Should I go to law school...?

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:04 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:I don't understand why people just don't take their three takes in college when it doesn't impact them at all. You know we strongly disagree on the harm taking a year off can do!

I mean, you get that plenty of people decide to go to law school WELLLLLLLL after they graduate from college, right? Damn.

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby Ferrisjso » Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:58 am

cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:The numbers are there on another thread, people should expect a small increase the second time and a small decrease the third time. Also while in theory the whole, "you control your own destiny not a curve" in the LSAT is true, at the end of the day to a science almost the same percentage of people get a 160-165-165 plus etc, in practice it might as well be on a hard curve. I don't understand why people just don't take their three takes in college when it doesn't impact them at all. You know we strongly disagree on the harm taking a year off can do!


Actually, I showed you the numbers on this thread, and you ignored them. And you once again brought up irrelevant data from another thread, which only showed the average scores for second and third-time takers, not the average increase/decrease. And no, for what has to be the fiftieth time, the LSAT is not a forced curve. The curve is set based on how LSAC predicts people will perform, not on your actual performance relative to others. I do not know how this concept hasn't sunken in yet, but this is getting tiresome.

Perhaps most importantly, you have never demonstrated that a year off does any harm, so it's not a disagreement. A disagreement is when two people have equally valid but differing points of view. You're just flat-out wrong.


Agree on the last part strongly but that's not the case here, not even close. Using that viewpoint for stuff like this really discredits it as an argument so please stop. The LSAT isn't a forced curve but it might as well be because about the same percentage get the same score,what difference does it make it that outcome is formally guaranteed by a forced curve? I do not know how many times I need to explain this.

Yeah the numbers you showed were debunked if my memory serves correctly. So yes I ignored them. Also the average scores weren't the stat, it was how much that average increased/declined! Small increase second time, small decrease third time.

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby Ferrisjso » Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:00 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:I don't understand why people just don't take their three takes in college when it doesn't impact them at all. You know we strongly disagree on the harm taking a year off can do!

I mean, you get that plenty of people decide to go to law school WELLLLLLLL after they graduate from college, right? Damn.


Yes I do get this, and these aren't the people I'm referring to, because clearly taking a year off isn't an issue if they've taken off several(or more). I'm talking about your typical K-JD student or K/1 year/JD student which tends to be the most prevalent scenarios for people going to law school. Maybe that's just me reflecting my situation on others but I'm under the impression most 0L's on here asking for advice are college kids.

uion1715

New
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:58 am

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby uion1715 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:12 am

The thing is that most people taking the LSAT do not prep. I would say those who prep extensively for the LSAT is around 10-20 percent (A ballpark estimate) of the test takers.

Given that the LSAT is a learnable, improvable test, and that the most test takers don't prep, you can easily get ahead of the curve by simply prepping and retaking. Sure, it may be unreasonable for people to expect 175+ even with prep, but 165+ (which opens most regional full rides) is easily achievable.

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:16 am

Ferrisjso wrote:Agree on the last part strongly but that's not the case here, not even close. Using that viewpoint for stuff like this really discredits it as an argument so please stop. The LSAT isn't a forced curve but it might as well be because about the same percentage get the same score,what difference does it make it that outcome is formally guaranteed by a forced curve? I do not know how many times I need to explain this.

Yeah the numbers you showed were debunked if my memory serves correctly. So yes I ignored them. Also the average scores weren't the stat, it was how much that average increased/declined! Small increase second time, small decrease third time.


So you have shown evidence that a year off is often detrimental? Do. Tell.

And I really don't know how else to get the idea of a forced curve across to you. The fact that the test-writers predict how many people will score in a certain band doesn't actually affect your score. Your score is determined solely by your performance, and not by anyone else's. On a forced curve, your grade is determined only in relation to those around you. These are not difficult concepts to grasp, but if you never understand anything else on these forums, you really need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the grading systems for the LSAT and for law school exams.

Also, I have no idea why you think the official, LSAC-provided numbers that I linked were "debunked". They come directly from the test center and provide a raw data breakdown of what people can statistically expect with a retake. The fact that it goes against your worldview appears to upset you, but that doesn't "debunk" the numbers. Once again, you're referring to a set of scores that are taken in a void. The fact that third-time test-takers had an average score one point lower than second-time test-takers tells us absolutely nothing about how many third-time test-takers improved and how many didn't. I know we're all going into law because we suck at math, but this is pretty basic stuff.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:10 am

Also even a small increase can see a big improvement in outcomes.

User avatar
lymenheimer

Gold
Posts: 3979
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:54 am

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby lymenheimer » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:07 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Also even a small increase can see a big improvement in outcomes.

Can't you just give him a tag like "don't substantively respond to me", "i don't understand very good", or something?

User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby UVA2B » Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:04 am

lymenheimer wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:Also even a small increase can see a big improvement in outcomes.

Can't you just give him a tag like "don't substantively respond to me", "i don't understand very good", or something?


Seconded. An auto-correct of every post that says, "I don't know what I'm talking about." Could be really helpful for those not aware in contextualizing his backward slide into contrived BS.

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby Ferrisjso » Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:00 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:Agree on the last part strongly but that's not the case here, not even close. Using that viewpoint for stuff like this really discredits it as an argument so please stop. The LSAT isn't a forced curve but it might as well be because about the same percentage get the same score,what difference does it make it that outcome is formally guaranteed by a forced curve? I do not know how many times I need to explain this.

Yeah the numbers you showed were debunked if my memory serves correctly. So yes I ignored them. Also the average scores weren't the stat, it was how much that average increased/declined! Small increase second time, small decrease third time.


So you have shown evidence that a year off is often detrimental? Do. Tell.

And I really don't know how else to get the idea of a forced curve across to you. The fact that the test-writers predict how many people will score in a certain band doesn't actually affect your score. Your score is determined solely by your performance, and not by anyone else's. On a forced curve, your grade is determined only in relation to those around you. These are not difficult concepts to grasp, but if you never understand anything else on these forums, you really need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the grading systems for the LSAT and for law school exams.

Also, I have no idea why you think the official, LSAC-provided numbers that I linked were "debunked". They come directly from the test center and provide a raw data breakdown of what people can statistically expect with a retake. The fact that it goes against your worldview appears to upset you, but that doesn't "debunk" the numbers. Once again, you're referring to a set of scores that are taken in a void. The fact that third-time test-takers had an average score one point lower than second-time test-takers tells us absolutely nothing about how many third-time test-takers improved and how many didn't. I know we're all going into law because we suck at math, but this is pretty basic stuff.


I don't need to show evidence of taking a year off detrimental, you just need to respect if people don't want to wait a year , which is very rarely done(which isn't the case here). Still this is not just a me issue many threads have had people who haven't wanted to wait a year and that should be respected and seen a concern not cast aside so people can retake a test that will not inherently get them what they want. If reapplying will get someone a better guaranteed outcome because they applied late and/or were lowballed then the whole reapply/retake advice becomes much more of a no brainier(I've given this advice) but just retaking because some people misled you about how likely a score increase is just doesn't make sense to me.

Also I was thinking of other numbers but those are the raw numbers, it doesn't say how much higher people do on their first and third take, averages are a lot more helpful because it gives us a picture of how much better or worse the general population does.
Last edited by Ferrisjso on Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rigo

Diamond
Posts: 16642
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby Rigo » Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:03 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:Agree on the last part strongly but that's not the case here, not even close. Using that viewpoint for stuff like this really discredits it as an argument so please stop. The LSAT isn't a forced curve but it might as well be because about the same percentage get the same score,what difference does it make it that outcome is formally guaranteed by a forced curve? I do not know how many times I need to explain this.

Yeah the numbers you showed were debunked if my memory serves correctly. So yes I ignored them. Also the average scores weren't the stat, it was how much that average increased/declined! Small increase second time, small decrease third time.


So you have shown evidence that a year off is often detrimental? Do. Tell.

And I really don't know how else to get the idea of a forced curve across to you. The fact that the test-writers predict how many people will score in a certain band doesn't actually affect your score. Your score is determined solely by your performance, and not by anyone else's. On a forced curve, your grade is determined only in relation to those around you. These are not difficult concepts to grasp, but if you never understand anything else on these forums, you really need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the grading systems for the LSAT and for law school exams.

Also, I have no idea why you think the official, LSAC-provided numbers that I linked were "debunked". They come directly from the test center and provide a raw data breakdown of what people can statistically expect with a retake. The fact that it goes against your worldview appears to upset you, but that doesn't "debunk" the numbers. Once again, you're referring to a set of scores that are taken in a void. The fact that third-time test-takers had an average score one point lower than second-time test-takers tells us absolutely nothing about how many third-time test-takers improved and how many didn't. I know we're all going into law because we suck at math, but this is pretty basic stuff.


I don't need to show evidence of taking a year off detrimental, you just need to respect if people don't want to wait a year , which is very rarely done. I was thinking of other numbers but those are the raw numbers, it doesn't say how much higher people do on their first and third take, averages are a lot more helpful.

It's way more common to take time off between undergrad and law school than to not. When schools post their median matriculating applicant age they're generally at least 24. That's not a lot of time off, but it's 1-2 years for most people.

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby Ferrisjso » Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:06 pm

Rigo wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:Agree on the last part strongly but that's not the case here, not even close. Using that viewpoint for stuff like this really discredits it as an argument so please stop. The LSAT isn't a forced curve but it might as well be because about the same percentage get the same score,what difference does it make it that outcome is formally guaranteed by a forced curve? I do not know how many times I need to explain this.

Yeah the numbers you showed were debunked if my memory serves correctly. So yes I ignored them. Also the average scores weren't the stat, it was how much that average increased/declined! Small increase second time, small decrease third time.


So you have shown evidence that a year off is often detrimental? Do. Tell.

And I really don't know how else to get the idea of a forced curve across to you. The fact that the test-writers predict how many people will score in a certain band doesn't actually affect your score. Your score is determined solely by your performance, and not by anyone else's. On a forced curve, your grade is determined only in relation to those around you. These are not difficult concepts to grasp, but if you never understand anything else on these forums, you really need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the grading systems for the LSAT and for law school exams.

Also, I have no idea why you think the official, LSAC-provided numbers that I linked were "debunked". They come directly from the test center and provide a raw data breakdown of what people can statistically expect with a retake. The fact that it goes against your worldview appears to upset you, but that doesn't "debunk" the numbers. Once again, you're referring to a set of scores that are taken in a void. The fact that third-time test-takers had an average score one point lower than second-time test-takers tells us absolutely nothing about how many third-time test-takers improved and how many didn't. I know we're all going into law because we suck at math, but this is pretty basic stuff.


I don't need to show evidence of taking a year off detrimental, you just need to respect if people don't want to wait a year , which is very rarely done. I was thinking of other numbers but those are the raw numbers, it doesn't say how much higher people do on their first and third take, averages are a lot more helpful.

It's way more common to take time off between undergrad and law school than to not. When schools post their median matriculating applicant age they're generally at least 24. That's not a lot of time off, but it's 1-2 years for most people.


Sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant respect is very rarely shown to people who don't want to wait a year, I didn't mean people waiting a year was rare. My bad.

Rigo

Diamond
Posts: 16642
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby Rigo » Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:10 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:Sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant respect is very rarely shown to people who don't want to wait a year, I didn't mean people waiting a year was rare. My bad.

Oh I see. My bad.
Most of the time k-jd's just have really silly My Parents Are Making Meeeeee! type reasons for stubbornly matriculating with subpar stats. They just tend to really show their immaturity and don't understand the huge life-long consequences going to law school will have.

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:17 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:I don't need to show evidence of taking a year off detrimental, you just need to respect if people don't want to wait a year , which is very rarely done(which isn't the case here). Still this is not just a me issue many threads have had people who haven't wanted to wait a year and that should be respected and seen a concern not cast aside so people can retake a test that will not inherently get them what they want. If reapplying will get someone a better guaranteed outcome because they applied late and/or were lowballed then the whole reapply/retake advice becomes much more of a no brainier(I've given this advice) but just retaking because some people misled you about how likely a score increase is just doesn't make sense to me.

Also I was thinking of other numbers but those are the raw numbers, it doesn't say how much higher people do on their first and third take, averages are a lot more helpful because it gives us a picture of how much better or worse the general population does.


Actually, since there has been plenty of evidence presented to show that retaking is beneficial (again, refer to the table of numbers you keep ignoring), yes, you do need to show evidence that taking the year off is detrimental.

And no, the average numbers you're referring to do not give us a better picture of how likely a score increase is on a retake. Let's demonstrate using real-world examples, because you still haven't grasped what the numbers actually mean. We'll take 10 potential people (represented by letters) on a test that's scored on a scale of 0-100, just to make it easier.

First take:
A- 40, B- 40, C- 40, D- 60, E- 60, F- 60, G-70, H- 90, I- 90, J- 100.
Average score: 65

Second take (high scorers aren't coming back)
A- 50, B-50, C-50, D-63, E-67, F-80, G-90
Average score: 64

Notice that every single one of our test-takers improved. Every last one of them. And yet, the data that you're concerned with shows that the average score went down. How could this be? What travesty of arcane mathematicka has rendered such an outcome possible?

This is why it is infinitely more valuable to look at the raw data of whether people did better, worse, or neither on their retake. Because improvement is only relevant when measured in comparison to the individual's prior performance, not the overall mean. And I can't believe I had to take the time to do math to explain this to you.

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby Ferrisjso » Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:21 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:I don't need to show evidence of taking a year off detrimental, you just need to respect if people don't want to wait a year , which is very rarely done(which isn't the case here). Still this is not just a me issue many threads have had people who haven't wanted to wait a year and that should be respected and seen a concern not cast aside so people can retake a test that will not inherently get them what they want. If reapplying will get someone a better guaranteed outcome because they applied late and/or were lowballed then the whole reapply/retake advice becomes much more of a no brainier(I've given this advice) but just retaking because some people misled you about how likely a score increase is just doesn't make sense to me.

Also I was thinking of other numbers but those are the raw numbers, it doesn't say how much higher people do on their first and third take, averages are a lot more helpful because it gives us a picture of how much better or worse the general population does.


Actually, since there has been plenty of evidence presented to show that retaking is beneficial (again, refer to the table of numbers you keep ignoring), yes, you do need to show evidence that taking the year off is detrimental.

And no, the average numbers you're referring to do not give us a better picture of how likely a score increase is on a retake. Let's demonstrate using real-world examples, because you still haven't grasped what the numbers actually mean. We'll take 10 potential people (represented by letters) on a test that's scored on a scale of 0-100, just to make it easier.

First take:
A- 40, B- 40, C- 40, D- 60, E- 60, F- 60, G-70, H- 90, I- 90, J- 100.
Average score: 65

Second take (high scorers aren't coming back)
A- 50, B-50, C-50, D-63, E-67, F-80, G-90
Average score: 64

Notice that every single one of our test-takers improved. Every last one of them. And yet, the data that you're concerned with shows that the average score went down. How could this be? What travesty of arcane mathematicka has rendered such an outcome possible?

This is why it is infinitely more valuable to look at the raw data of whether people did better, worse, or neither on their retake. Because improvement is only relevant when measured in comparison to the individual's prior performance, not the overall mean. And I can't believe I had to take the time to do math to explain this to you.


But the average did show that people did better on the second take, just barely though. I think maybe I was referring to the median? yeah I know I sound stupid saying that but hey us lawyers are supposed to hate math;)

User avatar
guynourmin

Gold
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:42 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby guynourmin » Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:57 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:I don't need to show evidence of taking a year off detrimental, you just need to respect if people don't want to wait a year , which is very rarely done(which isn't the case here). Still this is not just a me issue many threads have had people who haven't wanted to wait a year and that should be respected and seen a concern not cast aside so people can retake a test that will not inherently get them what they want. If reapplying will get someone a better guaranteed outcome because they applied late and/or were lowballed then the whole reapply/retake advice becomes much more of a no brainier(I've given this advice) but just retaking because some people misled you about how likely a score increase is just doesn't make sense to me.

Also I was thinking of other numbers but those are the raw numbers, it doesn't say how much higher people do on their first and third take, averages are a lot more helpful because it gives us a picture of how much better or worse the general population does.


Actually, since there has been plenty of evidence presented to show that retaking is beneficial (again, refer to the table of numbers you keep ignoring), yes, you do need to show evidence that taking the year off is detrimental.

And no, the average numbers you're referring to do not give us a better picture of how likely a score increase is on a retake. Let's demonstrate using real-world examples, because you still haven't grasped what the numbers actually mean. We'll take 10 potential people (represented by letters) on a test that's scored on a scale of 0-100, just to make it easier.

First take:
A- 40, B- 40, C- 40, D- 60, E- 60, F- 60, G-70, H- 90, I- 90, J- 100.
Average score: 65

Second take (high scorers aren't coming back)
A- 50, B-50, C-50, D-63, E-67, F-80, G-90
Average score: 64

Notice that every single one of our test-takers improved. Every last one of them. And yet, the data that you're concerned with shows that the average score went down. How could this be? What travesty of arcane mathematicka has rendered such an outcome possible?

This is why it is infinitely more valuable to look at the raw data of whether people did better, worse, or neither on their retake. Because improvement is only relevant when measured in comparison to the individual's prior performance, not the overall mean. And I can't believe I had to take the time to do math to explain this to you.


But the average did show that people did better on the second take, just barely though. I think maybe I was referring to the median? yeah I know I sound stupid saying that but hey us lawyers are supposed to hate math;)


I hate you ;) good luck in life, though. I'm "foeing" you

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby Ferrisjso » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:01 pm

guybourdin wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:I don't need to show evidence of taking a year off detrimental, you just need to respect if people don't want to wait a year , which is very rarely done(which isn't the case here). Still this is not just a me issue many threads have had people who haven't wanted to wait a year and that should be respected and seen a concern not cast aside so people can retake a test that will not inherently get them what they want. If reapplying will get someone a better guaranteed outcome because they applied late and/or were lowballed then the whole reapply/retake advice becomes much more of a no brainier(I've given this advice) but just retaking because some people misled you about how likely a score increase is just doesn't make sense to me.

Also I was thinking of other numbers but those are the raw numbers, it doesn't say how much higher people do on their first and third take, averages are a lot more helpful because it gives us a picture of how much better or worse the general population does.


Actually, since there has been plenty of evidence presented to show that retaking is beneficial (again, refer to the table of numbers you keep ignoring), yes, you do need to show evidence that taking the year off is detrimental.

And no, the average numbers you're referring to do not give us a better picture of how likely a score increase is on a retake. Let's demonstrate using real-world examples, because you still haven't grasped what the numbers actually mean. We'll take 10 potential people (represented by letters) on a test that's scored on a scale of 0-100, just to make it easier.

First take:
A- 40, B- 40, C- 40, D- 60, E- 60, F- 60, G-70, H- 90, I- 90, J- 100.
Average score: 65

Second take (high scorers aren't coming back)
A- 50, B-50, C-50, D-63, E-67, F-80, G-90
Average score: 64

Notice that every single one of our test-takers improved. Every last one of them. And yet, the data that you're concerned with shows that the average score went down. How could this be? What travesty of arcane mathematicka has rendered such an outcome possible?

This is why it is infinitely more valuable to look at the raw data of whether people did better, worse, or neither on their retake. Because improvement is only relevant when measured in comparison to the individual's prior performance, not the overall mean. And I can't believe I had to take the time to do math to explain this to you.


But the average did show that people did better on the second take, just barely though. I think maybe I was referring to the median? yeah I know I sound stupid saying that but hey us lawyers are supposed to hate math;)


I hate you ;) good luck in life, though. I'm "foeing" you


Love you to!

User avatar
jjcorvino

Silver
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:49 am

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby jjcorvino » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:05 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:I don't need to show evidence of taking a year off detrimental, you just need to respect if people don't want to wait a year , which is very rarely done(which isn't the case here). Still this is not just a me issue many threads have had people who haven't wanted to wait a year and that should be respected and seen a concern not cast aside so people can retake a test that will not inherently get them what they want. If reapplying will get someone a better guaranteed outcome because they applied late and/or were lowballed then the whole reapply/retake advice becomes much more of a no brainier(I've given this advice) but just retaking because some people misled you about how likely a score increase is just doesn't make sense to me.

Also I was thinking of other numbers but those are the raw numbers, it doesn't say how much higher people do on their first and third take, averages are a lot more helpful because it gives us a picture of how much better or worse the general population does.


Actually, since there has been plenty of evidence presented to show that retaking is beneficial (again, refer to the table of numbers you keep ignoring), yes, you do need to show evidence that taking the year off is detrimental.

And no, the average numbers you're referring to do not give us a better picture of how likely a score increase is on a retake. Let's demonstrate using real-world examples, because you still haven't grasped what the numbers actually mean. We'll take 10 potential people (represented by letters) on a test that's scored on a scale of 0-100, just to make it easier.

First take:
A- 40, B- 40, C- 40, D- 60, E- 60, F- 60, G-70, H- 90, I- 90, J- 100.
Average score: 65

Second take (high scorers aren't coming back)
A- 50, B-50, C-50, D-63, E-67, F-80, G-90
Average score: 64

Notice that every single one of our test-takers improved. Every last one of them. And yet, the data that you're concerned with shows that the average score went down. How could this be? What travesty of arcane mathematicka has rendered such an outcome possible?

This is why it is infinitely more valuable to look at the raw data of whether people did better, worse, or neither on their retake. Because improvement is only relevant when measured in comparison to the individual's prior performance, not the overall mean. And I can't believe I had to take the time to do math to explain this to you.


But the average did show that people did better on the second take, just barely though. I think maybe I was referring to the median? yeah I know I sound stupid saying that but hey us lawyers are supposed to hate math;)


If you don't understand the math/statistics why do you keep insisting that the people that do are wrong?

User avatar
Ferrisjso

Gold
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby Ferrisjso » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:18 pm

jjcorvino wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:I don't need to show evidence of taking a year off detrimental, you just need to respect if people don't want to wait a year , which is very rarely done(which isn't the case here). Still this is not just a me issue many threads have had people who haven't wanted to wait a year and that should be respected and seen a concern not cast aside so people can retake a test that will not inherently get them what they want. If reapplying will get someone a better guaranteed outcome because they applied late and/or were lowballed then the whole reapply/retake advice becomes much more of a no brainier(I've given this advice) but just retaking because some people misled you about how likely a score increase is just doesn't make sense to me.

Also I was thinking of other numbers but those are the raw numbers, it doesn't say how much higher people do on their first and third take, averages are a lot more helpful because it gives us a picture of how much better or worse the general population does.


Actually, since there has been plenty of evidence presented to show that retaking is beneficial (again, refer to the table of numbers you keep ignoring), yes, you do need to show evidence that taking the year off is detrimental.

And no, the average numbers you're referring to do not give us a better picture of how likely a score increase is on a retake. Let's demonstrate using real-world examples, because you still haven't grasped what the numbers actually mean. We'll take 10 potential people (represented by letters) on a test that's scored on a scale of 0-100, just to make it easier.

First take:
A- 40, B- 40, C- 40, D- 60, E- 60, F- 60, G-70, H- 90, I- 90, J- 100.
Average score: 65

Second take (high scorers aren't coming back)
A- 50, B-50, C-50, D-63, E-67, F-80, G-90
Average score: 64

Notice that every single one of our test-takers improved. Every last one of them. And yet, the data that you're concerned with shows that the average score went down. How could this be? What travesty of arcane mathematicka has rendered such an outcome possible?

This is why it is infinitely more valuable to look at the raw data of whether people did better, worse, or neither on their retake. Because improvement is only relevant when measured in comparison to the individual's prior performance, not the overall mean. And I can't believe I had to take the time to do math to explain this to you.


But the average did show that people did better on the second take, just barely though. I think maybe I was referring to the median? yeah I know I sound stupid saying that but hey us lawyers are supposed to hate math;)


If you don't understand the math/statistics why do you keep insisting that the people that do are wrong?


Because I get confused between average and median sometimes because it uses percentages. Was still citing the same numbers.

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby cavalier1138 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:23 pm

Ferrisjso wrote:
jjcorvino wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Ferrisjso wrote:I don't need to show evidence of taking a year off detrimental, you just need to respect if people don't want to wait a year , which is very rarely done(which isn't the case here). Still this is not just a me issue many threads have had people who haven't wanted to wait a year and that should be respected and seen a concern not cast aside so people can retake a test that will not inherently get them what they want. If reapplying will get someone a better guaranteed outcome because they applied late and/or were lowballed then the whole reapply/retake advice becomes much more of a no brainier(I've given this advice) but just retaking because some people misled you about how likely a score increase is just doesn't make sense to me.

Also I was thinking of other numbers but those are the raw numbers, it doesn't say how much higher people do on their first and third take, averages are a lot more helpful because it gives us a picture of how much better or worse the general population does.


Actually, since there has been plenty of evidence presented to show that retaking is beneficial (again, refer to the table of numbers you keep ignoring), yes, you do need to show evidence that taking the year off is detrimental.

And no, the average numbers you're referring to do not give us a better picture of how likely a score increase is on a retake. Let's demonstrate using real-world examples, because you still haven't grasped what the numbers actually mean. We'll take 10 potential people (represented by letters) on a test that's scored on a scale of 0-100, just to make it easier.

First take:
A- 40, B- 40, C- 40, D- 60, E- 60, F- 60, G-70, H- 90, I- 90, J- 100.
Average score: 65

Second take (high scorers aren't coming back)
A- 50, B-50, C-50, D-63, E-67, F-80, G-90
Average score: 64

Notice that every single one of our test-takers improved. Every last one of them. And yet, the data that you're concerned with shows that the average score went down. How could this be? What travesty of arcane mathematicka has rendered such an outcome possible?

This is why it is infinitely more valuable to look at the raw data of whether people did better, worse, or neither on their retake. Because improvement is only relevant when measured in comparison to the individual's prior performance, not the overall mean. And I can't believe I had to take the time to do math to explain this to you.


But the average did show that people did better on the second take, just barely though. I think maybe I was referring to the median? yeah I know I sound stupid saying that but hey us lawyers are supposed to hate math;)


If you don't understand the math/statistics why do you keep insisting that the people that do are wrong?


Because I get confused between average and median sometimes because it uses percentages. Was still citing the same numbers.


And doing it incorrectly. Again.

I mean, holy shit. I actually went to the trouble of laying out a specific hypothetical to show you how it works. I even structured it to show you that a lower average score between all retakers didn't have anything to do with the individual performance of those retakers. And yet you still managed to completely miss the point.

Confirmation bias is a helluva drug.

thewhalefish

New
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:58 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby thewhalefish » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:40 pm

edit: mods just delete this post please. Just realized the issue. Thanks.

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby BigZuck » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:40 pm

This thread. Wow.

User avatar
zot1

Gold
Posts: 4474
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby zot1 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:47 pm

All LSAT takers are average.

User avatar
beforethelaw

New
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:20 am

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby beforethelaw » Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:51 am

BigZuck wrote:This thread. Wow.


Real trainwreck... although I'm happy with most of the advice I got haha
Last edited by beforethelaw on Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
northwood

Moderator
Posts: 5030
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Should I go to law school...?

Postby northwood » Sun Mar 05, 2017 12:45 pm

beforethelaw wrote:
BigZuck wrote:This thread. Wow.


Real clusterfuck... although I'm happy with most of the advice I got haha



OP, I'm a relatively new practicing attorney (2+ years), and I believe I understand your situation ( to summarize, albeit briefly): You want to become a Public Defender and you want to go to law school. You may have the stats to get into the school in the area where you want to practice, but yet a few more points ( possibly 10 more questions, or 3-4 more correct responses per section) may yield both a greater likelihood of acceptance and also simultaneously increase the likelihood ( and amount) of scholarship award(s).

My advice is this: start studying now for a June/ September retake. Review each section and type of question that you answered incorrectly and also refresh your skills on the questions/ sections that you answered correctly. In the meantime work (or at least volunteer) at a PD office/ or with attorneys who represent criminal defendants pro bono. That will allow you to both gain a better insight (law school does not give you much, if not actual insight into various areas of law), experience and also contacts/ networking opportunities. In addition, should you find that the work is not for you, then you may either choose another career in law, or leave the idea of law all together. If you do find out that you like the day to day aspect of the practice of law (which can become very mundane and mind numbing at times) but do not like PD work ( its not for everyone), then the higher LSAT score will allow you more options to go to law school for a less debt as possible. Even 100K of law school debt is a huge anvil, which should definitely not be taken lightly. On the other hand, should you score well, and find that PD work is your life's passion, then the added experience and lesser debt will greatly assist your career and future endeavors.

Remember: law school is not going anywhere. While one additional year may seem like a long time right now, in about 5 years (when you are practicing law and the reality of law school loans become an actual part of your financial responsibility) you do not want to say " Wonder what it would be if I only scored 3 points higher... perhaps I could have saved some money".



Return to “Choosing a Law School�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests