "substantial." I thought maybe the accumulation of many plants growing slowly and/or over time could become substantial, but these criteria may or may not be met

@calliekoskovich You may already have your answer but yeah you're correct -- we'll have physical scratch paper and the highlighting/underlining tools but not annotating tools

@sserota I had thought so too. We need to pay special attention to what the conclusion is: The snakes caused increase of spiders.

The parts about the birds provide support to that conclusion by providing a mechanism.

Since we're trying to strengthen the conclusion, we can

1) strengthen the given mechanism that you mentioned (you and I both tried to do this, but in this case, none of the answer choices fit)

2) add an additional mechanism to support the conclusion, which is what (A) does

Stimulus:

snake -> fewer birds -> more spiders (bc fewer hunted and housing untouched)

In the answers, I looked for something that would corroborate the given mechanism, forgetting that a strengthener can provide an alternative piece of support.

I had chosen (C), as I had thought that it corroborates the stimulus's claim that spider's webs are less frequently disturbed, but I now see that it's just further support for something that we already know about Guam: it has more spiders. Since the biologist's conclusion is about the mechanism, further agreement about the outcome is not helpful.

I immediately dismissed (A) for the reason others have mentioned: I imagined the station spamming "rain time!" in their predictions to the point of being like the boy who cried wolf.

But I can see how combined with the statistic (>50% accurate), it confirms that even if they were obnoxious about the rain, they're still right more days than the other stations.

@Annie1234 This passage isn't the proposal. The word "proposal" in (C) refers to Harraway's book (ie, her book is the proposal)

Originally discarded (A) bc I thought it was eliminating other possible causes (ie, other types of radiation). But the conclusion only mentions the ozone later, not the type of radiation. Note to self: heed conclusion carefully

Originally selected (D) bc it sounded out of pocket, but it was eliminating alternative explanations (which, sadly enough, I thought (A) was doing)

When I read the stimulus, the bridge I thought I'd be looking for was a panopticon type of thing, where just the chance (even if small) of getting caught by an antitheft device would deter thefts.

(C) seemed to offer that option: if pre-device, thieves knew they probably wouldn't get caught, they could do their thing. But with the new device, their odds of getting caught have increased if they happen to choose the wrong car (one with a device) -- fear of getting caught could be a strong deterrent that didn't previously exist.

But I guess (E) is more direct, and (C) requires too many assumptions