hdsoc wrote: Philosopher King wrote: snehpets wrote:
Philosopher King wrote:Yeah, a more holistic approach and the use of the type of reasoning skills that they want their students to have. They should see a cumulative 4.0 GPA with a double major in philosophy and political science as conclusive evidence that I have the skills the LSAT tests for. Just take one sample class out: Logic. I got a 96% in that class (which is an A of course). That included dozens of hours of lecture, dozens of hours of studying, three tests, and one cumulative final exam. The professor was a good teacher and there was no way I could have gotten the grades I did without being good at logic. Does not that say more about my logic abilities than 35 minutes of filling in bubbles on the LSAT LR section while having to pee really really bad?
That might be true, but LSAC can't exactly scope out each class on all of our transcripts to make sure they're not really focused on the philosophy of reality television, hence standardized tests.
LOL, my university does have those types of classes but I wouldn't take them. We had a philosophy of hip-hop course, for example. Ridiculous. Here are some of the philosophy courses I have taken: Intro to Philosophy, Contemporary Moral Problems, Logic, History of Ancient Philosophy, 400-level Ethics, and 400-level Political Philosophy (which brought together my two majors/interests beautifully!). Next semester I am taking 400-level Social Philosophy, Critical Thinking, Philosophy of Human Rights, and History of Modern Philosophy. In my opinion every single one of these courses is applicable to the study of law or the skills the LSAT tests for.
As an aside, I may want to be a philosophy professor someday and I was seriously considering going directly to a 5 year Ph.D. program instead of law school to do that. If I came back to my university to teach I would advocate for a philosophy of Seinfeld course to be run for a semester. If I knew for sure I could convince them to have this and that I could teach it then I would definitely drop everything and sign up for the GREs! Of course I would probably have the same problem with the GREs as I do the LSAT so whatever. I asked one of my professors who got her Ph.D. right after undergrad about the GREs and she said they were kind of like SATs but for graduate school. But, of course, I never took the SATs.
Philosopher King wrote:Does not that say more about my logic abilities than 35 minutes of filling in bubbles on the LSAT LR section while having to pee really really bad?
Sometimes I can almost take you seriously, until you throw shit like this in.
Hey the truth is the truth. It's meant to show how stupid the LSAT is. Unless a law school doesn't have bathrooms then they shouldn't judge their candidates by how much their bladder distracts them.