@515 said:

Could anyone that did not have experimental LR please comment on the following:

-city hall/ugly architecure

-Astronomers believe the universe is expanding

-pessimistic employees harm or aid success

-books are better than movies

-seasonal affect disorder

-pesticides/ bird/fish population

These counted. ZERO Recollection of ones I deleted.

This thread has made my day. I cannot thank you all enough. best advice (listed) was from allie.v

Their website still says it's valid for any 2016-17 test. Reimburse your CAS and application. Seems like a no brainer.

My expiremental was reading and it was obvious. Ridiculously easy. Neither LR had more than 25. I Thought games and reading were on the easier than usual side.

Kuna Natives real. Chocolate dessert real. Highway congestion real. Babblers real

I still believe:

1 original poster would have won a case had she sought a remedy outside of the Court of Public Opinion, 7Sage Disciple Division;

2 7Sage could have and should have addressed this issue better. posting a warning was not nearly enough to absolve them here.

@jgoodwin765 i'll repeat this for you because it seems to me you do not "get it" Possibly because you may not have been a member at the time relevant to this discussion or just didn't read the posts clearly. When Original Thread started in April 2015, the materials were INCLUDED. LSAC got their money, 7sage theirs.

things completely irrelevant to the issue:

7Sage is wonderful, great, etc. only doing this for the good of the general public (I believe the first 2...still not relevant)

7Sage posted a warning

Nobody Can use pdfs (ANYMORE)

the materials can be purchased elsewhere (at the time this was relevant because she could have purchased them and sought compensation, standard Contract remedy)

whether or not JY Ping is a Saint or not.

7Sage could charge more.

I do not know why I felt I had to post here. I read this thread the other day and it has bothered me ever since. I realize it's a year old. But Barretmelissa82 is correct (at the time. If you renewed, extended or joined after then maybe your answers although a bit rude, would be defendable.

Furthermore, it's disappointing 7Sage let you do their bidding. My guess is because they know she was correct and hoped it would pass with as little damage to their bottom line as possible.

7Sage offered the preptests and questions when she, I and many others accepted the offer. Deal done. It is not remotely relevant that 1) you could download or 2) nobody can offer these in PDFs anymore or 3) the value is in the lessons. I do not remember seeing a disclaimer saying you are entitled to these 'as long as the LSAC licenses them. Or you are getting merely the lessons, and anything else is a bonus while it lasts. Now, I am not a lawyer nor am a Law Student. But this is an obvious breach of contract. Black. Letter. Law. Sure, it is 7sages right to breach a contract. In this case, it was in their best interest. However, that does not make a bit of difference. That is not relevant to Melissa and the others who were entitled to some sort of remedy besides a smug 'sorry, you should have downloaded them'. Or I don't agree 'you are an idiot....for even suggesting such a thing' paraphrased that last one. But that was the message received.

'But they had to change' and I say to that So What?

Perhaps they hoped people would just accept your (wrong) statements and not address the issue, publicly anyway. I am sure privately some people, who stood up for themselves did get compensation out of view of the general forums.

At this point in time sure I am sure they could you accepted the modification....now. But at the time the question was asked, answered. And by members of the 7sage community who at least appear to be agents of 7sage.

That is all. Rubbed me the wrong way. Still does actually. I am sure most people bought one of those response or a variation. But they shouldn't have had to. I hope she was compensated. Some replies were more condescending then others but none of them were valid.

All depends on where you want to go really. And although I agree with most of what ddakjiking is saying, if you score high enough and are not applying to the TOP schools....they can and will find scholarship money for you.

That's the goal

Ideally

I'll take the $500

Be on the lookout for posts from emli1001

I cannot believe a comment from some stranger has me this riled. It's like people bitching that the handicap 'get all the good parking spots'. The only thing that would make me madder than a healthy person parking in a handicap spot would be having no handicap spots for them to wrongfully use. Ironically enough the worst abusers of this rule seems to be near court houses and City Halls.

LSAC fought like hell to give those scores an *. They were the lone hold out for years.

Personally, I think they do a great job in weeding out the the fakers. Possibly to the detriment of somebody who deserves extra time.

It's a tough hurdle to clear...as it should be. But there are cases where it is the obvious right thing to do. Let me ask you this: would you rather have a 167 with a strong mind and body or higher but be disabled?

That's and easy question answer in my opinion. I do not see a need for JY to diagram an explanation. You want higher than a 167 then go earn it. And be thankful they do not deduct for misusing their/there/they're.

My 2 cents. Although I believe your (see how bad that looks) busy talking to real lawyers.

Yes, you'll get to see first hand how many lawyers hate their jobs and regret going to law school. I'm willing to bet it is far more than half.

Why am I here you ask? I'm in denial just like most others here.