Law School Discussion

Eagerly anticipating this thread...

The entire stimulus says, "four two-day workshops are conducted over the course of five days, Monday through Friday." So, this means that each of the 4 workshops has exactly two days it's given, totaling 8 workshops over 5 days. This is an 8 into 5 distribution.

The rules make this game fairly limited. The first rule establishes that the two day workshops for a particular variable must be on consecutive days. So, any variable on Monday has to also be on Tuesday; any on Thursday has to be there either on Wednesday or Friday, etc.

The second rule establishes the number distribution. Atleast one workshop is given each day, so there can be no empty days, and at MOST two workshops is given on a day. So for each day there is either 1 or 2 workshops.

The third rule says that P and R can ONLY be placed after both L's are placed. So, P and R both can't ever be on Monday or Tuesday, and L can't be on Thursday or Friday (placing it on Thursday would leave no room for both P and R to have two workshops.)

I'm also in this same position. I too have a ~3.7 gpa and my goal is a 170. Right now I'm averaging around a 160, but around a 170 when I go through the test untimed (I only use about 5-10 minutes extra per section). I feel that I am understanding the questions, but need more practice in order to get that 170 score within the actual time limit. With four more months of studying and practicing, I'm sure I'll improve my time while keeping accuracy.

Basically, you've got to consider a few things if you're going to push back the test. First, most people think that ALL schools take the top score now and don't average. This isn't true. I urge you to check out the websites of the t14 schools you're going to apply to and see whether or not they average scores. If even one of these schools does average, you would be better served postponing until October. Unless you're scoring on average where you want to be before the June test, just wait it out and continue practicing.

There really is no application penalty for waiting until the October test. Scores will come back around Oct. 20th (officially on the 27th I believe), which gives you plenty of time to get your apps in at the beginning of November. This is still considered early, as most schools don't even start reviewing apps until Oct. 1st. Check out lawschoolnumbers.com and sort the applicants of a particular school by the date they sent in their applications. MOST of them are sent in November/December.

I don't see any reason why waiting until October would hurt us, but do see how it could benefit us. Unless you slack off and don't take advantage of the extra studying time, you SHOULD score better in October with extra time.

Quote from: BABALITY! on May 20, 2008, 01:16:53 AM

Just wondering if there was a definite 'turning point' one year in which the games became decidedly easier, and what year (or around what year) that took place? I'm curious because I'd like to gauge my abilities in LG on practice tests to something comparable to what I'll be facing on this upcoming June's test.

June 2005 marked the shift in LG's.  It was a super easy section and that test was also the first one with the more strict score conversion charts. 

It was the day the music died. 

That's the answer I was looking for. Thanks Jeffort. A day that will live in infamy.

Can anyone explain to me how 'D' is correct? "Offering an analogy to counter an unstated assumption of Jorge's argument." Nothing in Jorge's argument goes assumed, or is unstated. The argument addressed in Jorge's comments are there in the text. "You won't be able to write well about rock music in the 1960's, since you were just an infant then." This is the blatant comment Ruth addresses in her response. The analogy part of answer D is correct however, but this I think is a half-right half-wrong incorrect answer type.

C, however, is not half-right half-wrong as described in the LGB (p.360). "Using an example of classic culture" -- she does. "To legitimize contemporary culture as an object worth of serious consideration." -- She does. This last part is what the LGB thinks is wrong about the answer. BUT she does use the analogy to legitimize writing about 1960's rock, and should be worthy of serious consideration to write about.

Agghhh!!!