I agree that the analog requirement sucks, but it totally is possible to pace yourself using that type of wristwatch. I just set it to 12 before each section, so I could glance down and know at 12:35 was my end time.(Some of my friends were smart and set it to 11:25, so the end time was right at 12, that was apparrently over my head. lol.)
Quote from: UFPreLaw on June 13, 2007, 12:07:42 PMI agree that the analog requirement sucks, but it totally is possible to pace yourself using that type of wristwatch. I just set it to 12 before each section, so I could glance down and know at 12:35 was my end time.(Some of my friends were smart and set it to 11:25, so the end time was right at 12, that was apparrently over my head. lol.)I did not have time. As soon as a section ended a new section began like in 30 seconds. But i guess that is a great idea.
Lately I've been practicing without a wristwatch just so it will be extra helpful when I do wear one. Funny stupid-people-on-the-planet story: we had an idiot proctor for one of our most recent practice tests at Kaplan -- I can guess she's not up to snuff to be one of the instructors -- who wrote the "general" concept of times for when the section was ending, rather than a specific time, on the board. So if the section was from 7:38 to 8:13, she'd write "start: 7:40; end: 8:10" or something else stupid. It didn't even add up to 35! So when you glanced at the board you'd notice "8:10" and freak out because you really should have been seeing "8:13". And then she came in at 8:02 to give the "five minute warning" (at eleven, or eight? minutes to go) because she thought it would be somehow helpful to give people an extra long last five minutes, or something. I personally would prefer literal exactitude in my proctoring. Heh. But, the Kaplan example makes clear, some people just can't figure out basic arithmetic. And yet THOSE VERY PEOPLE may indeed be YOUR LSAT PROCTORS.
No, not the instructor, the proctor, was sub-par at reading the clock. I'm ga-ga positive about my Kaplan instructor (though I do realize that many folks here at the LSD boards dislike Kaplan). It was just a new person who was in charge of proctoring that specific practice test, who had no bleepin' clue. Hadn't ever seen her before, probably just a new hire. Maybe she'll learn to read a clock as she gets more experience ...
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.
Quote from: Primetime on June 13, 2007, 12:04:10 PMIt 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.
I initially thought the prescription against digital timers was intended to ensure that no bleeping beeping went off annoyingly throughout the duration of the test to the detriment of other test-takers' concentration. Now I'm also realizing that some fancy-looking machine could mast other forms of digital communication or recording devices. But I'm unsure why an analog timer with a complicated exterior case is presumed to be unable to do the same.
Page created in 0.26 seconds with 18 queries.