Dunno why this is so amusing to me...
Mar. 22nd, 2008 05:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojAbout a million years ago, I did the LSAT. Took a prep course run by a friend of mine, who was very down-to-earth about the whole thing in that he took great pains to remind all his clients that the LSAT, in and of itself, is indicative of very little. It does not necessarily predict your probability of success in law school or in your legal career. It does not necessarily reflect your intelligence. It does not reflect your worth as a human being.
It is simply a hurdle placed upon your journey towards lawyerdom. It reflects how closely your thought processes correspond to the thought processes of the people who write the LSAT tests, or how closely you can fake said thought processes. I believe somewhere in there he used the term "gnomes" to describe them.
In practical terms, I didn't get much out of his course. My friend promised something like a 20% increase in your LSAT percentile or your money back, as measured by you taking a mock test before and after taking his course. I didn't get it; my score went up one percentile point. But I didn't ask for my money back for many reasons. The biggest was that he was a friend, and had given me a discount to begin with, and he employed Chris teaching the MCAT. But almost as important was the fact that his course really was bloody good, and totally worth the money - even full price. I just happened to have already known most of the tricks his instructor taught us. And, almost as valuable, the course gave me a lot of confidence and a sense of proportion regarding the whole nail-biting ordeal.
Also, his instructor referred to the "Logic Puzzles" part of the test (the part most people had nightmares about) as the "Games" part.
Hey, I do games. I like games. Bring them on. Tension went down about 95% after this simple exercise in creative nomenclature.
Anyway, I did ridiculously well on the LSAT. This was not much use in practical terms, as all it did was get me a whole bunch of offers to apply to law schools I'd never heard of (the funniest was the unfortunately acronymed CUNY School of Law) that I had no intention of applying to. I was married, with two kids and a partner doing his residency, so the only law schools I applied to were the one in the city where Chris was doing his residency (Western, in London) and the one where he hoped to do his residency (Ottawa). Think I could've scored 20% lower and still got in, even though my undergrad marks were pretty middling.
I always thought my LSAT score was kinda cool in a mostly irrelevant way, kinda like the way I can make a really loud popping sound with my tongue, hold a high A for six bars fortissimo, and bend my left pinkie finger back to touch the back of my hand (sound files and/or picture available upon request).
Well today I found out another thing it's good for: my LSAT score could be used to apply for Mensa membership through Prior Evidence.
Dunno why, but this is totally tickling my funnybone. Me and the LSAT Gnomes. Mensa members. LOL!!
It is simply a hurdle placed upon your journey towards lawyerdom. It reflects how closely your thought processes correspond to the thought processes of the people who write the LSAT tests, or how closely you can fake said thought processes. I believe somewhere in there he used the term "gnomes" to describe them.
In practical terms, I didn't get much out of his course. My friend promised something like a 20% increase in your LSAT percentile or your money back, as measured by you taking a mock test before and after taking his course. I didn't get it; my score went up one percentile point. But I didn't ask for my money back for many reasons. The biggest was that he was a friend, and had given me a discount to begin with, and he employed Chris teaching the MCAT. But almost as important was the fact that his course really was bloody good, and totally worth the money - even full price. I just happened to have already known most of the tricks his instructor taught us. And, almost as valuable, the course gave me a lot of confidence and a sense of proportion regarding the whole nail-biting ordeal.
Also, his instructor referred to the "Logic Puzzles" part of the test (the part most people had nightmares about) as the "Games" part.
Hey, I do games. I like games. Bring them on. Tension went down about 95% after this simple exercise in creative nomenclature.
Anyway, I did ridiculously well on the LSAT. This was not much use in practical terms, as all it did was get me a whole bunch of offers to apply to law schools I'd never heard of (the funniest was the unfortunately acronymed CUNY School of Law) that I had no intention of applying to. I was married, with two kids and a partner doing his residency, so the only law schools I applied to were the one in the city where Chris was doing his residency (Western, in London) and the one where he hoped to do his residency (Ottawa). Think I could've scored 20% lower and still got in, even though my undergrad marks were pretty middling.
I always thought my LSAT score was kinda cool in a mostly irrelevant way, kinda like the way I can make a really loud popping sound with my tongue, hold a high A for six bars fortissimo, and bend my left pinkie finger back to touch the back of my hand (sound files and/or picture available upon request).
Well today I found out another thing it's good for: my LSAT score could be used to apply for Mensa membership through Prior Evidence.
Dunno why, but this is totally tickling my funnybone. Me and the LSAT Gnomes. Mensa members. LOL!!
