Editor’s Note: We asked BP marketer extraordinaire Claire McCall to tell us how the February 2017 LSAT went for her. Here’s her experience, edited for content:
Oh God. I have no idea. I always am like, “Well, that was a train wreck,” and sometimes it is (like a 169 train wreck) and other times it is awesome (like a 178 awesome). Soooooo, I can’t really be too sure. Also, who are the crazy weirdos who walk out of the LSAT and are like, “That went so great!!!!”
I used all the time for Logic Games, which is weird because usually I get all of them right and have five to ten minutes left over where I’m just sitting there like, “Can we get on with this or what?” So they may have been weird or hard and I just didn’t think of it that way. Or maybe I was just going slow because I was saying to myself, “You’ll have so much leftover time so DON’T F*CK IT UP!!!!”
Also, according to the Reddit people, those who are really, really good at games were worried because they used the whole time. I think it was because of a six-slot, 1:1 Ordering game that was masquerading as a twelve-slot game. So, if you were smart enough to realize that the slots just repeat, there was a key deduction. Although, in my case at least, I had to keep reminding myself of it, which was a bit of a time suck. Another one of the games a lot of people probably thought was hard was actually super-duper easy if you were willing to draw it out. There were just two massive deductions that take a minute to figure out, but it’s cake after you get those.
Logical Reasoning was okay. There was one really, unusually difficult LR section, one really, unusually easy LR section, and then one that was normal with mostly easy questions and then three that you hold your breath as you bubble in your answer. I’ve been trying so hard to remember the first question of the test. It was obviously written as a giant f*ck you to Donald Trump. I actually giggled! Hell yeah, LSAC! Stick it to the man!
Reading Comprehension was BRUTAL! Savage! Just the worst. There was one about honeybees again, but this time discussing their “optic flow” which was cute but confusing. Then the worst RC comparative passages of all time: Patriotism v. Ethnocentrism. I re-read the first passage and was like, “Nope. Still don’t get it. What are you saying at me LSAT?” Then I just read the second one. The questions weren’t too bad on that one, but the content was convoluted and confusing, so maybe I just didn’t get the whole thing. I think it was ultimately about family vs. race vs. patriotism (basically nationalism in all its forms against each other). I think ultimately it was like the larger group you identify with the better a person you will be. Inclusive hippies over LSAC.
It’s crazy because when I walked out of the test I had no recollection of what had just happened. Did that just happen? Did I go to the LSAT today? And then I was delirious all day. But yesterday, I started to remember certain passages and questions and all the game prompts and setups. Like just a flood of LSAT questions came back to me. It was like coming out of a bath salts haze and getting flashbacks of the people whose faces you ate off.
World’s longest LSAT recap. Also, shame the essay isn’t graded because I wrote the best LSAT essay of all time. Like seriously, OF ALL TIME!
Wanna hear about it?
The prompt was about Paul Diallo who is looking for a co-director for his new research project into childhood psychological development. He wants someone to add to the merit and significance of the project. And someone he can work productively with.
Option 1: Zoe Kincaid (we love her, she is the sun the moon and the stars). She’s directed several of her own projects with great success. She is known to be very cordial and professional. Although she can be a bit dogmatic. She is well renowned in the scientific community and she has a broad range of fields she is versed in within the sciences. She works at the same university as Diallo but can likely get more funding that will not be available to Diallo otherwise. She does go out of town occasionally. The aspect of the project that is most interesting to her and the one she would like to focus on is different from Diallo’s.
Option 2: Julia (punk-ass baby) Fissher. She just finished her PhD and is at a larger university than Diallo’s. She has never directed a research project before. She and Diallo agree about the overall vision of the project but disagree about most of the details.
Basically Zoe is a rockstar and Julia is a punk. And here’s why:
Merit & Significance
Zoe’s name recognition alone will put a little weight and backing in the scientific community’s mind
She is in a better position, being an expert in many fields, to see the broader ramifications of findings.
Her ass pays the bills while her mouth writes the checks! She can get additional funding and has sway with the higher ups.
Zoe can make sh*t happen, and, with additional funding, Diallo can do all sorts of things like hire better research assistants, use better technology, or, most importantly, extend the project. With childhood development projects it is all about studying the long-term which allows one to make more significant findings. (Also, who cares julia is from a larger university. First of all, bigger isn’t always better. Maybe their psych department is super underfunded because they dump all their money into their football team. Maybe they retain all the rights to any findings by a faculty member- we just don’t know.)
Zoe and Diallo can divide and conquer. Nothing is holding them to going just one way. They can focus on two main aspects, widening the projects overall scope.
Zoe has extensive experience as a team leader and a proven track record of productive and effective research projects. Diallo can lean on her for guidance and insight into team dynamics, effective strategies, time management, dealing with university officials, etc. You name it, Zoe has done it. Julia has no experience leading a team. She has no idea what productive even looks like.
Because Zoe is more interested a different aspect of the project, they can divide the aspects of the project efficiently, and Diallo can really focus on what he cares the most about as opposed to being weighed down by all the other aspects. And he doesn’t even have to worry about if the other sh*t is getting done because it has been shown that Zoe is a boss!
While she may be dogmatic and have her own opinions as to how things should be done, a professional with her experience and personality (cordial & professional) would know how to work with someone who doesn’t necessarily agree (especially if the project is that person’s brain child). I mean, you don’t get to where Zoe has by not knowing your place or how to follow directions just as well as giving them. Also disagreement about large aspects are more likely to be worked out early on. Plus isn’t a little dispute sort of the nature of scientific theory? Diallo doesn’t have time to waste arguing with Julia about every detail. Like who cares about stupid things like where they keep the research binders? Ain’t nobody got time for that sh*t! The devil is in the details.
In summation, Diallo should get on his knees and beg Zoe to join him on the project. BEGGGGGGGG!!!!