Only 2% get a 170+ on 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 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:03 am

Scallywaggums wrote:6 points

Oh bother, the second one's from before the 180-point scale.


Oops linked the wrong one sorry.

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/tr/Sum ... 7-2008.htm

That's the more recent one.

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 2:04 am

kk19131 wrote: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?


Yes, that sounds exactly like a law school exam.

User avatar
goawaybee
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:20 pm

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

Postby goawaybee » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:17 am

Scallywaggums wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:H'okay, so just bringing some interesting data into the discussion and trying to steer it away a little.

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/rr/LSA ... udy-ES.htm

LSAT&LGPA is the best predictor for bar passage rates they can find, with adding UGPA not helping! Further proof that the LSAT is testing *something* that law schools care about.

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/rr/Sel ... n-1989.htm
This goes over how much people prep and the amount it helps.

6 points


I didn't really tear into all the numbers but the LSAT/LGPA makes sense in regards to bar passage. Really linear in the sense that Ziggy Shittington decides to go to Law school, busts ass for LSAT to get into a decent school...busts ass in LS to get set up with a decent gig in Law after school.

I do feel that the UGPA thing is broken. Flip the numbers around LGPA for UGPA, alas there is nothing to really exchange with LSAT other than LSAT, SAT/ACT don't matter and the UGPA is a frisky thing. The LSAT is taken at a time when you are getting serious about life(or any range of things depending on your age and a few other variables). I think for all practical purposes you would hard pressed to find a lot of 17-18 yr old kids who are "ready to bust ass and get this show on the road, law school, med school, biz school awaits" Just not realistic. Hence we are seemingly left with this one exam to really be the currency.

I do think it is somewhat flawed in that sense. Seems that a bulk of the weight is the LSAT over and over and over again. Whether it is to gain admission or used as a predictor in regards to bar passage. I feel this increased awareness to the impact of a few sets of numbers and how it will impact your future begins with LSAT study. That is a phase that seems to set the stage and or pace at which an individual continues through LS, bar passage, landing first job and so on.

Not saying there aren't exceptions to all of this, but it just seems a tad weak. But hell keeps it simple as it gets. Knock the balls off of the LSAT and if you can replicate that focus/study/diligence or whatever it took you to pull it off, the rest may fall into place. Less you being a complete disaster when it comes to people skills/marketing/shameless self promotion.

I can't knock the test, it is a bitch for me due to me being stubborn as hell and out of school for so long but I know I will score whatever it is I need to score depending on where I decide I want to be.

damn pdfs are taking FO EVA...is it really from 1989 or am i tripping. That is like throwing some dinosaur bones on the dinner table saying it is some new hot exotic snack. and hell no there is nothing mauve about them.

right on JDC- like to hear some people doing the thing. I have never been into the suckling gov't. teet thing much. Spent plenty of time unemployed and not collecting, rode on or below the poverty line for more years than i would care to remember. in the end it is just paper. Fun but really doesn't mean that much to me, just useful given the state of how this whole thing functions. I am more of the barter/trade ninja.

User avatar
goawaybee
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:20 pm

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

Postby goawaybee » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:19 am

acrossthelake wrote:
Scallywaggums wrote:6 points

Oh bother, the second one's from before the 180-point scale.


Oops linked the wrong one sorry.

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/tr/Sum ... 7-2008.htm

That's the more recent one.


thanks for that, i got a little stressed wandering back into the 80's.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

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

Postby d34d9823 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:56 am

Tautology wrote:The really discouraging thing about TLS is the knowledge that so many people go out and raise their score significantly with months of hard work and therefore devalue the amazing scores that us natural test-takers get with very little effort.

/end douchebaggery

Have to admit this thought has crossed my mind.

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

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

Postby IAFG » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:17 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
Tautology wrote:The really discouraging thing about TLS is the knowledge that so many people go out and raise their score significantly with months of hard work and therefore devalue the amazing scores that us natural test-takers get with very little effort.

/end douchebaggery

Have to admit this thought has crossed my mind.

wow, that makes the top ten most toolish things i have ever read on TLS.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

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

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:20 pm

mallard wrote:
kk19131 wrote: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?

Yes, that sounds exactly like a law school exam.

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 12:21 pm

IAFG wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
Tautology wrote:The really discouraging thing about TLS is the knowledge that so many people go out and raise their score significantly with months of hard work and therefore devalue the amazing scores that us natural test-takers get with very little effort.

/end douchebaggery

Have to admit this thought has crossed my mind.

wow, that makes the top ten most toolish things i have ever read on TLS.


Tautolgy's natural talent didn't save her from a 3.4 in undergrad.

NJcollegestudent
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:12 pm

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

Postby NJcollegestudent » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:26 pm

How exactly does a curve work on the LSAT. Is It the same principle as a regular curve; raw score+ curve for the score, or is it -10 is a 180 and -20 is 170?

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 12:53 pm

kk19131 wrote: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?

scallywaggums wrote:He's not suggesting that the games themselves mimic real-life situations; if I understand him correctly, I believe he's suggesting that one's ability to draw rules-based inferences to chop down the game's possible outcomes is the sort of ability that is manifested when someone spots something in the framework of a situation that others may not, giving them an advantage in the time it takes to analyze the situation, and perhaps also offering more accuracy in so doing.

Sorry, that was ridiculously vague... Take 2:

You're presented with a scenario.
All the information is "the game".
All the potentially relevant laws are "the rules" (there will probably be considerations in addition to laws that also play the role of rules).
"Spotting the issue(s)", or "spotting the area(s) of legal tension(or perhaps other sorts of tension)" is "drawing rules-based inferences". Doing so allows a test-taker to address the heart(s) of the matter efficiently, without getting mired in all the details (akin to trying to answer seemingly impossible questions without having drawn the crucial rules-based inferences).

User avatar
T14_Scholly
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:46 pm

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

Postby T14_Scholly » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:04 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
IAFG wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
Tautology wrote:The really discouraging thing about TLS is the knowledge that so many people go out and raise their score significantly with months of hard work and therefore devalue the amazing scores that us natural test-takers get with very little effort.

/end douchebaggery

Have to admit this thought has crossed my mind.

wow, that makes the top ten most toolish things i have ever read on TLS.


Tautolgy's natural talent didn't save her from a 3.4 in undergrad.


lol

User avatar
Dead Ringer
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:07 pm

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

Postby Dead Ringer » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:27 pm

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.


The general argument: only smart people can make those gains and the person who doesn't when they could deserves his or her fate.

I have never met anyone stupid who did well on the LSAT. It is generally a great way for top law schools to screen out morons. That's all there is to it. I really don't think it helps the lower schools do much besides jockey for rankings.

User avatar
zworykin
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:18 am

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

Postby zworykin » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:57 pm

NJcollegestudent wrote:How exactly does a curve work on the LSAT. Is It the same principle as a regular curve; raw score+ curve for the score, or is it -10 is a 180 and -20 is 170?



LSAC determines the overall difficulty of a given version of the LSAT based on how people have performed on each question on the test when they were used in earlier experimental sections. They use this information to create a score conversion chart, determining the scaled scores (from 120-180) for every possible raw score (from 0 to however many questions were on the test). The "curve" is how people refer to the number of missed questions that would result in a scaled score of 170. Typically--at least recently--it's somewhere around 10-11 questions.

LSAT Blog has compiled conversion charts for all the PrepTests here: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/lsat-preptest-raw-score-conversion.html

cubswin
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:40 pm

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

Postby cubswin » Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:13 pm

mallard wrote:
kk19131 wrote: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?


Yes, that sounds exactly like a law school exam.


Awesome.

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

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

Postby Hey-O » Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:41 pm

I think the Lsat is the best standardized test that I've ever taken. It does something that most tests don't do. It actually tests what it is supposed to test. It tests aseries o skills that are essential to law school. It tests ability to make logical deductions under pressure, ability to understand argumentation, ability to comprehend dense passages, and the ability to study and concentrate intensely. I take my hat off to Lsac. The one thing that the test does not do well is account for underestimating an individual's potential especially when influenced by adverse social conditions like poverty.

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 8:09 pm

Hey-O wrote:I think the Lsat is the best standardized test that I've ever taken. It does something that most tests don't do. It actually tests what it is supposed to test. It tests aseries o skills that are essential to law school. It tests ability to make logical deductions under pressure, ability to understand argumentation, ability to comprehend dense passages, and the ability to study and concentrate intensely. I take my hat off to Lsac. The one thing that the test does not do well is account for underestimating an individual's potential especially when influenced by adverse social conditions like poverty.


I think it's pretty impossible for a standardized exam to take into account adverse background conditions. That should be left up to the admissions committee. I don't think any of the research indicates that it underestimates any specific population's potential(if anything, it overestimates for URMs, for example). As indicated in the research above, most people(even the wealthy) don't prep very much at all--prep courses often aren't actually that helpful, and LSAC will provide people with fee waivers some free study material and you can buy a substantial amount(30 preptests from the 3 prep books) for probably under $25 total online, which, as indicated by the research above, already puts one in a category of being very well prepared(TLS is not representative. at. all.). I feel like the chunk of individuals who are applying to law school who cannot spare $25 for test prep material is a small enough population that the entire system doesn't have to be redone for them--law schools admissions committees just need to take special note. If you're talking about how those in poverty don't tend to receive very good educations in general--that's a separate issue, also, not something a standardized exam that is measuring skill is supposed to account for.

User avatar
Mattalones
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:18 pm

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

Postby Mattalones » Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:52 am

I notice people saying that the test is learnable for some, and others just don't have the capacity to learn the test. This basically means lack of studying and lack of capacity are the only two reasons for not scoring high on the LSAT ... False dichotomy. There are a lot of other reasons why people won't score high

1) Inadequate k-12 education (low reading comp or speed)
2) Mild disability (e.g. a person with mild adhd might do way differently just from being given a couple extra short breaks)
3) Nerves (some super smart people with great reading ability aren't great under pressure)

User avatar
jdstl
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:48 pm

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

Postby jdstl » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:01 am

Mattalones wrote:I notice people saying that the test is learnable for some, and others just don't have the capacity to learn the test. This basically means lack of studying and lack of capacity are the only two reasons for not scoring high on the LSAT ... False dichotomy. There are a lot of other reasons why people won't score high

1) Inadequate k-12 education (low reading comp or speed)
2) Mild disability (e.g. a person with mild adhd might do way differently just from being given a couple extra short breaks)
3) Nerves (some super smart people with great reading ability aren't great under pressure)


To be sure, but low reading speed, mild adhd, and performance under pressure are all related to law school performance, so it's not really unfair that they're measured in the test.

This whole debate reminds of a Daniel Tosh joke (paraphrased): "Some people say they're smart, they're just not good test takers. Alright. I'm actually an amazing artist, I'm just not a good painter."

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

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

Postby kk19131 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:12 am

Mattalones wrote:I notice people saying that the test is learnable for some, and others just don't have the capacity to learn the test. This basically means lack of studying and lack of capacity are the only two reasons for not scoring high on the LSAT ... False dichotomy. There are a lot of other reasons why people won't score high

1) Inadequate k-12 education (low reading comp or speed)
2) Mild disability (e.g. a person with mild adhd might do way differently just from being given a couple extra short breaks)
3) Nerves (some super smart people with great reading ability aren't great under pressure)



People with ADHD actually tried to get more time and the LSAC had the nerve to say no.

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

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

Postby mallard » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:13 am

d34dluk3 wrote:
Tautology wrote:The really discouraging thing about TLS is the knowledge that so many people go out and raise their score significantly with months of hard work and therefore devalue the amazing scores that us natural test-takers get with very little effort.

/end douchebaggery

Have to admit this thought has crossed my mind.


This won't stop happening.

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

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

Postby kk19131 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:21 am

The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

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

Postby 09042014 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:16 pm

kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

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

Postby Ragged » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:19 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.


Yea dude, logic fail. Better go take some of those PTs.

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

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

Postby kk19131 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:22 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.



Not at all.

It's just my belief that if a test is to be "standard", the amount of money a person has to spend on prep. materials shouldn't give that person the boost that seems evident with the LSAT.

Honestly, I think a better way to administer these tests would be for them to change radically from year to year.
Last edited by kk19131 on Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:25 pm, 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 » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:24 pm

Ragged wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kk19131 wrote:The fact that the LSAC even releases practice tests is absurd to me.


You presume they don't want their test to be learnable.


Yea dude, logic fail. Better go take some of those PTs.


"Logic fail"?

What I fail is to see how you can make such an assertion when all I said is that the LSAC's releasing of practice tests is absurd - no "logic" was provided, no reasoning given.

Maybe you should take a course or two in critical reading.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Grond and 11 guests