They are already in the process of doing so.

You can keep track here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oxg1daKToiMystD7rGrbpnHNO-JXdc2ugQMrR0YR7aQ/edit#gid=0

Averaging low 170s, BR average is mid 170s. Max score is 178 and max BR is 179. Mark me as interested!

Is English your native language? It could be sentence structures throwing you off perhaps. How are you on RC typically?

There is a Study Buddy feature under the "discussion" tab, have you tried that yet?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/buddies/

I love how this eight year old chat got revived lol

If you are at their 50th LSAT percentile, I would hardly call it a safety, especially not in this cycle. Also, YP would explain the WL, but not the subsequent rejection. I apologize if this sounds mean, but this post comes off as very entitled. Is there any chance you took that tone when communicating with their adcom?

I agree with the overall sentiment of this thread, but I think a key detail has been omitted. Yes, you don’t need to go to a T14 to be a successful attorney. Besides, as many have mentioned, “success” is very subjective, and for the layman, law degrees in general are seen as prestigious.

However, if you plan on going to a school outside of the T14, debt precipitously becomes a greater issue the further down the rankings you climb. If you do not mind a starting salary of $65K (which should be the expected outcome for a more average law school given the bimodal distribution), that’s perfectly fine. Just keep in mind that going $200K into debt for that outcome may be crippling.

T14 grads may face the same fate if they pay sticker and are below median in their class, but I am just speaking in terms of the aggregate student. That said, if you can get a substantial scholarship or have the means to pay upfront for your education, I would just go to the school that employs well in the sector of your greatest interest.

I think you made the poll incorrectly, there is no option to vote for yes.

Thus, I will just say it here: disclose.

That wasn’t legislation, it was a court ruling.

Fun fact: Justice Scalia was a big proponent of this theory.

Omg only half of all 7sagers with a 178 got this question right. That has to be the most brutal curve I’ve seen for any question, and for good reason too.

ok boomer

Also, I thought that most statements can’t be controposed.#help

Wait if we had a most statement, why didn’t we diagram it as a most relationship? #help

Water can cause intoxication LOL

It’s nice when the LSAT writers have a sense of humor

The logic games aren’t getting replaced with anything. With the new flex format, one of the LR sections and the experimental are getting removed, but the other sections are otherwise left intact. Who told you that the LSAC is removing LG?

Holy moly this is question 7? I’m usually pretty good with convoluted conditional chains but this is more unwieldy than most of the logic I’ve seen on the five star questions they put at the end.

#help I know it was discussed below, but I still can’t find myself understanding why it matters that other gene changes can cause the lack of UV if we’re only changing one variable in our experiment. Sure, other changes can lead to a lack of UV vision too, but how does that prevent our scientists from making their conclusion if they only altered one gene?

Pting in the same range, interested!

Personally I choose 10 random logic games daily! It allows me to see the same games multiple times, but I’ve found that the longer intervals between them help me reinforce the underlying inferences. Fool proofing definitely works, but with this twist I can ensure that I’m not simply remembering the answers.

What’s the difference between the main idea and primary purpose? I’m not having any difficulty with understanding the actual passages, but I feel like I don’t know what the common question types on RC are asking for. #help

That’s exactly the same mistake I made! I was looking for a stronger answer choice because it was a PSA question, but in the process completely overlooked what the argument’s conclusion was (i.e. still allowing for the possibility of freedom of speech, which D ignores).

Even if most jobs require an expert knowledge (assuming that we negate choice C), can’t it still be true that verbal/quant skills are more important in the future job market? For instance, maybe 51% of jobs require an expert knowledge of machines, but 90% of jobs require a proficiency in reading and math? #help

Get a NYT or WSJ subscription, if you’re a student they have great deals (but even if you’re not, the introductory offers for those papers are very accessible).

What’s your current score? There’s a big difference between improving 13 points from a 140 and a 165.