Thats fantastic advice. Thanks a lot!!
The topic is roughly: how I've spent half of my life in the US and half in Asia. I had different "personas" in each place, and I made some choices that I regret that were made based off of those personas. The essay ends with me talking about how I can now be me regardless of context.
I've written a couple rough drafts, and I'm fairly pleased with the essay.
I'm not completely sure if it addresses diversity though.
What does you guys think?
Thanks in advance
Thanks so much everybody for your input!
One of the reasons why I really want to go for a T3 is because I plan on returning to my home country later on. The lawyers at some of the bigger firms have told me that name value is everything if I want to enter a domestic law firm with a foreign law degree.
I never knew that reapplying didn't hurt an applicant's chances!
Application fees are less of a concern for me.
Hi guys, for personal reasons, I wasn't completely sure whether I wanted to go to law school and ended up taking the LSAT late in the cycle (I got a 174, I'm an international student,so my superior - evaluated GPA doesn't really count for much is what I've heard).
I think the earliest I'll be able to get in my applications is by mid-January. It shouldn't be any later than that, but you never know with life haha.
I really want to go to a T3 school;Should I just wait until the next cycle?
Part of me just wants to apply this cycle because I don't feel that I can score higher on the LSAT nor do I think my essays are going to become substantially better than they are now. At the same time, I'm worried that if I apply this late in the cycle, I'll be rejected with no real way to submit a stronger application the next cycle.
Thanks in advance!
Hi guys, I'm an international student from a foreign undergrad that took the Dec Lsat.
Basic information about myself
LSAT: 174 (First try)
GPA: It's 3.9 on a 4.0 scale, but I think foreign undergrads are classified as Superior (with this level of GPA)
Softs: Some moot court competition wins, about a year of intern experience at a domestic law firm
LOR: 2 from professors, 1 from the lawyer I worked under (All strong)
I have two main questions!
I understand that Yale and Stanford don't admit too many foreign undergrads and that out of HYS, I have the best chances with Harvard. I think the earliest I'll get my applications in is by mid-January. Would that be too late in the cycle? I might be able to intern at another law firm starting from late January. Should I maybe just wait for the next cycle?
If I applied and was accepted to Columbia but rejected by Harvard, could I defer the Columbia offer and apply to Harvard the next cycle? This is pretty common in my country, but I get the feeling it wouldn't be acceptable in the States.
Some people might wonder why I seem obsessed with Harvard, but it's because I plan to return to my country later on. All the domestic lawyers I've met tell me that name-value is everything if I want to enter a big firm here D:
Thanks!
Thanks guys! I now realise that the content appearing after 'that' makes things clear.
Hi everyone, as a person who doesn't speak English as a mother tongue, I would like to ask one very basic question of how to interpret certain sentence(I think it is a grammar question..)
"The colonials and the English had differing interpretations of the language and institutional structures that they shared"
In this case, it seems to me that it could be interpreted in two different ways
Is the only solution to look at the context to understand in right manner? or is there a rule to understand this kind of sentence structure?
Thanks in advance!
I fell like the answer choice (b) should phrased "Green and brown cottons that can be spun only by hand WERE not commercially viable" ... It is certainly true that it wasn't commercially feasible , but maybe in nowdays where the socioeconomic envrionment has changed, it is indeed feasible..
For answer choice (C), it says "even though he does not BELIEVE... that it contradicts". Does it matter what he believes? Shouldn't we be given the 'fact' of whether it contradicts or not? I know it is going to be wrong anyway, but just wanted to make it clear.
It is indeed interesting that in answer choice (d), we cannot know what Sanderson will be saying when he is 'lying'. In order to evaluate this statement, we would have to know what he actually believed in the first place(which is relevant to AC (c)). So in fact, choosing (D), was kind of dumb..
Do 'tracks' count as a fossil? I guess this is common sense but was confusing to me
I'm sometimes thrown off by these type of questions.. because in some instances many answer choices are wrong because it independently supports the conclusion without relating to the given premise. But some questions including this, seems to have an independent support as a correct answer choice. We are given a premise, a halo like swath, and the answer choice just doesn't relate this given premise to be more relevant to the conclusion. Well we may assume that this (d) theory explains the halo swath, but it is our assumption, and is not mentioned. Any suggestions..?
For answer choice (d), would it be still correct if the 'rule out' part was substituted with 'consider' or 'take into account'?
But if we negated answer choice (d): If A, then B becomes A and not B. Which means there is a world where it is A and still not B. This doesn't means that If A, then not B. So if this is the case, why would it wreck the argument? Negate (d) : There is a case where there is a behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures, and that behaviour does not have probable chance of being genetically disposed... But what if our study does not belong to this case(of A and not B)? It totally doesn't matter.. does it?
I looked at (b) and thought, 'why not rent again?'. But since it takes up significant portion of the purchasing price, it won't be so appealing for customers to rent it again instead of buying it
For those who are stuck with answer choice (B), just read the question stem again. It is asking 'how lightning could have produced the first amino acids on Earth?'
So no matter whether single amino acids are sufficient or not, it does not answer the question. Because this answer choice is already assuming that first amino acids have been produced on Earth
Thanks for the reply. But still, I was confused because of the later part of the sentence. I do agree that in most cases 'should' represents a prescriptive sentence.. but is it always the case? For example,
You should take LSAT in order to get in to law school.
In this sense, it is used to represent necessity, isn't it? So like this, I interpreted the sentence as indicating a necessity, thus being descriptive.
Would answer choice (a) strengthen if it was the other way around? Most bacteria that are not resistant to heavy-metal poisoning are not resistant to antibiotics either.
I'm surprised that no one is talking about the use of 'should' in answer choice (E). I interpreted the 'should' as indicating sth necessary. So I thought it was... To make it possible for important medicines... blah, forests should be preserved. (important medicine to be developed .. -> preserve forest)..Is this my English problem?
For question 20, answer choices like (B).. aren't they sometimes wrong in other questions? For example, I remember seeing one answer choice from LR that looks like this(suggesting that something was verified) but it was wrong because we are not sure if this result of verification favours existing theory or just overturns it. Could you elaborate?
But does answer choice (C) has to be necessary? Can't it be the case that traditional self group is not powerful but still Hatha yoga is successful? (So even if you negate answer choice (c), it doesnt completely wreck the argument. Does it?
I guess the difference between the mechanism and theory is in the nature of the two words. Theory is the word that itself includes the notion of 'arguing', and there is a room for contention. Mechanism refers to something that is just explains... . You could say 'Theory of human's brain mechanism'.. in which the theory tries to argue that a certain mechanism is explainable in certain way.
I'll briefly close my eyes and meditate for a minute or two, but I tried not to get into the habit of "warming up."
I think doing so makes you feel as if you can't perform unless you've gone through the warm up routine you've set for yourself