If you can't get an affidavit of employment from your employer (for whatever reason), then they ask you to submit an affidavit describing your best efforts to obtain the required information, and affirming that what you stated in your application is true. So I wouldn't worry too much if you have a legitimate reason.

IN 2016, the NY Bar requires the following regarding employment:

15. List every employment you have had since you reached the age of 21, or in the last 10 years, whichever period is shorter, in chronological order (from earliest to latest). Include your current employment, if any. Include self-employment, clerkships, temporary or part-time employment, military service, employment by members of family or other relatives, employment with or without monetary compensation, law-related work-study employment, and law-related employment for academic credit only, including participation in law school clinics and externships, and work as a research assistant. Note to applicants applying for admission on examination: do not include employments listed on your 50 hour pro bono compliance affidavit or listed on your pro bono scholars program completion affidavit.

For every law related employment (like internships, clinics, etc.), you need an affidavit filled out by the employer (or their representative) personally.

You also need an affidavit filled out by your supervisor for the pro bono hour compliance.

You will also need two character and fitness affidavits from people who have known you for at least 2 years, are not professors/family, and are themselves not applying for the NY Bar.

Applicant must submit two (2) original good moral character affidavits as part of an application for admission (see 22 NYCRR 520.12). The affidavits should be completed by reputable persons who have known applicant for not less than two years. The affidavits should not be completed by persons who also complete employment affidavits on applicant’s behalf. The affidavits should not be completed by persons associated with applicant’s present employer or persons related to applicant by blood or marriage or by other applicants or by members of the faculty or administrative staff of any law school attended by applicant. Preferably, one affidavit should be completed by an attorney in good standing. The person completing the affidavit should return it to the applicant, who should file it with and at the same time as his or her application for admission questionnaire.

Nope! I took mine black and white and it was fine. I definitely had a scare at the center though because a lot of people brought it colored, but I wasn't stopped because of it or anything.

I can't help with the second question, but for the first, which applicant pool you're in generally depends on where you're residing, regardless of your citizenship. So if you're a resident of South Korea, you will be in the international applicant pool. That said, you should call each law school and confirm.

When will the recording be up?

Thanks for your responses, guys! I can't buy a printer :( I bought transparency films from Amazon. Going to tape them together on the bottom and sides and insert LG pages. Will see how that goes.

I adopted the bottom up approach and it's helping my confidence already! I'm all ears if you have more comments!

Thank you so much for the advice, @! I think you're spot on about the notebook and the check at the end! I generally skimp on foolproofing because I find it expensive and time consuming to reprint everything. Do you print or use another method? (I have PDFs)

Was this recorded?

Same here. Was in the upper 160s till the 60s and then got destroyed in the 70s. Massive blow to my confidence.

That sucks. Sorry to hear that. I was in a similar position after the December LSAT. Left an entire game blank because of time and anxiety. The only thing I can tell you is to learn from it. What I learned from it was to bubble everything left when the proctor calls 5 minutes, and then change what I bubbled as I solved the questions. Even if I didn't get to all the questions in time, I still had a 1/5 chance of getting it right. I did that for every section, even if I felt like I would have plenty of time at the end. No point in taking chances.

The stress and pressure of test day doesn't compare to taking a Pt at home. Now that you've experienced that you can only do better next time. If you're gonna apply next cycle, you always have the option to cancel your score (if you think you really, really bombed it, because I think it still counts as a take).

@ said:

Hello guys, I took the LSAT this past Saturday as well and I had 3 LR sections. Personally I felt extremely intimidated by the LG section and RC, which was extremely disappointing to my psyche as I consider those my strongest sections. I had a serious lapse of judgement with my timing during RC and ended up leaving 4-5 questions blank as the Proctor had said 'Pencils down.' That absolutely killed me, I spent the next 3 sections worrying about the empty questions I had left, after all a 20% chance of being right was better than nothing. This extra worrying in combination with test day anxiety seriously hindered my performance on the remaining sections. Really disappointed in myself, considering calling it quits.

I don't understand how D MUST be true. Just because Earth's crust is too thin to support big volcanoes, doesn't mean that Mars' crust is thick enough to support its volcanoes. Maybe there's some other factor (other than the soil composition or thickness) that makes Mars' volcanoes sit stably on its surface--maybe the volcanoes' formations are just thinner and lighter than earth's volcanoes in general, and don't exert too much pressure on the soil?

Furthermore, the stimulus just says the Earth's crust is "thin." Nowhere in the stimulus does it say Earth's crust is "thinner," implying a comparison (that the Mars crust is thinner than Earth's).

No, you're right, it does not apply here---you need to use the negation test for NA questions.

So here, if you negate the AC: refusing to think about something troubling DOES NOT contribute to stress, then it wrecks the argument in the stimulus, which is why this assumption is necessary to the argument.

The relationship can be reversed, of course. The test writers just chose not to include it in the ACs. Since I don't have the stimulus in front of me, I'm not sure if it will still be a NA though. Could you restate the causal chain you think could have worked as an AC here?

As mentioned above, return to the curriculum? When I plateaued I went back to the curriculum and went over all the reasoning sections. I also reviewed Mike Kim's guidance for each LR type. My PT score started breaking into the 170s when I returned. In my experience it can be a combination of fatigue + forgetting the basics. Make notes for each question type so you don't forget what you learned in your rerun of the curriculum.

Mike Kim's RC technique is also much, much more detailed than 7sage's (for example, I learned from him that "according to the passage" means something is literally written in the passage, whereas "the passage suggests" means it will require an inference). It's may also be helpful for you to force yourself to finish each passage with the following markers that high scorers tend to use: 8-16-24-32 min. Spend 4 minutes max reading each passage. To speed up, don't get bogged down by the details. The details don't matter so much as understanding the role a certain sentence or paragraph is playing relative to what the author is trying to convey in the whole passage. If a question asks about some weird details you didn't understand, you can always return to them. But don't waste time trying to understand some confusing science experiment---that's a trap and that's not the goal. The goal is understanding why the author included that science experiment, i.e., the role of that paragraph (strengthening someones argument, weakening it, a counter argument, providing background, explaining the consequences of an event, application of a hypothesis/theory, question, answers to a question, or main point.). At the end of the passage, spend 10 seconds just going over the role of each paragraph in your head, the main point that emerges, and the authors opinion. Thinking of the passage in these abstract terms will speed you up. It will also make it less necessary for you to annotate everything using special notations (I definitely overdid that and it costs time. You may notice JY doesn't annotate much, and also that a lot of questions focus on structure rather than details). It's helpful to go through some practice passages just to test reading for structure (I.e., the roles above) and marking it---after you've tried that with a couple and become comfortable with it, try it on an actual passage with question--see if it speeds you up and helps you in the questions.

@ asking this in a thread of people who took the test yesterday may not be the best idea. ;) But here you go:

All A are B.

A ----> B

No things unworthy of B are C.

This is a negate necessary statement (reference JY's lessons).

You can represent "Unworthy of B" by "U". So it would be: U -----> /C

Or you could represent "Unworthy of B" by "/WB" (I find this easier since "unworthy" is a negative term. A "/" would encompass that, making it easily to represent and manipulate in diagramming, especially for contrapositives). So: /WB ----> /C. Contrapositive: C ----> WB. (If unworthy of B, not C. Contrapositive: If C, worthy of B.)

In your diagram, you are equating unworthy of B and /B I think. "B" and "things worthy of B" are two different ideas. The latter is not the same as "things that are B." The two statements above cannot be linked.

Sometimes the correct answer is not bullet-proof. In those cases, it's only correct because all the other ones are clearly wrong. If there was a better AC, this might not have been the right answer.

Remind me---was this strengthen or explain the discrepancy?

@.hatcher7 I could've sworn I had the birds and their nests question in my third LR, but now I'm doubting myself.. Does anyone remember if that question in the same section as the Alexander the Great's Tomb question? If so that was section 5 for me and real.

They're both real. I got the experimental LG so I can confirm that.

@ said:

Also, something about children and beakers, and ravens and worms in a beaker were LR questions.

or maybe they were crows...

They were crows throwing pebbles in to get the worms up out of the water. And yeah the children and half filled beakers. I only had two LR and remember these.

@ said:

I had two LR sections. I remember:

Meteorite and nanodiamonds

Supernova and a king's birth

Will update more as they occur to me.

Yeah I had 2 games sections, and I definitely remember both those on the LR.

Same here! First LG was a breeze. Then I crashed and burned in the real LG. Games 3 and 4...just picking the letter of the day.

I wonder if there's a similar LG section in terms of difficulty in a past PTs---I went through the first 35 (and PTs after) for prep and didn't come across one... I still don't know if I'm just imagining the difficulty level because I haven't seen one like it. Definitely a bummer to know that I bombed a section I usually rely on to get -0 or -1 in.

Thanks @.

Does anyone remember how many questions the last game had?

Those were experimental. I got one RC and it had Rauls and insider trading, and none of these.

@ so I take it that the RC passage on human/animal evolution and environmental conditions was experimental?

I also got two LR's, and don't remember touching blue and red on either.

@ tell me about it.. someone said that there will be a generous curve to account for it, but I don't know what curve would be generous enough to account for totally screwing TWO GAMES. I doubt there's ever been such a curve

Actually thinking of cancelling my score after the LG.

I didn't finish LG.. Guessed almost all of the last two :( I don't understand what happened.. I usually go -0 or -1 on LG.. anyone else experience this?

@ thank YOU!! You're a great tutor!