Definitely - diversity statement doesn't need to be tied to race at all.

You do not need to let them know that you are thinking of going to law school. Most employers expect you to be promoted or move on from the company in about two years anyways so don't think of it as hiding a huge secret.

I advise against telling your employer about your law school plans. You are giving them a reason to not hire you; I recommend going for the job with full gusto and as you do well, you can ask the people you have impressed and those you trust for letters of recommendation. Do not come in with the expectation that you will do well and have letters ready to go because you told them you were going to law school.

Telling them you want to go to law school may also hinder your professional development; they may not consider you for promotions because you've already told them you're leaving. They may not invest in you as much because you're leaving.

There are no pros to telling them; only negatives.

If they explicitly ask you if you're considering graduate school, it is fair to say you are thinking about it but in a few years after you've gotten great work experience. Say your work experience may even change your plans. This is all true!

Good luck on your job search!

I have heard Chicago biglaw is intense as well. So interesting to hear about your Minneapolis experience! Makes me want to consider smaller markets such as these. :)

"All genetic material is contributed by every female gamete."

I would say this is a biconditional.

if it is genetic material, then it was contributed by female gamete

if it is female gamete, then it contributed genetic material

Therefore biconditional!

genetic material (---) female gamete

"Genetic material is contributed by every female gamete."

This applies to your second sentence also.

I agree with the 4 hours a day. Remember these are 4 hours of focused study - not 4 hours total while you study and check in on social media every few minutes kind of study.

If you are 143, You are definitely at the stage where you need to understand the fundamentals of logic and not at the stage where you take practice test after practice test.

I agree with your tutor. :)

Hello! You have truly an amazing background and it does not matter one iota that you have no experience in the law. It looks like you have customer service and business experience - I think these are even more important skills to have developed compared to being a paralegal. I say this having been a paralegal and as someone who's headed to a top 10 law school. In fact, I believe it so much that I'm doing a business development internship this summer to develop those skills myself. I believe my opinion is consistent with admissions officers - you can confirm this by doing research online/emailing them. :)

I recommend you put your limited time towards studying for the LSAT and getting as high a score as possible. This will help you get into the best possible school/get the highest amount of scholarship that you can.

For your own personal goals, you can certainly do informational interviews with attorneys to figure out if you want to go into the legal sector and make sure this is the path you want to go down.

THIS IS AMAZING!! Your strategy shows incredible resilience, thoughtful preparation, and is inspiring. :)

I'm 100% checking out The Mindful Athlete!

Purchased! So thankful this content is coming out while I'm about to go to law school in the fall. :)

For strategy on weaken/strengthen, I recommend trying to identify what kind of cookie cutter argument this (e.g. phenomenon/hypothesis, causal, argument by analogy) is, if any, and then using the strategy from Nicole Hopkin's webinar to weaken or strengthen that kind of argument.

One note is that Parallel Method of Reasoning and Parallel Flaw questions both use a lot of conditional logic. I recommend answering these in the first round if the structure is very obvious. If the structure is not obvious or you need to diagram, I recommend waiting till the next round to diagram. These questions tend to be long and with the additional time to diagram, the time can add up here.

Hi Juliet! I am also interested. Thank you to the person who donated!

Hi! I'm in the middle of scholarship negotiations and while most schools declined to negotiate, one literally doubled my scholarship. This is why I urge you to definitely ASK NYU!!!!

You will not get money if you don't ask. Consider saying you are worried about matriculating without aid. You don't have another school's offer to leverage since you applied ED but you can always say you may not attend NYU this cycle at all. Given this economic climate, I think that is very fair.

Lastly, congrats on NYU!! :) That is an amazing achievement!

I don't think anyone knows but I listened to this podcast about it: https://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/will-universities-colleges-and-law-school-campuses-be-open-in-fall-2020/

Hi JY, how do we sign up for the property course?

Update: I've been going through this course and genuinely enjoying it. How complete is this? How far in the development of this project are you guys? Just curious. :)

Hi! I am a super splitter! LSAC GPA 2.9 and LSAT of 169. I'm in at Michigan along with a few T20 schools. I'm also on many waitlists at other T14s. Happy to share more details via private message. :)

My advice other than study hard for LSAT is apply EARLY (October!!) and be really vulnerable with your personal statement.

This is amazing!! THANK YOU!

From A, we can infer that heat loss is greater for C than T. What could this mean? The residents of C actually feel colder due to that heat loss compared to the residents of T thus causing them to spend more on utilities.

Note that there is a difference here between temperature and wind chill. I think this is what makes A so tricky. Even though T has lower temps, when you take the wind chill into account, C might be colder.

I think your doubts about A being correct are spot on. But it comes down to the flaw of knowledge.

Let's do a parallel argument. Alex says she can only to go the store after 5 pm. The store closes at 4 pm. So Alex cannot go to the store.

What if Alex didn't know the store closed at 4 pm? If Alex did know that, her plans might have changed.

That's the core issue at play here: the knowledge part.

You probably found the lesson but here's a denying a conditional statement lesson in a nutshell.

Conditional statement: If A then B

How do we get rid of this rule?

What if you have A but you don't have B!

So to negate a conditional statement, we have some A, not B.

Let's think about C. We are saying that comedies should get their humor from stylized portrayals. Is this what Quirks does? We don't know if the humor comes from the stylized portrayals!

Compare this to D. Now we are saying that films succeed if they succeed within their genre. Quirks is funny and a comedy. We can certainly say it succeeds within its genre. Therefore it is reasonable to say that the criticism of it not being realistic enough is misguided. We don't need the comedy to be realistic, we need it to be funny!

I had originally picked B. Upon closer look, what is the effect of B on the argument? I just realized that B talks of the shows that W&W produced and we only know about the new shows that W&W produced! We can tell nothing from B.

Compare this to D. Every single police drama that they produced last year was canceled. This strengthens the arguement the most.

There is no support for retributivist theory and rehab theory being logical opposites. You are making the flaw of false dichotomy.

The only acceptable animals are cats and dogs. Does that mean that cats and dogs are the logical opposites of each other? No.

Perhaps it would help you to see the conditional statements in this stimulus diagrammed:

acceptable theories of crim. sentencing → retributivist and rehab

retributivisit theory acceptable→conforms to principle that harshness of a punishment should be prop to seriousness of the offense

retributivist theories that hold criminals should receive longer sentences of repeat offenses than for an initial offense →/[conform to principle that harshness of a punishment should be prop to seriousness of the offense]

THEREFORE

retributivist theories that hold criminals should receive longer sentences of repeat offenses than for an initial offense →/[conform to principle that harshness of a punishment should be prop to seriousness of the offense]→ /[retributivisit theory acceptable]

Now we have to do some logical thinking: Is there a world in which this theory that criminals should receive longer sentences of repeat offenses than for an initial offense is acceptable? From the conditional chain above, we know that the theory isn't an acceptable retributivist theory. Well what if it is a rehabilitationist theory?

This would work. The theory of criminal sentencing is that "criminals should receive longer sentences of repeat offenses than for an initial offense" Let's substitute this into the first conditional using what we have learned:

acceptable theories of crim. sentencing that "criminals should receive longer sentences of repeat offenses than for an initial offense" → retributivist and rehab

This is what E says.

That is a great point about why C is wrong. C is also wrong because it explains why the lifters don’t have lower back pain but doesn’t have any effect on the sitters.

I didn’t like E because it says consistent physical exercise and not the labor of the lifters. However in this case, I think it is reasonable to equate them.

A says that the sitters and lifters have similar home routines. What can we conclude from that? How does it affect our argument? If anything, it could strengthen the argument because it means something at each of their jobs is leading to their back issues.