Law School 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 - Dixon

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8
0-2. I majored in philosophy and religion.

Incoming 1Ls / Re: buying a car
« on: September 12, 2004, 12:31:50 AM »
I heard that Saturn has good deals on used cars, and they have maintenance plans.  I don't know anything about Saturns or what kind of quality they tend to have, but my friend loves hers.

I am on my second Saturn and have not had any major problems. They're solid, inexpensive cars. If you decide to buy used avoid the dealerships. Saturn has a "no haggle" policy and sets the price upfront. You either take it or leave it. While this will prevent you from being screwed you won't get a good deal either. (I bought my second Saturn from the dealership and realized I could have bought more car for less money if I had bought from a third party).

Law School Admissions / Re: Alcohol Poisoning
« on: August 29, 2004, 04:34:28 AM »
and dude, 7.0 alcohol...unless you're injecting everclear into your arm, it ain't gonna happen...

No, you're right. You would have to inject Everclear to get a 7.0.  I wrote the number like I would say it "seven-oh" when I should have put the decimal in the correct place- ".7"
If you're disputing .7... I know that sounds crazy, but I think I heard right. I know I was told at least a .6.  There are some screwed-up people out there.

Law School Admissions / Re: Alcohol Poisoning
« on: August 28, 2004, 09:44:19 PM »
I think that a 3.0 is a little low to kill you. I've heard stories from doctors that have worked in rehabs of people that could get up to a 7.0 and survive. I think that a lot of hard-core alcoholics routinely walk around blowing 3.0's.
Of course, a lot of it would have to do with how much and often you drink. Someone that never drinks can get hammered off of six beers, while heavy drinkers might consider that a warm-up. Obviously, if you are hammered after six your body cannot handle the alcohol level of someone that can drink twenty. So a 3.0 might kill a lightweight but be par for the course for someone else.

« on: August 13, 2004, 08:23:46 AM »
      I took Kaplan two years ago during my first year of grad school but did not test because I could not commit the time to prepare as much as I would have liked. I am at the point in my studying that if I were to go through the course now I would find it too basic and pretty useless like many of the other posters have. But you have to put the course into perspective...
     The people on this board (mostly high scorers) are not representative of the population as a whole. Keep in mind that the mean score on the LSAT is 150 (right?). Kaplan probably serves its purpose for the majority of students out there. Yea, it's pretty basic for someone that has the capacity to score in the high 160's but most people won't score that no matter how hard they try. Kaplan teaches some useful and effective strategies that help the majority of test takers.
    I think that is also relevant to point out that were Kaplan to make its strategies any more in-depth it would be counterproductive to most of the people in the class. Just like strategies that are too basic are useless, so are strategies that are too complicated. Going into the complex subtleties of If-Then statements would be over the heads of a lot of people and they would gain nothing from it. Someone that desperately wants to pull his score up to a 150 needs help overall and getting overly complex would be a waste of his time.
     I do think that Kaplan was some of the best money I ever spent. Had I not taken the class and instead picked up a study guide or two I would have had no idea how difficult the exam really is. Nor would I have discovered that while ability plays a big role in your score, there are a lot of strategies out there that can help you out a hell of a lot.

Studying for the LSAT / Another LR Question
« on: August 10, 2004, 07:24:49 AM »
Please help me with this one too.

Preptest 27 Section 4 #25 (page 307 in 10 More...)

All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent has said. Therefore, if the press agent told every reporter everything about the accident, then no reporter knows any more about it than any other reporter. If no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter, then no reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. However, the press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accident. It follows that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters.

The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to recognize that which one of the following is consistent with the facts the argument presents?

A) The press agent did not tell everything about the accident to any reporter.

B) Even if some reporter knows more about the accident than all of the other reporters, that reporter need not scoop any other reporter.

C) Some reporter may have been told something about the accident that the reporter tells all of the other reporters.

D) The press agent may not know any more about the accident than the most knowledeable reporter.

E) No reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter.

Answer: E

Studying for the LSAT / LR Question
« on: August 10, 2004, 07:09:24 AM »
Please explain this to me.

Preptest 27 Section 2 # 7 (page 302 in 10 More...)

If you know a lot about history, it will be easy for you to impress people who are intellectuals. But unfortunately, you will not know much about history if you have not, for example, read a large number of history books. Therefore, if you are not well versed in history due to a lack of reading, it will not be easy for you to impress people who are intellectuals.

The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument overlooks the possibility that

A) many intellectuals are not widely read in history

B) there are people who learn about history who do not impress intellectuals

C)it is more important to impress people who are not intellectuals than people who are intellectuals

D) there are other easy ways to impress intellectuals that do not involve knowing history

E) people who are not intellectuals can be impressed more easily than people who are intellectuals

Answer: D

     I know plenty of people that been arrested for DUI's and kept on drinking and driving. I lived with a girl that was arrested three, maybe four times (at least once while we were together) and still drove around shitfaced. Two days after picking her up from jail she was swerving home from the bar.
     I don't think jail, or license plates, or any of that is going to do much good because anybody that can afford it can buy their way out of a DUI. Every time that girl got arrested she called her mom for money and hired a good lawyer. Out of all the people I know that have been charged with DUI's I don't think one was convicted. They just plead down to reckless driving, lose their license for a few months (but still drive), and go on their merry way. It's so routine that it's funny.
     As much as people like to female dog about the system I don't think most people that have influence over the system want it to change. Sure, they want to eliminate drinking and driving but they also want to leave an out for themselves. Everybody has extenuating circumstances, everybody is sorry, everybody learns from their mistakes and does not need to be punished for a lifetime by having it on their record. So they plead down and keep going.
     It's just the way business is done.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Reading Comprehension Strategies Thread
« on: August 06, 2004, 08:00:13 AM »
     Reading comprehension is my strongest section (I rarely miss more than a couple) so I feel somewhat qualified to offer some suggestions.
     I tried reading the questions first to see if this would help make things easier but it was too distracting. Instead of focusing on the passage as a whole I found myself hunting for the "keywords" I saw in the questions and had to go back and reread the parts of the passage to put them into context. This may work for some people but it was too time consuming for me I and quickly abandoned it.
     I had to learn to slow down and fully comprehend one paragraph before moving on to the next. In most writing the author will introduce idea A in paragraph 1, introduce idea B in paragraph 2, and then explain how the ideas relate to each other. On the LSAT it is up to you to determine the relation. It therefore does no good to move on to paragraph 2 without fully understanding paragraph 1. Summarizing each paragraph in my head, and rereading it if I do not fully understand it, though initially slower saves me loads of time when I get to the questions.
     There are some questions that that you know will always be asked-things like tone, structure, and main point. If you look for the answers to these questions in the original read-through you can knock these out without looking back.
     I underline important concepts and words I see in the passage but this does not aide in comprehension. It just makes looking back for the answer a little easier. I make sure that I understand why I underlined them before moving on.
     Overall, I think that the most important thing for people having trouble is to slow down. If you are having problems you either "can't" comprehend the passage, in which case you're screwed, or you "aren't" comprehending it, in which case you need to take the time to comprehend. Reading speed and comprehension take a lifetime to develop and for most people there are no quick fixes or tricks. If you are missing more than six or seven it might work to your advantage to only do three passages instead of four.
     Oh, and practice. The more you do the faster and more accurate you will get.

Law School Admissions / Re: hey a question.....graduate school work
« on: July 26, 2004, 10:28:42 PM »
I may have gotten some bad information, but what I have been led to believe is that graduate work is taken into consideration by the admissions people. While graduate students are not given preferential treatment having a graduate degree does help if some of your other areas are weak. To think that they would factor in your personal statement, work experience, volunteer activities, clubs, etc., but not even glance at your graduate GPA is silly.
The extent to which grades in graduate school are inflated is debatable and would depend on the institution. One thing for certain, however, is that graduate school is harder than undergrad. The fact that someone has the ability to do well in graduate classes will do more to impress admissions than mediocre or limited work experience. Would it make sense if it were otherwise?

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