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.
Friday, 25 September 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)