Tag Archives: LSAT

Humor Me.

I’m about to bore you totally to death, but humor me.

The date is March 3, 1984.  Big Brother is not watching.  I have spent the last three hours answering multiple-“guess” questions on the LSAT.  I have one last section to complete, the writing sample.  I will have 30 minutes to write a well thought out response to the following topic:

“Some argue that the increased incidence of terrorism and other extremism is due, in part, to the coverage provided by the news media to such activities.  The individuals argue that hijackers, bombers, assassins and other destructive extremists should be deprived of the media forum they seek.

This position  is in conflict with the Code of Good Practice of the International Alliance of News Organizations (IANO).  The CODE calls for unswerving dedication to the duty of informing the public of all notable events.  It pr0scribes press suppression of facts in order to manipulate events.

A roundtable discussion of the conflicting positions is planned for the next meeting of the IANO.  As a participant in that discussion, you have been asked to prepare a brief statement of your views on the conflict. In the space proved below, write your views. “

I didn’t know there was such an organization, for one thing, and I stumbled over the word “proscribes,” thinking at first that it was a misspelling.  “Roundtable” is misspelled.  Should be hyphenated or two words, at least spellchecker thinks so, and so do I.  So with the brain drained completely over the last few hours,  I attempt to write a response.  I wanted to prove that I still had the document in my files, and, yet again, humor me by letting me know if you think this addressed the topic:

Note:  The parenthetical remarks were obviously not in the original text, but added by me, now, 28 years later.

The conflict before us has many positions available for a stand to be taken.  (Yeah, like maybe two?)  The question which has to be addressed in any case is whether or not news media coverage of these events has an effect, and if so to what degree.  (Missing a few commas here, me thinks.  Wouldn’t make any more sense anyway.) I believe that press coverage of these events is not only desirable, but imperative.  (Will he offer any proof?)

News reports of terrorist activities are essential to the alleviation of the problem more than its major cause.  (Yeah, who says?)  A free society depends on unobstructed press coverage to get the information necessary to continue that freedom.  The CODE of the IANO is based on these assumptions.  (Is it?)

Does the press give ideas to prospective terrorists by their coverage?  I think not.  (I don’t know.  I used to watch “Columbo” and figure I could commit the perfect murder and know exactly which mistakes not to make.)  In fact, it should be argued that the whole, or greatest majority, of the viewing or reading audience is turned off by the coverage of bombings and assassinations and the like.  (…the like??)  A moral society will not accept it, and will take steps to curtail it in some way.  (Curtail it?  How about stop it?)

Although novel ideas may be learned by future terrorists from news media reports, we still must explain the positive affects of news coverage where terrorist attempts are thwarted.  (I’ve read that three times and it still makes no sense to me.  I’m still not sure I used the proper spelling of effects and affects in usage.)  Surely this must dissuade some would-be terrorists to rethink their proposed action.  (I’m back to “Columbo.”)   Effective action by authorities, documents in the news media presentations, will have that effect.  (Says who?)  A terrorist act which gets little result will not further a cause.  (Isn’t that the point?  If we don’t report it, they don’t get media exposure, and the cause is not furthered.)

The people’s “right to know” is always paramount in a discussion of this nature.  The founding principles of our news media are based on the idea that suppressing information is harmful to a free, democratic society and it is.  Exceptions to this rule are unacceptable and history has proved this, although current events such as press restrictions during the Granada operation had wide-spread public acceptance.  (Now, what the hell am I doing here?  Is it harmful or not?  The public accepted press restrictions in the example given.  Was it harmful to the democracy?)

The news media must stand on its principles.  It must report events accurately and fairly.  (And there, my friends, is the problem.)  This will eliminate the necessity for discussions such as this and provide the public the information they need to make rational decisions.  The rest is simply argument.   (Ya think?)

That’s all I got out in 30 minutes and I took every second allowed.  Reading over this again, the piece lacks substantive information.  I’m making stuff up and it’s obvious.  Making statements of fact with no support…at all.  And then, I go and contradict myself in the fourth paragraph. 

This part of the LSAT is not scored.  It’s a writing “sample” and that was probably a good thing in this case.  Each law school decides how they will use this writing sample in their evaluation of an applicant.  If you take the test more than once, which I would have had to do if I was serious about admission, they will send the three most recent writing samples along with the scoring.  Can you imagine taking this test that many times?  I can’t even imagine it.  Maybe I’ll see the same questions and get them wrong again.  The test cost $100 back in 1984, it costs $132 today.  I guess if you’ve got the money and the time.

The really horrible, and, looking back still sounds really horrible, thing about 1984, was three months later I was finally offered a “real” job.  A job as an assistant manager at Thrifty Drug and Discount.  A reasonable salary plus bonus that placed me behind a counter most of the day scooping cylindrical ice-cream cones for fifty cents a scoop.  An unending line of undecided ice-cream patrons that thought we were serving the world famous Thrifty Ice Cream from our counter.  We weren’t, it was Creamland Dairy ice cream.  Every night as I pushed a three-foot wide dust broom up and down the aisles, I wondered why the hell I wasted all that time and money to get a college degree.     

If you get to this paragraph, I want to thank you for taking the time to humor me by reading my LSAT essay.  You probably have a better idea of why there is no “esquire” after my name.  WTF  


Filed under Uncategorized

What I Want To Be When I Grow Up.

When I originally went to college, I wanted to be a secondary school history teacher and a football coach.  That’s how I ended up at New Mexico Highlands University in the fall of 1971, a “teacher’s” college.  Early in my senior year of high school  was the first time I was faced with “what do you want to be when you grow up,” and there was a lot of pressure,  because I really didn’t have a clue.  The school was recommended by my counselor, who had forced my hand on what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.  She went there or knew someone who attended school there, otherwise I hardly would have known it existed.  It was two states away from home though, and that seemed good at the time, so I applied and was accepted.  I declared my major but changed my mind three times in my first year at NMHU, ending up with Pre-Law, which is dumb in a way because you can get into Law School with just about any declared major.

And I tried.  After a ten-year sabbatical of sorts, I earned my degree “with distinction” from the University of New Mexico, majoring in Journalism.  There were several changes along the way there too, from Studio Art, Political Science, Communications to Economics.  I immediately began studying for the LSAT, the Law School Admissions Test, after graduation.  I didn’t attend the ceremonies and they had some difficulty finding my diploma in the Dean’s office.  “Oh, you graduated with distinction,” the girl behind the counter said after consulting a list of graduates.  She handed me my diploma and a special red cover I had earned for my final GPA.

The LSAT is very difficult to pass, let alone score high enough to gain acceptance into a Law School.  I purchased the book and study exercises and got right to it.  I was still the night auditor and desk clerk at the Western 6 motel, so I had most of the night to study.  I struggled with logic problem after logic problem.  Trying to figure out what color hat the woman third in line had on if there were five people in line each with a different color hat,  if the third person in the line was not behind the person wearing the blue hat, and the fifth person in line had on a green hat, and the person wearing the yellow hat was not in front of the person in the blue hat.  Drove me insane.  I did hundreds of these types of questions and finally felt I had a grasp of how to do them well enough to pass the exam.  I paid my money at the UNM School of Law, and waited, and studied some more.  I always felt special the few times I walked into that building on campus, felt important.

The test date finally arrived and I was early that Saturday morning, still studying logic problems and going over other areas of the test.  There are three multiple-“guess” sections in the LSAT:  Reading Comprehension Questions, (Piece of cake.)  Analytical Reasoning Questions, ( Not so much.  These involve an ability to understand a structure of relationships and draw conclusions.)  Logical Reasoning Questions. (Where I spent most of my studying time.)  The final section was an essay question.  My forte.  I can baffle them with bullshit better than most.  Learned that in summer school taking Political Science classes.

That was the most intense half-day, without a break, I have ever spent in my life.  When I walked out, I had a massive headache, desperately needed a cigarette and a drink, and was sure that I had failed.  I wasn’t going to be taking it again either, because of the cost.  This had been my one shot.

 I discovered a few things after taking the test that I didn’t know or didn’t think much about in my zeal to become a lawyer.  First-year law students are not allowed to hold down a job.  That never would have worked.  I had two kids, a mortgage, and wasn’t making enough at the motel as it was.  Preference was being given at the time to minorities and women, probably still is.  I was neither, so my score and grades had to be killer to get accepted to a law school.  Only 12.5% of those taking the test fall into the upper third of test scores, the ones headed to Harvard and Yale.  I hadn’t given much thought to where I was going to get the money to go to law school either.  I guess I intended to borrow it.  Finally, when I got my test scores back, I passed, but was in that 75% of average, just plain average, test scores.  I put the test scores and essay in a manila folder where it still is today in my office filing cabinet, never actually applying to the UNM School of Law.

I don’t think I’m really sorry that I didn’t pursue a career in law.  There are a lot of broke lawyers out there.  All those TV shows that glorify the lawyer life are not very accurate either.  A lot of lawyers never try a case in front of a judge or jury.  Most of a lawyer’s day is spent doing research.  Not all that exciting I suppose.

The reason I got on this subject was because I noticed I have one post on my site that continues to surpass all the others in searches and views.  It has been viewed 4,910 of the almost 19,000 views I’ve had on my site since I started.  I’ve posted a total of 196 stories since February 2011.  If you search “Who invented the light bulb” on Google, its page one, up top.  I posted the story June, 14th.  It’s a short post about who really invented the light bulb.  I have numerous comments from students thanking me for helping them with their homework.  I’ve had comments arguing with my conclusions about who really invented the incandescent bulb.  My only intention was to show that it wasn’t Thomas Alva Edison, and I point that out.  It’s clearly not a concise history of the invention, but it’s billed on Google as though it is.  

Where I’m going with this, is I should have stayed on course and taught history in secondary school.  Maybe?  I love history, especially the misconceptions people have about many historical events.  I could have been an assistant football coach, maybe one day moving into the ranks of high school head coaches.  But, truth is, I still don’t know what I want to be when I grow up.



Filed under Uncategorized