Ann Levine joins the top of the show to discuss the big news of the day, including:
00:01:20 – LSAC eliminates the “3 times in 2 years” rule
00:03:20 – What’s it going to look like when applicants take the LSAT 7 times?
00:08:33 – “People get these goal scores in their head that sound pretty”
00:14:49 – Harvard Law School junior referral program
00:16:59 – It’s still important to take the LSAT over the GRE, even though Northwestern may begin looking at GRE scores
00:25:26 – The new Above the Law law school rankings, and why they’re better than US News
After Ann says goodbye, we turn to listener mail and other assorted goodies like:
00:33:00 – MJ delights us by explaining how she was able to negotiate for a stipend in addition to her full ride
00:37:50 – Nate talks about Southwest Airlines the impossibility of asking for booze during a tarmac delay
00:42:48 – Why do some applicants get full rides?
00:44:16 – Norm, with perfect scores on his last few practice tests, offers us $1 per point correct
00:48:06 – Justin asks about Principle questions, which basically don’t exist
01:09:26 – We dissect a difficult question stem, and talk about Sufficient vs Necessary Assumption questions
01:18:13 – Annabelle asks whether a gap in her resume will be problematic when applying to law school? (No.)
01:23:20 – “As long as” – does this introduce the sufficient or necessary condition?
01:27:00 – The 160s is actually quite solid—folks shouldn’t get caught up with perfectionist tendencies when their current abilities are well above average
01:30:46 – Are older LSAT tests easier, particularly in reading comp, compared to the new ones?
Forgot our birthdays, and want to atone? Give us a rating and/or review on iTunes.