LSAT'ing and Subterfuge
I remember my first introduction to critical reading while reading a Judy Blume excerpt for A.P. English. Blume was writing about a failed love. She talked of devices of artifice, subterfuge, that fooled her into believing a lie.
Perhaps its coincidental that I would encounter the same trouble later on. Now that I have sojourned into LSAT land, I've realized that I was also led to believe a lie. In college, I was told I was gaining 'critical reading' skills. I'm not blaming any of my professors; I don't hold them at fault. I think they were under the impression I was already skilled in this feat. And I believed them - and myself. I believed I could critically read.
Perhaps critical reading comes from an inherent curiosity that occurs in some readers, but not others. I never truly learned to critically read. I could interpret literature, I could capture the mood in a sonnet or dirge. I could write long papers about things I didn't know much about. But I didn't learn how to capture complex argumentative structures quickly.
Unfortunately, that's what I'm battling with right now in LSAT land. True - I do remember learning a great deal of critical reading skills in debate where I read many books on political, economic and psychological theory. But honestly, I spent hours going over pages in debate to make sure I understood arguments. I never found a quick way to vet through what the argument was saying.
Later on, other devices got in the way of critically reading for information: work, laziness, age and as I grew - the device unraveled. I'll call this my 'critical reading device.'
Now I have to activate it. I'm doing alright in LSAT land. I'm scheduling either for the June or October test and I'm hoping I do well. Until then - always question what you don't know. And remember - it's not super fudge - it's subterfuge!
Perhaps its coincidental that I would encounter the same trouble later on. Now that I have sojourned into LSAT land, I've realized that I was also led to believe a lie. In college, I was told I was gaining 'critical reading' skills. I'm not blaming any of my professors; I don't hold them at fault. I think they were under the impression I was already skilled in this feat. And I believed them - and myself. I believed I could critically read.
Perhaps critical reading comes from an inherent curiosity that occurs in some readers, but not others. I never truly learned to critically read. I could interpret literature, I could capture the mood in a sonnet or dirge. I could write long papers about things I didn't know much about. But I didn't learn how to capture complex argumentative structures quickly.
Unfortunately, that's what I'm battling with right now in LSAT land. True - I do remember learning a great deal of critical reading skills in debate where I read many books on political, economic and psychological theory. But honestly, I spent hours going over pages in debate to make sure I understood arguments. I never found a quick way to vet through what the argument was saying.
Later on, other devices got in the way of critically reading for information: work, laziness, age and as I grew - the device unraveled. I'll call this my 'critical reading device.'
Now I have to activate it. I'm doing alright in LSAT land. I'm scheduling either for the June or October test and I'm hoping I do well. Until then - always question what you don't know. And remember - it's not super fudge - it's subterfuge!