So yesterday I took two exams, one in Management of information resources in the public sector, and the other in Contemporary political philosophy.

I'm not sure how I did on the first one, but I'm not especially concerned either. I would have to get below a fifty in order to not get an A in that class. As for Contemporary Political Philosophy... that one I gambled on a bit, and my gamble worked great.

You see, we were told that 6 questions would be on the exam, 3 in each of two sections. We were told we had to answer three, at least one from each section. Logically, if I knew four very well then I'd be guaranteed to do well on the exam. I didn't know four very well. I didn't even know one very well. So I gambled, studying three in hopes that I'd absorb enough information in two days to answer those three questions thoroughly. I'd be guaranteed that two of them would be in sections I could answer them from. The third would have a fifty/fifty chance. Well... it worked out and I'm pretty sure I aced the exam. I probably didn't get a 100, this is one of those professors (like most, it seems) who is extremely reluctant to give someone 100% credit, but I'm pretty sure I at least got an A.

My next exam comes tomorrow, where I get to write an essay about how reorganizing the planet such that nations are all replaced by theocratic communities and the united nations is just as weak as ever but also the only place where secularity exists is a terrible horrible no good very bad idea.

You know, its one thing for a book titled as a religion's social contract to espouse such ideas, but I'm extremely disappointed that a book entitled "The Liberal Conscience" would ever promote such a thing.