This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - hilljack
« on: October 04, 2005, 08:40:31 PM »
Some LSAT test takers are funnier than others.
There is survival kit guy. You are not sure if he is planning on taking the LSAT or spending three days in the woods. This guy brings three bottles of water, a variety of snacks and his entire medicine cabenet into the room.
Meditation guy was funny too. I don't know if whatever this guy was doing was relaxing, but biting my lip to not laugh at him was. He didn't throw a rug on the ground, but did everything short of it.
Oh, and we had a four cups of coffee girl. You will notice this girl is finishing her last cup in the testing room. She is the one who sprinted out of the room at the break to go pee. Classic.
Does anybody have any other stories of funny LSAT test takers?
« on: June 15, 2005, 03:34:21 PM »
Since the greatest tradition of this site is to piggyback other threads, here I go:
1. Green peppers
« on: June 08, 2005, 03:37:27 PM »
Does anyone remember this LR question?
Can you confirm it was on the actual test (not experimental)?
« on: June 05, 2005, 01:11:16 AM »
I am voting for Robot
« on: May 16, 2005, 04:57:53 PM »
I truly wish everyone could be happy, but we live in a world of scarcity so we must allocate. We could allocate by letting people make decisions based on their own self interest (capitalism) or by letting a central planner make decision based on the, I will say supposed, greater good.
The latter seems appealing. It is nice to think that the government, a set of elected officials could decide what is produced, what we earn and what we buy because they are looking out for our best interest.
But what is capitalism. We are all free to choose what to produce based on our abilities, our resources, our competition and our customers. Basically, capitalism allocates recourses based on how much of A we can produce compared to B and how much of each is demanded. So if we define best interest in terms of productive capabilities and revealed preference, capitalism succeeds in allocating good in our best interest.
The problem comes up for two primary reasons: we don't all have equal abilities and we don't all have equal resources. Even if we distributed resources evenly, we would have to continually do so to make up for inequality of ability (ability encompassing earning potential). So we are left with a choice.
Could we correctly allocate these resources evenly according to the new demand of equal resources through a central planner? Maybe. It would seem much more difficult to produce the given output.
In a capitalist system, if I am making soap inefficiently, you can open a soap factory and make it cheaper and sell it cheaper. I go out of business. Because of DMR, there will be a set number of factories making soap efficiently (only using the amount of resources needed) and the rest of the scarce resources are used elsewhere.
In a socialist system, the government decides how soap is made. Sure they may choose the most efficient way at first, but there is no incentive for anyone to improve soap making techniques. It is inevitable that goods will be produced at a higher cost (in terms of resources used) in this system.
There are two questions that logically follow:
1. Is this loss justified if it gives the bare essentials to everyone, even if it takes all luxuries away? (or some variation)
2. Does this loss make everyone worse off, totally countering any possible benefits?
I would argue that the answer to 1 is not important because the answer to 2 is yes.
Take USSR for example; in the 1980s they were actually experiencing a decreasing return on production. That is to say that the raw materials put into Russian goods were worth more that the finished goods. That is a command economy at work.
If you have any questions about this or anything else, I will answer them from as close to a laissez-faire perspective as I can. I will leave my conservative moral mumbo jumbo out.
« on: May 15, 2005, 04:28:02 PM »
Okay, here are my questions. Please feel free to answer from any perspective:
1. Is it okay to tell racist jokes about your own race?
2. If you said yes to "1" how bad can they be?
3. Is it open season on white people?
4. If you said yes to "3" what about a situation where white people are the minority?
5. Are there any other groups which it is acceptable to make jokes about, even if you are not a member of that group?
6. Are there any groups you can't make fun of even if you are part of that group?
7. If you answered yes to "1" how much do you have to be a part of a group to make fun of it? (25%? 50%?)
« on: April 25, 2005, 09:43:21 PM »
Seriously, I have spent all afternoon looking for it. I checked the car, five pairs of pants, underneath all the chairs and couches, it is like that little bastard just disappeared.
Where should I look next?
« on: April 24, 2005, 12:56:06 AM »
This can be undergrad or LS if you are there already:
Worst- Marketing- It was boring, my prof was misinformed, it was early in the morning.
Hardest- European History- Wouldn't be hard now, but it almost kicked my butt when I was a freshman.
« on: April 11, 2005, 01:23:31 AM »
When I began studying for the LSAT, I was using the old tests from the late nineties; then I Decided that I wanted to go ahead and take all (or most) of the availible preptests. I decided to start w/ the oldest and move toward the newer. My score dropped fairly siginicantly on prep test seven. Part of this may have been due to conditions or variance, but the first few tests were closer to my first score.
My questions are:
Does anyone else see a large difference in the questions on old test v. newer ones?
If so, would anyone suggest simply scrapping 10 actual and moving to 10 more? (I really wouldn't want to move all the way to next 10)
I am thinking that I will probably just keep going and that progressing towards the last most recent availible preptest will set me up nicely for June.
Any thoughts are welcome.
The jump is from high 160s/low 170s to lower-mid 160s, so its not terrible; and its getting better, what I really want to know is whether or not I am wasting time on a dissimilar test.
« on: March 30, 2005, 09:03:15 PM »
Apparantly pretty hard for me; I have tried Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City.
Where can I get a reliable, silent, digital count-down timer. Preferably what store, but if not, where online?