?!?!?!?

Fargh!

I just took a prep test for the LSAT the first one since September 26th. I haven't even studied at all since September 24th. So how in god's name do I get a 167, (96th percentile,) now and still got a 157 on test day?!?!?!?

Internship

Now I'm looking for an internship in addition to studying.

Today is the first day I've picked up my LSAT books and notes since first taking the test. Admittedly I only really glanced but I guess you have to start somewhere. :) It's gonna be hard getting back into the intense studying schedule I was putting myself through.

"The only thing harder than taking a country to war is taking a country to war, again."

It has to be done though.

Onward.

Talked to the Admission Department at Hastings

I would not suffer an insurmountable disadvantage by applying in late December evidently. Nevertheless though, it's not good.

More bad news,

My GPA of 3.45 from LCAD is going to get dragged down somewhat from my time at Santa Monica Community College. At SMC I only pulled in a 3.35 over a heavy 294 credits. So my final GPA from both is going to look more like a 3.40

oh no.

So some schools have rolling admissions, meaning that the sooner you apply the better your chances of getting in are since the most seats are available. Apply late and you and the other late comers are going to be fighting over just a handful of remaining seats.

If I'm taking the December LSAT I will be applying late since my scores probably won't be coming back to me till Christmas, and even once I get them applying to schools and mail could delay the actual day schools get my application till early to mid January. Keep in mind that the cut off date for most schools is the start of February.

So I just finished calling everywhere I was thinking of applying:

Cal Western USF UCSD Loyola Marymount UC Hastings Pepperdine UC Davis UCLA UC Berkeley Stanford

Every single one works on rolling admissions. This leaves me, for lack of a better word, fucked.

In for a penny, in for a pound

I can't let this undo everything. True my results on the September LSAT were not what I wanted at all. However, there is sure to be all sorts of set backs, hick ups and shenanigans in trying to make this work, so never mind and press on.

I have to accept that this was a fluke. There is no way that someone scores in the 91st three times, 92nd twice, and 94th once one week before the test only to get in the 72nd with out this being a major fluke.

I have another 6 weeks to study now and as such need to get my shit together right away. I've gotten much better at studying for this. The day before I knew that I was not prepared as I possibly could have been. I guess now I'm gonna get my second chance. This time I won't be satisfied till till I'm routinely breaking the 95th percentile.

Retaking the LSAT

http://www.top-law-schools.com/retaking-the-lsat.html

Here are the policy on the schools I have up for consideration in order of most realistic to least realistic.

USF – “USF will utilize the average score when multiple LSAT scores are presented for application review.”

University of San Diego – “Effective September 1st, 2006, the highest LSAT score will generally be used to evaluate applications for admission and scholarship consideration.”

Loyola LA – “If you have taken the LSAT multiple times and have a score differential of 4 points or more, we ask that you submit an addendum explaining the circumstances surrounding the disparity. At our discretion, we may base the decision solely on your high score.”

UC Hastings – “The Admissions Committee will see each test score and date taken and will consider the highest score in its evaluation. Please note, however, that for fall 2009 admission, you must have taken the LSAT since the June 2003 administration. You will have to re-take the test if you have not taken the LSAT since June 2003.”

UC Davis – “In most cases when there is little or no difference between scores, multiple scores are averaged. In exceptional cases where it is apparent that a significant difference exists between scores, the Admission Committee will consider carefully the explanation provided by the applicant. If warranted, the highest score will be used to reach a decision on the file. This is in keeping with past practice of the UC Davis Admission Committee. The highest score will be the recorded score on all admission materials. The Admissions Committee has access to all scores submitted and, therefore, is aware of any 'significant' increase or decrease. A change of five points or more is considered significant. Applicants should provide an explanation of any significant change in LSAT score.”

UCLA – “Our general policy is to consider the highest LSAT score attained, although we will take note of all scores. In the case of a significant discrepancy between scores, applicants are advised to address it in their application. It is always helpful for the Admissions Committee to be aware of any factors that may have adversely or positively impacted one’s performance on the LSAT. Item 11 on our application is a suitable place to provide such explanation.”

Berkeley – “Most candidates take the test only once. If you take the test more than once, we will use your average score in most cases. We recognize that there is no statistical significance to a score gain or loss of a few points within the standard deviation for the test.”

----

That said, it seems retaking it makes the best sense.

157

well that was a disaster.

At this rate I would be lucky to go to UCSD.

Hastings would be a miracle.

What's the real goal?

What was the real goal here?

A high LSAT score?

Or is that only a goal in that it can get me into law school?

Getting into Law School then?

Well law school is only a useful place to be so long as it helps you become a lawyer.

Well then being a lawyer must be the goal?

But why do I want that? What's the good in me being a lawyer?

Happiness? It always comes down to that same boring answer. The only reason to do anything boils down to happiness.

Why do I need to be a lawyer to be happy? Or rather why is me being a lawyer sufficient for my own happiness?

A few clues:

How ever I believe being a lawyer will affect my happiness, it would be in a way that is not already being met. For instance it may be the case that I want to be a lawyer because I think having a white collar career will make me happy, since I don't have that right now. Additionally it is NOT the case that I want to be a lawyer because I will be able to live in Los Angeles, since I can do that either way.

Things that would change in my life if I were a lawyer:

-The median income for a lawyer is 60K a year, more than 5 times my present income.

-I would have a job more meaningful than making sandwiches.

-I imagine that lawyers get more respect for their profession than Noah's Bagel's employees do.

-I would have to make a much bigger effort in presenting myself, (for example not going 10 months without a haircut.)

-A typical day at work would be less intense physically but probably much more stressful mentally while also being more mentally exhausting.

-I would get a chance to really help people with real problems they have.

-Because of the specialized nature of practicing law I would probably have more self respect on account of my job.