Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

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 1:19 am

Ragged wrote:
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.

In law school people will have money, be it through debt or scholarships. Either way there will be more money.

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 1:20 am

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


Sorry, is this it?

CastleRock wrote: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.


I think you have highlighted an additional advantage that the wealthy and educated have over those from poor and uneducated families. If you get rid of the part of learnability that has more to do with familiarity with the test and the specific types of questions that appear (whatever all that categorization shit you people learn is), this would still exist, but this exists anyway. Right now those from wealthy, educated backgrounds have two advantages and I think it would be good to get rid of one of them.

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 1:20 am

kk19131 wrote:People who don't have the luxury of many hours of study time most certainly are less advantaged.

who the fuck doesn't have two hours a day for the most important exam of their life?

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 1:21 am

Tautology wrote:
I think you have highlighted an additional advantage that the wealthy and educated have over those from poor and uneducated families. If you get rid of the part of learnability that has more to do with familiarity with the test and the specific types of questions that appear (whatever all that categorization shit you people learn is), this would still exist, but this exists anyway. Right now those from wealthy, educated backgrounds have two advantages and I think it would be good to get rid of one of them.

you realize people taking the LSAT have/will soon have bachelors, right.

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 1:21 am

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


Sorry, is this it?

CastleRock wrote: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.


I think you have highlighted an additional advantage that the wealthy and educated have over those from poor and uneducated families. If you get rid of the part of learnability that has more to do with familiarity with the test and the specific types of questions that appear (whatever all that categorization shit you people learn is), this would still exist, but this exists anyway. Right now those from wealthy, educated backgrounds have two advantages and I think it would be good to get rid of one of them.

fair enough

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 1:22 am

IAFG wrote:
kk19131 wrote:People who don't have the luxury of many hours of study time most certainly are less advantaged.

who the fuck doesn't have two hours a day for the most important exam of their life?


Your setting up a false dichotomy here where people either have the time or they don't. In reality, there is a spectrum where people in different situations have to make different sacrifices for that time, and only at one end is someone who truly doesn't have the time.

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 1:22 am

Ragged wrote:
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.



The idea that life before law school is somehow usually the same as life during law school is laughable.

Further, the poor who get into law school will usually have financial aid that pays for books and other materials.

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 1:22 am

IAFG wrote:
Tautology wrote:
I think you have highlighted an additional advantage that the wealthy and educated have over those from poor and uneducated families. If you get rid of the part of learnability that has more to do with familiarity with the test and the specific types of questions that appear (whatever all that categorization shit you people learn is), this would still exist, but this exists anyway. Right now those from wealthy, educated backgrounds have two advantages and I think it would be good to get rid of one of them.

you realize people taking the LSAT have/will soon have bachelors, right.

You realize he's referring to people who come from an educated household right?

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 1:23 am

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


Sorry, is this it?

CastleRock wrote: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.


I think you have highlighted an additional advantage that the wealthy and educated have over those from poor and uneducated families. If you get rid of the part of learnability that has more to do with familiarity with the test and the specific types of questions that appear (whatever all that categorization shit you people learn is), this would still exist, but this exists anyway. Right now those from wealthy, educated backgrounds have two advantages and I think it would be good to get rid of one of them.


Castle makes a good point. Making it non-learnable would put philosophy majors at a major (heh) advantage. Or more generally would make UG specialization carry alot more weight.

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 1:24 am

Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:
kk19131 wrote:People who don't have the luxury of many hours of study time most certainly are less advantaged.

who the fuck doesn't have two hours a day for the most important exam of their life?


Your setting up a false dichotomy here where people either have the time or they don't. In reality, there is a spectrum where people in different situations have to make different sacrifices for that time, and only at one end is someone who truly doesn't have the time.

i guess i just don't agree that the LSAT should never involve tough choices and sacrifice. in fact, i think it should.

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 1:25 am

CastleRock wrote:
IAFG wrote:
Tautology wrote:
I think you have highlighted an additional advantage that the wealthy and educated have over those from poor and uneducated families. If you get rid of the part of learnability that has more to do with familiarity with the test and the specific types of questions that appear (whatever all that categorization shit you people learn is), this would still exist, but this exists anyway. Right now those from wealthy, educated backgrounds have two advantages and I think it would be good to get rid of one of them.

you realize people taking the LSAT have/will soon have bachelors, right.

You realize he's referring to people who come from an educated household right?


Exactly, which is why in every other instance where I talked about wealth and education I specifically mentioned family or background. I got lazy with the language in that one place.

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 1:26 am

Tautology wrote:
CastleRock wrote:
IAFG wrote:
Tautology wrote:
I think you have highlighted an additional advantage that the wealthy and educated have over those from poor and uneducated families. If you get rid of the part of learnability that has more to do with familiarity with the test and the specific types of questions that appear (whatever all that categorization shit you people learn is), this would still exist, but this exists anyway. Right now those from wealthy, educated backgrounds have two advantages and I think it would be good to get rid of one of them.

you realize people taking the LSAT have/will soon have bachelors, right.

You realize he's referring to people who come from an educated household right?


Exactly, which is why in every other instance where I talked about wealth and education I specifically mentioned family or background. I got lazy with the language in that one place.

if you can't figure out, at some point during college or working a post college job, how to familiarize yourself with a learnable test and study for it, you don't deserve to go to law school.

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 1:26 am

IAFG wrote:
Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:
kk19131 wrote:People who don't have the luxury of many hours of study time most certainly are less advantaged.

who the fuck doesn't have two hours a day for the most important exam of their life?


Your setting up a false dichotomy here where people either have the time or they don't. In reality, there is a spectrum where people in different situations have to make different sacrifices for that time, and only at one end is someone who truly doesn't have the time.

i guess i just don't agree that the LSAT should never involve tough choices and sacrifice. in fact, i think it should.


Straw man this time. I never asserted that the LSAT should never involve tough choices and sacrifice, I said that it required easier choices and less sacrifice from the wealthy.

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 1:27 am

kk19131 wrote:
Ragged wrote:
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.



The idea that life before law school is somehow usually the same as life during law school is laughable.

Further, the poor who get into law school will usually have financial aid that pays for books and other materials.


You are focusing on all the wrong parts of the argument. The LSAT is trying to test the skills that are learnable. This is why LSAT is learnable. There is no way around it. There is much more than raw ability that goes into success in LS. You have to account for that when you design a test that tries to predict one's performance in a study-based program.

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 1:28 am

Again, if the poor can't afford 200 for prep, and 2 hours (anything more has extremely diminishing returns), then why require a bachelors degree that costs over ten thousand and 4 years? That is a much higher hurdle than the LSAT.

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 1:28 am

IAFG wrote:if you can't figure out, at some point during college or working a post college job, how to familiarize yourself with a learnable test and study for it, you don't deserve to go to law school.


Do you honestly thing I'm arguing that poor people can't figure this out? That the ability to learn the test is something poor people have less of? It's not about who can figure it out, or who could possibly come up with a way to study for it, it's about whether learnability gives any advantages to specific groups of people.

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 1:30 am

Desert Fox wrote:Again, if the poor can't afford 200 for prep, and 2 hours (anything more has extremely diminishing returns), then why require a bachelors degree that costs over ten thousand and 4 years? That is a much higher hurdle than the LSAT.


And again, I consider other failures of the law school admissions process (or political or otherwise) to be irrelevant to the properties of 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 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:30 am

Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:if you can't figure out, at some point during college or working a post college job, how to familiarize yourself with a learnable test and study for it, you don't deserve to go to law school.


Do you honestly thing I'm arguing that poor people can't figure this out? That the ability to learn the test is something poor people have less of? It's not about who can figure it out, or who could possibly come up with a way to study for it, it's about whether learnability gives any advantages to specific groups of people.

know who really gets fucked? dumbs.

what can we do to protect dumbs from dumbness discrimination? it is fucking RAMPANT.

User avatar
goawaybee
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:20 pm

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

Postby goawaybee » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:36 am

It is a test, po folk, rich folk take it too. it is learnable. It takes a really "aware" have not (I am one, pot kettle black thing) to realize that law is a viable option. Two numbers that is all you need. There aren't that many things in this world you could pursue that could open a shit load of doors. Got a whole range of schools to pick from, easy ones, elitist ones, warm weather, shitty miserable lake effect weather, hell you can go to PR if you want.

what was the point of this entire thread, i got lost in the bickering.

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 1:37 am

goawaybee wrote:
what was the point of this entire thread, i got lost in the bickering.



That 170+ people kick ass.

User avatar
goawaybee
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:20 pm

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

Postby goawaybee » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:38 am

Ragged wrote:
goawaybee wrote:
what was the point of this entire thread, i got lost in the bickering.



That 170+ people kick ass.



I like that, positive ENERGY. gets me hyped. I respect those that achieve, especially if they need it to get into X,Y,Z school.

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 1:39 am

IAFG wrote:know who really gets fucked? dumbs.

what can we do to protect dumbs from dumbness discrimination? it is fucking RAMPANT.


I'm a dumbness bigot!

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 1:40 am

Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:know who really gets fucked? dumbs.

what can we do to protect dumbs from dumbness discrimination? it is fucking RAMPANT.


I'm a dumbness bigot!

they aren't even good enough to clean my toilets.

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 1:41 am

God bless elitists... :lol:

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

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

Postby acrossthelake » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:42 am

Again, I'd like to see some actual suggestions on how to make a test unlearnable. Some evidence that it's possible. :lol:




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: galeatus and 3 guests