Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 26 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Yale PS Editing Advice
rknwu2017
Alum Member
So I am currently debating whether or not to use the 7sage one time editing package for an edit of my personal statement. My dilemma is coming from the questions on the Yale app regarding whether or not you've used an admissions service for help on anything. Dean Asha's post about this on her blog seems to indicate that using a service could negatively impact your application. Given that I'm a splitter for Yale (178, 3.67 cum GPA) and that Yale is such a blackbox anyways, I'm pretty conflicted on what to do. I was pretty set on it before I read that part of the application. On the one hand, I know I'm an extreme long shot at Yale to begin with. Everyone is no matter what their scores/gpa are, so the edit might not help there but it could on other applications. Making a decision about an integral part of my application because a concern about just Yale seems a little ridiculous. On the other hand, I'm worried that what chance I do have at Yale will be hurt by using such a service. And Yale is just the dream for so many reasons. Anyone have any advice on this? It's a needy question, so my apologies in advance.
Comments
Even though your GPA may be below their median, I don't think you are an "extreme long shot" at Yale. Your LSAT score is absolutely great.
I think you should ask @"David.Busis" what he thinks (email: editors[at]7sage.com). I'm sure he'll tell you if you don't need them.
@akistotle Thank you for the advice and complement on my score. The other thing I should mention is that I received my score on my third try. 165, 165, 178. I was super sick the 2nd time, so I'm writing an addendum about that. The multiple takes is why I saw "an extreme long shot".
I guess I didn't think it would really be acceptable to email the editors like that. Free advice about something they get paid to do seemed a little off to me outside of a webinar or something. But I'll definitely try it if you think its worth a shot. How would I go about phrasing that my question? Same as I did here?
Try to have your professors or trusted peers edit your statement(s). There is a specific section on Yale's application that asks you whether or not you received assistance in preparing your application (which includes your essays) and whether this assistance was paid or unpaid. If you have 7sage look at it, you need to report that which would diminish your chances imo.
If you want, you can take a look at my personal statement, which I wrote with Yale in mind. I had about 5 people help me with it, each of whom was either an MD, PhD, or teacher/tutor. This assistance was unpaid. It may give you some idea of what Yale is looking for.
@goingfor99th That's the exact question that has me hesitant on paying for an edit. I am a year out of undergrad, so I'm hesitant to get in touch with old professors during this time of year. I've asked an old classmate to look at it, but that was a week+ ago with no word since. I would definitely appreciate a look at your personal statement if you wouldn't mind.
DM me your email address.
There are obviously pros and cons for with a consultant especially for Yale application. So I think it's appropriate to ask them whether you should or should not get their service. I did it before deciding to purchase the course.
@rklute85
Just to throw a little ethical wrinkle in here, I thought I would offer my opinion on the matter.
I have not and will not use an admissions service to edit my personal statement because with all due respect to 7sage, I believe it is unethical. You are nearly literally paying money to get a better outcome. That obviously favors those with enough money floating around to pay for the best.
In my opinion, Yale is trying to do the right thing if they attempt to discount applications to neutralize the effect of professional advice.
So you could always forget the whole dillemna of whether it helps or hurts and abstain from paid admissions help for moral reasons.
However, if you don't refuse advice for moral reasons, I would not recommend making your decision based on Yale. I too am a Yale splitter slightly higher on both stats a 172 retook for a180 with a 3.8 and my chances are still medium/poor at Yale. My application decisions have been driven by Top14 scholarship hunting and the far more plausible shot of a Harvard acceptance.
There have been cases where those who used admission services who received acceptances. While using such services isnt a bar against acceptance, @"Seeking Perfection" does bring up some poignant points for you to consider.
This is the best approach for most law school applicants.
Does this mean you have a 180 and you have medium/poor chance of Yale admissions? What would make someone have a good chance?
Having above the 25th percentile GPA would probably help. I would say if you were above both 75ths and had a couple of years of work experience you would have a good chance. If not, Yale is tough to bet on.
What's the difference between having a professional editing service and having the sort of social capital such that you have professors and professionals who are willing comb through your app and give you advice about anything from framing to line editing--from the standpoint of "fairness"?
I can think of some responses to this but I'm betting that the benefits are marginal, if you are so lucky.
Then, again, I've heard how much those consulting services can be, and I think that if you can afford them, you're also pretty lucky.
Yup. Yale appears to be pretty, pretty,pretty tough.--A.c.S
I have read in Asha's posts that those that lie about receiving help is also negatively frowned upon. To what degree I forget but you can dig more on her blogs to see. She wrote that they actually research into whether or not you have received help. I am guessing in some cases ones information does show up. If for example, you took a class or used resources with Testmasters or whatever.
So it's best to just say that you have if you did. Why lie? I am planning on doing the same.
The question I believe gages the integrity of that person.
How strong is your PS/app as it is now?
If you think professional help could improve your PS/app significantly, do it. Especially if you can afford it.
Yale puts heavy, heavy emphasis on softs. Having your PS edited by someone isn't going to be the reason you're not accepted. You have an extremely high LSAT, but a low GPA for Yale, such that admission may very well be a long shot. Like you mentioned, Yale's a blackbox in many ways. So don't put all your eggs in the proverbial Yale basket. You're right that making decisions about an integral part of your app for Yale is ridiculous. You'll have amazing options at T6 schools regardless of whether you get Yale. Those options may be in jeopardy if your PS isn't as good as it could be. And for what it's worth, I think you're better off (everywhere, Yale included) with an outstanding PS done with professional help than one even slightly less outstanding without the help.
I’m in a very similar boat.... If you can think of a trusted friend/parent/mentor who could serve as an editor, then paying and having to disclose payment doesn’t seem worth it. But if you think some good editing could improve the statement a lot, and you don’t have many other options, then go from it. I also read the Dean Asha post, and it seems like her main issue wasn’t with people paying for counseling/test prep, but rather people lying about it. Also, I don’t think it’s logically consistent to argue that paying for essay editing is ‘unethical’ but paying for test prep is not. Just saying.
Well, it's logically consistent in a strict sense. In a looser sense, it seems still to be consistent given the fact that the test is standardized while the PS is more open ended and individualistic. Presumably, the uniqueness element of it can be clouded by the intrusion of "vetters", such that the end product isn't really "yours" to the desired extent.
Then there's the fact that the test is an artifact created by you at a particular time. The prep developes the underlying skills to be able to create a "better artifact" under certain conditions--there is no assistance beyond that. The application is an artifact as well, but something that is more threatened by the prospect of being a "team effort" than your own doing. It as not if the consultants are developing your writing skills and creativity over a long period of time before you're facing down the prospect of writing a law PS. Rather, they are helping you brainstorm, advising you on what you should emphasize, and so on. So, yeah, there do seem to be important differences between the two sorts of "prep" whether or not one believes that one or another (or both) creates an unfair advantage.--A.c.S
Yeah I agree with this. At least that's the gist I got reading it...
Test preparation can't be done for you. Writing can be.
The fundamental difference is that their assistance was unpaid. I made these connections on my own in my capacity as a student through opportunities offered to me by my public university, which if nothing else demonstrates resourcefulness. If assistance is unpaid, that signals to Yale that these professionals were willing to help me for free because they support my candidacy.
I'd consider this a 'soft.' How much this matters to Yale, I don't know.
Legitimate PS services don't do the writing for you. They guide you through the writing process and provide feedback.
Are you also against the use of private LSAT tutors? What about group tutoring?
I don't have a strong opinion in this matter. I think it's ambiguous where the line should be drawn.
@goingfor99th
So if my parents were themselves attorneys--which they aren't--instead of non-college educated blue collared individuals--which they are-- that somehow demonstrates my "resourcefulness" (or, better, lack thereof)?
Obviously not.
And I worry that much of "social capital" is like this rather than the case of the enterprising young student who actively seeks and makes strong connections with faculty and others to such an extent that they're willing to sit down and work through law school application materials. Which is why I take the question of the difference between that and paid consulting seriously with respect to fairness seriously.
In the end, it may be that the former sort of fairness issue is just easier to "police" than the latter (which, if research can be done on whether you received assistance, seems plausible). If so, the relevant difference wouldn't be cashed out in terms of fairness, but practicality. Shrug--A.c.S
I'm not sure what you're talking about? I'm a first generation college student from a low-income family.
Writing should be as authentic as possible. Plagiarism is a huge issue in academia.
LSAT tutors and writing services serve different functions, I'd say.
Yep, that was more my point: both services provide an advantage that many applicants are unable to access
No doubt this is part of the reason law schools are beginning to take GRE scores. LSAT scores correlate well with wealth, unfortunately. If you want to blame someone for this, blame LSAC/the law school 'industry.'
Writing should still be as authentic as possible, imo.
Haha believe me, I have no problem blaming the LSAC for all of the things.
Er... I wasn't talking about you specifically. I was talking about the general point and how it is far more likely that you would have tangible social resources if you (this is the collective "you") come from certain backgrounds rather than others and claimed that this particular difference had nothing to do with "resourcefulness". But I took your explanation to address the general point of fairness at issue as between, say, someone who pays a consultant for admissions at advice and someone who solicits that advice from professionals and academics with whom one is close (for whatever reason).
It seemed like you took a minority case of the latter--the enterprising student who dedicated hours and effort to building relationships with those who "help" with applications and therefore enjoys a differential advantage over applicants that haven fostered such relationships--and generalized it without (admittedly armchair) warrant to ground your ethical judgements about the differences between the paid consultant case and the non-paid (though competent) advice some ppl can receive.
It would be as if I, from the other side, brought up the person who works and saves up a huge chunk of their income--and at great personal sacrifice (perhaps they have a low wage job, significant financial obligations, etc)--and generalized to make the case that, in the end, either (a) paid consultation on admissions was fair with respect to applicants who don't receive such consultation or (b) paid consultation was fairer than unpaid consultation (largely got through personal connections). But I wouldn't argue such a thing because I don't think that the archetype (of the saving, consultation paying law school hopeful) holds generally or even for a very significant portion of the population paying for such services.
Anyways, these are interesting questions.--A.c.S
I do agree that there is a problem with LSAT teaching and tutoring too.
However, I think 7Sage is on the right side of that issue. All the logic games explanations are offerred for free. Those are the most helpful and innovative part of the 7Sage curriculum. I did buy the starter course and used the CC a little, but mainly I used the freely available logic games explanations and knew I was going to. I got the 7sage starter course to give back a little to the 7sage creators.
I think 7sage is on the wrong side of the personal statement issue. The problem of people buying themselves a better outcome through professional editing of personal statements is relatively small scale problem. 7 Sage is making the scale bigger. Therefore more people will be competing at a disadvantage. Additionally, 7sage will never make personal statement editing freely available like with the logic games explanations. This means that the haves will get more and the have nots less.
As far as the private tutoring, it definitely bothers me that certain people can afford private tutoring and others cannot. It is why I have thus far refused to tutor the test for money helping friends for free instead when I can. It does reassure me to know that with resourses like those 7sage made available for free I was able to score a 180 on the test without private tutoring, an in-person class, or anything other than the sparingly used Core Curriculum and the actual tests which can be pirated if someone is desparate.
And yes people getting personal statements edited by professors and networks of people they have access to partially because of money bothers me too. However, since GPA and undergraduate college and letters of recommendation are already part of the process, I assume that access isn't making things that much more unequal than they already are. Letting people straightforwardly purchase a better edited personal statement or the advice of someone with years of experience can get you to a more unequal outcome than those other factors would create on their own.
Anyways, I agree that the exact location of where a line should be drawn around people getting an advantage related to their money is ambiguous. However, I think that professionally edited personal statements fairly transparently cross that line.
Even if you agree with me though, you could always make a case for using a professional editor anyway. If you agree people shouldn't be able to use professional personal statement editors that doesn't mean you should unilaterally disarm. Other people probably won't. On the other hand you lose a little bit of moral authority to critique a system when you start using this argument. It is kind of like the tack of the Hillary Clinton campaign on campaign finance reform. Democrats usually claim to want reform, but not be able to stop taking superpac donations. They get the cash, but it handicaps them in claiming they are fighting to get rid of the said super pacs. They become vulnerable to attacks from the left by people like Sanders running without super pacs and people like Trump who claim not to be dependent on them because of his personal wealth. Once you have the Sanders to your left created by refusing to disarm, it is hard to drop the super pacs because you will no longer have any advantage, but only the disadvantage of having dropped the Super Pacs later. Anyways, the not unilaterally dissarming strategy can work and be logically coherent, but there is a tradeoff in terms of lost credibility and becoming trapped as a part of the corrupt system so it doesn't always work.
That is why I think it is worth being aware of what you are wading into and drawing your own ethical line. For me, that is not using any kind of professional editors of personal statements. I'm not sure where to draw the line on tutoring yet. For LSAT prep my line didn't stop me from buying the core curriculum and I didn't need more than that.
On the ethical conversation, I think the type and degree of editing matters greatly.
My personal "line in the sand" is content added. If a service, paid or not, or professor, friend or brother edits for grammar and makes suggestions like "get rid of this sentence" or "change this wording", i think that's above board. If they are suggesting word changes or writing alternate segments of any length, that's no good. In my humble opinion of course
Hi - curious to know why you don't LSAT scores correlate well with wealth? Is there a study somewhere that I can access? Thanks.
Tutoring seems to provide more of a psychological boost than anything, imo. Whenever my tutor would introduce me to a new strategy/technique, I would have to dedicate dozens of hours to that new strategy/technique in order to incorporate it into my routine effectively. A tutor's function seems analogous to the function of a personal trainer: they keep students on track, remind students that there are others who have walked the path before them, and inspire confidence within their students when shit hits the fan.
There are undoubtedly benefits to using a competent LSAT tutor, but like many others have said before nobody can learn the LSAT for you. That's all on you.
Look at the average LSAT score for students coming out of various undergraduate institutions. Look at the rich schools v. the non-rich schools.
When you mention wealth, are you referring to the endowment of the school or the wealth of the students that attend the school?
The wealth of the families whose children study at these institutions.
Where do you find data on that? If you're basing that off their ability to attend expensive schools, that is problematic. (https://www.collegeraptor.com/find-colleges/articles/affordability-college-cost/these-10-expensive-colleges-have-free-tuition-or-full-ride-scholarships-for-middle-class-families/)
The article doesn't give data of the kids that get the full ride. Nice that these expensive schools give these families full rides if under a certain income but we don't know how many kids get it ("it" referreging to the "full ride" - wow, I have JY in my head).
I think what 99th is trying to say is that the wealthier families can afford tuition at these pricey schools and therefore, afford to give their children a better education than the a non-wealthy families. Additionally, these wealthy kids presumably attended top private high schools and again, presumably, got a better education and, presumably, were better equiped to ace the LSAT than the non-wealthier kids.
Being able to afford sticker price doesn't give you preference for admission to top undergraduate schools. I'm not sure how many families can afford to purchase seats for their children via 'donating', but I don't see why those families are relevant to this discussion. @goingfor99th mentioned LSAT scores coming out of the scores. I'd assume someone that had their seat in undergrad purchased, could just as easily have their seat in law school purchased.
I did one google search, and come across this article which is slightly relevant (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/harvard-university).
interesting article!
@goingfor99th said:
People have to score well on the SAT and ACT to get into top undergraduate schools so isn't that likely the reason people from those schools score higher on the LSAT, GRE, and other post graduate standardized tests?
Additionally, you seemed to imply that LSAT scores correlate more with wealth than the GRE scores or at least that the correlation between LSAT scores and wealth is causing the shift to the GRE? Do you have any data on that?
I'm definitely concerned about the LSAT income disparity, but I severely doubt the GRE will make things any better. It seems to me the applications focus will shift away from scores toward the more intangible experiences that the rich alone can afford to purchase.
Although I don't certainly condone the fact that wealth may give some applicants an undue advantage, I feel that, on balance, law school admissions are heavily merit-based. For many things in life, inborn advantages like being naturally good at test taking or having a wealthy family may seem unfair. At least for decent public state universities like UCLA, there are significant grants and financial aid for those who grew up in poverty. Hopefully, legal education and higher education becomes more egalitarian.
Yeah, this. These LSAT wizards need to disengage LSAT mode sometimes. ;p
Anyone who doesn't think the wealthy dominate enrollment at elite undergraduate and graduate institutions needs a hard lesson in reality.
I'm not lol.
I agree with @goingfor99th . I went to a private university, top 28ish? and a lot of my friends were much more well off than I was. Some had trust funds contingent upon them graduating with a degree. All of them had little to zero loans due to their parents footing the bill. A lot of them also went to private high schools and boarding schools.
I have some fun anecdotes to prove my point, but I would rather not even divulge what I know because it's too specific and sensitive to share with people on the internet.
I guess just take my word for it or Google it. You guys are all pretty clever.
I agree that law school admissions do seem to be based on merit for the most part. However, that merit often comes from early advantages. As someone who came from an upper-lower to lower-middle class background, school was always pretty easy for me but I attended all low-income public schools up until college. My high school only offered 2 AP courses, nothing else of note scholastically. The smartest graduate at my high school could never compete with someone graduating from even other public schools in my city. The advantages that lead to merit later in life can start very early. Disadvantaged high school often leads to no or lower ranked college, etc. And I can't say enough about just the mindset and culture of lower income communities. It's a massive obstacle in itself.
I was actually stunned when I discovered that law schools don't really put much weight on ranking/difficulty of university. It's one of the main factors that allowed me to seriously consider law. I always assumed I'd never get in - I'm a nobody that went to a little school that no one's ever heard of, with good GPAs but nothing special to set me apart. I do think basing law school admissions mainly on GPA and LSAT helps to level that playing field, but obviously the super competitive schools will still be closely looking at softs, of which I have nothing to brag about. And definitely, wealth can play a factor in boosting LSAT score as well as in PS editing/admissions consulting and such. I also agree with @"Seeking Perfection" that I really appreciate 7sage's ethos about the whole thing. Ridiculously reasonably priced tutors for those who need it, free LG explanations, and overall an incredibly good value for the course. I love supporting a company that is actively trying to level the playing field. Typical Canadians! Haha. Gotta love 'em.
Why is use of free LG explanations and your free tutoring services to friends OK, but resources that cost $$$ NOT OK? In a world where no such services were allowed to be offered for $$$, the people who have connections and exposure to online forums to learn about free resources are the ones who have an "unfair" advantage, just like the wealthy allegedly have an advantage under the current regime. If I'm a student with no connections to lawyers or other people who have studied for the LSAT, it's harder for me to take advantage of free resources than other students with such connections. Can you help explain the meaningful differences between free tutoring and paid tutoring with respect to unfairness? I'm not quite convinced by what you have said so far. Similarly, the line between paid essay services = bad and free essay services = OK seems arbitrary.
@anonclsstudent
For me the reason for the line in the sand between paid essay services and free servicesseems easiest to defend so we will start there.
My opposition is to anything which changes the landscape of law school applications in a way which results in more unequal outcomes according tto the income distribution. Perfect equality would see each quintile of the income distribution compose one fifth of the seats of each law school class. Perfect inequality would have the richest quintile possess all the seats. We are somewhere in between. I want us to move closer to equality and oppose anything which will move us toward greater inequality.
Unpaid aid with editing personal statements is something which we probably can't stop, which acrues benefits to those same people whose GPAs have already benefited from whatever connections they have, and fundamentally seems to be in no danger of moving us toward greater inequality. It is something we would probably have to challenge eventually if we wanted to shift the scales toward equality, but we would also have to change the high school education system, the undergraduate admissions landscape, the way undergraduate institutions are funded, and many other things to move toward equality.
I choose instead to first fight factors increasing inequality. If in addition to the myriad advantages they already have the rich can buy better edited personal statements and those statements actually make a difference, then things may actually get more unequal than they are today. Obviously, poor and middle class people could try to keep up and also pay for help with personal statements, but they will inevitably be forced to settle for second rate helpers. Since editing personal statements is a time intensive process where experience likely matters, that means that the poor and middle class people won't be able to compete using the less good help.
Similar arguments could hold with the LSAT except that with the LSAT paid tutoring is already highly widespread along with expensive classes. This means that it is too late to shut down the helping industry or boycott it. Additionally, 7sage and a few other online companies are proving that the cheap or free help is just as good or nearly as good as the expensive classes and private tutoring. As a tutor mostly of Econ, but a little of the LSAT on the side now that puts me in quite a bind though. I believe in tutoring people only if I believe the aid I provide is a minimal advantage over free aid in which case it is wrong to charge a significant sum of money for the help because that would be misrepresenting myself. This certainly makes me think twice before using my perfect score on the LSAT obtained primarilly because of 7sage's free resources to try to land a job at one of the major prep companies.
I also didn't talk to anyone who had studied the LSAT before or any former lawyers before begining study of the LSAT or finding 7sage. I found TLS online by googling questions about the test and from there I found 7sage and the Powerscore Bibles which I used for my first take but believe are far inferior to 7sage. I'm convinced that there are fewer and fewer people in the world who wouldn't have been able/had the access to use google well enoigh to search out the same answers I did because of the rise of computers and cellphones across the country and the world. Those few who couldn't might not tend to have the college degree required to enter law school.