ilovethelsat wrote:I don't understand why everyone expects all races to be equally skilled at taking the LSAT.
We all accept that certain races are faster, stronger, taller, and darker than others. Why can't we accept that some races are smarter than others?
If someone sucked at writing poetry do we say that person cannot write? If someone can play country music but cannot rap are they less musically talented? The LSAT has a format that favors some people while disfavoring others. It just so happens that this test, created, administered, tweaked, formatted and reinvented by whites tends to culturally and socioeconomically favor whites.
There are conditions and nuances, some of which I have questioned above, that favor some whites...1) short (35 minute) bursts with interruptions...although some whites may not like that either...2) logic questions that favor people who have been drilled more thoroughly throughout their education in mathematics and sciences...3) testing that necessitates 6 months of free time that most URM's do not have.
In the same way that a black man may be much faster at running short distances than the typical white, while whites will mostly dust blacks at distance running (except for Ethiopians), the LSAT is just a test of certain skills. True, blacks have been described as having been endowed with "fast twitch muscle fiber" that may predispose them to extraordinary sprinting and jumping, but the LSAT still has very little to do with innate "intelligence". Sprinting is just one type of running; thus, blacks are NOT better runners than whites. Heck, some people just have bad eyesight and bad eye muscle movement. Some people have lower hand-eye coordination (all things that can affect test taking). The central nervous system is very complicated, yet certain types of tests affect people in different ways. Does that mean they are less intelligent? People may test differently, but that has little to do with intelligence.