Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT

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 8:56 pm

Tautology wrote: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.

While we've agreed that anyone with a job can afford it, I've agreed with the first half of what I emboldened, because there certainly are people who can't afford the materials. But since the LSAT is supposed to test for a skill set that is learn-able, I disagree with the second half: I don't think it's an undesirable trait, I think it's a necessary trait if your aim is correlation with LS performance. Unfortunate, yes, but as a couple have pointed out, it's far less biased against poor folk than most of life. My suggested solution was for LSAC to provide a bunch of PT's for those who qualify for a fee waiver.

I think you may be arriving at your "learn-ability" is "undesirable" in part because you say you're a natural LSAT whiz :idea: :)

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 9:06 pm

Scallywaggums wrote:
Tautology wrote: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.

While we've agreed that anyone with a job can afford it, I've agreed with the first half of what I emboldened, because there certainly are people who can't afford the materials. But since the LSAT is supposed to test for a skill set that is learn-able, I disagree with the second half: I don't think it's an undesirable trait, I think it's a necessary trait if your aim is correlation with LS performance. Unfortunate, yes, but as a couple have pointed out, it's far less biased against poor folk than most of life. My suggested solution was for LSAC to provide a bunch of PT's for those who qualify for a fee waiver.

I think you may be arriving at your "learn-ability" is "undesirable" in part because you say you're a natural LSAT whiz :idea: :)


You may be right in your accusation, although I'm not against people working hard for their results. Perhaps I have a second thing that I'm doing and not being fair about, and that is distinguishing between learnability (I will continue to make it one word I don't care what you or spell check say about it) that has to do with learning the underlying skills involved and learnability that has to do with learning the test. A lot of the benefit from prep seems to be learning how to deal with logic games or the different kinds of LR questions than it has to do with learning logic and reasoning at a more basic level. Maybe there's some kind of transferability that's important to me. If the learning is transferable to other things I mind it less than learning skills specifically for the test.

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 9:19 pm

Tautology wrote:...distinguishing between learnability (I will continue to make it one word I don't care what you or spell check say about it)

3 points. I let spell check get the better of me. You, sir, have testicles.

As for the degree to which the LSAT tests for an applicable skill set, I feel like we've covered that question quite thoroughly, earlier on.

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 9:27 pm

I don't even know what's going on in here anymore.

:lol:

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 9:29 pm

kk19131 wrote:I don't even know what's going on in here anymore.

:lol:


I know, it's totally off-topic from the original post.

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 9:30 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
kk19131 wrote:I don't even know what's going on in here anymore.

:lol:


I know, it's totally off-topic from the original post.

This has become the unofficial wait thread.

User avatar
truffleshuffle
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:42 pm

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

Postby truffleshuffle » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:32 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
kk19131 wrote:I don't even know what's going on in here anymore.

:lol:


I know, it's totally off-topic from the original post.


The original post was just a statement of a fact that most people already knew. How it got beyond one page is truly amazing

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 9:36 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 think this statement is what sparked it off in a different direction.

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 9:38 pm

acrossthelake 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 think this statement is what sparked it off in a different direction.


Yep, you guys all felt the need to express your hard ons for the lsat.

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 9:39 pm

And I stand by it.

All this talk of correlation and predictability is suspect to me.

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 9:40 pm

Tautology wrote:
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.


And that claim is without any empirical data to back it up.

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 9:40 pm

CastleRock wrote:
acrossthelake 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 think this statement is what sparked it off in a different direction.


Yep, you guys all felt the need to express your hard ons for the lsat.


Every time someone mentions LR or RC I have to go masturbate. LG I can usually resist.

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 10:18 pm

Tautology wrote:Every time someone mentions LR or RC I have to go masturbate. LG I can usually resist.


About that...LG was talking to me the other day. She was depressed that she can't get you excited any more. I told her to try dressing up like an intern. It worked for Lewinsky.

karcirate
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:51 pm

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

Postby karcirate » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:28 pm

Now that we are off topic, here's a good one for you: What's the difference between Bill Clinton and a screwdriver?

One turns in screws, the other screws in-turns.

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

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

Postby bigben » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:42 pm

pinkzeppelin wrote:
CastleRock wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
If it hurts one on the LSAT it will hurt one on a law exam.


This is a garbage argument. You are basically arguing that if something hurts someone on the lsat it is bound to hurt them on a law school exam.


180



I LOL'D

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

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

Postby bigben » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:47 pm

People who whine about the LSAT being unfair = insufferable idiots

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

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

Postby bigben » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:51 pm

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 :(



If a shred of such evidence existed, it would have already been trumped up and published by some hippie at Doalt Hall.

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 11:35 pm

bigben 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 :(



If a shred of such evidence existed, it would have already been trumped up and published by some hippie at Doalt Hall.


How would you even accurately test this? You don't have to state your income when you sign up for the test. At best, they could monitor the performance of those who ask for waivers.

Exactly how much free material does the LSAC provide? I heard a rumor that they will supply you with three tests free of charge, but I don't like going off of hearsay. If their free material is rather limited, I think that extending the free material they offer would strengthen the credibility of the exam. I don't have access to the LSAC's balance sheets, but I'd be willing to bet they're making way more than what is necessary to stay afloat. Forfeiting some of their copyrighted material would put too much of a dent on their bottom line.

User avatar
LSAT Blog
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

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

Postby LSAT Blog » Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:47 pm

http://www.lsac.org/lsat/fee-waivers.asp

Official LSAT SuperPrep contains 3 real PrepTests with complete explanations written by LSAC.


Aside from what LSAC grants to fee waiver recipients, LSAC also gives away PDFs of Oct 1996 (PT20) and June 2007:

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/test.pdf
http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/SamplePTJune.pdf


It also gives away a PDF with an overview of the exam, along with some sample questions and explanations:

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/LSATPreparationweb.pdf

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

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

Postby jeremydc » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:34 am

I have the fee waiver and it comes with the Suprep book (as mentioned above), 2 free LSAT tests in 3 years (i think). the CRS registration and LOR registration (if I am not mistaken).

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

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

Postby IAFG » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:38 am

jeremydc wrote:I have the fee waiver and it comes with the Suprep book (as mentioned above), 2 free LSAT tests in 3 years (i think). the CRS registration and LOR registration (if I am not mistaken).

i got the fee waiver too and my parents are solidly upper middle class. this is too gameable to be a good pool to study.

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 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:52 am

LSAT Blog wrote:http://www.lsac.org/lsat/fee-waivers.asp

Official LSAT SuperPrep contains 3 real PrepTests with complete explanations written by LSAC.


Aside from what LSAC grants to fee waiver recipients, LSAC also gives away PDFs of Oct 1996 (PT20) and June 2007:

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/test.pdf
http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/SamplePTJune.pdf


It also gives away a PDF with an overview of the exam, along with some sample questions and explanations:

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/LSATPreparationweb.pdf



Sounds fair enough.

User avatar
flyingpanda
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:32 am

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

Postby flyingpanda » Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:53 am

ITT, good test takers defend the LSAT while those destined for the 150s blast it. Move along people, nothing to see.

User avatar
Chimica
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 3:30 pm

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

Postby Chimica » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:50 pm

I have to see how I did before I can comment on whether the LSAT is a stupid test or a measure of genius.

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

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

Postby Hey-O » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:59 pm

flyingpanda wrote:ITT, good test takers defend the LSAT while those destined for the 150s blast it. Move along people, nothing to see.


This is a logical fallacy: ad hominem attack. Something useful I learned from the LSAT.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”