Bluben wrote:Sorry I went MIA, I've been traveling the last few weeks. After reading some of the responses, all I can really say is that I know in my case I was having issues with the way i was using my brain. I wasnt reading much, or at all, through college outside of my chemical engineering books. Whenever i finally decided to buckle down and really study, it took a whole lot of determination to actually process what i was reading. It's weird. For a while i thought i had just gone dumb, but it really was just being lazy. I started reading Atlas Shrugged (which i really liked and got really into), I then got a subscription to the economist and made myself stop and summarize every article i read before moving on to the next. Thats when i really saw most of the progress in my scores. It's funny because ever since i left this engineering way of processing things, ive seen myself become more social; theres a much greater ease in approaching and talking to people i dont know, I really did just switch gears. It is tough but achievable.
So yeah there are cases where people who started in the 120s moved up, got into law school and dropped out, but i really believe its a matter of how motivated and how disciplined you can be and thats why school use LSAT as a big indicator. I cant speak for anyone else, but Im pretty sure having gotten through chemical engineering at UT without dropping out, I'll be able to get through law school, once i get there, without dropping or failing out. Just gotta keep my mind agile and not fall into this laziness that i saw at one point.
Thanks to all who provided postive responses. Im glad you enjoyed hearing my story.
no wonder you did badly on the LSAT if you thought that drivel was good. honestly the worst "novel" ive ever read in my life
The fact that you hate Atlas, dismiss its legitimacy as a novel, and call objectivism as a philosophy "laughable" is ironic to me. Ironic in that you are on an LSAT prep and discussion thread, a test based primarily on logic, rationality, and the inferences that can be derived from the two, implying a philosophy aimed at making decisions in life based on those things is completely illegitimate. You probably didn't do so well on the LSAT did you? And if you did, was it because you got past the fact that you were being forced to take a test where the questions were based on a concept that is "laughable"?
In addition, being an english literature major seems to have given you the idea that you are qualified to criticize the author of one of the most influential books in history as "awful".
If you disagree with her from an idealogical stand point, that is one thing (if provide reasons why of course). But claiming objectivism is laughable is immature, thoughtless, and very far from an academic assessment (I was as nice as possible there). This is coming from someone who is not an objectivist, mind you.
Perhaps law school isn't for you.