I have heard that one should visit the law schools they are applying to.

There are a few law schools I am applying to, I can pay for a flight to visit 3 of them (when landed, I can travel to each one by bus).

Is there a point to visit my top law school choices before I'm admitted?

If yes, what should I be doing once I'm there? Introduce myself to the secretary, or meet with someone in particular? Should I be enquiring about more details regarding the clinics the prospective law school offers? I feel like I can do all that over the phone if I really need to.

Would there by specific law schools that are should be visited, like Harvard or Yale, rather than smaller names?

The LSAT ever "clever girl" you? Yeah, me too. We can help with that though. Next time you'll see that shit coming and you can be the one jumping out of the bushes!

Saturday, August 27th at 8PM ET: PT 47

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States +1 (571) 317-3112

Access Code: 219-480-381

The Full Schedule

And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming reviews, here it is:

https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=7sage.com_ft05lsm54j4ec1s6kj1d1bbpv0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Chicago

Note:

I was just doing an RC section (Particularly PT 68) and got to the last passage with a little more than 5minutes left on the clock. At this moment I wasn't sure what the best way to maximize my remaining time was.

Would one advise just reading the passage as quickly as you can and trying to answer what you can with whatever time is left after the reading?

Or

Is it more productive to go straight to the questions and try to target your reading. (I was lucky that this particular passage had a lot of line reference questions, but would the strategy be the same if this weren't the case?)

I wonder what you all think?

Hello guys. Really need help here. I've been in a plateau of 165 for like 4 PTs already (1.5month)? So I stopped taking full length PTs but instead I just do timed drilling mainly on LR and RC for 2 weeks.(before I do drillings during weekdays and one full length on weekend) I saw some improvements from drilling practices, -2/-3 for each LR max and 0/-2 for LG. I am not sure is it because I had done those drilling questions before that when I read a statement from LR I can just directly formulate an answer and look for that answer in AC. So yesterday, I finally decided to take a full length to see my progress etc. (PT71) Though my score remained the same, my LR got so much more terrible, -5 and -6. RC was still the same, LG -3 (boo). And for LR my error is like everywhere(I was still able to formulate the answer after finishing the stem, but still). Before I was mainly getting inference and flaw incorrect, and now I just make mistakes here and there. (So I guess maybe I did improve on inference and flaw?) I am feeling so discouraged:( and anxiety overwhelmed as my test is in September. Sorry if I am writing like elementary, just don't even know how to express this. HELP @"Nicole Hopkins"

This trend is certainly interesting.

Hi,

So I'm not sure about the correct answer C...

Why do we have to assume or compare the ancestors to Neanderthals? Why it's required?

Even though we know homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans was not significantly more similar to that of Neanderthals than is the DNA of people today, that only means people today was more similar to Homo sapiens when we compared to Neanderthals.

It could be true there are some similarities between ppl and Neanderthals, just not as much as with homo sapiense.

In that case, we cannot conclude homo sapiens did not interbred with Neanderthals (and it could be true both neanderthals and homo sapiens were ancestors of humans).

I'm really confused with C and do not understand why it's required to make the conclusion in the argument (which is they did not "interbreed")

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-1-question-19/

Hello,

I'm having trouble understanding why B is incorrect, and why E is the correct answer.

So originally when going over the stimulus I only found one flaw in the stimulus: The individual players don't tell us about the quality of the team (Parts doesn't equal the whole)

And, I assumed "B" was the correct answer since it kind of described the flaw. "features that are not relevant to the quality of that entity", I guess the features are relevant, but I assumed that those features are not relevant to the overall quality of that entity. Meaning the individual parts can't give us any detail of the quality of the whole.

I don't understand how "E" is the correct answer. Best team most likely to win -> Our club will almost certainly be city champions.....Okay...they have the same transitional conditions...what's wrong here?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-4-question-26/

Am I the only one having problems logging into 7Sage from Mozilla? I even changed my password because it would not let me log in.

It works fine on internet explorer, but I use Mozilla for everything and would prefer to use 7Sage on there.

Hi all! I was told that reading extensive and "hard" books/articles will help you in the RC section. Is this true? Does anyone recommend a list of books I should read? Thanks!

Hi everyone! I'm in the process of deciding what schools to apply to, and what area of Law I hope to practice.

I'm interested in Social Justice, Human Rights, and Aboriginal law, and want to start seeing what kind of jobs are out there, with what kind of pay scale. Anyone have any good sites that will help me find some information? Google just sends me to a lot of sites that are dump-all for all kinds of law jobs (clerks, secretaries) as well as no way to filter out types of law I'm not interested in.

Thanks!

The burnout is real, just did a 142 on PT June 2008. Ive been a member of 7sage for over a year, taken a ton of PTs, averaging in the 163-168 area. Ive tried to take it slow but I just bombed the holy f#@* out of this one for some reason. Oh well. Im going to take a few days off before my senior year starts and have some beers, clean my car, and listen to my favorite band Avenged Sevenfold.

Just looking for some thoughts on this. Is it worth bothering your undergrad registrar for a sealed letter to send to LSAC so academic honors (Phi Beta Kappa, etc.) can be included on the Law School Report? I already have that information on my resume but was looking over LSAC policies and saw the following:

Academic Notes

If a transcript contains academic notes such as dean’s list, study-abroad credits, academic probation, suspension, dismissal, warning, and so on, these notes will appear on your law school report.

Transcript notations such as dean’s list, Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude, and the like will be included on the report as “Academic Honors.” Academic honors not included on your official transcript will be noted on the Law School Report if an official, sealed letter sent from the registrar is received by LSAC.

If you question a transcript notation of academic action, you should contact the institution directly and resolve the matter as soon as possible. Please note that a discrepancy between your answer to a law school application academic record question and notations on your transcript(s) could result in a misconduct and irregularities investigation.

Is anyone else having a really difficult time loading videos? I don't think it's my internet speed...

When should I make my Credential Assembly Service account? I am taking the September LSAT but may retake in December if I don't get a good LSAT.

No formal announcement, they just wanted to stick it to us. Glad someone caught it before. EVERYONE needs to adjust.. savage.

Here is the email since others were afraid of sharing.. Im at a loss of words.

Beginning with the September 2016 test, all administrations of the test include five sections and a writing sample. Please see a description of the test at

http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/about-the-lsat

and

http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/jd-docs/statement-of-need.pdf.

Your accommodations for the June and September test are identical. The only thing that has changed is the format of the test. You were not previously granted a waiver of the non-scored section as an accommodation nor are you entitled to one now.

Admin edit: A user posted a screenshot of their email from LSAC as well.

@hope.brinn

http://imgur.com/a/iL4bP

I'm just curious as to if getting a high school physics professor to write a LOR for me would hurt my application.. He's been a close mentor throughout my years in Undergrad and through my professional career and knows me much better than my college professors. He's a very respected and knowledgeable individual, but I fear that because he works at a HS instead of University it might not hold as much weight. I couldn't find anything on TLS after searching so I thought I would ask here before starting a post over there.

For what it's worth I also plan on including 2 of my University professor's as LOR's as well.. just stuck between my HS Physics teacher and a supervisor at my engineering company as number 3.

Update: Event delayed by 45 mins. New start time 9:45pm EST.

7Sagers,

This Monday, August 29, at 9:45 pm EST, I’ll do another round of live lightning consultations.

What’s a lightning consultation? Basically, I’ll try to be as helpful as I can in five minutes. We might brainstorm personal statement topics, strategize about addenda, or discuss LORs.

If you want a free five-minute consultation about your law school application, I’ll need you to post a few things in the comments section:

I’ll get through as many people as I can in one hour, working in a mostly random order. Please don’t post to this thread if you can’t show up for the consultation. If you do show up, test your microphone beforehand. Make sure you have a strong connection to the internet, and that you can speak and be heard on GoToMeeting. If your microphone isn’t working, I’ll have to skip you.

To join, just follow this link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/935486253

We’ll use Citrix GoToMeeting. The meeting ID is 935-486-253

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-b-section-2-game-2/

I have some questions about the proper diagram and meaning of a rule in this in/out game.

Rule 3: "If Yews are not in the park, then either L or O, but not both, are in the park."

- Could someone explain about how to properly diagram this rule (ideally in notation that does NOT involve biconditionals)? I diagrammed it as 2 separate rules (shown below), but I think it only confused me more...

/Y --> L or O (representing 'either/or')

/Y --> /L and /O (representing 'not both')

- If I'm understanding the meaning of this rule correctly, does the contrapositive of this rule basically mean/state that "if both L & O are in the park, then Y is in the park." ? Does the contrapositive of this rule also include "if both L & O are OUT, then Y is IN"?

TIA!

Man, I got my first sub-170 PT score in months and I'm feeling really defeated. Did anyone else find the first LR section to be extremely difficult? I haven't missed more than 3 questions in an LR section since I started studying again in June. Am I going crazy? BLEGHHHHHHHHH

Is anyone else having an issue with loading video's with the volume? I will be in the middle of J.Y. speaking and then the volume just cuts completely off. I refresh the page in hopes that it will work again, but nothing. I tried playing around with the settings, but nothing seems to work. I use Chrome as my browser is that a bad option for this website?

I just recently exhausted all of the games from the LG bundle and went back through the one's that gave me issues up to 5 to 6X over, re-doing them again and again/referring to the video breakdown, until I felt I had the hang of it. All of this has taken a couple months of LG-exclusive focus. I've improved and although not perfect, I think I'm at a point where I can move into the next phase. The plan is to take a few days to revisit my notes on LR/RC from the CC in an effort to refresh myself after time spent essentially in LG boot camp.

I feel the next step should be to either take LR sections from the older PTs or begin full PTs from 36 and up. I'm aware that opinions vary regarding drilling LR by complete sections or by specific question types. For those who have done both, has one helped your improvement more?

Also, is drilling LR sections and question types before or after beginning full PT phase more a preference or are there strong reasons to do one before/after?

It is my intention to take my 180Watch with me on test day, since I find it very useful when doing PTs. Can I be a 100% certain about being allowed to have it in the test room with me (I know there are some restrictions on the type of watch one can have)?

Thanks,

Piotr

This is a principle question.

I got this wrong in both drilling and blind review.

So I thought I am looking for something that will do the following:

connect the premise to the conclusion

SO, say something about how something that is a health hazard should be banned

My reasoning:

A) This is the one I picked in BR. I thought the phrase "should not be allowed" could be a referent to banned. It could be taking it a bit to the extreme, i.e. making that extra assumption, but to me this seemed like the strongest answer choice.

B) The argument is not about misleading claims, but rather if something is a health hazard it should be banned. This answer choice does not do that.

C) This is stretching the argument to an extreme. This is like saying advertisements for vitamins should include all side effects etc. This answer choice says all health hazards associated with promoted products should be included. The argument says if a product has a health hazard, it should be banned.

D) This answer choice is irrelevant. Conforming to regulations and standards is information that is extraneous and the argument did not address.

E) I thought this was wrong because of the word ban while this answer choice is discussing promoting a product. I guess it could be correct because if it is not a health hazard then it would be healthful. This could be the contrapositive, "if a product does not promote smoking then it is not a health hazard" Then you would take the extra leap and say if it does not promote smoking then it is a healthful product, and you would just ignore the health hazard part since that is no longer relevant.

I'm really confused. In my reasoning, I did not address the "promote smoking" part, maybe that's where I went wrong. I still think this could be a big leap of assumptions. If someone can tell me if my reasoning is valid/reasonable and explain answer choices A and E to me, I would be most appreciative!

My professors said they need it so they get an idea of what my plans are for law school. I'm interested in commercial litigation or corporate law, not really sure yet.

From googling statement of purpose, it looks like it's something for students applying to graduate schools that pretty much says "this is why I want to apply to this program".

I don't feel comfortable giving them my personal statement as it's very...personal. I open it up briefly talking about rough sh*t that happened to me when I was young and that leads into how I'm a stronger person today etc. I'm also only halfway finished with it.

Should I just give them a more generic and less personal version of my personal statement?

I want to get it in to them by late September as I know they won't want to deal with writing a letter of rec during midterms (November) or finals (December).

I've done all the games sections from PTs 50 - 56 so far. I've gone between -0 and -3 on all of them, and I finished all of them under time, some with 5-8 minutes to spare. Are these sections easier than normal or I am just getting better at games?