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 - contrarian
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31  33 34
« on: October 16, 2007, 09:22:11 PM »
I took the LSAT once before in 1991 and scored in the top 25%. I didn't really study for it, I sorta knew I wasn't going to go to law school then. Kicked ass on the GMAT several years later (top 5%), which I did study for.
This time around, I did a moderate amount of studying (A bunch of sections individually, and Powerscore books), but nowhere near what I've heard other people doing.
Anyhow, I think I got 150-155 though. I'll be kinda bummed if it's under 150. I'm hoping for a 158 or higher, which should be enough to get me into one of the two TTT I want to get into.
I'll probably take it again regardless. I've still got practice tests I didn't get to and hell, it's only $123 and 4 hours out of my life.
Just thought I'd let you all know this, as if any of you really care.
« on: October 16, 2007, 09:06:44 PM »
What the hell are you talking about...Claims based on faulty sources obviously render the claim flawed. It's one of the easiest type of reasoning quesiton on the LSAT, Please spare me ignorant patronizing.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The assumption that because the source is flawed the claim is also is highly suspect, even you with your 174 LSAT and 3.98 GPA should know that.
« on: October 16, 2007, 07:27:39 PM »
Does the LSAC have your reported GPA online somewhere, or would I have to call them, fax, or write some letter old school like in order to get it.
« on: October 14, 2007, 02:16:02 PM »
Go to a lower-ranked school and kill the curve.
"It's better to rule in hell, than to serve in heaven."
« on: October 14, 2007, 02:13:00 PM »
This is beautiful and unique.
Usually people complain about not being able to read for the LSAT. Now you can't read because of the LSAT.
(sniffs) Whats that...?(sniffing) Do I smell a class action? I think I do.
« on: October 14, 2007, 02:08:43 PM »
I did awful on my first practice test. It was a Saturday morning, I hadn't slept much, and had been drinking the most sublime Pina Colada's the night before, adequately dosed with an equilibrium of white and darks. I was pretty dissapointed with my score, a 169. But the next two I took sober, and pulled a 178 and 176 (not necessarily in that order).
Personally, I found the whole ordeal grueling, if only because the final 5-10 minutes I had to wait at the end of each section as my future legal whipping toys slavishly pummeled through. Seriously, if you can't finish the games in under 30 minutes, don't bother the rest of us with your fantastical beliefs of practicing.
« on: October 14, 2007, 01:54:36 PM »
You bring up a solid point about opportunities in business though. Corporate counsels do need staff attorneys and small businesses might consider hiring an attorney full time instead of paying a fortune contracting work to expensive law firms.
Again, people can go into business and take executive level positions and do work on the business side of the business, not acting as in house legal staff. You're making an assumption that everyone with a law degree is going to practice law. Investment bankers, executive level, and business owners as well as other professions such as writers and teachers with legal backgrounds do not necessarily practice law as their primary role.
What you are referring to as "exceptions" tally up to a significant percentage of people with legal backgrounds.
« on: October 14, 2007, 11:35:54 AM »
Surplus of lawyers doesn't mean everyone with a law degree is a practicing lawyer. Plenty of corporate/business positions, especially executive level, benefit with the inclusion of a law degree - even if it's not from Haaaaaaavahd.
While there are some who like to speak of generalizations to make their point, all of them are pointless as individuals who need to look at their own situation.
Finally, where you graduate only helps you starting out, and as "prestige" down the line. Within a few years, what you've done with that degree will be a bigger factor.
« on: October 13, 2007, 12:45:00 PM »
It is a stupid rule that needs to be changed back ASAP for the september. Ther is no hard in having a digital timer. All proctors have to do is pace and make sure no one is cheating.
The thing about analog if you can not pace yourself.
If I had the resources and I were unethical (I am neither), I would rig a digital timer with a 2.4ghz camera and have someone go in and record images of the test. I'd sign up for the Monday test. This is probably why digital timers have been banned.
This isn't a terribly difficult thing to do. In fact, I'm surprised if people don't do this already by sticking pin-hole camera and transmitter on their persons. It's not like I saw the proctors testing the 2.4 spectrum (and that's just using off-the-shelf equipment, think of what some engineering nerds at MIT might rig up).
This might not give you access to all of the questions, but if you were able to get 1/3 or 1/2 of the answers complete questions that you then had from Sat noon to Monday to review... that's a HUGE advantage.
You could accomplish this with 1 accomplice (to take the first test) and yourself or anyone technically competent enough to make such a rigging. Total cost would be $123 for the test about about $200 in equipment. Cheaper than the powerscore books were.
Even if the tests are the same, I still wouldn't do it, ethical issues aside. Just think about how much you owe your accomplice. If your accomplice is not someone that you trust 100%--and I doubt anyone can trust anyone 100%--and if because of his/her effort you get into Harvard and land a high-power job, oh lord your accomplice can ask you for everything he/she wants. His bargaining power is certainly higher than yours. If he reports this little incidence that happened a couple years ago, you are done with life...almost.
This is why you have to kill your accomplice afterwards.
Don't they teach you kids anything in college these days?
« on: October 13, 2007, 12:06:12 AM »
Indians are all a lot smarter than us Americans
When you have 4x as many people, you also have 4x as many smart people. It doesn't mean that they are on whole a smarter on average. Unless you want to argue India's intelligence distribution is skewered right compared to the US, but you may not want to go there.
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31  33 34