Yesterday I was on the phone - ALL DAY. 

My students called me off the hook to share, discuss, celebrate as well as vent their LSAT scores. Overall, it's good news at LSAT Sensei. I'm immensely proud of my students - both those who did well and those who under-performed. 

If you under-performed, go ahead and remorse a bit, but don't stay down too long. You and I know your true potential. Email me if you need to discuss next steps. All in all, however, no situation is so bad. If your true potential is much higher than what you scored, then you can demonstrate that on the next exam. 

The immense advantage of taking the LSAT in June is getting your results way before law school applications are out. It's a win-win situation for both those who rocked and those who bombed the test. If you rocked it, you're squared away to apply early; maybe even take advantage of early admissions. If you bombed it, then dust yourself off and try again; register for the Sept exam and demonstrate your true potential on the LSAT. 

Keep positive people! Never under estimate the power of optimism~

McKinsey (one of the top three management consulting fims, the other two being Bain and BCG) actively recruited at our law school. Never one to pass up new opportunities, I actually signed-up and tried out for McKinsey (this was a few years ago). They required resume and grades. I'm not sure if they ever looked at my grades/resume.

Wow. Management consulting! You get to work with super smart and accomplished team mates. Your clients are fortune 500 company executives. You get to travel. Start new projects every 6 months or so. Work hard and play even harder. I mean what's not to like about it?

What does it all mean?
First off, let's talk about what it actually means to be waitlisted. Some folks like to paint a grim and dreary picture for waitlisted applicants. In the name of "waking you up" and "helping you see reality" they tell you to "forget about it and move on." But shut those party poopers them out, especially if you've been waitlisted at your top choice school. 

By waitlisting you, here's what law schools might be saying:

Here's an email exchange between a client and me:

Client: Hey David! Hope you're having a great Thursday. Just got a waitlist e-mail from Berkeley. To be honest, I think most schools are pretty done with offers and I am destined for waitlists at the rest of the schools I applied to. Ughhhh. Quite frustrating.

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 - $2000 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.

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.

This Saturday is V-day for many of you - Victory Day.

You've studied hard and long, and now it's finally time to show 'em what you can do. Though I have different advice for different people when studying for the LSAT (mainly because we all think and study differently), I generally have the same advice for how to prep the day before the test.

The following 7 points worked for hundreds of students, and I'm ready to wager that it'll work for you too.

Is there such a thing? Perhaps.

On many law school discussion boards pre-law students, and law students alike, puff up their cheeks and argue 'til they're blue about which law schools are truly the "best in the nation."

Every March US News World Report ranks the top law schools. I've been aware of and attentive to the rankings since 1995.

Many experts and professionals far more accomplished and well-versed than I have already written numerous articles/opinions on this topic. I ought to stop holding you in suspense and mention upfront that I agree - US News ain't all that hot.

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?

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.