@

said:

This has probably been asked a million times, but I'd appreciate if anyone can share their stats with me so I have an idea. Thanks so much.

PM'd

@ any advise on how best to coordinate the meet ups and/or suggestions on locations? Thanks!

My study buddy lived a few blocks away and we used to BR at her apartment. We used to BR two PTs a week and towards the end we did 3 PTs. We usually just went over circled questions, but towards the end we went over every single question. It really depends on your level though. We we both PTing in the 170s, so we didn't feel the need to go over every single question on most exams. Hope this helps!

@

said:

I'am depressed and anxious... Does anybody know anyone who was accepted to T-14 as an older (again, 53+ years old) applicant? If one had all the right numbers (LSAT and GPA at or above 50% of those accepted), do you think age would preclude them from being accepted? Does anyone know?!!

While you are unlikely to encounter discrimination in the admissions process, your age will preclude you from certain jobs. If you want to go to law school for the academic pursuit or to aid you in your current business, that's great, but Biglaw is likely out of the question. Just study hard and ace the LSAT, and you should be good to go. Best of luck!

I hope as many 7sagers as possible take advantage of Corey's tutoring sessions. After being on 50+ Skype BR calls with Corey, I can testify to his skills and advanced understanding of the LSAT. His techniques have helped me so much, that I even turned his name into a verb haha. When speaking about the December LSAT, an exam on which I scored a 170, I told another 7sager that "I encountered a tough RRE question, but I'm confident I 'Corey'd' it." If you want to learn how to view LR questions through a completely different lens, look no further, Corey is your man.

"Two thumbs up" (like Ebert and Roeper)

Congratulations! You're going to love it there!

This is a great idea, guys. I formed a NYC study group with 7sage members as well. It's great to build a support network and blind review in person.

@ WOOOOOOOOOAH CONGRATS BUDDY. You earned it!

Thanks!

Penn

I think consultants are valuable and can help you craft a great personal statement and prepare for interviews, but I don't think hiring someone to help you negotiate scholarships and get off waitlists is worth the cost. There is a lot of valuable information on TLS about scholarship negotiations and waitlist acceptances. You should look there. Typically admitted students send law schools peer schools' scholarship offers and ask them to match or exceed the other offers. In regards to getting off waitlists, sending a LOCI, visiting a school and introducing yourself to the admissions office and having a non-evaluative meeting with them are the only things you can do.

The amount of hours work is going to depend on the firm and market in which you practice. Biglaw in general is going to have long hours because firms make money off of billing their associates out to clients. As you can see from this TLS thread, the poster is a senior associate at one of the top 3 corporate firms in NYC, so his experience might be different than people working for less prominent firms. The best firms have a reputation for requiring really long hours, but they give their associates the opportunity to work on the biggest deals that appear on the front page of the WSJ. Most people do not make partner at top Biglaw firms or any Biglaw firms for that matter, and many lateral to firms that enable associates to have a better work-life balance. However, while some firms require less hours and don't have Facetime requirements, it is safe to say that Biglaw firms typically do not provide as good of a work-life balance as in-house or certain government positions.

NYC firms are also known to be more demanding than other legal markets. For example, some secondary markets have lower billable requirements than NYC (e.g. 1850 instead of 2000) and provide associates with a better work-life balance.

Long hours are typical for many high-paying jobs. The reason firms pay you so much is because firms bill associates out for hundreds of dollars an hour. The reason Biglaw attorneys have high salaries is because they are in "front office" positions, meaning they generate revenue and add value to the firm. Have you ever wondered why in-house attorneys tend to take a huge pay cut when they go in-house? It's because they do not bring in revenue to companies. Once attorneys transition from Biglaw to an in-house career, they are no longer in a "front office" position. The people who bring in revenue to firms are the ones who make the most (aside from top management). That's why investment banks pay investment bankers, sales and trading, and other lucrative divisions the highest salaries (aside from top management).

There are trade-offs in life. Would you prefer earning a lower salary to have a better work-life balance, or do you think the higher salaries in Biglaw are worth it for the resources that they afford you and your family? That is the question you have to ask yourself. For some, the trade-offs are worth it, and for others they are not. What other job pays 25 year olds without any work experience 180k with a bonus? I personally don't know of many.

Another thing to keep in mind: many people only work in Biglaw for a few years to get experience and transition to DOJ/USAO/in-house careers. In fact, many legal jobs in the public and private sectors require Biglaw experience. Before you write off Biglaw because of the stories you've heard about it, keep in mind that you can leave after a few years and transition to a career that you find more fulfilling.

.

@.gill.sanford

I don't know what the climate will be in a few years, and that's the issue. It is difficult to predict, which is why there's a major risk involved with postponing. To respond to you other statement, there's a question on each application about whether an applicant previously applied and what the decision was. If I was an Adcomm, I would view someone reapplying who was previously accepted with a scholarship as someone who wanted to get into a better school and thinks of my school as a backup (regardless of an addendum explaining the desire to get a couple of years of work experience first). That's just my $.02.

@.gill.sanford I'm also a big fan of waiting between undergrad and law school. I've been out of college for six years, and I'm a different person now than I was at age 22. I'm convinced I will be a better lawyer for it, and I am confident about my decision to go back to school. This is a huge commitment and puts me on a certain trajectory for the rest of my life, and I could not be more pleased with the decision to do something else for a while before I really considered law school.

I completely agree that taking time off between undergrad and law school can be very beneficial. I'm going straight through, but many people prefer getting work experience first. With that being said, I feel compelled to inform you of the risks of postponing law school. Unless a school grants a deferral request, you might not be reaccepted at all of the schools, and even if you are reaccepted, who's to say that you'll receive the same generous scholarship offers? Schools give a lot of merit aid because it is currently a buyer's market. If that changes within the next couple of years, your chances of getting $$$ from T14s decreases substantially. You're ultimately going to have to weigh the pros and cons and determine what is the best course of action for you to take, but please weigh all of the variables.

@ the LSAT reuses a stimulus or a variation of the same subject matter for different questions types.

There are several recurring themes and topics on the LSAT, including QWERTY keyboards, dinosaurs and asteroids, joggers/runners, agriculture and irrigation, nutrition and dieting,voting/elections, etc.

@ Left-handed pencils

180

@ Not to hijack this thread, but I was also admitted to Harvard earlier this week. I want to thank 7sage (and gs556 for interview tips!) for the wonderful LSAT prep program. I could not have improved my LSAT enough without the excellent curriculum offered here. Thank you!!

Congrats!

@.ames

said:

I'm not necessarily referring to the kind of top-of-mind awareness to where you could recall the answer to a question after the stimulus, but just having a vague recelalection of the theme.

I'm of the opinion that if you don't remember the answer, then it is indicative of your logical reasoning skills. There were plenty of times when I not only remembered the theme, but I also remembered which two answer choices it was down to, and I still got the answer wrong. The key to solving a LR question is to understand the reasoning, so if you do not remember the answer or the reasoning, then you should count it as if you've never seen it before.

@

@

said:

Many of the CEOs and CFOs and other people in top positions at firms that I have talked to got to where they are independent of having a JD.

And many of them got JD's 10-15 years ago or long.

It's not a good idea to look at people like Lloyd Blankfein or David Rubinstein and conclude that getting a JD will put you in a similar position. Remember, they are the exception, not the rule. That's like pointing to a high school dropout who runs several successful businesses and concluding that dropping out of high school is potentially a good idea. Just my two cents, fwiw.

I think super splitters are viewed the same, but someone with a 3.5 from Williams or Princeton is likely to be viewed more favorably than a 3.5 from a state school

@ Wow!! just curious how the Indian compared to US releases.

The Indian PTs can be found on the following link: https://www.cambridgelsat.com/resources/free-downloads/logic-games-practice/

@ I think NU is less uptight, in a cooler part of Chicago, has fewer gunners, better social scene, and similar outcomes for biglaw (just under 50%).

While it may appear that NU has similar placement to Chicago, the numbers don't tell us the whole story. Chicago students have a better shot at the best firms and academia, and the school is better regarded than NU. The part about the bad social scene and school culture is a potential reason to not attend Chicago, but there is more to the numbers than what meets the eye.

If you want a the odds to be in your favor in terms of Biglaw hiring, then yes, Chicago would be worth the cost.

@.gill.sanford Take the test when you're actually ready and you are PTing in the range you hope to score in.

This. No one can tell you which exam you should take. Your job is to study hard--learn the fundamentals, drill, drill, and drill some more, and take every single PT you can get your hands on and blind review thoroughly. Everyone learns at a different pace and everyone starts at a different level. I studied for a year in total, and I do not regret carving out that much time out of my life because it was worth it. My diagnostic in December 2014 was a 147, and fast forward a year and a 23 point increase, I am headed to an amazing law school next year. I'm confident I would not be where I am today if I did not take every single exam ever released (1-75, A, B, C, Superprep 2, and the 3 Indian exams) and blind review them thoroughly. I also suggest that you join a study group, either online or in person. I joined the online Skype BR calls and I formed an in person study group with other 7sagers. It not only gives you different ways to approach questions, but it is beneficial to develop a network of people going through the same thing. Do yourself a favor and do not take the exam until you are completely ready. You will know when it is time.

Job well done :)

Go for it! I got a 170 this time around. Your turn! Brag Away!