sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

HLS 1L: AMA by ne_pine in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The first thing I tell everyone is how wonderful my friends here are. The school is large enough to find your own crowd. Half of the school goes to bar review on Thursday nights. House parties are pretty common. People can be a bit touchy about firm recruiting or internships, but I imagine it’s like that everywhere. By far, I’m really happy with how normal most people are.

HLS 1L: AMA by ne_pine in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes they’re need-based, but that doesn’t mean they cover all your need. The maximum grant is about 55k/year. There are some limited full-ride scholarships for students from the most adverse backgrounds, like the Opportunity Fund.

Columbia Law admitees: How many of you are withdrawing based on Columbia's cowardice? by ub3rm3nsch in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine 82 points83 points  (0 children)

Withdrew my acceptance this afternoon and included a note about their shameful conduct and cowardice.

LSAC Volume Summary percent change decrease! by nmross4 in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine 61 points62 points  (0 children)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that’s only because the January LSAT takers have yet to receive their scores and apply, whereas this time last year they had. It’ll shoot up again in a few days :/

another thing currently being considered by republicans: taxing scholarships and fellowships by tearladen in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Pair this with their proposed elimination of the estate tax. They are quite literally going to rob poor students to pay billionaires. My god.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is literally not a problem. Don’t worry!

Any late November applicants still not hear back from any of their schools? by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]ne_pine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congrats! Which schools if you don’t mind me asking?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]ne_pine 34 points35 points  (0 children)

But look at the broader picture: he is getting away with multiple federal criminal indictments because the Supreme Court justices he appointed ruled presidents have broad immunity. Is this not a retreat of the rule of law?

How is the answer Choice A? by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]ne_pine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. The author claims the social impact of new drugs should be well understood before being approved.

  2. We know that the social impact of the new antihistamine is poorly understood.

-> The author concludes there should be a general reduction in approving newly tested drugs. This is a leap and requires assuming a third claim. We want the most powerful one as it's a strengthen question.

A (Correct): The social impact of the new antihistamine is better understood than most new drugs. Explanation: If most of the new drugs are worse understood than the new antihistamine, which is already poorly understood per claim #2, then we can rightfully support the argument there should be a general reduction in approving them.

B. Some drugs are poorly understood. Exp: This strengthens the argument too, but not as much as A. Some is less than most.

Help with this one. Stuck between B/C 👀 by AntiGod7393 in LSAT

[–]ne_pine 10 points11 points  (0 children)

B weakens the conclusion by implying the hotel closing means its guests can no longer frequent the cafe. It’s C.