just voicing my frustration

User avatar
swtlilsoni
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:00 am

just voicing my frustration

Postby swtlilsoni » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:18 pm

Hi I just want to voice my frustration
I ended up getting a 170 on the Dec 11 LSAT which I am happy about. Obviously I was shooting for higher but I am sooo glad I did not get below 170 that would have been a nightmare. So I am thankful for my score.

Then I looked at the item response sheet and noticed something crazy.
I only missed two on each of the first three sections (LR LG LR) and then missed 8 on RC!!! That is insane!! On all my PTs I never missed that much, 5 was the greatest including all 50 or so PTs I took, and the average missed was 3-4.

It's just a little frustrating because based on my performance on other sections I actually did really well and could have/should have gotten a higher score. But this freak accident of screwing up the RC dropped my score so much! It's hard to explain my frustration but if I consistenly did bad on all the sections then I'd feel like I deserved my score but other than RC I did so well otherwise!

User avatar
hotspur
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:05 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby hotspur » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:21 pm

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

User avatar
swtlilsoni
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:00 am

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby swtlilsoni » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:25 pm

hotspur wrote:dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present


yeahh I'm glad I got a 170 it's just annoying that more than half of the ones I got wrong were in one section, when I'm usually okay in that section!

User avatar
iMisto
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby iMisto » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:42 pm

I'm living that nightmare with my 167, and a -11 on that RC.

I would strangle a puppy for a 170 right now.

HellOnHeels
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby HellOnHeels » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:43 pm

iMisto wrote:I'm living that nightmare with my 167, and a -11 on that RC.

I would strangle a puppy for a 170 right now.

you serious?

User avatar
Philosopher King
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:25 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby Philosopher King » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:48 pm

hotspur wrote:dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present


Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby Tom Joad » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:50 pm

Philosopher King wrote:
hotspur wrote:dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present


Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.


A lawsuit over what?

User avatar
Ludo!
Posts: 4764
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:22 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby Ludo! » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:53 pm

Philosopher King wrote:
hotspur wrote:dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present


Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.


Now I like where this thread is going

User avatar
Ludo!
Posts: 4764
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:22 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby Ludo! » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:57 pm

Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote:I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info

User avatar
Philosopher King
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:25 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby Philosopher King » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:58 pm

Ludovico Technique wrote:
Philosopher King wrote:
hotspur wrote:dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present


Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.


Now I like where this thread is going


I do too. That makes two of us. I just had to say that.

User avatar
princeR
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:10 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby princeR » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:35 am

hotspur wrote:dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present


Ya, because it was a hard test...

User avatar
Mr.Binks
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:49 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby Mr.Binks » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:39 am

Tom Joad wrote:
Philosopher King wrote:
hotspur wrote:dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present


Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.


A lawsuit over what?

thederangedwang
Posts: 1124
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:44 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby thederangedwang » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:41 am

Mr.Binks wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:
Philosopher King wrote:
hotspur wrote:dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present


Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.


A lawsuit over what?

He's just being stupid...or himself, whichever you prefer

HBK
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:29 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby HBK » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:55 am

I want to brag about my 170 by complaining about my performance. Very humble. Very douchey.

User avatar
lrslayer
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:38 am

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby lrslayer » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:58 am

Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote:I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info


i thought i read somewhere that it actually helps you out because you aren't reportable for rankings and therefore a school can accept you without a hit to their medians

User avatar
Philosopher King
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:25 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby Philosopher King » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:00 am

Tom Joad wrote:
Philosopher King wrote:
hotspur wrote:dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present


Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.


A lawsuit over what?


LSAC's policies that are illegal with regards to red flagging test scores taken with extra time.

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

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby PDaddy » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:04 am

Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote:I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info


If I had time and a half, I could get a 180...easily and with much time to spare. All I would need is an additional 5 minutes per section and I would essentially have 180 in the bag. So forgive those of us who have little or no sympathy for the "disabled" test-takers who are given time-and-a-half and then reach 170+. It appears as if they could have acheived "decent scores" (159-165) even without the additional time and thus did not necessarily need it. This is coming from a guy who believes the LSAT to be a flawed test to begin with.

Still, I do not think it should be eliminated, as the LSAC is considering, just improved to measure more types of skills and traits. I also think that any accommodated test-taker who scores a 170+ has certainly shown that he/she can do the work.

As imperfect as it is, it's the only test we have. Almost any reasonably intelligent person - if dedicated and disciplined - can acheive a respectable score on it. The problem is that schools are misusing it by giving it too much weight in the admission process. A good score should certainly strengthen an application, but a lower score should not necessarily weaken an otherwise good application. That is, scoring well on the LSAT should be viewed only a sufficient condition for demonstrating potential success in law school, not a necessary one. Moreover, schools treat two and three-point score differences between otherwise similar applicants as if they are meaningful when they are not.

Schools should not read too much into the scores, good, bad or other.

HBK
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:29 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby HBK » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:08 am

If you're blind or dyslexic, then you should get accommodations on the LSAT. If you have ADD or some sort of "learning disability," I'm sorry. You're either dumb or like Aderrall enough to get a prescription. You should not get special accommodations.

User avatar
princeR
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:10 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby princeR » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:13 am

PDaddy wrote:
Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote:I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info


If I had time and a half, I could get a 180...easily and with much time to spare. All I would need is an additional 5 minutes per section and I would essentially have 180 in the bag. So forgive those of us who have little or no sympathy for the "disabled" test-takers who are given time-and-a-half and then reach 170+. It appears as if they could have acheived "decent scores" (159-165) even without the additional time and thus did not necessarily need it. This is coming from a guy who believes the LSAT to be a flawed test to begin with.

The part about the couple of point difference is just ridiculous. I mean, what is the difference between a 164 and a 167? It's just a couple of questions... sometimes only 4 or so.

Still, I do not think it should be eliminated, as the LSAC is considering, just improved to measure more types of skills and traits. I also think that any accommodated test-taker who scores a 170+ has certainly shown that he/she can do the work.

As imperfect as it is, it's the only test we have. Almost any reasonably intelligent person - if dedicated and disciplined - can acheive a respectable score on it. The problem is that schools are misusing it by giving it too much weight in the admission process. A good score should certainly strengthen an application, but a lower score should not necessarily weaken an otherwise good application. That is, scoring well on the LSAT should be viewed only a sufficient condition for demonstrating potential success in law school, not a necessary one. Moreover, schools treat two and three-point score differences between otherwise similar applicants as if they are meaningful when they are not.

Schools should not read too much into the scores, good, bad or other.

User avatar
Philosopher King
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:25 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby Philosopher King » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:15 am

PDaddy wrote:
Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote:I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info


If I had time and a half, I could get a 180...easily and with much time to spare. All I would need is an additional 5 minutes per section and I would essentially have 180 in the bag. So forgive those of us who have little or no sympathy for the "disabled" test-takers who are given time-and-a-half and then reach 170+. It appears as if they could have acheived "decent scores" (159-165) even without the additional time and thus did not necessarily need it. This is coming from a guy who believes the LSAT to be a flawed test to begin with.

Still, I do not think it should be eliminated, as the LSAC is considering, just improved to measure more types of skills and traits. I also think that any accommodated test-taker who scores a 170+ has certainly shown that he/she can do the work.

As imperfect as it is, it's the only test we have. Almost any reasonably intelligent person - if dedicated and disciplined - can acheive a respectable score on it. The problem is that schools are misusing it by giving it too much weight in the admission process. A good score should certainly strengthen an application, but a lower score should not necessarily weaken an otherwise good application. That is, scoring well on the LSAT should be viewed only a sufficient condition for demonstrating potential success in law school, not a necessary one. Moreover, schools treat two and three-point score differences between otherwise similar applicants as if they are meaningful when they are not.

Schools should not read too much into the scores, good, bad or other.


I may not agree with you analysis of extra time accommodations but I do agree with what you said about the LSAT being overemphasized. You articulated this point very well and the point that it should not be a necessary condition is especially true.

dba415
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:50 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby dba415 » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:47 am

I'm convinced that the reading was one of the hardest ever, possibly the hardest reading section ever. Harder than the June 2011 one. So you're not alone. I missed 10 on it.

IGotMy170
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:32 am

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby IGotMy170 » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:53 am

swtlilsoni wrote:Hi I just want to voice my frustration
I ended up getting a 170 on the Dec 11 LSAT which I am happy about. Obviously I was shooting for higher but I am sooo glad I did not get below 170 that would have been a nightmare. So I am thankful for my score.

Then I looked at the item response sheet and noticed something crazy.
I only missed two on each of the first three sections (LR LG LR) and then missed 8 on RC!!! That is insane!! On all my PTs I never missed that much, 5 was the greatest including all 50 or so PTs I took, and the average missed was 3-4.

It's just a little frustrating because based on my performance on other sections I actually did really well and could have/should have gotten a higher score. But this freak accident of screwing up the RC dropped my score so much! It's hard to explain my frustration but if I consistenly did bad on all the sections then I'd feel like I deserved my score but other than RC I did so well otherwise!



I don't really get your complaint man. If the reading comprehension was easier, you might have missed fewer problems, but then the curve wouldn't be -14.

My test looked a lot like yours. I missed 2 on LR, 2 on LG, 2 on LR, and then 7 on RC.

IGotMy170
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:32 am

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby IGotMy170 » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:56 am

Philosopher King wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote:I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info


If I had time and a half, I could get a 180...easily and with much time to spare. All I would need is an additional 5 minutes per section and I would essentially have 180 in the bag. So forgive those of us who have little or no sympathy for the "disabled" test-takers who are given time-and-a-half and then reach 170+. It appears as if they could have acheived "decent scores" (159-165) even without the additional time and thus did not necessarily need it. This is coming from a guy who believes the LSAT to be a flawed test to begin with.

Still, I do not think it should be eliminated, as the LSAC is considering, just improved to measure more types of skills and traits. I also think that any accommodated test-taker who scores a 170+ has certainly shown that he/she can do the work.

As imperfect as it is, it's the only test we have. Almost any reasonably intelligent person - if dedicated and disciplined - can acheive a respectable score on it. The problem is that schools are misusing it by giving it too much weight in the admission process. A good score should certainly strengthen an application, but a lower score should not necessarily weaken an otherwise good application. That is, scoring well on the LSAT should be viewed only a sufficient condition for demonstrating potential success in law school, not a necessary one. Moreover, schools treat two and three-point score differences between otherwise similar applicants as if they are meaningful when they are not.

Schools should not read too much into the scores, good, bad or other.


I may not agree with you analysis of extra time accommodations but I do agree with what you said about the LSAT being overemphasized. You articulated this point very well and the point that it should not be a necessary condition is especially true.



But you want more emphasis on GPA and it has already been demonstrated a million times over why more emphasis on GPA would be ridiculous.

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby NYC Law » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:57 am

Philosopher King wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote:I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info


If I had time and a half, I could get a 180...easily and with much time to spare. All I would need is an additional 5 minutes per section and I would essentially have 180 in the bag. So forgive those of us who have little or no sympathy for the "disabled" test-takers who are given time-and-a-half and then reach 170+. It appears as if they could have acheived "decent scores" (159-165) even without the additional time and thus did not necessarily need it. This is coming from a guy who believes the LSAT to be a flawed test to begin with.

Still, I do not think it should be eliminated, as the LSAC is considering, just improved to measure more types of skills and traits. I also think that any accommodated test-taker who scores a 170+ has certainly shown that he/she can do the work.

As imperfect as it is, it's the only test we have. Almost any reasonably intelligent person - if dedicated and disciplined - can acheive a respectable score on it. The problem is that schools are misusing it by giving it too much weight in the admission process. A good score should certainly strengthen an application, but a lower score should not necessarily weaken an otherwise good application. That is, scoring well on the LSAT should be viewed only a sufficient condition for demonstrating potential success in law school, not a necessary one. Moreover, schools treat two and three-point score differences between otherwise similar applicants as if they are meaningful when they are not.

Schools should not read too much into the scores, good, bad or other.


I may not agree with you analysis of extra time accommodations but I do agree with what you said about the LSAT being overemphasized. You articulated this point very well and the point that it should not be a necessary condition is especially true.


We get it, you mad. Stop shitting up every thread.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: just voicing my frustration

Postby Blessedassurance » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:57 am

Philosopher King wrote:LSAC's policies that are illegal with regards to red flagging test scores taken with extra time.


Accept your score, retake or move on. I think the LSAT is a stupid test but your incessant rants are getting ridiculous.

A lot of people could do better with additional time.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cherrygalore, CMac86, KPUSN07, NavyNuke, ThatOneAfrican and 8 guests