On the eve of score release, I’m really thinking about my results tomorrow. Surprisingly, the past two weeks have not been all that anxiety laden for me; I’ve mostly been chilling. Though I still have some thoughts.

Conceptually, I have this test mostly down. However, I definitely struggle confidence wise. Looking back on it, I think there were a few questions I definitely got wrong because I either overcomplicated it or picked an answer I knew was bad over an answer I knew was good.

Although, I also think it’s a bit foolish to try to piece things together after the fact. The LSAT, being so specific, is hard to properly piece back together. I could be thinking back on answers, believing one would have been a better choice, but this is useless if I can’t remember the full text, as I might have noticed something in the moment that made that answer wrong.

Anyway, I wanted to write this out as a reflection before tomorrow. Likely, I’ll be retaking this exam again, haha.

Hey all,

Just want to put out a warning to the community. There’s been an explosion on a lot of social media platforms of ‘admissions consultants’ who, upon looking deeper into their background, I’ve found have no actual admissions experience. Some of them don’t even have a connection to law.

I just want to encourage people to be discerning, especially when a lot of these consultants are charging you a ridiculous amount of money. Many of them are just ripping info from Reddit, then acting as though it’s actual expertise, when they’re really no more knowledgeable than the average KJD.

And please remember, a service telling you they get students into Harvard is meaningless. There are plenty of people who would have gotten in regardless of whether or not they had a consultant.

That one was… wow. Did my average on the LR, about-2, but that RC kicked my ass. I normally do pretty well on RC, but that one had me begging for mercy.

Yeah, I understand that they base it off the data from thousands of users, but I'll go -1 on a section and it will give me a predicted score of like 168, lol.

Just feels like if I get one wrong these days, it comes from PT 120 or below. The questions just seems so much different, less ‘clean’, so to speak.

Hey all,

I did my writing sample a few months ago, but I found myself thinking about it again these past few weeks. I’m just curious how important it actually is in this process? It just feels like there’s a wide range of opinions, ranging from it essentially being a captcha that makes sure you have basic literacy to it being so significant that a single grammar mistake while ruin your chance of a top law school.

I’m honestly of a more middle ground perspective - that it’s something admissions officers will see, and you certainly don’t want to blow it off, but it’s also a rough piece of writing you produce in 35 minutes, and few people are probably expecting it to be a genuine testament of your full writing ability. But I was curious what other perspectives this board might offer, especially from those who are more versed in the admissions process.

For reference, I don’t think my writing sample was bad. I took a clear position, argued it with the given perspectives and some real world examples, did a counter argument to address any rebuttals, and did so in an organized way - essentially the classic 5 paragraph essay. I just think that my piece was a bit clunky and repetitive, like very bluntly repeating my main idea at the end of each paragraph.

Thanks all.

Hey all,

Very specific question here. Basically, I’m going to be part of a local research team for a study being done by a large national non profit. I’m just wondering how I would put that in my resume.

To give more detail, I wouldn’t be listed among the primary authors, but my name would be in the appendix listed under my team. I suppose I’m curious how one cites that in a resume, or if I even should.

Thanks!

I've always been someone with interests on the strange side. I don't mean illegal, but I was definitely always the oddball. I turned some of that oddness into deep involvement in ECs during college, but now I wonder if it will be too weird for admissions? Thoughts?

Hey all,

I was thinking of writing a gpa addendum. My gpa isn’t low at all, but it is below medians for my dream schools. The thing is, I do have a concrete reason why my gpa is lower (disability). I fear it will look weird to have an addendum with my gpa, but I’ve also heard that if you have a clear reason, you should mention it. Thoughts?

Anyone else have this issue.

When I started my LSAT journey, lr was my weakpoint and RC my strong suit. I could typically go -1 or -2 on RC, while LR was typically -5 to -7. These days, I’m usually -1 to -2 on LR - maybe -3 if I have a particularly tough section, while RC is now my biggest killer, usually netting me about a -5 on actual prep tests. A lot of my mistakes are, admittedly, reading errors where I’m just not picking up the info in the passage. It almost feels like I’ve switched all my reading focus from RC to LR, lol

I feel a bit ridiculous being so anxious. One LOR was from a professor who straight up said it was an honor to write me one. The other professor I wasn't as close with, but I took a few small seminar classes with him and he's an insanely nice guy. For some reason, my brain keeps telling me he wrote a bad lor, even though the guy is super nice.

I keep replaying really minor details in my head. Like, I thanked him multiple times for writing the letter, but I didn't respond to his last email, which was really just 'okay, I'll have it in by that date, and I'll message you when I send it in.' I keep thinking he must have thought I was rude. He sent the letter in like a month later, early in the morning, and didn't message me. I wonder if that's a bad sign, but also, the dude is a long time professor who probably gets up early to do work anyway, and he probably just forgot to message me.

Logically, I think I'm taking a bunch of tiny things that really don't matter and getting stressed over them....

Hey all,

So when I was in undergrad, I was a leader in an org that, to be blunt, had a strange sounding name. The actual mission of the org was pretty commendable, and it was an official university org, but the name sounds a bit culty because the original founder had a weird sense of humor. I did a lot of work with this org that I’m proud of, but is it a bad idea to include it?