The Official February 2011 Waiting Thread Forum

[Bildungsroman]

Man I can't wait until we find out the curve.

OH WAIT

[vissidarte27]

Yeah...

The upside of that is that, if I do as crappily as I anticipate, I can be like "Whatever, it was probably some crazy -8 curve" and possibly convince myself that it wasn't my fault.

[delusional]

Ah the good old days... December seems so long ago, waitaitaitaitaiting... My prayers are with you. May you all receive your dream scores, and never ever ever ever have to open the LSAT section of TLS again!

[EvanC]

Thinking I got a 164 or 165. Roll call on June LSAT?

I'm preparing in a combination of the ways I prepared for this and December. For December I did about 5 or 6 PTs and worked through a little over half of the LG Bible and some of the LR Bible. For this one I didn't do much actual LSAT prep but played a ton of Sudoku to work on my conditional ideas. This made my LG performance average about 6 points higher in practice - no joke. I also started reading some dense literature.

For June, I'm reading Foucault, Derrida, etc non-stop, working my way through all the Powerscore Bibles and maybe the LG Bible twice. I have about 20-30 PTs left and I want to work through all of them and I'm going to be playing Sudoku through all my CRMJ classes

I'm pumped and I want a 175+... My individual sections have been high enough alone to earn it but I have to get that consistency on every section and this is the only way for me to do it. Yup.

[Revolver066]

Woo, another waiting thread to wallow in! At least I'll know what day the scores will come out. I reallllly think I did worse than my lest LSAT, but for some reason I feel like going down with the ship

[thsmthcrmnl]

For June, I'm reading Foucault, Derrida, etc non-stop . . .

French theorists are not good LSAT practice. Granted, I might be biased by my hatred of French theorists, but here is a passage from Derrida (from a randomly chosen book on a randomly chosen page):

We already have a foreboding that phonocentrism merges with the historical determination of the meaning of being in general as presence, with all the subdeterminations which depend on this general form and which organize within it their system and their historical sequence (presence of the thing to the sight as eidos, presence as substance/essence/existence, temporal presence at point of the now or of the moment, the self-presence of the cogito, consciousness, subjectivity, the co-presence of the other and of the self, intersubjectivity as the intentional phenomenon of the ego, and so forth). Logocentrism would thus support the determination of the being of the entity as presence. To the extent that such a logocentrism is not totally absent from Heidegger's thought, perhaps it still holds that thought within the epoch of onto-theology, within the philosophy of presence, that is to say within philosophy itself. This would perhaps mean that one does not leave the epoch whose closure one can outline. The movements of belonging or not belonging to the epoch are too subtle, the illusions in that regard are too easy, for us to make a definite judgement.

I don't think the LSAT has ever sounded like that.

[EvanC]

For June, I'm reading Foucault, Derrida, etc non-stop . . .

French theorists are not good LSAT practice. Granted, I might be biased by my hatred of French theorists, but here is a passage from Derrida (from a randomly chosen book on a randomly chosen page):

We already have a foreboding that phonocentrism merges with the historical determination of the meaning of being in general as presence, with all the subdeterminations which depend on this general form and which organize within it their system and their historical sequence (presence of the thing to the sight as eidos, presence as substance/essence/existence, temporal presence at point of the now or of the moment, the self-presence of the cogito, consciousness, subjectivity, the co-presence of the other and of the self, intersubjectivity as the intentional phenomenon of the ego, and so forth). Logocentrism would thus support the determination of the being of the entity as presence. To the extent that such a logocentrism is not totally absent from Heidegger's thought, perhaps it still holds that thought within the epoch of onto-theology, within the philosophy of presence, that is to say within philosophy itself. This would perhaps mean that one does not leave the epoch whose closure one can outline. The movements of belonging or not belonging to the epoch are too subtle, the illusions in that regard are too easy, for us to make a definite judgement.

I don't think the LSAT has ever sounded like that.

I'm forcing myself to read literature which I find completely uninteresting so as to improve my reading comprehension. If I can work through that type of work and comprehend it fully, then 60 line passages shouldn't be a problem at all.

[Pitcher]

For June, I'm reading Foucault, Derrida, etc non-stop . . .

French theorists are not good LSAT practice. Granted, I might be biased by my hatred of French theorists, but here is a passage from Derrida (from a randomly chosen book on a randomly chosen page):

We already have a foreboding that phonocentrism merges with the historical determination of the meaning of being in general as presence, with all the subdeterminations which depend on this general form and which organize within it their system and their historical sequence (presence of the thing to the sight as eidos, presence as substance/essence/existence, temporal presence at point of the now or of the moment, the self-presence of the cogito, consciousness, subjectivity, the co-presence of the other and of the self, intersubjectivity as the intentional phenomenon of the ego, and so forth). Logocentrism would thus support the determination of the being of the entity as presence. To the extent that such a logocentrism is not totally absent from Heidegger's thought, perhaps it still holds that thought within the epoch of onto-theology, within the philosophy of presence, that is to say within philosophy itself. This would perhaps mean that one does not leave the epoch whose closure one can outline. The movements of belonging or not belonging to the epoch are too subtle, the illusions in that regard are too easy, for us to make a definite judgement.

I don't think the LSAT has ever sounded like that.

Lets not give the good folks at LSAC any ideas:
It can be inferred from the passage that:
A. Logocentrism does not support the determination the being as the entity as presence.
B French theorists do not believe that all the subdeterminations depend on a general form.
etc..

If this was the first question in LR I would not feel optimistic about the section.

[lsapplicant07]

tag

[SnoDog]

Not exactly sure how I did either. I was aiming for a flat 160 (I'm not the brightest like some here), but think I landed somewhere around the 155 area.

[jcw0003]

I had LR, RC, LR, LR, LG. Which one was the experimental for me?

[EvanC]

2nd LR

[stilles]

2nd LR

FML.

[lausseuns]

Was averaging about 176 on pts with occassional higher scores.... think i dumped a few more than usual on LG not because it was hard but just because it was time consuming and i had to guess on 2 at the end.... if the people on here are any indication, a lot of people found at least one section SLIGHTLY more difficult but it was overall straightforward with that one twist in the comparative RC... probably a -11 curve but who knows. Think I did about a 172 or 173.

LR, RC, LG (exp), LR, LG

[m3taphysician]

For June, I'm reading Foucault, Derrida, etc non-stop . . .

French theorists are not good LSAT practice. Granted, I might be biased by my hatred of French theorists, but here is a passage from Derrida (from a randomly chosen book on a randomly chosen page):

We already have a foreboding that phonocentrism merges with the historical determination of the meaning of being in general as presence, with all the subdeterminations which depend on this general form and which organize within it their system and their historical sequence (presence of the thing to the sight as eidos, presence as substance/essence/existence, temporal presence at point of the now or of the moment, the self-presence of the cogito, consciousness, subjectivity, the co-presence of the other and of the self, intersubjectivity as the intentional phenomenon of the ego, and so forth). Logocentrism would thus support the determination of the being of the entity as presence. To the extent that such a logocentrism is not totally absent from Heidegger's thought, perhaps it still holds that thought within the epoch of onto-theology, within the philosophy of presence, that is to say within philosophy itself. This would perhaps mean that one does not leave the epoch whose closure one can outline. The movements of belonging or not belonging to the epoch are too subtle, the illusions in that regard are too easy, for us to make a definite judgement.

I don't think the LSAT has ever sounded like that.

I'm forcing myself to read literature which I find completely uninteresting so as to improve my reading comprehension. If I can work through that type of work and comprehend it fully, then 60 line passages shouldn't be a problem at all.

As a philosophy major who reads guys like Derrida, Fichte and Hegel all the time, I can assure you this will not help you.

[oakinwind]

I felt so nervous that I can't concentrate on the RC. It is hard for me.
so really can't guess my score. Hope the curve will be lenient, say -12

[SchopenhauerFTW]

tag

[feralinfant]

For June, I'm reading Foucault, Derrida, etc non-stop . . .

French theorists are not good LSAT practice. Granted, I might be biased by my hatred of French theorists, but here is a passage from Derrida (from a randomly chosen book on a randomly chosen page):

We already have a foreboding that phonocentrism merges with the historical determination of the meaning of being in general as presence, with all the subdeterminations which depend on this general form and which organize within it their system and their historical sequence (presence of the thing to the sight as eidos, presence as substance/essence/existence, temporal presence at point of the now or of the moment, the self-presence of the cogito, consciousness, subjectivity, the co-presence of the other and of the self, intersubjectivity as the intentional phenomenon of the ego, and so forth). Logocentrism would thus support the determination of the being of the entity as presence. To the extent that such a logocentrism is not totally absent from Heidegger's thought, perhaps it still holds that thought within the epoch of onto-theology, within the philosophy of presence, that is to say within philosophy itself. This would perhaps mean that one does not leave the epoch whose closure one can outline. The movements of belonging or not belonging to the epoch are too subtle, the illusions in that regard are too easy, for us to make a definite judgement.

I don't think the LSAT has ever sounded like that.

Lets not give the good folks at LSAC any ideas:
It can be inferred from the passage that:
A. Logocentrism does not support the determination the being as the entity as presence.
B French theorists do not believe that all the subdeterminations depend on a general form.
etc..

If this was the first question in LR I would not feel optimistic about the section.

This is funny. Also if you're actually in a position to read something like Derrida and follow it, your problem isn't really reading comprehension. In other words, you more than have the chops to read the passages on the LSAT, you just need to practice the different types of questions, especially the weirdly ambiguous ones. Not trying to discourage you from reading Derrida, but if you find it agonizing it seems masochistic at best.

[Tainted_Praise]

I'm still bitter about UNESCO.... Those mother fuckers. Why would they do that to me? RC was supposed to be my CLUTCH.

[applepiecrust]

So I'm on planes and airports between March 4 to March 5 (flying from DC to New Delhi), pretty much the entire time. Hoping that's when scores will be released so I will be forced to abstain from neurotically checking what is likely to be a lacklustre score.

[vissidarte27]

I'll be in Charlottesville visiting my girlfriend from March 4-13. I've told her to hijack my phone/internets until the 7th so that I don't obsess about it and ruin out time together by being all "LSAT OMG."

[applepiecrust]

I'll be in Charlottesville visiting my girlfriend from March 4-13. I've told her to hijack my phone/internets until the 7th so that I don't obsess about it and ruin out time together by being all "LSAT OMG."

good plan. Maybe I should just not take my laptop to my parents' place when I'm there for spring break (for the same time as you are in Charlottesville). Surely I shouldn't be wasting a week-long trip to India obsessing over the LSAT that doesn't really matter?

[lausseuns]

I'll be in Charlottesville visiting my girlfriend from March 4-13. I've told her to hijack my phone/internets until the 7th so that I don't obsess about it and ruin out time together by being all "LSAT OMG."

good plan. Maybe I should just not take my laptop to my parents' place when I'm there for spring break (for the same time as you are in Charlottesville). Surely I shouldn't be wasting a week-long trip to India obsessing over the LSAT that doesn't really matter?

Last time LSAC stated a March 7th (like this test) release date it was released on March 4th

[applepiecrust]

I'll be in Charlottesville visiting my girlfriend from March 4-13. I've told her to hijack my phone/internets until the 7th so that I don't obsess about it and ruin out time together by being all "LSAT OMG."

good plan. Maybe I should just not take my laptop to my parents' place when I'm there for spring break (for the same time as you are in Charlottesville). Surely I shouldn't be wasting a week-long trip to India obsessing over the LSAT that doesn't really matter?

Last time LSAC stated a March 7th (like this test) release date it was released on March 4th

Which is why I am counting on the score being released as I fly somewhere over the atlantic. One can hope.

(And no European layovers this time, because I KNOW I would shell out those 5 euros to check my email).

[SchopenhauerFTW]

The comparative reading passages sucked. Not happy about that. At least LR and LG were bearable. Sometimes I wish the LSAT would drop logic games and replace it with a section dedicated to comparative reading passages while keeping the old RC format in another.