Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT Forum

[09042014]

That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.

No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

[Tautology]

That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.

No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

Sorry, I'm not seeing where it shows that URMs who take the LSAT are disproportionately economically disadvantaged.

Well, the research shows that most people don't really do much prep at all, so as it currently is, the advantage of time and resources for LSAT prep isn't really playing out for most of the LSAT-taking population.

Also an important point that an advantage can exist whether it is taken advantage of or not.

[goawaybee]

That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.

No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

thanks for this link...i am getting hoovered in via all the discussion and then got sucked into the notes on the bottom of 429. damn this at 3am.

[Scallywaggums]

--LinkRemoved--

2 points for the most intense reference I've encountered on TLS thus far. Did you read that whole thing at some point?

[09042014]

--LinkRemoved--

2 points for the most intense reference I've encountered on TLS thus far. Did you read that whole thing at some point?

No, it just came up in an affirmative action debate.

[Scallywaggums]

I see. In that case I will refrain from questioning your sanity. Carry on, then. ::hand waving::

[IAFG]

That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.

No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

you don't get it, DF. we have to protect the underprivileged from themselves. put away your "data" and "facts" and get on the excuse-making bandwagon.

[094320]

..

[Tautology]

That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.

No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

you don't get it, DF. we have to protect the underprivileged from themselves. put away your "data" and "facts" and get on the excuse-making bandwagon.

Could you help me with how the reference is related to what I said though? I'm still not seeing that.

[09042014]

That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.

No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

you don't get it, DF. we have to protect the underprivileged from themselves. put away your "data" and "facts" and get on the excuse-making bandwagon.

Could you help me with how the reference is related to what I said though? I'm still not seeing that.

They way I read your post was that you didn't think it's been show the LSAT predicts urm performance just as well as it does non-urm. Instead you meant you want it shown that urm students are in a lower economic status.

I'm not going to go find data to disprove your claims about the lsat. There is very simple data that could prove your argument. Go find it.

[IAFG]

That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.

No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

you don't get it, DF. we have to protect the underprivileged from themselves. put away your "data" and "facts" and get on the excuse-making bandwagon.

Could you help me with how the reference is related to what I said though? I'm still not seeing that.

that the LSAT is as good an indicator of LS performance for the wealthy and rich, which is its purpose, so there isn't a skewing bias in favor of the wealthy

[Tautology]

that the LSAT is as good an indicator of LS performance for the wealthy and rich, which is its purpose, so there isn't a skewing bias in favor of the wealthy

I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I didn't see it say that on the page or pages surrounding that I was directed to (and I haven't read the whole thing).

[IAFG]

that the LSAT is as good an indicator of LS performance for the wealthy and rich, which is its purpose, so there isn't a skewing bias in favor of the wealthy

I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I didn't see it say that on the page or pages surrounding that I was directed to (and I haven't read the whole thing).

minorities are poor. minorities are forgiven their weak LSATs. they then go on to perform poorly in LS. that is what i took DF's point to be anyway. if i am wrong, he'll cobble together some barely intelligible correction.

[Tautology]

that the LSAT is as good an indicator of LS performance for the wealthy and rich, which is its purpose, so there isn't a skewing bias in favor of the wealthy

I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I didn't see it say that on the page or pages surrounding that I was directed to (and I haven't read the whole thing).

minorities are poor. minorities are forgiven their weak LSATs. they then go on to perform poorly in LS. that is what i took DF's point to be anyway. if i am wrong, he'll cobble together some barely intelligible correction.

Right, but my point was that although minorities in general are poor, the subset of minorities who also take the LSAT will not necessarily look exactly like minorities as a whole. I didn't see that addressed.

[BarnabeSpooge]

I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

[IAFG]

I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?

[kk19131]

I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

This is exactly the kind of statement that troubles me.

[BarnabeSpooge]

I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?

I have absolutely no idea, but it might.

[09042014]

I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?

I have absolutely no idea, but it might.

It does. A URM dead last at a t14 will get big law.

[kk19131]

I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?

I have absolutely no idea, but it might.

It does. A URM dead last at a t14 will get big law.

Surely that's hyperbolic.

... even sounds a little jaded if you ask me.

[094320]

..

[Hey-O]

Taut, the problem with your argument is that you're asking law school to perform a service that should be performed by UG --> Namely, to provide disadvantage students with greater educational opportunities. I think that law school should do this to a certain extent but in the end law school is a professional school. It should mostly be concerned with the applicants' ability in law school.

Also, I disagree that unlearnability would advantage the poor. IQ tests strongly correlate with wealth as well.

[09042014]

doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?

I have absolutely no idea, but it might.

It does. A URM dead last at a t14 will get big law.

Surely that's hyperbolic.

... even sounds a little jaded if you ask me.

It's not hyperbolic. And what do I care, I'm not getting hired for a diversity initiative, me and URMs aren't even competing for the same jobs.

[kk19131]

Taut, the problem with your argument is that you're asking law school to perform a service that should be performed by UG --> Namely, to provide disadvantage students with greater educational opportunities. I think that law school should do this to a certain extent but in the end law school is a professional school. It should mostly be concerned with the applicants' ability in law school.

Also, I disagree that unlearnability would advantage the poor. IQ tests strongly correlate with wealth as well.

Are you saying that "professional" schools have little responsibility for providing advantages to disadvantaged populations?

What makes UG so different from law school...?

[BarnabeSpooge]

It does. A URM dead last at a t14 will get big law.

Page 467 of the paper you cited seems to disagree, and it was written in a better market.