Top Law Schools

That's not fair.

But I guess the world isn't fair.

flexityflex86 wrote: so i should issue refunds when we had over 7 times the 170s of the general population

That doesn't even make sense.

flexityflex86 wrote:given the sensitive nature of this subject, even though i know i only have good intentions and think i've been quite respectful, i do not want to publish the name with this forum as i think because of some of the posts from other users particularly the one about race intelligence, the mere association will hurt a brand name i've worked very hard to develop.

2000 students over 2 years is not that much. we're in 18 cities, and this means we generally average about 20 students per city for a given LSAT who at least have a first free half hour trial session with a tutor. it isn't so ridiculous. a lot of people i'm sure have heard of it. it's not mom and pop, but isn't a huge one. i'm not a millionaire. i dont even make a 100k, but do well.

Ok. That position is a bit weird since you started the thread and used the fact of owning a tutoring company and having tutored thousands of students as a foundation for your arguments. It puts your credibility and the numbers you cite into doubt. Your claimed numbers still sound unreasonably high unless you run basically just a referral service type of thing where you play middle man matchmaker between students seeking a tutor and independent tutors looking for work, but even with that, over 1000 LSAT tutoring students doing biz with you a year for tutoring is still suspiciously high. I'd be surprised if over 1000 students sign up and pay for individual tutoring with Powerscore or with several other big named prep companies per year.

Perhaps you are including people getting tutoring for the SAT and other tests too in your student count? Your numbers are fishy dude, so is your reluctance to identify the company when you put it existing forward to gain credibility for your arguments. Atlas, BP and several other companies that actively participate on the board have no problem being upfront about who they are. I don't see a good reason to be shady about it.

i would give it to a mod through PM who promises secrecy with their full name.

bk187 wrote:

NYCLSATTutor wrote:Does anyone have stats for:

Average LSAT scores by income

Average LSAT scores by race, corrected for income

This debate is incredibly interesting but it is relying mostly on anecdotal evidence. I did a bit of preliminary research, but was unable to find either of those numbers....if anyone has them, they would be much appreciated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c

Thats an interesting video, thank you, but it answers neither of my questions. He does say there is a differential, but he does not say whether the differential stays the same when correcting for income.

For those who are clamoring for the thread to be locked....why? If you find the topic terribly uninteresting, there is no need to click on this thread. Some of us, myself included, find this topic incredibly interesting.

flexityflex86 wrote:i would give it to a mod through PM who promises secrecy with their full name.

lol

How about we set up a good old fashioned spook style dead drop with the info? When the info is in place under the park bench, make a chalk mark on the side of the planter next to it and someone will pick it up later.

Seriously, is your company called "CIA special black opps LSAT prep? But since I told you now I have to kill you." This type of paranoid cloak and dagger secrecy is amusing.

Use the vulcan mind meld:

--ImageRemoved--

thecactus wrote:You guys need to look up Claude Steele and his work on stereotype threat. This could explain why URMs, even when controlled for SES and other factors, tend score lower than whites.

Also, to the OP: dude, you work at a test prep company. What you see is going to be an incredibly skewed sample. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a disproportionate amount of URMs don't have the resources to enroll in a fancy prep program or work with a tutor. For all you know, a lot of URMs are studying 10000 hours on their own, and you wouldn't know about it.

Also, this has already been said, but the cultural capital you have access to plays a big role in how you approach this test. I grew up in a neighborhood with a lot of Latinos and Southeast Asians, and a lot of them were smart enough and able enough to go to top colleges, but chose to stay close to home to help their families. Or they simply didn't know how important a school's prestige can be and chose the less expensive option.

tl; dr version: There are a number of different factors for why URMs don't score as high on this particular standardized test, and the reduce that explanation to "they just don't work as much" is far, far too simplistic.

This.

In my own experiences I've noticed something really interesting in 3 different categories of people who I have taught.

1) This group severely underperforms both in practice and on the actual test. They are inner-city minority students who attend a local college in NYC that I volunteer at. These students all start out doing very low on the test, many don't make a great effort to improve. BUT those who do make an effort, generally improve a lot, although still fall below any other group I've seen.

2) This group does about average on the test. They are inner-city minorities who attend the same college in NYC as group 1. However, all of these students pay me to work with them 1-1. Their initial diagnostic as well as their final score tend to be substantially higher than group 1, and indeed are the highest of the 3 groups.

3) This group falls somewhere in the middle. This group is rural, very poor, and have almost no access to quality education. There is, as far as I know, no LSAT company in their state, not even Kaplan. They are also overwhelmingly white. These students tend to outperform group 1, but not group 2.

What does this all mean? I have no idea. But as an educator myself, the discussion in this thread (other than the pettiness) has been great. I see the score differential between different demographic groups, but I am at a failure to explain it. If one can adequately explain it, even partially, then one can start to address it.

Gaia or other mods, can we at least move this thread somewhere else? I'm studying for the LSAT and I hate seeing this every time I visit this board. A large amount of people who post in these types of threads end up either wholly disparaging or wholly approving one opinion only, and these things invariably turn into flame wars or Gatriel-bashing fests (not that I mind the latter).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat

I think this is the missing link for explaining why URMs underperform, even when they come from comparable socio-economic backgrounds as whites.

This does not only apply to racial minorities, but women too.

Helicio wrote:Gaia or other mods, can we at least move this thread somewhere else? I'm studying for the LSAT and I hate seeing this every time I visit this board. A large amount of people who post in these types of threads end up either wholly disparaging or wholly approving one opinion only, and these things invariably turn into flame wars or Gatriel-bashing fests (not that I mind the latter).

Tbh, I'm afraid that moving it to the lounge would facilitate the flaming. All the frequent loungers would descend upon it and derail the discussion.

But maybe I'm asking for too much...maybe this is just a catch-22 and this thread is an exercise in futility.

I hear you, but I don't know if I should move it because one person is unhappy about seeing it. Especially when doing so may frustrate the substantive discussion.

Well, if anyone actually cares, This (page 19), combined with the youtube video stating that the disparity remains when controlled for socio-economic status, pretty much kills and theories or personal experiences in the last 4 pages.

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:

Helicio wrote:Gaia or other mods, can we at least move this thread somewhere else? I'm studying for the LSAT and I hate seeing this every time I visit this board. A large amount of people who post in these types of threads end up either wholly disparaging or wholly approving one opinion only, and these things invariably turn into flame wars or Gatriel-bashing fests (not that I mind the latter).

Tbh, I'm afraid that moving it to the lounge would facilitate the flaming. All the frequent loungers would descend upon it and derail the discussion.

But maybe I'm asking for too much...maybe this is just a catch-22 and this thread is an exercise in futility.

I hear you, but I don't know if I should move it because one person is unhappy about seeing it. Especially when doing so may frustrate the substantive discussion.

It could not be more obvious that this is the case IMO.

how is my reasoning off in my initial post?

I wasn't talking about your initial post, I was talking about your reaction to the post about difference in intelligence among races. The numerous flaws in your initial reasoning have been addressed in several posts above. One example is the unrepresentative nature of the sample which is ironic given that you own (?) a company among whose objective is to teach students to spot these things.

you're right, i'm wrong. the lsat is clearly a racist test. there is no explanation for the disparity in scores.

You assume an argument is being made that the test is racist. No such argument is being made, in fact the speaker in the video you claimed to have watched stated that. Arguing that differences exist among certain races with respect to a specific standardized test is not the same as arguing the test is racist.

maybe if you worked harder, and did not analyze scenarios in purely condescending terms instead of just assuming the LSAT is racist you would do better than a 165.

I work really hard I can assure you. In fact, I go to school full-time (15 credits per quarter) and work full-time (40 hours per week). I took half the day off from work to take the LSAT on Monday and worked 8 hours in addition to taking a final the next day. Also note that 165 on the June test, represents the 92nd percentile. Put another way, I did better than a whole bunch of people of all races. You are analyzing my score against a sample (TLS etc) that is again unrepresentative. You also assume I assume the test is racist (see above).

so i should issue refunds when we had over 7 times the 170s of the general population because one obnoxious idiot is offended i try to examine issues i think impede further progress rather than ignore them, and just say it's LSAC's fault for being racist?

You like the word "racist" or something? General population? I don't get what you are trying to say, try to use actual numbers. Finally, remember the LSAT is not a test of intelligence per se, but a particular skill-set. I applaud your resolve to "further progress" by basing conjectures on silly assumptions and unrepresentative samples. How would you know what URM parents tell their children at home? Let me guess, you taught 18 of them and a 100 other tutors say the same thing?

chimp wrote:

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:

Helicio wrote:Gaia or other mods, can we at least move this thread somewhere else? I'm studying for the LSAT and I hate seeing this every time I visit this board. A large amount of people who post in these types of threads end up either wholly disparaging or wholly approving one opinion only, and these things invariably turn into flame wars or Gatriel-bashing fests (not that I mind the latter).

Tbh, I'm afraid that moving it to the lounge would facilitate the flaming. All the frequent loungers would descend upon it and derail the discussion.

But maybe I'm asking for too much...maybe this is just a catch-22 and this thread is an exercise in futility.

I hear you, but I don't know if I should move it because one person is unhappy about seeing it. Especially when doing so may frustrate the substantive discussion.

It could not be more obvious that this is the case IMO.

I've seen ONE guy post something inflammatory. People paid some attention, but most just continued with the discussion. To be perfectly honest, people calling for the thread to be locked and saying it's worthless are the ones doing more harm than good for the actual substantive discussion that, imo, has been rather productive and amicable.

I hear your concerns but please let the mods make the decisions about how to moderate.

flexityflex86 wrote:given the sensitive nature of this subject, even though i know i only have good intentions and think i've been quite respectful, i do not want to publish the name with this forum as i think because of some of the posts from other users particularly the one about race intelligence, the mere association will hurt a brand name i've worked very hard to develop.

2000 students over 2 years is not that much. we're in 18 cities, and this means we generally average about 20 students per city for a given LSAT who at least have a first free half hour trial session with a tutor. it isn't so ridiculous. a lot of people i'm sure have heard of it. it's not mom and pop, but isn't a huge one. i'm not a millionaire. i dont even make a 100k, but do well.

What's the next step in figuring out which prep company offers tutoring in 18 cities?

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:

chimp wrote:

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:

Helicio wrote:Gaia or other mods, can we at least move this thread somewhere else? I'm studying for the LSAT and I hate seeing this every time I visit this board. A large amount of people who post in these types of threads end up either wholly disparaging or wholly approving one opinion only, and these things invariably turn into flame wars or Gatriel-bashing fests (not that I mind the latter).

Tbh, I'm afraid that moving it to the lounge would facilitate the flaming. All the frequent loungers would descend upon it and derail the discussion.

But maybe I'm asking for too much...maybe this is just a catch-22 and this thread is an exercise in futility.

I hear you, but I don't know if I should move it because one person is unhappy about seeing it. Especially when doing so may frustrate the substantive discussion.

It could not be more obvious that this is the case IMO.

I've seen ONE guy post something inflammatory. People paid some attention, but most just continued with the discussion. To be perfectly honest, people calling for the thread to be locked and saying it's worthless are the ones doing more harm than good for the actual substantive discussion that, imo, has been rather productive and amicable.

I hear your concerns but please let the mods make the decisions about how to moderate.

Fair enough. I just feel like this discussion can lead to nothing constructive, but I don't mind seeing where this thread goes.

Also, I feel like I've seen threads that seemed to be much more tame than this locked within the first few pages

chimp wrote:Also, I feel like I've seen threads that seemed to be much more tame than this locked within the first few pages

If you think this thread is bad, you haven't seen real URM flame wars on TLS.

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:

chimp wrote:Also, I feel like I've seen threads that seemed to be much more tame than this locked within the first few pages

If you think this thread is bad, you haven't seen real URM flame wars on TLS.

I never said I thought this thread was bad in that it contained a high percentage of inflammatory posts, just that it can lead to nothing productive whatsoever. Oh well. Just my 2 cents.

Edit: and yes I have seen my share of TLS URM flame wars and they are not pretty

jmjones wrote:There is something about the hood. It's a place where people lack access to information, success is discouraged as is seen "acting white" (law school/standard English/eating salad)

Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:Well, if anyone actually cares, This (page 19), combined with the youtube video stating that the disparity remains when controlled for socio-economic status, pretty much kills and theories or personal experiences in the last 4 pages.

The disparity between black and white test takers (of any intelligence test, not just the LSAT) indeed exists when controlling for income. In fact, white students whose families make less than $10,000 a year do better on intelligence tests than black students whose families make more than $100,000 a year. Again, this is because the racial achievement gap is partially genetic.

Source: http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college ... -test.html

futurelawstudent1 wrote:

Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:Well, if anyone actually cares, This (page 19), combined with the youtube video stating that the disparity remains when controlled for socio-economic status, pretty much kills and theories or personal experiences in the last 4 pages.

The disparity between black and white test takers (of any intelligence test, not just the LSAT) indeed exists when controlling for income. In fact, white students whose families make less than $10,000 a year do better on intelligence tests than black students whose families make more than $100,000 a year. Again, this is because the racial achievement gap is partially genetic.

Source: http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college ... -test.html

Wow

futurelawstudent1 wrote: The disparity between black and white test takers (of any intelligence test, not just the LSAT) indeed exists when controlling for income.

fact

futurelawstudent1 wrote: In fact, white students whose families make less than $10,000 a year do better on intelligence tests than black students whose families make more than $100,000 a year.

fact

futurelawstudent1 wrote:Again, this is because the racial achievement gap is partially genetic.

Source: http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college ... -test.html

--ImageRemoved--

futurelawstudent1 wrote:

Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:Well, if anyone actually cares, This (page 19), combined with the youtube video stating that the disparity remains when controlled for socio-economic status, pretty much kills and theories or personal experiences in the last 4 pages.

The disparity between black and white test takers (of any intelligence test, not just the LSAT) indeed exists when controlling for income. In fact, white students whose families make less than $10,000 a year do better on intelligence tests than black students whose families make more than $100,000 a year. Again, this is because the racial achievement gap is partially genetic.

Source: http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college ... -test.html

I was nice the first time.

Gone.

EarlCat wrote: What's the next step in figuring out which prep company offers tutoring in 18 cities?