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.

Topics - RickLax.com

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
51
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Law School Blog (With Photos)
« on: October 08, 2007, 11:45:14 PM »
I’ve been writing about law school for about nine months now...and I just wanted to hear what you guys thought of my blog. 

You check it out at LawSchoolBlogger.com

You’ll find lots of pictures there, and, of course, you’re welcome to make fun of everything you read. After being on LSD for a while now, I’ve come to expect that….

Still, thanks,
Rick Lax @ LawSchoolBlogger.com

52
General Off-Topic Board / Law School Blog (With Photos)
« on: October 08, 2007, 11:42:21 PM »
I’ve been writing about law school for about nine months now...and I just wanted to hear what you guys thought of my blog. 

You check it out at LawSchoolBlogger.com

You’ll find lots of pictures there, and, of course, you’re welcome to make fun of everything you read. After being on LSD for a while now, I’ve come to expect that….

Still, thanks,
Rick Lax @ LawSchoolBlogger.com

53
Studying for the LSAT / Funny LSAT Study Guide Review
« on: September 30, 2007, 11:48:19 PM »
The local Barnes & Noble had an entire shelf of LSAT prep books (e.g., Arco 30 Days to the LSAT: Teacher-Tested Strategies and Techniques for Scoring High, The PowerScore LSAT Logic Game Bible, 10 Actual Official LSAT PrepTests, 10 More Actual Official LSAT PrepTests), and I bought four of them. I schlepped the books to the store’s café, plopped the pile on the table and began at the beginning.

The maddeningly upbeat Barron’s LSAT book kicked things off with a keyed up “Good Luck!!!” I’d need every one of those three motivational exclamation points to get me through the study guide’s 700 pages of tips, tricks, and sample exams. Barron’s LSAT classified LSAT problems into categories like “Inferences and Implications” and “Parallel Reasoning or Similarity of Logic.” Princeton Review’s Cracking The LSAT problem categories sounded much less scientific (i.e., “Weaken” and “Flaw”), as did the following instruction:

   Suppose you wished to support the following conclusion of an argument:
   Driving stupidly is permitted.

Given two forms of answer choices—blah blah blah is permitted if versus blah blah blah is permitted only if—it’s clear that only the first will do.

If Barron’s informal punctuation and Princeton Review’s casual tone lulled me into a false sense of confidence, it didn’t last long—Kaplan saw to that. Kaplan’s LSAT 180 began, “We should warn you up front: This book is not for the faint of heart.” Kaplan wasn’t messing around; going through Kaplan’s LSAT 180 was like altitude training;  the problems were way harder than any that would be on a real LSAT exam. Here’s an example:

Question 1:

There are those, Mr. Hobbes foremost among them, who maintain that before any positive laws were instituted, there could be no distinction between the good and the evil, the just and the unjust. In the state of nature, each had the “right” to lop off the head of any other. This frightening situation prompted those in a state of nature to form a social body and enact positive laws that forbid murder. It was only with the formation of these laws that good and evil were born; and it was only as a result of these laws that murder could be termed evil. This description is inaccurate. If murder was deemed so unfit and unreasonable an act that men entered into contracts to preserve themselves, then murder must have been understood as unfit and unreasonable before such contracts were formed. This being the case, these thinkers’ supposition that there is neither “good” nor “evil” antecedent to the institution of law is self-defeating: If the distinction between good and evil is once admitted to exist, then it has always.

The author intends to discredit the view of Mr. Hobbes and similar thinkers by attempting to:

(A) present historical evidence in support of his view
(B) show that their argument contains circular reasoning
(C) show that their account of the origin of morality presupposes a contradiction
(D) point out the unacceptable consequences of their view on mortality
(E) impugn the motives of these thinkers themselves, rather than dealing with their argument. 

All but the last of those answer choices sounded good to me. I felt comfortable making arguments for each of them. But maybe that wasn’t such a bad thing; as a lawyer, I’d have to make arguments on behalf of whoever walked through my door. So wasn’t it then a testament to my professional capabilities that I felt equally comfortable defending the correct and incorrect answer choices?

54
Denials / Unnecessarily Brutal Rejection Letter
« on: September 30, 2007, 11:44:26 PM »
Dear Rick Lax,

Thank you for applying to The __________ Law School. Of the thousands who apply each year, we can only select a few hundred. Let’s just say you’re not one of them. However, your college transcript, LSAT score, and personal essay gave the Admissions Committee the laugh we needed to lighten the painstaking process of sorting through the real applicants. For that, we thank you.
But you should have seen our faces when we saw your junior year grades. We were like, “Whoa! Whaaa ha ha! Tee hee hee hee! Hee hee hee heeeeee!” Good times.

To return the favor, we considered sending you a plain white postcard with “NO” stamped on it in red capital letters, but decided it would be funnier to send you your rejection in one of our acceptance envelopes. That way, when you saw it you’d think you got in, only to feel sudden, crushing disappointment and then cry like the feebleminded baby you are.

We hate you,
The __________ Law School

-LawSchoolBlogger

55
Where should I go next fall? / Unnecessarily Brutal Rejection Letter
« on: September 30, 2007, 11:43:17 PM »
Dear Rick Lax,

Thank you for applying to The __________ Law School. Of the thousands who apply each year, we can only select a few hundred. Let’s just say you’re not one of them. However, your college transcript, LSAT score, and personal essay gave the Admissions Committee the laugh we needed to lighten the painstaking process of sorting through the real applicants. For that, we thank you.
But you should have seen our faces when we saw >:(your junior year grades. We were like, “Whoa! Whaaa ha ha! Tee hee hee hee! Hee hee hee heeeeee!” Good times.

To return the favor, we considered sending you a plain white postcard with “NO” stamped on it in red capital letters, but decided it would be funnier to send you your rejection in one of our acceptance envelopes. That way, when you saw it you’d think you got in, only to feel sudden, crushing disappointment and then cry like the feebleminded baby you are.

We hate you,
The __________ Law School

LawSchoolBlogger

56
News Discussion / Lawyer President, Lawyer Congress
« on: September 30, 2007, 09:34:31 PM »
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani…they’re all lawyers. Our next president is almost certainly going to be a lawyer.  Half of our Congress is made up of lawyers. Why are there SO many lawyers in politics?  And do you think this is a good thing?

LawSchoolBlogger



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]