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 - pdiddy
« on: August 15, 2006, 11:14:29 PM »
I totally agree with you. However upstanding and honorable most UW students may be, I know their admissions office assumes that everyone will fairly and honestly abide by the seat deposit rule, which means you simply have to state your intention to attend. So while I'm on hold, some jerkoff might tell UW he's going even though he is really holding out for perhaps Michigan or a higher choice. I don't know why Wisconsin doesn't make people put their money where their mouth is. If you like the school and want to attend, be willing to put some money down and prove it. But don't jerk around other people that are truly willing to commit.
« on: July 13, 2006, 10:15:06 AM »
I'm not quite sure how Wisconsin operates, but somehow I am still on hold. I've called the law school several times (maybe once a month for the last 3 months) and they give very, very vague, undefined responses, such as "We may or may not be filled at this time and we may or may not review the hold list". Wow...thanks!!! So here it is July 13th, I've already had to send in my deposits for my school of choice (University Missouri-Columbia) and yet, somehow, I still would love to hear from my Number 1 choice. I know I sound like that obsessive guy who stalks a girl that doesn't want him, but I would prefer to just be rejected right now. If they do accept people this late, how is it even possible to move and get ready for law school?
« on: April 06, 2006, 07:17:20 AM »
I also noted the drop in Marquette law, which is a bit surprising. I don't know what the situation is at the school, in fact I have a friend who is a 2L and seems very happy with the school. Marquette grads seem to be very strong in Milwaukee and there seems to be a strong alumni network. However, I find it interesting to note that I was accepted into several schools in the 60s, yet Marquette put my app "on hold" even though I have lived and worked in Milwaukee all my life! In addition, I also have an 85% chance of admission at Marquette, while the other schools had me at 30-40%, yet I was accepted! How do you like them apples?
« on: December 06, 2005, 10:34:33 AM »
A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval. If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent.
I totally agree with you. I am here posting a definition of tacit
so we can take a look at it, it's from dictionary.com. Coincidentally, the definition on the website has two wonderful examples of tacit approval:
1) Not spoken: indicated tacit approval by smiling and winking.
2) a. Implied by or inferred from actions or statements: Management has given its tacit approval to the plan.
b. Law. Arising by operation of the law rather than through direct expression.
3) Archaic. Not speaking; silent.
My problem with this definition, and as I reread the entire passage just to get this one question, is that the author writes the passage as an unbiased journalist would report the news. She simply writes, says what Gluck thinks and did, the basis for her poetry, a feminist critique, and how Gluck responds to critics. We also know that searching for keywords for a tacit thing is completely contradictory, there are no keywords or clues since something tacit is unstated. Nevertheless, simply because the approval is unstated doesn't mean it must exist. If there was tacit approval, there would have to be some undercurrent, some unstated indicator that the author approved of Gluck. Perhaps, the author would say, "The best thing about Gluck's theory is..." or "Gluck's novel and compelling approach to poetry..." would indicate tacit approval even though the author doesn't state it. But that never happened. Thus, we can't create something out of nothing, and that's why I think indifference is the only true thing that the author expresses.
« on: December 06, 2005, 08:54:44 AM »
i really do wish it were so as i chose indifferent for the exact same reasoning, but i still think this question is crap. the very definition of tacit makes this whole question controversial. this is the one question i'm not going to fight for my answer choice. i'll take what LSAC says, but shake my head at their hair-splitting.
I totally agree with you, there are some questions that I just shake my head at...particularly logic reasoning things. I agree they don't always write very good questions, this may be one of them. I looked up the word tacit and it's a totally loaded word. Maybe the author did tacitally agree, but the passage was written so mechanically and dryly that I simply couldn't go with it. Obviously, the dude abides, and when the LSAT scores come out I may be happy or apologetic, but either way, I'd have to agree that this is a crappy question.
« on: December 06, 2005, 08:15:42 AM »
This is in response to the Gluck tacit approval/indifferent question
I am a quick reader and I had a bit of extra time to spend on Reading comp. I went over the Gluck passage again, in its full entirety and looked for any clue words that might show a sort of approval from the author. In fact, the article was written so dryly that I could find no form of approval/enthusiasm in the author's words. I even rescanned the paragraph for anything that stuck out and after that, I could only conclude the author was indifferent, like someone writing a mandatory report. For those of you who chose tacit approval, remember that the LSAT is all about making you jump to conclusions and connect things that may not really exist. That was at least my thinking in answering this question.