Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

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

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

Postby jeremydc » Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:40 pm

Thanks for the encouragement guys. I just finished reading the LR bible and received the free copy of the Super prep book from LSAC. Will do at least 5 LR sections until I move on to LGs. Should be about another month or two before I start doing Full PTs.

I know getting a 170 is going to be difficult but If I start now and dedicate myself to the LSAT, I should be fine come FEB (I would rather not see where I went wrong)

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

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

Postby kk19131 » Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:42 pm

The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.

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

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

Postby WestOfTheRest » Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:43 pm

kk19131 wrote:The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.


I agree, it only tests one's ability to take the LSAT, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, it's still one of the only ways to test the competence of test takers.

mst
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:01 am

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

Postby mst » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:14 pm

kk19131 wrote:The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.


I agree the LSAT could be a much better test, but to say that it serves no useful purpose other than testing people's ability to take the LSAT is absurd. LSAC research has proven that the LSAT serves as the best indicator of a students potential performance in law school, with a correlation between the scores and grades received that is significantly stronger than even UG GPA and grades. You would have to be crazy to say that having this ability to measure students potential objectively is not useful...

EDIT: Looked at your other posts KK19131...The fact that you expect to get a 150 on this upcoming test kind of makes me believe you have a bias here... How convenient an excuse: the test is a poor indicator of everyone's potential ability! No way could I just not have that ability...

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 » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:42 pm

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.


You could write an LSAT question based on this thread.

User avatar
Cleareyes
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:59 pm

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

Postby Cleareyes » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:44 pm

mst wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.


I agree the LSAT could be a much better test, but to say that it serves no useful purpose other than testing people's ability to take the LSAT is absurd. LSAC research has proven that the LSAT serves as the best indicator of a students potential performance in law school, with a correlation between the scores and grades received that is significantly stronger than even UG GPA and grades. You would have to be crazy to say that having this ability to measure students potential objectively is not useful...

EDIT: Looked at your other posts KK19131...The fact that you expect to get a 150 on this upcoming test kind of makes me believe you have a bias here... How convenient an excuse: the test is a poor indicator of everyone's potential ability! No way could I just not have that ability...


I think one thing that calls into question the LSAT's validity is the huge gains people can make through studying. One could argue that the ability to study for a test and improve your score might be a valid indicator of...something...but if you have two people who start at a baseline of, say, 150, and one studies really hard and raises her score to 165 while the other just takes the test cold because he doesn't know any better well what have you really measured? Their potential? Their willingness to sacrifice in order to do well academically? The LSAT may be a better indicator than undergrad GPA but it isn't a great indicator and it's apparently only a really good indicator of 1L grades, not 2L or 3L. Given all these limitations it seems pretty unreasonable for it to have the overwhelming impact on admissions that it does. There are schools you can get into with a 168 that you couldn't even get on the waitlist for with a 164, and that's less than two standard deviations difference.

The thing about the LSAT is that it seems to be used by schools as an aggregate measure. 170 students with a median LSAT of 168 will be significantly better than 170 students with a median LSAT of 164. The problem is this aggregate measure ends up being used in individual decisions, and that kind of sucks.

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 » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:52 pm

kk19131 wrote:The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.


Agree completely. This is the case for ALL standardized tests.

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

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

Postby Tautology » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:57 pm

3|ink wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.


Agree completely. This is the case for ALL standardized tests.


I assume your agreement is equally well supported by evidence.

User avatar
iamcutdacheck
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:23 am

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

Postby iamcutdacheck » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:59 pm

If you know the basic rules of logic and don't fall prey to distractions in the reading comprehension section(s) you will do fine on the LSAT.

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

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

Postby pinkzeppelin » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:02 am

If you can't get a 170+ you will fail at law school and probably end up homeless.

HTH

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

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

Postby acrossthelake » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:14 am

Cleareyes wrote:
mst wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.


I agree the LSAT could be a much better test, but to say that it serves no useful purpose other than testing people's ability to take the LSAT is absurd. LSAC research has proven that the LSAT serves as the best indicator of a students potential performance in law school, with a correlation between the scores and grades received that is significantly stronger than even UG GPA and grades. You would have to be crazy to say that having this ability to measure students potential objectively is not useful...

EDIT: Looked at your other posts KK19131...The fact that you expect to get a 150 on this upcoming test kind of makes me believe you have a bias here... How convenient an excuse: the test is a poor indicator of everyone's potential ability! No way could I just not have that ability...


I think one thing that calls into question the LSAT's validity is the huge gains people can make through studying. One could argue that the ability to study for a test and improve your score might be a valid indicator of...something...but if you have two people who start at a baseline of, say, 150, and one studies really hard and raises her score to 165 while the other just takes the test cold because he doesn't know any better well what have you really measured? Their potential? Their willingness to sacrifice in order to do well academically? The LSAT may be a better indicator than undergrad GPA but it isn't a great indicator and it's apparently only a really good indicator of 1L grades, not 2L or 3L. Given all these limitations it seems pretty unreasonable for it to have the overwhelming impact on admissions that it does. There are schools you can get into with a 168 that you couldn't even get on the waitlist for with a 164, and that's less than two standard deviations difference.

The thing about the LSAT is that it seems to be used by schools as an aggregate measure. 170 students with a median LSAT of 168 will be significantly better than 170 students with a median LSAT of 164. The problem is this aggregate measure ends up being used in individual decisions, and that kind of sucks.


I'd guess the mass majority of test-takers for the LSAT, however, never put in that kind of time and effort to make huge gains. People on TLS are not representative of the general population. For the moment, I don't see any viable alternatives. Research shows that using the LSAT& UGPA > LSAT > UGPA in predicting 1st year performance. They're using the best tools they've got in emphasizing LSAT & UGPA.

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

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

Postby kk19131 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:16 am

Cleareyes wrote:
mst wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.


I agree the LSAT could be a much better test, but to say that it serves no useful purpose other than testing people's ability to take the LSAT is absurd. LSAC research has proven that the LSAT serves as the best indicator of a students potential performance in law school, with a correlation between the scores and grades received that is significantly stronger than even UG GPA and grades. You would have to be crazy to say that having this ability to measure students potential objectively is not useful...

EDIT: Looked at your other posts KK19131...The fact that you expect to get a 150 on this upcoming test kind of makes me believe you have a bias here... How convenient an excuse: the test is a poor indicator of everyone's potential ability! No way could I just not have that ability...


I think one thing that calls into question the LSAT's validity is the huge gains people can make through studying. One could argue that the ability to study for a test and improve your score might be a valid indicator of...something...but if you have two people who start at a baseline of, say, 150, and one studies really hard and raises her score to 165 while the other just takes the test cold because he doesn't know any better well what have you really measured? Their potential? Their willingness to sacrifice in order to do well academically? The LSAT may be a better indicator than undergrad GPA but it isn't a great indicator and it's apparently only a really good indicator of 1L grades, not 2L or 3L. Given all these limitations it seems pretty unreasonable for it to have the overwhelming impact on admissions that it does. There are schools you can get into with a 168 that you couldn't even get on the waitlist for with a 164, and that's less than two standard deviations difference.

The thing about the LSAT is that it seems to be used by schools as an aggregate measure. 170 students with a median LSAT of 168 will be significantly better than 170 students with a median LSAT of 164. The problem is this aggregate measure ends up being used in individual decisions, and that kind of sucks.



Thank you. :idea:

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

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

Postby Scallywaggums » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:16 am

The LSAT is not rubbish. It tests one's ability to read, comprehend, analyze, and then respond to detailed information in a relatively standardized environment under time constraint. Sure, it could be much much better, but making it better would require adding more variety, and probably making it longer.

As has been pointed out, it's a better predictor of law school performance than UGPA. The fact that it's an absolutely terrible predictor of law school performance does not change the fact that it's the best metric available to admissions offices.

Suggesting that it's learn-ability detracts from its worth requires the belief that only innate abilities are the most worthwhile to test for. If LSAC was trying to test for innate ability, it would not have included the Logic Games section. [As an aside, that section is arguably rubbish, 'cause replacing it with more reading or perhaps even a writing section would correlate far better with law school performance than an incredibly specific endeavor that we'll prolly never come across again... unless for fun] The LSAT is meant to test a skill set, not some concept of "intelligence". If you can break 170 your first time, great. You may have better genes in your head than someone who can't... but if that person busts their ass and breaks 170, you both display the same level of skill on the test day, and that's what matters.

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

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

Postby Tautology » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:18 am

Scallywaggums wrote:The LSAT is not rubbish. It tests one's ability to read, comprehend, analyze, and then respond to detailed information in a relatively standardized environment under time constraint. Sure, it could be much much better, but making it better would require adding more variety, and probably making it longer.

As has been pointed out, it's a better predictor of law school performance than UGPA. The fact that it's an absolutely terrible predictor of law school performance does not change the fact that it's the best metric available to admissions offices.

Suggesting that it's learn-ability detracts from its worth requires the belief that only innate abilities are the most worthwhile to test for. If LSAC was trying to test for innate ability, it would not have included the Logic Games section. [As an aside, that section is arguably rubbish, 'cause replacing it with more reading or perhaps even a writing section would correlate far better with law school performance than an incredibly specific endeavor that we'll prolly never come across again... unless for fun] The LSAT is meant to test a skill set, not some concept of "intelligence". If you can break 170 your first time, great. You may have better genes in your head than someone who can't... but if that person busts their ass and breaks 170, you both display the same level of skill on the test day, and that's what matters.


+1

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

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

Postby acrossthelake » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:18 am

Scallywaggums wrote:The LSAT is not rubbish. It tests one's ability to read, comprehend, analyze, and then respond to detailed information in a relatively standardized environment under time constraint. Sure, it could be much much better, but making it better would require adding more variety, and probably making it longer.

As has been pointed out, it's a better predictor of law school performance than UGPA. The fact that it's an absolutely terrible predictor of law school performance does not change the fact that it's the best metric available to admissions offices.

Suggesting that it's learn-ability detracts from its worth requires the belief that only innate abilities are the most worthwhile to test for. If LSAC was trying to test for innate ability, it would not have included the Logic Games section. [As an aside, that section is arguably rubbish, 'cause replacing it with more reading or perhaps even a writing section would correlate far better with law school performance than an incredibly specific endeavor that we'll prolly never come across again... unless for fun] The LSAT is meant to test a skill set, not some concept of "intelligence". If you can break 170 your first time, great. You may have better genes in your head than someone who can't... but if that person busts their ass and breaks 170, you both display the same level of skill on the test day, and that's what matters.


I'd be curious to see the results of research of the validity of the LSAT as a predictor of 1st year grades for people who get it off to bat versus those who heavily study. I don't think it's out there, but the results would be interesting.

User avatar
mallard
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am

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

Postby mallard » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:20 am

Personally I feel that logic games mimic issue-spotters pretty well, in a very minimized way.

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 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:23 am

Tautology wrote:
3|ink wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.


Agree completely. This is the case for ALL standardized tests.


I assume your agreement is equally well supported by evidence.


Luck plays a big hand. If the hardest section on the test is your strongest point...

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

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

Postby Scallywaggums » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:25 am

acrossthelake wrote:I'd be curious to see the results of research of the validity of the LSAT as a predictor of 1st year grades for people who get it off to bat versus those who heavily study. I don't think it's out there, but the results would be interesting.

Indeed. You'd have to also have a scale to account for how much effort they put into law school. Natural LSAT destroyers putting in X effort would likely outperform heavy studiers who put in X effort... but the natural LSAT destroyers who slack off might not. It would be fun to see a graph of everyone in a certain LSAT band, say 170-80, with "hours studied for LSAT" on the X axis and "average hours per week studied in law school" on the Y axis. Then you could click on all the data points for grades. ... ... Never gonna happen, but it'd be fun.

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

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

Postby Tautology » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:25 am

acrossthelake wrote:I'd be curious to see the results of research of the validity of the LSAT as a predictor of 1st year grades for people who get it off to bat versus those who heavily study. I don't think it's out there, but the results would be interesting.


What I would really like to see is for the LSAT to try to tease out the different factors that might be at play that cause the LSAT to weakly correlate with law school performance. How much, if any, is due to some cognitive ability? How much is due to the willingness to work hard to get results? How much is due to having the means (time and money) to do that work for the LSAT? How much of it is racial? To my knowledge these studies have not been done, but I'd love to see them!

Note: Just for clarification, I am not interested in how much these factors play into doing well on the LSAT, I am interested in how much they are the reason for the correlation between LSAT and law school performance.
Last edited by Tautology on Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

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 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:26 am

Scallywaggums wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:I'd be curious to see the results of research of the validity of the LSAT as a predictor of 1st year grades for people who get it off to bat versus those who heavily study. I don't think it's out there, but the results would be interesting.

Indeed. You'd have to also have a scale to account for how much effort they put into law school. Natural LSAT destroyers putting in X effort would likely outperform heavy studiers who put in X effort... but the natural LSAT destroyers who slack off might not. It would be fun to see a graph of everyone in a certain LSAT band, say 170-80, with "hours studied for LSAT" on the X axis and "average hours per week studied in law school" on the Y axis. Then you could click on all the data points for grades. ... ... Never gonna happen, but it'd be fun.


I heard 2/3rds of law school students drop out in the first semester.

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

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

Postby Scallywaggums » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:26 am

mallard wrote:Personally I feel that logic games mimic issue-spotters pretty well, in a very minimized way.

That's a great point. I never thought of that.

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

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

Postby Scallywaggums » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:31 am

Tautology wrote:What I would really like to see is for the LSAT to try to tease out the different factors that might be at play that cause the LSAT to weakly correlate with law school performance. How much, if any, is due to some cognitive ability? How much is due to the willingness to work hard to get results? How much is due to having the means (time and money) to do that work for the LSAT? How much of it is racial? To my knowledge these studies have not been done, but I'd love to see them!

While I think a much broader approach could only make the metric more accurate, I don't see us moving away from the "one day test" format. Aside from all the practical, time-related issues, our society would flip out if you started measuring everyone's g scores for entry into ANY profession. [g scores are Psychology's broadest/most widely accepted form of "intelligence" testing].

As for the non-cognitive parts... maybe some long-term studies will be/have been performed, but that won't necessarily impact the testing paradigm. With a literal monopoly on the market, I don't see drastic changes on the immediate horizon.
Last edited by Scallywaggums on Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby kk19131 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:31 am

You're seriously telling me that the logic games somehow mimic real-life situations?

Are people often given sets of complex information that must be untangled in 7/8 minutes?

How exactly does this help someone 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 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:36 am

mallard wrote:Personally I feel that logic games mimic issue-spotters pretty well, in a very minimized way.


LG actually has the lowest correlation of the three sections. Though maybe because it is the most learnable.

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

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

Postby Tautology » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:37 am

Desert Fox wrote:
mallard wrote:Personally I feel that logic games mimic issue-spotters pretty well, in a very minimized way.


LG actually has the lowest correlation of the three sections.


And it's the easiest section to raise your score on by studying. Definitely needs to be thrown out!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”