The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

Hand · Post by **Hand** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:46 pm

ErgoSum wrote:
hereisonehand wrote:The basic idea is this: less test takers smaller applicant pool easier to be admitted to desired institution
Interdasting.

Looks like we will all be seeing each other in HYS next fall

Obviously

Colonel_funkadunk · Post by **Colonel_funkadunk** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:51 pm

hereisonehand wrote:
GreenTee wrote:Bill's been around for a while too.
Turns out Bill used to care about proper spelling/punctuation and such, fascinating!

OUTED

schmelling · Post by **schmelling** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:56 pm

Post removed.

Gray · Post by **Gray** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:56 pm

Hand · Post by **Hand** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:57 pm

schmelling wrote:Also, fewer takers means fewer applicants have any given score, making it harder for schools to maintain their median LSAT while keeping class size constant.

find the flaw

schmelling · Post by **schmelling** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:59 pm

Post removed.

hetookmetoamovie · Post by **hetookmetoamovie** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:00 pm

ErgoSum wrote: Uniformed LSAT taker

+

--ImageRemoved--

Hand · Post by **Hand** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:01 pm

schmelling wrote:
hereisonehand wrote:
schmelling wrote:Also, fewer takers means fewer applicants have any given score, making it harder for schools to maintain their median LSAT while keeping class size constant.
find the flaw
Please do?

The test is pre-scaled; the distribution of scores of the population can thus vary (viz., the percentage of 170+ scorers can go up even if the total # of test takers decreases)

ETA: not saying that the most likely outcome isn't one in which there are fewer people w/ a given score, just that it doesn't need to be the case

Colonel_funkadunk · Post by **Colonel_funkadunk** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:03 pm

schmelling wrote:
hereisonehand wrote:
schmelling wrote:Also, fewer takers means fewer applicants have any given score, making it harder for schools to maintain their median LSAT while keeping class size constant.
find the flaw
Please do?

Hmmmm. Fails to consider that only 140 scorers not taking it are the reason for the decline.

However generally, I don't think that is a flawed statement

Edit: Both statements scooped by the hand the douchenozzle

Colonel_funkadunk · Post by **Colonel_funkadunk** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:03 pm

smccgrey wrote:
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
hereisonehand wrote:
GreenTee wrote:Bill's been around for a while too.
Turns out Bill used to care about proper spelling/punctuation and such, fascinating!

OUTED
I love this, because it means that there was a point in time that Bill, exhausted with all the bullshit, just gave up on punctuation.

Or got in a bad accident that fucked up his cerebral cortex and lost the ability to period

Hand · Post by **Hand** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:05 pm

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
smccgrey wrote: I love this, because it means that there was a point in time that Bill, exhausted with all the bullshit, just gave up on punctuation.
Or got in a bad accident that fucked up his cerebral cortex and lost the ability to period

yet somehow retaining the ability to 180 on the lsat... now that would be badass

schmelling · Post by **schmelling** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:06 pm

Post removed.

Hand · Post by **Hand** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:06 pm

hereisonehand wrote:
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
smccgrey wrote: I love this, because it means that there was a point in time that Bill, exhausted with all the bullshit, just gave up on punctuation.
Or got in a bad accident that fucked up his cerebral cortex and lost the ability to period
yet somehow retaining the ability to 180 on the lsat... now that would be badass

so... WHAT HAPPENED BILL?

Colonel_funkadunk · Post by **Colonel_funkadunk** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:07 pm

hereisonehand wrote:
hereisonehand wrote:
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
smccgrey wrote: I love this, because it means that there was a point in time that Bill, exhausted with all the bullshit, just gave up on punctuation.
Or got in a bad accident that fucked up his cerebral cortex and lost the ability to period
yet somehow retaining the ability to 180 on the lsat... now that would be badass
so... WHAT HAPPENED BILL?

BILL THE THREAD WANTS TO KNOW

Colonel_funkadunk · Post by **Colonel_funkadunk** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:07 pm

hetookmetoamovie wrote:
ErgoSum wrote: Uniformed LSAT taker

+

--ImageRemoved--

Will you make these movie please
Thanks

sfoglia · Post by **sfoglia** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:08 pm

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
sfoglia wrote:
Dirigo wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:Guess what? Sept LSAT registrations are down!
Thought I'd pass on some Spivey knowledge that he posted today.
Looks like we are in store for an awesome cycle.
Doesn't that mean less ~~idiots~~ applicants who have not prepared for the LSAT and thus encourage a gracious curve?
The curve was decided a long time ago not dependent on who is taking that administration unfortunately

I'm sorry, what? It's not a curve, then! Like, why don't they just not make tests that are more difficult than others?

Hand · Post by **Hand** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:08 pm

schmelling wrote: It can, but it isn't likely to deviate too far off the percentile mark. Percentiles reflect results from the past 3 years and from my understanding they are relatively constant.

see this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... lying.html

Colonel_funkadunk · Post by **Colonel_funkadunk** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:14 pm

sfoglia wrote: I'm sorry, what? It's not a curve, then! Like, why don't they just not make tests that are more difficult than others?

Yea it doesn't really make sense. I'm sure someone else probably has a better explanation

schmelling · Post by **schmelling** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:16 pm

Post removed.

Hand · Post by **Hand** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:16 pm

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
sfoglia wrote: I'm sorry, what? It's not a curve, then! Like, why don't they just not make tests that are more difficult than others?
Yea it doesn't really make sense. I'm sure someone else probably has a better explanation

See here: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/wh ... -fact.html

Gray · Post by **Gray** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:17 pm

sfoglia · Post by **sfoglia** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:18 pm

smccgrey wrote: I love this, because it means that there was a point in time that Bill, exhausted with all the bullshit, just gave up on punctuation.

It really adds to his personality. I mean, look:

BillPackets wrote: I'm really hoping that we all get 2 b 1Ls next year cuz I want this thread to seamlessly transition to waiters to applicants to 1L 2L 3L etc etc

BillPackets wrote: It is my especial hope that we all do succeed in our endeavor to attend the finest of this nation's law school, so that we might continue to associate with one another here one the interweb conversational forum for the next three years to come.

Can we make this a game and shit where we take Bill's funniest posts and translate them into something a pretentious, tea-sipping Englishman might say?

sfoglia · Post by **sfoglia** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:20 pm

smccgrey wrote:
Colonel_funkadunk wrote:
sfoglia wrote: I'm sorry, what? It's not a curve, then! Like, why don't they just not make tests that are more difficult than others?
Yea it doesn't really make sense. I'm sure someone else probably has a better explanation
I think the idea is that it's about equally difficult to get a 170 on each exam. The exams that have demolished us emotionally (I'm looking at you, 62) have a generous scale.

Yes, but why don't they just not write tests that are unreasonably difficult, and drop the need for any curve all together?

Hand · Post by **Hand** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:20 pm

schmelling wrote:
hereisonehand wrote:
schmelling wrote: It can, but it isn't likely to deviate too far off the percentile mark. Percentiles reflect results from the past 3 years and from my understanding they are relatively constant.
see this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... lying.html

This doesn't necessarily come from more people scoring in the 170s, this a self selected sample of people who chose to apply to law school. For years the percentage of applicants who scored 170+ was declining, but it didn't reflect any drop in the percentage of takers who receive a 170+, only that those people were choosing not to apply. (this is all from knowledge I gleaned from spivey's thread, and I don't feel like looking for it now)

Fair enough - point remains, a drop in total # of takers doesn't guarantee a lower # of top scorers. The changes are much less pronounced when you look at what percentile corresponds to what score but still you see a shift. Here's what my google-ing turned up for illustration: http://lawschooli.com/lsat-percentiles- ... 2005-2013/

Colonel_funkadunk · Post by **Colonel_funkadunk** » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:21 pm

sfoglia wrote:
smccgrey wrote: I love this, because it means that there was a point in time that Bill, exhausted with all the bullshit, just gave up on punctuation.
It really adds to his personality. I mean, look:

BillPackets wrote: I'm really hoping that we all get 2 b 1Ls next year cuz I want this thread to seamlessly transition to waiters to applicants to 1L 2L 3L etc etc

BillPackets wrote: It is my especial hope that we all do succeed in our endeavor to attend the finest of this nation's law school, so that we might continue to associate with one another here one the interweb conversational forum for the next three years to come.
Can we make this a game and shit where we take Bill's funniest posts and translate them into something a pretentious, tea-sipping Englishman might say?