Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

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 4:52 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.)

probably bc it presumes its conclusion

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 4:56 pm

IAFG wrote:
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.)

probably bc it presumes its conclusion


Uh oh... somebody's been studying for the LSAT.

:lol:

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby acrossthelake » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:58 pm

There's nothing they teach you in a class that you can't self-teach.

Scallywaggums wrote:
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.


You can get 30 more for less than $25 online. If one cannot scrounge up $25, perhaps a loan? Could be the most effective $25 loan ever taken out.

Edit: Okay maybe $30.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/ ... ition=used
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/ ... ition=used
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/ ... ition=used

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 5:03 pm

kk19131 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
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.)

probably bc it presumes its conclusion


Uh oh... somebody's been studying for the LSAT.

:lol:

lol it's behind me now, thank God

cubswin
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:40 pm

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

Postby cubswin » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:04 pm

Knockglock wrote:
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.


Seriously. Most people that take prep classes don't end up above a 170. Articles focused on the socioeconomic injustice of the LSAT always leave this part out.

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 5:05 pm

cubswin wrote:
Knockglock wrote:
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.


Seriously. Most people that take prep classes don't end up above a 170. Articles focused on the socioeconomic injustice of the LSAT always leave this part out.


Yeah. My instructors told me such things as best guessing strategies, it's okay to leave questions blank, that he never got a -0 on RC, etc. I mean sure it's helpful I guess if you're shooting for a lower score, but definitely not if you're shooting for 170+. Honestly, they just hold your hands and take you through the Bibles. Save yourself the cash (I wish I did) and self-study.

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 5:11 pm

cubswin wrote:
Knockglock wrote:
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.


Seriously. Most people that take prep classes don't end up above a 170. Articles focused on the socioeconomic injustice of the LSAT always leave this part out.



That's not the point... I believe the argument is that MOST people who study do BETTER than they would if they couldn't study... with the more studying one does equaling (in general) a better score.

How can people come in here and claim that the LSAC wants people to be able to learn the test, yet simultaneously deny that having more monies for prep materials gives an advantage.

Those ideas are incongruous.

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 5:16 pm

kk19131 wrote:

That's not the point... I believe the argument is that MOST people who study do BETTER than they would if they couldn't study... with the more studying one does equaling (in general) a better score.

How can people come in here and claim that the LSAC wants people to be able to learn the test, yet simultaneously deny that having more monies for prep materials gives an advantage.

Those ideas are incongruous.


Self Prep material is very cheap. It is probably the cheapest part of the entire process. Self prep is better than any fancy class. The benefit comes from being forced to study by class. My sympathy for self studiers who are too lazy to put effort in, is zero.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby acrossthelake » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:28 pm

kk19131 wrote:
That's not the point... I believe the argument is that MOST people who study do BETTER than they would if they couldn't study... with the more studying one does equaling (in general) a better score.

How can people come in here and claim that the LSAC wants people to be able to learn the test, yet simultaneously deny that having more monies for prep materials gives an advantage.

Those ideas are incongruous.


Cuz I'm guessing that the number of applications for whom $30 is just way too much for test prep materials is a relatively small number that outside of these specific individuals, money doesn't make a difference.

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 5:29 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:

That's not the point... I believe the argument is that MOST people who study do BETTER than they would if they couldn't study... with the more studying one does equaling (in general) a better score.

How can people come in here and claim that the LSAC wants people to be able to learn the test, yet simultaneously deny that having more monies for prep materials gives an advantage.

Those ideas are incongruous.


Self Prep material is very cheap. It is probably the cheapest part of the entire process. Self prep is better than any fancy class. The benefit comes from being forced to study by class. My sympathy for self studiers who are too lazy to put effort in, is zero.


Agree totally with DF

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 5:30 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
kk19131 wrote:
That's not the point... I believe the argument is that MOST people who study do BETTER than they would if they couldn't study... with the more studying one does equaling (in general) a better score.

How can people come in here and claim that the LSAC wants people to be able to learn the test, yet simultaneously deny that having more monies for prep materials gives an advantage.

Those ideas are incongruous.


Cuz I'm guessing that the number of applications for whom $30 is just way too much for test prep materials is a relatively small number that outside of these specific individuals, money doesn't make a difference.



I'm not committed to this contrived $30 number you keep throwing out.

Nevertheless, "cheap" is relative - free is not.

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 5:32 pm

kk19131 wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
kk19131 wrote:
That's not the point... I believe the argument is that MOST people who study do BETTER than they would if they couldn't study... with the more studying one does equaling (in general) a better score.

How can people come in here and claim that the LSAC wants people to be able to learn the test, yet simultaneously deny that having more monies for prep materials gives an advantage.

Those ideas are incongruous.


Cuz I'm guessing that the number of applications for whom $30 is just way too much for test prep materials is a relatively small number that outside of these specific individuals, money doesn't make a difference.



I'm not committed to this contrived $30 number you keep throwing out.

Nevertheless, "cheap" is relative - free is not.


Even if it is 200 dollars (which would require buying all prep tests, and several self study books), that is in the price range I'd expect a college student or college graduate to be able to afford.

cubswin
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:40 pm

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

Postby cubswin » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:40 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:

That's not the point... I believe the argument is that MOST people who study do BETTER than they would if they couldn't study... with the more studying one does equaling (in general) a better score.

How can people come in here and claim that the LSAC wants people to be able to learn the test, yet simultaneously deny that having more monies for prep materials gives an advantage.

Those ideas are incongruous.


Self Prep material is very cheap. It is probably the cheapest part of the entire process. Self prep is better than any fancy class. The benefit comes from being forced to study by class. My sympathy for self studiers who are too lazy to put effort in, is zero.



Agreed. I prepped for less than $200, and made a lot of it back when I sold the materials.

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 5:42 pm

acrossthelake wrote:You can get 30 more for less than $30 online. If one cannot scrounge up $25, perhaps a loan? Could be the most effective $30 loan ever taken out.


Perhaps it's just my personal learning style, but I could never touch a used item that was supposed to prepare me for one of the most important days in my life. I can't be the only one.

Most of us have no way to conceptualize what it's like to be flat broke, in the red. There are people in this nation who literally struggle to put food on the table, for whom spending $30 - let alone the $60 plus shipping if they were new - on anything other than essentials is completely out of the question.

Imagine having credit card debt with bill collectors at your heels, one month behind on rent with NYSEG warning a shutoff. Car payments behind one month with warning of repossession, but you've only had the car for a year so it'll prolly sell for less than what you owe on it, meaning you'll gain even more debt with nothing to show for it. Meanwhile your two kids are all "wtf, mom? why is the pantry barren?". You're not gonna spend five bucks on practice tests, let alone $30 plus shipping. Your Credit is shot since your man left you with two kids and no warning and you tried to keep the house/car you'd grown accustomed to, so now you lost your credit cards and there's no chance of a loan for $30. You owe your friends money, and they know you can't pay it back.

That was a little extreme, but these people exist, and they don't all have computers and the know-how to download torrents.
All I'm sayin' is: were LSAC to include a question on their bubble sheet reading "were you unable to purchase any study materials due to financial hardship?", the number of "yes" responses would be something other than zero, and none of us would be in a position to tell them why they're wrong.

Tautology
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:40 pm

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

Postby Tautology » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:47 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
IAFG wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
Tautology wrote:The really discouraging thing about TLS is the knowledge that so many people go out and raise their score significantly with months of hard work and therefore devalue the amazing scores that us natural test-takers get with very little effort.

/end douchebaggery

Have to admit this thought has crossed my mind.

wow, that makes the top ten most toolish things i have ever read on TLS.


Tautolgy's natural talent didn't save her from a 3.4 in undergrad.


I only ever claimed talent at taking tests. Remember though, you and I are going to prove the potential of splitters once they get to law school!

Also, at the risk of being treated less well around here, I'm a guy.

WestOfTheRest
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 pm

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

Postby WestOfTheRest » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:49 pm

Tautology wrote:I only ever claimed talent at taking tests. Remember though, you and I are going to prove the potential of splitters once they get to law school!

Also, at the risk of being treated less well around here, I'm a guy.


Lol, I thought you were a girl too.

Tautology
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:40 pm

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

Postby Tautology » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:50 pm

CastleRock wrote:
Tautology wrote:I only ever claimed talent at taking tests. Remember though, you and I are going to prove the potential of splitters once they get to law school!

Also, at the risk of being treated less well around here, I'm a guy.


Lol, I thought you were a girl too.


Is it the avatar?
Last edited by Tautology on Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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 5:51 pm

Tautology wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
IAFG wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:Have to admit this thought has crossed my mind.

wow, that makes the top ten most toolish things i have ever read on TLS.


Tautolgy's natural talent didn't save her from a 3.4 in undergrad.


I only ever claimed talent at taking tests. Remember though, you and I are going to prove the potential of splitters once they get to law school!

Also, at the risk of being treated less well around here, I'm a guy.


Damn right we are. Yes its the avatar.

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

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

Postby Jack Smirks » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:52 pm

I think the ability to afford or gain access to self-prep material is probably one of the easier obstacles to overcome for the impoverished trying to study for the LSAT. Disadvantaged people have less time to study as the circumstances of poverty often force those to occupy their time obtaining only the bare necessities of life. So yeah, I think the time limitation is the more detrimental aspect as I'm sure those people that REALLY can't afford prep material have some sort of access to them (whether through free LSAC services or their UG or something).

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 6:01 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:Imagine having credit card debt with bill collectors at your heels, one month behind on rent with NYSEG warning a shutoff. Car payments behind one month with warning of repossession, but you've only had the car for a year so it'll prolly sell for less than what you owe on it, meaning you'll gain even more debt with nothing to show for it. Meanwhile your two kids are all "wtf, mom? why is the pantry barren?". You're not gonna spend five bucks on practice tests, let alone $30 plus shipping. Your Credit is shot since your man left you with two kids and no warning and you tried to keep the house/car you'd grown accustomed to, so now you lost your credit cards and there's no chance of a loan for $30. You owe your friends money, and they know you can't pay it back.
.


Jeeze

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 6:04 pm

naterj wrote:I think the ability to afford or gain access to self-prep material is probably one of the easier obstacles to overcome for the impoverished trying to study for the LSAT. Disadvantaged people have less time to study as the circumstances of poverty often force those to occupy their time obtaining only the bare necessities of life. So yeah, I think the time limitation is the more detrimental aspect as I'm sure those people that REALLY can't afford prep material have some sort of access to them (whether through free LSAC services or their UG or something).


Poor people I know don't usually work more than 40 hours a week. Some immigrants might try swinging two jobs, but it's far from normal.

Though I recall reading about a study that showed that those who grew up poor, spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about food, and shelter, even if they already had it.

WestOfTheRest
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 pm

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

Postby WestOfTheRest » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:04 pm

naterj wrote:I think the ability to afford or gain access to self-prep material is probably one of the easier obstacles to overcome for the impoverished trying to study for the LSAT. Disadvantaged people have less time to study as the circumstances of poverty often force those to occupy their time obtaining only the bare necessities of life. So yeah, I think the time limitation is the more detrimental aspect as I'm sure those people that REALLY can't afford prep material have some sort of access to them (whether through free LSAC services or their UG or something).

The real difficulty comes from the lifestyle and education of the poverty stricken. Most people who are poverty sticken come from a family with little or no education. The result is these people grow up in situations not conducive to academic learning and growth. In particular, this problem is most apparent in a person ability to read or their vocabulary. If you grew up with uneducated parents, you probably understand what I am saying. As a child, you tend to only progress as far as your parents can taking, getting any further usually occurs later in life when you take responsibility for your own learning. Growing up in an uneducated household, I can tell you that the level of vocabulary and logical conversation was much lower than that of friends. The problem is that these issues do not reflect on a persons intelligence, nor do they reflect on their potential. The learning curve may be larger, but people from these circumstances also tend to have a great work ethic if they have come this far.

Even the schools and LSAC admit that the test is not a great indicator of all applicants potential. A big part of the reason why URMs get a bump is because it has been shown that the test does not cater well to people of certain social or economic positions.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

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

Postby acrossthelake » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:05 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
Perhaps it's just my personal learning style, but I could never touch a used item that was supposed to prepare me for one of the most important days in my life. I can't be the only one.

Most of us have no way to conceptualize what it's like to be flat broke, in the red. There are people in this nation who literally struggle to put food on the table, for whom spending $30 - let alone the $60 plus shipping if they were new - on anything other than essentials is completely out of the question.

Imagine having credit card debt with bill collectors at your heels, one month behind on rent with NYSEG warning a shutoff. Car payments behind one month with warning of repossession, but you've only had the car for a year so it'll prolly sell for less than what you owe on it, meaning you'll gain even more debt with nothing to show for it. Meanwhile your two kids are all "wtf, mom? why is the pantry barren?". You're not gonna spend five bucks on practice tests, let alone $30 plus shipping. Your Credit is shot since your man left you with two kids and no warning and you tried to keep the house/car you'd grown accustomed to, so now you lost your credit cards and there's no chance of a loan for $30. You owe your friends money, and they know you can't pay it back.

That was a little extreme, but these people exist, and they don't all have computers and the know-how to download torrents.
All I'm sayin' is: were LSAC to include a question on their bubble sheet reading "were you unable to purchase any study materials due to financial hardship?", the number of "yes" responses would be something other than zero, and none of us would be in a position to tell them why they're wrong.


What's wrong with used? Most don't have pencil marks on them. Most of my preptests were used. I only bought the ones new that I couldn't find used and I also over-prepped for the exam as well. $30 wasn't a made-up figure. It's from someone else I know who spent that much.

Compared to other grad schools, law school is the easiest in that circumstance.
Med Schools requires the MCAT, which is far more difficult to self-study than the LSAT, and a bunch of softs that are difficult to get under your belt while struggling with kids.
Top Business Schools wants the type of work experience that if you had, you would have plenty of money.
Top Grad Schools for sciences/humanities want you to be published.

I'm not saying it's not difficult to be poor or that being wealthy doesn't confer one advantages.
However, I see the advantages of being wealthy as being more along the lines of a superior k-12 education, less to worry about during undergrad, less to worry about while preparing for and while in law school. Better opportunities overall, better nutrition, being surrounded by educated people growing up, etc. These are much larger-scale advantages that go way beyond the LSAT and that are likely to still be there during and after law school. These are things to be targeted much sooner than the LSAT--when they're kids in the K-12 education system. I don't think it's specific to the LSAT.

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 6:10 pm

CastleRock wrote:
naterj wrote:I think the ability to afford or gain access to self-prep material is probably one of the easier obstacles to overcome for the impoverished trying to study for the LSAT. Disadvantaged people have less time to study as the circumstances of poverty often force those to occupy their time obtaining only the bare necessities of life. So yeah, I think the time limitation is the more detrimental aspect as I'm sure those people that REALLY can't afford prep material have some sort of access to them (whether through free LSAC services or their UG or something).

The real difficulty comes from the lifestyle and education of the poverty stricken. Most people who are poverty sticken come from a family with little or no education. The result is these people grow up in situations not conducive to academic learning and growth. In particular, this problem is most apparent in a person ability to read or their vocabulary. If you grew up with uneducated parents, you probably understand what I am saying. As a child, you tend to only progress as far as your parents can taking, getting any further usually occurs later in life when you take responsibility for your own learning. Growing up in an uneducated household, I can tell you that the level of vocabulary and logical conversation was much lower than that of friends. The problem is that these issues do not reflect on a persons intelligence, nor do they reflect on their potential. The learning curve may be larger, but people from these circumstances also tend to have a great work ethic if they have come this far.

Even the schools and LSAC admit that the test is not a great indicator of all applicants potential. A big part of the reason why URMs get a bump is because it has been shown that the test does not cater well to people of certain social or economic positions.


You can't blame the LSAT for exposing their predisposition to academic failure. I won't argue that growing up disadvantaged has a negative effect on a person, but that effect is real. Find a way to undo the damage, or prevent it in the first place but don't blame standardized testing for displaying what already happened.

And while it is unfortunate that people are born poor and that makes them less likely to succeed, it isn't like people choose to be born intelligent either. Life isn't fair, but the LSAT is.

WestOfTheRest
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 pm

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

Postby WestOfTheRest » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:13 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
CastleRock wrote:
naterj wrote:I think the ability to afford or gain access to self-prep material is probably one of the easier obstacles to overcome for the impoverished trying to study for the LSAT. Disadvantaged people have less time to study as the circumstances of poverty often force those to occupy their time obtaining only the bare necessities of life. So yeah, I think the time limitation is the more detrimental aspect as I'm sure those people that REALLY can't afford prep material have some sort of access to them (whether through free LSAC services or their UG or something).

The real difficulty comes from the lifestyle and education of the poverty stricken. Most people who are poverty sticken come from a family with little or no education. The result is these people grow up in situations not conducive to academic learning and growth. In particular, this problem is most apparent in a person ability to read or their vocabulary. If you grew up with uneducated parents, you probably understand what I am saying. As a child, you tend to only progress as far as your parents can taking, getting any further usually occurs later in life when you take responsibility for your own learning. Growing up in an uneducated household, I can tell you that the level of vocabulary and logical conversation was much lower than that of friends. The problem is that these issues do not reflect on a persons intelligence, nor do they reflect on their potential. The learning curve may be larger, but people from these circumstances also tend to have a great work ethic if they have come this far.

Even the schools and LSAC admit that the test is not a great indicator of all applicants potential. A big part of the reason why URMs get a bump is because it has been shown that the test does not cater well to people of certain social or economic positions.


You can't blame the LSAT for exposing their predisposition to academic failure. I won't argue that growing up disadvantaged has a negative effect on a person, but that effect is real.


The fact that these people can succeed in undergrad suggests that they're not predisposed to academic failure, but instead there is something inherently wrong with the way the test measures their abilities.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BamBam2772, bearedman8, blackmamba8, BobBoblaw, dontsaywhatyoumean, kinglew, Lahtso Nuggin, ThatOneAfrican and 12 guests