Hi all-

Sounds like a great topic for a webinar. However, I may not be able to attend it. I was wondering if this will be recorded?

Thanks,

Ravit

I completely agree with @, especially when he said this- "I actually believe if every potential law school applicant was mandated to work in law for a year, at least 60% wouldn't go into law." I have had various discussions with the attorneys I work with and majority of them say that you should work/intern in a law firm before committing yourself to this profession. I'm an engineering grad and I worked in the semiconductor industry for a year before realizing how much I hated it. I'm currently working in a mid-sized law firm and after working here for over 2 years, I have realized that I really-really like IP Law and I know what to expect when I graduate from law school

I got this job through networking and cold calling/emailing recruiters/associates in IP firms. If I were you, I'd find an area of law where I can sell myself. For example, when I cold-called recruiters, I tried selling myself by leveraging my technical background and showing them how can I be an asset to their patent pros/lit group. I got tons of interviews and I learned that there's actually a need for attorneys with a strong engineering background in IP law. I think you can do the same-- network and try emailing recruiters and asking them if they need someone from your background for consulting work. Or you can apply @ method and try getting a paralegal position.

The overall idea is to get a position in legal industry and work for sometime before you commit yourself to a legal career.

#help

Same issue. I eliminated all options except for C and D. I chose C because the assumption C makes seems to be less radical than the assumption that D makes. D seems to make multiple assumptions: (1) there are diatoms at the ocean bed, (2) Ferrous material somehow seeped into the ocean bed and caused diatom growth, and (3) even though Ferrous material is present in the atmosphere, during the ice age, diatoms die. So with that in mind, I chose C because it seemed to make a reasonable assumption that there might be some other material (e.g., Lead) that may have promoted the growth of diatom.

PLEASE #help

1. I'm an engineer/scientist. Currently working in a patent litigation law firm as their expert. I did my undergrad in electrical engineering back in India and finished grad school at UofPenn. I'm targeting the decent part time law schools (Georgetown and UofHouston), haven't taken my LSAT yet.

2. My undergrad grades are not out of 4.00 and my biggest concern is this, right here-- how LSAC is going to evaluate my foreign engineering degree? My transcript says "first division" and my cumulative grade point 74.43/100. I scored 3.6/4.0 at Penn (grad school).

3. Idea 1: My personal statement will describe my first deposition experience and how a partner leaned on me to box in the expert witness and how this experience shaped my decision to attend law school

Idea 2: My overall story explaining why I switched from an engineering career to law.

4. Did not attend the last time.

@ I missed both your webinars on post CC schedule and strategies. Was it recorded? If yes, can you please share the link to it? Thanks!

#help

This is a fairly easy question and took me less than 30 seconds to answer, but I chose D only because it contradicted and attacked the premise. I totally see why B is correct, but I am having difficulty understanding why D is incorrect. I know I know, JY in his lessons said we NEVER attack Goku or the car. However, I do remember reading that we can attack the premise but since that's too easy, LSAT writers won't care to make an answer that easy! So keeping that in mind and the fact D actually contradicts the premise and throws away even the need of using the poison, I felt D is the AC that "most" weakens the argument...