Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

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 6:15 pm

I still think that to the extent the LSAT is learnable, it advantages those with the time and money to put into learning it, and disadvantages those without it or who having a harder time getting it (this isn't a binary either you have the time or you don't, people have to make different sacrifices depending on their circumstances to make that time or get that money), a group I thought largely to include the poor. To me this suggests that the more learnable the LSAT is the more it is biased towards the wealthy, and so lack of learnability would be a desirbale trait for the LSAT to have.

Veritaffle
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:07 pm

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

Postby Veritaffle » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:16 pm


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 6:17 pm

i mean... life is biased towards the wealthy. law school admissions in general makes things a lot fairer to poor people/minorities than life in general does.

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 6:18 pm

Tautology wrote:I still think that to the extent the LSAT is learnable, it advantages those with the time and money to put into learning it, and disadvantages those without it or who having a harder time getting it (this isn't a binary either you have the time or you don't, people have to make different sacrifices depending on their circumstances to make that time or get that money), a group I thought largely to include the poor. To me this suggests that the more learnable the LSAT is the more it is biased towards the wealthy, and so lack of learnability would be a desirbale trait for the LSAT to have.

If it lacked learnability the problem would be that those who have been exposed to the tests type of logic most their lifes would be advantaged. It is most likely the wealthy and educated who would be most favoured in this circumstance. The poor wouldn't even be able to make up ground through hard work in this case.

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 6:18 pm

CastleRock wrote: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.


This is very easy to prove. Does the predictive ability of the LSAT decrease for those in lower economic conditions? That is, do they do better in law school than their LSAT predict. That would expose a bias in the LSAT. As far as I know, there is no jsuch discrepancy.
Last edited by 09042014 on Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 6:19 pm

IAFG wrote:i mean... life is biased towards the wealthy. law school admissions in general makes things a lot fairer to poor people/minorities than life in general does.


Right, but irrelevant?

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 6:22 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
CastleRock wrote: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.


This is very easy to prove. Does the predictive ability of the LSAT decrease for those in lower economic conditions? That is, do they do better in law school than their LSAT predict. That would expose a bias in the LSAT. As far as I know, there is no jsuch discrepancy.

Just Google "LSAT bias", there's tons of research on it. Here's an article from the Harvard Law Record --LinkRemoved--. The fact is the test has biases and I'm not going to waste time looking up research for you because it has been beaten to death.

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 6:22 pm

CastleRock wrote:
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.


Lolwut?

The LSAT is measuring skills---can you logically read and analyze things under timed circumstances. It's not voodoo. It predicts performance in law school to the extent that it does because in law school you have to logically read and analyze things under timed circumstances. It's not all you have to do in law school--you also have to sacrifice your soul and first-born childtime to read and analyzing a lot of things, but there isn't really a test that's going to be able to predict how much of your soultime you're going to be giving up, nor any other factors that are relevant. The LSAT does about as good a job measuring reading comprehension and logical reasoning as I can think of measuring it. How else would you measure these things?

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 6:24 pm

CastleRock wrote: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.

I agree. Now for a tangent.

I think URM favoritism is a mis-applied extension of affirmative action. I support affirmative action, 'cause the world's wrought with racism, and you need to interview in person for most jobs, thus necessarily bringing race into it.

But if you're just sending in an application, you don't need a box for "race". Rather, there could be one for "extreme socioeconomic hardship". My girlfriend has a solid chunk of Cuban blood, and qualifies as URM, but her parents are wealthy and have been uber supportive of her education. IMO it is absolutely ludicrous for her to gain a significant advantage in admissions while a white-skinned trailer park kid with parents who never supported his education competes on the same level as everyone else for admission. [yes, there's financial aid, but this is a separate consideration]

Being dirt poor is far more crushing than being Cuban.
[Note, I'm more supportive of instituting a system of acknowledging extreme hardship than I am of removing the URM system. If they were to have both I'd be fine with it. After all, I'm gonna have lil' URM babies, and admissions ain't gettin' any easier.]

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 6:25 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
CastleRock wrote:
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.


Lolwut?

The LSAT is measuring skills---can you logically read and analyze things under timed circumstances. It's not voodoo. It predicts performance in law school to the extent that it does because in law school you have to logically read and analyze things under timed circumstances. It's not all you have to do in law school--you also have to sacrifice your soul and first-born childtime to read and analyzing a lot of things, but there isn't really a test that's going to be able to predict how much of your soultime you're going to be giving up, nor any other factors that are relevant. The LSAT does about as good a job measuring reading comprehension and logical reasoning as I can think of measuring it. How else would you measure these things?


Lolwut? If your going to respond to my post, at least address the issue at concern.

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 6:27 pm

CastleRock wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
CastleRock wrote: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.


This is very easy to prove. Does the predictive ability of the LSAT decrease for those in lower economic conditions? That is, do they do better in law school than their LSAT predict. That would expose a bias in the LSAT. As far as I know, there is no jsuch discrepancy.

Just Google "LSAT bias", there's tons of research on it. Here's an article from the Harvard Law Record --LinkRemoved--. The fact is the test has biases and I'm not going to waste time looking up research for you because it has been beaten to death.


I'm not saying the poor don't do worse on the LSAT. I'm saying they do worse in law school as well, and that the fact they do worse on the LSAT isn't bias, but a reflection of the ability of the poor.

For example, black test takers do worse on the LSAT than non blacks, but the LSAT actually predicts the 1L performance of black students better than other students. Meaning the test itself is not racially biased.

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 6:29 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
For example, black test takers do worse on the LSAT than non blacks, but the LSAT actually predicts the 1L performance of black students better than other students. Meaning the test itself is not racially biased.


+1 Although, it actually overpredicts 1L performance rather than underpredicting.

Last I checked, there's a discrepancy between poor and wealthy people in about every single standardized exam I can think of. Are you saying all standardized exams are biased?
http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/rr/Ana ... udents.htm

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 6:30 pm

Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:i mean... life is biased towards the wealthy. law school admissions in general makes things a lot fairer to poor people/minorities than life in general does.


Right, but irrelevant?

not irrelevant at all. you can't account for every inequality. i mean, unless you start taking kids away from poor people.

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 6:36 pm

This issue isn't that complicated, everybody remember junior high and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Physiological needs being the most fundamental and neccessary like food and shelter. Then remember at the top is Self actualization? Impoverished people spend much more time trying to fulfill physiological needs while those with more resources and advantages are able to focus more time on self acutalization (i.e. the LSAT). The LSAT is no more inherenly biased than life in general for impoverished people.

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 6:37 pm

naterj wrote:This issue isn't that complicated, everybody remember junior high and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Physiological needs being the most fundamental and neccessary like food and shelter. Then remember at the top is Self actualization? Impoverished people spend much more time trying to fulfill physiological needs while those with more resources and advantages are able to focus more time on self acutalization (i.e. the LSAT). The LSAT is no more inherenly biased than life in general for impoverished people.

i want your tar.

is it bad that i feel like i should be allowed to steal it since you're only 3 posts deep?

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 6:42 pm

IAFG wrote:
naterj wrote:This issue isn't that complicated, everybody remember junior high and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Physiological needs being the most fundamental and neccessary like food and shelter. Then remember at the top is Self actualization? Impoverished people spend much more time trying to fulfill physiological needs while those with more resources and advantages are able to focus more time on self acutalization (i.e. the LSAT). The LSAT is no more inherenly biased than life in general for impoverished people.

i want your tar.

is it bad that i feel like i should be allowed to steal it since you're only 3 posts deep?


Haha no you may not, and don't tell me you're from Iowa and in Chicago now, if so, us HAWKS seem to be taking over the city of wind!

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 6:44 pm

naterj wrote:
IAFG wrote:
naterj wrote:This issue isn't that complicated, everybody remember junior high and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Physiological needs being the most fundamental and neccessary like food and shelter. Then remember at the top is Self actualization? Impoverished people spend much more time trying to fulfill physiological needs while those with more resources and advantages are able to focus more time on self acutalization (i.e. the LSAT). The LSAT is no more inherenly biased than life in general for impoverished people.

i want your tar.

is it bad that i feel like i should be allowed to steal it since you're only 3 posts deep?


Haha no you may not, and don't tell me you're from Iowa and in Chicago now, if so, us HAWKS seem to be taking over the city of wind!


Seems like the other way around. When I visited Iowa it seemed like everyone was from the suburbs of Chicago.

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 6:44 pm

naterj wrote:
IAFG wrote:
naterj wrote:This issue isn't that complicated, everybody remember junior high and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Physiological needs being the most fundamental and neccessary like food and shelter. Then remember at the top is Self actualization? Impoverished people spend much more time trying to fulfill physiological needs while those with more resources and advantages are able to focus more time on self acutalization (i.e. the LSAT). The LSAT is no more inherenly biased than life in general for impoverished people.

i want your tar.

is it bad that i feel like i should be allowed to steal it since you're only 3 posts deep?


Haha no you may not, and don't tell me you're from Iowa and in Chicago now, if so, us HAWKS seem to be taking over the city of wind!

from iowa, and will be back in chicago soon, though not nearly soon enough

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 6:44 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
naterj wrote:
Haha no you may not, and don't tell me you're from Iowa and in Chicago now, if so, us HAWKS seem to be taking over the city of wind!


Seems like the other way around. When I visited Iowa it seemed like everyone was from the suburbs of Chicago.

thank your friends for subsidizing my tuition

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 6:54 pm

Time Out:
I've now heard "Tar" used as "insult" and "avatar"...have I been mis-reading? What's the deal?

Hey-O
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:50 pm

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

Postby Hey-O » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:57 pm

As someone who has lived at or below the poverty for most of my life I have a unique perspective on the standardized testing and how it is impacted by poverty.

I agree with the person who said that the lawschool is more accessible without wealth than other graduate degree programs. After I graduated from undergrad I realized that I wanted to go back to school. Law school was the most plausible choice because I knew that the LSAT was a test I could master without having to go back to school, and that if I could ace the LSAT I could get into a good school. In my experience the LSAT is a more fair than the SAT/ACT because people have had more time to make up for disadvantaged circumstances.

Undergrad was catch up the whole time. When I graduated from high school I had never written a real essay, my math teacher just assigned chapters from the book with no explanations, I had never done a single science lab. (I didn't even know what they were when I took my first science class in college).

No colleges came to my high school, but recruiters from every branch of the armed forces came. There was no SAT prep classes offered in my town or school. No one in my family had ever been to college. I was doing the whole process blind.

But I was lucky and determined and I got a scholarship and went to school. Not to a great big name school, but still a good education. And finally, in law school I can start catching up with other people. The internet is a huge boon because I can learn from people who know what they're doing.

Studying for the LSAT is not free, and not easy and not cheap, but doable. I think that LSAC has something of a racket going on, and it is not easily accessible for people just scraping by, but it is possible, if you live cheaply and work hard.

The point I'm making is that admissions is a tough game, but the LSAT is a little more fair than most standardized tests.

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 6:58 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:Time Out:
I've now heard "Tar" used as "insult" and "avatar"...have I been mis-reading? What's the deal?

Some "tard" probably forgot the "d"

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 7:04 pm

IAFG wrote:
Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:i mean... life is biased towards the wealthy. law school admissions in general makes things a lot fairer to poor people/minorities than life in general does.


Right, but irrelevant?

not irrelevant at all. you can't account for every inequality. i mean, unless you start taking kids away from poor people.


No, we're talking about an inequality that can be accounted for, or at least one might try to account for. The existence of other inequalities of any type is not relevant.

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 7:05 pm

Tautology wrote:No, we're talking about an inequality that can be accounted for, or at least one might try to account for. The existence of other inequalities of any type is not relevant.

i guess i am confused. you think the solution is to make LSAT prep free to everyone? or develop a less learnable test?

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 7:11 pm

IAFG wrote:
Tautology wrote:No, we're talking about an inequality that can be accounted for, or at least one might try to account for. The existence of other inequalities of any type is not relevant.

i guess i am confused. you think the solution is to make LSAT prep free to everyone? or develop a less learnable test?


My original suggestion was that learnability is a characteristic that should be avoided in this test because of the advantages it gives. So yes, a less learnable test, although I'm honestly not sure that that's possible. If not, I'm not suggesting free test prep for everyone, since that seems infeasible.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, Pozzo and 5 guests