Only 2% get a 170+ on 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 4:01 pm

Hey-O wrote:IQ tests strongly correlate with wealth as well.

this is only is relevant if we look at the wealth of parents... maybe the study you're thinking of did?

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 4:02 pm

IAFG wrote:doesn't affirmative action in hiring correct that though?


Affirmative action in hiring isn't as strong as affirmative action in law school admissions, so it doesn't correct it enough.

4. When blacks pass the bar and enter the job market, they encounter a generally positive climate. Blacks earn 6% to 9% more early in their careers than do whites seeking similar jobs with similar credentials, presumably because many employers (including government employers) pursue moderate racial preferences in hiring. Nonetheless, affirmative action by schools hurts blacks in the job market more than it helps. The data in Part VII suggests that employers weigh law school grades far more heavily in evaluating job candidates than most legal academics have assumed. Law school racial preferences give blacks fancier degrees, but also systematically lower their GPAs. For at least two-thirds of black law graduates, the harm preferences do to a student’s grades greatly outweighs the benefit derived from the more prestigious degree. Only black students graduating from the top ten law schools even arguably derive net benefits from this trade-off. Racial preferences therefore have not been an indispensable part of credentialing blacks for the job market; overall, they clearly end up shutting more doors than they open.

-http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf

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 4:02 pm

IAFG wrote:
Hey-O wrote:IQ tests strongly correlate with wealth as well.

this is only is relevant if we look at the wealth of parents... maybe the study you're thinking of did?

I thought he was arguing that IQ=>wealth, not the other way around.

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 4:02 pm

It does. A URM dead last at a t14 will get big law.[/quote]

Surely that's hyperbolic.

... even sounds a little jaded if you ask me.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

So, you have evidence to support your assertion, I take it.

And, you and URMs aren't competing for the same jobs...?

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 4:05 pm

kk19131 wrote:
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...?


Because UG is taking people who have much less control over their circumstances (children) and compensating for their lack of educational opportunities.

UG is dealing with general education as well as specific education. It is a great place for evening the playing field and providing the disadvantaged with a chance to catch up.

Law school is not a good place for that. If you haven't learned to read, reason, and write by the time you graduate from UG how are you going to learn to do that in LS?

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 4:06 pm

acrossthelake wrote:https://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/ClassBased.pdf

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.

i took this to mean that the people who wrote the most compelling "I'm from a poor family" applications happened not to be the minorities schools were hoping to bring on... no? doesn't really indicate anything about LSAT

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 4:10 pm

IAFG wrote:i took this to mean that the people who wrote the most compelling "I'm from a poor family" applications happened not to be the minorities schools were hoping to bring on... no? doesn't really indicate anything about LSAT


Suggests, however loosely, that minorities make up more of the chunk of poor people taking the LSAT. As noted, minorities benefit disproportionally from class-based preferences.

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 4:10 pm

Hey-O wrote:
kk19131 wrote:
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...?


Because UG is taking people who have much less control over their circumstances (children) and compensating for their lack of educational opportunities.

UG is dealing with general education as well as specific education. It is a great place for evening the playing field and providing the disadvantaged with a chance to catch up.

Law school is not a good place for that. If you haven't learned to read, reason, and write by the time you graduate from UG how are you going to learn to do that in LS?



I see no evidence indicating that people coming out of high school are somehow vastly less in control of their circumstances than recent college grads.

Undergrad, in many respects, is just as "professional" as law school - business is the biggest major in the country after all. Further, I see no reason why law school can't also help toward "evening the playing field". Who says this evening has to stop simply because someone is older/graduated from college?

Also, I seriously doubt that many law schools are accepting people who totally " haven't learned to read, reason, and write", so I don't know where you're going with 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 4:11 pm

kk19131 wrote:
And, you and URMs aren't competing for the same jobs...?


Just what people report back.

And no I'm not really competing with urms for jobs. While firms don't call it a quota, they have a defacto quota. If firms stopped affirmative action hiring, I wouldn't more likely to get a job.

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 4:15 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:
And, you and URMs aren't competing for the same jobs...?


Just what people report back.

And no I'm not really competing with urms for jobs. While firms don't call it a quota, they have a defacto quota. If firms stopped affirmative action hiring, I wouldn't more likely to get a job.


Unless my understanding of a quota is incorrect, what you just said doesn't make much sense.

That is, if firms have quotas, after those quotas are met, you most certainly could be competing with URMs for the same jobs... unless you're trying to say that every URM who applies to the same firms you do isdefinitely going to be hired.

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 4:18 pm

kk19131 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:
And, you and URMs aren't competing for the same jobs...?


Just what people report back.

And no I'm not really competing with urms for jobs. While firms don't call it a quota, they have a defacto quota. If firms stopped affirmative action hiring, I wouldn't more likely to get a job.


Unless my understanding of a quota is incorrect, what you just said doesn't make much sense.

That is, if firms have quotas, after those quotas are met, you most certainly could be competing with URMs for the same jobs... unless you're trying to say that every URM who applies to the same firms you do isdefinitely going to be hired.


URM's with similar or better qualifications will go to better firms. Those with worse qualifications compete for diversity spots. If a firm is looking to hire 3 URMs, they'll just take the best three they can find.

At the extreme cases this falls apart, like at the top firms in a city. Because there is no better firm for a URM to go to.

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 4:20 pm

kk19131 wrote:

I see no evidence indicating that people coming out of high school are somehow vastly less in control of their circumstances than recent college grads.[/quote]

Umm...being a child isn't evidence enough? UG is taking into account someone's entire childhood, a time when people are not in control of their lives. Also, There is an enormous intellectual, emotional, and social difference with being 21+ and being 17/18. If someone is graduating from college with no more skills, job prospects, connections, or options than when they went to college then maybe college wasn't the right choice for them?

Plus, the average age of a law school student is 24.

[/quote]
Undergrad, in many respects, is just as "professional" as law school - business is the biggest major in the country after all. Further, I see no reason why law school can't also help toward "evening the playing field". Who says this evening has to stop simply because someone is older/graduated from college?[/quote]
My point is that law school is providing a different service than law school. UG is more a general education with a focus on one subject. Law school is preparing people for a certain career and their goal is to choose the best students to fulfill that career.

[/quote]
Also, I seriously doubt that many law schools are accepting people who totally " haven't learned to read, reason, and write", so I don't know where you're going with that.[/quote]

This is a straw man. I'm not saying 'totally'. But those basic skills are what LSAT tests. Someone whose is weak in those skills is not as good an applicant to law school.

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 4:25 pm

Hey-O wrote:
kk19131 wrote:

I see no evidence indicating that people coming out of high school are somehow vastly less in control of their circumstances than recent college grads.


Umm...being a child isn't evidence enough? UG is taking into account someone's entire childhood, a time when people are not in control of their lives. Also, There is an enormous intellectual, emotional, and social difference with being 21+ and being 17/18. If someone is graduating from college with no more skills, job prospects, connections, or options than when they went to college then maybe college wasn't the right choice for them?

Plus, the average age of a law school student is 24.

[/quote]
Undergrad, in many respects, is just as "professional" as law school - business is the biggest major in the country after all. Further, I see no reason why law school can't also help toward "evening the playing field". Who says this evening has to stop simply because someone is older/graduated from college?[/quote]
My point is that law school is providing a different service than law school. UG is more a general education with a focus on one subject. Law school is preparing people for a certain career and their goal is to choose the best students to fulfill that career.

[/quote]
Also, I seriously doubt that many law schools are accepting people who totally " haven't learned to read, reason, and write", so I don't know where you're going with that.[/quote]

This is a straw man. I'm not saying 'totally'. But those basic skills are what LSAT tests. Someone whose is weak in those skills is not as good an applicant to law school.[/quote]

I don't disagree that people with weak comprehension skills are weaker applicants; I just don't know how this pertains to the issue at hand.

Nobody's asking law schools totally to compromise the integrity of their programs to admit URMs, just to help even the playing field. I mean, after all is said, no URM with a 125 is going to be accepted to Harvard.

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 4:34 pm

Fix the quotes you delinquents

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 4:35 pm

CastleRock wrote:Fix the quotes you delinquents

Agreed; I'm as noob as it gets, and even I can handle 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 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:55 pm

kk19131 wrote:Nobody's asking law schools totally to compromise the integrity of their programs to admit URMs, just to help even the playing field. I mean, after all is said, no URM with a 125 is going to be accepted to Harvard.

GPA/LSAT requirements are hugely compromised for URM's. 125 is a straw man. http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/?whichCycle=0910 8 out of the 9 acceptances that blatantly don't fit the trends are URM's. The non-URM exception has been working in DC with the Federal Gov for 4 years, straight out of UG.

That's some serious evening of the playing field.
This trend is the same for all schools(Yale has a 3rd generation legacy outlier so that's another serious boon).

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 5:45 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
kk19131 wrote:Nobody's asking law schools totally to compromise the integrity of their programs to admit URMs, just to help even the playing field. I mean, after all is said, no URM with a 125 is going to be accepted to Harvard.

GPA/LSAT requirements are hugely compromised for URM's. 125 is a straw man. http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/?whichCycle=0910 8 out of the 9 acceptances that blatantly don't fit the trends are URM's. The non-URM exception has been working in DC with the Federal Gov for 4 years, straight out of UG.

That's some serious evening of the playing field.
This trend is the same for all schools(Yale has a 3rd generation legacy outlier so that's another serious boon).



1. I have no idea if those numbers are true or not... are they not self-reported?

2. I'm sorry if I disagree that what represents essentially 6 or 7 questions on the LSAT is actually "hugely" compromising. In fact, the 25% LSAT for Part-time students at Georgetown is 163; thus, even if those self-reported numbers are true, the URMs who were admitted weren't done so at any huge compromise of the school's standards.

3. I don't think what I wrote was a straw man: the idea being asserted is that URMs are being admitted at huge compromises to schools' standards; to me, a huge compromise would be something well outside the bottom 25% - not just a few points.

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 6:10 pm

kk19131 wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:
kk19131 wrote:Nobody's asking law schools totally to compromise the integrity of their programs to admit URMs, just to help even the playing field. I mean, after all is said, no URM with a 125 is going to be accepted to Harvard.

GPA/LSAT requirements are hugely compromised for URM's. 125 is a straw man. http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/?whichCycle=0910 8 out of the 9 acceptances that blatantly don't fit the trends are URM's. The non-URM exception has been working in DC with the Federal Gov for 4 years, straight out of UG.

That's some serious evening of the playing field.
This trend is the same for all schools(Yale has a 3rd generation legacy outlier so that's another serious boon).



1. I have no idea if those numbers are true or not... are they not self-reported?

2. I'm sorry if I disagree that what represents essentially 6 or 7 questions on the LSAT is actually "hugely" compromising. In fact, the 25% LSAT for Part-time students at Georgetown is 163; thus, even if those self-reported numbers are true, the URMs who were admitted weren't done so at any huge compromise of the school's standards.

3. I don't think what I wrote was a straw man: the idea being asserted is that URMs are being admitted at huge compromises to schools' standards; to me, a huge compromise would be something well outside the bottom 25% - not just a few points.


I don't really much care about "integrity" in admissions, so this isn't speaking to that. Just saying, it's not like they're given an advantage then all go on to do equally well as if they didn't need the boost for admissions in the first place.

Let's go back to that original quoted article.


--LinkRemoved--
For blacks, there are two primary benefits of affirmative action. First, black students widely have the opportunity to attend significantly more elite schools than do white peers with similar credentials. Preferences boost students up the hierarchy of 184 schools by 20 to 50 steps, sometimes more; a very large majority of black students accept these opportunities and attend schools that used preferences to admit them. Second, the system as a whole leads to the admission of an additional five or six hundred black students—about one-seventh of the annual total—who would not otherwise be admitted to any accredited school. Cutting against these benefits are six major costs of the current system of racial preferences.
1. Black students as a whole are at a substantial academic disadvantage when they attend schools that used preferences to admit them.292 As a consequence, they perform poorly as a group throughout law school. The median GPA of all black students at the end of the first year of law school lies roughly at the sixth percentile of the white grade distribution. Put differently, close to half of black students end up in the bottom tenth of their classes. This performance gap is entirely attributable to preferences; none of it seems to be attributable to race per se.
2. The clustering of black students near the bottom of the grade distribution produces substantially higher attrition rates. Entering black law students are 135% more likely than white students to not get a law degree. Part of this is the effect of low grades on academically strong black students who would have easily graduated from less competitive schools; part of this is the effect of high attrition among the five or six hundred academically weak black students admitted to the low-prestige law schools. But again, virtually all of the black-white gap seems attributable to preferences; virtually none of it seems attributable to race or to any correlate of race (such as income).
3. Generally low grades among blacks have even larger effects on bar performance. Blacks are nearly six times as likely as whites to not pass state bar exams after multiple attempts. The difference, again, is mostly attributable to preferences. Half of the black-white bar passage gap is traceable to the effects of blacks with good credentials getting low grades at higher-prestige schools; nearly a quarter is due to low-prestige schools admitting blacks with lower credentials than almost any of the other students in the system.

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 6:13 pm

kk19131 wrote:1. I have no idea if those numbers are true or not... are they not self-reported?

Self-reported indeed, no way to know for sure, but I see no reason to believe that a significant portion of anonymous users on a website that is geared toward tracking the admissions process would lie. There are no threads in which to cultivate a persona; the only chatting is posting on other users' walls, generally to congratulate etc.
kk19131 wrote:2. I'm sorry if I disagree that what represents essentially 6 or 7 questions on the LSAT is actually "hugely" compromising. In fact, the 25% LSAT for Part-time students at Georgetown is 163; thus, even if those self-reported numbers are true, the URMs who were admitted weren't done so at any huge compromise of the school's standards.

I believe that being let in a school as an outlier is "huge", "huge" being a subjective term. Bringing in the 25% is far less relevant than looking at a two-dimensional graph: If almost every single glaring outlier is a URM, the 25% would be vastly different if you didn't count those outliers. Many schools have a significant % of URM's in their classes, so we can assume that the 25th percentile for GPA or LSAT would spike if there were no URM policy with quotas. We disagree on "huge".
kk19131 wrote:3. I don't think what I wrote was a straw man: the idea being asserted is that URMs are being admitted at huge compromises to schools' standards; to me, a huge compromise would be something well outside the bottom 25% - not just a few points.

Again, the 25th percentile metric pales in comparison to looking at a graph, when URM's make up a significant percentage [often over 25%] of a class.
Edit: I'm assuming "minorities" is synonymous with "under-represented minorities". Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Last edited by Scallywaggums on Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 6:15 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
Put differently, close to half of black students end up in the bottom tenth of their classes.

yiiiiiiiikes

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 6:17 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
kk19131 wrote:1. I have no idea if those numbers are true or not... are they not self-reported?

Self-reported indeed, no way to know for sure, but I see no reason to believe that a significant portion of anonymous users on a website that is geared toward tracking the admissions process would lie. There are no threads in which to cultivate a persona; the only chatting is posting on other users' walls, generally to congratulate etc.


You don't have to believe that a significant portion of the users are lying, only that a significant portion of the users who claim URM status and to have gotten into a school with numbers much poorer than most other students at that school, are lying.

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 6:18 pm

acrossthelake wrote:. Preferences boost students up the hierarchy of 184 schools by 20 to 50 steps, sometimes more;

I think this is huge.

By the way, acrossthelake, you clearly spend more time reading to support your contributions than the rest of us, at least in this thread. Serious kudos.

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 6:22 pm

Tautology wrote:You don't have to believe that a significant portion of the users are lying, only that a significant portion of the users who claim URM status and to have gotten into a school with numbers much poorer than most other students at that school, are lying.

True. Since this is not inconsistent with the data quoted from acrossthelake, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I don't believe that a significant portion of the users who claim URM status and to have gotten into a school with numbers much poorer than most other students at that school, are lying. <3 copy/paste function.

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 8:04 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:. Preferences boost students up the hierarchy of 184 schools by 20 to 50 steps, sometimes more;

I think this is huge.

By the way, acrossthelake, you clearly spend more time reading to support your contributions than the rest of us, at least in this thread. Serious kudos.


Thanks. I like using legitimate research instead of speculation sometimes :lol: Kudos to everyone for a thoughtful discussion(I've seen so many derail into attacks on the individuals...)

Anyway, I think an argument that has been in the thread from the beginning have been the following:
1) The LSAT doesn't test anything and is meaningless.
RE: It predicts law school performance better than UGPA and any other indicator they can find. Combined with LGPA, it even predicts bar passage rates.
2) But it underpredicts URMs and only predicts 1st year grades.
RE: LSAT predicts well for both 1L and cumulative grades and overpredicts for URMs.
http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/rr/Uti ... ool-ES.htm
The major finding of the study is that LSAT score and UGPA, in combination, were related to cumulative LGPA at approximately the same level as they were related to first-year LGPA. *snip snip*

A second important finding is that the patterns of predictive validity for different ethnic and sex groups do not seem to change regardless of whether the criterion is first-year LGPA or cumulative LGPA. However, there is an overall tendency for test scores and undergraduate grades to over-predict law school performance for nonwhite law school students. The over-prediction was greater when LSAT score was used alone than when it was used in combination with UGPA. And, when used in combination, the two predictors tended to over-predict for nonwhite students with higher predicted LGPAs to a greater extent than it over-predicted for those with lower predicted LGPAs.

3) It's biased against poor people in underpredicting their ability.
RE: Research above notes that minorities disproportionately represent the lower economic classes in law school admissions. So there's conjecture that if the LSAT doesn't underpredict the performance of URMs, then it probably doesn't for the poor either.



What any liberal(and I included) wish were true:
The LSAT underpredicts people from disadvantaged backgrounds and under-represented minorities, so even when you lower the bar for minorities, they still manage to do well in law school and do better than their LSAT&UGPA predict.
Harsh and cold reality:
The LSAT overpredicts for under-represented minorities. Admissions policies that lower the bar do so significanty("Preferences boost students up the hierarchy of 184 schools by 20 to 50 steps, sometimes more") and contrary to overcoming predictions,improving over three years, and performing on par with white(and asian) students, close to half of black students end up in the bottom tenth of their class in the beginning and end of law school.

I'm all for narrowing the performance gap between white/asians and URMS--a lot more funding needs to go to the K-12 education system, but it appears that in law school, this is not happening.
--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 8:26 pm

acrossthelake wrote:3) It's biased against poor people in underpredicting their ability.
RE: Research above notes that minorities disproportionately represent the lower economic classes in law school admissions. So there's conjecture that if the LSAT doesn't underpredict the performance of URMs, then it probably doesn't for the poor either.


Thanks for the summary, but I do want to make two comments about this because it does not capture the argument I have been making.

First, I do not believe that predicting LGPA is the measure by which the LSAT should be judged. In so much as the poor are disadvantaged by the LSAT because of lack of time/money, they are probably more disadvantaged by law school itself. That is one possible explanation for the overprediction of LGPA by the LSAT of URMs (which correlate with the poor). It seems to be an assumption in this thread that the purpose of the LSAT should be to predict LGPA, but I'm not convinced that that should be the case (although I always remain open-minded) and certainly wouldn't have chosen it as my metric for determining whether the bias I hypothesize exists for the reason I mentioned above.

Second, as you (I think) pointed out earlier, such a bias can exist without strongly manifesting. Data suggests that the number of people who prep is quite small overall, and may be so small as to not be noticeable by the above study. That wouldn't mean that the bias didn't exist, although it might suggest that the bias isn't worth worrying about. It may also be that that small number who do study make up a significant portion of those with high scores, in which case study may be significant for certain groups of test-takers.

Just to repeat it for everyone's benefit my original argument was that learnability was a trait that probably provides disadvantages to certain groups of people (the poor was the one I named, people with children was another suggested group) and was therefore an undesirable trait in a standardized test.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, cherrygalore, CHyde, Google [Bot], Instrumental and 12 guests