Illusive 170

User avatar
DaftAndDirect
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:28 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby DaftAndDirect » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:52 pm

Hmmmm...

There were kids with <170s who got in to schools at which you were waitlisted this cycle. Your elitism is dumb and it limits you. I'd advise you not to counsel people on "this" profession until you're actually an employed attorney. Until then it is "that" profession, and it's a profession that you won't be a part of until you prove yourself through three years of law school.

Congrats on what I'm assumming is your 170+ score, I hope it means as much as it does to you now when you reach the end of your 1L.

User avatar
MrBain_
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: Illusive 170

Postby MrBain_ » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:14 pm

The title of the post by itself is correct, but my use of it and the context of my post is a fail. That being said...

heretostay88 wrote:keep reassuring yourselves that it will work out for you if you want to work in the highest parts of this profession a >170 will not suffice.


You sir, your just being a dick and if a >170 will not suffice, what the hell will?

heretostay88
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby heretostay88 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:15 pm

DaftAndDirect wrote:Hmmmm...

There were kids with <170s who got in to schools at which you were waitlisted this cycle. Your elitism is dumb and it limits you. I'd advise you not to counsel people on "this" profession until you're actually an employed attorney. Until then it is "that" profession, and it's a profession that you won't be a part of until you prove yourself through three years of law school.

Congrats on what I'm assumming is your 170+ score, I hope it means as much as it does to you now when you reach the end of your 1L.



yea bro i wasn't waitlisted "this cycle"

i am no longer in law school. i am actually trying to help you. try to forget this "special snowflake" idea and be realistic

heretostay88
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby heretostay88 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:16 pm

MrBain_ wrote:The title of the post by itself is correct, but my use of it and the context of my post is a fail. That being said...

heretostay88 wrote:keep reassuring yourselves that it will work out for you if you want to work in the highest parts of this profession a >170 will not suffice.


You sir, your just being a dick and if a >170 will not suffice, what the hell will?


i meant, of course, a <170

User avatar
Momentum
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:04 am

Re: Illusive 170

Postby Momentum » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:22 pm

heretostay88 wrote:yea bro i wasn't waitlisted "this cycle"

i am no longer in law school. i am actually trying to help you. try to forget this "special snowflake" idea and be realistic
You know that you come across as a total tool, don't you? I mean, wow. It's a good thing you're so helpful.

I was enjoying the banter before this guy showed up. Disregard the Troll.

User avatar
Kabuo
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: Illusive 170

Postby Kabuo » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:22 pm

heretostay88 wrote:i meant, of course, a <170


I didn't even point this one out on the last page because he was such an obvious troll. But now he's admitting his mistakes? Is he a troll or just really unpleasant?

heretostay88
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby heretostay88 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:26 pm

Kabuo wrote:
heretostay88 wrote:i meant, of course, a <170


I didn't even point this one out on the last page because he was such an obvious troll. But now he's admitting his mistakes? Is he a troll or just really unpleasant?

I am not a troll. Did you know that only 60% of 2010 grads are in jobs that require a JD. Do you know that 2011 will be significantly worse? Now factor in that most of these jobs are terrible where do you think that leaves sub-par grads? If you can't crack a 170 you probably don't have the mental capability to do well in this profession. I'm surprised anyone would argue this point.

User avatar
DaftAndDirect
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:28 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby DaftAndDirect » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:28 pm

Admitted: Previous post research fail and huge backfire RE: the waitlist.

Everything else from the last post stands though. I don't care if you're a high rolling Big Law associate who still kicks it on TLS, I'm being "realistic" when I say you're an ass.

heretostay88
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby heretostay88 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:33 pm

DaftAndDirect wrote:Admitted: Previous post research fail and huge backfire RE: the waitlist.

Everything else from the last post stands though. I don't care if you're a high rolling Big Law associate who still kicks it on TLS, I'm being "realistic" when I say you're an ass.



Ugh. Hopefully, in a few years you'll revisit my advice and hopefully I will no longer seem like the bad guy.

User avatar
MrBain_
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: Illusive 170

Postby MrBain_ » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:39 pm

heretostay88 wrote:
Kabuo wrote:
heretostay88 wrote:i meant, of course, a <170


I didn't even point this one out on the last page because he was such an obvious troll. But now he's admitting his mistakes? Is he a troll or just really unpleasant?

I am not a troll. Did you know that only 60% of 2010 grads are in jobs that require a JD. Do you know that 2011 will be significantly worse? Now factor in that most of these jobs are terrible where do you think that leaves sub-par grads? If you can't crack a 170 you probably don't have the mental capability to do well in this profession. I'm surprised anyone would argue this point.


170 is somewhere around the 97-98 percentile. Wikipedia says that over 150k people took the lsat last year, so your telling me that only about 4k people per year that take the lsat have the mental capability to do well in the law profession. <-- You sir, You are a dick :roll:

User avatar
DaftAndDirect
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:28 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby DaftAndDirect » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:45 pm

Hey brah, I cracked my 170. I'm part of your club!

Seriously, I sort of kind of see where you're coming from. There obviously comes a point where an investment in law school is just a plain bad idea when you don't have the raw intellectual horsepower to keep up with your classmates. There are plenty of T14s that accept kids with numbers <170. Usually their numbers are pretty close but there's nothing magical about this number beyond what it does for you in terms of getting you an acceptance to a good school.

And unless I'm taking crazy pills, employers don't hire based on your LSAT score. They hire based on your LS performance. Yeah the LSAT is the best indicator of LS performance relative to the other options available (GPA, LSAT, softs) but as an absolute measure, plenty of reliable sources have said that the LSAT is overhyped.

If your intention is to help people, you should try another angle.

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby 20121109 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:50 pm

DaftAndDirect wrote:Hey brah, I cracked my 170. I'm part of your club!

Seriously, I sort of kind of see where you're coming from. There obviously comes a point where an investment in law school is just a plain bad idea when you don't have the raw intellectual horsepower to keep up with your classmates. There are plenty of T14s that accept kids with numbers <170. Usually their numbers are pretty close but there's nothing magical about this number beyond what it does for you in terms of getting you an acceptance to a good school.

And unless I'm taking crazy pills, employers don't hire based on your LSAT score. They hire based on your LS performance. Yeah the LSAT is the best indicator of LS performance relative to the other options available (GPA, LSAT, softs) but as an absolute measure, plenty of reliable sources have said that the LSAT is overhyped.

If your intention is to help people, you should try another angle.


He's not coming back. Unauthorized alts tend to get banned.

User avatar
lakers3peat
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:10 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby lakers3peat » Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:54 pm

Alternate accounts may get banned, but a evading a ban is as simple as resetting your IP which I should hope someone planning to attend law school can figure out how to do ;)


Not trying to stir up controversy, just saying forum bans are easy to get around

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby 20121109 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:55 pm

lakers3peat wrote:Alternate accounts may get banned, but a evading a ban is as simple as resetting your IP which I should hope someone planning to attend law school can figure out how to do ;)


Not trying to stir up controversy, just saying forum bans are easy to get around


And we simply keep banning usernames and IP addresses. We can play this game as long as necessary.

User avatar
lakers3peat
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:10 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby lakers3peat » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:02 pm

As a forum moderator myself though, in my opinion, the trolls and spam bots end up winning. We have to commit ourselves to reading their spam, identifying their spam, banning them, editing their posts but on their end, the effort is minimal. Thank god TLS hasn't been hit too hard by spam. I hate forums that make you enter in L3BNmQz and all those weird symbols to authorize each post. I don't remember if we had to do this to register or not, nor do I remember if you can register multiple accounts to a single e-mail but half the reason I post here is its relative ease... When I tried making a G-mail account, I had to ask for 6 different visual codes before I could read what one of them said to register...

User avatar
20121109
Posts: 2149
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby 20121109 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:06 pm

lakers3peat wrote:As a forum moderator myself though, in my opinion, the trolls and spam bots end up winning. We have to commit ourselves to reading their spam, identifying their spam, banning them, editing their posts but on their end, the effort is minimal. Thank god TLS hasn't been hit too hard by spam. I hate forums that make you enter in L3BNmQz and all those weird symbols to authorize each post. I don't remember if we had to do this to register or not, nor do I remember if you can register multiple accounts to a single e-mail but half the reason I post here is its relative ease... When I tried making a G-mail account, I had to ask for 6 different visual codes before I could read what one of them said to register...


This thread is not meant to discuss our TLS policy or moderation issues. I appreciate your input but it's quite misplaced.

If you have any comments please direct them to this thread. :)

User avatar
westinghouse60
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Illusive 170

Postby westinghouse60 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:07 pm

I'm in the exact same boat as you OP, doing around the same PT's (I'm actually saving 60 because of the more generous curve). I've broken 170 a good number of times (include a few tests where I was getting 170+ on over half of my tests) but I haven't more recently. As far as I can tell, it all comes down to what the curve is set to. I almost always get around the same raw score, but my scaled varies far more, and I can't discern any appreciable difference in difficulty between tests.

But yeah I'm like you, I have a few good sections and a few bad ones, I can't seem to put them all together. RC may actually be my worst section now but I've hardly studied for it...I was used to getting -0/-1 on the old prep tests and have had little time to adjust to the new ones where I'm getting -5.

User avatar
mottainai
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 12:17 am

Re: Illusive 170

Postby mottainai » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:30 pm

Do yourself a favor and wake up early on test day. Warm up with a few practice problems that you've done before. I did something like 10 LR problems and 2 LG on the morning of test day. Take your time, relax, and head to the testing center. A bad or good morning can swing your score 3-5 points.

User avatar
lakers3peat
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:10 pm

Re: Illusive 170

Postby lakers3peat » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:45 pm

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:
This thread is not meant to discuss our TLS policy or moderation issues. I appreciate your input but it's quite misplaced.

If you have any comments please direct them to this thread. :)




Oh I thought this thread got hijacked by trolls.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests