Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby sundance95 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:24 pm

kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.



Not at all.

It's just my belief that if a test is to be "standard", the amount of money a person has to spend on prep. materials shouldn't give that person the boost that seems evident with the LSAT.

Honestly, I think a way to administer these tests would be for them to change radically from year to year.


But then LSAC wouldn't get those $$$ for selling PTs and licensing their tests to prep companies.

User avatar
kk19131
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby kk19131 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:26 pm

sundance95 wrote:
kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.



Not at all.

It's just my belief that if a test is to be "standard", the amount of money a person has to spend on prep. materials shouldn't give that person the boost that seems evident with the LSAT.

Honestly, I think a way to administer these tests would be for them to change radically from year to year.


But then LSAC wouldn't get those $$$ for selling PTs and licensing their tests to prep companies.




Yep.

I can only imagine how much Kaplan, etc. pay for licenses to LSAT questions.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby Ragged » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:27 pm

kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.



Not at all.

It's just my belief that if a test is to be "standard", the amount of money a person has to spend on prep. materials shouldn't give that person the boost that seems evident with the LSAT.

Honestly, I think a way to administer these tests would be for them to change radically from year to year.



They are trying to predict a person's potential ability in logical reasoning as well as a person's ability/motivation to prepare to take a test. As its my understanding there is alot of studying in LS.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby 09042014 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:27 pm

kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.



Not at all.

It's just my belief that if a test is to be "standard", the amount of money a person has to spend on prep. materials shouldn't give that person the boost that seems evident with the LSAT.

Honestly, I think a way to administer these tests would be for them to change radically from year to year.


I think the PT's should be available for free, but I don't think for a test to be standardized it must be unlearnable. It doesn't cost much to study for the LSAT. Those classes are useless. I firmly believe most would do better just self studying with the same intensity.

Remember the LSAT is really supposed to predict how well you a person can do on law school exams, which are learnable, and for which old exams do exist.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby Ragged » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:28 pm

kk19131 wrote:
Ragged wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.


Yea dude, logic fail. Better go take some of those PTs.


"Logic fail"?

What I fail is to see how you can make such an assertion when all I said is that the LSAC's releasing of practice tests is absurd - no "logic" was provided, no reasoning given.

Maybe you should take a course or two in critical reading.


lol bro, chill. I was just fucking with you.

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby Anaconda » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:33 pm

Then how could they consistently measure the test-takers if the format or question types change radically? Despite 59 previous tests being available for students to study, the scores are still relatively constant and the difficulty on all sections fluctuates every exam, and things always seem to even out.

Having the tests available rewards students who are hard-working and dedicated. You could have a lazy yet gifted person get a 175 without ever previously looking at an LSAT question, and in turn he could be a terrible lawyer because he's not hard working. It's a double edged sword.

kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.



Not at all.

It's just my belief that if a test is to be "standard", the amount of money a person has to spend on prep. materials shouldn't give that person the boost that seems evident with the LSAT.

Honestly, I think a better way to administer these tests would be for them to change radically from year to year.

User avatar
kk19131
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby kk19131 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:43 pm

How could they measure test-takers' ability? The same way they do now - with experimental sections. The difficulty of future tests is determined by answers given on experimental sections: nothing about that has to change.

Further, having practice tests available doesn't reward just hard-workers; it "rewards" those with the wherewithal to purchase the tests.


Anaconda wrote:Then how could they consistently measure the test-takers if the format or question types change radically? Despite 59 previous tests being available for students to study, the scores are still relatively constant and the difficulty on all sections fluctuates every exam, and things always seem to even out.

Having the tests available rewards students who are hard-working and dedicated. You could have a lazy yet gifted person get a 175 without ever previously looking at an LSAT question, and in turn he could be a terrible lawyer because he's not hard working. It's a double edged sword.

kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.



Not at all.

It's just my belief that if a test is to be "standard", the amount of money a person has to spend on prep. materials shouldn't give that person the boost that seems evident with the LSAT.

Honestly, I think a better way to administer these tests would be for them to change radically from year to year.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby IAFG » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:46 pm

kk19131 wrote:How could they measure test-takers' ability? The same way they do now - with experimental sections. The difficulty of future tests is determined by answers given on experimental sections: nothing about that has to change.

Further, having practice tests available doesn't reward just hard-workers; it "rewards" those with the wherewithal to purchase the tests.


or who have internet access and loose morals about IP

dk8
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:39 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby dk8 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:49 pm

kk19131 wrote:How could they measure test-takers' ability? The same way they do now - with experimental sections. The difficulty of future tests is determined by answers given on experimental sections: nothing about that has to change.

Further, having practice tests available doesn't reward just hard-workers; it "rewards" those with the wherewithal to purchase the tests.



the tests cost something like 8 bucks a pop. the vast majority of low-scorers aren't scoring low because they were so broke that they couldn't spend 80 bucks on prep tests.
Last edited by dk8 on Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dk8
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:39 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby dk8 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:50 pm

sorry for the double post.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby IAFG » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:50 pm

ok
Last edited by IAFG on Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dk8
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:39 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby dk8 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:51 pm

yeah, that was supposed to read "aren't". i screwed that all up.

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby acrossthelake » Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:25 pm

dk8 wrote:
kk19131 wrote:How could they measure test-takers' ability? The same way they do now - with experimental sections. The difficulty of future tests is determined by answers given on experimental sections: nothing about that has to change.

Further, having practice tests available doesn't reward just hard-workers; it "rewards" those with the wherewithal to purchase the tests.



the tests cost something like 8 bucks a pop. the vast majority of low-scorers aren't scoring low because they were so broke that they couldn't spend 80 bucks on prep tests.


Yeah, as stated above, you can also get a decent # of preptests used online very cheap. I don't really feel like the test changed in difficulty over time. I took a bunch of the exams and didn't really see firm improvement in my PT scores (did better on test day than my diagnostic by 5 points, only outdid my PT average by 3 points, which is within the margin of error...) The gains you see on TLS are not the norm.

princepointe
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby princepointe » Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:27 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
jeremydc wrote:Damn, I assumed it was a higher percentage being that a lot of the posters on here get a 170+. This is discouraging for real.


Selection bias. People here tend to be people who are actually researching the process and prepping for the exam rather than taking it blind. Also, people who think they're bound for top law schools, cuz they know they're likely to do well.



People here also LIE.lol

thechee
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:42 am

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby thechee » Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:37 pm

dk8 wrote:
kk19131 wrote:How could they measure test-takers' ability? The same way they do now - with experimental sections. The difficulty of future tests is determined by answers given on experimental sections: nothing about that has to change.

Further, having practice tests available doesn't reward just hard-workers; it "rewards" those with the wherewithal to purchase the tests.



the tests cost something like 8 bucks a pop. the vast majority of low-scorers aren't scoring low because they were so broke that they couldn't spend 80 bucks on prep tests.


Or just get the books of 10 at $20, or $2/test. If you get a low score because you told yourself that you couldn't afford prep tests, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than getting into law school.

User avatar
hobbsey
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby hobbsey » Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:13 pm

It’s really not that bad to study for the LSAT on a budget. I got all three of the “10 more” LSAT books from the college library near my house and copied the LGs at work. I bought two powerscore bibles and 8 of the newer PTs for 8$ from amazon. I think I also got the superprep book. I’m sure someone more diligent at looking for stuff in the library/career centers could have found the bibles and superprep. I spent about 150$ for 40-ish tests, less than 4 dollars a test, plus the free one online. Spread out over a couple of months of studying that is hardly an unreasonable amount even if you work part time or are a college kid.

User avatar
jeremydc
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby jeremydc » Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:17 pm

All PTs and explanations are available for free online (if you know where to look).

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby Scallywaggums » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:18 pm

There are some people who are unable to afford quality food, let alone study materials. And, some of these people do not realize that they are available for free. So yes, some are disadvantaged unfairly in this regard. However, denying access to study materials for a learn-able test is an extreme solution. I think the most fair solution is for LSAC to say "hey guys, if you prove to us that you can't afford to register for the LSAT (fee waiver), and you request free study materials, we'll assume you can't afford those either and hook you up with 30 Practice tests." Don't foresee this happening, but it's more plausible than LSAC walking away entirely from a major source of revenue.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby 09042014 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:24 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:There are some people who are unable to afford quality food, let alone study materials. And, some of these people do not realize that they are available for free. So yes, some are disadvantaged unfairly in this regard. However, denying access to study materials for a learn-able test is an extreme solution. I think the most fair solution is for LSAC to say "hey guys, if you prove to us that you can't afford to register for the LSAT (fee waiver), and you request free study materials, we'll assume you can't afford those either and hook you up with 30 Practice tests." Don't foresee this happening, but it's more plausible than LSAC walking away entirely from a major source of revenue.


They do give SuperPrep with a fee wavier. That is 4 tests with explanations. Throwing in 30 more would help.

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby Scallywaggums » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:27 pm

Desert Fox wrote:They do give SuperPrep with a fee wavier. That is 4 tests with explanations. Throwing in 30 more would help.

We agree.
4 tests can get you to the point of being comfortable with the material, but I certainly was not answering all the questions in time after my 4th practice test. Timing is huge, and it took me a while to settle into a groove that worked.

User avatar
justinmcl
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby justinmcl » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:37 pm

I think that there are financial barriers to doing well on the LSAT, especially if you are the type of person who needs to work hard at it to do well. I did self study and spent almost $300 on books, bible, and prep tests, I could afford this, but am starting to wish that I took a course. Other people have the time and money to take a prep course, whether or not you personally think that they are useless, lots of people take them and improve a considerable amount. But not only are they several thousand dollars, but they pretty much exclude working during the time that you take that class. Alot of students need to work during the summer, even ones whose parents help them (like me), meaning that even if you have the cash for a course, it still may not be feasible due to not working for about two months, whereas self-study is cheaper, and you can do it around a part-time job.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby FuManChusco » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:44 pm

justinmcl wrote:I think that there are financial barriers to doing well on the LSAT, especially if you are the type of person who needs to work hard at it to do well. I did self study and spent almost $300 on books, bible, and prep tests, I could afford this, but am starting to wish that I took a course. Other people have the time and money to take a prep course, whether or not you personally think that they are useless, lots of people take them and improve a considerable amount. But not only are they several thousand dollars, but they pretty much exclude working during the time that you take that class. Alot of students need to work during the summer, even ones whose parents help them (like me), meaning that even if you have the cash for a course, it still may not be feasible due to not working for about two months, whereas self-study is cheaper, and you can do it around a part-time job.


Meh, I wouldn't consider that a financial barrier. You don't need to take a course. You can get to your peak score through self-study. Many people have done it. A course just offers some structure.

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby thecilent » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:45 pm

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/lsat-tes ... not-logic/

(I don't agree with this article at all though -- and most people hated it.)

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby Knock » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:46 pm

FuManChusco wrote:
justinmcl wrote:I think that there are financial barriers to doing well on the LSAT, especially if you are the type of person who needs to work hard at it to do well. I did self study and spent almost $300 on books, bible, and prep tests, I could afford this, but am starting to wish that I took a course. Other people have the time and money to take a prep course, whether or not you personally think that they are useless, lots of people take them and improve a considerable amount. But not only are they several thousand dollars, but they pretty much exclude working during the time that you take that class. Alot of students need to work during the summer, even ones whose parents help them (like me), meaning that even if you have the cash for a course, it still may not be feasible due to not working for about two months, whereas self-study is cheaper, and you can do it around a part-time job.


Meh, I wouldn't consider that a financial barrier. You don't need to take a course. You can get to your peak score through self-study. Many people have done it. A course just offers some structure.


Honestly, if you're shooting for a top score, a class is a waste of money. I highly highly regret "taking" mine. Dropped $1,000 on a Powerscore class, ended up only attending the first two sessions before I decided self-studying would be a much better way to spend those 3 hours.

User avatar
kk19131
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

Postby kk19131 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:49 pm

Cilent21 wrote:http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/lsat-testing-wealth-not-logic/

(I don't agree with this article at all though -- and most people hated it.)




Lovely! :idea:




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SunDevil14, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests