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 ... 28 29 30 31 32  34
« on: October 12, 2007, 11:58:22 PM »
I do agree that language is a barrier, engineers can compete because they operate in a more universal language be it math or be it some programming language. However, considering the population, one of the largest English speaking populations in the world outside the US, the beneficial conversion rate, good work ethic, a handful capable students(there has to be amongst a billion right?), and an ever improving school system; I dont see anything completely out of the question.
but I do admit, seeing india's progress, and watching my cousin fear for his career (he's an engineer at HP), one of the draws of practicing law what that I *thought* i knew my work could never be outsourced.
I dont really think I made a clear point there, but there ya go. Straight from the Indian's mouth.. haha
I've been in IT for over 10 years now, and it's bad. Really bad. Outsourcing overseas within IT/Engineering is amazingly rampant, and it's not just India but Ireland, China etc. Plus large corps are continually asking the fed to increase the number of H-1Bs so they can get a cheaper supply of labor here. I don't blame the workers, they are just trying to make a buck like everyone else. I do get incensed with the corporations who are selling out this country and it's citizens.
Frankly, IT is only the first to see this trend. Accounting, teaching, medicine, research, etc. are all finding they can be globalized with modern technology.
So switching over to law is attractive. There isn't the rampant age discrimination. You don't have to completely re-learn and re-certify in some new fangled form of law every 5-10 years. And the legal community (at least so far) has been smart enough to legislatively protect itself from foreign outsourcing by requiring attending an ABA school here in the states and taking the bar exam to practice.
« on: October 12, 2007, 11:24:11 PM »
That's assuming the Monday test is the same as the Saturday administration, which, as far as I know, is not.
Hmm, I did a bit of a search and I think you're right. One test prep web site said that the Monday takers the school is noted that they took a Monday test and they only provide a score, not a percentile. However if it is different why isn't it published? They can't use the test again, and I'm sure they'd easily be able to sell copies of it for $8 each and make a mint like they do the Saturday past tests.
« on: October 12, 2007, 07:17:28 AM »
I know you're taught that by your leftist profs, but it's simply not true. Median incomes, overall, are higher than they've ever been, and poverty rates are signficantly lower than in most past decades.
I hate to burst your neocon bubble, but this is exactly what the administration wants you to believe.
I'm a republican myself.. a true republican, and not one of the current fascist regime. Americans ARE worse off, and things are getting worse. The published figures for wage and inflation are complete bull. Real rates of inflation for real products that people use and need (like food and healthcare) are increasing while their salaries are not. Poverty rates are lower because they effectively lowered the poverty line by not readjusting it as they should, however that doesn't mean more people are living better.
« on: October 12, 2007, 06:27:44 AM »
ron paul physician. that make him natural enemy lawyers.
Does that include Kevorkian?
« on: October 11, 2007, 07:51:09 PM »
julie blame republicans.
Ron Paul never voted for the LSAT's to be more difficult.
Ron Paul never voted for an increase n LSAT study materials.
« on: October 11, 2007, 07:25:54 PM »
An oldie but a goodie...http://komplexify.com/math/images/CircularReasoning.gif
But as LH says, the explanation (though a bit cryptically worded in grand LSAT style) is correct. The conclusion is true because the premise is true, but the premise is true because the conclusion is true, and since the conclusion is true, the premise is true and ...
« on: October 10, 2007, 03:29:41 PM »
Pardon my ignorance..
Does the LSAC report the highest, both or an average, and what do schools use?
If I bombed the test and got a 140 but ended up getting a 160 the second time, an average of 150 is still pointless if this is the value the school uses in determining admission.
« on: October 10, 2007, 03:22:25 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.
« on: October 10, 2007, 02:43:15 PM »
I received a letter that they insist on my handwriting the declaration.
What kind of letter did you receive? When did you get it? Have you taken the test yet? That part just doesn't make any sense...
I got it yesterday. It was for the test on the 29th. The letter is dated 10/4 and basically restated what was stated on the test, and had blank lines where I was to write out the statement again in writing (not print) and send it back asap or failure to complete will delay reporting.
I didn't write the certifying statement at all, not even remotely looking like cursive. I started with difficulty so I just printed it with a note saying I hadn't written anything in over 20 years (which is pretty much on target). It's not like my handwriting has ever been legible to begin with, being left handed and a clod.
Also it says I didn't sign it, but I do specifically remember signing and dating it. My signature however is very VERY illegible (the handwriting of a lawyer), and I frequently get sh!t about it when people see it. So perhaps they think that the squiggly thing is just a squiggly line and not my signature.
« on: October 10, 2007, 02:39:38 PM »
How much would you have to pay a person who can get you a 180 AND be "artistic" enough to pull this off.
Are you sure LSAC didn't mention the cursive thing in the paperwork or their website? I think they do.
It's not like they make you write your essay in cursive. That would be a wicked trick. It's just for a statement that's not scored and not even read by anyone. I'm not trying to cross the line into jerkhood by saying this, but how could you worry about this to the point of "distraction causing [you] to get a few questions incorrect, that could have a huge impact on [your] score and what school I get in, and [your] earning potential for the rest of [your] life. If you really were worried though, I will suggest that no matter what you not write about this being a concern or problem for you in any of your law school applications (like the essay explaining a low LSAT score or something).
Someone able to replicate my handwriting for the certifying statement doesn't also have to get a 180... they just need to be able to get a higher score than I'm currently willing or able to get. Cost, for some, may be immaterial. While your correct that generally speaking this would be reliable and finding a person able to stand in for you and pay them enough may be difficult, it's not outside the realm of possibility, especially for someone with money and connections.
I didn't see anything stating I HAD to write the certifying statement until the day of the test. Though, I can't say I read every single bit of documentation available (a web search brought up some older posts on the Internet for instance).
Why would I worry about this as I took the test? Because it may have cause my entire test to become invalidated, a concern that was unduly put upon me due to not fully disclosing this relevant requirement. Even a minor distraction like this may take me away from complete concentration on the test, and therefore I'm now at a disadvantage to anyone else who didn't have such a distraction. You may find it an insignificant concern, I may find it very significant concern. It is a subjective experience that would vary from person to person.
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32  34