Let's end the games section

User avatar
TurtlesAllTheWayDown
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby TurtlesAllTheWayDown » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:49 pm

Just spent the last 2 hours reading this thread instead of working or obsessively status checking. For that, I thank you. Keep fighting the good fight.

Fodder for the fire: sequencing games, WTF?!?

User avatar
well-hello-there
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:38 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby well-hello-there » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:05 pm

esq wrote:After reading Kill LSAT's arguments, I think that the title of this thread should be renamed "The nonsensical Ramblings of a Narcissistic (Slightly Retarded) befuddled 148'er." Who agrees?

amonynous_ivdinidual
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:18 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby amonynous_ivdinidual » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:24 pm

hey OP- tally up all the time you've spent on this board. an hour? two? three? four even? instead of complaining, how about you start studying. and stop ignoring the current law students who keep giving you bulletproof counter arguments. as i and mickey have said, life isn't fair. go study or pipe down. you're making engineers look like petulant babies.

kill lsat
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby kill lsat » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:50 am

amonynous_ivdinidual wrote:hey OP- ... stop ignoring the current law students who keep giving you bulletproof counter arguments. as i and mickey have said, life isn't fair. go study or pipe down. you're making engineers look like petulant babies.


bulletproof? -- The args tend to be recapitulations of LSAT propaganda, defense of turf, law school arrogance, personal attacks and complaints about the messengers. I did learn from the more thoughtful submissions and I am very thankful for the insight. But I read absolutely nothing that was bulletproof.

As a matter of fact, debating with law school students and lawyers about a hated test and prep process was almost like watching a witness perjure herself. WE ALL KNOW THE MISERY this test causes tens of thousands of law school prospects every year! Just look at some of the other threads and other blogs if you need any proof beyond a suppressed, failed or denied memory. How can you be well read and NOT know that standardized tests have been used to discriminate against the poor, Hispanics and African-Americans for decades? Are you serious when you argue that a single mother who has a solid academic background, but doesn't have the $$ for a course or the time to study for AR should be denied a chance to attend law school because she hasn't shown she's fit enough per her LSAT scores?

I actually expected more substance, facts and grit -- maybe even brilliance from this 170+ crowd. So, I'm more convinced now than ever that there aren't any winning arguments supporting the LSAT status quo (other than power, privilege and aggression -- but they can be defeated, too).

kill lsat
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby kill lsat » Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:04 am

I spent about 8 hours answering the full range of responses on Sunday/Monday and I tried to stick to the high road the entire time. Late this week or early next week, I will probably post one more significant item to include: (a) the research I promised to a few of the bloggers; (b) the best summary I can give of the pro and con arguments; and (c) next steps for those committed to removing/revising AR or abolishing the LSAT in its entirety. As a long-time activist, I think all of these things are possible -- and long overdue.

The LSAT is a failed predictor of 1L performance with an r of .4 and a much more relevant r-squared of .16. Throwing darts at law school applications is a better predictor of 1L performance than the LSAT. That law schools should rely upon a standard (the entire LSAT and especially AR) that has no currently advertised or statistical relevance to the actual work of lawyers is even more appalling. We have to start telling the truth and demanding that any significant reliance on this test -- and the public reporting of scores by law schools -- stop. It is counterproductive, unfair to entire classes of people and serves neither the interests of society nor the typical prospective student.

I thank everyone who has posted and I hope we keep the dialog alive, particularly as it relates to solutions, activism, and discussions of any scientific research into the LSAT, standardized tests in general, and the overall law school application process.

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby kazu » Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:33 am

kill lsat wrote:WE ALL KNOW THE MISERY this test causes tens of thousands of law school prospects every year!

Seriously, what do you mean by "misery"? Yes, studying for the LSAT required hard work, dedication, and was extremely frustrating at times. However, it wasn't some sort of psychological/mental horror that you seem to imply it is. By this stage in our lives I expect that we've all been through multiple standardized tests, college exams etc. - I don't see anything about the LSAT that makes it especially excruciatingly cruel except for the fact that it's nearly impossible to bullshit your way to a good LSAT grade, unlike some college finals I suppose.

I know that by studying for the LSAT I was able to improve my logical and analytical skills, and I expect that these skills will be useful in law school. Hell, all of the current LS students who've posted here have repeatedly said that, and I think they're much more believable on this than you are. I also expect that the studying I'll have to do in law school will be much, much more time-consuming and painful than any studying I've done for the LSAT. If someone can't manage 1~2 hours a day to study for the LSAT w/o going through some psychological breakdown, I'm honestly not sure if this is the right time in that person's life to go to law school.

You also seem to imply that law schools should judge candidates solely on softs/GPA. Well, then, how are they supposed to "judge" between an award-winning thesis writer and a single mother who worked her way through college? A Peace Corps volunteer vs. someone who successfully started their own, profitable business? In addition, at least by getting a good score on the LSAT anyone can get into a "top law school" - and we've pointed out to you over and over again that oodles of money are NOT needed to get a good score. I self-studied, bought just 2 Bibles and PTs, and I mastered LG by spending maybe 4 hours a week on it for a couple of months. Without the LSAT socially disadvantaged people will have no way to distinguish themselves, w/o the time and support richer people have to get those outstanding softs. Law schools can't accept every single mother w/ a solid academic background. Of course the LSAT is "preventing the vast majority of people from getting into the law school of their choice" - law schools pick who they think will be the best law student/lawyer, not who wants to go the most.
Last edited by kazu on Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:31 am

kill lsat wrote:The LSAT is a failed predictor of 1L performance with an r of .4 and a much more relevant r-squared of .16. Throwing darts at law school applications is a better predictor of 1L performance than the LSAT.

OP, sit down and think for a minute. First, how is a correlation coefficient of .16 the equivalent to throwing darts at a dart board(which would obviously have a correlation coefficient of 0). Do you understand math? That was sarcasm, mr. engineer

Second. I want you to truly evaluate with yourself how good that correlation coefficient is. In order to get a perfect analysis of the relationship between LSAT and grades we would have to control for every other factor. Give every kid the exact same class notes to study from, make sure they all study for the exact same time, make sure nobody paid more attention in class than somebody else.

The ability to analytically break down a foreign fact pattern and derive key elements from them is incredibly relevant to succeeding, but because it's one of so many factors that make up your grades OF COURSE it's not going to have a higher correlation. Some students work harder than others and simply know the material better, some students take more practice tests and can more efficiently apply the material on exam day, some students take rigorous class notes and can tailor their answers to the teachers exact liking. Some students get stomach ulcers and miss entire months of class at a time. Furthermore, all these other factors that allow students to succeed, there's no way to test for them! (Although gpa is supposedly a good signal of being a hard worker.) So why not base admissions examinations on the things you can test for?

Show me a guy who can never score better than -12 on analytical reasoning no matter how hard he tries, and i'll show you a guy who would get absolutely burned by my professors incredibly dense fact pattern on nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel. Between the long checklist of nuances for how it the law applies, and the half-page long set of facts that you have to twist answers into sensible triggers to fit the doctrine, it makes absolutely perfect sense why the LSAT would test this kind of skill.

Sorry OP, but you're clearly arguing out of ignorance based on some personal experience that triggered your vendetta against the logic games, and you've yet to even address any of the other aforementioned points I gave you. So, until further notice, enjoy being wrong.

Ignatius Reilly
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Ignatius Reilly » Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:18 pm

.4 correlation is really not that good. In order to be 95% confident you need bands of 14 around an lsat score.

however, if you are scoring below say a 160, you will most likely get mauled by your classmates

User avatar
niederbomb
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby niederbomb » Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:21 pm

Not sure why people always say the games are most "learnable." I studied for 3 months and missed -10 LG + -4 on the other 3 sections combined for a total of 170. I topped out at 15-18 / 23 after doing the LG Bible and got stuck there. I improved the other sections just from reviewing wrong answers. With games, nothing seemed to work. Games are innate to a certain extent.

I wonder if there have been any studies on extreme lopsided cases (like 165 + who gets 50%< wrong on games). How do they fare in law school? This type of study would be the best way to determine if the LG section has predictive value. If these 165 + LG retards performed about as well as other 165's, or worse, that would be an argument in favor of keeping games. If, however, they perform about as well as a 180, then that would be a strong argument in favor of eliminating the section in favor of a 2nd RC.

Ignatius Reilly
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Ignatius Reilly » Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:28 pm

niederbomb wrote:Not sure why people always say the games are most "learnable." I studied for 3 months and missed -10 LG + -4 on the other 3 sections combined for a total of 170. I topped out at 15-18 / 23 after doing the LG Bible and got stuck there. I improved the other sections just from reviewing wrong answers. With games, nothing seemed to work. Games are innate to a certain extent.

I wonder if there have been any studies on extreme lopsided cases (like 165 + who gets 50%< wrong on games). How do they fare in law school? This type of study would be the best way to determine if the LG section has predictive value. If these 165 + LG retards performed about as well as other 165's, or worse, that would be an argument in favor of keeping games. If, however, they perform about as well as a 180, then that would be a strong argument in favor of eliminating the section in favor of a 2nd RC.



the secret to the games is knowing when to lay out all the examples. I always fuck this up when I take it for real, and last dec I allowed the no room to psych me out.

I would bet that a 2nd RC would correlate better, but I want to think this

User avatar
well-hello-there
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:38 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby well-hello-there » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:19 pm

kill lsat wrote:
amonynous_ivdinidual wrote:hey OP- ... stop ignoring the current law students who keep giving you bulletproof counter arguments. as i and mickey have said, life isn't fair. go study or pipe down. you're making engineers look like petulant babies.


bulletproof? -- The args tend to be recapitulations of LSAT propaganda, defense of turf, law school arrogance, personal attacks and complaints about the messengers. I did learn from the more thoughtful submissions and I am very thankful for the insight. But I read absolutely nothing that was bulletproof.

As a matter of fact, debating with law school students and lawyers about a hated test and prep process was almost like watching a witness perjure herself. WE ALL KNOW THE MISERY this test causes tens of thousands of law school prospects every year! Just look at some of the other threads and other blogs if you need any proof beyond a suppressed, failed or denied memory. How can you be well read and NOT know that standardized tests have been used to discriminate against the poor, Hispanics and African-Americans for decades? Are you serious when you argue that a single mother who has a solid academic background, but doesn't have the $$ for a course or the time to study for AR should be denied a chance to attend law school because she hasn't shown she's fit enough per her LSAT scores?

I actually expected more substance, facts and grit -- maybe even brilliance from this 170+ crowd. So, I'm more convinced now than ever that there aren't any winning arguments supporting the LSAT status quo (other than power, privilege and aggression -- but they can be defeated, too).

now you're just fishing for an AA debate. i'm out.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby cubswin » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:40 pm

kill lsat wrote:As a matter of fact, debating with law school students and lawyers about a hated test and prep process was almost like watching a witness perjure herself. WE ALL KNOW THE MISERY this test causes tens of thousands of law school prospects every year! Just look at some of the other threads and other blogs if you need any proof beyond a suppressed, failed or denied memory. How can you be well read and NOT know that standardized tests have been used to discriminate against the poor, Hispanics and African-Americans for decades? Are you serious when you argue that a single mother who has a solid academic background, but doesn't have the $$ for a course or the time to study for AR should be denied a chance to attend law school because she hasn't shown she's fit enough per her LSAT scores?

I actually expected more substance, facts and grit -- maybe even brilliance from this 170+ crowd. So, I'm more convinced now than ever that there aren't any winning arguments supporting the LSAT status quo (other than power, privilege and aggression -- but they can be defeated, too).


Strong arguments have been made against your claims in the past. This may surprise you, but we've had this argument a thousand times on this board. I haven't seen JazzOne or mallard post in this thread, but perhaps you should use the search feature and look for some previous threads where this issue was debated. Those two posters, and countless others, have countered your arguments strongly in the past.

My guess is that many of the posters who chose to insult you or dismiss your arguments without mounting a serious defense are (1) tired of having this conversation or (2) fully aware that there is no chance of changing your mind. You can disagree with me and say you are coming to this debate with an open mind, but look at the statement I bolded. You are so convinced, based on what you've read, of the truth of your own position that you're never going to seriously entertain an argument in favor of the LSAT. (Also, "used to discriminate against" is way too strong of a claim. We do have a racial achievement gap on the LSAT, but that is not evidence that the LSAT is used to intentionally keep them out of law school. Also, the gap between African Americans and whites on the LSAT is lower than it is on other standardized tests, and has decreased over the past few decades.)

I think the reason you have so many responses here is that your naive conviction that you are actually able to change the system caught a lot of attention. There is so much hyperbole in everything you say that it's difficult to take you seriously (e.g. "misery" caused by the LSAT, the magnitude of the injustice the LSAT causes, how you seem to think that students who enroll in prep courses are essentially purchasing a high LSAT score, labeling arguments about the LSAT that reasonable people might disagree about as "LSAT propaganda").

Anyway, your final paragraph contains an absence of evidence flaw, but you probably know that since you supposedly only suck at logic games and not at logical reasoning.
Last edited by cubswin on Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby EarlCat » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:42 pm

kill lsat wrote:Forum Questions: Is the Analytical Reasoning section so artificial and removed from the actual practice of law that it renders the LSAT an unnecessary and unhelpful barrier to selecting qualified and diverse students?

No. The practice of law is largely an exercise in following directions, which is what the games section tests.

Is it inherently unfair to those without the funds to take a great prep course or those who just don't have the time to do endless examples? Does it pose an onerous burden on prospective law students?

No. Law school is expensive. If you won't cut grass or flip burgers or do whatever it takes to scrape together $1500 or so for a prep course, you're not motivated enough to take on the expense of law school.

Background/Argument: I am a professional with a solid engineering background. I fully understand that law schools need to know how well prospective students can apply the rules of logic and deductive reasoning to solve problems they will face as lawyers. However, AR tests nothing of the sort.

In just 8.5 minutes, you are expected to learn about an artificial world, with bizarre rules, and then draw inferences that will enable you to answer questions that require further inferences. There simply is no analog in legal work.

You've obviously never looked at the tax code.

I might be able to understand 1 game in 35 minutes, with 23 questions -- the vast majority of which test your understanding of basic logic. You would have a reasonable opportunity to adjust to a brave new (artificial) world and demonstrate that you have a basic, intermediate or advanced knowledge of logic and reasoning.

There are two whole sections that test your understanding of basic logic.

Unfortunately, 4 games in 35 minutes is more like a cruel joke. Only through quality instruction and significant practice, then a little luck on test day can all but the exceptionally gifted among us do well on that section.

So you think people should be considered adequately prepared for law school without demonstrating their abilities on a task that requires quality instruction and significant practice? Do you have the same objection to the bar exam, which also requires quality instruction and significant practice (and is even less intuitive than LSAT games)?

If you have neither the money to attend a solid prep course nor the time to do much prep, then you have nothing.

Prep courses aren't that expensive. I bet your car costs more than the most expensive prep course on the market. Sell your car, replace it with a clunker or ride the bus, cancel your cable TV or internet, get rid of your cell phone, sell some furniture, save some cash and take a dang prep course. Are you motivated to succeed or not?

Your innate intelligence, academic background and professional experience will not help you -- unlike in the other sections.

Untrue. I know a cold 177.

In the end, the games section (and, more generally, the entire LSAT) is little more than a con having the effect of preventing the vast majority of people from getting into the law school of their choice

Think for just a second about the consequence of allowing the majority of people to get into the law school of their choice.

Since our entire system of justice depends (in theory) on application of the law and having a good lawyer to represent you, this profession is simply too important to leave the weeding out process to the inequities and vagaries of time and money. Law schools should be picking the best-prepared candidates and/or those who are likely to make a significant difference in society or on campus (diversity).

Adequate preparation for anything requires significant amounts of time, and usually money. Law school is on the cheap end in that regard. (If you don't believe me, apply to med school or try to play a sport or an instrument professionally.)

User avatar
niederbomb
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby niederbomb » Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:33 pm

Quote:
In the end, the games section (and, more generally, the entire LSAT) is little more than a con having the effect of preventing the vast majority of people from getting into the law school of their choice


Too many people go to law school now.

I like Northwestern's idea of letting people take the GMAT though.
Law schools need something, if not the LSAT, then something else.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby prezidentv8 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:10 pm

Nominee for flame of the year?

User avatar
esq
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby esq » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:21 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:Nominee for flame of the year?


It's got my vote.

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby kazu » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:23 pm

esq wrote:
prezidentv8 wrote:Nominee for flame of the year?


It's got my vote.

I dunno, viewtopic.php?f=10&t=147511 is a pretty strong candidate.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:34 pm

niederbomb wrote:
Quote:
In the end, the games section (and, more generally, the entire LSAT) is little more than a con having the effect of preventing the vast majority of people from getting into the law school of their choice


Too many people go to law school now.

I like Northwestern's idea of letting people take the GMAT though.
Law schools need something, if not the LSAT, then something else.

I really hate that idea. Understanding math and archaic word definitions would be a much worse evaluation of law school candidates than the LSAT in its current form.

User avatar
Verity
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Verity » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:39 pm

kill lsat wrote:Forum Questions: Is the Analytical Reasoning section so artificial and removed from the actual practice of law that it renders the LSAT an unnecessary and unhelpful barrier to selecting qualified and diverse students?


No. See below.

kill lsat wrote:Is it inherently unfair to those without the funds to take a great prep course or those who just don't have the time to do endless examples? Does it pose an onerous burden on prospective law students?


Your argument about not having funds to take a prep course is like saying that kids with rich parents have an unfair advantage because they go to private schools, have lots of connections, etc. Get over it, because that's life.

And okay, you might say that they don't have to model LS on life. Well then why even require people to go to college? Why not let them go directly to LS, and save all that money? It would probably be cheaper to just make them study for the LSAT, and base everything off of that (and HS grades). But that might not be as fair either. If anything, a standardized test helps to level the playing field between people who had lots of breaks growing up, and those who came from less advantaged positions.

kill lsat wrote:Background/Argument: I am a professional with a solid engineering background. I fully understand that law schools need to know how well prospective students can apply the rules of logic and deductive reasoning to solve problems they will face as lawyers. However, AR tests nothing of the sort.


Bullshit. AR tests exactly this. It focuses on it abstractly (though they try to make it tangible with names and semi-real-life scenarios), whereas LR does so in a more argument-oriented, prose-delivered way. It may be hard, but that's exactly the point. The LSAT is trying to separate those who know this stuff thoroughly and automatically (which is why it's timed) from those who are less logically deft.

kill lsat wrote:In just 8.5 minutes, you are expected to learn about an artificial world, with bizarre rules, and then draw inferences that will enable you to answer questions that require further inferences. There simply is no analog in legal work.


Try the tax code, IP lawsuits, high-tech-based litigation, etc. The world of law is very complicated, and can be very weird. Sometimes you might end up wondering how the case before you has anything to do with the mundane.

kill lsat wrote:Lawyers have weeks to write briefs, not minutes.


Lawyers do experience periods of "crunch time."

kill lsat wrote:Even oral argument is based on a known set of cases and specific background. Going 3 levels deep into inferences would lose everyone in the courtroom. You would be called supercilious, an idiot or irritating. And, if you were wrong, ....


So is AR. They do not ask you to go beyond what is "known" or "specific," in fact if you do, you will fail. And you wouldn't necessarily be called "supercilious, an idiot or irritating." A judge might think you to be brilliant, if you communicate effectively. And if you're wrong....then you are lacking as a lawyer.

kill lsat wrote:I might be able to understand 1 game in 35 minutes, with 23 questions -- the vast majority of which test your understanding of basic logic. You would have a reasonable opportunity to adjust to a brave new (artificial) world and demonstrate that you have a basic, intermediate or advanced knowledge of logic and reasoning.


Again, LSAT is trying to separate those to whom this stuff is automatic from those who are still intellectually lacking.

kill lsat wrote:Unfortunately, 4 games in 35 minutes is more like a cruel joke.


Not true. I scored a 176 up from an initial 151, all with self-study. It's learnable, and only becomes a "cruel joke" for those who don't apply themselves. I studied for a whole year, because I know this stuff is important. And I can see that it has improved me; not just for the test, but definitely overall.



Retake.
Last edited by Verity on Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby prezidentv8 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:42 pm

Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:archaic word definitions


I never really understood why they used that for things like the GMAT (I remembered seeing similar things on the GRE too). My best guess is that it tests who took the time to study?

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:52 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:
Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:archaic word definitions


I never really understood why they used that for things like the GMAT (I remembered seeing similar things on the GRE too). My best guess is that it tests who took the time to study?

No idea. I actually like the RC section of the lsat a lot better (even though it was by far my worst section) simply because it actually tests reading comprehension straight up.

tomwatts
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby tomwatts » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:08 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:
Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:archaic word definitions


I never really understood why they used that for things like the GMAT (I remembered seeing similar things on the GRE too). My best guess is that it tests who took the time to study?

That's the GRE, not the GMAT. The GMAT does not explicitly test vocabulary.

Final thoughts on the OP later.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby EarlCat » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:40 pm

niederbomb wrote:I like Northwestern's idea of letting people take the GMAT though.

Image

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:48 pm

Well, until OP actually addresses my rebuttals, I declare myself the winner of this thread.

co-winners include: everybody else

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Veyron » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:58 pm

Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:Well, until OP actually addresses my rebuttals, I declare myself the winner of this thread.

co-winners include: everybody else


Yay! My mommy always said I was a winner.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests