![\"not](\"https:\/\/magoosh.com\/lsat\/files\/2016\/09\/shutterstock_520947745.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
If there was one thing I wish I knew before I went to law school, it would have been that I didn’t need to take any pre-law classes to get ready for law school, or the LSAT. Here’s what to know about the LSAT having not done pre-law. <\/p>\n
Aside from a reading comprehension passage, and maybe a couple of logical reasoning questions, you are not going to see anything that even remotely resembles legal material. The examiners don’t want to test your ability to analyze legal issues. That’s what you do in law school.<\/p>\n
All they want to do is test your ability to use reason and logic to come to a rational conclusion. This is all the better for you if you’re not taking pre-law classes. You’ll get to take fun classes instead of the boring ones I had to suffer through, like mass media law, constitutional law, and religious law.<\/p>\n
If you’re stressing about not being good at logic, since not all of it is super intuitive, sign up for Philosophy 101 – Intro to logic. You’ll come away with a strong basis in logic, and probably a lot more confidence in the process.<\/p>\n
You’ve met them, and if you haven’t, then you might be one of them … For some reason, a large number of pre-law students think that taking pre-law courses makes them more likely to get into law school and more likely to do better on the LSAT.<\/p>\n
What’s better than taking that “stigma” and using it as motivation to study harder and get into a better school than the know-it-all pre-law kids? I can’t think of anything.<\/p>\n
![\"not](\"https:\/\/magoosh.com\/lsat\/files\/2016\/09\/giphy.gif\")
<\/p>\n