I am now at home in my Hometown in my Home Midwest State. We have been enjoying a pretty fat Christmas. I have a new netbook which I'm writing on. I have a few things to write about, including my interviews. If I were a really generous, self-less person I would post every single last detail about my two interviews at Cambridge and Oxford. (It is rare for one person to be interviewed by both.) I'm not going to do that. I may talk about it more later, but right now I'm going to be circumspect about the whole thing. One thing I can say is that this is a once in a lifetime experience and it somewhat defies description.
In other news, commenter DA has gotten back to me and asked a few more questions, which I am happy to answer. I'm really pleased he's been following my blog and am delighted with the power of this series of tubes.
I'll answer his questions now.
Where did I apply for schools in the UK?
I applied to Cambridge, Oxford, University College London, The London School of Economics and King's College London. I am most interested in Cambridge and Oxford, though, depending on what happens I'm open to them all. I am not currently on a course. I have interviewed at Cambridge and Oxford.
And this question about the UCAS application: UCAS has no area I can see under qualifications for my degree (Bacc - United States), what did you put on yours?
I had this problem as well and rang the UCAS helpline to ask what to do. They are very helpful. You need to put your qualification under 'degree'.
And... any last advice?
Nothing specific. Relax, have fun, be yourself.
Getting back to the Cambridge and Oxford interviews. They will have made their decisions by now and it is very likely that sitting on the doorstep of my flat in London right now are two letters one from each indicating my acceptance or rejection. This is somewhat distressing. But I'm going back in a few days and will find out which it is.
I have nothing more to report now except I'm having a lovely holiday at home.
Tuesday 15 December 2009
Tuesday 8 December 2009
Feeling Better
Okay I'm feeling much better today, still going down for interview. Going down tonight to stay with a friend for early morning interview tomorrow. Rabidly re-reading things I should have read ages ago. Should I also read HRA? ECHR? UDHR? Too late for that. Wish me luck.
Monday 7 December 2009
Damn it I'm sick
Damn it, I'm supposed to go down to Cambridge tomorrow for my interview the next day and I have a bloody cold and a fever, possibly the flu, possibly H1N1 flu. I'm trying to take it easy, drink lots of fluids and rest, but I'm supposed to be studying for these interviews right now.
I don't know what the deal is with Britain but I have never been sick so frequently in my life as I have been ever since moving here. I just got over the worst cold of my life a few weeks ago but here I am again. Hopefully it won't last two weeks like the last one did. Gaaaaahh!
I don't know what the deal is with Britain but I have never been sick so frequently in my life as I have been ever since moving here. I just got over the worst cold of my life a few weeks ago but here I am again. Hopefully it won't last two weeks like the last one did. Gaaaaahh!
Sunday 6 December 2009
Random Ha Ha
I saw that someone found my website by googling "lsat tomorrow help". Ha ha, you're effed.
Thursday 3 December 2009
Oxbridge Collegiate System
Did I ever explain this whole Oxbridge college thing? Let me tell you something about that.
Oxford and Cambridge Universities use a collegiate system. That is, there are two distinct parts of the 'university' as a whole. First, there are academic departments called faculties--faculty of law, of economics, etc etc etc. The faculties are responsible for delivering lectures and administering exams. That is their job, exclusively. Second, there are a collection (around 30 at each university) of colleges. A college can roughly be thought of as a combination of an American-style dorm and a Hogwart's-style house. Each student is a member of a college and all their university activities outside of lectures and exams take place in college. They live in college, do sports with their college, have social events, student government and all those types of things with their college mates.
Also, and this is the most important aspect, each college will have several fellows in each subject who are employed in the faculties of the university. They are members of the college in which they are fellows and are responsible for being what in the US we would call TAs (teaching assistants). The faculties handle lectures and the colleges handle small group sections, which my university called discussions. Other American universities call them seminars, tutorials, small group, or whatever. Obviously in lecture there can be hundreds of students. In order to discuss the subject and answer questions, you have a discussion section of around 30 students. In the Oxbridge collegiate system, because the numbers are so small and because each college employs several fellows, undergraduates will have these discussion sections (with an eminent expert in each field of study) in groups of two or three. Sometimes one-on-one. If you are a fan of learning and discussing what you're learning with someone with so much knowledge to impart, you understand what an amazing system this is. This is what separates Oxbridge from everywhere else in the world.
It's also one of the reasons I want to go there.
I did my master's degree at another well-regarded British university (let's call it my Master's University) and unfortunately had a disappointing experience in some ways. Most importantly I was disappointed in the commitment level of the other students. They didn't seem genuinely interested in the subject and it diminished the academic experience for me. I like learning, I loved the subject I was studying (mostly). It frustrates me to be in classes with people who fail to prepare for discussion, who have no enthusiasm for the subject at hand. I suspect that since Oxbridge are such aspirational institutions I would be with students who are more keen and I would really appreciate that.
Gunner in the making.
Oxford and Cambridge Universities use a collegiate system. That is, there are two distinct parts of the 'university' as a whole. First, there are academic departments called faculties--faculty of law, of economics, etc etc etc. The faculties are responsible for delivering lectures and administering exams. That is their job, exclusively. Second, there are a collection (around 30 at each university) of colleges. A college can roughly be thought of as a combination of an American-style dorm and a Hogwart's-style house. Each student is a member of a college and all their university activities outside of lectures and exams take place in college. They live in college, do sports with their college, have social events, student government and all those types of things with their college mates.
Also, and this is the most important aspect, each college will have several fellows in each subject who are employed in the faculties of the university. They are members of the college in which they are fellows and are responsible for being what in the US we would call TAs (teaching assistants). The faculties handle lectures and the colleges handle small group sections, which my university called discussions. Other American universities call them seminars, tutorials, small group, or whatever. Obviously in lecture there can be hundreds of students. In order to discuss the subject and answer questions, you have a discussion section of around 30 students. In the Oxbridge collegiate system, because the numbers are so small and because each college employs several fellows, undergraduates will have these discussion sections (with an eminent expert in each field of study) in groups of two or three. Sometimes one-on-one. If you are a fan of learning and discussing what you're learning with someone with so much knowledge to impart, you understand what an amazing system this is. This is what separates Oxbridge from everywhere else in the world.
It's also one of the reasons I want to go there.
I did my master's degree at another well-regarded British university (let's call it my Master's University) and unfortunately had a disappointing experience in some ways. Most importantly I was disappointed in the commitment level of the other students. They didn't seem genuinely interested in the subject and it diminished the academic experience for me. I like learning, I loved the subject I was studying (mostly). It frustrates me to be in classes with people who fail to prepare for discussion, who have no enthusiasm for the subject at hand. I suspect that since Oxbridge are such aspirational institutions I would be with students who are more keen and I would really appreciate that.
Gunner in the making.
Tuesday 1 December 2009
Response to Comment Regarding LSAT and LNAT
How exciting, I got an actual question in the comments section! I will now dutifully answer it.
This comment comes from DA, who I hope will answer my question afterwards. The comment was
hi, I'm in almost the same situation as you...I'm an american, but living in the states trying to get into law school in London. I'm trying to figure out if there is any LSAT/LNAT conversion scoring, I've taken LSAT, but want to try and predict my results on LNAT. Any advice or are they wholly incomparable? Thanks!
Well, DA, you came to the right place.
First, as far as I know there are no set conversion tables and they would probably be pretty useless because the LNAT and the LSAT are two very different exams. In order to learn some of the basic differences between the two, check out this post. Also check out this post to learn why the LNAT is a stupid, stupid, stupid test.
Now as far as predicting your outcome, your guess is as good as mine. I took three practice exams and got one quite low score, one average score and one quite high score, which suggests it's not a very reliable test. The best thing you can do is just take some practice tests yourself.
My advice would be, first, to get a prep book on the LNAT and familiarise yourself with the format and content. Second, I would start reading the British newspapers because most of the excerpts in the LNAT come from there (especially the London Times and the Guardian) and it's always useful to learn their style. Third, I would take as many practice tests as you can and very, very carefully try to dissect the answer explanations, trying to learn what it is they want you to be thinking as you read. There are three practice tests available on the LNAT website and several prep books are available.
Now, I hope DA will answer some of my questions!
First, why are you trying to go to law school in London? I hope that's not impertinent, I'm just curious because it's an unusual choice. What are your career plans? What schools are you applying to? When are you going to be applying?
Yay internet.
This comment comes from DA, who I hope will answer my question afterwards. The comment was
hi, I'm in almost the same situation as you...I'm an american, but living in the states trying to get into law school in London. I'm trying to figure out if there is any LSAT/LNAT conversion scoring, I've taken LSAT, but want to try and predict my results on LNAT. Any advice or are they wholly incomparable? Thanks!
Well, DA, you came to the right place.
First, as far as I know there are no set conversion tables and they would probably be pretty useless because the LNAT and the LSAT are two very different exams. In order to learn some of the basic differences between the two, check out this post. Also check out this post to learn why the LNAT is a stupid, stupid, stupid test.
Now as far as predicting your outcome, your guess is as good as mine. I took three practice exams and got one quite low score, one average score and one quite high score, which suggests it's not a very reliable test. The best thing you can do is just take some practice tests yourself.
My advice would be, first, to get a prep book on the LNAT and familiarise yourself with the format and content. Second, I would start reading the British newspapers because most of the excerpts in the LNAT come from there (especially the London Times and the Guardian) and it's always useful to learn their style. Third, I would take as many practice tests as you can and very, very carefully try to dissect the answer explanations, trying to learn what it is they want you to be thinking as you read. There are three practice tests available on the LNAT website and several prep books are available.
Now, I hope DA will answer some of my questions!
First, why are you trying to go to law school in London? I hope that's not impertinent, I'm just curious because it's an unusual choice. What are your career plans? What schools are you applying to? When are you going to be applying?
Yay internet.
Friday 27 November 2009
Oxford Interview
I also have an interview at Oxford though, unfortunately, not with the college to which I applied originally. Something about having too many applicants for each subject. I got shoved along to a mature students college though which, on second thought, would probably be a much more pleasant environment for me. I don't really want to hang out with a bunch of 18 year olds!
The interviews are coming up and I'm in the process of relearning my master's degree so that I can appear moderately intelligent.
The interviews are coming up and I'm in the process of relearning my master's degree so that I can appear moderately intelligent.
Sunday 15 November 2009
A bit of good news
A bit of good news... finally! I have been invited for an interview at Cambridge!!! Despite my many, many screw-ups in the application process. Cambridge admissions interviews are legendary for being bizarre and harrowing, which Cambridge insists is just a myth. Supposedly they ask you questions like, 'Would you rather be a banana or an apple?'; 'How many planes do you think are flying over Cambridge right now?'; 'What is the shape of an egg?'. There is no 'correct' answer to any of these questions, they just want to see how you handle them and what your thought process is. They also want to get an idea of whether you're really motivated and interested in the subject. I've never been interviewed for school admissions--wait scratch that, yes I have--but I think this will be a different kettle of fish.
So legendary are Oxbridge interviews that I've already had one nightmare about them and I only got the letter yesterday. In my nightmare my husband and I were in our hotel room in Cambridge getting ready for bed when all of a sudden this biker guy in black leather chaps with a giant black mustache was in the room, lobbing trivia questions at me. And I didn't know the answers to most of them! I just gave lame guesses. HORRIFYING!
I think the fact that I couldn't answer means I need to start preparing for this interview by reviewing all the law-related work I've been doing for the last several years. The fact that I was preparing for bed reflects how the interview may be designed to throw you off balance, hit you with things you don't expect. The lame guesses are what I fear my answers are going to seem like if I don't prepare. The leather biker guy---I remember in my dream thinking, 'Oh, at Cambridge they have all kinds' so I guess I should expect all kinds.
Being unemployed, sad and suffering with a prolonged and severe cold, this is a very welcome bit of news.
So legendary are Oxbridge interviews that I've already had one nightmare about them and I only got the letter yesterday. In my nightmare my husband and I were in our hotel room in Cambridge getting ready for bed when all of a sudden this biker guy in black leather chaps with a giant black mustache was in the room, lobbing trivia questions at me. And I didn't know the answers to most of them! I just gave lame guesses. HORRIFYING!
I think the fact that I couldn't answer means I need to start preparing for this interview by reviewing all the law-related work I've been doing for the last several years. The fact that I was preparing for bed reflects how the interview may be designed to throw you off balance, hit you with things you don't expect. The lame guesses are what I fear my answers are going to seem like if I don't prepare. The leather biker guy---I remember in my dream thinking, 'Oh, at Cambridge they have all kinds' so I guess I should expect all kinds.
Being unemployed, sad and suffering with a prolonged and severe cold, this is a very welcome bit of news.
Thursday 5 November 2009
Kerfuffle
Oh. Dear. God.
I already submitted all my applications to British schools and thought all the details were correct. But then I got a paper copy of my Advanced Placement scores and found out I reported one of them wrong on my applications. I said I got a 5 but I got a 4!!!!! Oh mediocrity.
I had not thought about these scores for 8 years since I took the exams. 8 YEARS FOLKS. Yes I am old.
The only thing I could do is email each university I applied for and ask them to correct the mistake which has meant they attach a 'note' to my application. This is going to look awful. And now they want to have a copy of my AP score report. Each report is $25. Apps are expensive.
I already submitted all my applications to British schools and thought all the details were correct. But then I got a paper copy of my Advanced Placement scores and found out I reported one of them wrong on my applications. I said I got a 5 but I got a 4!!!!! Oh mediocrity.
I had not thought about these scores for 8 years since I took the exams. 8 YEARS FOLKS. Yes I am old.
The only thing I could do is email each university I applied for and ask them to correct the mistake which has meant they attach a 'note' to my application. This is going to look awful. And now they want to have a copy of my AP score report. Each report is $25. Apps are expensive.
Tuesday 27 October 2009
You Heard It Here First!
You heard it here first: the sixth season of The Office sucks. Even worse than the last two seasons. Someone had to say it.
My life is a series of shambolic episodes
I took the LNAT, law national admissions test, today. It's the admissions test for studying law in Britain.
Let me tell you something about my life. It is a series of shambolic episodes.
Avid readers will remember the episode of my being almost too late to take the LSAT.
Today I took the bus down to central London at an indecently early hour to take the LNAT. I had my test confirmation ticket, which they said to bring and ID. Now, this is what their website says are valid forms of ID:
A current signed passport (an unsigned passport will be acceptable only if it is of a biometric type that does not allow for a signature)
A current signed photocard driving licence (full or provisional)
A current identity card, issued by the government of the country where the test centre is located, that carries your photograph and signature
Now I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem to specify that the driving license has to be issued by the government of the country where the test centre is located, unlike the current identity card option. So I think, 'Great, I don't have to needlessly carry my passport into town, I can just use my valid driver's license from my home State.' NO, NO YOU CAN'T. It doesn't say it has to be British BUT IT DOES. DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT???
Reader, I did not know this because the LNAT website is a piece of shit. So is the LNAT for that matter.
It wasn't a complete disaster. I just had to go back home and get my passport and come back, which isn't a big deal except that is a 2 hour round trip in London. I did it though and got through the exam.
It's funny all the prep books tell you that just before the exam you should take your mind off it, distract yourself with something else. Well, I was certainly distracted.
Now my complaints about the exam itself.
This exam is ridiculous. First, I took several practice tests and got massively widely differing scores on each one, which shows that it isn't a very reliable measuring tool. Second, for each question you could make a strong argument that a different answer was correct. The exam simultaneously requires you to think less, making intuitive generalisations and to think more--for some questions you have to make several assumptions or logical jumps to get the correct answer. In other words, some questions require a gospel reading, some require further interpretation and you never know which is which. Third, it is an extremely badly written exam. The question stem will ask, 'What are the people in the article arguing?' but their correct answer will answer the question, 'What is the author of the article arguing?'. These are clearly different questions. Fourth, although they claim no outside knowledge is required to answer the questions, sometimes it really is. You would be at a particular disadvantage if you were not British or British-educated. The passages are often about British politics and education and require certain foreknowledge about such things as the European Union or Council of Europe political mechanisms or about British standardised testing. Luckily I have been here long enough that I'm familiar with most of it. How is someone outside of the UK supposed to know what GCSEs are? I don't think I had ever used the word 'accession' before I came to the UK and studied the EU. Fifth, the LNAT makes up its own definitions for words and expects you to know them. Assumption, assertion, opinion, suggestion, fact--you would have to have foreknowledge of how they define these to answer the questions correctly.
I will get my LNAT score in January. By the way, what the hell is that about? You get your LSAT score in 3 weeks and it helps you decide what law schools you can apply to. Here you have to finish your applications before you even have to take the exam. And you don't get your score back until after you've been interviewed? Surely that doesn't make sense.
Sometimes you have to give up questioning why Britons do things the way Britons do them. Thinking about the fact that I spent 4 hours on a bus today makes me really excited about studying law at my Midwest State School where a commute is 20 minutes tops.
This concludes all application activities for British universities. It is entirely out of my hands now.
Let me tell you something about my life. It is a series of shambolic episodes.
Avid readers will remember the episode of my being almost too late to take the LSAT.
Today I took the bus down to central London at an indecently early hour to take the LNAT. I had my test confirmation ticket, which they said to bring and ID. Now, this is what their website says are valid forms of ID:
A current signed passport (an unsigned passport will be acceptable only if it is of a biometric type that does not allow for a signature)
A current signed photocard driving licence (full or provisional)
A current identity card, issued by the government of the country where the test centre is located, that carries your photograph and signature
Now I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem to specify that the driving license has to be issued by the government of the country where the test centre is located, unlike the current identity card option. So I think, 'Great, I don't have to needlessly carry my passport into town, I can just use my valid driver's license from my home State.' NO, NO YOU CAN'T. It doesn't say it has to be British BUT IT DOES. DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT???
Reader, I did not know this because the LNAT website is a piece of shit. So is the LNAT for that matter.
It wasn't a complete disaster. I just had to go back home and get my passport and come back, which isn't a big deal except that is a 2 hour round trip in London. I did it though and got through the exam.
It's funny all the prep books tell you that just before the exam you should take your mind off it, distract yourself with something else. Well, I was certainly distracted.
Now my complaints about the exam itself.
This exam is ridiculous. First, I took several practice tests and got massively widely differing scores on each one, which shows that it isn't a very reliable measuring tool. Second, for each question you could make a strong argument that a different answer was correct. The exam simultaneously requires you to think less, making intuitive generalisations and to think more--for some questions you have to make several assumptions or logical jumps to get the correct answer. In other words, some questions require a gospel reading, some require further interpretation and you never know which is which. Third, it is an extremely badly written exam. The question stem will ask, 'What are the people in the article arguing?' but their correct answer will answer the question, 'What is the author of the article arguing?'. These are clearly different questions. Fourth, although they claim no outside knowledge is required to answer the questions, sometimes it really is. You would be at a particular disadvantage if you were not British or British-educated. The passages are often about British politics and education and require certain foreknowledge about such things as the European Union or Council of Europe political mechanisms or about British standardised testing. Luckily I have been here long enough that I'm familiar with most of it. How is someone outside of the UK supposed to know what GCSEs are? I don't think I had ever used the word 'accession' before I came to the UK and studied the EU. Fifth, the LNAT makes up its own definitions for words and expects you to know them. Assumption, assertion, opinion, suggestion, fact--you would have to have foreknowledge of how they define these to answer the questions correctly.
I will get my LNAT score in January. By the way, what the hell is that about? You get your LSAT score in 3 weeks and it helps you decide what law schools you can apply to. Here you have to finish your applications before you even have to take the exam. And you don't get your score back until after you've been interviewed? Surely that doesn't make sense.
Sometimes you have to give up questioning why Britons do things the way Britons do them. Thinking about the fact that I spent 4 hours on a bus today makes me really excited about studying law at my Midwest State School where a commute is 20 minutes tops.
This concludes all application activities for British universities. It is entirely out of my hands now.
Monday 26 October 2009
Something Completely Different!
And now for something completely different: actual legal issues!
I have been following the trial of Radovan Karadzic since he was arrested almost a year and half ago. International justice is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. This morning Karadzic refused to leave his jail cell to attend the first day of his trial, which means the trial can't go anywhere yet. He wants a few more months to prepare because he wants to defend himself.
What is with these war crimes suspects wanting to defend themselves?!?!? Is it just a delay tactic? Do they think they can teach themselves how to be effective defense lawyers while delaying their trial for a few years thus killing two birds with one stone? This article claims that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has three choices--appoint Karadzic a lawyer, drag him to court, or grant him extra time to prepare. I may be missing some key information here but isn't he in prison? Doesn't that mean he has to go where they tell him to go... because he's a prisoner? Even Charles Taylor eventually showed up, even if it was only to rant and rave about the illegitimacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. That trial is also starting up again today.
Reading up on this stuff after focusing on other areas for a while is getting me all excited about international criminal law again. I'm thinking... law school, maybe an LLM in International Public Law, practice domestic criminal law for a few years, do an internship at an international criminal court/tribunal, then maybe become a staff lawyer. Could be amazing. And as I understand it the ICC is bleeding staff because everyone thinks it's so poorly run. Having been unemployed and unemployable for as long as I have been makes you willing to put up with things other people would not be willing to put up with, just to have a paying job that is interesting.
I have been following the trial of Radovan Karadzic since he was arrested almost a year and half ago. International justice is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. This morning Karadzic refused to leave his jail cell to attend the first day of his trial, which means the trial can't go anywhere yet. He wants a few more months to prepare because he wants to defend himself.
What is with these war crimes suspects wanting to defend themselves?!?!? Is it just a delay tactic? Do they think they can teach themselves how to be effective defense lawyers while delaying their trial for a few years thus killing two birds with one stone? This article claims that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has three choices--appoint Karadzic a lawyer, drag him to court, or grant him extra time to prepare. I may be missing some key information here but isn't he in prison? Doesn't that mean he has to go where they tell him to go... because he's a prisoner? Even Charles Taylor eventually showed up, even if it was only to rant and rave about the illegitimacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. That trial is also starting up again today.
Reading up on this stuff after focusing on other areas for a while is getting me all excited about international criminal law again. I'm thinking... law school, maybe an LLM in International Public Law, practice domestic criminal law for a few years, do an internship at an international criminal court/tribunal, then maybe become a staff lawyer. Could be amazing. And as I understand it the ICC is bleeding staff because everyone thinks it's so poorly run. Having been unemployed and unemployable for as long as I have been makes you willing to put up with things other people would not be willing to put up with, just to have a paying job that is interesting.
Sunday 25 October 2009
New Blogroll
Hi all,
I've been looking for other law blogs to read and have found a few that are still running and update reasonably frequently. I have put them in a law blogroll on the sidebar. I'm also considering putting up a blogroll for my favourite time-wasting websites. I'll get around to putting that up one of these days.
EH
I've been looking for other law blogs to read and have found a few that are still running and update reasonably frequently. I have put them in a law blogroll on the sidebar. I'm also considering putting up a blogroll for my favourite time-wasting websites. I'll get around to putting that up one of these days.
EH
LNAT Practice; Let me tell you something about the LNAT
I've been doing some practice on the LNAT in preparation for taking the exam on Tuesday. I know, I know--this has been nothing like my LSAT prep. The LNAT and LSAT are very different tests though.
Let me tell you something about the LNAT.
First, the LNAT is only 2 hours long. It is comprised of an 80 minute section of 30 multiple choice questions based on 10 excerpts, followed by a 40 minute essay section. In contrast, the LSAT has 6 sections, 5 of which contain 23-38 multiple choice questions comprising 2 logical reasoning sections, one reading comprehension, one logic games and one experimental section of one of the three types, followed by an essay writing section. The LSAT takes about 4 hours of testing time.
Excluding the writing portion, the LNAT is basically just a longer version of the LSAT reading comprehension section, with 10 passages of shorter length, each with 2-4 questions. The final score is the number correct out of 30. The average score is around 17, which seems rather low.
The writing section, like the LSAT writing section, is unscored. The good news for me is that there is no logic games section on the LNAT. I always score the lowest on Logic Games and the highest on Reading Comprehension.
For this reason and because I have already done 4 months of preparation for the LSAT I have not been sweating the LNAT too much. Which is why I haven't gotten around to any prep for it until 2 days before the test. I took a practice test today and I was happy with my score. Hopefully I can reproduce it at the actual exam.
Let me tell you something about the LNAT.
First, the LNAT is only 2 hours long. It is comprised of an 80 minute section of 30 multiple choice questions based on 10 excerpts, followed by a 40 minute essay section. In contrast, the LSAT has 6 sections, 5 of which contain 23-38 multiple choice questions comprising 2 logical reasoning sections, one reading comprehension, one logic games and one experimental section of one of the three types, followed by an essay writing section. The LSAT takes about 4 hours of testing time.
Excluding the writing portion, the LNAT is basically just a longer version of the LSAT reading comprehension section, with 10 passages of shorter length, each with 2-4 questions. The final score is the number correct out of 30. The average score is around 17, which seems rather low.
The writing section, like the LSAT writing section, is unscored. The good news for me is that there is no logic games section on the LNAT. I always score the lowest on Logic Games and the highest on Reading Comprehension.
For this reason and because I have already done 4 months of preparation for the LSAT I have not been sweating the LNAT too much. Which is why I haven't gotten around to any prep for it until 2 days before the test. I took a practice test today and I was happy with my score. Hopefully I can reproduce it at the actual exam.
Wednesday 21 October 2009
Finalised Cambridge Application; Let me tell you something about... British admission requirements
I have finished the last component of the Cambridge application and can't do anything more for it now.
Let me tell you something about British admission requirements. British high school students have it rough. At the age of 16 they have to take these big exams called GCSE exams. The most eager students take 10 in one year. The scores you receive on these exams determine what classes you can take in the next two years. Then at the end of those two years you take another set of massive exams called A-level exams. A-level exams and results determine what subject you can study and at what university. How cruel is that? I can't imagine having to decide at the age of 15/16 what I'm going to major in at university! I guess that has something to do with the increasing popularity of conversion courses and post-graduate diplomas that basically qualify you in a subject completely different from the one you studied in college.
Anyway, I mentioned before that the British university applications process is much simpler than the American undergraduate system because of the UCAS clearinghouse. Unless you've been educated somewhere where you don't do GCSEs and A-levels as I was. This makes it a lot harder to fill in the electronic application. Luckily I got good help from the adviceline and also sent in all my high school and university transcripts to substitute for it.
Most of the people applying for these degree courses are 17-18 year olds. I am old enough to be their... babysitter. I also already have a bachelor's and master's degree. Now I'm going back for another bachelor's. Yes, I'm a mature student.
Let me tell you something about British admission requirements. British high school students have it rough. At the age of 16 they have to take these big exams called GCSE exams. The most eager students take 10 in one year. The scores you receive on these exams determine what classes you can take in the next two years. Then at the end of those two years you take another set of massive exams called A-level exams. A-level exams and results determine what subject you can study and at what university. How cruel is that? I can't imagine having to decide at the age of 15/16 what I'm going to major in at university! I guess that has something to do with the increasing popularity of conversion courses and post-graduate diplomas that basically qualify you in a subject completely different from the one you studied in college.
Anyway, I mentioned before that the British university applications process is much simpler than the American undergraduate system because of the UCAS clearinghouse. Unless you've been educated somewhere where you don't do GCSEs and A-levels as I was. This makes it a lot harder to fill in the electronic application. Luckily I got good help from the adviceline and also sent in all my high school and university transcripts to substitute for it.
Most of the people applying for these degree courses are 17-18 year olds. I am old enough to be their... babysitter. I also already have a bachelor's and master's degree. Now I'm going back for another bachelor's. Yes, I'm a mature student.
Tuesday 20 October 2009
LSAT Score
We got back our LSAT scores this past weekend. I did achieve the goal I set for myself but didn't see much improvement overall which was disappointing. I guess in the end Ivey was right that it isn't worth it to retake the LSAT. I also think I was right that I simply hit my natural wall. It's a disappointingly low wall.
I was about to go into a rant about standardised testing, but I'll save that for another time!
Anyway, I guess this is pretty much what expected, though not what I hoped for. I hope it will at least be enough to get me into my Midwest State School. I don't know what will happen if I don't get into a law school. I'll probably just curl up into a ball and die. I can't think of any other thing I want to do as much.
One of my British applications was one day late! It was a paper application that I had to mail in. There have been postal strikes all over the UK which have been extremely disruptive. I sent it FedEx to avoid that problem. It was meant to be delivered next day. The day after that I got a call that it hadn't been delivered yet because the envelope covering had been ripped off. So it actually didn't get delivered until the day after the deadline. I have no idea whether the university will take it.
It's like the universe doesn't want me to get into law school.
The LNAT exam is one week from today and I haven't cracked a book for it yet. I figure all that work for LSAT didn't help much, it probably won't help with LNAT, so I'm not going to work too hard on it. Cynical, cynical, cynical and pessimistic.
**************
In happier news, we have our tickets to come home for Christmas. I'm looking forward to blissful peace, cold, warmth, food, family, friends, driving in the snow and some R&R.
I was about to go into a rant about standardised testing, but I'll save that for another time!
Anyway, I guess this is pretty much what expected, though not what I hoped for. I hope it will at least be enough to get me into my Midwest State School. I don't know what will happen if I don't get into a law school. I'll probably just curl up into a ball and die. I can't think of any other thing I want to do as much.
One of my British applications was one day late! It was a paper application that I had to mail in. There have been postal strikes all over the UK which have been extremely disruptive. I sent it FedEx to avoid that problem. It was meant to be delivered next day. The day after that I got a call that it hadn't been delivered yet because the envelope covering had been ripped off. So it actually didn't get delivered until the day after the deadline. I have no idea whether the university will take it.
It's like the universe doesn't want me to get into law school.
The LNAT exam is one week from today and I haven't cracked a book for it yet. I figure all that work for LSAT didn't help much, it probably won't help with LNAT, so I'm not going to work too hard on it. Cynical, cynical, cynical and pessimistic.
**************
In happier news, we have our tickets to come home for Christmas. I'm looking forward to blissful peace, cold, warmth, food, family, friends, driving in the snow and some R&R.
Wednesday 14 October 2009
British Applications: Mission Accomplished! Almost. (Let me tell you something about... British college applications)
I have submitted my British applications!
Let me tell you something about British college applications. They are SO much easier than American college applications! I know American law school apps go through a clearinghouse called LSDAS where you submit all your transcripts and information and you send a single application electronically to all the schools you want to apply to. In the UK they do that with undergraduate applications too with a system called UCAS. UCAS allows you to submit applications for up to 5 universities. I have mentioned the ones I'm applying to before.
Now that bit is done, there is only one more thing before my British applications are completely done and dusted: I have to take the LNAT. I'm registered and now I have to start preparing a bit. I have about 2 weeks.
And I have to start the American applications. Yikes!
Let me tell you something about British college applications. They are SO much easier than American college applications! I know American law school apps go through a clearinghouse called LSDAS where you submit all your transcripts and information and you send a single application electronically to all the schools you want to apply to. In the UK they do that with undergraduate applications too with a system called UCAS. UCAS allows you to submit applications for up to 5 universities. I have mentioned the ones I'm applying to before.
Now that bit is done, there is only one more thing before my British applications are completely done and dusted: I have to take the LNAT. I'm registered and now I have to start preparing a bit. I have about 2 weeks.
And I have to start the American applications. Yikes!
Tuesday 13 October 2009
UK Applications Update
I was having drinks with a friend of mine who read law at King's College London and was on my master's course at my Master's University. She has been a great resource for all my random questions while trying to figure out the British applications process. She also tends to forcefully argue her advice despite my objections... Thus I have been convinced that I should also apply to several other UK law schools including, surprise, King's College London. I have subsequent to the initial conversation been convinced that this is a good idea. In addition to Oxford and Cambridge, I'm applying to University College London, King's College London and the London School of Economics. So instead of two solid rejection letters, I'll get perhaps one acceptance and a handful of rejections. Or just a gigantic steaming pile of rejections.
Friday 9 October 2009
Applications to Oxford and Cambridge
Dear readers, especially the one from Indonesia, I have had a busy few weeks since the LSAT. I have had to move apartments and am still in the process of unpacking and figuring out what goes where. This apartment, by the way, is a veritable comedy of fuck-up-edness. Everything in it is broken or so cheap it will be broken soon.
Anyway, I have also been in the process of submitting applications to Oxford and Cambridge. They both take UCAS applications. UCAS is a sort of clearinghouse, a single application you create online and submit to all the colleges to which you are applying. It is great for convenience, if you are a British high school student about to graduate. If you're a foreign-educated mature student, well it's a hell of a lot more difficult. However, they have a helpline which is extremely useful and has already seen a few calls from me. For Cambridge, you also have to submit a separate overseas student application, which is another hoop to jump. I am almost completely ready to send both applications off before the famous deadline of October 15th.
Now I'm applying to Oxford, I have to take the LNAT, the British equivalent to the LSAT. I have already spent some time preparing for it, and I hope my LSAT practice will aid me.
Also, I should get my LSAT score in a week or so. Stay tuned.
Anyway, I have also been in the process of submitting applications to Oxford and Cambridge. They both take UCAS applications. UCAS is a sort of clearinghouse, a single application you create online and submit to all the colleges to which you are applying. It is great for convenience, if you are a British high school student about to graduate. If you're a foreign-educated mature student, well it's a hell of a lot more difficult. However, they have a helpline which is extremely useful and has already seen a few calls from me. For Cambridge, you also have to submit a separate overseas student application, which is another hoop to jump. I am almost completely ready to send both applications off before the famous deadline of October 15th.
Now I'm applying to Oxford, I have to take the LNAT, the British equivalent to the LSAT. I have already spent some time preparing for it, and I hope my LSAT practice will aid me.
Also, I should get my LSAT score in a week or so. Stay tuned.
Thursday 1 October 2009
Post-LSAT
I took the LSAT last Saturday and I meant to write about it much sooner, but happily I've been too busy living life to write about my life.
I was almost too late to be allowed into the LSAT test facility. If you take it here in London, it is scheduled for the early afternoon so that it is done simultaneously with test-takers in the US. That meant I had a whole morning to be nervous and to worry about getting to the test centre on time. I looked up the route for getting there on the Transport For London website. It calculates the best route for you.
I should have known better.
It told me to take 2 buses, the first down to Angel, the second to the location of the test centre. It said the whole trip would take about 45 minutes. I decided to leave 1 hour 15 minutes early, so that I would get there in plenty of time. Big mistake! It took 45 minutes just to get to Angel. I was sitting there, waiting for the next bus, which I estimated would take half an hour to get to the test centre. Yet there was... No bus in sight... and just 25 minutes before the test was to begin. I decided there was nothing for it but to do what I should have done in the first place. I topped up my Oyster card and got on the tube. I had to go down two stops, change lines, go one more stop. I got to the change and walked to the platform--guess what??? unannounced line closure!!!!! I then had 15 minutes to get to my test centre which was still one tube station away. So I got out of the station and half-speedwalked, half-ran to the test centre. I was pouring sweat when I got there but I made it. Only 6 people got in behind me before they started turning people away for being too late. Fortunately, the room where most people were seated got filled up and a bunch of us had to be put in a different room. I had a few moments to catch my breath while they sorted out the chairs and tables.
Lesson: Don't trust bloody public transport, and don't trust god-less computer programmes!
As for the test...
I'm not supposed to talk about the actual content of the exam until the results come out, so no specifics. But generally speaking, it went okay. Not great, but okay. First, I've been doing a full practice test every Sunday for months now. It was an excellent way to practice and paid off great dividends on the big day. The heart attack-inducing arrival notwithstanding, I was generally very calm. I could very easily tell myself it was just like sitting down to another practice test. In the LSAT it is especially important to stay calm, because a section like Logic Games can very easily spiral out of control. It's also a very mental test and particularly for me; I was competing against myself, my old score, and therefore my greatest natural competitor! Also, in practical terms, you're used to the time put in, your neck doesn't get stiff, your bum doesn't get sore. You make good use of your short break. It's nice to feel that you're in control of the situation.
That's all the good I can say about the exam. The rest is ambiguous or downright bad.
The logic games... the logic games. Well for some reason they seemed a little too easy which is a sure sign that in my excitement I missed some important detail. But then I don't really know. In truth, I have no idea how I did. I will find out in two week's time.
One thing that isn't going to help at all is that when I didn't finish the last 5 or 6 questions in the logic games section, time was called and I had forgotten to fill in the bubbles. You're not penalised for taking a guess in LSAT so even if you can't answer the question, you should always guess. On probability, I would have gotten 1-2 more points. That is a significant number of points in the LSAT, and I spent the entire following section yelling, 'Shit, shit, shit!' at myself in my head.
Overall, I have no idea how I did. I didn't feel strongly about any section--I might end up scoring the same or lower than my first score! In the Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions, Anna Ivey highly discourages taking the LSAT more than once and says most people do not improve on taking it a second time. (By the way, I do highly recommend that book. Ivey was an admissions officer for the University of Chicago and the book is an excellent resource.)
I've not done things the way she recommends, but... I don't know. I guess I'll have to wait for my score to see if I've been vindicated.
I was almost too late to be allowed into the LSAT test facility. If you take it here in London, it is scheduled for the early afternoon so that it is done simultaneously with test-takers in the US. That meant I had a whole morning to be nervous and to worry about getting to the test centre on time. I looked up the route for getting there on the Transport For London website. It calculates the best route for you.
I should have known better.
It told me to take 2 buses, the first down to Angel, the second to the location of the test centre. It said the whole trip would take about 45 minutes. I decided to leave 1 hour 15 minutes early, so that I would get there in plenty of time. Big mistake! It took 45 minutes just to get to Angel. I was sitting there, waiting for the next bus, which I estimated would take half an hour to get to the test centre. Yet there was... No bus in sight... and just 25 minutes before the test was to begin. I decided there was nothing for it but to do what I should have done in the first place. I topped up my Oyster card and got on the tube. I had to go down two stops, change lines, go one more stop. I got to the change and walked to the platform--guess what??? unannounced line closure!!!!! I then had 15 minutes to get to my test centre which was still one tube station away. So I got out of the station and half-speedwalked, half-ran to the test centre. I was pouring sweat when I got there but I made it. Only 6 people got in behind me before they started turning people away for being too late. Fortunately, the room where most people were seated got filled up and a bunch of us had to be put in a different room. I had a few moments to catch my breath while they sorted out the chairs and tables.
Lesson: Don't trust bloody public transport, and don't trust god-less computer programmes!
As for the test...
I'm not supposed to talk about the actual content of the exam until the results come out, so no specifics. But generally speaking, it went okay. Not great, but okay. First, I've been doing a full practice test every Sunday for months now. It was an excellent way to practice and paid off great dividends on the big day. The heart attack-inducing arrival notwithstanding, I was generally very calm. I could very easily tell myself it was just like sitting down to another practice test. In the LSAT it is especially important to stay calm, because a section like Logic Games can very easily spiral out of control. It's also a very mental test and particularly for me; I was competing against myself, my old score, and therefore my greatest natural competitor! Also, in practical terms, you're used to the time put in, your neck doesn't get stiff, your bum doesn't get sore. You make good use of your short break. It's nice to feel that you're in control of the situation.
That's all the good I can say about the exam. The rest is ambiguous or downright bad.
The logic games... the logic games. Well for some reason they seemed a little too easy which is a sure sign that in my excitement I missed some important detail. But then I don't really know. In truth, I have no idea how I did. I will find out in two week's time.
One thing that isn't going to help at all is that when I didn't finish the last 5 or 6 questions in the logic games section, time was called and I had forgotten to fill in the bubbles. You're not penalised for taking a guess in LSAT so even if you can't answer the question, you should always guess. On probability, I would have gotten 1-2 more points. That is a significant number of points in the LSAT, and I spent the entire following section yelling, 'Shit, shit, shit!' at myself in my head.
Overall, I have no idea how I did. I didn't feel strongly about any section--I might end up scoring the same or lower than my first score! In the Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions, Anna Ivey highly discourages taking the LSAT more than once and says most people do not improve on taking it a second time. (By the way, I do highly recommend that book. Ivey was an admissions officer for the University of Chicago and the book is an excellent resource.)
I've not done things the way she recommends, but... I don't know. I guess I'll have to wait for my score to see if I've been vindicated.
Friday 25 September 2009
LSAT Tomorrow
I'm taking the LSAT tomorrow and I think it's a good time to describe my thoughts about it.
I took the LSAT once before after doing a 5-week Kaplan prep course and I did better than average, but not by much. I don't have too much difficulty with reasoning and reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is probably what I'm best at. I am slightly less successful with logical reasoning my greatest weakness being formal logic statements. My downfall, my Everest, is the logic games section. What logic games have to do with being a lawyer or even with studying law I have yet to understand. I think it has to do more with mental dexterity and juggling multiple details under pressure than solving problems. I've always been terrible at logic puzzles, since I was a child and could do them in math for extra credit. If it weren't for logic games, I would probably score pretty high on the LSAT. So I tell myself.
When I first started practicing them, I was lucky if I was able to finish one game out of four. I found them really, really difficult. Then I took the Kaplan course and improved somewhat, but not as much as I had hoped to improve. I was disappointed in the Kaplan prep course's approach to teaching logic games. I will explain why in a moment.
The first time I took the LSAT was two years ago. I had just started my master's degree and was already in classes when I took the exam. Once in my classes, I had very little time to keep up the LSAT prep and I felt that I did not do as well as I could have done. I also felt that I had failed to focus adequately on the area that gave me the most trouble and the area in which I could potentially see the most improvement, the logic games section.
This time around I began studying earlier in the hopes of improving, especially by focusing most of my time on logic games, while not ignoring improvements I could potentially make in the other sections. I kept up a fairly rigorous study schedule throughout the summer, accommodating holidays and special occasions as best I could. I worked long and hard, I have to admit that. I also have to admit I could have worked harder, although that would be true no matter how much I worked. I did LSAT practice between 1-3 hours every day for the past 17 weeks, and a practice test each Sunday morning. Looking at my little printed schedule right now, I'm faintly proud at how much I worked. But also disappointed. I can never seem to shake the thought that I could have done more.
In my study schedule, I spent 4 days each week doing logic games exclusively, then the other two between a mix of logical reasoning, reading comprehension and more logic games.
Over the 17 weeks, I have raised my LSAT score, according to my practice tests, by 6-7 points. I set an initial goal and have surpassed that, but find I am still disappointed, as on further research my goal score is still not good enough to bother applying for the Top 14 schools. They have gotten a lot more selective, competition has gotten stiffer with more people going back to school because of the recession, and my grade point average is not good enough to make up the deficiency of my LSAT score. I'm heaving a great sigh.
I am disappointed that my 'numbers' are too low to make me a serious contender for the top schools because my subjective factors are pretty good, I think, and I'm fairly certain I would do well at any school. And I was really looking forward to a good legal education at a law school that educates legal minds, instead of just cramming minds with law.
Despite losing that opportunity, I am still really excited about the prospect of studying law at the Midwest State School, for all the reasons I have articulated before. In fact, it will be a form of bliss.
Now about the Kaplan LSAT course. I said I was disappointed in their method of teaching logic games. I felt their teaching style was based too much an assumption of intuitive understanding. The teachers they hire are basically anyone who scored higher than 170 on their LSAT. I have a strong feeling that people who score higher than 170 have an ability naturally that the rest of us who take prep courses are trying to learn artifically. Their style of understanding is much more intuitive and automatic, because they're simply that bright and clearheaded. I however, am not that bright or clearheaded and I need things explained to me, step by step. The Kaplan teachers and the Kaplan method I felt assume you will understand something, or that you will become aware of something, simply by your own brilliance, a characteristic which I lack.
That's not to say that logic games can only be done using intuitive reasoning. Quite the opposite. People who don't get them naturally can be taught to do them, I firmly believe that, they just need more help and more instruction at each step to see the patterns and inferences which seem axiomatic to those more fortunate. I felt Kaplan did not teach to this type of student.
Now, for a digression. My Midwest State School has a study abroad programme for law students to come to London for a semester. I was not aware of that until day I saw a girl walking by on the street with a big sweatshirt of my Midwest State School. I stopped her and had a chat with her (another digression: I was coming home from a bad day and it was too irresistible to not take the opportunity of speaking to someone from home, when I knew it would be so comforting and familiar, and it was both). She told me about what she was studying at Midwest State School, and we discovered we had some friends and acquaintences in common. She also told me she had been a teacher for a prep course that was a rival to Kaplan and that they also felt Kaplan's method of teaching logic games was deficient. She recommended that although I couldn't take one of their courses in London, I should get one of their books.
Well, this year I got one of their books, the Logic Games Bible. If you struggle with logic games, I cannot recommend this book enough. It gave me exactly what I needed in terms of instruction and more importantly it taught me the cues or tools to recognise when there is an intuitive inference to be made. Suddenly it became far less intuitive and mysterious and incomprehensible and much more like a game with defined rules and recognisable patterns. It put logic games in a context such that they were amenable to being solved by skills rather than by luck or intuition.
From using this prep book, I was able to go from completing 2 games in one section to completing 3. The fourth is still elusive and there are still some types of games that I struggle and struggle with endlessly. I am still prone to inaccurate transcriptions, misread rules, a failure to understand the global view of a game (losing the forest for the trees, in a way) and I am still far too slow. If I had another 4 weeks to focus solely on logic games, I might improve.
Then again, I might not.
Sometimes I think I have simply hit my natural plateau and no amount of work will make me better. I struggle with the knowledge that I'm not as smart as I wish I was. Things don't seem to come as easily to me as they do to other people and I seem to need two cracks at something before I can do it right. Obviously, life rarely affords that kind of opportunity. Yes, I think I may have hit my natural wall on logic games. On the day of the exam, that is to say tomorrow, the types of questions they put on the logic games will determine how well I do on the section. If it's 3 relatively simple games and 1 hard game, I might come out all right. If it's 2 simple and 2 hard, I probably won't significantly improve my score. If it's 1 easy, 3 hard, it could very well be a complete disaster. I am doing practice sections from old exams. Sometimes it's a disaster, sometimes it's pretty successful. I guess my success will depend on my luck on the day.
I took the LSAT once before after doing a 5-week Kaplan prep course and I did better than average, but not by much. I don't have too much difficulty with reasoning and reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is probably what I'm best at. I am slightly less successful with logical reasoning my greatest weakness being formal logic statements. My downfall, my Everest, is the logic games section. What logic games have to do with being a lawyer or even with studying law I have yet to understand. I think it has to do more with mental dexterity and juggling multiple details under pressure than solving problems. I've always been terrible at logic puzzles, since I was a child and could do them in math for extra credit. If it weren't for logic games, I would probably score pretty high on the LSAT. So I tell myself.
When I first started practicing them, I was lucky if I was able to finish one game out of four. I found them really, really difficult. Then I took the Kaplan course and improved somewhat, but not as much as I had hoped to improve. I was disappointed in the Kaplan prep course's approach to teaching logic games. I will explain why in a moment.
The first time I took the LSAT was two years ago. I had just started my master's degree and was already in classes when I took the exam. Once in my classes, I had very little time to keep up the LSAT prep and I felt that I did not do as well as I could have done. I also felt that I had failed to focus adequately on the area that gave me the most trouble and the area in which I could potentially see the most improvement, the logic games section.
This time around I began studying earlier in the hopes of improving, especially by focusing most of my time on logic games, while not ignoring improvements I could potentially make in the other sections. I kept up a fairly rigorous study schedule throughout the summer, accommodating holidays and special occasions as best I could. I worked long and hard, I have to admit that. I also have to admit I could have worked harder, although that would be true no matter how much I worked. I did LSAT practice between 1-3 hours every day for the past 17 weeks, and a practice test each Sunday morning. Looking at my little printed schedule right now, I'm faintly proud at how much I worked. But also disappointed. I can never seem to shake the thought that I could have done more.
In my study schedule, I spent 4 days each week doing logic games exclusively, then the other two between a mix of logical reasoning, reading comprehension and more logic games.
Over the 17 weeks, I have raised my LSAT score, according to my practice tests, by 6-7 points. I set an initial goal and have surpassed that, but find I am still disappointed, as on further research my goal score is still not good enough to bother applying for the Top 14 schools. They have gotten a lot more selective, competition has gotten stiffer with more people going back to school because of the recession, and my grade point average is not good enough to make up the deficiency of my LSAT score. I'm heaving a great sigh.
I am disappointed that my 'numbers' are too low to make me a serious contender for the top schools because my subjective factors are pretty good, I think, and I'm fairly certain I would do well at any school. And I was really looking forward to a good legal education at a law school that educates legal minds, instead of just cramming minds with law.
Despite losing that opportunity, I am still really excited about the prospect of studying law at the Midwest State School, for all the reasons I have articulated before. In fact, it will be a form of bliss.
Now about the Kaplan LSAT course. I said I was disappointed in their method of teaching logic games. I felt their teaching style was based too much an assumption of intuitive understanding. The teachers they hire are basically anyone who scored higher than 170 on their LSAT. I have a strong feeling that people who score higher than 170 have an ability naturally that the rest of us who take prep courses are trying to learn artifically. Their style of understanding is much more intuitive and automatic, because they're simply that bright and clearheaded. I however, am not that bright or clearheaded and I need things explained to me, step by step. The Kaplan teachers and the Kaplan method I felt assume you will understand something, or that you will become aware of something, simply by your own brilliance, a characteristic which I lack.
That's not to say that logic games can only be done using intuitive reasoning. Quite the opposite. People who don't get them naturally can be taught to do them, I firmly believe that, they just need more help and more instruction at each step to see the patterns and inferences which seem axiomatic to those more fortunate. I felt Kaplan did not teach to this type of student.
Now, for a digression. My Midwest State School has a study abroad programme for law students to come to London for a semester. I was not aware of that until day I saw a girl walking by on the street with a big sweatshirt of my Midwest State School. I stopped her and had a chat with her (another digression: I was coming home from a bad day and it was too irresistible to not take the opportunity of speaking to someone from home, when I knew it would be so comforting and familiar, and it was both). She told me about what she was studying at Midwest State School, and we discovered we had some friends and acquaintences in common. She also told me she had been a teacher for a prep course that was a rival to Kaplan and that they also felt Kaplan's method of teaching logic games was deficient. She recommended that although I couldn't take one of their courses in London, I should get one of their books.
Well, this year I got one of their books, the Logic Games Bible. If you struggle with logic games, I cannot recommend this book enough. It gave me exactly what I needed in terms of instruction and more importantly it taught me the cues or tools to recognise when there is an intuitive inference to be made. Suddenly it became far less intuitive and mysterious and incomprehensible and much more like a game with defined rules and recognisable patterns. It put logic games in a context such that they were amenable to being solved by skills rather than by luck or intuition.
From using this prep book, I was able to go from completing 2 games in one section to completing 3. The fourth is still elusive and there are still some types of games that I struggle and struggle with endlessly. I am still prone to inaccurate transcriptions, misread rules, a failure to understand the global view of a game (losing the forest for the trees, in a way) and I am still far too slow. If I had another 4 weeks to focus solely on logic games, I might improve.
Then again, I might not.
Sometimes I think I have simply hit my natural plateau and no amount of work will make me better. I struggle with the knowledge that I'm not as smart as I wish I was. Things don't seem to come as easily to me as they do to other people and I seem to need two cracks at something before I can do it right. Obviously, life rarely affords that kind of opportunity. Yes, I think I may have hit my natural wall on logic games. On the day of the exam, that is to say tomorrow, the types of questions they put on the logic games will determine how well I do on the section. If it's 3 relatively simple games and 1 hard game, I might come out all right. If it's 2 simple and 2 hard, I probably won't significantly improve my score. If it's 1 easy, 3 hard, it could very well be a complete disaster. I am doing practice sections from old exams. Sometimes it's a disaster, sometimes it's pretty successful. I guess my success will depend on my luck on the day.
Friday 18 September 2009
Applications Applications Applications!
One reason why this blog is so incoherent is that I change my mind on a daily basis about what exactly I'm going to do. Up until two days ago I was pretty sure Husband and I were going to move back to Midwest State next year, I would go to Midwest State School and he would go to Prestigious Midwest School, and we would just deal with a 3 and a half hour commute back to our Hometown on the weekends.
But a few days ago, Husband met up with some old friends from Oxbridge University, one of whom is now doing his PhD at British Economics School (which is what Husband wants to do, if it weren't for his little wifey who wants to go to law school). This friend, who is super duper smart, went to the best schools and did tons of math (which is what they want in Economics programmes) told Husband that he didn't get into a single American graduate economics programme! Husband also applied to tons of American graduate economics programmes for after university, but wasn't accepted to a single one (except oddly the Oxbridge University one--that's how we ended up in the UK in the first place). Well this friend knew why--because apparently the people they admit to these programmes are uber duper supercalifragalistic smart people who have not only gone to the top schools and graduated with good marks, but have worked in central banks, published papers, cured cancer and solved world hunger. I exaggerate, but basically they have spent their whole young adulthood aiming every career decision toward getting into one of these graduate economic programmes.
It is clear these programmes are very competitive and a lot more selective than we have previously believed. And even a master's degree from British Economics School isn't sufficient to get you in. Husband's friend basically said that Husband should be glad he is already in the British Economics School because he's much more likely to be able to do his PhD there than in any American school.
So now we're thinking Husband will definitely have to continue at British Economics School if he wants to do his PhD after his MSc. If I still decide to attend Midwest State School, we will be apart. But if I do a law degree here in the UK, we can be closer together.
So now, I'm opening that book again--Yes, I am definitely going to apply for UK schools as well as US schools. Just when I thought my life had gotten a whole lot easier.
But a few days ago, Husband met up with some old friends from Oxbridge University, one of whom is now doing his PhD at British Economics School (which is what Husband wants to do, if it weren't for his little wifey who wants to go to law school). This friend, who is super duper smart, went to the best schools and did tons of math (which is what they want in Economics programmes) told Husband that he didn't get into a single American graduate economics programme! Husband also applied to tons of American graduate economics programmes for after university, but wasn't accepted to a single one (except oddly the Oxbridge University one--that's how we ended up in the UK in the first place). Well this friend knew why--because apparently the people they admit to these programmes are uber duper supercalifragalistic smart people who have not only gone to the top schools and graduated with good marks, but have worked in central banks, published papers, cured cancer and solved world hunger. I exaggerate, but basically they have spent their whole young adulthood aiming every career decision toward getting into one of these graduate economic programmes.
It is clear these programmes are very competitive and a lot more selective than we have previously believed. And even a master's degree from British Economics School isn't sufficient to get you in. Husband's friend basically said that Husband should be glad he is already in the British Economics School because he's much more likely to be able to do his PhD there than in any American school.
So now we're thinking Husband will definitely have to continue at British Economics School if he wants to do his PhD after his MSc. If I still decide to attend Midwest State School, we will be apart. But if I do a law degree here in the UK, we can be closer together.
So now, I'm opening that book again--Yes, I am definitely going to apply for UK schools as well as US schools. Just when I thought my life had gotten a whole lot easier.
Wednesday 16 September 2009
A Day in the Life of a Prosecutor
I came across this article some time ago. It's written by a narcotics prosecutor from Kentucky called Sterling Beaumont (I think that's a name--an amazing one) and I found it very interesting and informative. Because it's very difficult to imagine what a prosecutor does all day without resorting, as he says, to Law and Order. But Beaumont says this is a very misleading preconception to have. He doesn't paint a rosy picture, in fact he is quite disparaging of the profession. It is a busy job, difficult, frustrating, hectic and discouraging. He ends:
"A day in the life of a prosecutor is long. Looking back, I could have stayed in the office until seven or eight o'clock at night each night and still not have accomplished everything I wanted to do. I typically worked about fifty hours per week because I wanted to spend time with my family. Ultimately, the crushing caseload and the psychological grind of hundreds of similar cases led to my return to private practice as a civil litigator."
Okay, I realise this is the life to which I can look forward, but oddly, I am undeterred. First, I don't think his experience is necessarily going to be mine, I know the resources available and staff numbers vary greatly depending on where you practice. I may get lucky and have a manageable caseload or I may get plunged into the abyss and never return. Second, people handle things differently and it may turn out I simply handle things more calmly or become less discouraged than Beaumont. Or I may just be better suited for the work. Third, I don't want to avoid something because other people have found it difficult. I want to try at least.
However, it is useful to know that other people have successfully moved into private practice from prosecution.
Still I can't avoid the possible comparison with the Joad family in the Grapes of Wrath, which I just finished reading for the first time. They hear over and over again of the misery they face if they continue on their path but are imbued with so much of the hope, optimism and psychological denial that defines the American people and the American experience that they carry on. And what do they find? I don't wish to give it away, because I think every American needs to read this book. It suffices to say that I am now reading a Philippa Gregory novel to recover.
"A day in the life of a prosecutor is long. Looking back, I could have stayed in the office until seven or eight o'clock at night each night and still not have accomplished everything I wanted to do. I typically worked about fifty hours per week because I wanted to spend time with my family. Ultimately, the crushing caseload and the psychological grind of hundreds of similar cases led to my return to private practice as a civil litigator."
Okay, I realise this is the life to which I can look forward, but oddly, I am undeterred. First, I don't think his experience is necessarily going to be mine, I know the resources available and staff numbers vary greatly depending on where you practice. I may get lucky and have a manageable caseload or I may get plunged into the abyss and never return. Second, people handle things differently and it may turn out I simply handle things more calmly or become less discouraged than Beaumont. Or I may just be better suited for the work. Third, I don't want to avoid something because other people have found it difficult. I want to try at least.
However, it is useful to know that other people have successfully moved into private practice from prosecution.
Still I can't avoid the possible comparison with the Joad family in the Grapes of Wrath, which I just finished reading for the first time. They hear over and over again of the misery they face if they continue on their path but are imbued with so much of the hope, optimism and psychological denial that defines the American people and the American experience that they carry on. And what do they find? I don't wish to give it away, because I think every American needs to read this book. It suffices to say that I am now reading a Philippa Gregory novel to recover.
If I Go to Law School in the States: Here is the Situation
I am trying to decide right now what law schools to apply to. Here is the situation: I don't have a great LSAT score so I'm taking the LSAT again this September. In about 10 days. I should probably be studying.
Anyway, I'm going to try to push up my LSAT score to make me competitive for the Top 14 schools in the States. This is because I want a 'good legal education', a concept I will have to define later (note to self). If I don't improve my LSAT score significantly, I have a difficult situation to deal with.
Here is the situation.
My Husband is a smart guy and he has done really well academically and is in many ways much smarter than me. He, like me, went to a large State University in the American Midwest on a full scholarship. He did really well and has since done post-graduate degrees at Oxbridge University (ie Oxford or Cambridge, I'm not going to say which) and is now doing a master's degree in Economics at a very highly regarded British... shall we say... school... of economics (I bet you can guess which). He wants to do his PhD directly after he finishes his master's degree this year.
Unfortunately, he married a woman who has not been as academically successful and--at least in America--would not be able to go to as good a grad school as one to which he might apply to do his PhD. There is the possibility that he and I could go to two different universities of different caliber which are in the same city or urban area. This is definitely a feasible option.
The problem with this option is that while Husband might be able to get funding, my law degree will be funded almost entirely on student loans. I have been strongly advised that before I take on $150,000 of debt to attend an expensive law school, I should consider my career goals and what I can reasonably anticipate will be my income in that career and decide how much debt I can take on accordingly. I want to be a prosecutor or possibly a public defender. Not high paying jobs. Kids do go to $50K-a-year law schools and fund it entirely on debt but afterward they often find their career options are severely limited by the fact they now have to start paying off that debt. That's okay if you can get a job in a big corporate environment or in a lucrative private practice. In light of my career goals and future earning expectations (and the fact that I am so. sick. of being poor) I think it is wise to graduate with as little debt as possible.
This means it doesn't make much sense to go to a lower caliber state law school in the same location as the Husband, particularly when I could just go to my alma mater's law school on in-state tuition for less than half the cost of out-of-state tuition at a second tier school or any of the Top 14 schools.
So my alma mater is a large State University in the Midwest with a law school that is in the Top 25. It has a good reputation and according to its statistics its gradates are working all over the country (sometimes it can be a problem that your school is not highly regarded elsewhere and you can't get a job outside your geographical region). It has a great library which I actually used for studying while on holiday during my master's degree. It is located in my Hometown, where I would have free housing and a much less expensive and much more comfortable lifestyle than a big city. I would live only 2 miles from campus and be able to bike or take a free bus. I would be nearer to family and friends. Why would anyone go to a lower-ranked state law school at twice the price when they have this great alternative?
Because I would have to be apart from my Husband. :( That's not a good thing and almost tips everything in the balance towards saying, fuck it, I'll pay the price, take on the extra debt, so that I don't have to be in a long-distance relationship with my Husband for three years.
My Husband could go to this Midwest State School to do his PhD but it would be a major step down, the Midwest State School is not great for Economics and, given his excellent academic record, he can do much better and indeed must do better than Midwest State School if he is to realise his career goal of being a college professor.
So at the moment it seems that what is best for me is to go to Midwest State School and what is best for Husband is to continue at his British Economics School for his PhD. We are at an impasse and have to weigh the issues carefully. And quickly. I should be applying for schools now and haven't even decided where to apply.
Anyway, I'm going to try to push up my LSAT score to make me competitive for the Top 14 schools in the States. This is because I want a 'good legal education', a concept I will have to define later (note to self). If I don't improve my LSAT score significantly, I have a difficult situation to deal with.
Here is the situation.
My Husband is a smart guy and he has done really well academically and is in many ways much smarter than me. He, like me, went to a large State University in the American Midwest on a full scholarship. He did really well and has since done post-graduate degrees at Oxbridge University (ie Oxford or Cambridge, I'm not going to say which) and is now doing a master's degree in Economics at a very highly regarded British... shall we say... school... of economics (I bet you can guess which). He wants to do his PhD directly after he finishes his master's degree this year.
Unfortunately, he married a woman who has not been as academically successful and--at least in America--would not be able to go to as good a grad school as one to which he might apply to do his PhD. There is the possibility that he and I could go to two different universities of different caliber which are in the same city or urban area. This is definitely a feasible option.
The problem with this option is that while Husband might be able to get funding, my law degree will be funded almost entirely on student loans. I have been strongly advised that before I take on $150,000 of debt to attend an expensive law school, I should consider my career goals and what I can reasonably anticipate will be my income in that career and decide how much debt I can take on accordingly. I want to be a prosecutor or possibly a public defender. Not high paying jobs. Kids do go to $50K-a-year law schools and fund it entirely on debt but afterward they often find their career options are severely limited by the fact they now have to start paying off that debt. That's okay if you can get a job in a big corporate environment or in a lucrative private practice. In light of my career goals and future earning expectations (and the fact that I am so. sick. of being poor) I think it is wise to graduate with as little debt as possible.
This means it doesn't make much sense to go to a lower caliber state law school in the same location as the Husband, particularly when I could just go to my alma mater's law school on in-state tuition for less than half the cost of out-of-state tuition at a second tier school or any of the Top 14 schools.
So my alma mater is a large State University in the Midwest with a law school that is in the Top 25. It has a good reputation and according to its statistics its gradates are working all over the country (sometimes it can be a problem that your school is not highly regarded elsewhere and you can't get a job outside your geographical region). It has a great library which I actually used for studying while on holiday during my master's degree. It is located in my Hometown, where I would have free housing and a much less expensive and much more comfortable lifestyle than a big city. I would live only 2 miles from campus and be able to bike or take a free bus. I would be nearer to family and friends. Why would anyone go to a lower-ranked state law school at twice the price when they have this great alternative?
Because I would have to be apart from my Husband. :( That's not a good thing and almost tips everything in the balance towards saying, fuck it, I'll pay the price, take on the extra debt, so that I don't have to be in a long-distance relationship with my Husband for three years.
My Husband could go to this Midwest State School to do his PhD but it would be a major step down, the Midwest State School is not great for Economics and, given his excellent academic record, he can do much better and indeed must do better than Midwest State School if he is to realise his career goal of being a college professor.
So at the moment it seems that what is best for me is to go to Midwest State School and what is best for Husband is to continue at his British Economics School for his PhD. We are at an impasse and have to weigh the issues carefully. And quickly. I should be applying for schools now and haven't even decided where to apply.
Saturday 12 September 2009
Back
Alas, dear readers, I have been stressed out and busy. LSAT study, job applications, law school applications. Okay, I've also been on holiday. I'm not too terribly concerned about neglecting you because as far as I know, 'you' and 'readers' include only my Husband.
Friday 14 August 2009
Why am I applying to law school?
I understand that this is a common interview/application question. It's probably useful to address it a bit. I'm not saying this is the whole answer.
I guess the first thing to say is that I want to be a lawyer. I spoke to a lawyer once whose first bit of advice to me was, 'Don't go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer.' I think it's good advice. A lot of people treat law school as a general degree. It's versatile, useful, trains you to use important skills. But I don't have the money or the time to get a degree that might come in handy some day. I want to be a lawyer, specifically a prosecutor.
Why am I interested in criminal law? I wrote my master's dissertation on prosecuting international crimes. This naturally lead me to the more realistic goal of domestic prosecutions. I think it has the right mix of what I like about the law: it enforces laws; it pursues justice (ostensibly); it has real goals which are achievable; each case has a distinct beginning and end point.
This is only a partial answer. More to follow.
I guess the first thing to say is that I want to be a lawyer. I spoke to a lawyer once whose first bit of advice to me was, 'Don't go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer.' I think it's good advice. A lot of people treat law school as a general degree. It's versatile, useful, trains you to use important skills. But I don't have the money or the time to get a degree that might come in handy some day. I want to be a lawyer, specifically a prosecutor.
Why am I interested in criminal law? I wrote my master's dissertation on prosecuting international crimes. This naturally lead me to the more realistic goal of domestic prosecutions. I think it has the right mix of what I like about the law: it enforces laws; it pursues justice (ostensibly); it has real goals which are achievable; each case has a distinct beginning and end point.
This is only a partial answer. More to follow.
US Admissions
I was speaking to a friend who graduated from a top 20 law school in the States a few years ago. He said a few things that were really encouraging:
--I have always read that American law schools either won't accept two LSAT scores, or will average the scores in their admissions process. My friend said that in fact nowadays they are more likely to choose the higher score because then they can report the higher score in their admissions statistics. Good to know. I have taken the LSAT once and scored sub 160. I would like to take it again and score a bit higher.
--He said not to worry about taking a courseload geared toward any particular area. Rather, he said, just take classes that are interesting to you. I sometimes look through course offerings at various universities I'm considering applying to and there is never a shortage of interesting classes.
--I have always read that American law schools either won't accept two LSAT scores, or will average the scores in their admissions process. My friend said that in fact nowadays they are more likely to choose the higher score because then they can report the higher score in their admissions statistics. Good to know. I have taken the LSAT once and scored sub 160. I would like to take it again and score a bit higher.
--He said not to worry about taking a courseload geared toward any particular area. Rather, he said, just take classes that are interesting to you. I sometimes look through course offerings at various universities I'm considering applying to and there is never a shortage of interesting classes.
The Game Set-up
This is the post in which I explain the situation.
As you probably know, I'm an American who has lived in Britain for the last three year. It is time for me to go to law school. Now I have to decide where to apply.
In the UK, law is an undergraduate subject. You can study law for three years from the age of 18 and poof you're a lawyer! Well, okay, it's not quite that simple. You also have to train to be either a solicitor or a barrister. Yes, you have to choose between being a solicitor or barrister. If I understand correctly, solicitors do all the work. Barristers do all the talking and paid more. (I think it may simply be a way for the law profession to make more money, but more on that later.) But would I be able to practice in the US?
If you have already done an undergraduate degree, as I have done, then you can apply to go back to the undergraduate law programme, or you can apply for something called a conversion course. It's a programme for people who already have a bachelor's degree in a different subject and want a law qualification. A conversion course is 2 years after which you are fully qualified to be a lawyer. But would I be able to practice in the US?
The other option for me is to go back to the US and do a 3 year juris doctor degree. This would make me fully qualified (except for passing the bar) to work in the States. But would I be able to practice in the UK?
Questions, questions.
As you probably know, I'm an American who has lived in Britain for the last three year. It is time for me to go to law school. Now I have to decide where to apply.
In the UK, law is an undergraduate subject. You can study law for three years from the age of 18 and poof you're a lawyer! Well, okay, it's not quite that simple. You also have to train to be either a solicitor or a barrister. Yes, you have to choose between being a solicitor or barrister. If I understand correctly, solicitors do all the work. Barristers do all the talking and paid more. (I think it may simply be a way for the law profession to make more money, but more on that later.) But would I be able to practice in the US?
If you have already done an undergraduate degree, as I have done, then you can apply to go back to the undergraduate law programme, or you can apply for something called a conversion course. It's a programme for people who already have a bachelor's degree in a different subject and want a law qualification. A conversion course is 2 years after which you are fully qualified to be a lawyer. But would I be able to practice in the US?
The other option for me is to go back to the US and do a 3 year juris doctor degree. This would make me fully qualified (except for passing the bar) to work in the States. But would I be able to practice in the UK?
Questions, questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)