Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

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.

Messages - Lindbergh

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 425
31
Actually the question was directed at you too Brad Pitt. ;)



Oh thank you guys!!! :-*

I have another one that's been troubling me......would you mind??

I just don't want to wear out my welcome.

The worst they can do is say no.

Just post it already!!!  ;D

32
Studying for the LSAT / Re: How to deal with... parents.
« on: September 30, 2008, 10:32:50 PM »
Lind, I qualified my statement with the point that I know a 171 isn't bad. What's bad is stress, and stress can drop the score you've worked hard to attain, regardless of what it is, 5 points. The difference between a 171 and a 165 is not much point-wise, but it is a lot of closed doors at T14s. Just like the difference between a 160 and a 155 is a lot of closed doors.

A 5 point drop from 171 is a 166, technically, which still gives you a shot at a T14 with ED and good grades.  And you're unlikely to really drop that much if you're hitting 171 consistently.  Bottom line, 171 isn't really "borderline" by any reasonable measure, unless you're talking HYS.


However, if you want to score above 170 on test day, a 171 IS borderline.

But you don't really need to break 170 unless you're gunning for HYS. That's my point.  (Yes, it's helpful for T14, but high 160's won't screw you either.)  Sure, it's borderline for 170, but that's hardly something to get stressed about.


Anyone who tells you you're rude for pointing that out has probably never been borderline in anything in life to understand what that feels like, whether that's borderline 160s, borderline 150s, borderline 180.

I was talking to Lavahead in terms of the rudeness.  And I stand by my point that it's obscene to complain openly about "only" scoring 170 when your friends may be struggling to break 150.  I don't fault anyone on here for doing so, because this is a fairly unusual forum.  But in real life, people should expect others dying for a 160 (or 150) to get upset if they hear someone complaing about stagnating at 170.  It's like complaining to unemployed people that you're only getting paid $150K, instead of $200K. 

I know what it's like to stress about marginal stuff, and I'm sure I've annoyed people in the process. I'm just trying to lend some perspective.

Anyway, I've also gotten stressed over goofy stuff, I'm just noting that by hitting 171, you're solidly in the T14 range, even if you drop on test day.

33
Studying for the LSAT / Re: How to deal with... parents.
« on: September 30, 2008, 09:26:08 PM »
Yes, Lavahead is correct -- by 171 being a nerve-wracking score, I didn't mean to imply that it's a bad score. Not at all! Hell, I'd be happy as pie to get it on test day. It's just very borderline -- and given that stress can screw things up and since yes, I am aiming for that 170+ score, a 171 feels borderline. I do understand that life goes on without hitting the 170+ threshold, but I'm not about to accept that fact just yet :)

The questions I miss ARE all over the place. For example, on the Feb 2000 test (superprep c), I scored a 172, but only because I completely bombed the last game in the games section and did well on LR/RC. On other preptests I usually get at most -1 on LG and it's RC that gives me trouble. And then sometimes it's just the scale -- boo -7 = 170 scales!

Otherwise my scores a pretty consistent across the board and incorrect answers are not limited to a particular question type. I guess at this point doing well is more a matter of maintaining focus and zen through the test than anything else.

Thanks everyone, I'll try the Obama/Clinton advice. That should shut the up next time.

Thank goodness someone else understands. Other friends who are prepping for the Oct test get angry when I tell them I'm flustered over my low-170s range on my PTs. I try to explain to them the exact same thing; it's not that low-170s is bad, but there's a very real possibility that your score will drop on test day. So, it would be a much more comforting feeling to score 175ish consistently and know that even the pressures of test day could only realistically lower you to a 170.

So you might only get a 169, and be forced to attend a T14, and not HYS?

Obviously your friends get angry.  It's rude and insensitive to even try to complain/openly stress about your low score when you're breaking 170.

34
Studying for the LSAT / Re: How to deal with... parents.
« on: September 30, 2008, 09:23:30 PM »
Yes, Lavahead is correct -- by 171 being a nerve-wracking score, I didn't mean to imply that it's a bad score. Not at all! Hell, I'd be happy as pie to get it on test day. It's just very borderline -- and given that stress can screw things up and since yes, I am aiming for that 170+ score, a 171 feels borderline. I do understand that life goes on without hitting the 170+ threshold, but I'm not about to accept that fact just yet :)


How exactly is 171 borderline?  For HYS?

35
Oh thank you guys!!! :-*

I have another one that's been troubling me......would you mind??

I just don't want to wear out my welcome.

The worst they can do is say no.

36
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Careless Mistake Avoidance Advice (Oct. Test)
« on: September 30, 2008, 10:34:15 AM »
If there's going to be 5 questions you don't understand, period, skip them entirely, and focus your remaining time on the attainable questions.  This should give you more time to focus.

Also, invest a little more time up front in games, to make sure your diagram/inferences are complete.  That will allow you to move more quickly through the questions.

Finally, when bubbling, just check the number of each question and bubble every time before filling in.  That will prevent bubbling errors.

37
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Terrified of the LSAT
« on: September 30, 2008, 10:29:54 AM »
Time to lay down the tough love.

Angiej, your outlook sucks.  You titled your post "Terrified of the LSAT."  Really?  Terrified?  This is not the language of a winner.  Yeah, it's the LSAT, a big-ol' ugly test, but get real.  Nobody ever died of a low LSAT score.

Second, I'm really disturbed by your goals which are frankly shooting for mediocrity.  150 so you can barely get into a state school??  Come on.  You've got three friggin years before you're gonna take this test, and you're hoping for a score below the median??  Again, not the language of a winner.

You are doing like I've seen so many people do before--setting yourself up for failure.  STOP IT.

The language you use will truly have an effect on the way you think.  Put another way, you can seriously change your thinking by changing the language you use.  Try it.  Talk about how you're not afraid but determined, and excited because you have tons of resources available to you.  Talk about how you're going to invest your time and effort towards a 168.  Talk about how your goal (not your elusive pie-in-the-sky dream, but your tangible, attainable goal) is Notre Dame.  Then figure out the next step toward making it happen and take it.

You've got about 1000 days.  How are you going to use this one?

Okay, good point. Are you an inspirational speaker or something?  I guess my basis for the negativity or low self esteem is that 2 years ago I never would have even thought about college. I barely passed highschool with something like a 2.0 gpa.  I never thought I was capable of anything college-related.

I read an article from a professor a few years ago talking about how many bright students had low self esteem and felt like they couldn't handle material, even though they were already at the top of the class
Wow, that is interesting. I keep thinking the fact that I had a 4.0, now 3.7 is a total fluke.  Maybe I should give myself a bit of credit. Its hard though, my best friend tried to get into law school, she said she scored less than 150 on her lsat (in my opinion she is very, very intelligent) and she applied to several schools but (around 15) and did not get accepted to any of them, even her safe schools.  She keeps telling me not to get my hopes up b/c the odds are usually stacked against most b/c its so hard to get into law school.  She tells me quit thinking about law school focus on your bachelors. But ya know what, I'm just happy that I am planning enough ahead to be totaly prepared.


Stop talking to your negative nancy friend.

38
Yeah, the author here feels that Parent choice will force schools to improve academically, but that only follows if parents care about academics over location, sports, etc.  If parents care more about spots, location, etc., then school may not have to improve academics at all.

And when they ask what the author is assuming, they're not asking for what would be enough (Sufficient) to make the conclusion follow -- because after all, there may be many things that would be enough to make the conclusion follow.  They're rather asking what specifically the author must be assuming -- what needs to be assumed -- for the conclusion to work.

39
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Importance of the very most recent preptests?
« on: September 30, 2008, 10:21:04 AM »
Would anyone recomend taking this test as the diagnostic vs using as PT?

No.

Diagnostics are dumb in general, in my opinion -- it's hard to get a sense of where you stand until you've spent some time understanding the exam in general, and your initial score can be very unrepresentative of your final score.  I therefore find taking a timed diagnostic unnecessarily limiting and discouraging from a pyschological perspective.

No sense wasting a recent exam as a diagnostic, especially if it's the only recent exam you're going to use.

40
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Help with LR! PT 43 - Sect 3 - Question 9
« on: September 30, 2008, 10:16:53 AM »
Pretend as if there is one group of 20 effective teachers. Picture the group in your mind if possible.

Within that group, all 20 will be good communicators.

Within that same group, most of the 20 will be eccentric.  You can assign a number here as well, though defining most is a bit difficult, but we can say 17 of the 20 teachers will be eccentric. The number isn't very important, as long as you realize that some of the effective teachers (all of whom are good communicators) are eccentric.

The 17 effective teachers who are eccentric must also be good communicators, because the 17 who are eccentric were among the original 20 who are good communicators.

So, because all the teachers are good communicators, and some of those same teachers are eccentric, it must be true based on the statements as we've been given that some good communicators are eccentric. In our particular case, 17 teachers who are good communicators must also be eccentric.

Good description.  I would just choose the number 11 over 17, because it better captures the minimum requirements of "most."

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 425