Type faster lest you fail!

Adrain Z. sued University of Michigan Law School for unfairly discriminating against his slow-typing speed.

While I don't condone Adrain Z's complaint (mainly because there is always the tried and true method called, "Pen and Paper"), I can remotely understand his trouble and frustration.

To be honest, it is quite disconcerting whenever I visit a 1L class and witness the madness ontop keyboards. During my visit to Northwestern University Law School, I witnessed a student in her property class-lecture taking down notes (of every single word uttered by her professor). What's amazing is that she did this while chatting with three different people on AIM. She was soooo fast. While I could barely retain and keep-up with the lecture, here she was cooly chatting with three different people at the super-speed of lightening.
Her typing speed enabled her to multi-task like none other.


This observation along with Adrain Z's lawsuit has me asking another question: is it a good idea for anyone to be attempting to type a professor's every word? Wouldn't it be more beneficial, especially for people who type slower, to forgo the frustrations of taking down every word and instead focus on simply understanding the lecture?

Law School: for making Lawyers~

Anna Ivey (yet again) has written an interesting blog pertaining to law school. It is her response to someone who asked a question during one of her three "Law Firm Brain Drain" series.

Law Firm vs. Public Interest = Prestige vs. Scholarship?

I literally spent the last 40 minutes (or so) reading blog after blog (I read 14 in total) of people who have substantial things to say about the "law firm exodus."

All this literature and outspoken thoughts has me (someone starting law school in the fall) thinking: so should one choose a school based on prestige (destined to be locked in golden handcuffs) or take the money to open up options?

Neal, from Anna Ivey's blog, correctly points out that many practicing lawyers give mixed reviews when confronted with this question: some say, "Law school loans eventually dwindle away! In your generation, you will be billing $1000 an hour, what's the worry?"; other's say, "Those loans really can bite you in the a**. Prestige is overplayed. In the end it's all about how much money you can take home."

It's all so very interesting.

BTW, the title of this blog was intentionally made bipolar to catch the reader's eye. Prestige =/= Law Firm & Scholarship ($$$) =/= Public Interest. In fact, many people I know are able to garner both prestige and money - lucky, lucky people~

2nd Diagnostic

I'm up at 6:30 a.m. Sunday morning. I'm to drive 2 hours to do a diagnostic review session for the LSAT.

People usually do worse on the 2nd diag than they do on the first. This is mainly because they are still trying to master the techniques and thus slower at going through the test. People who do worse are usually depressed and down during the diag review.

There are those who improve 3-4 points and start celebrating. But 3-4 points increase is hardly an improvement. According to the LSAC, on any given day, someone could correctly answer or miss one or two more questions. If you take this into consideration, these fluctuations (3-4 points increase/decrease) mean that despite the improvement one could have just as well scored the exact same score as he/she did on his/her 1st diag. If people go from a 150 to a 153, I tell 'em not to get too excited. Likewise, I tell people not to get too depressed, if they go from a 148 to a 145.

Some people actually jump 10-15 points. They get ecstatic and expect the same jump on the next diag. But on the next diag they won't jump that much because increasing points on the LSAT becomes exponentially harder. It's much easier to go from 140 to 155, then it is to go from 155 to 170.

The best attitude after the 2nd diag is to understand that studying for the LSAT (in a prep course) is a process. One success or failure doesn't mean much. However, constant and repeated success/failure is an entirely different story.

Some people shouldn't be in college?

I try to read the Wall Street Journal regularly (I paid for it, so it's too late to back out now). Charles Murray has recently been writing a series of topics associated with education. His bit on "our culture put[ing] a false premium on the college degree" intrigued me greatly.

Here's a tid bit from his article:
If you want to do well [in college], you should have an IQ of 115 or higher. Put another way, it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education. And yet more than 45% of recent high school graduates enroll in four-year colleges. Adjust that percentage to account for high-school dropouts, and more than 40% of all persons in their late teens are trying to go to a four-year college -- enough people to absorb everyone down through an IQ of 104.

I asked my LSAT class what they thought about this article. Their response was as intriguing as the article itself. One girl argued that college education is "impractical." More courses that pertain to "real job" skills should be taught (haven't we heard this one before?). In response, another girl adamantly opposed, arguing (just as Charles Murray did) that college isn't a vocational school.

I attended a small liberal arts college in New England. The closest thing to a "real job" skill that I've obtained is learning to speak Chinese. Otherwise, my course load was inundated with philosophy, politics and history readings. Some may argue that my college education was "impractical" and a waste of money. But I disagree (not quite for the same reasons as Charles Murray).

Liberal arts is a term derived from the Ancient Greeks. "Liberal" education wasn't meant for "slaves," but for those who are "free" and "unrestrained" from the practical necessities of life (i.e. worrying about where and how my next meal will come). As Plato and Aristotle would have it, even pigs and dogs pursue these necessities, but only humans can stand on "higher ground" and deliberate about the "supernatural" things of life. US college education enables students to mimic this Ancient Greek tradition through the liberal arts - when else can a teenager be so self-centered and careless about life?

But honestly, this Ancient Greek image always bothered me. Socrates was able to "deliberate" day and night because his slaves took care of all the "necessities." So if via liberal arts education I am Socrates, then my parents (who worry about the necessities of life on my behalf) are the slaves?

Beyond Greek connections, there is something to be said about studying what you want to study without having to worry about "my future occupation." This of course doesn't make obsolete the need to think and meditate about one's future goals and purposes.

Slum-Lord

There are times (quite often actually) when I wish I was already practicing law.

Currently, my parents are dealing with a landlord (a.k.a. slum-lord) who is breaking the law left and right (i.e. incorrect [over] billing; hiring illegal immigrants [so he can work them 80 hours per week and pocket money]; creating fake painting companies [so he doesn't have to hire real painters]; lying about the square-footage of the properties he's selling [again to make more money]).

I'm going to find a lawyer tomorrow and pay good money to nab this guy.

Alas, if I were already a practicing lawyer, things wouldn't have dragged on so long (negotiating). A simple letter citing the legal codes breached with a dash of legal jargon would have finished the job in a snap.

Lawyers as CEO

There's an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today about corporate firms turning to lawyers as their CEO.

Some worry that this is a sign of poor economy because lawyers are risk-adverse. However, I disagree. As Alan Murray implies, we can't make blanket statements based on people's degree/previous-occupation. Excellent lawyers may very well be risk-adverse, but not all lawyers are so - certainly not ones that took off their lawyer suits to try on Fortune 500 CEO suits.

I'd be interested to do some more research and find out how successful these ex-lawyers are as CEOs.

Mind boggling

Ocassionally I run into my former students. Yesterday was one of those ocassions.

Me: Hey! How are you!?

J: I'm still studying for the LSAT.

This particular student constantly scored in the upper 160's to lower 170's. But on her actual test she got a 155. Mind boggling to say the least. Practice tests are usually a good and accurate indication of the actual test score.

But this isn't the first time I've witnessed this happen. A friend of mine, whom I know is/was constantly scoring 170's during practice tests scored 158 on the actual test.

If I am to extract similarities between the two cases, I can conclude that they both psyched themselves out WAY too much. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people perform worse when their nerves are "flexed."

I know it's easier said than done, but I really encourage people to approach the LSAT in a "matter of fact" manner. Of course maintaining a certain amount of pressure is healthy, and necessary to score higher. But people who take a fatalistic view of the LSAT tend to do worse, than people who translate LSAT = GAME.

Think for a moment when you play sports games. How well do you do when you take a fatalistic view of the game as opposed to simply understanding that it's just another game?

Perhaps the example is a horrible one, but my point is to learn to have fun in the process, which in turn will help you take a less LSAT = MY ENTIRE LIFE attitude.

Mac or PC

I've begun contemplating what type of laptop I ought to purchase for law school.

Eversince I was 8, I've been using a PC. Normally, I relentlessly bash Mac users. But lately, I'm being swayed. Macs, for lack of better words, are sexy. They look so slick and I love the fact that they are virus proof.

3 months ago I was convinced that I would buy a Mac for law school. However, I've been hearing that most law schools don't allow Macs during exams - bummer!

In anycase, I'm bouncing back and forth between the Mac Book Pro and the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 (both of which come very highly recommended by current law students).

If you have any thoughts, feel free to comment.

Another Season

It's January and the beginning of another season of LSAT teaching (prepping for the Feb test).

Today a student asked, "How long does it take to study for the LSAT?"

Tough question to answer because everyone is different. I've encountered both extremes of the spectrum: 1) A girl who studied for 5 years.....and she's still studying; 2) Another girl who took the exam cold (no prep at all!) and scored a 171.

It's a safe bet to say that most people fall somewhere snug in the middle of this spectrum (the opportunity cost of studying for this test for 5+ years is just too high; and very few people score in the 99th percentile without studying).

For those in the safe-middle your tactic is to be disciplined.

From the outset I want to declare that there's only so much an LSAT instructor can do for you. LSAT instructors can show you the way/tools/tactics/logic, but when test day arrives you're the one that'll be butting heads with the test. Simply put, you have to learn to think on your own.

This means what you learn at home is perhaps more important than what you learn in LSAT class.