you pompous a-hole. what the @#!* do you know about me? biggest test of my life? no, sorry, that was my wife's cancer test, thanks.busting my ass? you mean working since age 13 to buy myself clothes and school supplies because my mother died and my dad turned into a drunk? or do you mean working full-time and going to school full-time for both my undergrad and grad school, and paying every single cent of it myself? cry you a river about life getting in the way? you mean my wife and father's major surgeries? you mean when i had to take care of both of them at the same time? or do you mean me taking two teenagers into my home because it was unsafe for them to live with their meth addict mother?i guess it's my poor planning when people die, or need counseling for attempted suicide, or that i keep my word when i tell a kid i'll be in court with them because their parents dont give a sh*t. i guess i'm just lazy, and sit around all day eating cheetos and playing xbox when i should be studying for the almighty lsat. i guess i place too much weight on the concepts of committment, duty, and personal sacrifice.i guess i just dont understand that it's all about me.
the lsat doesnt measure work ethic, the ability to overcome adversity, or desire. it doesnt measure integrity, experience, motivation, or a host of other non-tangible attributes that allow someone to surpass the one-size-fits-all expectations that have been decreed because of their results on a standardized test.
Thus Iím totally confused.
They need to see BEFORE admitting you how well you can peform "when it matters".
How many hours of LSAT studying do you think 1000+ posts on LSD could equate to?jsia...
Quote from: Chairman Matthies on March 14, 2006, 04:34:17 PMThus I’m totally confused.Heh, it's more likely that you are 'proffering' a bit of fun than expressing genuine confusion (or at least I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt)... but I'll still bite.At no point did I "infer that it [the LSAT] is a qualified measurement regardless of prep". Your contrived, in-a-vacuum illustrations fail to hold up precisely BECAUSE of the impossibility in separating prep as a factor of performance in a well-known standardized test. You speak of "natural ability"... as if analytical reasoning, reading comprehension, and ability to cope with stress, time, and fatigue constraints are intrinsic properties of a person (like height, skin color, or whether they hate the taste of mayonnaise). However, they are very much malleable... just as an athlete's "genetic potential" is relevant only the context of the training done to reach that potential.It may be true that a "prepped" 165 needs to work a little harder in law school than a "natural" 165. However, I believe it's more likely that the "prepped" student WOULD work a little harder. I just don't buy this attitude from some people that, "I didn't do as well as I could on the LSAT because [I didn't have time] / [life got in the way] / [I wasn't sure what my goals were] / etc... but once I start law school, I'll be focused like a laser beam when it matters!". Yeah, maybe you will, but you can't really expect admissions committees to work "on spec" like that. They need to see BEFORE admitting you how well you can peform "when it matters".An aced final exam is an aced final exam... as long as the student doesn't cheat, no one cares how the final exam was aced. Likewise, a 165 is a 165... and will beat the bejesus out of a 155 whining about how "natural" he or she is.
Thus I’m totally confused.
Page created in 0.412 seconds with 18 queries.