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 - dbmuell
« on: October 06, 2006, 01:00:14 PM »
I feel the same way as the earlier poster that said basically "If I don't do this, I will regret it for the rest of my life." I have a very comfortable job as a Software Engineer, in a very comfortable town, good income, nice car, plenty of money in the bank. My work-life balance is excellent. So why am I considering a career in law? I'm considering a career in law because every M-F morning, I wake up, drive to work, get to my cube and spend the next 8 hours watching the clock tick down so I can leave this boring job that I have no passion for. I can't imagine what it would feel like after I've been doing this for 35 years...
The reason I relate my experience is to raise this question: All things financial aside, are you doing what you want to be doing in life? Are you happy going to work and doing the job that you're doing now, or do you see yourself more happy doing something else? Put all financial matters aside and think of this honestly. Will your kids' lives really be upset by the fact that you lacked for money for three years? More so, would being a a job you dislike cause other reactions in your homelife that might be even worse? Remember, you have a LOT of years left to work. If you're not happy doing what you do, there's no better time to fix it....
« on: October 06, 2006, 10:47:19 AM »
I was that guy. I'm actually worried that if my cursive is as illegible as it seemed to be that they would withold my score. Can this happen?
« on: October 06, 2006, 10:10:19 AM »
Even though I know he is likely being sarcastic, I think that Mr. Future hits on a very interesting consideration that reflects on how our society defines "earning" something. It seems to me that one of the core foundations of capitalistic society is that there are 3 ways to justly achieve a higher income or status: hard work, luck, and assumption of risk. The first two are obvious but what of "assumption of risk?"
Ingrained in our notion of "success" is the fact that one need not necessarily be the smartest or hardest working to achieve it. Sometimes the successful person is just the person with the "biggest stones" who puts the most on the line in hopes of achieving the highest award (IE- putting your life savings on the line to invest in a risky venture that takes off). Likewise, when someone makes the decision to cheat on the LSAT, they are making a huge gamble in hopes of a (likely) moderate increase in score. They put it all in and take a risk that most of us would never dream of: banking their entire (legal) future on the fact that they will not get caught. Considering the the odds are heavily stacked against them, they are taking a perilous bet and it could be argued that they have technically "earned" their higher score by virtue of being willing to take that gamble and risk losing out on LS altogether.
My favorite analogy for this is the guy on the motorcycle that weaves in and out of a traffic jam, conceivably arriving at his destination sooner than everyone else. This angers a great deal of people, as they feel that it is "unfair" that he should arrive sooner than them at his destination and they should have to wait. In reality, I submit that he is "earning" his early arrival by assuming a litany of potential consequences. These include expensive traffic tickets, or simply being splattered all over the pavement. This avenue of "unfairness" is available to everyone but most choose not to assume that risk- a choice on both sides of the issue.
While none of this really affects the issue of whether to "tell" on someone who is cheating (still your choice on whether to bring the risk of their venture down upon them), to me it raises some interesting considerations as to the ethics of cheating in a capitalistic society. I would argue that cheating is neither just nor injust- simply a different way of playing the game. Likewise, getting caught is neither just nor injust, but merely the laws of probability paying a visit to someone who made a lofty gamble. Much like with short-term winners at poker, those laws of probability seemingly would assure that someone who makes a lifestyle of cheating will get caught eventually. A gamble that they choose and a consequence that they will have to live with.
« on: October 05, 2006, 04:14:36 PM »
Having done the PS full length course, I tend to think that you would be bored to tears in just about any class if you are practicing in the low 170s. Remember, when you take a course, the class will slow down and wait EVERY time somebody does not understand an answer. You will spend most of your time listening to the instructor explaining material to people who are crossing their fingers and praying for a 150, while the material will come almost immediately to you (disclaimer: not intended as a dig on people scoring in the 150s). I was not a particularly high scorer (low to mid 160s on my preps) and I was often bored stiff. The courses offer generally good instruction but if you're already scoring well, you're much better off with private tutoring, self-study or just an insane amount of practice.
« on: October 05, 2006, 09:23:16 AM »
I agree with all above but I find some added bonuses. I feel like all the time spent with RC passages has really increased my overall rate of comprehension. When I ready magazine articles/essays/news I find that I am retaining a lot more of the little details and finer points. I also feel like I've learned to really pick apart people's bulls**t at a much faster rate by immediately identifying faulty logic. Overall, I'm better off for having done it!
« on: October 05, 2006, 09:15:59 AM »
I guess most people probably know this (and I should have too but I got the timing wrong) but if you rely on a liquid stimulant (coffee, red bull, tea) to get you going in the morning, get up EARLY and have your beverage so that it has time to "run its course" before you're sitting in the test room. I thought I got to it early enough but sure enough, during section 2, there it was. Luckily for me, section 2 was really easy and I had 4 minutes to spare, which I used to sprint to the bathroom. If not for that, however, I would have been one hurting pup in section 3 :-)
« on: September 30, 2006, 03:43:22 PM »
« on: September 30, 2006, 03:33:46 PM »
Is it normal for the LSAT that some f**ktard that can't follow directions requires the rest of us to sit there while the proctor deals with them? We had Ms. "Writing on the book when we've clearly been told we shouldn't have pencils in our hands," Mr. "My watch is beeping so now we all have to wait while the proctor puts it outside" and the killer duo of the anonymous "My cell phone is rining while the proctor reads the instructions" and Ms. "it couldn't be me because my cell phone is right here and it's not ringing."
Is it possible that this many people taking the LSAT are incapable of reading the simple, one-page directions that print right along with your admission ticket? If you are one of these people, we all thank you dearly for extending our torture because you can't handle elementary directions...
« on: July 31, 2006, 10:42:57 AM »
As I research more, it seems that this is par for the course for this company. I got suspicious when I started reading the "Terms and Conditions" while in the process of signing up for the "other" Testmasters. They seemed just a bit too emphatic about the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit would be handled if you decided to sue them, then basically put in big bold letters that there are two companies operating under the same name. A little more research saved me from a big mistake. Thanks for the help!
« on: July 31, 2006, 10:21:01 AM »
Okay, I'm thoroughly confused. After registering for a PR course in my area, I began reading up on this board and saw that everyone highly reccomended Testmasters. I cancelled my PR class and was about to sign up for a Testmasters class, when I discovered that there are two companies doing business under this name. It seems that one of them has a stellar repuration, while the other has a reputation for ripping people off. Has anyone else made this mistake? Can anyone point me to the URL of the real Testmasters site?