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 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:38 am

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


No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

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 2:45 am

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


No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--


Sorry, I'm not seeing where it shows that URMs who take the LSAT are disproportionately economically disadvantaged.

acrossthelake wrote: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.


Also an important point that an advantage can exist whether it is taken advantage of or not.

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 2:54 am

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


No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--


thanks for this link...i am getting hoovered in via all the discussion and then got sucked into the notes on the bottom of 429. damn this at 3am.

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

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

Postby Scallywaggums » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:28 pm

Desert Fox wrote:--LinkRemoved--

2 points for the most intense reference I've encountered on TLS thus far. Did you read that whole thing at some point?

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 2:30 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:--LinkRemoved--

2 points for the most intense reference I've encountered on TLS thus far. Did you read that whole thing at some point?


No, it just came up in an affirmative action debate.

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

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

Postby Scallywaggums » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:35 pm

I see. In that case I will refrain from questioning your sanity. Carry on, then. ::hand waving::

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 2:37 pm

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


No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

you don't get it, DF. we have to protect the underprivileged from themselves. put away your "data" and "facts" and get on the excuse-making bandwagon.

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 3:30 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:--LinkRemoved--

2 points for the most intense reference I've encountered on TLS thus far. Did you read that whole thing at some point?


Nice reference, good read. I've been on fence with affirmative action for a while, because I hadn't yet seen research/data that was too convincing either way. This helped me pick a side, thanks.

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 3:36 pm

IAFG wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Tautology wrote:
That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.


No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

you don't get it, DF. we have to protect the underprivileged from themselves. put away your "data" and "facts" and get on the excuse-making bandwagon.


Could you help me with how the reference is related to what I said though? I'm still not seeing that.

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 3:40 pm

Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Tautology wrote:
That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.


No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

you don't get it, DF. we have to protect the underprivileged from themselves. put away your "data" and "facts" and get on the excuse-making bandwagon.


Could you help me with how the reference is related to what I said though? I'm still not seeing that.


They way I read your post was that you didn't think it's been show the LSAT predicts urm performance just as well as it does non-urm. Instead you meant you want it shown that urm students are in a lower economic status.

I'm not going to go find data to disprove your claims about the lsat. There is very simple data that could prove your argument. Go find it.

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 3:41 pm

Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Tautology wrote:
That's not necessarily true though of URMs taking the LSAT. It may be, but that's not clear.


No that actually is clear. Pg 429 - --LinkRemoved--

you don't get it, DF. we have to protect the underprivileged from themselves. put away your "data" and "facts" and get on the excuse-making bandwagon.


Could you help me with how the reference is related to what I said though? I'm still not seeing that.

that the LSAT is as good an indicator of LS performance for the wealthy and rich, which is its purpose, so there isn't a skewing bias in favor of the wealthy

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 3:42 pm

IAFG wrote:that the LSAT is as good an indicator of LS performance for the wealthy and rich, which is its purpose, so there isn't a skewing bias in favor of the wealthy


I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I didn't see it say that on the page or pages surrounding that I was directed to (and I haven't read the whole thing).

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 3:43 pm

Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:that the LSAT is as good an indicator of LS performance for the wealthy and rich, which is its purpose, so there isn't a skewing bias in favor of the wealthy


I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I didn't see it say that on the page or pages surrounding that I was directed to (and I haven't read the whole thing).

minorities are poor. minorities are forgiven their weak LSATs. they then go on to perform poorly in LS. that is what i took DF's point to be anyway. if i am wrong, he'll cobble together some barely intelligible correction.

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 3:47 pm

IAFG wrote:
Tautology wrote:
IAFG wrote:that the LSAT is as good an indicator of LS performance for the wealthy and rich, which is its purpose, so there isn't a skewing bias in favor of the wealthy


I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I didn't see it say that on the page or pages surrounding that I was directed to (and I haven't read the whole thing).

minorities are poor. minorities are forgiven their weak LSATs. they then go on to perform poorly in LS. that is what i took DF's point to be anyway. if i am wrong, he'll cobble together some barely intelligible correction.


Right, but my point was that although minorities in general are poor, the subset of minorities who also take the LSAT will not necessarily look exactly like minorities as a whole. I didn't see that addressed.

User avatar
BarnabeSpooge
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:19 pm

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

Postby BarnabeSpooge » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:49 pm

I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

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 3:50 pm

BarnabeSpooge wrote:I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?

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 3:51 pm

BarnabeSpooge wrote:I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.


This is exactly the kind of statement that troubles me.

User avatar
BarnabeSpooge
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:19 pm

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

Postby BarnabeSpooge » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:51 pm

IAFG wrote:
BarnabeSpooge wrote:I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?


I have absolutely no idea, but it might.

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 3:54 pm

BarnabeSpooge wrote:
IAFG wrote:
BarnabeSpooge wrote:I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?


I have absolutely no idea, but it might.


It does. A URM dead last at a t14 will get big law.

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 3:55 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
BarnabeSpooge wrote:
IAFG wrote:
BarnabeSpooge wrote:I always took that paper to mean that Law School Performance > Quality of Law School, in terms of career arcs, and that people who leap to go into the "best school that takes them" (who are often URM) are doing themselves a disservice.

Correlating this with the LSAT as a predictor of Law School Performance, it would mean that it might be wiser for a (an?) URM to go to a lower-ranked school that matches their academic profile (and excel) as opposed to taking a diversity bump into a school where they are statistically likely to underperform.

doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?


I have absolutely no idea, but it might.


It does. A URM dead last at a t14 will get big law.


Surely that's hyperbolic.

... even sounds a little jaded if you ask me.

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 3:55 pm

--LinkRemoved--

Haven't read all of it yet, just the intro, but I think it speaks to the discussion.

UCLA's class-based preference had only mixed success in preserving racial diversity at the law school. The enrollment of blacks and American Indians fell by more than 70 percent from the levels typically achieved under the old race-based preference system (though a third of both declines can be blamed on falling applications). The enrollment of Latinos remained virtually unchanged(if one controls for changes in applications) and the enrollment of traditionally underrepresented Asian nationalities increased. In all these cases, the minority groups benefited disproportionately from the class-based preference. What varied was the size of the old racial preference; the greater the traditional preference, the less effectively class worked as a "substitute" for race.
Last edited by acrossthelake on Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby Hey-O » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:58 pm

Taut, the problem with your argument is that you're asking law school to perform a service that should be performed by UG --> Namely, to provide disadvantage students with greater educational opportunities. I think that law school should do this to a certain extent but in the end law school is a professional school. It should mostly be concerned with the applicants' ability in law school.

Also, I disagree that unlearnability would advantage the poor. IQ tests strongly correlate with wealth as well.

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 3:58 pm

kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
BarnabeSpooge wrote:
IAFG wrote:doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?


I have absolutely no idea, but it might.


It does. A URM dead last at a t14 will get big law.


Surely that's hyperbolic.

... even sounds a little jaded if you ask me.


It's not hyperbolic. And what do I care, I'm not getting hired for a diversity initiative, me and URMs aren't even competing for the same jobs.

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 4:00 pm

Hey-O wrote:Taut, the problem with your argument is that you're asking law school to perform a service that should be performed by UG --> Namely, to provide disadvantage students with greater educational opportunities. I think that law school should do this to a certain extent but in the end law school is a professional school. It should mostly be concerned with the applicants' ability in law school.

Also, I disagree that unlearnability would advantage the poor. IQ tests strongly correlate with wealth as well.



Are you saying that "professional" schools have little responsibility for providing advantages to disadvantaged populations?

What makes UG so different from law school...?

User avatar
BarnabeSpooge
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:19 pm

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

Postby BarnabeSpooge » Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:00 pm

Desert Fox wrote:It does. A URM dead last at a t14 will get big law.

Page 467 of the paper you cited seems to disagree, and it was written in a better market.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cherrygalore, Pozzo, Vino.Veritas and 14 guests