Overheard at the LSAT

User avatar
Cicero76
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:41 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby Cicero76 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:38 am

Girl behind me: "Yeah, the first time I took this thing I studied SO HARD for it. My Kaplan instructor pushed us really hard and we took like seven practice tests and it was like really hard and I was like so stressed out on the test day that I scored 148. But I learned my lesson, this time I haven't studied AT ALL. I haven't even looked at an LSAT question in months. I'm much more relaxed and ready now; I think I'm going to be able to crack the 150s. Honestly, have you seen the percentiles? If you get over 150 you should be proud, did you know some people get 160 and complain?

Guy: (shellshocked at this stream of ranting): Yeah, I know what you mean....

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

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby 09042014 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:52 am

alwayssunnyinfl wrote:Most of this thread feels like some awkward, snarky forum that would exist if all the frequent business flyers got together and decided to make fun of the proles who don't know that their laptops have to be in a separate bin when they go through security. How is this the best thread on TLS?


Real flier have TSA ready bags. I don't even have to take it out. PROLE

User avatar
finnandjake2
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:41 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby finnandjake2 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:34 am

Cicero76 wrote:Girl behind me: "Yeah, the first time I took this thing I studied SO HARD for it. My Kaplan instructor pushed us really hard and we took like seven practice tests and it was like really hard and I was like so stressed out on the test day that I scored 148. But I learned my lesson, this time I haven't studied AT ALL. I haven't even looked at an LSAT question in months. I'm much more relaxed and ready now; I think I'm going to be able to crack the 150s. Honestly, have you seen the percentiles? If you get over 150 you should be proud, did you know some people get 160 and complain?

Guy: (shellshocked at this stream of ranting): Yeah, I know what you mean....


Some people must just think that everyone who takes the test goes on to law school as well as a successful legal career. It boggles my mind the number of people who supposedly want to study law whom have no basic concept of statistics or logic. Considering where the median on the LSAT is this must be fairly common.

Maybe she has her hopes up of meeting someone successful at whatever TTTT school she ends up at. I'm not too worried about it just means less competition for people on TLS.

User avatar
alwayssunnyinfl
Posts: 4100
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby alwayssunnyinfl » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:02 pm

finnandjake2 wrote:Some people must just think that everyone who takes the test goes on to law school as well as a successful legal career. It boggles my mind the number of people who supposedly want to study law whom have no basic concept of statistics or logic. Considering where the median on the LSAT is this must be fairly common.

Outed as someone whom doesn't understand grammar nor statistics.

airplay355
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:11 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby airplay355 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:07 pm

TLS makes me feel like shit eating, chromosome missing, neanderthal for getting a 162...then I listen to what other people say about their scores and I only feel marginally retarded with a 162.

Moar stories plz.

User avatar
finnandjake2
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:41 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby finnandjake2 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:11 pm

alwayssunnyinfl wrote:
finnandjake2 wrote:Some people must just think that everyone who takes the test goes on to law school as well as a successful legal career. It boggles my mind the number of people who supposedly want to study law whom have no basic concept of statistics or logic. Considering where the median on the LSAT is this must be fairly common.

Outed as someone whom doesn't understand grammar nor statistics.


You caught me : ) I don't know why I used that m...
Also the median will always be about the same because around 150 will always be the median.
I was apparently really out of it when I made this post.

Grammar I won't try to argue as my strong suit. As far as statistics go the test would be harder to keep the 120-180 range consistent with percentiles if more people took the test seriously. The LSAT is something that most people can improve on with practice. If more people put in this practice then it would be harder to score a 150 or the median score.

Thanks for the wake up call!

User avatar
nick_scheu
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:32 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby nick_scheu » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:17 pm

finnandjake2 wrote:You caught me : ) I don't know why I used that m...
Also the median will always be about the same because around 150 will always be the median.
I was apparently really out of it when I made this post.

Grammar I won't try to argue as my strong suit. As far as statistics go the test would be harder to keep the 120-180 range consistent with percentiles if more people took the test seriously. The LSAT is something that most people can improve on with practice. If more people put in this practice then it would be harder to score a 150 or the median score.

Thanks for the wake up call!


I don't even know where to start with this post.

Problems are identified above. If a technique (e.g., bold, or red) is used in more than one place, it indicates an apparent conflict between the statements.

User avatar
finnandjake2
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:41 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby finnandjake2 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:22 pm

Now that I've made idiotic statements twice I think it's time to go back to sleep. Conflicting statements indeed... *Face palm*

I hope I was more on my game for the actual LSAT : /

User avatar
alwayssunnyinfl
Posts: 4100
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby alwayssunnyinfl » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:30 pm

finnandjake2 wrote:Now that I've made idiotic statements twice I think it's time to go back to sleep. Conflicting statements indeed... *Face palm*

I hope I was more on my game for the actual LSAT : /

It's cool. TLS isn't reel lief.

Also, I think this has already happened to the LSAT. The amount of resources available to prep for the test has moved the LSAT from a test of sheer aptitude to a test of both aptitude and study techniques. Personally, I think it's a good development. Someone who is serious about going to law school should be serious abou the LSAT, not because the skills you learn studying for the LSAT will directly help you, but because it keeps a lot of random people who just decided to go to law school for no good reason out (of the good schools.)

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby 20130312 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:44 pm

alwayssunnyinfl wrote:
finnandjake2 wrote:Some people must just think that everyone who takes the test goes on to law school as well as a successful legal career. It boggles my mind the number of people who supposedly want to study law whom have no basic concept of statistics or logic. Considering where the median on the LSAT is this must be fairly common.

Outed as someone whom doesn't understands neither grammar nor statistics.

C'mon, man.

User avatar
VUSisterRayVU
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby VUSisterRayVU » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:50 pm

alwayssunnyinfl wrote:
finnandjake2 wrote:Now that I've made idiotic statements twice I think it's time to go back to sleep. Conflicting statements indeed... *Face palm*

I hope I was more on my game for the actual LSAT : /

It's cool. TLS isn't reel lief.

Also, I think this has already happened to the LSAT. The amount of resources available to prep for the test has moved the LSAT from a test of sheer aptitude to a test of both aptitude and study techniques. Personally, I think it's a good development. Someone who is serious about going to law school should be serious abou the LSAT, not because the skills you learn studying for the LSAT will directly help you, but because it keeps a lot of random people who just decided to go to law school for no good reason out (of the good schools.)


You and Finn are both making very problematic appeals towards elitism. You favor the change towards rewarding studying because it benefits you. It has no actual benefit in any other way and it could be argued that it lets some real fucking dolts score well because they had the time or money to devote to studying.

[quote=Finn]Some people must just think that everyone who takes the test goes on to law school as well as a successful legal career. It boggles my mind the number of people who supposedly want to study law whom have no basic concept of statistics or logic. Considering where the median on the LSAT is this must be fairly common.

Maybe she has her hopes up of meeting someone successful at whatever TTTT school she ends up at. I'm not too worried about it just means less competition for people on TLS.[/quote]

Did you do a lot of reading on schools before UG? I didn't. I wish I did, but I didn't have the resources available to me or the prior knowledge to know anything about it. The most widely available knowledge on LS is anecdotal shit about people striking gold or law being a stable career. Not everyone thinks to google some message boards or WSJ articles. That doesn't make their decision any better, but faulting them so hard for it is fucking stupid and indicative of a really poor attitude and judgement. She clearly must be going to a TTTT to get her MRS. Because that sexist assumption makes A LOT more sense than mine.

User avatar
alwayssunnyinfl
Posts: 4100
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby alwayssunnyinfl » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:50 pm

InGoodFaith wrote:
alwayssunnyinfl wrote:
finnandjake2 wrote:Some people must just think that everyone who takes the test goes on to law school as well as a successful legal career. It boggles my mind the number of people who supposedly want to study law whom have no basic concept of statistics or logic. Considering where the median on the LSAT is this must be fairly common.

Outed as someone whom doesn't understands neither grammar nor statistics.

C'mon, man.

That's the joke, derp

User avatar
specialsnowflake
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:48 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby specialsnowflake » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:54 pm

dafuq happened to this thread

User avatar
R86
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:03 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby R86 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:54 pm

VUSisterRayVU wrote:You and Finn are both making very problematic appeals towards elitism. You favor the change towards rewarding studying because it benefits you. It has no actual benefit in any other way and it could be argued that it lets some real fucking dolts score well because they had the time or money to devote to studying.

Did you do a lot of reading on schools before UG? I didn't. I wish I did, but I didn't have the resources available to me or the prior knowledge to know anything about it. The most widely available knowledge on LS is anecdotal shit about people striking gold or law being a stable career. Not everyone thinks to google some message boards or WSJ articles. That doesn't make their decision any better, but faulting them so hard for it is fucking stupid and indicative of a really poor attitude and judgement. She clearly must be going to a TTTT to get her MRS. Because that sexist assumption makes A LOT more sense than mine.


There's actually a ton of widely available knowledge on LS, and very little of it is anecdotal shit about people striking gold or finding a stable career.

Everyone should "think to google" something before committing to 3 years of study and upwards of $150k in debt. They should absolutely be faulted for not doing so.
Last edited by R86 on Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby 20130312 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:55 pm

alwayssunnyinfl wrote:That's the joke, derp

Why must you hurt me so?

User avatar
VUSisterRayVU
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby VUSisterRayVU » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:59 pm

R86 wrote:
VUSisterRayVU wrote:You and Finn are both making very problematic appeals towards elitism. You favor the change towards rewarding studying because it benefits you. It has no actual benefit in any other way and it could be argued that it lets some real fucking dolts score well because they had the time or money to devote to studying.

Did you do a lot of reading on schools before UG? I didn't. I wish I did, but I didn't have the resources available to me or the prior knowledge to know anything about it. The most widely available knowledge on LS is anecdotal shit about people striking gold or law being a stable career. Not everyone thinks to google some message boards or WSJ articles. That doesn't make their decision any better, but faulting them so hard for it is fucking stupid and indicative of a really poor attitude and judgement. She clearly must be going to a TTTT to get her MRS. Because that sexist assumption makes A LOT more sense than mine.


There's actually a ton of widely available knowledge on LS, and very little of it is anecdotal shit about people striking gold or finding a stable career.

Everyone should "think to google" something before committing to 3 years of study and upwards of $150k in debt. They should absolutely be faulted for not doing so.


Not everyone has access to parents who are professionals or a network of people in the legal community. Even with people in the legal community, the overwhelming majority of boomers DON'T know that TTTs are garbage. They still think you can print gold at their shitty alma maters. Get off your high fucking horse.

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby 20130312 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:01 pm

VUSisterRayVU wrote:Not everyone has access to parents who are professionals or a network of people in the legal community. Even with people in the legal community, the overwhelming majority of boomers DON'T know that TTTs are garbage. They still think you can print gold at their shitty alma maters. Get off your high fucking horse.

My parents aren't lawyers. No one in my family is a lawyer. In fact, my parents are the first of their generation to even get college degrees (which none of their siblings have). Yet, somehow, I did some basic research and discovered the legal industry was a mess. It really isn't that hard.

...

You moron.

User avatar
R86
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:03 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby R86 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:09 pm

VUSisterRayVU wrote:
R86 wrote:
VUSisterRayVU wrote:You and Finn are both making very problematic appeals towards elitism. You favor the change towards rewarding studying because it benefits you. It has no actual benefit in any other way and it could be argued that it lets some real fucking dolts score well because they had the time or money to devote to studying.

Did you do a lot of reading on schools before UG? I didn't. I wish I did, but I didn't have the resources available to me or the prior knowledge to know anything about it. The most widely available knowledge on LS is anecdotal shit about people striking gold or law being a stable career. Not everyone thinks to google some message boards or WSJ articles. That doesn't make their decision any better, but faulting them so hard for it is fucking stupid and indicative of a really poor attitude and judgement. She clearly must be going to a TTTT to get her MRS. Because that sexist assumption makes A LOT more sense than mine.


There's actually a ton of widely available knowledge on LS, and very little of it is anecdotal shit about people striking gold or finding a stable career.

Everyone should "think to google" something before committing to 3 years of study and upwards of $150k in debt. They should absolutely be faulted for not doing so.


Not everyone has access to parents who are professionals or a network of people in the legal community. Even with people in the legal community, the overwhelming majority of boomers DON'T know that TTTs are garbage. They still think you can print gold at their shitty alma maters. Get off your high fucking horse.


My dad never finished college. He worked construction. My mom worked at McDonalds.
Get the fuck out of here if you don’t think people have a responsibility to themselves to do an iota of fucking research before committing to law school.
You’re really arguing that if you ask your parents what you should do, and they say you should go to Cooley, you’re absolved from any blame for your shitty decision? Really?

User avatar
VUSisterRayVU
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby VUSisterRayVU » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:09 pm

InGoodFaith wrote:
VUSisterRayVU wrote:Not everyone has access to parents who are professionals or a network of people in the legal community. Even with people in the legal community, the overwhelming majority of boomers DON'T know that TTTs are garbage. They still think you can print gold at their shitty alma maters. Get off your high fucking horse.

My parents aren't lawyers. No one in my family is a lawyer. In fact, my parents are the first of their generation to even get college degrees (which none of their siblings have). Yet, somehow, I did some basic research and discovered the legal industry was a mess. It really isn't that hard.

...

You moron.


You ascribe your situation to others. Do you really think it's just to assume that the majority of people in law school are actual mouth-breathing retards? Or maybe, just maybe, all this shit about schools being nefarious, misleading, and conniving that we know to be true is effective? You're on TLS. You're already doing better than most. Most people don't frequent internet message boards, have very weak understandings of online communities, and view law school as graduate school, not as a very niche and overfilled professional school. Again, when you were applying to UG, did you do the requisite research to realize that 90% of degrees are bullshit, most UGs are the same money-sucks as TTTs, etc.? I would assume not, you know, considering that you're presumably applying to law school in a terrible legal market. The only difference is that it's more excusable for a 17 year old to fuck up than a 20/21/22 year old. But the amount of snobbery that goes on here w/r/t people in this situation is completely uncalled for.

User avatar
VUSisterRayVU
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby VUSisterRayVU » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:10 pm

R86 wrote:
VUSisterRayVU wrote:
R86 wrote:
VUSisterRayVU wrote:You and Finn are both making very problematic appeals towards elitism. You favor the change towards rewarding studying because it benefits you. It has no actual benefit in any other way and it could be argued that it lets some real fucking dolts score well because they had the time or money to devote to studying.

Did you do a lot of reading on schools before UG? I didn't. I wish I did, but I didn't have the resources available to me or the prior knowledge to know anything about it. The most widely available knowledge on LS is anecdotal shit about people striking gold or law being a stable career. Not everyone thinks to google some message boards or WSJ articles. That doesn't make their decision any better, but faulting them so hard for it is fucking stupid and indicative of a really poor attitude and judgement. She clearly must be going to a TTTT to get her MRS. Because that sexist assumption makes A LOT more sense than mine.


There's actually a ton of widely available knowledge on LS, and very little of it is anecdotal shit about people striking gold or finding a stable career.

Everyone should "think to google" something before committing to 3 years of study and upwards of $150k in debt. They should absolutely be faulted for not doing so.


Not everyone has access to parents who are professionals or a network of people in the legal community. Even with people in the legal community, the overwhelming majority of boomers DON'T know that TTTs are garbage. They still think you can print gold at their shitty alma maters. Get off your high fucking horse.


My dad never finished college. He worked construction. My mom worked at McDonalds.
Get the fuck out of here if you don’t think people have a responsibility to themselves to do an iota of fucking research before committing to law school.
You’re really arguing that if you ask your parents what you should do, and they say you should go to Cooley, you’re absolved from any blame for your shitty decision? Really?


Did I say it absolves them of all blame? Because I didn't. Good job, good effort.

User avatar
finnandjake2
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:41 am

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby finnandjake2 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:14 pm

Yikes look what I started! VU I'm sorry that I came off as insensitive or sexist I honestly was trying to give this hypothetical person the benefit of the doubt. I was basing my anecdotal example off of some of the crazy stories posted in this thread. I also think there are plenty of men who go to school to meet their Mrs. or Mr. right rather then for academia so I didn't mean to imply anything about gender. I also did not do much UG research which is why I have been trying to be a little more thorough about graduate school.

Butt hurt all around it seems...

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby paratactical » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:15 pm

If you are too stupid to perform a google search before going six figures into debt, you deserve whatever you get. Also, LOL at
VUSisterRayVU wrote:Most people don't frequent internet message boards, have very weak understandings of online communities,

Most people who are old, I guess. Are you a shitboomer, VUSisterRayVU?

User avatar
VUSisterRayVU
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby VUSisterRayVU » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:15 pm

finnandjake2 wrote:Yikes look what I started! VU I'm sorry that I came off as insensitive or sexist I honestly was trying to give this hypothetical person the benefit of the doubt. I was basing my anecdotal example off of some of the crazy stories posted in this thread. I also think there are plenty of men who go to school to meet their Mrs. or Mr. right rather then for academia so I didn't mean to imply anything about gender. I also did not do much UG research which is why I have been trying to be a little more thorough about graduate school.

Butt hurt all around it seems...


Np, that's all very reasonable. I just think it's incredibly problematic when everyone is like 'lol those unwashed proles going to TTTs'.

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby 20130312 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:21 pm

VUSisterRayVU wrote:You're on TLS. You're already doing better than most. Most people don't frequent internet message boards, have very weak understandings of online communities, and view law school as graduate school, not as a very niche and overfilled professional school. Again, when you were applying to UG, did you do the requisite research to realize that 90% of degrees are bullshit, most UGs are the same money-sucks as TTTs, etc.? I would assume not, you know, considering that you're presumably applying to law school in a terrible legal market. The only difference is that it's more excusable for a 17 year old to fuck up than a 20/21/22 year old. But the amount of snobbery that goes on here w/r/t people in this situation is completely uncalled for.

Outed as an old.

Also, yes I did that research also. Thus, my preftigious finance degree from BIGSTATEU. Regardless, law school is a whole other animial (as you noted) and you're a joke if you don't do even the most basic research before applying.

User avatar
VUSisterRayVU
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: Overheard at the LSAT

Postby VUSisterRayVU » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:28 pm

InGoodFaith wrote:
VUSisterRayVU wrote:You're on TLS. You're already doing better than most. Most people don't frequent internet message boards, have very weak understandings of online communities, and view law school as graduate school, not as a very niche and overfilled professional school. Again, when you were applying to UG, did you do the requisite research to realize that 90% of degrees are bullshit, most UGs are the same money-sucks as TTTs, etc.? I would assume not, you know, considering that you're presumably applying to law school in a terrible legal market. The only difference is that it's more excusable for a 17 year old to fuck up than a 20/21/22 year old. But the amount of snobbery that goes on here w/r/t people in this situation is completely uncalled for.

Outed as an old.

Also, yes I did that research also. Thus, my preftigious finance degree from BIGSTATEU. Regardless, law school is a whole other animial (as you noted) and you're a joke if you don't do even the most basic research before applying.


Preftigious and BIGSTATEU don't belong in the same sentence.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw and 11 guests