February 2012 Waiting Thread (NEW POLL!!!1!) Forum

[jigglebottom]

He's from high income. His 177 is like a normal 170, and his 171 is like a normal 165. Just saying.

You just assumed that, my single mother was a teacher with 3 kids. Not exactly rolling in $$$. And I'm sure you're well aware schools couldnt care less about how much your parents make.

You said you play poker and in one year you make enough to pay for a year of law school. And reality isn't based on what law schools care. Not saying your score isn't bad. Congrats! I'm proud of you! But to have a 180 when your parents are doctors and lawyers (not talkin about you, just general) isn't as good as a 16X from a homeless person.

It's like you're in a race. But, before the race starts, someone runs out and kicks you in your crotch twice... while you're on the ground crying, the other guy starts sprinting the 50 yards.. Now pretend that there was another guy who was lucky enough to start the race a foot away from the finish line. No crap the guy a foot away is going to win first and the guy who wasn't kicked will be second. That isn't impressive. But it is impressive if the guy who was kicked twice comes close to getting second, or gets second, or gets close to winning first!

i'll be honest, state defines me as low income...i find the ball kicking analogy offensive. We're not fuckin cripples

[bernaldiaz]

What's your SES, RR?

ses? what's my weed?

Haha socioeconomic status, sorry

lol I guess middle class moving up.. started fairly low. What's yours?

In childhood started lower middle class, in the last ten years I'd say we've moved up to upper-middle class or lower-upper class (like not quite 1 percenters but close enough not to just say middle class anymore).

And when I say this I'm just talking about my parents obviously, I haven't done shit.

[jigglebottom]

[/quote]And when I say this I'm just talking about my parents obviously, I haven't done shit.[/quote]

out of curiosity what's with the B.D. Castillo handle?

[RodionRaskolnikov]

He's from high income. His 177 is like a normal 170, and his 171 is like a normal 165. Just saying.

You just assumed that, my single mother was a teacher with 3 kids. Not exactly rolling in $$$. And I'm sure you're well aware schools couldnt care less about how much your parents make.

You said you play poker and in one year you make enough to pay for a year of law school. And reality isn't based on what law schools care. Not saying your score isn't bad. Congrats! I'm proud of you! But to have a 180 when your parents are doctors and lawyers (not talkin about you, just general) isn't as good as a 16X from a homeless person.

It's like you're in a race. But, before the race starts, someone runs out and kicks you in your crotch twice... while you're on the ground crying, the other guy starts sprinting the 50 yards.. Now pretend that there was another guy who was lucky enough to start the race a foot away from the finish line. No crap the guy a foot away is going to win first and the guy who wasn't kicked will be second. That isn't impressive. But it is impressive if the guy who was kicked twice comes close to getting second, or gets second, or gets close to winning first!

That's just not true. Ask everyone in these forums. Personal statements are virtually insignificant compared to LSAT score. If you think a homeless guy with a 160 is getting into HYS over a guy with a 180 you're simply wrong.

And my income from Poker isn't going to affect my cycle whatsoever, I havent played in two years and have a teaching job.

Wow. That went right over your head. Hmm.. How can I explain it.. Ok. Here it comes..

Suppose that in order to get a golden star, you need to provide the answer to 5+5. You show up and tell the guy distributing the golden stars, "The answer to 5+5 is 10!" The guy laughs at you and rejects you.. then, someone else walks by and says, "the answer is 11!" This kid now gets a golden star! But, does the guy accepting kids who answer 11 make 5+5 be 11? Of course not, because reality doesn't depend on the guy. The right answer is still 10. It just so happens that the guy giving out the golden stars is a big ehh and is giving them out for people who come up with 11.

Likewise (and I know it's not a perfect analogy, I'm just using it to better explain the idea), law schools will give people admission (gold stars) if their scores are high. Whether one gets the admission, however, isn't representative of whether their scores are impressive/good. A 180 received by someone who was given so many advantages that a 180 is a duh result isn't very impressive as a homeless uneducated person who gets a 16X. Sure, the former will get admission (gold star) but the latter got the better/more impressive score.

[Jsa725]

.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

He's from high income. His 177 is like a normal 170, and his 171 is like a normal 165. Just saying.

You just assumed that, my single mother was a teacher with 3 kids. Not exactly rolling in $$$. And I'm sure you're well aware schools couldnt care less about how much your parents make.

You said you play poker and in one year you make enough to pay for a year of law school. And reality isn't based on what law schools care. Not saying your score isn't bad. Congrats! I'm proud of you! But to have a 180 when your parents are doctors and lawyers (not talkin about you, just general) isn't as good as a 16X from a homeless person.

It's like you're in a race. But, before the race starts, someone runs out and kicks you in your crotch twice... while you're on the ground crying, the other guy starts sprinting the 50 yards.. Now pretend that there was another guy who was lucky enough to start the race a foot away from the finish line. No crap the guy a foot away is going to win first and the guy who wasn't kicked will be second. That isn't impressive. But it is impressive if the guy who was kicked twice comes close to getting second, or gets second, or gets close to winning first!

i'll be honest, state defines me as low income...i find the ball kicking analogy offensive. We're not fuckin cripples

.... no one said you're a cripple.

[bernaldiaz]

Wow. That went right over your head. Hmm.. How can I explain it.. Ok. Here it comes..

Suppose that in order to get a golden star, you need to provide the answer to 5+5. You show up and tell the guy distributing the golden stars, "The answer to 5+5 is 10!" The guy laughs at you and rejects you.. then, someone else walks by and says, "the answer is 11!" This kid now gets a golden star! But, does the guy accepting kids who answer 11 make 5+5 be 11? Of course not, because reality doesn't depend on the guy. The right answer is still 10. It just so happens that the guy giving out the golden stars is a big ehh and is giving them out for people who come up with 11.

Likewise (and I know it's not a perfect analogy, I'm just using it to better explain the idea), law schools will give people admission (gold stars) if their scores are high. Whether one gets the admission, however, isn't representative of whether their scores are impressive/good. A 180 received by someone who was given so many advantages that a 180 is a duh result isn't very impressive as a homeless uneducated person who gets a 16X. Sure, the former will get admission (gold star) but the latter got the better/more impressive score.

Didn't see where you were going with that analogy but it ended up being a good one

[bernaldiaz]

out of curiosity what's with the B.D. Castillo handle?

Lol... He kaiser soze'd his fuckin name! Lol

Haha this is the truth. I just looked around the room when I was making my account and snagged the name off the book I was reading at the time, which was Conquest of Mexico.

[anteater1]

RR it's not your premises or analogies I have problems with its your conclusion, it's simply not based in fact whatsoever. If you knew anything about the admissions process you would know that.

My claims are absolutely based on facts, hard numbers that show law schools care about GPA and LSAT far far more than they do about personal statements (the only venue to state your theory about homeless people)

I know you're going to respond with more shitty analogies to try and make your point but it doesn't change the facts bud.

[jigglebottom]

i'll be honest, state defines me as low income...i find the ball kicking analogy offensive. We're not fuckin cripples

.... no one said you're a cripple.

you compared low-income folk to someone with kicked balls....

[Fad]

I took a nap and had a dream that the LSAT was scored by TLS Posters and when I checked my score, under special notes it said "Haha" and my score was "Loser."

Also, if high income means a 180 would have been a duh, now I can blame my parents when my score is terrible!

I knew it was their fault somehow.

[bernaldiaz]

RR it's not your premises or analogies I have problems with its your conclusion, it's simply not based in fact whatsoever. If you knew anything about the admissions process you would know that.

My claims are absolutely based on facts, hard numbers that show law schools care about GPA and LSAT far far more than they do about personal statements (the only venue to state your theory about homeless people)

I know you're going to respond with more shitty analogies to try and make your point but it doesn't change the facts bud.

He's not saying that, and trust me, this is coming from someone who doesn't give RR a break.

What he is saying is that even though law schools reward high test scores, that doesn't mean that outside of the realm of law school admissions that, say, a 176 is better than a 167.

Say the person with a 176 was raised by a doctor and lawyer, encouraged to read at an early age, sent to private high school, had tutoring paid for him for the LSAT, then scored the 176.

Say the 167 is someone who was raised by a single parent, went to public school, only had the money to buy a few practice tests, and then they scored the 167.

RR is admitting that the 176 will be looked better upon by law school adcoms, but is just claiming that in certain scenarios a lower score may be more impressive (although has failed to establish that there is any significance to that, since the LSAT is solely used for Law school admissions).

If he just gave a regular example instead of analogies it may have been easier to understand haha.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

RR it's not your premises or analogies I have problems with its your conclusion, it's simply not based in fact whatsoever. If you knew anything about the admissions process you would know that.

My claims are absolutely based on facts, hard numbers that show law schools care about GPA and LSAT far far more than they do about personal statements (the only venue to state your theory about homeless people)

I know you're going to respond with more shitty analogies to try and make your point but it doesn't change the facts bud.

lol it flew over your head again. My point was that law schools and admission to law schools doesn't measure how good/impressive an LSAT score is. The score number itself doesn't measure how impressive a score is!

It's possible that someone with a 165 doesn't get into a single law school, gets a letter from every law school telling him his score is horrible, but his score could still be better than someone else's 170 who got into Harvard, Yale and Stanford!

You seem to be stuck in a box. Break out of it and think more and you'll pick up the idea.

[jigglebottom]

out of curiosity what's with the B.D. Castillo handle?

Lol... He kaiser soze'd his fuckin name! Lol

Haha this is the truth. I just looked around the room when I was making my account and snagged the name off the book I was reading at the time, which was Conquest of Mexico.

interesting choice... one of the OG's of colonial orientalism. trying to find some ironic/meaningful connection to this lsat board but failing.....


there it is i guess...

[RodionRaskolnikov]

i'll be honest, state defines me as low income...i find the ball kicking analogy offensive. We're not fuckin cripples

.... no one said you're a cripple.

you compared low-income folk to someone with kicked balls....

And? Analogously, it makes sense.

[anteater1]

RR it's not your premises or analogies I have problems with its your conclusion, it's simply not based in fact whatsoever. If you knew anything about the admissions process you would know that.

My claims are absolutely based on facts, hard numbers that show law schools care about GPA and LSAT far far more than they do about personal statements (the only venue to state your theory about homeless people)

I know you're going to respond with more shitty analogies to try and make your point but it doesn't change the facts bud.

lol it flew over your head again. My point was that law schools and admission to law schools doesn't measure how good/impressive an LSAT score is. The score number itself doesn't measure how impressive a score is!

It's possible that someone with a 165 doesn't get into a single law school, gets a letter from every law school telling him his score is horrible, but his score could still be better than someone else's 170 who got into Harvard, Yale and Stanford!

You seem to be stuck in a box. Break out of it and think more and you'll pick up the idea.

Ultimately, you clearly have some sort of complex that makes you feel like you need to direct every argument at me. I'm going to just assume its jealousy and ignore your posts from now on. I'm sure you'll craft another wordy response to try and take shots at me but frankly I don't give two shits. Go ahead, you're not getting any more responses out of me.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

RR it's not your premises or analogies I have problems with its your conclusion, it's simply not based in fact whatsoever. If you knew anything about the admissions process you would know that.

My claims are absolutely based on facts, hard numbers that show law schools care about GPA and LSAT far far more than they do about personal statements (the only venue to state your theory about homeless people)

I know you're going to respond with more shitty analogies to try and make your point but it doesn't change the facts bud.

lol it flew over your head again. My point was that law schools and admission to law schools doesn't measure how good/impressive an LSAT score is. The score number itself doesn't measure how impressive a score is!

It's possible that someone with a 165 doesn't get into a single law school, gets a letter from every law school telling him his score is horrible, but his score could still be better than someone else's 170 who got into Harvard, Yale and Stanford!

You seem to be stuck in a box. Break out of it and think more and you'll pick up the idea.

Ultimately, you clearly have some sort of complex that makes you feel like you need to direct every argument at me. I'm going to just assume its jealousy and ignore your posts from now on. I'm sure you'll craft another wordy response to try and take shots at me but frankly I don't give two shits. Go ahead, you're not getting any more responses out of me.

You answered my post confused and so I tried explaining what I said...... And now it's my fault that I tried to explain myself.... I really might have assburgers or a case of twilight zone.

[jigglebottom]

i'll be honest, state defines me as low income...i find the ball kicking analogy offensive. We're not fuckin cripples

.... no one said you're a cripple.

you compared low-income folk to someone with kicked balls....

And? Analogously, it makes sense.

i think resources may be one thing... i.e. prep materials etc... in terms of capability there shouldn't be a considerable difference. here's a better analogy.. two girls are racing, one has some dope nikes on the other has some wack fila's that weigh 12 pounds. i feel your argument in general tho.

[Jsa725]

.

[bernaldiaz]

You seem to be stuck in a box. Break out of it and think more and you'll pick up the idea.

You answered my post confused and so I tried explaining what I said...... And now it's my fault that I tried to explain myself.... I really might have assburgers or a case of twilight zone.

TBF, while you did explain yourself, you were unnecessarily bellicose and condescending about it.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

You seem to be stuck in a box. Break out of it and think more and you'll pick up the idea.

You answered my post confused and so I tried explaining what I said...... And now it's my fault that I tried to explain myself.... I really might have assburgers or a case of twilight zone.

TBF, while you did explain yourself, you were unnecessarily bellicose and condescending about it.

Ok. Fine. I'm sorry! I don't have patience for people who aren't analytically astute but are dismissive as if they are.

[Fad]

RR it's not your premises or analogies I have problems with its your conclusion, it's simply not based in fact whatsoever. If you knew anything about the admissions process you would know that.

My claims are absolutely based on facts, hard numbers that show law schools care about GPA and LSAT far far more than they do about personal statements (the only venue to state your theory about homeless people)

I know you're going to respond with more shitty analogies to try and make your point but it doesn't change the facts bud.

He's not saying that, and trust me, this is coming from someone who doesn't give RR a break.

What he is saying is that even though law schools reward high test scores, that doesn't mean that outside of the realm of law school admissions that, say, a 176 is better than a 167.

Say the person with a 176 was raised by a doctor and lawyer, encouraged to read at an early age, sent to private high school, had tutoring paid for him for the LSAT, then scored the 176.

Say the 167 is someone who was raised by a single parent, went to public school, only had the money to buy a few practice tests, and then they scored the 167.

RR is admitting that the 176 will be looked better upon by law school adcoms, but is just claiming that in certain scenarios a lower score may be more impressive (although has failed to establish that there is any significance to that, since the LSAT is solely used for Law school admissions).

If he just gave a regular example instead of analogies it may have been easier to understand haha.

It can also be used for MENSA admission Who was it that got us started on that topic?

And for people who use scores on the LSAT to judge others, it probably makes sense to them to also judge how impressive/not impressive that score is based on their income. Maybe so they can feel better about their own score.

I for one, will be blaming growing up dirt poor and my parents' poor life choices for any unimpressive score I get. I could have gotten a 180 if I had grown up rich, I bet.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

i'll be honest, state defines me as low income...i find the ball kicking analogy offensive. We're not fuckin cripples

.... no one said you're a cripple.

you compared low-income folk to someone with kicked balls....

And? Analogously, it makes sense.

i think resources may be one thing... i.e. prep materials etc... in terms of capability there shouldn't be a considerable difference. here's a better analogy.. two girls are racing, one has some dope nikes on the other has some wack fila's that weigh 12 pounds. i feel your argument in general tho.

No offense, but that analogy wasn't good. Not having prep material is like not being able to run at all and then being in a race with someone who ran for 3 months preparing for the race..

[lsacqueen]

We can sit here and ponder and hmmm and haw about what scores we would've gotten if we were all rich, but the fact of the matter is it's not what you were given but what you make of it that counts.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

We can sit here and ponder and hmmm and haw about what scores we would've gotten if we were all rich, but the fact of the matter is it's not what you were given but what you make of it that counts.

This.