Only 2% get a 170+ on 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 9:29 pm

Hey-O wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Hey-O wrote:You're forgetting grants, scholarships, work study. College is affordable for people if they are sure they want it, work hard, and do well in school. Having a big chunk of debt on graduation is not a huge financial burden. Most loans have reasonable monthly payments.


There is no way an average high school student is going to get scholarships enough to pay for college, I was a damn good student and I couldn't find shit. Work study is a pittance.


Should the average high school student be going to law school in the first place? We're talking about above average students. (Aside from the argument: it is totally possible to pay for college if that is what you really want and you are gifted and willing to work hard).


They should be able to if they turn themselves around. I'm not prepared to write off people who didn't have their shit together at 15 years old. Furthermore children from poor areas have absolutely atrocious school systems. This is quite possibly the worst argument I've ever heard.

I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm saying that the LSAT is far more fair than undergrad admissions. There is more to overcome and a it is hard to self-study a decent high school education. It is more affordable and easier to study your way to a good score on the LSAT than the SAT.


Well I agree with that.

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

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

Postby bigben » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:29 pm

So only 98% are dumb then.

*rimshot*

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 9:32 pm

bigben wrote:So only 98% are dumb then.

*rimshot*


LOL it's funny because I actually believe that.

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

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

Postby bigben » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:35 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
bigben wrote:So only 98% are dumb then.

*rimshot*


LOL it's funny because I actually believe that.


It's funny because it's true.

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 9:37 pm

.

Edit: Deleted because it was stupid.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

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

Postby 3|ink » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:52 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
CastleRock wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
3|ink wrote:
I agree that LR is an essential part of the LSAT. However, it's more than 'just' logic. You could have the deductive skills of Mr. Spock and flunk the LR section if you have ADD, minor dyslexia or any of the other disabilities that won't qualify someone for that extra 15 minutes.


Lol, let me adjust then, for those who don't have ADD, minor dyslexia, etc. it's just logic. Obviously standardized tests and testing conditions aren't going to work as well with people who have disabilities that impact speed and test performance.


This is exactly the point. None of these conditions will prevent someone from excelling in law school or in a legal career. While it may impact their ability to perform under timed conditions, this is not an essential part of life. So in this condition the test is biased since it doesn't accurately predict a persons ability.

The problem is compounded when you take into account the fact that law schools only really look at LSAT scores. Nothing else really matters in comparison.


If ADD or dyslexia affects one's LSAT it will affect their law exams. Both are 3 hour long exams, where speed is a huge factor.

Also ADD and dyslexia can be reasons to get special accommodations for the LSAT. This eliminates the problem.


My point was that it was more than just logic.

I haven't been to law school yet, so I can only speculate. However, it is my understanding that you spend the vast majority of your time writing during law school exams as opposed to reading.

The severity of ADD and dyslexia can differ significantly from person to person. Unfortunately, the LSAT has established thresholds that are beyond qualifications of the average individual with dyslexia.

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 9:54 pm

3|ink wrote:
My point was that it was more than just logic.

I haven't been to law school yet, so I can only speculate. However, it is my understanding that you spend the vast majority of your time writing during law school exams as opposed to reading.

The severity of ADD and dyslexia can differ significantly from person to person. Unfortunately, the LSAT has established thresholds that are beyond qualifications of the average individual with dyslexia.


Dyslexia and ADHD(untreated) hurt a persons writing ability significantly.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

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

Postby 3|ink » Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:04 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
3|ink wrote:
My point was that it was more than just logic.

I haven't been to law school yet, so I can only speculate. However, it is my understanding that you spend the vast majority of your time writing during law school exams as opposed to reading.

The severity of ADD and dyslexia can differ significantly from person to person. Unfortunately, the LSAT has established thresholds that are beyond qualifications of the average individual with dyslexia.


Dyslexia and ADHD(untreated) hurt a persons writing ability significantly.


Alright. So does that mean that the LSAT functions as intended by weeding out such people? Would minor dyslexia hurt a person's writing ability? I have minor dyslexia. My writing is sloppy, but I can write quickly.

For the record, I'm not saying the LSAT should have given me accommodations. I'd be ashamed to apply for them. However, I believe there are people who have this problem worse than I do, yet they still wouldn't qualify for accommodations.

Perhaps the test effectively weeds out most of the slackers. I'll give it that. However, this comes at the expense of some who might actually do well in law school.

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 10:11 pm

3|ink wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
3|ink wrote:
My point was that it was more than just logic.

I haven't been to law school yet, so I can only speculate. However, it is my understanding that you spend the vast majority of your time writing during law school exams as opposed to reading.

The severity of ADD and dyslexia can differ significantly from person to person. Unfortunately, the LSAT has established thresholds that are beyond qualifications of the average individual with dyslexia.


Dyslexia and ADHD(untreated) hurt a persons writing ability significantly.


Alright. So does that mean that the LSAT functions as intended by weeding out such people? Would minor dyslexia hurt a person's writing ability? I have minor dyslexia. My writing is sloppy, but I can write quickly.

For the record, I'm not saying the LSAT should have given me accommodations. I'd be ashamed to apply for them. However, I believe there are people who have this problem worse than I do, yet they still wouldn't qualify for accommodations.

Perhaps the test effectively weeds out most of the slackers. I'll give it that. However, this comes at the expense of some who might actually do well in law school.


If it hurts one on the LSAT it will hurt one on a law exam.

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 11:12 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
3|ink wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
3|ink wrote:
My point was that it was more than just logic.

I haven't been to law school yet, so I can only speculate. However, it is my understanding that you spend the vast majority of your time writing during law school exams as opposed to reading.

The severity of ADD and dyslexia can differ significantly from person to person. Unfortunately, the LSAT has established thresholds that are beyond qualifications of the average individual with dyslexia.


Dyslexia and ADHD(untreated) hurt a persons writing ability significantly.


Alright. So does that mean that the LSAT functions as intended by weeding out such people? Would minor dyslexia hurt a person's writing ability? I have minor dyslexia. My writing is sloppy, but I can write quickly.

For the record, I'm not saying the LSAT should have given me accommodations. I'd be ashamed to apply for them. However, I believe there are people who have this problem worse than I do, yet they still wouldn't qualify for accommodations.

Perhaps the test effectively weeds out most of the slackers. I'll give it that. However, this comes at the expense of some who might actually do well in law school.


If it hurts one on the LSAT it will hurt one on a law exam.

This is a garbage argument. You are basically arguing that if something hurts someone on the lsat it is bound to hurt them on a law school exam. In order to argue this you have to assume that the tests provide the same pressures, but since they are not meant to test the same thing they almost certainly will not put the same pressures on the test taker.

User avatar
pinkzeppelin
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:51 pm

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

Postby pinkzeppelin » Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:32 pm

CastleRock wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
If it hurts one on the LSAT it will hurt one on a law exam.


This is a garbage argument. You are basically arguing that if something hurts someone on the lsat it is bound to hurt them on a law school exam.


180

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 11:34 pm

CastleRock wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
3|ink wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Dyslexia and ADHD(untreated) hurt a persons writing ability significantly.


Alright. So does that mean that the LSAT functions as intended by weeding out such people? Would minor dyslexia hurt a person's writing ability? I have minor dyslexia. My writing is sloppy, but I can write quickly.

For the record, I'm not saying the LSAT should have given me accommodations. I'd be ashamed to apply for them. However, I believe there are people who have this problem worse than I do, yet they still wouldn't qualify for accommodations.

Perhaps the test effectively weeds out most of the slackers. I'll give it that. However, this comes at the expense of some who might actually do well in law school.


If it hurts one on the LSAT it will hurt one on a law exam.

This is a garbage argument. You are basically arguing that if something hurts someone on the lsat it is bound to hurt them on a law school exam. In order to argue this you have to assume that the tests provide the same pressures, but since they are not meant to test the same thing they almost certainly will not put the same pressures on the test taker.


My argument wasn't meant to apply broadly, but to apply to ADD and dyslexia. They will hard a person on a law exam.

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 11:42 pm

Desert Fox wrote:My argument wasn't meant to apply broadly, but to apply to ADD and dyslexia. They will hard a person on a law exam.

They very well could, but it's also usually easier to get accomodations at the Law school level than with LSAC. The other thing is that with dyslexia, it won't hurt you as much writing as it would on the LSAT where everything is multiple choice, and a wrong reading could screw you up.

On a side note, in all honesty I could care less about this this argument it's just providing entertainment for now.

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

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

Postby Tautology » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:46 am

Desert Fox wrote:The biggest obstacle to a legal education for the poor is the undergraduate education required. How the fuck do poor people pay for school? Federal loans only cover 5 grand a year, and even the cheapest state schools are over 15K. Compared to that, 200 for prep is fucking nothing.

It's also one of the most unnecessary aspects of the admission requirements. 60 hours of geneds should be enough to apply for law school.


Again you are completely ignoring the time requirement in studying for a learnable test, but the bigger problem with this line of reasoning is that it is completely irrelevant. The existence of other inequities does not excuse inequities in the LSAT. My original point was that learnability was an undesirable trait. Do you disagree?

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

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

Postby WestOfTheRest » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:47 am

Tautology wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:The biggest obstacle to a legal education for the poor is the undergraduate education required. How the fuck do poor people pay for school? Federal loans only cover 5 grand a year, and even the cheapest state schools are over 15K. Compared to that, 200 for prep is fucking nothing.

It's also one of the most unnecessary aspects of the admission requirements. 60 hours of geneds should be enough to apply for law school.


Again you are completely ignoring the time requirement in studying for a learnable test, but the bigger problem with this line of reasoning is that it is completely irrelevant. The existence of other inequities does not excuse inequities in the LSAT. My original point was that learnability was an undesirable trait. Do you disagree?


I stated my issues with a test that is less learnable, but you ignored them.

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

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

Postby acrossthelake » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:49 am

Tautology wrote:
Again you are completely ignoring the time requirement in studying for a learnable test, but the bigger problem with this line of reasoning is that it is completely irrelevant. The existence of other inequities does not excuse inequities in the LSAT. My original point was that learnability was an undesirable trait. Do you disagree?


Learnability is a trait that exists in about every exam there is though...

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

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

Postby WestOfTheRest » Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:49 am

acrossthelake wrote:
Tautology wrote:
Again you are completely ignoring the time requirement in studying for a learnable test, but the bigger problem with this line of reasoning is that it is completely irrelevant. The existence of other inequities does not excuse inequities in the LSAT. My original point was that learnability was an undesirable trait. Do you disagree?


Learnability is a trait that exists in about every exam there is though...


This is true, even IQ tests are learnable.

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

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

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:00 am

Tautology wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:The biggest obstacle to a legal education for the poor is the undergraduate education required. How the fuck do poor people pay for school? Federal loans only cover 5 grand a year, and even the cheapest state schools are over 15K. Compared to that, 200 for prep is fucking nothing.

It's also one of the most unnecessary aspects of the admission requirements. 60 hours of geneds should be enough to apply for law school.


Again you are completely ignoring the time requirement in studying for a learnable test, but the bigger problem with this line of reasoning is that it is completely irrelevant. The existence of other inequities does not excuse inequities in the LSAT. My original point was that learnability was an undesirable trait. Do you disagree?


I do disagree. Law school exams are learnable. In order to be a good predictor the LSAT probably needs to be learnable. Or shit head slacks like myself would dominate law school admissions even more than the LSAT already allows us to.

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

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

Postby kk19131 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:02 am

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.




Yes! Yes! Yes!

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

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

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:09 am

by being learnable, the LSAT limits high scorers to people willing to put in a lot of effort and resources into learning it (and a few brilliant slackers). sounds good to me.

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

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

Postby WestOfTheRest » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:11 am

The only bonus of an unlearnable test is that medians would be lower.

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

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

Postby kk19131 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:12 am

IAFG wrote:by being learnable, the LSAT limits high scorers to people willing to put in a lot of effort and resources into learning it (and a few brilliant slackers). sounds good to me.


... which inherently benefits the wealthy!

Sheesh.

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

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

Postby IAFG » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:15 am

kk19131 wrote:
IAFG wrote:by being learnable, the LSAT limits high scorers to people willing to put in a lot of effort and resources into learning it (and a few brilliant slackers). sounds good to me.


... which inherently benefits the wealthy!

Sheesh.

no.

you can't buy a good score without the hard work, and you can prep for the LSAT with 2 hours a day and a couple hundred bucks. the only people this exam really screws is people with small children.

edit: oh and native intelligence. obviously not everyone can study their way to a 17X.
Last edited by IAFG on Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby Ragged » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:16 am

kk19131 wrote:
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.




Yes! Yes! Yes!



No No No.


And getting a Nobel Prize also requires time and money and those who don't have them are not likely to win it. Anything thats anything requires time and money, including LS. Everything is biased towards the wealthy. Not qualifying it, just stating a fact.

Besides, in LS you are expected to study alot and have options to buy study materials. Since LSAT is designed to predict your performance in LS it makes sense that it requires you to study alot and you have the option of buying study materials.

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

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

Postby kk19131 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:18 am

IAFG wrote:
kk19131 wrote:
IAFG wrote:by being learnable, the LSAT limits high scorers to people willing to put in a lot of effort and resources into learning it (and a few brilliant slackers). sounds good to me.


... which inherently benefits the wealthy!

Sheesh.

no.

you can't buy a good score without the hard work, and you can prep for the LSAT with 2 hours a day and a couple hundred bucks. the only people this exam really screws is people with small children.



People who don't have the luxury of many hours of study time most certainly are less advantaged.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Pozzo, Veil of Ignorance, VMars and 5 guests