The Week in (Law) Review – October 9th, 2015 LSAT Roundup


Blog-Week-In-Law-10_9_2015-BannerAll things LSAT-and-law-school-related from the past week, for your niche media consumption delight. 🎓💼

Law school applications on the rise 📈

A recent survey determined that 88% of law school admissions officers at 120 law schools across the U.S. are predicting a rise in applications for the first time in years. One possible explanation for this optimism is that, due to the relatively smaller number of top students currently applying to law school, there has never been a less competitive time to get into a top program; if law school has been on your bucket list, now would be the time to pursue it.

Yes, this is real life. 🇺🇸🏈

Last week’s LSAT exam happened to coincide with a much anticipated football game between the University of Georgia and the University of Alabama. University Testing Services almost decided NOT to administer the test due to the traffic, parking, and general commotion-related disturbances that the game would cause. 92,746 people were in attendance at Sanford Stadium in Athens, Georgia on Saturday, October 3rd. An estimated 100 took the LSAT. Think about that: nearly 100,000 rabid fans cheered in delight as two teams of young men ruined their brains forever, while one one-thousandth of that number invested in their futures. It might be said that American values are like a hat whose brim provides weary eyes no respite from the sun – backwards. Roll tide!

Who would you save in a fire: your mother or your girlfriend? 🔥🏠

This disturbingly macabre question was actually given to hundreds of Chinese test-takers aspiring to be future lawyers on this year’s National Judicial Exam (side note: Why “girlfriend”? Either only people who date women take this test, or China’s Ministry of Justice is shockingly tactless). The question was categorized under the test’s “crimes of omission” section, which included a series of other tragic scenarios, such as failing to save a drowning child and allowing a friend to drink poisoned coffee. Yikes. The right answer? According to China’s Ministry of Justice, duty to one’s family should take precedence over romantic love, rendering those who would save their girlfriends guilty of a “crime of non-action.” It’s been rumored that those whose souls were too tormented by the quandary committed a different kind of crime of non-action by leaving their answer blank. Who would you save? Comment below!

Burning House

If this is the house they were in, it’s almost certainly too late to save either of them.

Blind man to sue American Bar Association over minimum LSAT score requirement 👓💼

These things are true:

1. The American Bar Association requires that law schools accept only students with a 140 or higher LSAT score.
2. The LSAT requires test-takers to use pictures and diagrams in order to answer many of the exam’s questions.

If your logic skills are on-point, you should be able to use the above premises to draw the conclusion that it’s almost impossible for blind people to attend law school.

Angelo Binno is blind. He’s learned three languages, graduated college in three years, begun a career in homeland security, and took the LSAT recently. He got a 136 – 4 points below the minimum 140 score required for law school acceptance. Now, he’s suing the American Bar Assocation.

We’re sorry; we were under the impression that the Americans with Disabilities Act was actually a thing. Let’s hope this case is a layup for Angelo.

Tweets of the week

#BadReasonsForGoingToLawSchool 😶

#LawSchoolLolz 📚😂

#Wut? ⁉️😐⁉️

#LawSchoolWontBeThatHard 💁

#WhatHaveIdone? 😰

Thus concludes issue one of The Week in (Law) Review. Want resources that are actually useful in preparing for the LSAT? Click here, or check out our upcoming trial classes.

Entertained? Confused? Disturbed? Let us know what you think below. 📝


No comments yet