Top Law Schools

I take issue with this board's difficulty with the reading comprehension section. Are we not scholars of philosophy, diction, and rhetoric? I can see people having trouble with the logic games, but literature is the essence of our profession. Have the influences of college life damed our abilities to reason while reading short passages? I am very confused and I hope the this board is not representative of what is in the real world. Scholars at my university took pride on being able to read. My friends and I would often go to the Library and print scholarship off of Jstor and then debate the articles. There is a certain etiquette that ought to be possessed by today's lawyer. That substance is certainly lacking. I did not miss a question on the reading comprehension section of the Law School Admissions Test, nor do I expect to on my retake. The fraternity of law ought to consist of the most prominent and most noble people the world of philosophy has to offer--not being able to comprehend complex arguments has led me to believe the standard has been lowered. Of course, I am not asking people to assume the role of philosopher-kings.

P.S. I am not saying we should be philosophy majors--for I certainly am not. I am just suggesting we infuse it into our daily lives.

Bing14 wrote:I take issue with this boards difficulty with the reading comprehension section. Are we not scholars of philosophy diction, and rhetoric? I can see people having trouble with the logic games, but literature is the essence of our profession. Have the influences of college life damed our abilities to reason while reading short passages? I am very confused and I hope the this board is not representative of what is in the real world. Scholars at my university took pride on being able to read. My friends and I would often go to the Library and print scholarship off of Jstor and then debate the articles. There is a certain etiquette that ought to be possessed by today's lawyer. That substance is certainly lacking. I did not miss a question on the reading comprehension section of the Law School Admissions Test, nor do I expect to on my retake. The fraternity of law ought to consist of the most prominent and most noble people the world of philosophy has to offer--not being able to comprehend complex arguments has led me to believe the standard has been lowered. Of course, I am not asking people to assume the role of philosopher-kings.

P.S. I am not saying we should be philosophy majors--for I certainly am not. I am just suggesting we infuse it into our daily lives.

what a fuckin' loser.

Damn, too bad he isn't within striking distance.

So what exactly is the advice?

I love the image of you going into the library and debating JSTOR articles with friends. In my head you all have sweater vests and shit. BTW, isn't using JSTOR a bit plebeian? I myself always dig into dusty archives to find my journal of choice--that is the way true research is done!

Pretty sure this is all an act now.

Bing14 wrote:I take issue with this boards difficulty with the reading comprehension section. Are we not scholars of philosophy diction, and rhetoric? I can see people having trouble with the logic games, but literature is the essence of our profession. Have the influences of college life damed our abilities to reason while reading short passages? I am very confused and I hope the this board is not representative of what is in the real world. Scholars at my university took pride on being able to read. My friends and I would often go to the Library and print scholarship off of Jstor and then debate the articles. There is a certain etiquette that ought to be possessed by today's lawyer. That substance is certainly lacking. I did not miss a question on the reading comprehension section of the Law School Admissions Test, nor do I expect to on my retake. The fraternity of law ought to consist of the most prominent and most noble people the world of philosophy has to offer--not being able to comprehend complex arguments has led me to believe the standard has been lowered. Of course, I am not asking people to assume the role of philosopher-kings.

P.S. I am not saying we should be philosophy majors--for I certainly am not. I am just suggesting we infuse it into our daily lives.

oh. wow. Just, well, wow. If he's actually real, and I'm beginning to doubt it based on his previous, similarly pompous posts, then this is just massive, incredible toolery.

Bing14 wrote:Have the influences of college life damed our abilities

Unfortunately, I wasn't damed nearly enough in college.

Why is this so hard to swallow? Because it is the truth? I am lighting a fire under all of you to go out and improve your verbal skills. When I was in high school, I took a liking to 20th century industrial scholarship. To this day, friends have called me "the industrial scholar." I believe I achieved my goals. I am trying to inspire you all to do the same.

.

puppins, is that you in your tar?

Academic search premier FTW.

BTW based on this post, http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=73069, it's pretty obvious this guy isn't for real.

edit: haha, the industrial scholar just edited it. man i really wish he was for real and i could hang out with him. itd be awesome. In the post one of the things he said was "I'm not the smartest guy in the world"

i have thoroughly enjoyed reading each of Bing14's eleven posts

Bing14 wrote:To this day, friends have called me "the industrial scholar." I believe I achieved my goals.

I know y'all think this guy's an elitist, but the lack of ambition here is ridiculously depressing.

.

puppins wrote:

mallard wrote:puppins, is that you in your tar?

Being mauled by angry goats and sheep, yes.

Huh. I like your lime-colored whatevers.

puppins wrote:

goodolgil wrote:BTW, isn't using JSTOR a bit plebeian?

Honestly, JSTOR is soo the academy. The truly avant-garde only use Project MUSE.

My study group and I talked about this topic, how to obtain adequate research, over the weekend. We came to the conclusion the best place to obtain research was from the bartender.

i've done you and your similar-minded friends the favor of bolding some of your errors. some are grammatical, some are typos. have fun sitting in the library dissecting what you've done wrong!

p.s. i'm glad your reading comprehension is so spectacular. too bad you do not have enough pride in your writing to go back and proofread (or even worse, proofread and miss the errors!). fwiw, yale law students never make typos.

Bing14 wrote:I take issue with this boards difficulty with the reading comprehension section. Are we not scholars of philosophy diction, and rhetoric? I can see people having trouble with the logic games, but literature is the essence of our profession. Have the influences of college life damed our abilities to reason while reading short passages? I am very confused and I hope the this board is not representative of what is in the real world. Scholars at my university took pride on being able to read. My friends and I would often go to the Library and print scholarship off of Jstor and then debate the articles. There is a certain etiquette that ought to be possessed by today's lawyer. That substance is certainly lacking. I did not miss a question on the reading comprehension section of the Law School Admissions Test, nor do I expect to on my retake. The fraternity of law ought to consist of the most prominent and most noble people the world of philosophy has to offer--not being able to comprehend complex arguments has led me to believe the standard has been lowered. Of course, I am not asking people to assume the role of philosopher-kings.

P.S. I am not saying we should be philosophy majors--for I certainly am not. I am just suggesting we infuse it into our daily lives.

Bing14 wrote: Scholars at my university took pride on being able to read. .

Interesting.

You're a fucking weirdo.

I think you want the 4chan forums.

Also, one more pretentious post from you and I shall have you removed from the internets!

Cleareyes wrote:

Bing14 wrote: Scholars at my university took pride on being able to read. .

Interesting.

LOL Cleareyes is having a field day out there responding to Bing. So far Cleareyes bashed Bing 7-0 and counting...

great advice, very practical - thank you.

I'm surprised such a fucking genius would have to retake.

Can't do a logic game?

Can't decipher short arguments in LR?

Have the influences of college life damned your abilities to reason while reading short passages? <--- your words

If you're not busy later you should go die in a fire.

puppins wrote:

goodolgil wrote:BTW, isn't using JSTOR a bit plebeian?

Honestly, JSTOR is soo the academy. The truly avant-garde only use Project MUSE.

+1 for MUSE