Re: PT62 S2 Q4
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:40 pm
...1L grades ARE success in law school!bilbaosan wrote:Do the 1L grades correlate with the success in law school?Clearly wrote:And yet, the lsat does correlate with 1L grades...
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=217354
...1L grades ARE success in law school!bilbaosan wrote:Do the 1L grades correlate with the success in law school?Clearly wrote:And yet, the lsat does correlate with 1L grades...
No, I don't. Being able to pick up on the subtleties of language and know the correct meanings of commonly-used words is very important in the study of law.bilbaosan wrote:Good. Now do you agree that this extra difficulty tests your English ability (such as vocabulary, phraseology etc) in areas which are familiar to NA college graduates, but which are not relevant for law education?ScottRiqui wrote:Yes, the LSAT is inherently more difficult for people who don't have a firm grasp of English.
Somehow I feel we study different law.ScottRiqui wrote: No, I don't. Being able to pick up on the subtleties of language and know the correct meanings of commonly-used words is very important in the study of law.
Yes, I did. And if it was English subtleties test, I'd agree with your assessment. In fact I'd never even attempted to take such a test.Look at the question that started this whole thread - you struggled with what should have been a trivially-easy question, not because the question was flawed, not because the test is biased, not because of obscure vocabulary, and not because a woman buying a newspaper company has nothing to do with the law. No, you got fucked long and hard because you didn't know what "probably" meant.
Edit: Forget it, this is a dumb discussion. Stop feeling so entitled.bilbaosan wrote:Somehow I feel we study different law.ScottRiqui wrote: No, I don't. Being able to pick up on the subtleties of language and know the correct meanings of commonly-used words is very important in the study of law.
Yes, I did. And if it was English subtleties test, I'd agree with your assessment. In fact I'd never even attempted to take such a test.Look at the question that started this whole thread - you struggled with what should have been a trivially-easy question, not because the question was flawed, not because the test is biased, not because of obscure vocabulary, and not because a woman buying a newspaper company has nothing to do with the law. No, you got fucked long and hard because you didn't know what "probably" meant.
But it kinda pisses me off when the test claims it tests reasoning skills, while in fact it tests something else.
That's why I'm bitching about it (and I've got nothing else to do while our app is recompiling).
The difference between "probability" and "probably" is not a "subtle" difference. English is not my first language either, but let's be honest. Sorry.bilbaosan wrote:Somehow I feel we study different law.ScottRiqui wrote: No, I don't. Being able to pick up on the subtleties of language and know the correct meanings of commonly-used words is very important in the study of law.
Yes, I did. And if it was English subtleties test, I'd agree with your assessment. In fact I'd never even attempted to take such a test.Look at the question that started this whole thread - you struggled with what should have been a trivially-easy question, not because the question was flawed, not because the test is biased, not because of obscure vocabulary, and not because a woman buying a newspaper company has nothing to do with the law. No, you got fucked long and hard because you didn't know what "probably" meant.
But it kinda pisses me off when the test claims it tests reasoning skills, while in fact it tests something else.
That's why I'm bitching about it (and I've got nothing else to do while our app is recompiling).
Does this not-a-subtle-difference have any relevance in assessing the candidate's chance to succeed in law school?altoid99 wrote:The difference between "probability" and "probably" is not a "subtle" difference. English is not my first language either, but let's be honest. Sorry.
for real? YES...READING THE RIGHT WORDS IS IMPORTANT IN LAW SCHOOL.bilbaosan wrote:Does this not-a-subtle-difference have any relevance in assessing the candidate's chance to succeed in law school?altoid99 wrote:The difference between "probability" and "probably" is not a "subtle" difference. English is not my first language either, but let's be honest. Sorry.
But we can get the pretty direct answer on that matter. Anyone here taken or seen a non-US administered LSAT? Is it exactly the same test as administered in NA or is it a different test?
But bro, its unfair...You should be allowed to misread things, that's only fair.Jeffort wrote:Dude, you are losing badly.
The main core to your position is that it is unfair for law schools to require/screen candidates based on skills and knowledge beyond the bare minimum needed to perform certain specialized lawyer work tasks, such as the specific types of lawyer work tasks you have been exposed to so far.
Law school is not like trade schools where when evaluating candidates they only look and care about the bare essentials needed to be able to learn how and do a small set of specialized on-the-job tasks within a specific field/context, such as how to diagnose and repair an air conditioner or how to build a plumbing system, or how to structure a database.
If you are viewing what should and shouldn't be required from the perspective of the day to day work a lawyer with a particular specialty does, and that stuff beyond the reach of what is needed to do that specialty is irrelevant, I see your pragmatic based point of view. Too bad it is just wrong on many many levels with the realities of what law school is and isn't supposed to be and do and the role it plays in the process of people becoming lawyers by going to LS and THEN specializing with parts of what they learned after graduation once you get a job in whatever field you end up in.
Your argument is basically like saying: I want to become a lawyer and specialize in doing document review and make that my career, be a practicing document review lawyer. Therefore it is unfair and unnecessary for them to require high level English proficiency and a good vocabulary because I won't have to really understand the contents of the documents that well if at all, I just need to know in general what it is so I sort it properly for discovery purposes. How well I understand constitutional law and torts, etc. and my grades in those classes don't relate to my ability to do document review so employers shouldn't hold those grades against me when making hiring decisions since they are irrelevant to the tasks of the job. To do otherwise would be biased and unfair.
You see how that line of reasoning is going? Compare it to your argument please.
Whatever types of cases you read on a daily basis and whatever types of things you do with them for work clearly have only given you a very narrow view of a small specialized set of lawyer tasks within a particular specially focused aspect of legal practice. Much of the day to day work tasks even top lawyers at top firms spend many hours regularly doing is stuff high school graduates could be trained to do if it was only important to train them for a small set of specific tasks within a specific defined environment and nothing else matters.
That's a good point. I read "recently" to mean that the offer was still outstanding, and that Azedcorp has neither accepted nor rejected it yet. But "recently" could also mean that the offer in 'B' has already been rejected. And if that is the case, then as you said, 'B' provides absolutely no support for the analysts' position.foggynotion wrote:I know the discussion about the original question seems to have ended, but I just wanted to add something. Answer choice B says that Morris has recently offered...so this is something that would have already happened (it's in the past), and we already know that Azedcorp has steadfastedly refused to sell. So they would have already rejected this offer, if it had been made. That's a reason why even if this is true, it wouldn't change anything--telling us details about previous offers that we know weren't accepted can't possibly help this argument.
That would be too easy I guess if they were released. But you don't need the exact tests, a testimony would be enough.ScottRiqui wrote: Like the February tests and the Sabbath tests, the overseas tests are never released. Overseas takers receive a scaled score and a percentile, but they don't receive a copy of the test, their raw score, or any indication of which questions they missed.
Have you heard of anyone who said the test was basically the same difficulty?Regardless, I've never heard of anyone who's taken it overseas who has said that their test was significantly different than the released U.S. practice tests they studied with.
Google "taking the LSAT overseas", and you'll find a lot of threads, many of them from here on TLS. The consensus is that the tests given overseas are different for the purposes of preventing cheating, but not significantly different from the U.S.-administered tests as far as content or difficulty.bilbaosan wrote:That would be too easy I guess if they were released. But you don't need the exact tests, a testimony would be enough.ScottRiqui wrote: Like the February tests and the Sabbath tests, the overseas tests are never released. Overseas takers receive a scaled score and a percentile, but they don't receive a copy of the test, their raw score, or any indication of which questions they missed.
The fact the tests aren't released though suggest the tests are different - if the June test was exactly the same as June US test, it would make zero sense to keep it non-disclosed as it would definitely not be useful again.
Have you heard of anyone who said the test was basically the same difficulty?Regardless, I've never heard of anyone who's taken it overseas who has said that their test was significantly different than the released U.S. practice tests they studied with.
Sorry but from your reply it is even unclear whether you heard of anyone at all who has taken the overseas test.
You are really grasping at straws trying to find support for your argument.bilbaosan wrote:That would be too easy I guess if they were released. But you don't need the exact tests, a testimony would be enough.ScottRiqui wrote: Like the February tests and the Sabbath tests, the overseas tests are never released. Overseas takers receive a scaled score and a percentile, but they don't receive a copy of the test, their raw score, or any indication of which questions they missed.
The fact the tests aren't released though suggest the tests are different - if the June test was exactly the same as June US test, it would make zero sense to keep it non-disclosed as it would definitely not be useful again.
Have you heard of anyone who said the test was basically the same difficulty?Regardless, I've never heard of anyone who's taken it overseas who has said that their test was significantly different than the released U.S. practice tests they studied with.
Sorry but from your reply it is even unclear whether you heard of anyone at all who has taken the overseas test.
Either you're putting your own words into my mouth, or you've significantly misinterpreted what I said.Jeffort wrote: Dude, you are losing badly.
The main core to your position is that it is unfair for law schools to require/screen candidates based on skills and knowledge beyond the bare minimum needed to perform certain specialized lawyer work tasks, such as the specific types of lawyer work tasks you have been exposed to so far.
See PM.I'm curious. What type of legal practice have you been exposed to that you work with that you keep citing as an example of lawyer work that doesn't require English fluency of at least an average American college graduate?
Same. In fact if they removed "recently" and just stated that "Morris offered them a lot of money" it would be way easier to disqualify B because stimulus stated they refused to sell - so how much he offered would be irrelevant. "Recently" could be read as if a new offer is now on the table which hasn't been considered yet.ScottRiqui wrote:I read "recently" to mean that the offer was still outstanding, and that Azedcorp has neither accepted nor rejected it yet.
I would really appreciate if you focus on argument, as comments like above add nothing to the discussion. Not that it bothers me, but it makes it harder to take what you are saying seriously. I hope I'm not asking too much.Jeffort wrote: You are really grasping at straws trying to find support for your argument.
You just said it yourself above - for example, by adjusting the curve, making it less generous.The LSAT test forms administered internationally to people taking it to apply to a N American ABA law school are the same standardized LSAT that is administered in N America locations, just a different test form with different questions, no different than the June test in America being a different test form than the October test.
The test-forms administered internationally conform to the exact same test specifications since scores are meant to be comparable. They do not dumb down the English in the undisclosed test forms, that is a really silly notion. If that were the case, how would scores be comparable for admissions?
See above. Unless you have any evidence to support it, your conspiracy theory is no better than mine. I hope you understand at that when trying to talk from your high horse.Your conspiracy theory about the international test forms being different and LSAC keeping them secret to hide something from people is ridiculous and known not to be the case, but you can continue to believe in an alternate reality if you want to continue try to find support for your incorrect theory.
Whether your view is that it requires more English than is needed to perform a particular specialty or more than is needed to succeed in law school makes no difference as to why your argument fails. Either point of view is just your opinion about what you believe is necessary or relevant to being successful in law school and/or as a lawyer.bilbaosan wrote:Either you're putting your own words into my mouth, or you've significantly misinterpreted what I said.Jeffort wrote: Dude, you are losing badly.
The main core to your position is that it is unfair for law schools to require/screen candidates based on skills and knowledge beyond the bare minimum needed to perform certain specialized lawyer work tasks, such as the specific types of lawyer work tasks you have been exposed to so far.
I have said the test is biased because it requires the applicant to know more English than is necessary to succeed in law school.
For you this requirement is not really a requirement because your baseline is supposed to be well above it anyway. I bet none of you guys study English just for LSAT.
For us who are not native speakers it is a significant requirement, because it requires you to pick up vocabulary in topics which are only relevant for LSAT (such as medieval poetry, biology or painting) but which are not that relevant for studying law.
You are getting snippy now and giving attitude because I don't agree with you. Drop the attitude please, I'm being very patient with you and explaining things very clearly to help you get past your misconceptions.bilbaosan wrote:I would really appreciate if you focus on argument, as comments like above add nothing to the discussion. Not that it bothers me, but it makes it harder to take what you are saying seriously. I hope I'm not asking too much.Jeffort wrote: You are really grasping at straws trying to find support for your argument.
You just said it yourself above - for example, by adjusting the curve, making it less generous.The LSAT test forms administered internationally to people taking it to apply to a N American ABA law school are the same standardized LSAT that is administered in N America locations, just a different test form with different questions, no different than the June test in America being a different test form than the October test.
The test-forms administered internationally conform to the exact same test specifications since scores are meant to be comparable. They do not dumb down the English in the undisclosed test forms, that is a really silly notion. If that were the case, how would scores be comparable for admissions?
Then it is possible to have difficult questions written even in a very simple English. Look at June 2007 test S2 Q17, LsatQA assigns difficulty 4 to it but the English in the question is fairly simple.
And of course there are other possibilities. Here, for example panman36 provides at least one explanation - the easier RC is compensated by more difficult games, so the overall test difficulty stays the same.
See above. Unless you have any evidence to support it, your conspiracy theory is no better than mine. I hope you understand at that when trying to talk from your high horse.Your conspiracy theory about the international test forms being different and LSAC keeping them secret to hide something from people is ridiculous and known not to be the case, but you can continue to believe in an alternate reality if you want to continue try to find support for your incorrect theory.
And I appreciate that. It is just those kinds of comments essentially waste your good efforts, as it is hard to consider seriously someone who tries to speak from authority to a complete stranger.Jeffort wrote: You are getting snippy now and giving attitude because I don't agree with you. Drop the attitude please, I'm being very patient with you and explaining things very clearly to help you get past your misconceptions.
That would be a good point if it was something important. But it is not that important - it will be completely over in four days, and I'll forget about it forever.To put a rest to your idea about something different going on with internationally administered test-forms, just email LSAC and ask them about your theory.
No, I'll pass on that. Otherwise I'll get 180 and those Yale people would force me there, and I absolutely hate the CT weather.If you want to improve your LSAT score, stop crying about the test being unfair because you don't see the connection of certain skills tested by the LSAT to law school success.
Yeah, I'm not worried about this.bilbaosan wrote:
No, I'll pass on that. Otherwise I'll get 180 and those Yale people would force me there, and I absolutely hate the CT weather.