Reading Comp is 50% psychology

A large part of performing well on the reading comp section of the LSAT is changing your mindset. You have to think, "This is SO interesting!" And really believe that it is!

I know this is easier said than done. Usually when given homework assignments, students have no problem mowing through logical reasoning and game questions. It's the reading comp passages/questions that they get flaky on. When asked why they get flaky, most respond by saying, "It's mind numbingly boring."

For those struggling with this very problem, I have devised a method (albeit a quirky one).

When you learned how to walk, you probably first learned how to crawl. Likewise, to transform the reading comp section into an exhilirating experience, you have to first learn to realize that it ain't so bad.

Next time you go to the restroom (to do the deed), I suggest you take with you a reading comp passage. Humor me and hear me out. When you're on the toilet at school (or in any public place), your mind starts wandering. And as if you don't have anything better to do, you begin to scrutinize every scribble and doodle on the stall. Why do we do this?

When you're at an upscale restroom at some fancy restaurant, you don't have these wonderous distractions. So you move your eyes to the restroom floor, where you find many little squares and diamonds. And you sit there counting 'em and/or making bigger shapes.

When you're on the toilet, anything and everything is interesting because your mind is bored.

If the bathroom floor can be this interesting, imagine how interesting your LSAT reading comp passage would be on the toilet.

After doing this exercise several times, when you return to your desk, convincing yourself that the reading comp passage "ain't that bad" is only a matter of remembering your quirky adventures on the toilet.

Several hundreds of students have tried this method, and they've attested to its amazing effect. Try it. What have you got to lose? =)

Lack of diversity. LSAT is the culprit.

Interesting article.

"In law schools throughout the country, the number of Black applicants, students and graduates are all declining."

I don't know if condemning the ABA is the most effective remedy, but I suppose it's the place anyone would start in his/her attempt to make a difference in legal education.

It's also no surprise that the LSAT took some heat.

As an LSAT instructor, I know and am convinced that the LSAT can be studied for. Many African-American students, however, don't have the finanical luxury to pay $1000 - $1300 for a LSAT course.
Since this "condemning" originated from Congress, perhaps Congress ought to consider making student loans available for students who want to take test prep courses.

US News

I purposely waited until official publication to comment on this year's US News World Report's law school ranking.

I am bent towards attending the University of Chicago Law School, so obviously I was a tad bit surprised and upset to see NYU ranked 4th and UPenn ranked 6th (the same as Chicago).

However, consider these facts (as reported by US News):
LSAT (Median)/GPA(Median)
Chicago: 171/3.66
Columbia: 172/3.7
NYU: 170/3.75
Penn: 170/3.7

Acceptance Rate
Chicago: 16%
Columbia: 15%
NYU: 21%
Penn: 16%

% in Academia/% Judicial Clerks/% in non-law Business
Chicago: 2/21/2.5
Columbia: 0/14.2/0.5
NYU: 0/12/0.5
Penn: 1/12.4/1.3

Based on these numbers it would seem that Columbia and Chicago are ahead of NYU and Penn. So I've done some searching and asking to find what bumped NYU ahead of Columbia and Penn up to Chicago's level. It was obvious to me that US News rankings are not determined by what pre-law students on discussion boards perceive to be purely test scores, employment numbers and/or acceptance rates (because based on these alone the current US News results are clearly questionable).

Prof. Theodore P. Seto, a Harvard Law grad teaching at Loyola Law School, has recently researched and written in depth on this topic. His inquiry started much the same way I'm beginning to question US News rankings - namely by taking it personally. His studies adequately answered my questions.

Simply put, the current US News methodology is not a perfect system. Prof. Seto does quite a thorough job at breaking it down.

FYI, I endore Prof. Seto's results, which BTW does not favor Chicago over the schools mentioned above. This is my feeble attempt to remain objective =)

But a journey...

Law school is not the ending chapter of your story. It is not the answer to your life's search for a purpose. Law school will certainly not make you happy.

One thing I find extremely common amongst all my LSAT students (regardless of their score) is their "happy ever after" attitude about law school. While studying for the LSAT, one of my best students cried and mumbled to me: "I need to get into Harvard." She spent hours and hours each day studying for the LSAT. Despite my efforts to comfort her and help her relax, she stressed and cried right up until (and even after) the test. Law school was EVERYTHING to her. Getting into law school was the final act, and she was convinced that nothing mattered more than getting into Harvard. (She eventually did get into Harvard).

It honestly saddens me a bit to see this self-induced torture. Having an absolutist view of law school is already placing too much pressure on one's shoulder. And imagine the disappointment crashing down on someone who finds themselves just as lost and desperate as they were before law school.

This is exactly why I get excited when my LSAT students decide to take some time off before going to law school. Any job, I mean ANY job, will help bring perspective to one's legal education.

Law school is not the finish. It is but a journey; a means to an end.

Coming out

One of lisetiffner's recent posts "Anonymous no Longer" got me thinking: how much of myself do I want to reveal?

I adore the freedom that follows from readers not knowing who I am, thus I prefer remaining anonymous to most.

But my purpose for writing isn't to gleefully poke random statements and revel at the thought that no one knows me. My hope and purpose is that others will benefit from my observations and experience.

So a balance is necessary. I ought to share just enough, but not too much - making only sufficient and necessary points =P [I just had to slip in LSAT lingo!]

Interesting concept

A high school friend started the company called eMax.

The concept is very simple: you join and save money at your favorite stores because the group (members of eMax) will collectively make massive, high volume purchases at those stores.

Honestly, I'm not sure if this will work, I have my doubts. But if it does work, then I would love to save money at Jamba Juice and the movie theatres!

Live or Die in L.A.

The June LSAT is slowly creeping nearer. And unfortunately for those in Los Angeles there aren't many places to take it - only Southwestern Law and University of Southern California (USC).

The number of students taking the June LSAT is typically smaller than those taking the October LSAT, but I'm still a bit surprised that Loyola and UCLA won't be available for testing.

Perhaps the new twist to the LSAT is discouraging people from being what they perceive as the first group of guinea pigs, and as a result, LSAC is responding by hosting the test at fewer test centers.

Law school evacuation?!?

I'm about to leave for China. This morning, as I am packing, I read a spine chilling article on the avion influenza. And again, I was remined of the impending "doom" to come.

Eversince last year, while I was in China, I have been monitoring news on this disease. So far it ain't a major problem. However, it should scare us to know that leading health officials at the World Health Organization as well as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention aren't asking "if," but rather asking "when" the pandemic hits.

I was told that once the H5N1 virus becomes transmittable from human-to-human it will only be a matter of 2-3 weeks before it hits the entire world (no amount of border closing will prevent it from happening). They expect people to die in the millions from this virus, especially those who are between 20-40 years-old (H5N1 uses your immune system to attack your body, so the stronger your immune system, the more you are prone to danger). Scary...huh?

Colleges are preparing evacuation plans. I wonder if law schools are doing the same.

I feel like I'm in some sort of a bio-hazard movie (Resident Evil).

Cass Sunstein's Article

Prof. Cass Sunstein's recent blog/article entitled, Taxpayers and Religion perked my ears.

I wouldn't consider myself a religious person, nevertheless religion is a big part of my life. Even as I am such, it is still a bit eerie for me to know that the President is arguing that taxpayer's have no "standing" against government spending of taxpayer's money unless: 1) "Challenging a specific governmental mandate;" and 2) "taxpayer money is dispersed outside the government."

I don't know enough about this case (appearing before the Supreme Court), so I will not go indepth. I don't know whether President Bush's pointed spending of taxpayer's money was for religious organizations in general or his "religious" organizations in particular. But one thing I am certain of, as Prof. Cass Sunstein accurately pointed out, is that the current administrations argument taken to the extreme can only be bad for liberal democracy.

For the record, I do pray daily (regardless of who's in the oval office) for the President. My sincere wish is that our Commander and Chief has the wisdom and courage to act in our nation's best interest (which by the way ain't easy.....and in the name of which so much has gone wrong).

Wine Mess

Last night at the Paul Hastings building in L.A. the University of Chicago Law School hosted a wine mess for admitted students. Ugh, I LOVED it!

I don't know what they put in those quesadillas, but it was good.

It was nice to speak with alumni, prospective classmates, and school representatives over a glass of wine and fine food (Yes, yes! For me quesadillas can be fine food). I learned a lot about the varied employment options available to graduates. It was also nice to be able to fling questions without being concerned about making the wrong impressions. The environment was very laid back and surprisingly fun. I never imagined standing around holding a glass of wine could be so much fun.

Paul Hastings is a beautiful law firm. I've visited three big L.A. law firms, and thus far, Paul Hastings takes the prize for best aesthetic taste. Everything was translucent white, kinda like an iPod or Mac-Apple store. The one-man couches in the lobby were very futuristic and comfortable. A partner at the law firm freely gave us a tour around the firm, during which I noticed that associates' offices are very spacious and decorated with nice furniture.

Beyond these superficial observations, I noticed that the partner-associate interaction was quite natural and, from what I could gather, frequent.

All in all, it was a wonderful experience.

LSAT scores from 142 to 173

Starting from this past Saturday all the way up until today, I've been receiving phone calls from my former LSAT students. I wish they were calling me because I'm genuinely fun to speak with, but alas they only call to talk about the LSAT.

My students' scores ranged from 142 to 173. Here's several observations about the students who scored in the two extremes.

The person who scored a 142 came to me with a 137. The person who scored a 173 came to me with a 158.
The person who scored a 142 did not take the test too seriously. The person who scored a 173 was hungry to do well on this test.
The person who scored a 142 studied for 2 months, and didn't do any of the assignments. The person who scored a 173 studied for 6 months, and went over all the assignments + practice tests 3 times.
The person who scored a 142 believed that only geniuses do well on the LSAT. The person who scored a 173 believed that ANYONE can do well on the LSAT.
The person who scored a 142 is unsure about law school. The person who scored a 173 knows for certain that law school is the next step.

These observations are NOT absolute. It's simply interesting for me to compare and contrast because both students are almost identical in background, personality and the approximate time they started studying for the LSAT.

$160,000 salary = Bad News?

It is according to the recent article in The American Lawyer: Is Raising Salaries the Best Way to Retain Associates? (By Elizabeth Goldberg and Ben Hallman, 03/05/07)

This past January, Simpson Thacher & Barlett, as many of you already know, raised salaries for its associates. I won't say I was unhappy when I first heard the news. But there's no such thing as free lunch.

According to the article, partners at large firms are understandably unhappy about having to pay more. But the associates aren't all that happy either. Some New York firms have raised their "minimum billables from 1,950 to 2,000 hours." Firms that haven't officially raised their minimum billable hours, nevertheless expect more from associates.

If the purpose for raising salaries was to increase retention rates and prevent the ever increasing law firm exodus, then according to the article, it hasn't made a dent. "A third-year associate recently left Schulte Roth and Zabel for a hedge fund with a salary approaching $700,000...." Ergo to people who are driven by money the recent raise ain't that hot.

Fortunately for partners at these large law firms, money hunger is not at the heart of the issue. It's rather "quality of life." There is no official study on this, but it seems that more and more law students are also leaving law school. The message, in short, is that "Generation Y" (Hat tip to Anna Ivey) cares less about the pay and more about the way. A pay boost can temporarily increase associates' morale, but once the snow settles, people are reminded that somebody has to shovel the snow.

But when thinking matters from a partner's perspective, the problem of improving "quality of life" for an associate is another ugly pickle. Should firms require less billable hours? Allow associates to go home promptly at 5:00? Then what about surprise client demands? Is lowering associate salaries even an option, if there's a trade off between business and higher quality of life?

And what about those partners that feel that the 80-100 hour weeks are a lawyer's rite of passage?

I often find law students comparing their prospective salaries and life styles to that of ibankers. Bonuses in ibanking is contingent upon performance, whereas in law firms it's pretty much set for each class. Another significant difference is the nature of work. A lawyer spends hours pouring over word documents, whereas an ibanker spends hours pouring over an excel spreadsheet. However, in this very act of making comparisons, law students are saying something. They've heard one too many times that ibankers spend more time interacting with people, teams, and clients, but lawyers work too many lonely nights. They've heard that ibankers feel invigorated by their work, while lawyers feel that their work is too monotonous. They've heard ibankers live the high roller's life, while lawyers work like dogs.

Ibanking ain't easy. Though I don't have first hand experience, I've learned during my brief tenure at a venture capital firm that ibankers work like dogs too. Meritocracy in ibanking allows those that are gifted and talented to climb faster, but generally speaking the "high roller's life-style" doesn't kick in unless you're vice-president.

In this matter my point is simple: if your options are limited to ibanking and law, you're going to work like a dog no matter where you go, so do what you love and follow your passion.

As for the issue of retaining associates, it seems like a good idea for the legal profession as a whole to re-think its compensation model into a more merit driven model. Simply raising everyone's salary across the board won't stop the exodus because associates who want more money aren't satisfied (i.e. "that other guy is making $700,000!!!") and associates who want better quality of life aren't satisfied (i.e. "that's just great, I have to work more hours now") In the end everyone seems unhappy.

My final words are for my fellow colleagues in law school. Lets not be too hasty and get excited about the $160,000 salary boost. Our innocent excitement will only contribute to the perpetuation of a tradition, which so many of those who've walked this road ahead of us gripe about.