@ said:

@ said:

This thread is very bothersome. I thought this was a community to uplift and encourage each other.

I don't know if anything that has been said is incompatible with these aims. As far as the delicate subject-matter, I take people to have been pretty non-hostile to be honest. I think people were just trying to articulate their respective views about how the Wax scandal affects/should affect law school deliberations (this involved a good deal more than just that question, but that's the way these things go). Were it negative, I probably would have let the discussion be and it probably would have been locked out already (I think 7sage generally does this, no?).

Granted, the discussion is tiresome in a way, given its trigger; but, alas, the dynamics of social media! Luckily most posts on here are about smaller, immediate issues regarding the LSAT and admissions. A saving grace--A.c.S

Admin note: edited (the comment reveals personal information without consent)

To reasonably assume you can get 165, you should be consistently PTing in the 167-169 range. Mid 150s to high 160s is a big PT jump that I think would take 2-3 months if you're lucky/smart. I would say you should reschedule for June.

@ said:

ANYONE WITHOUT 3 LR SECTIONS: Do you recall a question about school implementing new rules to curve drinking on campus?

Please if anyone can answer this so I might be able to sleep tonight!!

@ said:

Really hoping the first section of LR was the experimental because I found it much harder than the other two, not entirely sure but I think the first section began with a question about drinking on campus. Can anyone confirm if this was the experimental section?

Can anyone confirm this, if the question about reducing drinking on campus was real or experm?

I had 2 LRs and do not remember this question