@ said:

G (--|--) V

I or V bnb

The first rule says they can't both be in; they may both still be out. The second rule says one must be in but that they can't both be in/out together.

That was very straightforward, I get it now. Thank you so much! x

That last part is GOLD. I’m going to try this. Thanks so much!

For me, I fell on law in a rather odd way. My goal was to become a musician. Though I did the whole university thing and got a bachelors in one of the social sciences — music (singing specifically) had always been my thing. My interests in law stemmed from being exposed to the business end of the music industry and how the law so profusely affected everything from copyright to individual songwriter rights etc. But that just instilled mere interest. What definitely was my “ha-ha” moment was entering a shady management deal that cost me an entire catalogue of songs I wrote myself. I was not able to get them back because I signed a contract and my ignorance led me to a horrible predicament. I was crushed, yes, but it ignited a want for justice so I started doing intense research on the law as it relates to the music industry. My end goal at the time was just to find a way to come for the person who had stolen from me. I was a broke college student with no way towards legal advice except from a few friends who were already in law school. I learned about fiduciary relationships and fought hard to get those songs back through legal aid. My last year or so of uni consisted of adding on plenty of law courses. Long story short, I never got them back, but in doing all of this the law became a passion to me. Specifically contracts. During my last term of uni, I went to England for an exchange and took an introductory class in Contracts & Torts out of curiosity. I'm from Canada so the law I was learning was different enough, but I was still able to grade very high in the class. This made me realize that I could essentially combine two of my passions together. I struggled for several years prior to that, attempting to find myself and figuring out what I wanted to be. Music was my passion, but I also always loved school and held a lot of respect towards higher education (Something my west-African parents deeply instilled in me). So I told myself, why not me? My "maybe I could actually be a lawyer" turned into "I can be a lawyer". Fast forward post grad, I now work in music licensing which has further increased my want to combine the two [music + law]. This past experience has forged my "can" into a decisive, fully-charged "I want to be a lawyer". Today, I’m working hard to ace the February LSAT and make my dream come true: becoming an entertainment lawyer that is.

I'm from Canada. McGill University is my dream school and WILL be the law school I attend this fall (speaking it into existence).

@ said:

@ said:

What kind of scholarships can you get from UCLA with a 170+ LSAT and similar GPA? Do they give full-rides?

There are a few samples, but here is a list of people who applied to UCLA with LSAT 170-180 and GPA 3.0-3.2 on Law School Numbers:

http://mylsn.info/dispresults.php?sk=jz63b1&school=ucla&sort=money

Thanks for this! Reminds me that I really need to kill this September 2018 LSAT.

What kind of scholarships can you get from UCLA with a 170+ LSAT and similar GPA? Do they give full-rides?

For sure. I'm looking at UCLA too.

One of the schools I'm interested in here as an exchange program at Southwestern in LA, I figured I'd do it and see if I can network well enough to land a gig after school. But I'm also thinking why not just directly go there?> @ said:

Does UCLA interest you? I'm pretty sure a Canadian student who gets a law degree in the US can then go on to practice in the US after passing the bar, but I haven't been briefed on these latest possible changes to these things so I probably know less than you. I wonder about networking with some Canadian US law grads and/or calling some state bars.

Can I get in on this? Was just about to start working on those kind of questions! @

I heard Osgoode is very hollistic. I have friends who have gotten in with OK GPA's but they had 165+ LSAT's, relevantly, I've had high GPA's and mid 150's LSAT. I think Osgoode is more forgiving depending on what you did in life.

As of U of T though from what I have heard and the people I know there, they want EXCELLENT. I've never heard of anyone getting in that didn't have HIGH GPA + HIGH LSAT unless their B3 was really high despite a lower-ish GPA.

Even when you go on law students.ca (though I'm not a huge fan of the website), in the accepted threads, they're all like "Woo, was so scared, but I'm in! 4.0 GPA, 180 LSAT :) EC's include internship with the Obama administration while completing my PhD in astrophysics" or something crazy like that lmao

We're literally the same except I applied to McGill, Dal & UBC. I withdrawn my applications, applied to McGill w/o the LSAT just to see if I can get lucky, but I chose to sit for September. Take your time. I was literally freaking out a few days ago. It's better to go in that LSAT knowing you are within your score range (or even higher), especially considering the test-day drops. It's just too much of an important test to go in without knowing you're going to slay!

Once a diagram is made with conditional statements, it’s always easy to see the right answer. Avoiding a decrease in overall profit by ensuring coffee sales do not decrease is similar to failing the necessary which triggers the rule backwards all the way to the price of coffee beans needing to not increase (which is the correct answer). Amazing.

Basically B; though attractive, is wrong because a higher response rate does not affect the percentage of those in favour if we assume the sample remains representative.

C challenges our argument by starting the departure of those against the program increased the amount of people in favour thus rendering the sample size unrepresentative and making the related percentages wrong.

@ said:

I agree with postponing, it seems like a great idea! I feel you on the age thing, it feels like once you've graduated you should be out there and beginning your desired career especially when your peers are. But ultimately, your path is your own regardless of what everyone else says or is doing. That extra time off might be great because then you won't be burnt out and will actually want to study when you're in law school. You'll be able to begin law school confidentently! Also your job sounds amazing.

My friend went to McGill for her masters and I hear the campus is beautiful. I know they don't need the LSAT but they do look at it if you've taken it. So it would be better if you take it and get your desired score. Have you already applied for the September 2018 cycle?

I think you'll feel less pressured and stressed out once you have a plan for what you want to do after postponing; you know which sections you need to drill, what question types to focus on, revisit the CC? Once you have a plan you can begin to implement it and that gradually makes everything seem less overwhelming. Good luck!

Oh yes! A lesson I learned studying this time around is to practice practice practice. That will be my focus till September. Thank you for the kind words!

@ said:

@ I went to McGill for undergrad and have several friends who went to LS there- they look really favourably upon multiple applications as long as there is improvement in your application the second time around. It shows a high level of interest and a commitment to attending McGill. So I think your plan to apply now w/o the LSAT and later on with your score is a good one! In terms of when to take the LSAT, if you're applying to Canadian schools you've missed the deadline to apply for 2019 anyways, so it would really benefit you to take as much time as possible and plan for a September take with the option of a re-take in December if need be.

Yes! That's what I'm thinking too. For one you never know and also, if I don't get in this year (as I already applied for Fall 2018), I'll study slowly and accurately, sit down for September and apply for Fall 2019. McGill is honestly the dream. Thank you!

@ said:

Yeah, I agree with what some people are saying, if you want to postpone, postpone, but scoring in the 160s is still great and that will get you into a great school. If age is an issue for you I promise you that you are never too old to start a career in law or even go to law school. I am also 23 and I felt the same way at first. Until I went to one of the law school forums and met a man who was a 50+ former heart transplant surgeon looking to start a career in Health Law. At the end of the day you want to put your best foot forward. If you don't like where your score is and want to postpone, then continue to work to get it up. Even if that means taking another year off. I got a relatively average score on my September LSAT, applied with my score and have so far been admitted to a great school in the top 30, waitlisted at a top 10 and I'm still waiting for a few more responses. You never know what will happen. If your overall application is great then there is a strong chance to get into a great law school. If you go into a test worried you're not going to do well or that your score won't be enough then it'll hurt you. Confidence is key and doing your research or even gaining more experience in the time (if you decide to postpone) that you take off could help.

Amazing! I agree, but I'd like to maximize my chances the most I can. Mid 160's is good, but it isn't great. I want 170+ esp with my gpa, I can't take any chances =/

It took me a good 15 minutes to understand this. From the beginning, I was thinking of the argument in terms of individual cans rather than groups. I'm writing this for personal understanding.

Basically, the assumption required is the correct answer C because:

Group M consists of 50% L.

Suppose we have 10 cans of L. We recycle these 10 cans. They make up 50% of group M so the other 50% has to be 10 new cans which equals 20 (x2 as much as the original group L had) cans in total.

In order for us to leap to that conclusion, we must assume that ALL cans in group L were used/recycled/recovered (whatever term you're choosing) and none of them were LOST in the process. So we recycled 10 cans of group L and after recycling, there were still 10 cans worth of aluminum (not 1 not 2 not 5). And these 10 cans now make up half of group M which automatically means group M has twice as more cans (50% of recycled L and 50% of new cans)

@ said:

You gotta chill out dude. Part of being a successful adult and working as an attorney is having a strong resistance to stress. It's not worth having mental breakdowns over a test...

Take whatever time it takes to achieve your goals. 24 isn't too old. I'll be in my late 20s by the time I start. I'm glad I waited though because now I know it's what I want to do and if it doesn't work out I have experience working in another field. I'm also way more mature and able to deal with the pressures of life/law school/etc. much better than the me at 22 or 23 would have been.

Set your sights on a high 170s score and don't stop until you get there. Simple as that!

I really think it's hilarious that you're saying this because I remember when you commented on my previous posts that I can't learn through osmosis and to maybe consider postponing, but I was all like blablablabla. In the end, you were right hahahahaha cries internally

@ said:

I am in the same exact position as you and I think I'm going to postpone to June for the following reasons: 1) I am not scoring where I would like to be scoring on my practice tests and definitely feel I could improve (I am scoring mid 160s right now and want to be in the 170s for my actual score), 2) I am not planning on applying this cycle anyway so I decided there isn't any need for me to rush into the test and get my LSAT score now, 3) my GPA is similar to yours so I really need to rely on the LSAT to give my application a little boost. People have also been telling me just to take it and not stress myself out but I honestly feel I could do better so I have basically settled on not taking it and postponing to June. Also, I feel LSAT score can affect your scholarship offers greatly for a lot of schools and for me that's a significant factor in which school I will attend. I'm sorry you're going through the same thing as I am but I'm also kind of glad that I'm not the only one in the same situation. Best of luck making a decision! :)

I feel this on a soul-level. We can do this!

@ I'm in Canada. Haha. My dream school is McGill (Osgoode second). I'll take your advice. Seeing as McGill doesn't require the LSAT, I'll apply without it as a shoot your shot type of thing. But I'm definitely going to just study study study until I know I'm really getting the right score. Slow and steady wins the race, for sure.

@ Thank you so much for your insight. I appreciate you.

Thank you once again guys. I feel silly for even considering this, but I do need to stop living under timelines.

@ said:

I am 33 and I am old. Life has passed me by young buck. However, you're still young! So go watch the Defiant Ones a few more times while you postpone that upcoming LSAT.

I will definitely be on the lookout for the Defiant Ones.

Thank you all so much for your insight. It is true. It is an important test and my future is on the line.

I also wish you the best of luck to all of you trying to score high on the LSAT to make your law school dream come true.

Nothing, but respect.

I know I'm not old, but I have a bad habit of having a "5-step plan" mentality where if anything goes in another direction, it freaks me out. I'm learning (the hard way) that shit doesn't happen as you want too. But thanks guys. I guess I'll see how I feel seeing as the test is literally in a few days.

And @ honestlyyyyyyyyyyyy. It's just so so so hard to think this way, but I don't want to settle when I know with more time, I could do very very well.

@ said:

@ said:

Hi everybody.

I scored a 143 cold (done in June 2017) but I don't really consider it valid because I was sleeping through Reading Comp and barely taking the tests seriously. Regardless, my strongest sections were LR and LG. LR is somewhat understandable for me. I know for sure I am to do very well in February by looking at the questions in terms of category + strategy. Thought I'd shoot and ask you what are your strategies for LR questions. You can either state one question or how you approach the section as a whole. I'm devising a plan for each question and will test it out through drilling a million of them. My latest practice test (back in like October) was 158. I've been studying half-ass, but seeing as I wasted my $ not taking the December test. I chose to study very hard since October. I've been on it and with now 6 weeks left to the test, I'm on full throttle. Right now I'm perfecting my logic games, but I'd like to dedicate the next two weeks on drilling LG and LR and perfecting the strategies for this. Then I'll do 1 week for perfecting RC and spend the last 2-3 weeks doing practice tests, working on weaknesses and drilling.

170+ or go home.

Thank you!

Hey @!

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but my LR strategy are just 7Sage's strategies which you'll learn going through the curriculum and working problem sets. I just took it one question type at a time and used all of JY's methods. It's worked extremely well for me!

Your approach sounds like you might run into some problems. First, It seems to me like you're trying to learn through osmosis, or by by doing "a million" questions. I can tell you that's not likely to work very well. At the very least it will be inefficient. You don't need to do a million questions of anything to get better. (OK...ok...Maybe games. But I think half a million should cut it, lol) Always put quality over quantity. Prioritize time to review maybe 50 of XYZ question type over rushing to get 500 done. You'll learn a lot more that way!

Second, going from a 158 to a 170 before the February test will be a Herculean task. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I don't think I've ever seen that kind of jump in that amount of time. The 15 point improvement from a 143 to a 158 is amazing, so congrats! However, those 15 points are very "low hanging" fruit. They're largely a matter of learning the basics and figuring out how the test works. The same cannot be said for the 10+ points you need to hit the 170s. The majority of those points come from some degree of mastery of the material, superb test taking skills and strategies, and hundreds if not thousands of hours of drilling and PT'ing/BR'ing.

Lastly, you mention that you're going to spend two weeks doing LR/LG and then a week "perfecting" RC, 2-3 weeks PT'ing and hammering weaknesses... All of that strikes me as a bit unrealistic/overly optimistic. Learning to perfect those sections/skills can take months of hard work, not a matter of a week or two. The thing is, the LSAT isn't a test where you're expected to just regurgitate what you've learned onto a piece of paper; it's a performance; a recital. It's a lot like learning ballet, playing the piano, or golfing. No matter how hard you try, short of extraordinary talent, those things can't be perfected in a matter or weeks. On the LSAT, you need lots of time to take PTs and blind review them to hone those skills.

All this to say: you may want to re-consider your timeline again if you're aiming for a 170. Then again, you know yourself best and what you're capable of, so do what you think is best.

Good luck :star:

Hi!

Thank you for the advice. I'll make sure to take a look at my strategy.

I've been studying on and off since June and getting comfortable with the LSAT in general, but you are right, I will do my very best with preparing for February and if I don't get the score I need then will just use this as grounds to bring my A game to June.

Thanks again!