@ said:
I'd love to get in on this :) Writing it in Sept as well.
Same here - I'd like to join a weekend group. We can use the study buddy beta
Although I chose D based on the reasoning JY provides, it still seems problematic to me. First, the relationship between altitude and thinness of air appears more absolute than the relationship between age and number of rings. For instance, maybe there is a specific type of tree that has an unusually large number of rings compared to other types of trees (this seems more plausible than the analogous different types of air). If this is the case, then it is not necessarily true that the mere fact that one tree is older than another means that the first tree has more rings than the latter. In this respect, although D's wording is better than A's, it is flawed. And if it is in fact the case that there is an absolute relationship between age and number of rings, then D requires outside knowledge.
I want in please!
I'm interesting in either forming or joining (preferably the latter) a study group for people who are both trying to get as high a score as possible and located in the Orange County, CA area. My target score is 175 and I've most recently tested in the 168-172 range. I'm planning on taking the Sept and Dec tests. I've been enrolled in the ultimate course for roughly 9 months and cancelled last December's test. Let me know if you are interested!
The endangered species part of question A prevented me from choosing it; I didn't think that microorganisms counted as endangered species. If they don't (which was never specified), then A is incorrect because it would not be the case that endangered species are involved in the most important environmental problems (i.e. keeping microorganisms alive)
Hey everyone,
Earlier today I received an email from UT Austin requesting a video interview. In terms of likelihood of admission, is anyone familiar with the implications of a school offering an interview? My LSAT is slightly above their 75th percentile and GPA is right at the 50th. Apart from that I'd say avg softs. Thanks!
@ said:
The test was not fun.
I got a ticket for an expired license plate after my apps were all turned in, which is a misdemeanor
Do you know if this affected your cycle? I recently got a misdemeanor for speeding in AZ
@ said:
Nonetheless, he is wrong that your interaction was comparable to a noise complaint.
I agree; it's probably wrong to dismiss this incident as trivial. I also failed to read the part about being on disciplinary probation, so answering no to a question that asks this would be dishonest. Disclosing is probably the right move, and assuming you give an honest evaluation of your thoughts, your addendum will definitely show remorse and transparency, and law schools appreciate that. This incident won't make a meaningful impact on your admissions.
I literally saw a woman in her 70s taking the test on Saturday and thought she was an undercover proctor. I'll be 27 when I start and that seems old to me, but that feeling is obviously subjective and won't translate into lack of opportunity in the workforce after law school.
I seriously don't understand the point of disclosing this, given that the school itself has no record of the incident. I think in general it's a good idea to over disclose - particularly when the cops are involved - but c'mon, should we disclose every single instance of an RA complaining for a party being too loud or issuing a warning for a noise complaint over the weekend? It's like us saying, "Hey look at my great application, but I just really want you all to know about this thing I did that could possibly make you reconsider accepting me. Thanks!" As for a discrepancy between bar C&F and law school C&F, well there wouldn't be one because you wouldn't disclose it on either...
I really appreciate the feedback, as I'm sure most of you have greater insight into this process than myself. And I agree that the initial range I posted was wide (maybe mid Sept - early Dec vs late Jan - March would be a more appropriate comparison). I think my initial range posting was in part a reaction to a video I might have seen on here in which someone pretty knowledgeable about the process said basically anything before Thanksgiving is early, then toward the end of January you start getting into late territory. I'll be in a slightly awkward position in terms of numbers, as my roughly 3.66 GPA puts me somewhere in between the 25th percentile and median for most of the T14 after HYS and Chicago, while (based on my gut feeling and most recent PTs) my Sept score should be right around 170 (+/- 2). I get that waiting for next cycle is a common response to uncertainty over one's current cycle, but at some point you become increasingly cognizant of the potential 6 fig salary and valuable experience as a lawyer you are forfeiting annually with each delayed cycle. I'm just 2 years removed from undergrad but took a 3 year break between my junior and senior years to play poker professionally (I'll be 26 in October, not old but not young either). Like so many people in the 7sage community, I'm ambitious and plagued by this perfectionistic mentality that constantly leaves me feeling like I should be doing better, and each additional year of delaying my education is a blow to my ego. I know much of this is vanity but it's so hard to escape such thoughts...
So my original intent was to take the June and Sept retake, but I procrastinated too much to be adequately prepared for June. Having just taken the Sept test, my concern now is that, for the Dec score to make a meaningful impact, I would have to score at least 4 or so points higher. My concern is based on some data I came across previously on one of those sites (lawschoolnumbers?) that let you play around with LSAT scores and GPA ranges from thousands of former applicants, from years 2011-16ish, throughout different stages of the app cycle. Basically, you can input a particular GPA and LSAT score range along with the month the application was sent, and based on all former applicants whose ranges match those selected, it shows the percentage of those applicants who were admitted/waitlisted/rejected to the various schools they applied (you can even exclude URM). I found that, assuming equal GPA/LSAT ranges, those who applied from roughly Sept - mid/late Nov had a significant boost in their chances of admission over those who applied late Dec - March. Specifically, it appeared that one would need an increase in LSAT of at least 2 or 3 pts to make up for applying later in the cycle. So for those of us considering retesting in Dec, I'm wondering how exactly we should weigh the above info. More importantly, is anyone else familiar with this phenomenon? Would it put us in a different category, in terms of the effectiveness of our 2nd test in improving our admissions chances, if we applied in late October/early November and updated our apps with the improved LSAT scores in January, instead of submitting the application altogether in january?
@ said:
@ said:
I had a question about collecting data and then correcting the data and how that connects to some random scientist's theory. It made no sense at all but overall the section it was in was easy (I had LR LG LR LR RC). I think the LR section talking about Shakespeare learning from Latin translation of an ancient Greek play was the toughest for me...does anyone remember a question like that?
I remember the data collection/correction well. Do you remember which LR section it was in? I also had the same sections as you/same order. Struggling to figure out which of my LRs was experimental as I can't recall which questions were in which section! Is this data collection/correction real? And which LR section was it in for those who had 3 LRs?
I think it was my first section, but I don't think the orders are the same for everyone
@ said:
So my last 12 PTs were within the last 6 weeks and every one of them was 166-169. I had RC LR LG RC LR The test was hard enough for me to be questioning my performance but I'm hoping that's just a little shaken confidence and not an indicator of what's to come in 3-4 weeks!! It was my first real one (and hopefully my only one). The experimental RC was the second round of RC for me and easily the hardest part of the test. I finished both LR sections right before the 5 minute warning, went back to check answers and felt great about both sections. On the food/QG rule LG game, I started diagramming and saw that I was missing something. I skipped it, came back to it and immediately saw my mistake (didn't realize how restrictive the QG rule was). Made 4 diagrams, I think, and easily answered the questions. I worked at a slightly slower than optimal pace for the real RC. I believe this was due to the fact that it was the first section of my test so I wasn't warmed up yet. I got to the last section right before the 5 minute warning and had to make educated guesses on the last two questions. I had time to eliminate a couple answers for each question but I wasn't not happy with myself for that. 170 is my standard so trying to stay positive over here! And let the drinking begin...I woke up 2 hours before my alarm today (rarely happens) and drank a beer lol #TeamHomestead
Congrats on the LRs. I finished the first one at the 5min warning and had time to try to figure out the data collection question but I don't think 35 entire min on that question alone would have helped me. I barely finished the Latin Shakespeare section on time and felt very unconfident on several answers toward the middle/end of the section. Were you equally confident on both sections? I'm frustrated because my last 3 PTs were 174, 169 and 170 in that order, and I was BR-ing the last one Friday night. My goal was above 170 but I can easily imagine missing 10 or more questions...ugh
I had a question about collecting data and then correcting the data and how that connects to some random scientist's theory. It made no sense at all but overall the section it was in was easy (I had LR LG LR LR RC). I think the LR section talking about Shakespeare learning from Latin translation of an ancient Greek play was the toughest for me...does anyone remember a question like that?
Dude you have a 3.95 gpa and your score is barely below the median scores for accepted applicants for several T-14
With your work experience you definitely have a shot, and your lsat is above those schools' medians for accepted applicants, but I'd retake. One thing to keep in mind is that applying early in the cycle adds an advantage, as there is some slight LSAT score inflation late in the cycle (people applying with their first take early vs those applying later with additional study time for their second take)
I have the same problem with my back. After 2ish hours of studying/testing my mid back starts aching. I would suggest getting up to walk around frequently (ideally before the pain starts or gets bad). You could also try pushing your back and neck up and down against one of those foam rollers...http://blog.booyafitness.com/foam-rolling/
I'm currently at the point where my test scores range between 166-172 and I rarely miss more than two questions per reasoning section. However, my performance on the other sections is more volatile, particularly on games (-1 to -8). I studied intensively for about 1.5 months in preparation for the Dec 2016 test, which I cancelled. I then took roughly 8 months off before recently resuming studying for Sep. My improvement on games has been steady but slow and I still often run out of time on 2 or more questions. Can anyone offer some suggestions for study methods beyond the foolproof method? I drilled 20 dif games so far today but my performance started slipping by the 16th or 17th game...thanks!
Hey guys, just wanted to provide an easier way of thinking about question 14 section 1, since many of us were confused with it.
Imagine that you're watching a boxing match between two boxers. After the match, you make the following statements: "I haven't counted, so I haven't proved that boxer 1 landed more punches," and "I haven't proved that boxer 2 landed more punches." Now would it make sense for me to conclude, on the basis of these statements, that I haven't proved that either boxer 1 or boxer 2 landed more punches? Clearly, it must be the case that one of the boxers landed more punches - after all, these are the only possibilities! So i do know that the statement "either boxer 1 landed more punches or boxer 2 landed more punches" is true, even though I can't speak to the truth of either statement individually.
Someone in the group (Nas?) voiced concern regarding the fact that other potential causes weren't addressed which could possibly render the statement: "the investigators have not proved that the blaze was caused by campers or lightning" true. After all, if they come to find out later that the blaze was caused by a meteorite, then that statement would be true. But the point is that the statement cannot be validly derived solely from the truth of the two statements: "they haven't proved that the blaze was caused by campers" and "they haven't proved that the blaze was caused by lightning" due to the possibility that these are the only two possible causes. In order to render the statement true, we have to make the additional assumption that there is a third possible cause.