[deleted email in case of spambots]

From the webinar, I also got the impression that it'll be more competitive. I remember Julie (Indiana) saying that she's expecting a smaller incoming size for this year. She said she pulled 2 out from their waitlist, but she also said that she's not expecting to do that often. I'm guessing they would rather accept a smaller incoming size than pull people off from their waitlist (probably due to ranking).

I also remember Dean Guzman saying that he probably will going to be hesitant in granting mass deferrals, but it was also him who said that people considering to defer should just enroll this year since he's expecting more applications and a strong pool for next year plus a smaller portion of scholarships. He might have said that just so that he could attract more people for this year (but hey it's USC and LA is beautiful). It seemed like the GWU dean agreed with him in seeing a larger and stronger pool for the next cycle.

Even if people are not granted official deferrals, I can still see people not going. They've already missed a couple of events and opportunities to grow network with people in their schools before enrolling. If classes go online, networking stays difficult during that important year. Schools might make classes Pass/Fail like many did this semester. Things might look different when landing on internships in the summer (to firms that look at 1L grades) or to people who were looking into that one-time golden opportunity to transfer to a higher-ranked school which happens after 1L. School ranking might have gotten even more important now (for landing on summer internships, transferring schools, or getting a job after law school during a recession). People accepted to T-14 schools (or T-20 even) might have fewer incentives to defer, but those outside might have more incentives to defer. If those same people re-apply to the same schools, it is more likely that they will be accepted again than they will not, with their same stats plus some more work/volunteer experience. How to explain gaps in your resume? - how about private tutoring or helping out a family member during COVID-19.

But these are all speculations, and who knows what'll actually happen.

Wowwww this is great! Thank you!!!

Hey! I'm also taking Jan LSAT. I'm interested as well!

Same! Thinking of October too

Thanks all for sharing!!

Thanks all for helping!!

Amazing job! Congrats!!!

Wow this is awesome!! Well deserved! You worked hard for it. Congrats!!

Yeah I feel you. I've considered this myself. But there were too many uncertainties and factors to consider right now that made it very difficult for me to make a decision. So I personally kept it very simple and thought of two independently sufficient conditions that would make me not want to take the Flex:

If my current average PT scores are not where I want them to be --> Don't take the Flex

If my current LR is significantly stronger than my RC or LG --> Don't take the Flex

Obviously, my situation is different from yours. But I personally would go with July/August, if you're hesitant of June/July due to uncertainties regarding the first administration of the Flex. I also think taking 3 LSATs in a row might not be the best idea.

If you still aren't sure what to do, you can just sign up for the June and withdraw later if you need to. It'll be like buying insurance -- it'll cost you money (registering fees) but it'll give you more options and a peace of mind. You can decide if it'll be worth it.

interested!

[deleted email in case of spambots]

scoring 169-175

I'm down. I live in the same Time Zone!

Wowww thank you! I really look forward to this!!

I'm also interested! Thanks to the generous 7sager.

@ Hmm, I see your point. In a linear relationship, for example, y = x, each variable needs to correspond to a change in the other variable in order to satisfy the equation (i.e. the relationship). And what's more, you only need to know how one variable behaves to figure out how the other variable will behave. If x is the # of apples and y is the # of oranges, and we know we have 10 apples, we expect our oranges to be 10. And vice versa. In cases like this, you'll have zillions of bi-conditionals (i.e. any point that lies on the line).

So I think the issue here is if "the more X, the more Y" will constitute a linear relationship (and maybe we might need some context clues in the stimulus that would give some guidelines). Same goes with "As X increases, Y increases." If it does constitute a linear relationship, I think it's fair to say that they have a bi-conditional relationship (as to @ 's post). If not, then not necessarily (as to @ 's post).

@ Thanks for the thorough explanation! That makes a lot of sense. So you wouldn't say that "the more X, the less Y" is logically equivalent to "the less Y, the more X," correct?

I guess I was confusing it with a different layout of correlation like below, which I think are logically equivalent. (Can you confirm that they are?)

"The more hate you have, the less friend you have."

"The more love you have, the more friend you have."

Thanks!

Edit: Maybe "logically equivalent" is too strong. How about "inferable"?

@ Thanks!

@ uh.. technically, yeah I guess you could do that. But I think that just defeats the purpose of diagramming. Diagramming can help you see different ideas more clearly and link/chain them together to draw valid inferences.

If you have an inference question that asks for a valid inference, given:

"A prime example of a civil rights activist is MLK"

"All civil rights activists make a change"

Diagramming can help you chain ideas together and draw valid inferences.

MLK → civil rights activist → make a change.

Valid inference: MLK make a change (MLK → make a change)

But if you had:

"Prime example of a civil rights activist → MLK"

"civil rights activist → make a change"

It's really hard to see and chain the same ideas together to draw inferences; what's the point of diagramming in the first place?

Not just for diagramming, I think that the need to group certain English words into Groups 1-4, or the very existence of "conditional indicators" and such, is so that we can identity the logical relationship between different ideas better, see whether we can link similar ideas together, draw inferences, etc.

If they don't help me see the logical relationship better, I'm not sure if I see the point of this concept.

@ Thanks!

@ Hi Mike! I'm so sad that I could not attend. Is there a link where we can see the recording? Thanks.

Hmm I'm not sure if schools would consider aversion toward online classes one of those "special occasions" for which deferrals are granted. Almost everyone's being impacted by this pandemic. I kind of feel like they want to see how their students overcome this and to be flexible during the stressful times.

But I guess we don't know what's going to happen. I myself do not want to take online classes when I'm paying the same amount of tuition. If the pandemic gets even worse, and more and more people decide not to attend (even if deferrals are not granted), I guess schools might open more spots from their waitlist. If those admitted students apply again in the next cycle (+ people who were going to apply anyway), there will be more applications in the next cycle and yes, it'll be more competitive. But the number of those admitted students not attending would need to be pretty significant, I think.

@ @ Thank you for your recommendations! I'll be sure to check those out!

My friend whose test also had been disconnected told me that he actually lost time on the clock, and his proctor did not (or could not) add back in the time.

Well, for one thing, he couldn't convince the proctor that he had ~10 minutes left remaining on the clock before getting disconnected (which continued ticking and showed ~5 minutes after getting back on). There was no way for him to prove to anyone that his clock was showing ~10 minutes before the disconnect and that time was ticking during the disconnect, I guess.

Interested!

[deleted email in case of spambots]

Thanks!