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

[anteater1]

OK so since I took us off topic with Mensa and AA, let me lead us back.

People say that this site usually predicts a curve one LOWER than the actual. So do you think the actual curve wil be 13, one higher than what the above poll is predicting?

I think it'll be 12 or 13. Was definitely not an easy test. I wish we could know the curve. The LSAC really is douchey in holding back things that they don't have to. They could easily give us back a section by section break down and the curve while keeping the test unpublished.

I'm of the opposite camp, I thought it was one of the easiest LSAT's in the past 3 years. If I had to guess I think the curve is -10.

[anteater1]

YES MORE CAT PICTURES!!!!

[rich_4]

[bernaldiaz]

[anteater1]

[bernaldiaz]

[RodionRaskolnikov]

OK so since I took us off topic with Mensa and AA, let me lead us back.

People say that this site usually predicts a curve one LOWER than the actual. So do you think the actual curve wil be 13, one higher than what the above poll is predicting?

I think it'll be 12 or 13. Was definitely not an easy test. I wish we could know the curve. The LSAC really is douchey in holding back things that they don't have to. They could easily give us back a section by section break down and the curve while keeping the test unpublished.

Why exactly does LSAC make feb test undisclosed?? I never understood why...

My guess would be because they're running out of tests. If you think about it, LSAT used to test one experimental section every test, meaning that it would have to administer 4 tests in order to end up with 4 sections (a new test) that has been experimented and thus received a coonversion table. But, if it takes 4 tests to get one new one, they eventually have to run out of new tests. So, to compensate, lately they have started to give different experimental sections to different peeople. You may get reading, I may get LR and the other may get games. But, by splitting up the experimentals among test takers, they are ruining their experiment since the one experimental section would only be experimented on a small portion of people but later when made into a test would be administered to a larger group (all the test takers).

So..

I think they then, as I would, make one test all experimental to compensate for the lack of new test. Each section is an "experimental" (never taken before) section. They have gotten so good at making the test that they know the questions will be good lsat questions but, to avoid people who will write in and ask about certain questions or debate over answers (to make sure they don't get caught with a screwed up LSAT exam where they made a remarkable amount of mistakes due to them not experimenting it first) they don't disclose it. People then forget the questions since they aren't allowed to talk about them and they don't know anything except their score. Then, they can take specific questions from the 5 sections they experimented in Feb and mix and match to form new sections or even reuse sections later on (they'll do that with one anyway).

[bernaldiaz]

Seriously though, that Mommy cat was mean.

[Betharl]

I think this warrants a meaningful discussion.

You describe Mensa as "an organization that exists solely to recognize and celebrate the accomplishment of having scored well on some random standardized test."

This is patently false. I don't doubt that its your perception of Mensa; however your perception is simply not reflective of reality in this case.

Mensa is engaged in various philanthropic endeavors such as multiple scholarship programs, k-12 outreach (I was in GATE throughout grade school and my class had 2 "Mensa Mentors" who visited with the class once a week, providing free tutoring and coaching), the publication of several journals and support for local chapters. Local chapters themselves engage in various activities that benefit not only their members but the community as a whole.

So now that we've cleared that up there are still numerous problems with your contentions..

1. Why do you believe interviewers are aware of Mensa membership requirements?
2. You don't "get" why someone would join Mensa because you have an absurd perception as to what it actually is.
3. AFAIK most reputable honor societies do require an application process that more often than not entails paying some sort of fee.

It seems to me that the bulk of the disdain for Mensa stems from a mis-perception of what it and its members actually do. To be sure, there are of course people who join strictly for the card and what they believe to be bragging rights; however I don't know why that image has proliferated and I remain confused as to why a person would ever go beyond simply OVERLOOKING something like Mensa to the point of considering an applicant in a bad light because of it.

Who knows, maybe there is a strong correlation between gunners and Mensa members

THIS! And I think SOME people here are against others who want to join Mensa because we are all going to apply to law school in or about the same cycle and it would be bad for them if we joined Mensa, put it on our resume, but they didn't because their scores weren't high enough.

Saying don't join Mensa and putting it on your resume is tacky/douchy is like saying joining Phi Beta Kappa and putting it on your resume/app is tacky/douchy.

I just saw these posts, so I am getting us back on the Mensa train (sorry). This will probably be it for me, if not, I guess Finally Going and I can take it to PMs, lol.

I see what FG is saying, but RR, I certainly don’t agree with you. I think most people here understand your resume is not a very important factor in law school admissions, so I doubt they are jealous over whatever slight benefit putting Mensa on your already mostly irrelevant resume might have. It is certainly not my motivation, I am Mensa qualified, and hopefully twice over once I get my Feb score!

Finally Going- You say I am wrong that Mensa is mainly about bragging about a standardized test score, but both Bernaldiaz and I more or less immediately arrived at that conclusion when you mentioned Mensa, and it seems MConchis also holds a negative view. So, ostensibly, this perception is not a rare one. So let me ask you, what matters when someone is reading your resume, their perception or reality? Are you willing to risk that the person reviewing your resume will make the same “mistake” I made (I’m still not ready to concede that Mensa is not mainly about bragging, even if I am letting that go for now).

As to the 3 points you listed.

1. -I think if they know about Mensa, they will know about the requirements and have the same negative view I have of Mensa, or just not care. Reasons for not caring would include not placing much emphasis on standardized tests scores or realizing everyone they are interviewing is most likely Mensa qualified regardless of whether they put it on their resume (I suspect most people, although admittedly not all, interviewing for Big Law or other prestigious legal employment meet Mensa qualifications). In either case, it does not help you and could only hurt.
-If they don’t know about Mensa and don’t ask you about it, it’s just filler. If they don’t know about it and ask you, you better be ready to convincingly articulate why it’s not just an organization for bragging about test scores. I contend you may have trouble doing this depending on the person, but even if you don’t, I still think they are likely to not care.
-The remaining possibilities are that they will know about Mensa and react favorably, or they will not know about Mensa and react favorably when you tell them, but I think the neutral-negative scenarios described above are more likely than either of these scenarios. I also think a negative reaction would be far more damaging than a positive reaction would be beneficial.

2.You may be right, but see point about perception above.

3.RR mentioned Phi Kappa Phi, I am in that. I didn’t apply, I think they just said, “hey, you’re in, send us money,” and I did. Regardless, it’s not that important to the overall argument.

Basically, I just don’t think the potential benefits of having it on your resume outweigh the potential cons, even if those cons stem mainly from a misperception (which once again, I am not admitting, lol).

On a side note, I did not realize they actually gave you a card when you joined and some people carry that around. You have to admit THAT is douchey, even if membership in Mensa isn’t!

[bernaldiaz]

Seriously I have so many fucking cat pictures saved on Reddit.

[LSATDecimator]

OK so since I took us off topic with Mensa and AA, let me lead us back.

People say that this site usually predicts a curve one LOWER than the actual. So do you think the actual curve wil be 13, one higher than what the above poll is predicting?

I think it'll be 12 or 13. Was definitely not an easy test. I wish we could know the curve. The LSAC really is douchey in holding back things that they don't have to. They could easily give us back a section by section break down and the curve while keeping the test unpublished.

Why exactly does LSAC make feb test undisclosed?? I never understood why...

So they can reuse sections in future non-February administrations. In other words, you could be taking the June 2014 LSAT and see one (possibly more, although unlikely) section which you just had in February. It is a cost/time saving method utilized by LSAC to save them from having to develop an entirely new test. They may have other reasons as well, but I am not familiar with what these could be.

On the issue of LSAT correlation to IQ, the following is a link that is rather informative, although it is not the correlation chart I was originally looking for.

--LinkRemoved--

[wakka!]

I think this warrants a meaningful discussion.

You describe Mensa as "an organization that exists solely to recognize and celebrate the accomplishment of having scored well on some random standardized test."

This is patently false. I don't doubt that its your perception of Mensa; however your perception is simply not reflective of reality in this case.

Mensa is engaged in various philanthropic endeavors such as multiple scholarship programs, k-12 outreach (I was in GATE throughout grade school and my class had 2 "Mensa Mentors" who visited with the class once a week, providing free tutoring and coaching), the publication of several journals and support for local chapters. Local chapters themselves engage in various activities that benefit not only their members but the community as a whole.

So now that we've cleared that up there are still numerous problems with your contentions..

1. Why do you believe interviewers are aware of Mensa membership requirements?
2. You don't "get" why someone would join Mensa because you have an absurd perception as to what it actually is.
3. AFAIK most reputable honor societies do require an application process that more often than not entails paying some sort of fee.

It seems to me that the bulk of the disdain for Mensa stems from a mis-perception of what it and its members actually do. To be sure, there are of course people who join strictly for the card and what they believe to be bragging rights; however I don't know why that image has proliferated and I remain confused as to why a person would ever go beyond simply OVERLOOKING something like Mensa to the point of considering an applicant in a bad light because of it.

Who knows, maybe there is a strong correlation between gunners and Mensa members

THIS! And I think SOME people here are against others who want to join Mensa because we are all going to apply to law school in or about the same cycle and it would be bad for them if we joined Mensa, put it on our resume, but they didn't because their scores weren't high enough.

Saying don't join Mensa and putting it on your resume is tacky/douchy is like saying joining Phi Beta Kappa and putting it on your resume/app is tacky/douchy.

I just saw these posts, so I am getting us back on the Mensa train (sorry). This will probably be it for me, if not, I guess Finally Going and I can take it to PMs, lol.

I see what FG is saying, but RR, I certainly don’t agree with you. I think most people here understand your resume is not a very important factor in law school admissions, so I doubt they are jealous over whatever slight benefit putting Mensa on your already mostly irrelevant resume might have. It is certainly not my motivation, I am Mensa qualified, and hopefully twice over once I get my Feb score!

Finally Going- You say I am wrong that Mensa is mainly about bragging about a standardized test score, but both Bernaldiaz and I more or less immediately arrived at that conclusion when you mentioned Mensa, and it seems MConchis also holds a negative view. So, ostensibly, this perception is not a rare one. So let me ask you, what matters when someone is reading your resume, their perception or reality? Are you willing to risk that the person reviewing your resume will make the same “mistake” I made (I’m still not ready to concede that Mensa is not mainly about bragging, even if I am letting that go for now).

As to the 3 points you listed.

1. -I think if they know about Mensa, they will know about the requirements and have the same negative view I have of Mensa, or just not care. Reasons for not caring would include not placing much emphasis on standardized tests scores or realizing everyone they are interviewing is most likely Mensa qualified regardless of whether they put it on their resume (I suspect most people, although admittedly not all, interviewing for Big Law or other prestigious legal employment meet Mensa qualifications). In either case, it does not help you and could only hurt.
-If they don’t know about Mensa and don’t ask you about it, it’s just filler. If they don’t know about it and ask you, you better be ready to convincingly articulate why it’s not just an organization for bragging about test scores. I contend you may have trouble doing this depending on the person, but even if you don’t, I still think they are likely to not care.
-The remaining possibilities are that they will know about Mensa and react favorably, or they will not know about Mensa and react favorably when you tell them, but I think the neutral-negative scenarios described above are more likely than either of these scenarios. I also think a negative reaction would be far more damaging than a positive reaction would be beneficial.

2.You may be right, but see point about perception above.

3.RR mentioned Phi Kappa Phi, I am in that. I didn’t apply, I think they just said, “hey, you’re in, send us money,” and I did. Regardless, it’s not that important to the overall argument.

Basically, I just don’t think the potential benefits of having it on your resume outweigh the potential cons, even if those cons stem mainly from a misperception (which once again, I am not admitting, lol).

On a side note, I did not realize they actually gave you a card when you joined and some people carry that around. You have to admit THAT is douchey, even if membership in Mensa isn’t!

[LSATDecimator]

Seriously though, that Mommy cat was mean.

Who's your avatar, Hugo Grotius?

[Sciamach]

^^^ hahaha! me neither...

[bernaldiaz]

Seriously though, that Mommy cat was mean.

Who's your avatar, Hugo Grotius?

Believe it or not, my avatar is Bernal Diaz haha

When I was making my profile, I had no idea what to my name should be. I just looked around for the first name I saw, Kaser Soze-ing that shit. I was reading "Conquest of Mexico" at the time, written by Bernal DIaz who was on the same voyage as Hernan Cortez so I just picked that as my name. I figured the avatar should match the name.

[noleknight16]

Today is the first legit day it could happen.

Have fun everyone

[yesman2380]

Today is the first legit day it could happen.

Have fun everyone

what makes it the first legit day?

[noleknight16]

Today is the first legit day it could happen.

Have fun everyone

what makes it the first legit day?

19 days is (in my opinion) the first realistic turnaround time for scores. Obviously Friday or Monday are more likely, but today is the first day it wouldn't surprise me to see scores come out.

[ampersand5]

I think they then, as I would, make one test all experimental to compensate for the lack of new test. Each section is an "experimental" (never taken before) section. They have gotten so good at making the test that they know the questions will be good lsat questions but, to avoid people who will write in and ask about certain questions or debate over answers (to make sure they don't get caught with a screwed up LSAT exam where they made a remarkable amount of mistakes due to them not experimenting it first) they don't disclose it. People then forget the questions since they aren't allowed to talk about them and they don't know anything except their score. Then, they can take specific questions from the 5 sections they experimented in Feb and mix and match to form new sections or even reuse sections later on (they'll do that with one anyway).

no. you are 100% wrong. hence why you will find about 10 different experimental sections that test takers had, while 4 ones that everybody had. Moreover, those 4 sections had all been given before. Don't believe me, go google some questions and see people talking about those sections years ago.

[ampersand5]

I'm of the opposite camp, I thought it was one of the easiest LSAT's in the past 3 years. If I had to guess I think the curve is -10.

I thought one of the arguments sections was easier than normal. One was much more difficult (the one with mars). I thought games were easier than most of the recent tests however many people found them to be very difficult. I think this stems from the fact there were no easy games and one of which was "weird" leading many people to screw up. This is very favourable because games is by far the most important section when defining the curve. I cannot judge RC.

so overall, I thought it was a very fair test however in recent history, the best indicator of the curve has been the TLS poll (-1), which seems to make sense in this instance.

[rich_4]

Friday. Scores. Now.

[941law]

Friday. Scores. Now.

about 30 hours from now imo

[rich_4]

Friday. Scores. Now.

about 30 hours from now imo

I would take Saturday over Monday. Nice avatar, btw.

[941law]

I would take Saturday over Monday. Nice avatar, btw.

Saturday is possible, but I gotta figure if they can get it done on a Friday they will.

[LSATDecimator]

Seriously though, that Mommy cat was mean.

Who's your avatar, Hugo Grotius?

Believe it or not, my avatar is Bernal Diaz haha

When I was making my profile, I had no idea what to my name should be. I just looked around for the first name I saw, Kaser Soze-ing that shit. I was reading "Conquest of Mexico" at the time, written by Bernal DIaz who was on the same voyage as Hernan Cortez so I just picked that as my name. I figured the avatar should match the name.

Interesting, yet he does bare a striking resemblance to Grotius. Hugo had an estimated IQ of 200, thus his LSAT score would have likely been quite high, as I'm sure yours will be. Maybe we'll meet at Harvard next year -- I'm wearing my H-bomb t-shirt now for added luck. Best of luck to you as well. It is likely that none of us is so gifted that we do not also need a portion of good luck as well.