Studying To A 180 Forum

[delusional]

I am starting to agree more and more with a poster in another thread who suggested that all LS applicants should be required to take the LSAT three times. That would eliminate the luck factor a little more than the present arrangement.

This argument is logical if the following is assumed to be true: If something would eliminate the luck factor somewhat more than the present arrangement, then LS applicants should be required to abide by that system.

There's no question that three tests would give you more to work with. But then it would be an insane process. Also, you'd have a thousand new "luck" related variables to take into account.

A 180 is not like any other mark. If you get a 165, you didn't score lower, and you also didn't score higher. If you get a 180, there's no telling how lucky you were or were not. Would you have gotten a 180 on 600 level five questions? Then you weren't lucky. But maybe you really deserved a 177, and you guessed right on two of the questions. Then you were.

[JazzOne]

I am starting to agree more and more with a poster in another thread who suggested that all LS applicants should be required to take the LSAT three times. That would eliminate the luck factor a little more than the present arrangement.

This argument is logical if the following is assumed to be true: If something would eliminate the luck factor somewhat more than the present arrangement, then LS applicants should be required to abide by that system.

Sure, but it's somewhat of a straw man to present a sufficient assumption as if it were necessary. It doesn't have to be the case that we should do every single thing possible to eliminate luck. I presented a very specific proposal, not a call to arms to initiate every thinkable measure.

[delusional]

I am starting to agree more and more with a poster in another thread who suggested that all LS applicants should be required to take the LSAT three times. That would eliminate the luck factor a little more than the present arrangement.

This argument is logical if the following is assumed to be true: If something would eliminate the luck factor somewhat more than the present arrangement, then LS applicants should be required to abide by that system.

Sure, but it's somewhat of a straw man to present a sufficient assumption as if it were necessary. It doesn't have to be the case that we should do every single thing possible to eliminate luck. I presented a very specific proposal, not a call to arms to initiate every thinkable measure.

Sufficient... Necessary...I never should have strayed back into the LSAT forum.

[suspicious android]

I don't think the score band is an indication of luck. The test supposedly is a measure of a test-taker's proficiency in a number of areas which allegedly predicts success in one's first year of law school. The bands result from the inexactness of the test in measuring those proficiencies from test to test.

You're usually a good poster with good insight into the LSAT. What you're holding to in this thread makes absolutely no sense. The inexactness is going to affect different test takers differently, depending on which areas a particular person is proficient. If two people have the same overall skill except one is really weak at linear games and one is really weak at grouping games, the one who gets the test that more closely matches his abilities is.. well, lucky. I don't even see how that's controvertial.

[JazzOne]

I don't think the score band is an indication of luck. The test supposedly is a measure of a test-taker's proficiency in a number of areas which allegedly predicts success in one's first year of law school. The bands result from the inexactness of the test in measuring those proficiencies from test to test.

You're usually a good poster with good insight into the LSAT. What you're holding to in this thread makes absolutely no sense. The inexactness is going to affect different test takers differently, depending on which areas a particular person is proficient. If two people have the same overall skill except one is really weak at linear games and one is really weak at grouping games, the one who gets the test that more closely matches his abilities is.. well, lucky. I don't even see how that's controvertial.

EarlCat is a smart guy who is very familiar with the test. I can only conclude that he's operating under a definition of luck that is narrower than the commonly accepted definition.

[EarlCat]

I don't think the score band is an indication of luck. The test supposedly is a measure of a test-taker's proficiency in a number of areas which allegedly predicts success in one's first year of law school. The bands result from the inexactness of the test in measuring those proficiencies from test to test.

You're usually a good poster with good insight into the LSAT. What you're holding to in this thread makes absolutely no sense. The inexactness is going to affect different test takers differently, depending on which areas a particular person is proficient. If two people have the same overall skill except one is really weak at linear games and one is really weak at grouping games, the one who gets the test that more closely matches his abilities is.. well, lucky. I don't even see how that's controvertial.

EarlCat is a smart guy who is very familiar with the test. I can only conclude that he's operating under a definition of luck that is narrower than the commonly accepted definition.

I probably am. I see luck in a gambling sense--where two people can take the exact same action (such as hitting on a 12 in blackjack) and have different results (one guy busts, the other gets 21). No such luck factor exists on the LSAT. Perhaps differences between tests affect one's score, and in a sense it's "lucky" if you suck at in/out games and your test has no in/out games. But I have a hard time believing anyone scoring in the neighborhood of 180 is affected by such "luck," as he ought to be familiar with anything the test might throw at him. I'm also unconvinced that the effect of a good RC topic has any measurable effect since the questions ask about what's in the passage, not the topic in general.

Also, I think a lot of the disagreement here comes from the fact that I'm focusing on what goes on within a particular test. The June 2011 test is the June 2011 test--for all practical purposes it's the same for everyone. Once you sit down at the June 2011 test, if you're not good with such-and-such kind of game, it's not unluckiness, it's just unpreparedness for the June 2011 test. The test has the material that's in it, and, absent guessing, your score is a reflection of your ability to answer those specific questions. It's not like I and another person can both choose C on the same question and get different results. If I miss the question, it's not because I'm unlucky, it's just because I didn't perform as well as I should have.

[skip james]

I don't think the score band is an indication of luck. The test supposedly is a measure of a test-taker's proficiency in a number of areas which allegedly predicts success in one's first year of law school. The bands result from the inexactness of the test in measuring those proficiencies from test to test.

You're usually a good poster with good insight into the LSAT. What you're holding to in this thread makes absolutely no sense. The inexactness is going to affect different test takers differently, depending on which areas a particular person is proficient. If two people have the same overall skill except one is really weak at linear games and one is really weak at grouping games, the one who gets the test that more closely matches his abilities is.. well, lucky. I don't even see how that's controvertial.

EarlCat is a smart guy who is very familiar with the test. I can only conclude that he's operating under a definition of luck that is narrower than the commonly accepted definition.

that's funny. i came to the same conclusion. different sense of the term luck.