I wanted to write about why that couple that crashed the President's first state dinner should be strung up and publicly flogged for days on end. But editorial rejected it because they wanted to me write something about the LSAT.
So then I offered to write an analysis of why our failure to punish a couple who crash a President's state dinner in hopes of landing a Bravo reality show indicates that the post WWII American empire is dead, dead, dead. That was rejected by editorial on grounds that it was the same as the first story (which it kind of was, but still), and because they wanted something about the LSAT.
Instead, I've been "asked" to write a piece far more complicated, which will inevitably be rife with speculation and controversy. Thus, I wade into the sordid issue of averaging LSAT scores.
Once upon a time, law schools used the average of your LSAT scores in the admissions process, and none of us even bothered to ask why.