Let's end the games section

User avatar
FeelTheHeat
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:32 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby FeelTheHeat » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:45 pm

kill lsat wrote:You just don't understand the difficult times that so many people are going through. Some of us have to work, take care of sick relatives, run a business or two, contribute to community events, deal with our own illnesses AND .... We just don't have time to do much more. However, we would still be outstanding lawyers if given the opportunity to compete fairly. We're not afraid of hard work -- no one works harder. But, if by hard work you mean spending weeks taking a course to learn the strategies for winning in an artificial arena that has little to do with aptitude, then that's something that no one should have to do and no one should be rewarded for.


I disagree with your assessment that you would be an outstanding lawyer if given the opportunity to compete fairly. There are FEW things in life that require less time and effort in exchange for payoff than the LSAT. Strictly on the basis that a minute amount of research will indicate just how important it is to the application process and where you attend, 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.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby kill lsat » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:48 pm

KibblesAndVick wrote:The LSAT is a wonderful thing for poor applicants. Socioeconomic status has far less impact on the LSAT than it does on all the other parts of the application process. Being wealthy allows people to take prep courses and, at least in theory, more free time to spend studying. But, those advantages pale in comparison to what being wealthy or privileged allows to you in terms of undergraduate prestige, grades, extracurriculars, internships, jobs, and all the other ways they judge applicants.


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. Your argument is really that the entire LSAT should be abolished, not just the AR section, and we should devalue "undergraduate prestige" and grades, while increasing emphasis on whether a student overcame significant life obstacles.

jeremysen
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:07 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby jeremysen » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:50 pm

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?

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby tomwatts » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:51 pm

kill lsat wrote:So, AR is about demonstrating that you can master something that is "learnable" and not about aptitude? RC and LR are so much more aligned with your academic preparedness, intellect and reasoning ability. They suffer from all of the pitfalls that any standardized tests have -- so are to be condemned on that basis. But, if you read well, think clearly and have a reasonable background in logic AND have good test-taking skills, you will do well. Due to the biases they introduce, I'm not a supporter of them, but they at least test what every lawyer should be able to do well. The artificial nature of AR tests what you just picked up in a course or from a prep book. Why should that be part of the selection process for law school?

You appear to have given the answer to this question and then ignored it. 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.

kill lsat wrote:You just don't understand the difficult times that so many people are going through.

Oh, hush. I kind of liked this discussion until you tried to pull this.

kill lsat wrote:Some of us have to work, take care of sick relatives, run a business or two, contribute to community events, deal with our own illnesses AND .... We just don't have time to do much more.

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?

kill lsat wrote:However, we would still be outstanding lawyers if given the opportunity to compete fairly. We're not afraid of hard work -- no one works harder. But, if by hard work you mean spending weeks taking a course to learn the strategies for winning in an artificial arena that has little to do with aptitude, then that's something that no one should have to do and no one should be rewarded for.

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.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:12 pm

kill lsat wrote:
Veyron wrote:LSAT games section = what is tested on exams in torts (a little bit) civ-pro (somewhat) and crim (extremely). If you can't do it, you don't have the skillset for these classes.

Edit: I suppose I should explain. In criminal law, a liability analysis is where you take the MPC (a book of "rules") or state statutes and then you get a fact pattern, and you have to decide what "slot" the D falls into (e.g. first degree felony/murder). This is complicated because the MPC contains a shitton of "rules" that modify liability and acts aren't always the same crimes that they intuitively seem to be.


The differences between your examples and AR include:
1. You don't have 2-4 levels of inferences to deal with, but primarily linear constraints/procedures/definitions that you apply in turn. Not true, at least in our class
2. You don't have 3 minutes to learn the MPC and statutes, you have months or years. It's hard to draw any analogies between 2000 rules of procedure and statute definitions and what a tester is asked to do in a few minutes State statutes are often presented for the first time on the exam and must be analyzed in the same way.
3. You aren't asked to master a new and artificial world, with brand new rules, in each of your cases. The MPC and state statutes can be learned once, refreshed from time to time and applied to each of your cases. Add the fact that you have hours, days or weeks to formulate a charge and you can see that your real world experience is nothing like what LSAT testers are asked to do. You might be arguing for the suggested revision of having 1 game per section, with 23 questions. You are with the fact pattern. And re being able to memorize the MPC, see my previous answer. Also, anyone that can memorize the MPC is probably smart enough that the logic games section of the LSAT isn't going to trouble them a whole lot.
4 - 6. We can discuss, if necessary ...


Sorry man, reality bites.
Last edited by Veyron on Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Woozy
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:29 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Woozy » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:12 pm

kill lsat wrote:The differences between your examples and AR include:
1. You don't have 2-4 levels of inferences to deal with, but primarily linear constraints/procedures/definitions that you apply in turn.
2. You don't have 3 minutes to learn the MPC and statutes, you have months or years. It's hard to draw any analogies between 2000 rules of procedure and statute definitions and what a tester is asked to do in a few minutes.
3. You aren't asked to master a new and artificial world, with brand new rules, in each of your cases. The MPC and state statutes can be learned once, refreshed from time to time and applied to each of your cases. Add the fact that you have hours, days or weeks to formulate a charge and you can see that your real world experience is nothing like what LSAT testers are asked to do. You might be arguing for the suggested revision of having 1 game per section, with 23 questions.
4 - 6. We can discuss, if necessary ...



You need to stop trying to compare skills the LSAT tests for with skills required by a practicing lawyer. The only function of the LSAT is to predict law school grades - in particular 1L grades - and it does this better than any other known metric. Whether its predictive capabilities would be higher if the AR section were removed is an empirical question, and one the LSAC almost certainly has the answer to in its data sets. Since their main goal is to maximize the LSAT's correlation with 1L grades, and they continue to include an AR section, unless you come up with some empirical data to support your position, your arguments will remain unconvincing.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby suspicious android » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:17 pm

kill lsat wrote: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.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby kill lsat » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:28 pm

littlepiggie818 wrote:My husband is an engineer and he helped me so much with the logic game section when I was studying for the LSAT. He didn't study from the Bible and he wasn't planning on taking the LSAT or going to law school, he just thought the games were fun. And he thought they were like mini-math problems. The logic game made the LSAT a little more bearable for me.


I know you don't mean to suggest that the quality of being "fun" should form the basis of law school admissions policy. I doubt that the law schools see it that way either. I agree with your husband, however, that they are, in fact, fun -- my engineering background made me fall in love with them as entertainment. But, what do they have to do with predicting success as a lawyer? Where are the analogs in legal practice? What do those artificial constructs demonstrate about law school requirements or preparedness, particularly when compared with the other sections?

Also, you said that you "studied" for the LSAT. I'm curious, how much of that study related to learning/relearning logic and reasoning vs. test-taking and mastering how to do games? Also, over how many months did you study, how many hours a day, and what kinds of hardships did that preparation cause you? Did you pay for a course? How much, roughly, did you pay? Would you want your sons/daughters to go through that?

What if they were great students (in engineering/the sciences, as well as avid readers) and chose to take the LSAT at the peak of their scholastic valor -- would you advise them to take the LSAT just relying on their tremendous academic success as preparation? After all, why wouldn't such great students do very well on a test that presumably only demonstrates what analytical, logical, well-read candidates they were?

Do any of your responses trouble you?

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby cubswin » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:34 pm

suspicious android wrote:
kill lsat wrote: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.


Totally agreed. Aside from some sort of lottery, it's difficult to conceive of any admission system that wouldn't put the poor at a disadvantage relative to the wealthy. Thus, I don't really see why claiming that children from wealthy families have more time and money to study for the LSAT is considered an indictment of the test. The LSAT is an opportunity to make yourself a strong applicant, and I am glad we have it.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby amonynous_ivdinidual » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:38 pm

OP-
1. Thank you for calling me "exceptionally gifted."
2. How can you say the games have nothing to do w/ actual aptitude and also hold that none but the exceptionally gifted can hack them?
3. I'm in law school. I take law classes. The big books, the lecture halls, the outlines, all of it. Take me at my word. The best analytical thinkers are more likely to perform well than those who are not great analytical thinkers. Like it or not, the games have applications in subjects like property and civil procedure. Whether the games have applications in the real life of a lawyer, I have no way of knowing empirically yet. But I can speak from experience with regard to law school.
4. Engineering and law are not the same thing.

User avatar
FeelTheHeat
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:32 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby FeelTheHeat » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:39 pm

The LSAT is far and away the most objective aspect of the application process. To say it disadvantages the poor more than any other part of the process is such a failure in reasoning that I could understand why they hate the test, as they clearly do not possess any sort of skills necessary to succeed in it and to a further extent, law school itself.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby cubswin » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:41 pm

kill lsat wrote:
littlepiggie818 wrote:My husband is an engineer and he helped me so much with the logic game section when I was studying for the LSAT. He didn't study from the Bible and he wasn't planning on taking the LSAT or going to law school, he just thought the games were fun. And he thought they were like mini-math problems. The logic game made the LSAT a little more bearable for me.


I know you don't mean to suggest that the quality of being "fun" should form the basis of law school admissions policy. I doubt that the law schools see it that way either. I agree with your husband, however, that they are, in fact, fun -- my engineering background made me fall in love with them as entertainment. But, what do they have to do with predicting success as a lawyer? Where are the analogs in legal practice? What do those artificial constructs demonstrate about law school requirements or preparedness, particularly when compared with the other sections?

Also, you said that you "studied" for the LSAT. I'm curious, how much of that study related to learning/relearning logic and reasoning vs. test-taking and mastering how to do games? Also, over how many months did you study, how many hours a day, and what kinds of hardships did that preparation cause you? Did you pay for a course? How much, roughly, did you pay? Would you want your sons/daughters to go through that?

What if they were great students (in engineering/the sciences, as well as avid readers) and chose to take the LSAT at the peak of their scholastic valor -- would you advise them to take the LSAT just relying on their tremendous academic success as preparation? After all, why wouldn't such great students do very well on a test that presumably only demonstrates what analytical, logical, well-read candidates they were?

Do any of your responses trouble you?


If preparing for the LSAT caused you "hardships," then you should be thanking LSAC for keeping you out of law school.

:lol: at "scholastic valor"

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby kill lsat » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:22 pm

Woozy wrote:You need to stop trying to compare skills the LSAT tests for with skills required by a practicing lawyer. The only function of the LSAT is to predict law school grades - in particular 1L grades - and it does this better than any other known metric. Whether its predictive capabilities would be higher if the AR section were removed is an empirical question, and one the LSAC almost certainly has the answer to in its data sets. Since their main goal is to maximize the LSAT's correlation with 1L grades, and they continue to include an AR section, unless you come up with some empirical data to support your position, your arguments will remain unconvincing.


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 [b]remain [/b]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.

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.

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

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.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby kill lsat » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:25 pm

Veyron wrote:Sorry man, reality bites.


Is anyone serious on this blog? Please respond intelligently by telling us what "bites" about this comparison. If you find fault with it, please explain why. If the analogs between AR and skills needed to practice law are there, as this lawyer asserted, please tell me what I missed.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby PDaddy » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:30 pm

cubswin wrote:Thousands of people every year somehow manage to do just fine on that section and the LSAT as a whole, and many of us do not take prep courses. And believe it or not, there are people who score in the 170s (which requires a solid games performance) on their first attempt, without any preparation.


Agreed. Everyone thinks the LG section has no application to law school or law practice until they take their first Civ Pro exams.

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.

User avatar
DeeCee
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:09 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby DeeCee » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:32 pm

tl;dr

LSAT sucks and logic games suck, but we all must take it. It is very unfair to disadvantaged people and is not a great predictor of success, but nevertheless, we all must take it. It is worthless trying to complain and argue against the test (or parts of it such as logic games) here because many people on TLS will get into great school based on their LSAT, meaning they think the LSAT is the great equalizer in LS admissions. I am NOT included in this group of people, but you won't change the mindset of TLS by complaining.

Bottom line: Study best you can, take the LSAT, and apply to LS. The End.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby kill lsat » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:37 pm

cubswin wrote:If preparing for the LSAT caused you "hardships," then you should be thanking LSAC for keeping you out of law school.

:lol: at "scholastic valor"


Dude, I know people who don't pay their rent so they can pay for one of those courses! Do you even know what hardship means? And why would you assume that I'm going to be "kept out of law school?"

At least you like that "scholastic valor" jumpshot. I thought that was cute - but I kind of felt it would be wasted on people who had already swallowed the LSAT cool aid. I guess games boosters can still appreciate a little fun with the English language, even though it's pretty clear you just want to protect your turf and aren't (or simply may not be capable of) thoughtfully analyzing my questions or positions.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby tomwatts » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:37 pm

kill lsat wrote:After all, why wouldn't such great students do very well on a test that presumably only demonstrates what analytical, logical, well-read candidates they were?

The whole point that I've been making is that the LSAT doesn't test that and shouldn't be simply a test of that.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:42 pm

kill lsat wrote:
Veyron wrote:Sorry man, reality bites.


Is anyone serious on this blog? Please respond intelligently by telling us what "bites" about this comparison. If you find fault with it, please explain why. If the analogs between AR and skills needed to practice law are there, as this lawyer asserted, please tell me what I missed.


Did you miss the bold font responses to your assertions in the quote? Maybe the LGs would go easier for you if you carefully read the question.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby kill lsat » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:44 pm

DeeCee wrote:tl;dr

LSAT sucks and logic games suck, but we all must take it. It is very unfair to disadvantaged people and is not a great predictor of success, but nevertheless, we all must take it. It is worthless trying to complain and argue against the test (or parts of it such as logic games) here because many people on TLS will get into great school based on their LSAT, meaning they think the LSAT is the great equalizer in LS admissions. I am NOT included in this group of people, but you won't change the mindset of TLS by complaining.

Bottom line: Study best you can, take the LSAT, and apply to LS. The End.


I completely understand and thanks for the honesty. That was my position when I took the LSAT. But, I promised that once I finished that Feb 2011 test, I would work with others to fight to remove the LSAT from as many law schools as possible. I'm just starting with the AR section. This is an artificial barrier that we need to do something about. So, instead of saying what you and I both said, I'm hoping to find a few people who would like to share thoughts on how we can stop the next set of would-be lawyers from having to go through this nonsense. If you would like to participate or have any ideas, please say them or contact me offline -- assuming there is a way to do that.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby PDaddy » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:46 pm

Circular Reasoning..."the LSAT is the single best predictor of first-year law school performance because it is the best predictor of first-year law school performance."

Here's another piece of flawed reasoning: "...the LSAT is the best predictor of first-year law school performance we have, therefore it is a reliable predictor of first-year law school performance."

I like the LSAT and do not believe it should go anywhere, but its opponents have a good point. It is a highly flawed test that purports to do what it cannot. Admissions officers misuse the exam; that's a fact!

Therefore, until a new test is devised, taking the best aspects of the LSAT into account, schools should be given scores in a manner that prevents misuse. Give all scores within ranges. If you score between 151 and 160, that's the core you get: "150-159", ditto "120-129", "130-139", "140-149", "160-169", and "170-179", and "180" all alone.

You would effectively have one of only seven possible scores!

That will force admissions officers to take more account of other parts of EVERY applicant's profile.

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

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby Veyron » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:49 pm

PDaddy wrote:Circular Reasoning..."the LSAT is the single best predictor of first-year law school performance because it is the best predictor of first-year law school performance."

Here's another piece of flawed reasoning: "...the LSAT is the best predictor of first-year law school performance we have, therefore it is a reliable predictor of first-year law school performance."

I like the LSAT and do not believe it should go anywhere, but its opponents have a good point. It is a highly flawed test that purports to do what it cannot. Admissions officers misuse the exam; that's a fact!

Therefore, until a new test is devised, taking the best aspects of the LSAT into account, schools should be given scores in a manner that prevents misuse. Give all scores within ranges. If you score between 151 and 160, that's the core you get: "150-159", ditto "120-129", "130-139", "140-149", "160-169", and "170-179", and "180" all alone.

You would effectively have one of only seven possible scores!

That will force admissions officers to take more account of other parts of EVERY applicant's profile.


ITT - massive failure to understand statistical correlation.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby suspicious android » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:51 pm

kill lsat wrote:I completely understand and thanks for the honesty. That was my position when I took the LSAT. But, I promised that once I finished that Feb 2011 test, I would work with others to fight to remove the LSAT from as many law schools as possible. I'm just starting with the AR section. This is an artificial barrier that we need to do something about. So, instead of saying what you and I both said, I'm hoping to find a few people who would like to share thoughts on how we can stop the next set of would-be lawyers from having to go through this nonsense. If you would like to participate or have any ideas, please say them or contact me offline -- assuming there is a way to do that.


Try suggesting something else that can practically help sort the 50,000 applicants law schools get every year in a way that will be demonstrably more fair.

Edit: quote screw up
Last edited by suspicious android on Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DeeCee
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:09 am

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby DeeCee » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:54 pm

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.
Last edited by DeeCee on Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
510Chicken
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Let's end the games section

Postby 510Chicken » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:55 pm

Woozy wrote:You need to stop trying to compare skills the LSAT tests for with skills required by a practicing lawyer. The only function of the LSAT is to predict law school grades - in particular 1L grades - and it does this better than any other known metric. Whether its predictive capabilities would be higher if the AR section were removed is an empirical question, and one the LSAC almost certainly has the answer to in its data sets. Since their main goal is to maximize the LSAT's correlation with 1L grades, and they continue to include an AR section, unless you come up with some empirical data to support your position, your arguments will remain unconvincing.

+1 F'Sho. This was succinct and addresses a fundamental misconception in the OP.

kill lsat wrote: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 [b]remain [/b]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.

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.

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

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.

This is terrible reasoning. The original statement was correct, in that if the goal of the LSAT is only to correlate as best as possible with 1L GPA, then the inclusion of AR and its effect on that correlation can only be empirically determined. Not only is the LSAC in the best position to have that data, they also have the greatest incentive to maximize that correlation.

You want the LSAT (and the AR in particular) to mean something that it doesn't, and your arguments assume that illusory distinction. Whether or not the LSAT should be abolished or not is a completely separate question and has no bearing on the efficacy of the AR section in achieving LSAC's testing goals.

I think you will greatly appreciate this video. It has been posted before, but it addresses many of your concerns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c Personally, I think it should be included in every thread that bashes on the LSAT.

PDaddy wrote:Therefore, until a new test is devised, taking the best aspects of the LSAT into account, schools should be given scores in a manner that prevents misuse. Give all scores within ranges. If you score between 151 and 160, that's the core you get: "150-159", ditto "120-129", "130-139", "140-149", "160-169", and "170-179", and "180" all alone.

You would effectively have one of only seven possible scores!

That will force admissions officers to take more account of other parts of EVERY applicant's profile.

In fact, if you read the first few pages of any PrepTest, they explain that there is an implied range associated with the scores (I believe they state a "Standard Error of Measurement" of 2.6).




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest