Let's end the games section Forum

[Woozy]

In examining the posts thus far, it looks like the only people who have weighed in are those who committed to the LSAT long ago -- that appears to be why they come to this blog. People just aren't evaluating my arguments directly. So, "your arguments will remain unconvincing" (emphasis added) is hardly a statement based on a realistic sample of LSAT takers or the prospective law school students who never get past the LSAT threshold.

I meant they would remain unconvincing to me. I'm not trying to speak for anyone else, although I recognize my language was potentially ambiguous.

Since no one is critically evaluating my arguments, let's look at yours.

As for your data, you might want to check into this because you're mortally wounding your position. The standard number LSAC reports is a correlation of LSAT performance to 1L grades of .4. (See LSAT apologist Frank Homer at --LinkRemoved--.) That's an abomination because it's just the "r" value. r-squared is only .16, which shows that only 16% of the change in one variable (LSAT score) is explained by a change in the other (1L grades). One of my sociology professors warned us about this trick in the SAT results decades ago. It looks like the LSAT people are conmen too. Essentially, according to LSAC, the LSAT is a terrible indicator. We could probably do a take on the Random Walk Down Wallstreet and find that throwing darts at law school applications is a better predictor of A, B, C or F

Happily, my position has nothing to do with the absolute correlation values. you will note I made only a couple of relevant remarks about the predictive capabilities of the LSAT: 1) that they are more highly correlated with 1L grades than any other known single metric, and 2) that the predictive value of the LSAT would likely not be enhanced by removing the AR section. Since you responded to neither of these points, I don't really have anything more to say on the subject.

So, by your argument, we ought to abolish the LSAT altogether, not just AR.

Why on earth would law schools abolish the best single metric they have to predict the academic success of prospective students?

I would hope, however, that we can demonstrate statistically that the AR section is not helpful. I will take your suggestion and see if LSAC publishes information on correlations by section. However, since the overall LSAT correlations are laughable and the test results have already been contaminated by the preparation process students are forced to go through, the results will be tainted as well. They can't be any worse than .16, I presume. I'll report back with what I find or if someone else has this data, please present it.

I will patiently await the data.

[suspicious android]

Hey now I didn't write that suspicious android......but no, there is not a test that is more fair. But just because there is not a test that is more fair does not mean that the LSAT is a great tool, IMO. All grad schools require an admissions test and I understand this is customary, but it doesn't necessarily mean I agree that it is great.

Yeah, sorry for the quote, edited. I think almost everyone agrees that the LSAT could be improved, is far from perfect, etc. OP is just engaging in antagonistic strawman arguments for his own self-aggrandizement/amusement.

[kill lsat]

When you have to decide whom to sue and when and where based on a specific fact pattern, you will solve your answer by doing a one-hour logic game, though it won't be obvious to you right up front.

When you take your law school exams, you spend at least an hour just analyzing...sometimes drawing diagrams, etc with the important facts, elements and conditional scenarios.

Logic games will train you to approach your law school exams in a very efficient manner.

I appreciate your sincerity. But, you get an hour in the exam to do that? After you've had months of training? And that's analogous to the 8.5 minutes for a game in the most pressure-filled exam of your life? Why should a placement test serve to train you to be an "efficient" law school student? That's what your other degrees and your first semester of law school should teach you. I would bet you had your own share of heartache that you felt was needless torment preparing for the LSAT, particularly the games section. Can you remember back to the time? Was it fair to you, your family? Don't you want to look for a better way?

[DeeCee]

Hey now I didn't write that suspicious android......but no, there is not a test that is more fair. But just because there is not a test that is more fair does not mean that the LSAT is a great tool, IMO. All grad schools require an admissions test and I understand this is customary, but it doesn't necessarily mean I agree that it is great.

Yeah, sorry for the quote, edited. I think almost everyone agrees that the LSAT could be improved, is far from perfect, etc. OP is just engaging in antagonistic strawman arguments for his own self-aggrandizement/amusement.

It's all good. I don't like the LSAT and I think it needs vast improvements, but I wouldn't know what those could be so I don't have much to offer as far as tangible improvements to the test.

[prezidentv8]

I would hope, however, that we can demonstrate statistically that the AR section is not helpful. I will take your suggestion and see if LSAC publishes information on correlations by section. However, since the overall LSAT correlations are laughable and the test results have already been contaminated by the preparation process students are forced to go through, the results will be tainted as well. They can't be any worse than .16, I presume. I'll report back with what I find or if someone else has this data, please present it.

I will patiently await the data.

Just to throw more kindling on this fire, I'm about 75% sure that the correlation and R^2 above does not take into account the scores of the people that each student is competing against during 1L (i.e., where they go to school), so theoretically, those numbers should be a little higher.

FLAME ON!

[Veyron]

I would hope, however, that we can demonstrate statistically that the AR section is not helpful. I will take your suggestion and see if LSAC publishes information on correlations by section. However, since the overall LSAT correlations are laughable and the test results have already been contaminated by the preparation process students are forced to go through, the results will be tainted as well. They can't be any worse than .16, I presume. I'll report back with what I find or if someone else has this data, please present it.

I will patiently await the data.

Just to throw more kindling on this fire, I'm about 75% sure that the correlation and R^2 above does not take into account the scores of the people that each student is competing against during 1L (i.e., where they go to school), so theoretically, those numbers should be a little higher.

FLAME ON!

No, it does take into account the scores of the student body at a given school. It would make literally no sense otherwise.

[prezidentv8]

I would hope, however, that we can demonstrate statistically that the AR section is not helpful. I will take your suggestion and see if LSAC publishes information on correlations by section. However, since the overall LSAT correlations are laughable and the test results have already been contaminated by the preparation process students are forced to go through, the results will be tainted as well. They can't be any worse than .16, I presume. I'll report back with what I find or if someone else has this data, please present it.

I will patiently await the data.

Just to throw more kindling on this fire, I'm about 75% sure that the correlation and R^2 above does not take into account the scores of the people that each student is competing against during 1L (i.e., where they go to school), so theoretically, those numbers should be a little higher.

FLAME ON!

No, it does take into account the scores of the student body at a given school. It would make literally no sense otherwise.

Hmm...Thought I read that somewhere official, and remember thinking it was weird, but maybe not. Either way, OP: logic games are easy after like, a week. So study up.

[suspicious android]

No, it does take into account the scores of the student body at a given school. It would make literally no sense otherwise.

I think he's referring to the problem that the correlation data is comparing performance of students to other students at that same law school, which is a pretty small LSAT range typically. If the LSAT really were a good indicator of 1L performance, we still might not see that strong a correlation since most people compete against people who have an LSAT score within 4-5 points of them. If we could compare HYS students performance on 1L exams to law school students at top 10, 50, 100, etc. law schools, we might see a much stronger correlation.

Is this not the case?

[prezidentv8]

No, it does take into account the scores of the student body at a given school. It would make literally no sense otherwise.

I think he's referring to the problem that the correlation data is comparing performance of students to other students at that same law school, which is a pretty LSAT range typically. If the LSAT really were a good indicator of 1L performance, we still might not see that strong a correlation since most people compete against people who have an LSAT score within 4-5 points of them. If we could compare HYS students performance on 1L exams to law school students at a top 10, 50, 100, etc. law schools, we might see a much stronger correlation.

Is this not the case?

yeah this is what I meant. Doing reading for class right now, so the words sense make not when I do write.

[ajcollege]

OP, do you feel that we should accept students to graduate engineering programs based solely on subjective measurements? What about med school? Why should law be different? Are the stakes lower in law than in medicine?

LSAC and the majority of law schools are not fly-by-night organizations. If there was a better objective measurement tool than the LSAT to distinguish students, we would be using that tool instead of the LSAT. If there was a better subsection than AR to test the things AR tests, we would be using that better subsection. A standardized test where nearly every student takes it under similar controlled situations showcases each individual student's preparedness, ability, and reasoning skills.

[kill lsat]

There are FEW things in life that require less time and effort in exchange for payoff than the LSAT. ... I frankly could give a rats ass how hard someone has it it with community events, etc. You are not being surprised by how important it is. It is YOUR decision, one which you know just how important the implications are, and if you cannot dedicate the time necessary to conquering it than how am I supposed to believe you are every going to be able to prioritize your cases properly? If you don't have time for it, wait.

I would bet that a single mother of 4 would find it easier to prioritize her cases or yours than to prioritize the needs of her children on the poorly paying job she has. Many like her give up their dreams -- and law schools become overpopulated with people who seem incapable of empathy. Even poor, struggling people are entitled to have aspirations and we have to lower barriers for them, not create artificial ones, like the LSAT and particularly the games section. How fair is it that she has to compete with people who only have to worry about whether they were idiots at last night's frat party? Those juveniles will have their parents send them to Kaplan. The mother will do her best preparing for the exam and will probably do poorly. I would bet her hard times, empathy, tough choices and drive would make her a far better lawyer than someone who makes the kind of cold, calculated, unsympathetic arguments many on this blog have. But, we'll never know.

[prezidentv8]

There are FEW things in life that require less time and effort in exchange for payoff than the LSAT. ... I frankly could give a rats ass how hard someone has it it with community events, etc. You are not being surprised by how important it is. It is YOUR decision, one which you know just how important the implications are, and if you cannot dedicate the time necessary to conquering it than how am I supposed to believe you are every going to be able to prioritize your cases properly? If you don't have time for it, wait.

I would bet that a single mother of 4 would find it easier to prioritize her cases or yours than to prioritize the needs of her children on the poorly paying job she has. Many like her give up their dreams -- and law schools become overpopulated with people who seem incapable of empathy. Even poor, struggling people are entitled to have aspirations and we have to lower barriers for them, not create artificial ones, like the LSAT and particularly the games section. How fair is it that she has to compete with people who only have to worry about whether they were idiots at last night's frat party? Those juveniles will have their parents send them to Kaplan. The mother will do her best preparing for the exam and will probably do poorly. I would bet her hard times, empathy, tough choices and drive would make her a far better lawyer than someone who makes the kind of cold, calculated, unsympathetic arguments many on this blog have. But, we'll never know.

Egregious Kaplan trolling.

[510Chicken]

I would bet that a single mother of 4 would find it easier to prioritize her cases or yours than to prioritize the needs of her children on the poorly paying job she has. Many like her give up their dreams -- and law schools become overpopulated with people who seem incapable of empathy. Even poor, struggling people are entitled to have aspirations and we have to lower barriers for them, not create artificial ones, like the LSAT and particularly the games section. How fair is it that she has to compete with people who only have to worry about whether they were idiots at last night's frat party? Those juveniles will have their parents send them to Kaplan. The mother will do her best preparing for the exam and will probably do poorly. I would bet her hard times, empathy, tough choices and drive would make her a far better lawyer than someone who makes the kind of cold, calculated, unsympathetic arguments many on this blog have. But, we'll never know.

Cute, but still missing the point. At best this is a reason why the LSAT as a whole is bad. You can't narrow it down to only the games section without changing the meaning of the test.

[InLikeFlint]

There are FEW things in life that require less time and effort in exchange for payoff than the LSAT. ... I frankly could give a rats ass how hard someone has it it with community events, etc. You are not being surprised by how important it is. It is YOUR decision, one which you know just how important the implications are, and if you cannot dedicate the time necessary to conquering it than how am I supposed to believe you are every going to be able to prioritize your cases properly? If you don't have time for it, wait.

I would bet that a single mother of 4 would find it easier to prioritize her cases or yours than to prioritize the needs of her children on the poorly paying job she has. Many like her give up their dreams -- and law schools become overpopulated with people who seem incapable of empathy. Even poor, struggling people are entitled to have aspirations and we have to lower barriers for them, not create artificial ones, like the LSAT and particularly the games section. How fair is it that she has to compete with people who only have to worry about whether they were idiots at last night's frat party? Those juveniles will have their parents send them to Kaplan. The mother will do her best preparing for the exam and will probably do poorly. I would bet her hard times, empathy, tough choices and drive would make her a far better lawyer than someone who makes the kind of cold, calculated, unsympathetic arguments many on this blog have. But, we'll never know.

Extremely well-executed flame.

[Upton Sinclair]

There are FEW things in life that require less time and effort in exchange for payoff than the LSAT. ... I frankly could give a rats ass how hard someone has it it with community events, etc. You are not being surprised by how important it is. It is YOUR decision, one which you know just how important the implications are, and if you cannot dedicate the time necessary to conquering it than how am I supposed to believe you are every going to be able to prioritize your cases properly? If you don't have time for it, wait.

I would bet that a single mother of 4 would find it easier to prioritize her cases or yours than to prioritize the needs of her children on the poorly paying job she has. Many like her give up their dreams -- and law schools become overpopulated with people who seem incapable of empathy. Even poor, struggling people are entitled to have aspirations and we have to lower barriers for them, not create artificial ones, like the LSAT and particularly the games section. How fair is it that she has to compete with people who only have to worry about whether they were idiots at last night's frat party? Those juveniles will have their parents send them to Kaplan. The mother will do her best preparing for the exam and will probably do poorly. I would bet her hard times, empathy, tough choices and drive would make her a far better lawyer than someone who makes the kind of cold, calculated, unsympathetic arguments many on this blog have. But, we'll never know.

The mother should have taken the LSAT and gone to law school before becoming a mother. What the hell are you talking about? If it was her "dream" she should have prioritized her life and put her career aspirations first before popping out kids.

[feralinfant]

When you have to decide whom to sue and when and where based on a specific fact pattern, you will solve your answer by doing a one-hour logic game, though it won't be obvious to you right up front.

When you take your law school exams, you spend at least an hour just analyzing...sometimes drawing diagrams, etc with the important facts, elements and conditional scenarios.

Logic games will train you to approach your law school exams in a very efficient manner.

I appreciate your sincerity. But, you get an hour in the exam to do that? After you've had months of training? And that's analogous to the 8.5 minutes for a game in the most pressure-filled exam of your life? Why should a placement test serve to train you to be an "efficient" law school student? That's what your other degrees and your first semester of law school should teach you. I would bet you had your own share of heartache that you felt was needless torment preparing for the LSAT, particularly the games section. Can you remember back to the time? Was it fair to you, your family? Don't you want to look for a better way?

Your argument is most vulnerable on the grounds that ....it makes emotional appeals that seem exaggerated/irrelevant...

Do you beat your kids while you practice games or something? In all seriousness...You're acting like the problems that studying for LSAT games present with regard to your family aren't comparable to the problems presented by getting something like an undergraduate education. If you ask me, the onus of getting a four year degree would be a much bigger obstacle and much more disruptive to a family. So maybe we shouldn't have UG institutions either, especially since we all know there's people who don't do well in UG but do great in law school and vice versa, so they're not a perfect indicator either... For the record...I didn't take a KAPLAN course. I bought four tests from LSAC and a princeton review book. Approximate cost 60 dollars. And I wouldn't have had to do that if I would have found a whole freaking collection of prep books at a coffee shop soon enough. And I bet your UG institution might have some resources books. And I don't have a family, but I wasn't in a fraternity and was working 50+ hours a week hanging billboards in inclement weather/bird crap while I prepared. So anyway...Stop beating your kids while you practice games-I bet your score will improve.

[prezidentv8]

Stop beating your kids while you practice games-I bet your score will improve.

QFBest LSAT tip on forum

[amonynous_ivdinidual]

oh kill lsat, your life is so hard.



you wouldn't be the first person to make sacrifices in pursuit of your dreams. you really sound like you're upset that it isn't easy to achieve your goal, while it's easier for others to achieve the same goal. it's my sad duty to welcome you to the real world. inequities aren't unusual. but if you fight, scratch, work, and flat out want it more than the other guy, you can get what you're after. i speak from experience. pm if you want my bona fides. i'm sorry, but as someone who has made significant sacrifices and fought for his spot, and who goes to school with many people who didn't have to make similar sacrifices, i have to say that your whining is falling on deaf ears.

[kazu]

Stop beating your kids while you practice games-I bet your score will improve.

QFBest LSAT tip on forum

[Veyron]

No, it does take into account the scores of the student body at a given school. It would make literally no sense otherwise.

I think he's referring to the problem that the correlation data is comparing performance of students to other students at that same law school, which is a pretty LSAT range typically. If the LSAT really were a good indicator of 1L performance, we still might not see that strong a correlation since most people compete against people who have an LSAT score within 4-5 points of them. If we could compare HYS students performance on 1L exams to law school students at a top 10, 50, 100, etc. law schools, we might see a much stronger correlation.

Is this not the case?

yeah this is what I meant. Doing reading for class right now, so the words sense make not when I do write.

The range isn't that small even at top schools. Penn, for instance, last year had 25% at 166 and 75% at 171. Therefore, half of all students at Penn are separated by more than 5% on the LSAT, sometimes substantially more. With twenty years of data as the LSAC has, there are more than enough data points to account for white noise. This reflects itself in the statistically significant correlation that has been observed.

[prezidentv8]

No, it does take into account the scores of the student body at a given school. It would make literally no sense otherwise.

I think he's referring to the problem that the correlation data is comparing performance of students to other students at that same law school, which is a pretty LSAT range typically. If the LSAT really were a good indicator of 1L performance, we still might not see that strong a correlation since most people compete against people who have an LSAT score within 4-5 points of them. If we could compare HYS students performance on 1L exams to law school students at a top 10, 50, 100, etc. law schools, we might see a much stronger correlation.

Is this not the case?

yeah this is what I meant. Doing reading for class right now, so the words sense make not when I do write.

The range isn't that small even at top schools. Penn, for instance, last year had 25% at 166 and 75% at 171. Therefore, half of all students at Penn are separated by more than 5% on the LSAT, sometimes substantially more. With twenty years of data as the LSAC has, there are more than enough data points to account for white noise. This reflects itself in the statistically significant correlation that has been observed.

Good enough for me.

[m3taphysician]

There are FEW things in life that require less time and effort in exchange for payoff than the LSAT. ... I frankly could give a rats ass how hard someone has it it with community events, etc. You are not being surprised by how important it is. It is YOUR decision, one which you know just how important the implications are, and if you cannot dedicate the time necessary to conquering it than how am I supposed to believe you are every going to be able to prioritize your cases properly? If you don't have time for it, wait.

I would bet that a single mother of 4 would find it easier to prioritize her cases or yours than to prioritize the needs of her children on the poorly paying job she has. Many like her give up their dreams -- and law schools become overpopulated with people who seem incapable of empathy. Even poor, struggling people are entitled to have aspirations and we have to lower barriers for them, not create artificial ones, like the LSAT and particularly the games section. How fair is it that she has to compete with people who only have to worry about whether they were idiots at last night's frat party? Those juveniles will have their parents send them to Kaplan. The mother will do her best preparing for the exam and will probably do poorly. I would bet her hard times, empathy, tough choices and drive would make her a far better lawyer than someone who makes the kind of cold, calculated, unsympathetic arguments many on this blog have. But, we'll never know.

Egregious Kaplan trolling.

lol

[Veyron]

[/quote]

I think he's referring to the problem that the correlation data is comparing performance of students to other students at that same law school, which is a pretty LSAT range typically. If the LSAT really were a good indicator of 1L performance, we still might not see that strong a correlation since most people compete against people who have an LSAT score within 4-5 points of them. If we could compare HYS students performance on 1L exams to law school students at a top 10, 50, 100, etc. law schools, we might see a much stronger correlation.

Is this not the case?[/quote]

yeah this is what I meant. Doing reading for class right now, so the words sense make not when I do write.[/quote]


The range isn't that small even at top schools. Penn, for instance, last year had 25% at 166 and 75% at 171. Therefore, half of all students at Penn are separated by more than 5% on the LSAT, sometimes substantially more. With twenty years of data as the LSAC has, there are more than enough data points to account for white noise. This reflects itself in the statistically significant correlation that has been observed.[/quote]

Good enough for me.[/quote]

And they said you can't "win" an argument on the internet .

Of course, you're still the smart one since I should really have been doing reading.

[kill lsat]

Your problem seems to be with timed tests in general (the case you make for getting rid of the games section can also apply to LR & RC) and because you did poorly on games, that's the section you're particularly annoyed with.

So what would you propose in lieu of the LSAT?

I'm neither comfortable with nor qualified to make recommendations on replacing the LSAT, but we should start listening to researchers who've studied standardized tests. I'll pull together something and post it. I'm really focused on eliminating the games section and I know that virtually everyone on this blog believed that at one point in his/her life. But, once they committed to the LSAT and things worked out for them, they started to sing a different tune. But, how many of them would want their loved ones to go through what they went through?

Here are a few obvious alternatives and/or adjustments, anyway, for now:
A. Law schools should set thresholds for academic preparedness that qualified students must have. Select from among those levels of preparedness based on diversity criteria (percentages at each level irrespective of other factors, campus demographic goals where legal, dynamic population goals, potential good to society, hardships overcome, etc.). Law school will always be part preparedness, part luck -- but it's that way now. There would just be far less trauma for prospective students.
B. Drop the games section because an aptitude test should test your academic preparedness, not your ability to pay for a course, spend three months doing sample problems, or learn what the word "setup" means.
C. Modify the games section so it is more representative of the skills needed as a lawyer, is far less burdensome to prospective students, and is indicative of the "A" in LSAT -- "aptitude," not test-taking skills or the course you took or the time to learn something new that you had/didn't have.
D. Expand the time on all sections, so we can get a better sense of who really knows the answer, rather than who has the best test-taking skills. (That's really inspired by your question and one of the age-old criticisms of std tests. Perhaps that's the one you were most expecting, given your comment.)

[feralinfant]

Your problem seems to be with timed tests in general (the case you make for getting rid of the games section can also apply to LR & RC) and because you did poorly on games, that's the section you're particularly annoyed with.

So what would you propose in lieu of the LSAT?

I'm neither comfortable with nor qualified to make recommendations on replacing the LSAT, but we should start listening to researchers who've studied standardized tests. I'll pull together something and post it. I'm really focused on eliminating the games section and I know that virtually everyone on this blog believed that at one point in his/her life. But, once they committed to the LSAT and things worked out for them, they started to sing a different tune. But, how many of them would want their loved ones to go through what they went through?

Here are a few obvious alternatives and/or adjustments, anyway, for now:
A. Law schools should set thresholds for academic preparedness that qualified students must have. Select from among those levels of preparedness based on diversity criteria (percentages at each level irrespective of other factors, campus demographic goals where legal, dynamic population goals, potential good to society, hardships overcome, etc.). Law school will always be part preparedness, part luck -- but it's that way now. There would just be far less trauma for prospective students.
B. Drop the games section because an aptitude test should test your academic preparedness, not your ability to pay for a course, spend three months doing sample problems, or learn what the word "setup" means.
C. Modify the games section so it is more representative of the skills needed as a lawyer, is far less burdensome to prospective students, and is indicative of the "A" in LSAT -- "aptitude," not test-taking skills or the course you took or the time to learn something new that you had/didn't have.
D. Expand the time on all sections, so we can get a better sense of who really knows the answer, rather than who has the best test-taking skills. (That's really inspired by your question and one of the age-old criticisms of std tests. Perhaps that's the one you were most expecting, given your comment.)

You're so devoted to being scientific but then you say things like "virtually everyone on the board felt the same way" I know I didn't, and I'd be willing to bet plenty of other people appreciate the lack of ambiguity in the games section. Not that I didn't feel the games on the Dec. LSAT were really hard and was pissed...but I don't think I've developed PTSD or anything as a result. And again, what's with the melodramatic "would you want your loved ones to go through this?" I mean seriously you act like LSAT prep is some sort of gestapo torture chamber. Not to mention it sort of is a nonsensical question...along the lines of would you want your loved ones to go through studying for a calc final? or even worse...an analysis final? I mean it's a false binary. I wouldn't say yes...unless they really love math tests...but I wouldn't say no either if taking math classes like that is something they want to accomplish. It's a really dishonest rhetorical move and you should stop using it because its hurting your case.