Self-study
Hi 7sagers,
I'm looking for a tutor after what I believe was a poor performance on Jan LSAT, my fourth. Previous best was a 160 in November and I was targeting a 162-3 this time around. I'm expecting under 160, definitely frustrating. Worked really hard, was doing 4 game sections plus some RC and LR every day, but I did a few PTs the week before the test and struggled. Went into the test a little unconfident.
It's been about 8 months of full-time studying and something needs to change. Effort is there but results aren't coming.
RC: Around -7 every time. The 2-passage RC passages suck up a lot of my time when I'm not getting the fine differences.
LR: Consistently around a -5 to -8.
LG: Around a -3 or -4 but I had poor timing on Jan LSAT, couldn't adequately attack 4th game.
My budget isn't crazy high but it's something, so DM me with your price regardless!
Thank you!
I'll give it a shot rewriting in layman's terms:
"Critics talk bad about the modernist architecture movement because in the 1960s and 70s the "modern architect" made all these ugly modernist buildings that really only cared about providing good function, cost-efficiency and utlity. Essentially, they made the walmart of buildings. You know you're getting a solidly-built thing at an affordable cost. But actually, those critics are not telling the whole story! That's because Wagner wrote the "seminal" (so, groundbreaking, OG book on the subject that is highly respected), in 1896, and it basically proves that all those ugly buildings from the 60s and 70s aren't telling the whole story of what the founders of Modernism envisioned (slightly tough inference: Wagner is indeed one of those founders).
Wagner wrote in his book that life and the world was changing so rapidly and everything was better and more advanced now, technologically, scientifically, politically. What a beautiful, awesome new world we live in! We need to make sure our buildings reflect all the awesomeness (in form/function). We must incorporate all these awesome new tech and science stuff we learned into what we build. But wait, isn't that exactly what those critics said? Didn't they just say that the ugly buildings in the 60s and 70s were all about form/function and they forgot to make it look nice? That's at the heart of what the critics are saying! So then Wagner isn't different at all. What gives?
Actually, it's more complicated than that. Wagner said of the two people - engineers and architects - that the architects could do their jobs as artists AND do the job of an engineer, but not the other way around. The nerdy engineers can't be artists. So actually, art is the "controlling influence" in modernism. Oh ok, so Wagner actually likes when stuff looks nice. He's not just obsessed with things bring built well, but actually respects art and beauty. Got it.
Wagner called himself a designer and also a Classicist (so maybe he liked stuff from Greek and Roman civilizations, the Italian Renaissance, and thought that what they created was really great). That's a bit of a paradox, but that's okay, isn't it? He's allowed to like different things and have different interests, just like we all are. So that inconsistency the paragraph talks about is this: he's a Classicist, but he also doesn't think we should just replicate what they built 1,500 years ago or 500 years ago or whenever. Remember, he said we live in a great new world and everything has to be new in the way we build stuff now (in their form/function). That's the tension that "made his writings so interesting". Yeah, I can understand how someone would find that kinda cool because it's a little bit unexpected. For example, he thought we should create circular churches (new) that made use of "sight lines" and something called a "gasometer", which seems like it's a new thing. But actually, the inspiration for all that fancy new stuff is from his love for the "centralized churches of the Italian Renaissance". Again, nothing wrong with that! Lots of people take stuff they loved as a kid as inspiration and make new modern stuff. We do that all the time in art, music, tech. Last sentence: he recognized we can't possibly replicate the conditions from when guys like Michelangelo or von Erlach (no idea who he is) made cool stuff. That's impossible. BUT, Wagner still had an emotional attachment to all that stuff they created.
Yes, it's dense, but it makes sense. In a sense, nearly everything new and cool we create today has at least some influence from stuff that people created way back in the day.