Reading Comprehension Strategy

A New Approach to Reading Comprehension

People keep saying that the best way to practice reading comp is to do more reading comp. I'm aware that RC scores don't really increase because it's a skill that one has practiced all his/her life. You're not going to have massive gains simply by practicing it for a couple of months.

I disagree. Sure, gains might be marginal, but gains are possible. I don't think it's about "taking practice tests over and over again." People who say this are just really talented. Talent needs little work. Middle of the road people like me need tactics, strategy, and shrewdness.

This time around, I'm not going to just "take sections." I'm going to develop a framework for attacking the RC section, based on Nova's Master the LSAT. They are the only known publication (at least in my mind) that release a strategy for taking down the Reading Comp section.

1. Massive doses of concentration. There can be no relaxation of the mind. Practicing at this level is crucial because if I half ass the practice, I will receive fewer gains on the real thing.

2. Reading the first line of each paragraph. I will experiment to see if this is helpful. I will read the first line of each paragraph, then go through the entire passage again. Hopefully this will help raise accuracy rates on Main Idea questions.

3. Learn to identify Question Types.

A. Main Idea
B. Description [Do Not Rely On Memory!!]
C. Writing Technique
D. Extension
E. Applicatoin
F. Tone [Decide the tone before seeing answer choices]

General: The most measured answer tends to be the correct one.

3. Speed, speed, speed. There is no excuse for not having enough time. Practice sections must be completed <30 min, regardless.

December 1999 LSAT

Scaled Score: 171
Raw Score: 88

Logical Reasoning: 48/51
Reading Comprehension: 23/27
Logic Games: 17/23

My first crack at the LSAT in five months was pretty decent. Relieved to see that I hit >170, meaningless as it is. An 87 was required for a 170, and I barely made the threshold. LR was decent, RC was relatively easy (minus one section), and Logic Games was tough.

Post Game Analysis

Logical Reasoning

I remembered too many of these questions, so burning through them in under 30 minutes was not too tough. I had trouble with a couple of questions in the first section, and had to settle for answers without being close to 95% confident before time ran out. The second LR section was better; I blasted through it in 25 minutes. I got all those questions correct.

Reading Comprehension

Not too tough, was able to finish four passages in under 30 minutes easy, but I hit a wall on the "Criticism of Critical Legal Studies [CLS]" passage. Philosophical/abstract passages give me a lot of trouble, and this one was no different. Need to find a better approach to reading comprehension, will elaborate on that later.

Logic Games

Horrible strategy management. I know I'm not particularly good at these, but the mistake I made here was not tactical, it was strategic. Due to my five month hiatus from practicing, I forgot to look through the test to attack the easier games first. I left the two easy games for last and by then I had burned off too much time on the tougher questions. Will do better next time. Be sure not to make the same mistake.

At It Again.

Hey guys, sorry for not writing for a couple of days.

I’ve decided to retake the LSAT. I registered yesterday and I will be taking it again at Queens College on September 30th.

As soon as I realized that I would be reliving the horrifying experience of preparing, I had a sick feeling in my stomach. I am filled with self doubt that I cannot shake off. I’ve got to have a new plan this time, since I’ve already seen most LSAT questions twice now.

I’m betting that I’ve forgotten many of the questions from the first time around (it has been something like 5 months since I last looked at an LSAT section) so hopefully that will help. I’m going to spend the first phase of my preparation going over mid to late 1990s tests to get used to all of it. In the second phase, I will be taking the early to mid 2000 tests to better gauge my level. Finally, near the end of my preparation, I will have to go through the June 2006 test.

I’m thinking about making some adjustments this time.

- I need to reduce the amount of time I have for each test. I plan on taking each section in 30 minutes.
- I cannot sit for 4 sections each time. I must sit for five or six. Six would probably be a better idea.
- I need to seriously deconstruct each exam. It’s ok if I don’t take as many preptests but I need to know the details of why I made each mistake and even thoroughly go through the correct answers.

I begin my journey tomorrow.

Here we go again!
Same old shit again!
Walking down the avenue,
One more night and we’ll be through.

Law Degree = Empowering ?

Sometimes it scares me that I will be entering a profession that is dominated by white people. I just had an incident at work today where somebody made a racial comment that I wasn't too cool with. It's fine now, because it's not as if I am trying to climb the ladder at my current company. I am worried though, about the subtle amounts of racism if say, I were to one day work at a law firm that was less diverse.

I feel like I need to be exposed into one of these environments. I tend to be pretty defensive about racial issues and when someone says something remotely stereotypical about Asians, I feel the need to say something back. It's tough to draw the line at work though, because you can't really "throw shit down" and fight someone.

Why do people enter a career in the law? The law is known as a genteel profession, similar to a secret society where handshakes and cigars solve problems. I guess something about the power and respect lawyers command made me very interested in pursuing a J.D.

Is a J.D. really that empowering though? Or is it that the rich and powerful are lawyers by self selection? I don't know. I don't know if getting a law degree will help me with regards to my social mobility.

This entry did not really have a clear direction. Just thought I'd throw this stuff out there.

Ms. Ivey Meeting at Starbucks

She said that I should stay away from typical immigrant stories. Apparently, talking about our upbringing is a cliched topic, and will not distinguish yourself as a candidate.

However, my start up company story will be the best bet. It will set me apart the most. Now, I've got to compose a first draft and throw out a couple of versions of this.

She also told me to play against type. Playing against type = showing that you are not the same as what you are expected to be. For example, I must set myself apart as a very different Asian American applicant. However, when I asked her what else I would be categorized as, she said:

"Oh yes, you will be categorized as the typical Carnegie Mellon type. You know, CMU graduates are not known for being very good socially. That added with the whole technology consulting thing means you need to play against that type."

Fascinating.

Unbelievable

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/06/aba_to_require_.html

Up until now, the policy of the American Bar Association was to require law schools to report LSAT medians, 25th percentiles, and 75th percentiles. The formula used was to have the average score of each applicant reported. Apparently, they have just changed that policy to require to have the highest score of each applicant reported.

Well then, why am I concerned? This changes the game. Now, someone with two scores of 160 and 170 on their record is equivalent to mine. The LSAT is going to become the SAT, where only the highest score is reported. I don't have an issue with this particular rule, but in my case it harms me. Had I known earlier, I would have retaken my LSAT. My preptest average was above 170 and the sole reason why I did not retake in June was because scoring anything less than 170 would prove to be catastrophic.

The game has changed, however, and June has passed. If I retake in September, not only will it drive me crazy, I will not be able to get my application in as early as I had hoped. My shrewed preparation in taking the test in Februrary will be rendered moot.

Now hold up a second, wannabe lawyer, you might say. Sure, the ABA says that they will have different requirements for law schools to report scores to them. But isn't the policy for admissions that they take the average score? Why would law schools change their policy because of the ABA?

Well folks, it's because the ABA data is used for purposes of U.S. News rankings. And we all know how important U.S. news rankings are to law schools.

This really messes with my game plan. I'm really concerned now. I was already insecure about my 170, now this makes my 170 even less impressive.

Emily, the Strategy & Change Consultant

So there’s this consultant at my office who has a law degree. She graduated with honors from UCLA undergrad and attended Duke for her J.D. /M.B.A. I tracked her down and had a forty five minute conversation with her.

She seems like a business type person, and speaking with her further confirmed my intuition. She studied political science in college, and upon graduation, joined Coopers & Lybrand Consulting (which, as you may or may not know, eventually merged with Price Waterhouse, and became Price Waterhouse Coopers. They were then bought up by IBM and joined IBM Business Consulting Services.) She had no idea what she wanted to do right after she graduated, so she got a job through a connection that her dad had.

She worked at Coopers for three years, and was awarded a special scholarship which allowed her to attend a graduate program for free. She applied and decided to go for a law/business degree at Duke. They only paid for two of the four required years, but what a deal! She said she chose a joint degree because she wanted options and she was still unsure about what she wanted to do with her life.

In my conversation with her, I also found out some other things. For example, she scored a 170+ on her LSAT. That is very impressive (I am always impressed by standardized test scores). She also spoke about how tough it was to work at law firms. That is the second time this week I’ve heard this from someone who has a law degree. I guess it kind of scares me because that is what I plan on doing after I graduate. I was always well aware of how much it would suck to work in a law firm; but I never heard about it firsthand from someone who had a law degree.

Finally, she spoke about how the law degree has helped her in her life. It’s not just about work, but about general things that you have to do. “A law degree will help most in heavily regulated industries.” Finance, government jobs, and consulting for the government were mentioned as examples.

I’ve really got to stop talking to business people about going to law school. I should start speaking to serious practitioners to gain a different perspective.

Meeting Anna Ivey

So meeting Anna Ivey was nice. She is very professional and is very polished. You can tell she has done this so many times.

Key takeaway points from our meeting.

1. My background suggests that I am very entrepreneurial and have strong business sense. She suggested that I might be a better fit for business school. This concerns me not because she might be right [very possible] but because this is what other admissions deans are going to think as well. However, I think I’ll be okay because two years ago, you would have looked at my resume and seen a community service guy. I’ve really changed that up in the past couple of years. Who knows what my resume will look like in a couple more years. I do need to get past this hurdle though, that I’ve made a committed decision to pursue law and I can handle it.

2. Law schools aren’t looking for leaders. Leadership is a value that admissions officers just pay lip service to. Law schools are trying to produce lawyers, and the successful practice of law need not require any sort of leadership ability. This is in stark contrast to the quotes I’ve read in books where admissions officers talk about how important leadership is. Law school attracts risk adverse types, which are people who tend to worry about potential liability than potential opportunities. This is also tied into her idea that I am unafraid to take risks, which is why perhaps I seem better as a business person. She also mentioned that since I am so fit for business, I probably would enjoy corporate law more than litigation.

3. Personal statements from children of Asian immigrants tend to be very similar. I suspected this and she confirmed my suspicions. I must tread carefully if I decide to tackle this topic. The last thing I want is to have a personal statement that echoes the sentiments of the thousands of other Asian American personal statements. She didn’t say it was a bad idea to go for this type of approach, just to make sure there is a strong message that is unique and about myself. She also told me to explore other essay options. Those include discussion about basketball, my start up company experience, and anything else.

4. No matter how you frame it, my grades are really going to hurt me. Though law schools know CMU is rigorous, my grades are too low. I asked her flat out and she told me very honestly that Michigan and Penn are very long shots. I can’t disagree, but it does hurt to hear that your dream schools are out of reach because you made bad choices when you were younger. Not that I’m complaining or anything. She also made some very interesting points on whether going to law school is right for you if you cannot get into certain schools. That is, maybe after a certain threshold, you might as well not go because your current opportunities are more lucrative than those you would have if you graduated from a lesser law school. Interesting things to think about.

So we spoke for a little over an hour, and it was very enlightening. I’m excited to take this journey. I can/must/will submit the best possible application.

Bad Reason for Attending Law School

Stolen from http://barelylegalblog.blogspot.com/

Bad Reason for Attending Law School #10

“I like to argue”Mike: Hey Russ, let me ask you a question…What would you say to someone who told you that they want to become an architect because they like to draw pictures of houses?

Russ: I’d say they don’t sound like they know what they’re talking about.

Mike: And Russ, what would you say to someone who told you they want to be a pharmacist because they like to put pills into bottles?

Russ: I’d say that they are missing the point of being a pharmacist.

Mike: So, then what would you say to someone that wants to be a lawyer because they like to argue?

Russ: I’d say that they don’t know what they are talking about and they are missing the point of the profession.

In my opinion, going to law school because you enjoy arguing is the worst reason to attend, but sadly, it’s all too common. Saying that you like to argue, and then deciding to convert this odd hobby into a career in law represents a fundamental misunderstanding of law school and the legal profession. Law is not about arguing; it’s about arguments. The difference between the two may seem subtle, but in reality, they are miles apart. Arguments have weight derived from logic and/or citation. Arguing is focusing on the delivery of arguments (by using volume, irrelevant anecdotes, etc.)

Being a successful law student (and eventually, a successful lawyer) requires that you know how to make a good argument. Unfortunately, the ability to make a good argument and the enjoyment of arguing for the sake of arguing are mutually exclusive traits. Those who enjoy arguing cannot be objective about it. They invest a personal stake in the argument, whether its ideology, or more often, pride. Instead of being able to objectively look at both sides of a situation and form a strategy for arguing either one, those who like to argue pick one side and will defend it to the death, no matter how inane or off base their points become. When facing an opponent who doesn’t fall for his or her impassioned yet inherently flawed argument, instead of conceding the point, or even agreeing to disagree, they become louder and more repetitive, in the hope that their opponent will have an epiphany and suddenly admit defeat. In reality, this strategy just makes them look obtuse and ignorant. Law school is for nerds, not hotheads. There's a place for these people, and it's not here; it's the AM radio bandwidth.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that the people who know how to make arguments are successful in law school, and the people who are there because they “like to argue” don’t fare quite so well. But can we fully blame those people who like to argue? Surely, this quality must have roots deep in their childhood. Maybe their parents saw little Jimmy disagree with everything his sister said, and told him, “One day you’ll grow up to be a lawyer.” The idea was planted in his head, and so as he got older, he would challenge anything and everything he encountered that he disagreed with, and more people would tell him, “You should be a lawyer.” Then, he graduates college and heads off to law school, where on the first day, he decides to argue with his professor. But the professor sees several people like him every year. He is ready for Jimmy’s logical fallacies and poorly reasoned points. The professor dismisses Jimmy, who’s arguing “skills” don’t appear as effective as he’d hoped. Poetic justice, I suppose. But maybe, instead of encouraging argumentative kids to become lawyers and further perpetuate this myth, we should call them what the really are: Assholes.

LSAT

Today was the June test for the LSAT. I will put up some old entries from my other journal in memory of my personal experience. (February 2006)

Note to self:

things to remember for saturday:

1. pace yourself. in logical reasoning, the first ten questions should be done at a rough rate of one question per minute. don't keep glancing at the clock, it will throw you off. just go through the questions.

2. go quick, but be sure in logic games. you don't need to eliminate all the wrong answers in this section, but you need to be sure the correct answer is the one you chose. when making an inference based on other rules, always draw out the supporting hypothetical. this should remove most careless errors. it is vital that you get a perfect score on this section.

3. read reading comprehension questions VERY carefully. be sure about what the question is referring to. don't answer the question incorrectly because you thought the question was asking something else.

4. don't be afraid to move on. when a question is taking up an inordinate amount of time, you must move on. cut your losses and hit the next question. this applies in every section. you're not shooting for a perfect raw score on the test, and you can sacrifice a question here or there. besides, odds are you will come back to it later and get it correct. but you cannot sacrifice time for later questions.

5. when filling out bubbles, match up the question you are filling in with the number next to it constantly. a misbubbling error is catastrophic, even if you pick up the error before the test is over, you're going to waste alot of time.

6. if you do actually feel like you bombed a section, DO NOT LET THIS AFFECT YOUR PERFORMANCE IN LATER SECTIONS! cancellation is a very undesirable option, so you're gona need to maximize this score no matter what. plus, quite often when you are taking practice tests, sections you think you bombed you ended up doing well on. resist the temptation to play mental games with yourself!!

Requisite Skillset

I was talking to a friend of mine who also happens to be a pre-law like me. She was going through a period of self doubt, because she received some criticism about her decision to pursue a career in the law. Some notable remarks were "You aren't aggressive enough." "You're not good at persuading and talking."

I'd like to dispel this notion that lawyers are these aggressive, persuasive, and smooth talkers. It must be a pervasive stereotype because this was not the first time I have heard this. Lawyers, by and far, need to know how to write well. If you meet someone who is a poor writer, chances are, he/she is not suited for a career in the law. However, among laypeople, I rarely ever hear this. Most of the time, discouragement from careers in the law are rooted in less relevant skills and abilities.

The cause of this stereotype is none other than the countless TV shows and movies that depict the "life" of a lawyer. Are there lawyers who go to court? Yes. Are they the majority? Absolutely not. Most lawyers spend their time poring over and filing documents. Even those who do go to court spend the vast majority of their time in preparation and writing briefs. It's just that oral argument is the sexiest part about being a lawyer (so it seems) so that is what is depicted on television.

And in fact, if you have a bad lawyer, his/her incompetence will be further magnified if he/she is very persuasive and aggressive. If you look at one of the pinnacles of achievement in the legal community, the Supreme Court, you will find few jurists that are known for their aggressiveness and oral persuasiveness. Instead, the common thread will be their superior writing ability.

So if you want to go to law school because you think it suits your ability, that’s great. But make sure they are relevant abilities, not relatively inconsequential ones, like aggressiveness.

Anna Ivey Part II

It turns out that Anna Ivey is located in Orlando, FL. I will be in Orlando, FL next week so I decided to schedule an appointment with her. I will be meeting her at 7:30 PM on Monday! How exciting!

I've put in an initial deposit of $480. That's right folks, admissions consulting doesn't come cheap. Before I can work with her, she needs to know more about me, so I've been working on answering this 30 part questionnaire to send out to her by Saturday night. I'm about 2/3 finished with it, and it's already 10 pages! It's all good though, I'm learning alot about myself just by putting my thoughts on paper.

Will it be worth it? I don't know. Maybe it will be. Maybe it won't. For you poker aficionados, the equivalent analogy would be to call a raise with a low pocket pair preflop. Most likely, your shot of winning the hand (gaining admission to your top choice law school) will be very low (not affected) but there is a tiny possibility that you will trap someone with two big cards by having them bet into you with top two pair. So the downside is limited to the thousand or so dollars you spend, but the upside is a whole lot more if I get into my top choice.

Oh well, this is all an adventure. We'll see how things turn out.

Anna Ivey

http://www.annaivey.com/index.php

I contacted Anna Ivey today about her admissions consulting services. Anna Ivey is a former Dean of Admissions at the University of Chicago Law school. She has parlayed her experience in admissions into a law school applicant consulting company. Her book, "The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions" is supposedly one of the best ones out there.

It could be debated whether these type of services help applicants. Consultants are notorious for providing no value (see my day job) while making it seem that their expertise is invaluable to clients. This service comes at a high price; one hour of Ms. Ivey's time costs $240. There is a two hour minimum.

At this point, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get the most out of my numbers. If it means shelling out a thousand dollars to do it, I will consider it money well spent.

California

I've always thought to myself that I'd practice law in New York. Big time NYC lawyer sounded so appealing. I imagined some sharply dressed Asian guy carrying a briefcase into an impressive looking building.

These thoughts have led to my decision to apply not only to the top schools, but also regional schools. After the top schools, law firms tend to hire on a geographical basis, so it would make sense for me to attend a school like Fordham or Brooklyn over non-local schools that are ranked higher.

Lately, however, I've been thinking more and more about moving to the west coast. Weather plays a big part in why I want to go. I also think it would do my family and kids a world of good to be surrounded by more Asians, to be surrounded more by people who look like them. Law firm life, while still tough, is not as bad as the NYC law firm hours. NYC prides itself in working long and hard.

So now the problem is this. I will not qualify for admission to top law schools in California. UCLA, USC, and Berkeley (forget about Stanford) seem to only take people who have >3.4 GPA, regardless of LSAT. I have an outside shot at Hastings, which is a lower tier 1 school. I have even odds at Loyola law school, which is upper tier 2. The problem with attending these two schools is that I am not afforded the mobility option. If I attend either, I must be committed to California.

If I receive admission to one of the top national law schools, I won't have to worry about all this. The problem is, if I don't, I'm really going to have to do some long and hard thinking. If I can't figure it out by then, I will most likely attend a semi-national school like WUSTL or similar to keep my options open. The best plan is to figure out, before matriculation, where I want to practice. I have a year and a half to figure this out.

Resume

I've just completed writing a first draft of my resume for law schools. If this won't impress them, I don't know what will. I do feel a bit guilty for blowing myself up so much. I figure everyone else is doing it so it will hurt me if I don't.

Splitter

Definition: Splitter

I am a splitter.

A splitter is an applicant who has mixed indicators. It could be a high GPA and low LSAT. It could be a high LSAT and a low GPA. I fall into the second camp.

Fortunately for us high LSAT splitters, law school admissions are heavily dependent upon the LSAT score. Therefore, a strong score can wipe out a poor college record. I don't think there is a single law school out there that has a median GPA that is equivalent to mine, yet I will be in the running for the top 25 schools in the nation. Such is the nature of law school admissions.

The challenge here, though, is that we need to show that the GPA is an aberration, not the LSAT. Each year, a certain number of splitters will get into top law schools. However, success is not guaranteed. There are plenty of splitters that end up at tier 2 schools.

Note: My loose definition of a splitter is someone with a sub 3.2 GPA and a 170+ LSAT. I fall at the outside edges of the definition, with a 2.91 GPA and a 170 LSAT.

I need to remember to focus my recommendations on talking about my work ethic, since schools will be worried that I am just a lazy, smart kid. My addendum also needs to reflect the fact that I wasn't sleeping through the 4 years of college, but that I had misplaced priorities and spent too much time contributing to campus life.

Michigan: Admissions of a Director

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/LQN/spring2004/director.htm

Sarah Zearfoss, Assistant Dean and Director of Admissions for the University of Michigan Law School wrote an article back in the spring of 2004 about the mission of an admissions director. While law schools do admit heavily based on numerical factors, the application and other "soft" factors do come into play. Of course, it is hard to tell whether this article is completely genuine. In fact, it might be a ploy for applicants to apply to a school that they have no business applying to (UMich Law Median LSAT: 168 Median GPA: 3.64).

The article is of great interest to me, because Michigan is likely going to be my first choice school. UMich has produced fine lawyers, most notably Clarence Darrow, and will continue to do so. Job placement is strong, with graduates pretty much able to command 145K salaries upon graduation regardless of rank. For those on law review or ranked somewhere in the top 10%, a graduate has pretty much his or her pick of any legal job in the United States.

I guess the challenge presented to me will be to construct a carefully planned application to prove that I am truly more outstanding than my numerical indicators imply. Hopefully, the strength of my extracurricular achievements coupled with my strong professional work experience will help alleviate concerns about my poor grades.

Career Strategy

"We believe that the decision to go to law school should be part of an overall career strategy..."
- Northwestern Law 2005 prospectus

Absolutely. That is one thing I like about business school admissions. If you don't have a well articulated idea of where you are headed, you probably won't get admitted. Too many law school applicants head to law school with vague ideas of what it is like to work full time at a job, let alone as a lawyer. I think that one should think of an overall career strategy and see if law school fits in. For example, if your goal is to become a Fortune 500 CEO, is law school really the best path? Conventional wisdom says yes, but anecdotal evidence suggests no.

I've thought long and hard about my career strategy. I've got to find an occupation that I both enjoy and can be proud of. From my limited experience in writing editorials for the school newspaper and analyzing arguments in my Arguments class, I've found that research and writing is something I really enjoy. Which is why being a lawyer, specializing in litigation, seems very exciting to me.

Here is my tentative timeline:

Age: 27-28
Goal: Finish up law school or finish up judicial clerkship if given the opportunity. Hopefully head towards big law firm to save up money, help pay off loans, and learn complex litigation in preparation for my next move.

Age: 29-31
Goal: Make the move to the U.S. Attorney’s office. Become Assistant U.S. Attorney, pick up trial lawyer skills and more complex litigation skills. If unable to make it to USAO, make the move to the district attorney’s office. Arguing motions in court will be a necessary skill that cannot be picked up in a big law firm environment. Government job will probably have more predictable hours and be better for raising a family.

Age: 35-40
Goal: Make another move to a boutique or small firm environment, where partnership opportunities are greater. Large firms offer little chance to make partner, so it will be better to move to a smaller firm.

William and Mary Fee Waiver

"Congratulations! As a strong law school applicant, we are pleased to offer you an application fee waiver when you submit an application for admission to William & Mary Law School for the class beginning in the fall of 2007. We believe your performance on the LSAT is one indication that you are a candidate we would like to consider for admission. "

William and Mary Law School
U.S. News 2007 Ranking: 27
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Median GPA: 3.63
Median LSAT: 164

I've finally received my first official fee waiver! For those of you not in the know, law school applications cost anywhere between $50-$70 per school. LSAC (the online service that assembles data for applications) has an option called CRS (candidate referral service) where schools do searches by LSAT score or by GPA/LSAT scores and offer to waive the fee for competitive applicants. The cover story is that by reaching out to us applicants and giving us a free shot at applying, the law school benefits by getting potential students that they never would have. The more cynical version is that law schools will increase their selectivity ratings by inviting people to apply (who normally wouldn't) and subsequently rejecting them, therefore lowering their acceptance rate.

The Journey!

Hey guys. I'm a 22 year old wannabe lawyer.

Some people knew they wanted to be a lawyer when they were five years old. Some people go to law school because they have nothing else to do. As for me, I fall somewhere in between. After a long period of thought and introspection, I decided that I wanted to be a lawyer during my senior year in college.

I'm hoping to chronicle my path to law school in this blog. This is probably the most challenging endeavor of my short life (deciding to go to law school, not this blog), and it would be a shame not to put my thoughts onto paper (e-paper, i mean). Hopefully I can share my highs and lows with all you fine anonymous readers.

Background info: I work as an IT Consultant for a large consulting firm. It's not a bad job by any means, but it's really not what I want to do. I've got mediocre grades (B average) and a pretty decent LSAT (98th percentile). I want to attend a law school that will maximize my earning potential and geographic options upon graduation.

Ok, I hope that wasn't too bad of a first post. I'm going to try to be very honest about everything in this blog, unlike my Xanga account where I write things just to get comments.