Inappropriate June 2012 Curve Forum

[phillykid]

Rodion can you please explain how good text takers got swindled but bad test takers got a boost from extra space?

Sure. I'l use a golf example. Suppose there are two golfers: Tiger Woods and some random person who barely played golf. When they go to play golf, Tiger Woods has enough expertise and practice to see nearly every minute detail of the game. Is the wind too fast for 45 degree shot? Is the ground too steep to put the ball a foot to the left? And so on. The person who barely played doesn't see those details. He/She perhaps just sees the ball, the club, and the hole far off in the distance. When they hit the ball, both get a hole in one. But, Tiger Woods has seen all the intricacies that went into it. He took the wind, ground level, crowd noise, type of club, club weight, amount of sunlight, and everything that might affect his swing into consideration and by dealing with all those he got the hole in one. But, the guy who barely played golf just swung and hit the ball. He didn't even know any of the things that went into it. He simply swung and hit a hole in one. Now, if one of the things Tiger Woods takes into consideration unexpectedly changes, Tiger Woods will notice it far more than the guy who barely plays golf. It will alter his gameplay, might even fluster him, while the latter guy doesn't flinch. The same goes with good LSAT test takers who see far more little intricacies in the test than a normal test taker. They're the ones who notice the key words, the phrasing, and the extra space much more than the guy who just goes in to take the LSAT but is relatively average.

LOL as a highly competitive golfer I am ashamed of this analogy.

[humbugger]

An even better analogy: You've practiced golf on different courses many times, each with hazards around the fairway. You show up for a tournament on a new course and instead of trees, brush, and ponds at the out-of-bounds, there is only smooth, flat grass. Everything else is the same.

Also this:

it could hurt people who have testing anxiety

[RodionRaskolnikov]

Rodion can you please explain how good text takers got swindled but bad test takers got a boost from extra space?

Sure. I'l use a golf example. Suppose there are two golfers: Tiger Woods and some random person who barely played golf. When they go to play golf, Tiger Woods has enough expertise and practice to see nearly every minute detail of the game. Is the wind too fast for 45 degree shot? Is the ground too steep to put the ball a foot to the left? And so on. The person who barely played doesn't see those details. He/She perhaps just sees the ball, the club, and the hole far off in the distance. When they hit the ball, both get a hole in one. But, Tiger Woods has seen all the intricacies that went into it. He took the wind, ground level, crowd noise, type of club, club weight, amount of sunlight, and everything that might affect his swing into consideration and by dealing with all those he got the hole in one. But, the guy who barely played golf just swung and hit the ball. He didn't even know any of the things that went into it. He simply swung and hit a hole in one. Now, if one of the things Tiger Woods takes into consideration unexpectedly changes, Tiger Woods will notice it far more than the guy who barely plays golf. It will alter his gameplay, might even fluster him, while the latter guy doesn't flinch. The same goes with good LSAT test takers who see far more little intricacies in the test than a normal test taker. They're the ones who notice the key words, the phrasing, and the extra space much more than the guy who just goes in to take the LSAT but is relatively average.

LOL as a highly competitive golfer I am ashamed of this analogy.

LOL I don't play golf. Sorry if that was horrible. I just assumed the weight of the club, the sunlight, and all those might be the things you'd consider.

[phillykid]

Rodion can you please explain how good text takers got swindled but bad test takers got a boost from extra space?

Sure. I'l use a golf example. Suppose there are two golfers: Tiger Woods and some random person who barely played golf. When they go to play golf, Tiger Woods has enough expertise and practice to see nearly every minute detail of the game. Is the wind too fast for 45 degree shot? Is the ground too steep to put the ball a foot to the left? And so on. The person who barely played doesn't see those details. He/She perhaps just sees the ball, the club, and the hole far off in the distance. When they hit the ball, both get a hole in one. But, Tiger Woods has seen all the intricacies that went into it. He took the wind, ground level, crowd noise, type of club, club weight, amount of sunlight, and everything that might affect his swing into consideration and by dealing with all those he got the hole in one. But, the guy who barely played golf just swung and hit the ball. He didn't even know any of the things that went into it. He simply swung and hit a hole in one. Now, if one of the things Tiger Woods takes into consideration unexpectedly changes, Tiger Woods will notice it far more than the guy who barely plays golf. It will alter his gameplay, might even fluster him, while the latter guy doesn't flinch. The same goes with good LSAT test takers who see far more little intricacies in the test than a normal test taker. They're the ones who notice the key words, the phrasing, and the extra space much more than the guy who just goes in to take the LSAT but is relatively average.

LOL as a highly competitive golfer I am ashamed of this analogy.

LOL I don't play golf. Sorry if that was horrible. I just assumed the weight of the club, the sunlight, and all those might be the things you'd consider.

Lol gotcha. To equate that to LSAT strategy that's like saying the light in the room (sunlight in golf analogy) directly affects your decision making on a certain question. I.e. there's more light than normal, so I'm picking A instead of B!

Or I must think about this pencil weight before choosing the correct answer

[RodionRaskolnikov]

Sure. I'l use a golf example. Suppose there are two golfers: Tiger Woods and some random person who barely played golf. When they go to play golf, Tiger Woods has enough expertise and practice to see nearly every minute detail of the game. Is the wind too fast for 45 degree shot? Is the ground too steep to put the ball a foot to the left? And so on. The person who barely played doesn't see those details. He/She perhaps just sees the ball, the club, and the hole far off in the distance. When they hit the ball, both get a hole in one. But, Tiger Woods has seen all the intricacies that went into it. He took the wind, ground level, crowd noise, type of club, club weight, amount of sunlight, and everything that might affect his swing into consideration and by dealing with all those he got the hole in one. But, the guy who barely played golf just swung and hit the ball. He didn't even know any of the things that went into it. He simply swung and hit a hole in one. Now, if one of the things Tiger Woods takes into consideration unexpectedly changes, Tiger Woods will notice it far more than the guy who barely plays golf. It will alter his gameplay, might even fluster him, while the latter guy doesn't flinch. The same goes with good LSAT test takers who see far more little intricacies in the test than a normal test taker. They're the ones who notice the key words, the phrasing, and the extra space much more than the guy who just goes in to take the LSAT but is relatively average.

LOL as a highly competitive golfer I am ashamed of this analogy.[/quote]

LOL I don't play golf. Sorry if that was horrible. I just assumed the weight of the club, the sunlight, and all those might be the things you'd consider.[/quote]

Lol gotcha. To equate that to LSAT strategy that's like saying the light in the room (sunlight in golf analogy) directly affects your decision making on a certain question. I.e. there's more light than normal, so I'm picking A instead of B!

Or I must think about this pencil weight before choosing the correct answer[/quote]

Got it. I guess I should've said that as the golfer swung, the tree fell and revealed more room for the ball to go. It doesn't matter. LSAC will do what they want to do.

[sjwest]

it could hurt people who have testing anxiety

<-- Yo.

[Mal Reynolds]

ITT: People find ways to regionalize their impending low scores.

[fronkman]

ITT: People find ways to regionalize their impending low scores.

rationalize?

[Mal Reynolds]

ITT: People find ways to regionalize their impending low scores.

rationalize?

My iPhone apparently thinks regionalize is more appropriate

[Nova]

ITT: People find ways to regionalize their impending low scores.

ITT: Poster blames their AR fail on blank space

[fronkman]

ITT: People find ways to regionalize their impending low scores.

rationalize?

My iPhone apparently thinks regionalize is more appropriate

Ok, then I blame my bad score on the massive amounts of empty space here in the midwest. Your move Siri.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

ITT: People find ways to regionalize their impending low scores.

rationalize?

My iPhone apparently thinks regionalize is more appropriate

ITT: above poster blames his bad spelling/english on his phone.

[ookoshi]

Yeah, I don't understand the complaint at all. If one's mental stability was so precarious as to have been affected by LSAC being more generous than usual with white space with any degree of significance, shouldn't one have had a complete emotional breakdown the first time someone sneezed or coughed, or the first time you hit a question you weren't sure of the answer to?

[TERS]

ITT: above poster blames his bad spelling/english on his phone.

Quit while you're behind.

[fronkman]

Yeah, I don't understand the complaint at all. If one's mental stability was so precarious as to have been affected by LSAC being more generous than usual with white space with any degree of significance, shouldn't one have had a complete emotional breakdown the first time someone sneezed or coughed, or the first time you hit a question you weren't sure of the answer to?

I think we covered all this already, and everyone was happy and this thread was about to die.

[Bildungsroman]

it could hurt people who have testing anxiety

<-- Yo.

If your test anxiety is that bad then law school isn't for you.

[TERS]

it could hurt people who have testing anxiety

<-- Yo.

If your test anxiety is that bad then law school isn't for you.

You've graduated from law school?

[LexLeon]

Lol people still seem mad that LSAC actually gave more room for logic games. Lol just lol at thinking this somehow means you deserve a more lenient curve. Wishful thinking.

Why would it be wishful thinking? I don't see the necessary relationship between more space and easier LG section.

It's wishful thinking to tell yourself LSAC will somehow compensate you for its own favor in removing a functional impediment. Are you going to ask for more points if they switch to a thicker paper that erases better and allow for highlighting?

What doesn't this guy understand about the functional advantage of the close proximity of sketches to initial conditions and subsequent questions?

[VasaVasori]

.

[jjrialva]

The extra space wasn't beneficial in my case but the negative effects were not substantial. I had to quickly make a decision on where to write, go back a forth with my head and that was about it.

It's hard for me to believe the people at the LSAC equate this test base on a unchangeable predetermine statistical analysis that has no room for a tweak if they ultimately think is fair. I have read they don't force a curve but I would think they will definitely notice if there is substantial (experts will know whats substantial and is not necessarily a huge difference one might think) difference between past experimental sections scores and distribution compared to this one and thus make appropriate adjustment.


I'll add that better than having a computer and the best experts equating each test, the LSAC should use nicer paper on their tests and find ways control the environment in which we take the tests. There is too much variance for such an important test. If money is the issue I'll bet people are willing to pay $50 more just to have the assurance that on test day they won't have any surprises like a missing proctor (that's what happened to me) or proctors that call time before it is due etc... Why hasn't the LSAC given the proctors standardized electronic clocks? Why do proctors have the choice between their wrist watches and electronic watches? I have heard of professors that give more time to their students in standardized test specifically 5 more minutes so it happens..

(excuse my weird English)

[VasaVasori]

.

[jjrialva]

Why hasn't the LSAC given the proctors standardized electronic clocks?

Don't they? My proctors said that they were using the two watches that LSAC gave them, and set one to 30 minutes and one to 35 minutes so they would beep after the amount of time elapsed. We knew that the first beep was the five minute warning, and the second one was pencils down. Or was this just my super awesome super prepared proctors?

Really? I read from the LSAC somewhere the day before they where not oblige to use electronic watches. Mine was using his cellphone and he definitely shout out the 5 min warning on the RC before it was due.

I also read on that same document one could bring a wooden plank to the test center if desks were small. But they could only be used if the proctor allows it. This is the kind of discretion that does not promote a standardized environment.

[Clearly]

Why hasn't the LSAC given the proctors standardized electronic clocks?

Don't they? My proctors said that they were using the two watches that LSAC gave them, and set one to 30 minutes and one to 35 minutes so they would beep after the amount of time elapsed. We knew that the first beep was the five minute warning, and the second one was pencils down. Or was this just my super awesome super prepared proctors?

Really? I read from the LSAC somewhere the day before they where not oblige to use electronic watches. Mine was using his cellphone and he definitely shout out the 5 min warning on the RC before it was due.

I also read on that same document one could bring a wooden plank to the test center if desks were small. But they could only be used if the proctor allows it. This is the kind of discretion that does not promote a standardized environment.

LOL Does the wood plank have to fit inside the plastic bag? I'm surprised they didn't specify the species of wood allowed.

[bobbyh1919]

The extra space wasn't beneficial in my case but the negative effects were not substantial. I had to quickly make a decision on where to write, go back a forth with my head and that was about it.

It's hard for me to believe the people at the LSAC equate this test base on a unchangeable predetermine statistical analysis that has no room for a tweak if they ultimately think is fair. I have read they don't force a curve but I would think they will definitely notice if there is substantial (experts will know whats substantial and is not necessarily a huge difference one might think) difference between past experimental sections scores and distribution compared to this one and thus make appropriate adjustment.


I'll add that better than having a computer and the best experts equating each test, the LSAC should use nicer paper on their tests and find ways control the environment in which we take the tests. There is too much variance for such an important test. If money is the issue I'll bet people are willing to pay $50 more just to have the assurance that on test day they won't have any surprises like a missing proctor (that's what happened to me) or proctors that call time before it is due etc... Why hasn't the LSAC given the proctors standardized electronic clocks? Why do proctors have the choice between their wrist watches and electronic watches? I have heard of professors that give more time to their students in standardized test specifically 5 more minutes so it happens..

(excuse my weird English)

I agree with a lot of this. I'm not sure why they insist on paper that rips when you try to erase on it and can barely be highlighted. It kind of bugged me when I heard my friends saying how they had their own personal table to work at and I was sitting at one of the fold out desks (and not one that accommodates lefties very well!). I've seen some horror stories on this board about proctors not behaving properly. Nevertheless, I'll say it again. Good test takers are ones whose skills are so good that none of this phases them. Hope for the best on test day, but prepare for the worst.

[jjrialva]

I said "wooden" plank but it does not necessarily have to be wooden I guess. I think it was stated in the 4 extra pages with instructions and disclaimer that said the LSAC does not guarantee optimal site conditions for testing. It stated that for small desk, specially does found in auditoriums, the test taker may bring and use a plank only if the proctor allowed it meaning the proctor felt it was not a distraction nor an interruption to other test takers.

Why hasn't the LSAC given the proctors standardized electronic clocks?

Don't they? My proctors said that they were using the two watches that LSAC gave them, and set one to 30 minutes and one to 35 minutes so they would beep after the amount of time elapsed. We knew that the first beep was the five minute warning, and the second one was pencils down. Or was this just my super awesome super prepared proctors?

Really? I read from the LSAC somewhere the day before they where not oblige to use electronic watches. Mine was using his cellphone and he definitely shout out the 5 min warning on the RC before it was due.

I also read on that same document one could bring a wooden plank to the test center if desks were small. But they could only be used if the proctor allows it. This is the kind of discretion that does not promote a standardized environment.

LOL Does the wood plank have to fit inside the plastic bag? I'm surprised they didn't specify the species of wood allowed.

So bobbyh1919 I guess you could have brought a plank to the test site. The maximum dimension were around 16in by 20in something like that..