Dehydrated, with crappy erasers.

Getting into the LSAT is going to be harder than getting through airport security with a gallon of gooey liquid strapped to your back.

Some of the rules:

1. All candidates must bring to the LSAT test center the following: (1) your unsigned LSAT Admission Ticket. At the test center you will provide your signature at the check-in table. (2) one current, valid (NOT expired) government-issued ID. (3) Three or four sharpened No. 2 or HB pencils, with good erasers.

2. You must take to the test center one current, valid (NOT expired) government-issued ID containing a recent and recognizable photo and your signature. No one will be admitted into the testing room without acceptable identification as outlined at LSAC.org. Acceptable forms of ID include passport books and government-issued driver’s licenses. US military personnel may present their US military ID card containing their name, photo, and signature. Government-issued employment IDs, Social Security/Social Insurance cards, birth certificates, credit cards (including those with photo), passport cards, cards used in Canada for health care benefits, expired IDs, employee cards, photocopied IDs, and student IDs are NOT acceptable as IDs for the LSAT. Your first and last name on your ID must match exactly the name on your LSAT Admission Ticket. No one will be admitted into the test room without acceptable identification.

3. Test takers may bring into the testing room ONLY a clear plastic ziplock bag (maximum size: 1 gallon/3.79 liters) containing ONLY the following items: LSAT Admission Ticket stub, valid ID, wallet, keys, hygiene/medical products, No. 2 or HB pencils (no mechanical pencils), erasers, pencil sharpener, a highlighter, tissues, beverage in a plastic container or juice box (maximum size: 20 oz/591 ml), and snack for break only. All items must fit in the bag such that the bag can be sealed.

4. Prohibited non-electronic items that test takers may not take into the testing room include, but are not limited to, the following items: books, dictionaries, rulers, slide rules, compasses, mechanical pencils, briefcases, handbags, backpacks, earplugs, and papers of any kind. Hats/hoods may not be worn on the head (except items of religious apparel).

5. Test takers may have only tissues, ID, LSAT Admission Ticket stub, No. 2 or HB pencils, erasers, a pencil sharpener, highlighter, and analog (nondigital) wristwatch. No electronic timing devices are permitted. Beverage and snack are NOT permitted on the desktop and may be accessed only during the break.

6. Scratch paper is not permitted for any of the five sections of the test, nor may pages or parts of pages be torn from the test book. You may, however, use the blank spaces available in the section on which you are working for any notes or diagrams you wish to make for answering a test question.

The one thing I really want to know: will they not let me in if I have two or five No. 2 pencils? And what if the erasers suck?

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Dehydrated, with crappy erasers.

  1. Law school raises the question of culture: whether there is anything to be added to spontaneity. If conscience is all, and if conscience cannot be conventionalized, then what is “our” hope for the future, if any: maximum chaos?
    I see and raise Mortimer Adler’s advice: write a good paragraph and you will have a “great idea”, but more than that, you will have a moral nature, a compass, a means of judging and being judged. It is the inanity of so-called legal scholarship that will capture your attention in law school and make you understand the plight of this nation.
    Adler commented finally that he’d come to believe in the existence of God and was embarked on the next question: whether God loves us. Notwithstanding, I predict confidently that the ability to write a coherent paragraph (let alone his delightful book, “How to Read a Book”) depends on faith in a loving God, for it is this faith that commands one’s respect for the intelligence of the audience.
    Stating a fact requires two assumptions. One is that God will not rearrange things (out there or inside your head or heart) while you find the words (Adler’s “coming to terms”) to describe what you saw. The heart of reasonableness, however, is the assumption: that we are all connected. Relying on God not to rearrange gamepieces only brings the onus on oneself: to likewise play straight with other people. Law is the means of deciding life and death, but its process is best likened to a dance: a sport in which, if anybody loses, everybody loses. Its purpose is to conduct public business in a manner delightful to behold. Sweet reason.
    If you can accept that the worst student is the best judge of a school, then the biggest loser in a society is the best judge of its law. Let me start with a critique of the law from a member of the elite. The head of the National Endowment for the Humanities came to Bowdoin College recently to tout his “civility” campaign. MPBN Radio aired his remarks and the Q&A today; they should be available “on demand” shortly, under “Speaking in Maine”. Jim Leach (he earned my use of the familiar term of address) spent thirty years in the Congress as a Republican representing an Iowa district. He concluded his otherwise rather pedantic lecture at Bowdoin with an outright condemnation of contemporary US legal culture in both root and branch (my metaphor, but these are his examples and characterizations). The root is the Citizens United decision, whereby corporations are persons whose right of free speech issues in dollars, and the more so, the better. The branch is the case of a litigator (claimed by the speaker as both friend since college and world-class legal mind) who was jailed by a Los Angelos County judge for contempt of court for nineteenth months for citing the state laws of California prohibiting outside income for judges–referring to the County’s payment of 50,000 dollars annually to its judges over and above the state-provided salary–when asking the judge to recuse himself from the case at trial. After this County stipend began to be paid to them, County judges have almost never ruled in favor of a plaintiff against the County. (Remember, in theory, one sues the Executive before a member of the Judiciary: separate branches.)
    Imagine, then, what the people typically on the sidewalk in Portland would tell you about law and lawyers.
    So what do you do? “The law is in your heart and on your lips.” A government cannot define reasonability, but only hope to evoke it so as to rely on it. Inscriptions on pediments may be ignored. So what is the principle of reform, beyond being necessarily a personal duty?
    Your conduct must evoke reasonableness, so that, if there were no Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Amendment banning slavery, etc., people hearing you would rush out and write them.
    The Israel lobby is the current regime, by popular consent, of the US, and is hence responsible for the condition of its laws and institutions. Leach (no longer “Jim” for me now) was curiously silent on this one point, at a moment where the room seemed tensed for its mention. So Israel is the defining test of law even while the most wretched among us is the person most competent to apply that test. I remember here the “Irvine ten” (out of eleven), Muslim students given three years probation (and fifty six hours of community service, as if denouncing genocide–the palpable intent of Israel’s small-c constitution for sixty three years–was not already a great service to the community) in a California court recently for doing what five Jewish students did in a New Orleans venue and were not even arrested for. Is that Federalism: sensitivity to local concerns within a national scheme of jurisprudence: or is it legal ineptitude? When that last phrase fails to trigger a laugh and “so when was ineptitude illegal?”, you know we’re in trouble.
    Considering our history, we should be getting closer to a reasonable society but currently we’re headed away from one.

  2. I would hope you’re not assuming a martyr’s crown because you’ve decided to abandon your conscience for the good of the legal community, whose contribution to the common good goes without question.
    I’m told that the sole dogma of the legal community is money. The same authority says that my approach, “experimental”, was in practical effect anathema. He explicitly likened the legal community to a religious community.
    Your Honor, after trashing my self-respect in order to pass the bar, I certainly don’t need you asking me to be a little more terse. If I knew what “terse” meant, I probably wouldn’t be here.
    To which the judge replies, Hey, don’t get bent ouf of shape, there, boy-o. I don’t know what it means, either. I was just saying it, you know?
    Hey, no problem, Your Honor, dude. Say, is there some way we can avoid leaving these oily stains everywhere we go?
    To which the judge replies, “I don’t know which oily streaks or smears you may be referring to. I gather you are not ready to be terse in my courtroom.”
    Somewhere in all that oil there must be some social benefit emerging? You couldn’t find this many well-dressed people devotedly worshiping stupidity?

  3. Law school raises the question of culture: whether there is anything to be added to spontaneity. If conscience is all, and if conscience cannot be conventionalized, then what is “our” hope for the future, if any: maximum chaos?
    I see and raise Mortimer Adler’s advice: write a good paragraph and you will have a “great idea”, but more than that, you will have a moral nature, a compass, a means of judging and being judged. It is the inanity of so-called legal scholarship that will capture your attention in law school and make you understand the plight of this nation.
    Adler commented finally that he’d come to believe in the existence of God and was embarked on the next question: whether God loves us. Notwithstanding, I predict confidently that the ability to write a coherent paragraph (let alone his delightful book, “How to Read a Book”) depends on faith in a loving God, for it is this faith that commands one’s respect for the intelligence of the audience.
    Stating a fact requires two assumptions. One is that God will not rearrange things (out there or inside your head or heart) while you find the words (Adler’s “coming to terms”) to describe what you saw. The heart of reasonableness, however, is the assumption: that we are all connected. Relying on God not to rearrange gamepieces only brings the onus on oneself: to likewise play straight with other people. Law is the means of deciding life and death, but its process is best likened to a dance: a sport in which, if anybody loses, everybody loses. Its purpose is to conduct public business in a manner delightful to behold. Sweet reason.

  4. If you can accept that the worst student is the best judge of a school, then the biggest loser in a society is the best judge of its law. Let me start with a critique of the law from a member of the elite. The head of the National Endowment for the Humanities came to Bowdoin College recently to tout his “civility” campaign. MPBN Radio aired his remarks and the Q&A last week; they are available “on demand”, under “Speaking in Maine”.
    [audio src="http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/mpbc/local-mpbc-987830.mp3" /]
    Jim Leach (he earned my use of the familiar term of address) spent thirty years in the Congress as a Republican representing an Iowa district. He concluded his otherwise rather pedantic lecture at Bowdoin with an outright condemnation of contemporary US legal culture in both root and branch (my metaphor, but these are his examples and characterizations). The root is the Citizens United decision, whereby corporations are persons whose right of free speech issues in dollars, and the more so, the better. The branch is the case of a litigator (claimed by the speaker as both friend since college and world-class legal mind) who was jailed by a Los Angeles County judge for contempt of court for nineteenth months for citing the state laws of California prohibiting outside income for judges-referring to the County’s payment of 50,000 dollars annually to its judges over and above the state-provided salary-when asking the judge to recuse himself from the case at trial. After this County stipend began to be paid to them, County judges have almost never ruled in favor of a plaintiff against the County. (Remember, in theory, one sues the Executive before a member of the Judiciary: separate branches.)
    Imagine, then, what the people typically on the sidewalk in Portland would tell you about law and lawyers.

  5. So what do you do? “The law is in your heart and on your lips.” A government cannot exhaustively define reasonability, but only hope to evoke it so as to rely on it. Inscriptions on pediments may be ignored. So what is the principle of reform, beyond being necessarily a personal duty?
    Your conduct must evoke reasonableness, so that, if there were no Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Amendment banning slavery, etc., people hearing you would rush out and write them.
    The Israel lobby is the current regime, by popular consent, of the US, and is hence responsible for the condition of its laws and institutions. Leach (no longer “Jim” for me now) was curiously silent on this one point, at a moment where the room seemed tensed for its mention. So Israel is the defining test of law even while the most wretched among us is the person most competent to apply that test. I remember here the “Irvine ten” (out of eleven), Muslim students given three years probation (and fifty six hours of community service, as if denouncing genocide-the palpable intent of Israel’s small-c constitution for sixty three years-was not already a great service to the community) in a California court recently for doing what five Jewish students did in a New Orleans venue and were not even arrested for. Is that Federalism: sensitivity to local concerns within a national scheme of jurisprudence: or is it legal ineptitude? When that last phrase fails to trigger a laugh and “so when was ineptitude illegal?”, you know we’re in trouble.
    Considering our history, we should be getting closer to a reasonable society but currently we’re headed away from one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s