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 1:42 am

I come from a piss poor background but I'm also in this special club, so I feel good inside.

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 1:42 am

IAFG wrote:
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.


Something we can finally agree on :D

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 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:44 am

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


A national bar exam that requires thorough knowledge of every state's laws.

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 1:44 am

Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:
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.


Something we can finally agree on :D

as usual, intellectual elitism prevails

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 1:45 am

I would like to add that I do enjoy cleaning toilets, free will move. makes the world better. gloves and ninja mental state are essential to accomplish said task and feel good about it though.

just read something taut mentioned about discrediting natural test takers...was good comment. made me GLAP (giggle like a pig) see even old bitter people come up with dumb ass internet things.


It is just a test, I got 149 taking it cold, scared the poop out of me. Then realized if I put in the time I could def. get up over 170 but good god, I have a life to live.

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 1:45 am

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


I don't think we have to prove that this is possible in order to agree that learnability is an undesirable quality in this kind of test and thus unlearnability a goal to strive for, nor does a test have to be completely unlearnable to be less learnable than the current version of the LSAT.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

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

Postby sundance95 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:50 am

I don't think we have to prove that this is possible in order to agree that learnability is an undesirable quality in this kind of test and thus unlearnability a goal to strive for, nor does a test have to be completely unlearnable to be less learnable than the current version of the LSAT.


--ImageRemoved--

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 1:53 am

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


I don't think we have to prove that this is possible in order to agree that learnability is an undesirable quality in this kind of test and thus unlearnability a goal to strive for, nor does a test have to be completely unlearnable to be less learnable than the current version of the LSAT.


Also depends if the current state of the LSAT would be more or less predictive if you made these changes. Hasn't been done, so there's no research to back it up. If you could make it less biased towards those with time and resources while maintaining predictability, that's fine. The real goal should just be to max out its capabilities of predicting performance.

It depends how you define "learnable"----Is it amount of time needed to improve? That's how I'm viewing the definition, so let me know if you're using a different definition. Working with that definition, until you reach perfect unlearnability(no time will help you), the more unlearnable you make it(the more time you need to put in for a marginal improvement), the more it favours those with the time and resources and therefore the wealthy, assuming that people will go to whatever lengths to succeed.

Currently as it is though, most people(including the wealthy!) don't go to nearly the lengths they could go to succeed.

So it depends what assumptions and definitions we're working with here.

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 2:05 am

acrossthelake wrote:Also depends if the current state of the LSAT would be more or less predictive if you made these changes. Hasn't been done, so there's no research to back it up. If you could make it less biased towards those with time and resources while maintaining predictability, that's fine.


Pretty much agree with this.

acrossthelake wrote:The real goal should just be to max out its capabilities of predicting performance.


I don't necessarily agree with this. I'm sure to get disagreement, but being the unabashed liberal that I am I think that part of the goal of education should be to help close the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged segments of society. The LSAT does not necessarily have to address that, but to the extent that the wealthy/educated/white/whatever among us are more likely to do well in law school (especially if it's because of differences at the beginning rather than by the end of their legal training) then I don't think the LSAT should help pick those people out.

acrossthelake wrote:It depends how you define "learnable"----Is it amount of time needed to improve? That's how I'm viewing the definition, so let me know if you're using a different definition. Working with that definition, until you reach perfect unlearnability(no time will help you), the more unlearnable you make it(the more time you need to put in for a marginal improvement), the more it favours those with the time and resources and therefore the wealthy, assuming that people will go to whatever lengths to succeed.

Currently as it is though, most people(including the wealthy!) don't go to nearly the lengths they could go to succeed.

So it depends what assumptions and definitions we're working with here.


I probably wasn't defining learnable very precisely. Time needed for improvement would probably be a component, but I don't agree that making it take more time to improve would greater advantage those we're talking about, and certainly not if the time investment/improvement ratio were extreme enough. The things I would target first though are things like logic games that most people have never seen before the LSAT and so people could greatly benefit from studying specifically for the LSAT.

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 2:07 am

--ImageRemoved-- (LinkRemoved)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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 2:10 am

I want to see evidence that the test is biased against lower income levels. Do poor students do better in law school than the LSAT says they should? That would be a huge blow against the LSAT.

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 2:15 am

Tautology wrote:
I don't necessarily agree with this. I'm sure to get disagreement, but being the unabashed liberal that I am I think that part of the goal of education should be to help close the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged segments of society. The LSAT does not necessarily have to address that, but to the extent that the wealthy/educated/white/whatever among us are more likely to do well in law school (especially if it's because of differences at the beginning rather than by the end of their legal training) then I don't think the LSAT should help pick those people out.



I'm sure there's plenty of argument for making admissions more holistic, but the way I see it the LSAT as it is currently serves these purposes:
1) Predict performance in law school. This is currently does better than UGPA or any other indicator we have.
2) Level out the GPA variability(cuz a 3.8 in basketweaving from podunk CC is just not the same as a 3.8 in electrical engineering from MIT). There's plenty of argument on this website of well, my GPA was harder to obtain and I don't think it's fair that my GPA is valued less with comparison to so and so who probably won't do as well as me. This is basically the compensation--if you're really going to be better than so and so with the higher GPA, show us on the LSAT.

It does both fairly well. I'm just personally more in view of education serving that purpose for undergrad than professional schools. I see the purpose of professional schools as to produce successful practicing professionals, but for that I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Tautology wrote:I probably wasn't defining learnable very precisely. Time needed for improvement would probably be a component, but I don't agree that making it take more time to improve would greater advantage those we're talking about, and certainly not if the time investment/improvement ratio were extreme enough. The things I would target first though are things like logic games that most people have never seen before the LSAT and so people could greatly benefit from studying specifically for the LSAT.


I think we also have differing perceptions of what the current time investment/improvement ratio is. Again, TLS isn't really representative. As it is, it's already high enough that most people don't prep enough to see large gains (the research I cited a few pages ago notes that the average gain from prepping is along the lines of 4-6points).

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 2:17 am

Desert Fox wrote:I want to see evidence that the test is biased against lower income levels. Do poor students do better in law school than the LSAT says they should? That would be a huge blow against the LSAT.


I agree that evidence trumps speculation, but I have been unable to find such evidence :(

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 2:23 am

Tautology wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I want to see evidence that the test is biased against lower income levels. Do poor students do better in law school than the LSAT says they should? That would be a huge blow against the LSAT.


I agree that evidence trumps speculation, but I have been unable to find such evidence :(


This is difficult to track because they don't ask you your economic status on the LSAT. However, research done by ethnicity shows no ethnic bias. In fact, the LSAT overpredicts for URMs.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

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

Postby sundance95 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:23 am

Tautology wrote:I agree that evidence trumps speculation, but I have been unable to find such evidence :(


And its so much more fun to debate the facts anyway-amirite?

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 2:25 am

What exactly is the LSAT supposed to predict?


And, I mean... exactly.

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 2:26 am

acrossthelake wrote:
Tautology wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I want to see evidence that the test is biased against lower income levels. Do poor students do better in law school than the LSAT says they should? That would be a huge blow against the LSAT.


I agree that evidence trumps speculation, but I have been unable to find such evidence :(


This is difficult to track because they don't ask you your economic status on the LSAT. However, research done by ethnicity shows no ethnic bias. In fact, the LSAT overpredicts for URMs.


And since URMs are disproportionately economically disadvantaged I think its a fair assumption that an economic bias doesn't exist.

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 2:27 am

kk19131 wrote:What exactly is the LSAT supposed to predict?


And, I mean... exactly.


1L class rank

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 2:28 am

Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:What exactly is the LSAT supposed to predict?


And, I mean... exactly.


1L class rank


Is it school-specific?

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 2:28 am

kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:What exactly is the LSAT supposed to predict?


And, I mean... exactly.


1L class rank


Is it school-specific?


No.

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 2:30 am

Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:What exactly is the LSAT supposed to predict?


And, I mean... exactly.


1L class rank


Is it school-specific?


No.


So everyone at Harvard is at the top of her class?

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

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

Postby PDaddy » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:31 am

booyakasha wrote:TLS is full of gunners. HTH.


TLS is full of liars. lol

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 2:32 am

Desert Fox wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:
Tautology wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I want to see evidence that the test is biased against lower income levels. Do poor students do better in law school than the LSAT says they should? That would be a huge blow against the LSAT.


I agree that evidence trumps speculation, but I have been unable to find such evidence :(


This is difficult to track because they don't ask you your economic status on the LSAT. However, research done by ethnicity shows no ethnic bias. In fact, the LSAT overpredicts for URMs.


And since URMs are disproportionately economically disadvantaged I think its a fair assumption that an economic bias doesn't exist.


That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.

sundance95 wrote:And its so much more fun to debate the facts anyway-amirite?


I mean, who wants to just agree?

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 2:33 am

kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
1L class rank


Is it school-specific?


No.


So everyone at Harvard is at the top of her class?


Oh I misunderstood your question. It's a measurement relative to other test takers. So a 165 would be more likely to be at the bottom of HLS because its the bottom 10% of HLS students LSAT scores.

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 2:35 am

This has actually been a surprisingly cordial and polite discussion.

Tautology wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
And since URMs are disproportionately economically disadvantaged I think its a fair assumption that an economic bias doesn't exist.


That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.


Well, the research shows that most people don't really do much prep at all, so as it currently is, the advantage of time and resources for LSAT prep isn't really playing out for most of the LSAT-taking population.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cctv, dontsaywhatyoumean, Instrumental, LewD33, TakeItToTrial, tlsfan13 and 7 guests