Let's end the games section Forum

[feralinfant]

Also I feel like a lot of people have mentioned how games correspond to law school courses..and the timing on the test means that if you can get them faster than other people, you will get them faster in law school too, and thus be able to do better by cutting down studying time on one aspect and applying it to something else. Timing things like the LSAT isn't some arbitrary and sadistic nonsense...it makes at least a little sense. Seriously stop whining. I mean if I was to start a thread complaining along the lines of..."But the first two years of college I wasn't that serious and now I am and so these grades aren't really indicative of anything and its just not fair that they should count so much and I would never want my family to go through this and there should be an option specifically tailored for people like me so that everyone who wants to go to Harvard can go there". I mean the reason these schools are the top law schools is that most people don't go there. Also why isn't three months of practice problems indicative of academic preparedness. To me it seems to signify that you know how to study effectively and are dedicated to it. The fact that it's not a school course doesn't make it really unacademic, unless you're only considering academic to be something idealistic like the "pursuit of truth" which is not at all what my college experience seemed to be about.

and your law school thresholds thing didn't make a lot of sense to me but I didn't read it that closely because I've already sort of made up my mind because of all your whining which really seems to come down to: I shouldn't have to study for the LSAT, I should just do good on it because I'm awesome and went to college. This argument is most vulnerable on the grounds that...

[FeelTheHeat]

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

[kill lsat]

The games are a test of how hard you're willing to work on something important. I think that's an extremely important trait to test for.

If you don't have time to study an hour or two a day for the LSAT, what on Earth makes you think that you have time to go to law school or be a good lawyer?

Now you're just talking about being willing, not being able. I think it's eminently reasonable for law schools to know if you're serious enough about this to put in a few hours a week to study for this test, even if the payoff is not directly obvious.

So, the LSAT is just a proving ground, only the strongest will survive. That's pretty easy to say when you have a boatload of advantages, including time to burn. And it sounds like rationalization. Surely, that's not how we want our society to function. What about academic preparedness and molding the body of lawyers so that it is starts to be more representative of society?

Actually, I would have done anything for "an hour or two a day," though I'd bet you spent more time than that. Whether you or I would make a better lawyer simply must not depend on who has fewer hardships or who makes more sacrifices -- or we need a more objective way to measure sacrifice. You might be ready to jump off a bridge if you had to deal with the hardships of a single mother in South Boston or a Hispanic kid from a tough part of San Jose. Who are you to tell them that you deserve a spot in a law school because you could spend months studying for the LSAT and they couldn't? They've survived more hardships to sit for that exam than you could probably imagine. What about the rich kids who always seem to make it into Harvard. Are they the fittest? Did they prove anything? Or did they simply have every advantage money could buy, including a stress-free LSAT experience with their personal tutor.

Under your system and a more inclusive definition of "how hard you're willing to work," you would never get into law school. And, application of a more Darwinian approach wouldn't comfort you much when you saw your hard-working daughter lose out to that rich kid who was more "serious" about law school.

Change the system now, get your peace of mind later.

[rinkrat19]

The games are a test of how hard you're willing to work on something important. I think that's an extremely important trait to test for.

If you don't have time to study an hour or two a day for the LSAT, what on Earth makes you think that you have time to go to law school or be a good lawyer?

Now you're just talking about being willing, not being able. I think it's eminently reasonable for law schools to know if you're serious enough about this to put in a few hours a week to study for this test, even if the payoff is not directly obvious.

So, the LSAT is just a proving ground, only the strongest will survive. That's pretty easy to say when you have a boatload of advantages, including time to burn. And it sounds like rationalization. Surely, that's not how we want our society to function. What about academic preparedness and molding the body of lawyers so that it is starts to be more representative of society?

Actually, I would have done anything for "an hour or two a day," though I'd bet you spent more time than that. Whether you or I would make a better lawyer simply must not depend on who has fewer hardships or who makes more sacrifices -- or we need a more objective way to measure sacrifice. You might be ready to jump off a bridge if you had to deal with the hardships of a single mother in South Boston or a Hispanic kid from a tough part of San Jose. Who are you to tell them that you deserve a spot in a law school because you could spend months studying for the LSAT and they couldn't? They've survived more hardships to sit for that exam than you could probably imagine. What about the rich kids who always seem to make it into Harvard. Are they the fittest? Did they prove anything? Or did they simply have every advantage money could buy, including a stress-free LSAT experience with their personal tutor.

Under your system and a more inclusive definition of "how hard you're willing to work," you would never get into law school. And, application of a more Darwinian approach wouldn't comfort you much when you saw your hard-working daughter lose out to that rich kid who was more "serious" about law school.

Change the system now, get your peace of mind later.

I spent an hour after work 3 or 4 nights a week and perhaps 2 hours on Sundays, for 7 weeks. No professional course, no tutor, and a total of about $100 in preptests and a logic games study book. (I could've spent even less if I'd looked for used copies.)

The LSAT is learnable, meaning that you can do well on it even without a lifetime of expensive private education. It is based on logic and comprehension, not prior knowledge of any topic, so you don't have to be well-versed in Shakespeare or biological systems or pre-historic pottery. It's relatively limited in scope, meaning that you can learn it fairly quickly and don't have to take years off of work to prepare. And there are incredible free and cheap resources out there to help you study for it without paying for expensive courses or private tutors. I can't think of any way they could possibly make it more inclusive. It may not be perfect, but it predicts 1L grades in a statistically significant way.

[Veyron]

The games are a test of how hard you're willing to work on something important. I think that's an extremely important trait to test for.

If you don't have time to study an hour or two a day for the LSAT, what on Earth makes you think that you have time to go to law school or be a good lawyer?

Now you're just talking about being willing, not being able. I think it's eminently reasonable for law schools to know if you're serious enough about this to put in a few hours a week to study for this test, even if the payoff is not directly obvious.

So, the LSAT is just a proving ground, only the strongest will survive. That's pretty easy to say when you have a boatload of advantages, including time to burn. And it sounds like rationalization. Surely, that's not how we want our society to function. What about academic preparedness and molding the body of lawyers so that it is starts to be more representative of society?

Actually, I would have done anything for "an hour or two a day," though I'd bet you spent more time than that. Whether you or I would make a better lawyer simply must not depend on who has fewer hardships or who makes more sacrifices -- or we need a more objective way to measure sacrifice. You might be ready to jump off a bridge if you had to deal with the hardships of a single mother in South Boston or a Hispanic kid from a tough part of San Jose. Who are you to tell them that you deserve a spot in a law school because you could spend months studying for the LSAT and they couldn't? They've survived more hardships to sit for that exam than you could probably imagine. What about the rich kids who always seem to make it into Harvard. Are they the fittest? Did they prove anything? Or did they simply have every advantage money could buy, including a stress-free LSAT experience with their personal tutor.

Under your system and a more inclusive definition of "how hard you're willing to work," you would never get into law school. And, application of a more Darwinian approach wouldn't comfort you much when you saw your hard-working daughter lose out to that rich kid who was more "serious" about law school.

Change the system now, get your peace of mind later.

Virtually any LSAT score is sufficient for admission to SOME law school. The very top of the class at virtually ANY law school has good prospects. What then is your problem?

[feralinfant]

The games are a test of how hard you're willing to work on something important. I think that's an extremely important trait to test for.

If you don't have time to study an hour or two a day for the LSAT, what on Earth makes you think that you have time to go to law school or be a good lawyer?

Now you're just talking about being willing, not being able. I think it's eminently reasonable for law schools to know if you're serious enough about this to put in a few hours a week to study for this test, even if the payoff is not directly obvious.

So, the LSAT is just a proving ground, only the strongest will survive. That's pretty easy to say when you have a boatload of advantages, including time to burn. And it sounds like rationalization. Surely, that's not how we want our society to function. What about academic preparedness and molding the body of lawyers so that it is starts to be more representative of society?

Actually, I would have done anything for "an hour or two a day," though I'd bet you spent more time than that. Whether you or I would make a better lawyer simply must not depend on who has fewer hardships or who makes more sacrifices -- or we need a more objective way to measure sacrifice. You might be ready to jump off a bridge if you had to deal with the hardships of a single mother in South Boston or a Hispanic kid from a tough part of San Jose. Who are you to tell them that you deserve a spot in a law school because you could spend months studying for the LSAT and they couldn't? They've survived more hardships to sit for that exam than you could probably imagine. What about the rich kids who always seem to make it into Harvard. Are they the fittest? Did they prove anything? Or did they simply have every advantage money could buy, including a stress-free LSAT experience with their personal tutor.

Under your system and a more inclusive definition of "how hard you're willing to work," you would never get into law school. And, application of a more Darwinian approach wouldn't comfort you much when you saw your hard-working daughter lose out to that rich kid who was more "serious" about law school.

Change the system now, get your peace of mind later.

I flat out don't believe you that you don't have an hour or two a day. I demand a notarized itinerary as proof. And simply being a single mother in south boston doesn't qualify you for law school either. And that's actually why there's all sorts of things that help URM's get in schools. For instance a URM with my gpa and LSAT score would have a chance at tons of schools I don't. What your suggesting as the only solution is a comprehensive social net that would preclude the existence of people from rougher backgrounds. It's like something out of Brave New World. Now I know you're saying we just need a mechanism that acknowledges it, which as I've pointed out we do. But again, you can't simply try and be like, well you're from south boston and you're from beverly hills so we'll just times one resume by a number and this one by another one and boom...we can systematically equate(in the sense that the lsat is equated) regional/economic differences. I think you might be a soviet troll. I wonder if McCarthy found communists more annoying than scary.

[feralinfant]

Virtually any LSAT score is sufficient for admission to SOME law school. The very top of the class at virtually ANY law school has good prospects. What then is your problem?

also, this.

[jeremysen]

we should start listening to researchers who've studied standardized tests.

...many of whom put the LSAT in high regard

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.

Rather than view such people negatively, consider that this is the case for obstacles that nearly everyone faces. (e.g. sports, music, research, etc.)
Your comment here is a bit narrow-minded.

Here are my comments on your proposal:

A. The way you phrased this recommendation is confusing/kinda illogical - doesn't make sense how you jumped from basing academic preparedness on diversity criteria to "law schools always [being] part preparedness, part luck" and to "[producing] far less trauma for prospective students." If you care to clarify, please do.

B. I think the games section tests whether law students can sort through a number of items/elements and understand how rules apply to them. This type of analytical/organizational skill seems pretty valuable, and the test prep books that teach it are not prohibitively expensive.

C. To a certain extent, every exam needs some learned knowledge to strategically approach it. I don't think mastering the games section = test-taking ability. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that if I am presented a bunch of rules & variables, because I have done well on logic games, I can better (and more quickly) apply those rules.
Also, learning something new from preparing for the LSAT is not a bad thing. If it were, we should strike the math sections from the GMAT & GRE, as well as the entire vocab portion from the GRE. (not to say that those exams were well formulated - just pointing out that the LSAT is probably one of the better exams out there)

D. You mentioned in your reasoning for this "time argument" that lawyers have a bunch of time to research, draw conclusions, and write memos. But this is not the case at all.

Hopefully I addressed your arguments/points well? If you perceived any of my language as pejorative, I don't mean to belittle you or your remarks.

[jeremysen]

Virtually any LSAT score is sufficient for admission to SOME law school. The very top of the class at virtually ANY law school has good prospects. What then is your problem?

Agree with a lot of your other comments Veyron, but not this one - because of the social implications that result from attending TTT or TT.

[feralinfant]

we should start listening to researchers who've studied standardized tests.

...many of whom put the LSAT in high regard

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.

Rather than view such people negatively, consider that this is the case for obstacles that nearly everyone faces. (e.g. sports, music, research, etc.)
Your comment here is a bit narrow-minded.

Here are my comments on your proposal:

A. The way you phrased this recommendation is confusing/kinda illogical - doesn't make sense how you jumped from basing academic preparedness on diversity criteria to "law schools always [being] part preparedness, part luck" and to "[producing] far less trauma for prospective students." If you care to clarify, please do.

B. I think the games section tests whether law students can sort through a number of items/elements and understand how rules apply to them. This type of analytical/organizational skill seems pretty valuable, and the test prep books that teach it are not prohibitively expensive.

C. To a certain extent, every exam needs some learned knowledge to strategically approach it. I don't think mastering the games section = test-taking ability. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that if I am presented a bunch of rules & variables, because I have done well on logic games, I can better (and more quickly) apply those rules.
Also, learning something new from preparing for the LSAT is not a bad thing. If it were, we should strike the math sections from the GMAT & GRE, as well as the entire vocab portion from the GRE. (not to say that those exams were well formulated - just pointing out that the LSAT is probably one of the better exams out there)

D. You mentioned in your reasoning for this "time argument" that lawyers have a bunch of time to research, draw conclusions, and write memos. But this is not the case at all.

Hopefully I addressed your arguments/points well? If you perceived any of my language as pejorative, I don't mean to belittle you or your remarks.

You're way nicer than me. Now I feel bad. But not that bad.

[jeremysen]

Also I feel like a lot of people have mentioned how games correspond to law school courses..and the timing on the test means that if you can get them faster than other people, you will get them faster in law school too, and thus be able to do better by cutting down studying time on one aspect and applying it to something else.

And this certainly applies to LS grads who practice law.

[jeremysen]

You're way nicer than me. Now I feel bad. But not that bad.

lol

[Veyron]

Virtually any LSAT score is sufficient for admission to SOME law school. The very top of the class at virtually ANY law school has good prospects. What then is your problem?

Agree with a lot of your other comments Veyron, but not this one - because of the social implications that result from attending TTT or TT.

Social implications? Top 5% at Brooklyn Law and top 50% at Penn have similar career prospects. Sure, places that care more about prestige will take the Penn kid, but that is balanced out by the places that care more about grades. It all comes out in the wash.

[jeremysen]

Virtually any LSAT score is sufficient for admission to SOME law school. The very top of the class at virtually ANY law school has good prospects. What then is your problem?

Agree with a lot of your other comments Veyron, but not this one - because of the social implications that result from attending TTT or TT.

Social implications? Top 5% at Brooklyn Law and top 50% at Penn have similar career prospects. Sure, places that care more about prestige will take the Penn kid, but that is balanced out by the places that care more about grades. It all comes out in the wash.

Figured you'd say this - I'm a bit short sighted, and I care about my pedigree. Feel like you do too?

Thought process along the lines of: Even if I don't go to (insert field), I still went to a "damn fine school."

[kill lsat]

Standardized tests of any sort work against the poor and disadvantaged, for many of the reasons you stated. The other parts of the application process HELP those groups.

Objectively false. The whole point of introducing standardized tests was to level the playing field so that universities were not the exclusive domain of rich prep school kids. Before standardized tests, poor students who didn't go to the right schools lost out because universities couldn't judge the quality of education they had. Without a semi-objective standard, richer students would have an unbeatable advantage coming from richer schools. That's not eliminated by standardized testing, but significantly ameliorated. A system in which decisions were made soley by GPA and nebulous "soft" factors would be a disaster, might as well start auctioning off seats to the highest bidder at that point.

Unfortunately, the facts do not support your view of history and you compound your version of things with false choices.

You might start a critical, mandatory re-evaluation of what you know about standardized testing by checking out:

• http://principleddiscovery.com/2006/07/ ... d-testing/
  http://www.fairtest.org/university

Have you ever heard of the Eugenics movement and their obsession with IQ tests and standardized tests in general? These tests were created and refined in an attempt to demonstrate the non-existent inferiority of Africans, southern Europeans and the "feeble minded." No law school still follows your prescription "decisions were made soley by GPA and nebulous 'soft' factors." I'm arguing for an LSAT that reflects academic preparedness, not the need to study for months or to spend $1500 for a course. Elimination of the games section would get us closer to that reality. (Abolition of the entire LSAT would be better, but I'm not arguing for that in this thread.) Even with today's LSAT there are numerous well-defined "soft" factors that law schools use to promote diversity and to ensure that they are really seeing who is prepared for success both in school and in the profession.

The LSAT, like standardized tests before it, is simply a barrier to precisely the same people you keep saying that you're speaking for. There have to be studies to demonstrate the agony caused by the LSAT for all prospective students and the underprivileged, in particular. I'll look into this and report back. But, even in the absence of that, you have to do your own research and then, please tell us how shamefully mistaken you were about standardized tests. Law schools create diversity only by looking for legal ways to bypass or de-emphasize the LSAT. You cannot support the interests of the poor and under-represented, while you simultaneously support standardized tests.

[feralinfant]

Virtually any LSAT score is sufficient for admission to SOME law school. The very top of the class at virtually ANY law school has good prospects. What then is your problem?

Agree with a lot of your other comments Veyron, but not this one - because of the social implications that result from attending TTT or TT.

Well the way I understood it, the big appeal of the T-14 is the degrees wide geographic range. For example, where I'm from having a degree from Creighton is probably the best thing you can have if you want a job. Trying to go out of state with that degree on the other hand might be tougher. But anyways, if you know you want to practice in Omaha there's no reason not to go to Creighton. Trying to decide where you want to practice law before you go to school seems like one of those sacrifices that might just go along with having a family, job, etc.

[Veyron]

Virtually any LSAT score is sufficient for admission to SOME law school. The very top of the class at virtually ANY law school has good prospects. What then is your problem?

Agree with a lot of your other comments Veyron, but not this one - because of the social implications that result from attending TTT or TT.

Social implications? Top 5% at Brooklyn Law and top 50% at Penn have similar career prospects. Sure, places that care more about prestige will take the Penn kid, but that is balanced out by the places that care more about grades. It all comes out in the wash.

Figured you'd say this - I'm a bit short sighted, and I care about my pedigree. Feel like you do too?

Thought process along the lines of: Even if I don't go to (insert field), I still went to a "damn fine school."

Oh, I do as well, I definitely hold my head up higher being a Penn kid. That being said, I love my home state so if you gave me the choice between going to Penn and going to one of our state schools and having the same job prospects I would do it. I would not, however, take the same deal at any other non T-14s - I like being among the best and brightest and, though you can find them everywhere, you find more of them at Penn. However, other people may feel differently - its a personal calculation at some level.

[feralinfant]

Seriously, are you just going to ignore all my posts? Like you're not even going to call me out on me calling you out on being melodramatic? And then you're going to continue to use words like agony? Also we've clearly established you don't need prep courses. And why shouldn't you have to study? You have failed to answer this for me.

[jeremysen]

Standardized tests of any sort work against the poor and disadvantaged, for many of the reasons you stated. The other parts of the application process HELP those groups.

Objectively false. The whole point of introducing standardized tests was to level the playing field so that universities were not the exclusive domain of rich prep school kids. Before standardized tests, poor students who didn't go to the right schools lost out because universities couldn't judge the quality of education they had. Without a semi-objective standard, richer students would have an unbeatable advantage coming from richer schools. That's not eliminated by standardized testing, but significantly ameliorated. A system in which decisions were made soley by GPA and nebulous "soft" factors would be a disaster, might as well start auctioning off seats to the highest bidder at that point.

Unfortunately, the facts do not support your view of history and you compound your version of things with false choices.

You might start a critical, mandatory re-evaluation of what you know about standardized testing by checking out:

• http://principleddiscovery.com/2006/07/ ... d-testing/
  http://www.fairtest.org/university

Have you ever heard of the Eugenics movement and their obsession with IQ tests and standardized tests in general? These tests were created and refined in an attempt to demonstrate the non-existent inferiority of Africans, southern Europeans and the "feeble minded." No law school still follows your prescription "decisions were made soley by GPA and nebulous 'soft' factors." I'm arguing for an LSAT that reflects academic preparedness, not the need to study for months or to spend $1500 for a course. Elimination of the games section would get us closer to that reality. (Abolition of the entire LSAT would be better, but I'm not arguing for that in this thread.) Even with today's LSAT there are numerous well-defined "soft" factors that law schools use to promote diversity and to ensure that they are really seeing who is prepared for success both in school and in the profession.

The LSAT, like standardized tests before it, is simply a barrier to precisely the same people you keep saying that you're speaking for. There have to be studies to demonstrate the agony caused by the LSAT for all prospective students and the underprivileged, in particular. I'll look into this and report back. But, even in the absence of that, you have to do your own research and then, please tell us how shamefully mistaken you were about standardized tests. Law schools create diversity only by looking for legal ways to bypass or de-emphasize the LSAT. You cannot support the interests of the poor and under-represented, while you simultaneously support standardized tests.

suspicious android's comment was not "objectively false." The LSAT was started at a time when war vets were coming back to the states. It was trying to include a wide spectrum of races & backgrounds, and it did this pretty successfully.

I don't know whether there is a significant differential b/w income classes.

[tomwatts]

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?

Okay, wtf. Needless torment? Really?

My mom used do logic puzzles with me for fun when I was about 9 or 10. They were fun. I think I'm going to have my own kids do LSAT logic games for entertainment in exactly the same way. It's not exactly waterboarding or something. They're games; they're by nature pretty fun.

I know that virtually everyone on this blog believed that at one point in his/her life.

For god's sake, it's a "message board" or an "online forum," not a blog. I realize that this is not a substantive point, but it's starting to bother me. Two more non-substantive points follow, and then our regularly scheduled rebuttal resumes.

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.

For crying out loud, the A in LSAT is "admission."

That's really inspired by your question and one of the age-old criticisms of std tests.

Yeah, the biggest problem with STD tests is that they're too... fast.

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.... 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.

Again, if this person doesn't have time to prepare for the LSAT, how on Earth is this person going to have time to go to law school, much less work as a lawyer?

Are you even taking yourself seriously at this point?

Surely, that's not how we want our society to function.

Wait, I just said that hard work pays off, and your response was this? Yes, you're damn right that I want our society to function by rewarding people who work hard.

You seem to be under the impression that people who have other time constraints cannot do well on the logic games on the LSAT. The people who don't even have time to study for the LSAT mostly should be postponing law school for a year or two anyway. Harvard's been there for close to 400 years; it'll be there in another 2 or 3. The people who can put in an hour or two a day should just do so.

Whether you or I would make a better lawyer simply must not depend on who has fewer hardships or who makes more sacrifices -- or we need a more objective way to measure sacrifice.... They've survived more hardships to sit for that exam than you could probably imagine.

Put it in a diversity statement and gtfo.

You also seem to be under this wildly mistaken impression that there are tons of single mothers, etc., out there who dream of becoming lawyers but just don't have time to study for the LSAT. Statistically, that is false. The overwhelming majority of people who want to apply to law school are in their 20's, don't have kids or real careers, and may or may not have taken the idea of law school all that seriously to begin with. The LSAT is not there to screen out people who are disadvantaged (hell, law schools love stories of overcoming obstacles; it's an entire genre of personal statement). It's there to screen out the dumb 20-somethings who don't care enough to do the real work that going to law school requires. And overwhelmingly that's the demographic that we're talking about here. That's why testing how serious the applicant is matters.

Besides, you can F up the games entirely and still get a score in the 160's, which — when combined with a good app generally — puts in you in the top tier for sure.

You cannot support the interests of the poor and under-represented, while you simultaneously support standardized tests.

Hey, I became an outspoken critic of standardized tests as soon as I started studying them in detail myself. However, eventually I realized something important: schools know everything that you're saying. For example, the LSAT shows incredible racial bias. Simply being black loses you about 8-9 points on the test, for no apparent reason. That's why law school admission is not race-blind; they know this and are compensating for it. The LSAT sometimes constitutes a barrier that people can't get past; that's why Yale takes at least one person in the 150's every year. But most applicants to law school are not like what you're describing, and for most applicants, the LSAT works reasonably well, as long as it's interpreted properly by the schools.

[feralinfant]

Your post seemed to suggest that the Nazis invented the LSAT. Can I see some citations regarding this?

[feralinfant]

tomwatts i love you. will you marry me.

[suspicious android]

So... standardized tests are racist, because some racists supported the use of standardized tests. Okay, I understand why you hate the LSAT now.

[tomwatts]

tomwatts i love you. will you marry me.

Only if I can make our kids do logic games and you won't tell Child Protective Services.

On the eugenics/intelligence testing connection, er, read up on Francis Galton. He was one of the big founders of psychometrics (i.e. standardized tests) and also of eugenics. See also intelligence testing more generally.

[feralinfant]

Of course. Can we also pump them full of amphetamines and turn them into 21st century ubermensch LSAT takers?