10K LSAT YO?

[Elandriel]

I don't even know what LSAT is.. is it like some alternative iq-test?

[CPHoya]

[ QUOTE ]
I have found that the two types of people that succeed in law school are those that put in ungodly hours each week and those that find the most efficient way to study. Notice I didn't include "the smartest" in there.

Some people might feel odd tossing the casebook aside, ignoring the professor's reading assignments and instead reading some hornbooks and commercial outlines, but you'll learn the same material and be better prepared for the tests.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

You should pay very close attention to everyone who's trying to tell you exactly how miserably absurd law school is. You will not learn anything. You won't find "satisfaction" from any of your "interesting" classes. In fact, it's almost certain that the classes with the most "interesting" subject matter will be the most miserable, since they'll be full of gunners, you won't care anymore because it'll be 2L at LEAST before you take an "interesting" class, and they will certainly be by the book "read these cases and take one exam" courses.

I genuinely struggle every day to justify spending more time in law school. I have a job because of it, so I stay. But god damnit, I want to scream at everyone who encouraged me to go. If the practice of law is anything like the school, I'd rather be a [censored] plumber.

[nickg1532]

Noah,

I agree w/ most of what you're saying, though I find that doing my own outlines is extremely helpful. As you mentioned, there is some value in the process of making them. How much value probably depends on the person. For me, it helps a lot. For other people, maybe not so much. My point is, it is impossible to generalize when it comes to study methods, because it varies so much from person to person.


lol this has turned into another typical law-school-advice-giving thread. don't we have enough of these already?

edit: i think we essentially agree. i should add that even though i do my own outlines, the outlines themselves aren't 50+ page beasts like you'll see with some people (i know people that made 100+ page outlines, lol). mine are pretty much never over 25 or so pages, and they don't include much unnecessary detail. they get to the point, and in that sense they resemble commercial outlines. i just find the process of thinking through how everything fits together to be beneficial. so i certainly agree that most of the casebook will be irrelevant, at least for the final. the skill is figuring out what is important and to avoid getting bogged down in minutae

[sethypooh21]

LOL at kids still in law school...

I reiterate, poker during class is massively +$EV and sanityEV

[FyteOn]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree re: JD/MBA. Very little to be gained from having both.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my experience I couldn't disagree with you more. I went from law school to a law firm to Wall St to starting my own company. Yeah, if you're going to go sit in a law firm for the next 20 years you don't need an MBA or a JD if you're going to go straight to Wall St - or either if you're going to go into consultant work or something. I'm not talking about having another piece of paper on your wall or something on your resume. I'm talking about the doors it opens for the extra one year of work. I got out of law school and found out I hated the law. It helps to have options.

[TheWorstPlayer]

What options did u have with an mba that u wouldnt have had without? Many Wall St jobs can be had with no MBA.

[BarryLyndon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have found that the two types of people that succeed in law school are those that put in ungodly hours each week and those that find the most efficient way to study. Notice I didn't include "the smartest" in there.

Some people might feel odd tossing the casebook aside, ignoring the professor's reading assignments and instead reading some hornbooks and commercial outlines, but you'll learn the same material and be better prepared for the tests.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

You should pay very close attention to everyone who's trying to tell you exactly how miserably absurd law school is. You will not learn anything. You won't find "satisfaction" from any of your "interesting" classes. In fact, it's almost certain that the classes with the most "interesting" subject matter will be the most miserable, since they'll be full of gunners, you won't care anymore because it'll be 2L at LEAST before you take an "interesting" class, and they will certainly be by the book "read these cases and take one exam" courses.

I genuinely struggle every day to justify spending more time in law school. I have a job because of it, so I stay. But god damnit, I want to scream at everyone who encouraged me to go. If the practice of law is anything like the school, I'd rather be a [censored] plumber.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, QFT, thanks for making my morning a little brighter (like a sun scorching a rectangular black hole [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ):

Listen, Superfluous, you should read a book called A BRUSH WITH THE LAW before you go to law school. You seem to be the type of person who is: a. extremely smart; and, b. enjoys a little bit of the ol' 21st Century "Reneissance Man" style - gambling, some partying, a little philosophy, movies, etc. If that's the case, then yeah, taking a slacker law school approach will afford you plenty of opportunities to [censored] around while landing a potential ~$140K/yr job. However, as far as finding "interesting" people or classes, forget it. I went to GU Law and the people there were mostly disingenuous and not all that interesting at all. Discussing things that I thought would come up - politics, philosophy, film, nuances behind the law that go beyond what's on the final exam - just never happened. As my crim. law professor said, "if you are going to law school to make good friends, you're in the wrong place." For me, in my 20s (or anywhere else), meeting interesting people and making friends are probably the most important things I can think of; you may want to consider this.

Of course, this might not matter to you because you'll be busy playing poker, skipping classes (I promise), and spending money with good friends in CA. Having said that, with your grades and potential LSAT score, you should be aiming for a highly ranked a law school as possible so you could do your 3 month/yr gambling thing and guarantee yourself a high paying job...UCLA or USC might not cut it).

The other thing, Superfluous, is that you should really consider working at a law firm for the summer. With your 3.92 GPA in computer science, I'm sure that firms will be drooling for your mind. If you haven't already found out, undergraduates with math style degrees are serenaded to attend top law schools and firms.

Anyway, read BRUSH WITH THE LAW, it will give you another perspective about how to get by in law school while enjoying your life.

Barry

[sethypooh21]

Also, OneL by Turow, FTW.

Also, one of my two best friends in the world is from LS (beat: she was already engaged by the time we got there
brag: her wedding was in Vegas
double brag: apparently eastern euro strippers like it when you can speak ten words of their native language
Variance: crushing craps tables at said wedding)

[Superfluous Man]

seriously, where's the guy who wants to lay 6-1? cmoooooooonnnnnnnnnnn.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd have to imagine there's a fair amount of variance involved. Things like how you feel the day of the test, how many of the questions you encounter on the test just "click" with you quickly.


[/ QUOTE ]

This seems intuitively correct and was part of what I was getting at.
I think many of the things said in this thread are actually very similar and trend more towards agreement than they do disagreement over aspects of the test.
I happen to agree mostly with the "with adequate prep time should hit 170 far more often than not or you just aren't smart" sentiment even though it's a small percentage of the test population that score higher.
It seems like a harsh view but with even a little flexibility in the exact numbers thrown out it's certainly a reasonable statement overall.
I also think that duck's example likely tends to be the higher limit of differential between a first prep exam and the real deal in the upper percentage scorers of the test taking population which is why I intially posed the "wait, what?" part when the guy said you should shoot for mid 170s.
I wasn't saying it couldn't happen, rather there are variables that simply taking prep test after prep test don't solve.

Obviously the most important part is best wishes again OP and no interest in betting against you. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]