« on: March 29, 2005, 09:29:21 PM »
Yes, we are discussing now. I think the most unreasonable one is too tight time limit.
Law is a very profound discipline which demands deep thinking. But too little time only make students adapting to it by all means which in turn lowered the quality of real thinking and confuse the process of talents picking.
Secondly, I think the best law school admission tests should model the real attorney's work, such as to be given 2 or at most 3 "cases" to analyze and argue, of course not correlated with detailed law since we havenot yet studied. Just analylize critically. Then the writing test should be scored and the length and width of writing should be extended.
I will follow up if get any further thoughts. But by the way, can we really change it?
I think you may be missing the point of the LSAT, its purpose is to measure a student's ability to survive and thrive in law school. Not to see how good a person will be at the practice of law.
I think that most people beleive that a person who thinks slowly will have trouble in law school; because all serious law students spend a majority of their time on the study of law, the ones who think slowly will generally be left behind; as will those w/o logical skills, reading comp. skills and all the skills Napolean has.
And as for your mockery of Jesus and religion in general, I feel sorry for you.
adding a little more time would not allow people to think slowly and still succeed, it just not demand lightning speed as quickly (how often is law of lightning speed anyway?)
I am not sure of the practice in speaking and debating either, alot of lawyers do no such thing (read: patent law).
As for last comment, I am mocking today's idea of jesus (in no way religion in general or the historical jesus). If you care see below link for a more detailed commentary, you may find it interesting.
I don't find it to be lightning quick, I tend to finish my practice tests w/ anywhere b/t 4-8 minutes to spare.
Your second point obviously had nothing to do w/ what i said
and i am not terribly interested in your opinion of historical Jesus v. contempo Jesus, just knowing that you did not intend to mock the Savior makes me feel better for you.