For TLSers who get angry when people trivialize their score Forum

[dresden doll]

I studied for LSAT on my own. Total cost: under 150 dollars. Results: in my profile. Background: immigrant whose parents didn't finish college. There's intergenerational mobility for you.

Also, I'm at loss to comprehend the point of this thread.

[Nikrall]

No, its not. But it is helpful to get rid of some of the economic disparities that standardized testing helps to exacerbate.

So what do you think we should replace standardized testing with?

I didn't say we should replace it with anything. However if there weren't such huge economic disparities in this country, the economic effect of standardized testing would be significantly diminished. Hence the argument for a European social safety net type policies.

(1) Look up historic European unemployment rates
(2) Shit your pants
(3) Realize you can live off welfare despite unemployment
(4) Sleep easy while contributing little to the economic pie

1) Look up current European unemployment rates.
2) Look up current American unemployment rates.
3) Shit pants.
4) Change pants.
5) Look up U-6 American unemployment rate. Realize it is over 17%.
6) Shit pants again.
7) Change pants.
Realize that America has no safety net and if you lose your job, once unemployment runs out, you are fucked.
9) Shit pants yet again.

Good luck contributing to the economic pie when you can't get a job.

[KibblesAndVick]

I think that any real argument for the LSAT seriously being biased against the poor is not in the purchasing of prep materials, but in knowing that you should prep and how to prep.

Just spitballing, but I would think that poorer kids have less of a chance of finding something like TLS that will tell them how much better the PS bibles and real PT's are than taking fake PT's and using some of the really bad prep books out there. This just isn't the sort of thing you can get from the reviews page on Amazon.com.

People prepping with fake PT's probably won't score as high as people using real PT's.

Just a thought.

I completely agree that rich kids are more likely to find resources like this. But at the end of the day where do you draw the line between the haves being privileged and the have not's needed to take personal responsibility for their situation and betterment. The fact that they're less likely to find a resources doesn't mean the system is broken and somehow keeping them from finding it.

[Nikrall]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

This is where we first disagreed, my amnesiac, hallucinatory LSAT tutor of a TLS friend. You can't throw out bullshit like this unless you have a better way of increasing intergenerational mobility, and it's stupid to even start this argument without the acknowledgment that standardized testing has historically been a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility, and this is why it was introduced.

Shockingly, my point didn't originate from when you entered the conversation.

Notice that what I said is an assertion about the LSAT. Notice that this is different from saying that I have a solution of how to change it. I can point out the truth of something without having a 24 point plan of how to solve the issue I am pointing out.

[KibblesAndVick]

1) Look up current European unemployment rates.
2) Look up current American unemployment rates.
3) Shit pants.
4) Change pants.
5) Look up U-6 American unemployment rate. Realize it is over 17%.
6) Shit pants again.
7) Change pants.
Realize that America has no safety net and if you lose your job, once unemployment runs out, you are fucked.
9) Shit pants yet again.

Good luck contributing to the economic pie when you can't get a job.

The sample size of your economic data is quite formidable. Look up the Yankees score in the middle of the 5th inning and predict the franchise's future success.

[mallard]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

This is where we first disagreed, my amnesiac, hallucinatory LSAT tutor of a TLS friend. You can't throw out bullshit like this unless you have a better way of increasing intergenerational mobility, and it's stupid to even start this argument without the acknowledgment that standardized testing has historically been a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility, and this is why it was introduced.

Shockingly, my point didn't originate from when you entered the conversation.

Notice that what I said is an assertion about the LSAT. Notice that this is different from saying that I have a solution of how to change it. I can point out the truth of something without having a 24 point plan of how to solve the issue I am pointing out.

The point is that your sarcastic point was wrong. The LSAT is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

[rynabrius]

dresden_doll: Ironically, you uncovered the reason for this thread while questioning that one even exists. Namely, to brag about LSAT score long after it's relevant.





I RAWKED IT.

[Nikrall]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

This is where we first disagreed, my amnesiac, hallucinatory LSAT tutor of a TLS friend. You can't throw out bullshit like this unless you have a better way of increasing intergenerational mobility, and it's stupid to even start this argument without the acknowledgment that standardized testing has historically been a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility, and this is why it was introduced.

Shockingly, my point didn't originate from when you entered the conversation.

Notice that what I said is an assertion about the LSAT. Notice that this is different from saying that I have a solution of how to change it. I can point out the truth of something without having a 24 point plan of how to solve the issue I am pointing out.

The point is that your sarcastic point was wrong. The LSAT is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

I understand thats your point. So why the fuck are you babbling about how I would fix a problem you don't even believe exists?

[dresden doll]

Pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten into CCN if LSAT weren't part of the admissions picture. Standing alone, my TTT 4.0 lib arts GPA wasn't going to impress anyone.

[mallard]

I understand thats your point. So why the fuck are you babbling about how I would fix a problem you don't even believe exists?

Because when you say something isn't "a good way" to do something, it suggests that there exists a better way.

[Nikrall]

1) Look up current European unemployment rates.
2) Look up current American unemployment rates.
3) Shit pants.
4) Change pants.
5) Look up U-6 American unemployment rate. Realize it is over 17%.
6) Shit pants again.
7) Change pants.
Realize that America has no safety net and if you lose your job, once unemployment runs out, you are fucked.
9) Shit pants yet again.

Good luck contributing to the economic pie when you can't get a job.

The sample size of your economic data is quite formidable. Look up the Yankees score in the middle of the 5th inning and predict the franchise's future success.

Way to miss the point.

Unemployment is historically higher in the EU. Yes. However when unemployment is high that doesn't mean lots and lots and lots of people get completely and royally fucked. Unlike in this grand country.

[sumus romani]

I think that any real argument for the LSAT seriously being biased against the poor is not in the purchasing of prep materials, but in knowing that you should prep and how to prep.

Just spitballing, but I would think that poorer kids have less of a chance of finding something like TLS that will tell them how much better the PS bibles and real PT's are than taking fake PT's and using some of the really bad prep books out there. This just isn't the sort of thing you can get from the reviews page on Amazon.com.

People prepping with fake PT's probably won't score as high as people using real PT's.

Just a thought.

This argument is crazy. We are talking about a free resource on the internets tubes. What you are talking about can only be an explanation for why poor people do poorly on the LSAT. But there can be no real argument about fairness or justice here. Those who do not look into a free resource widely referenced online and in pre-law circles have no argument from distributive justice.

[sumus romani]

dresden_doll: Ironically, you uncovered the reason for this thread while questioning that one even exists. Namely, to brag about LSAT score long after it's relevant.





I RAWKED IT.

I love how a perfect counter-example is somehow drawn into question by a blatant ad hominem.

[stratocophic]

Scott takes one practice test, takes the LSAT virtually cold and gets 150 on LSAT
Scott meets another person with 170 named Suzie
Scott asks Suzie, "How did you get that 170?"
Suzie says, "I studied hard and studied smart. I got all the PS Bibles and did them and also did about 15 PTs. Why did you only get a 150?"
Scott, "I AM POOR AND COUDLN'T AFFORD BOOKS TO STUDY! WAAAAH!"


Romo: No Scott, you are a lazy POS who didn't take the LSAT seriously. Maybe instead of getting drunk and buying the new Call of Duty you should have bought a few books to practice with and found out how to study for the LSAT. HTH

obviously romo is racist, using prototypical white names like that.

180 (175 if you're poor)

Having a 175 and being poor, I endorse this statement.

[romothesavior]

1) Look up current European unemployment rates.
2) Look up current American unemployment rates.
3) Shit pants.
4) Change pants.
5) Look up U-6 American unemployment rate. Realize it is over 17%.
6) Shit pants again.
7) Change pants.
Realize that America has no safety net and if you lose your job, once unemployment runs out, you are fucked.
9) Shit pants yet again.

1. Look at self in mirror.
2. Shit pants.
3. Killself.

[JohnBoy]

I understand thats your point. So why the fuck are you babbling about how I would fix a problem you don't even believe exists?

Because when you say something isn't "a good way" to do something, it suggests that there exists a better way.

But that doesn't mean that he has to identify what the better way is. A person can establish a weakness in a system without having to say what it should be replaced by..why don't you understand that?

[dresden doll]

Can't we just pat OP on the shoulder for his <170 LSAT score and move on? Yay validation!

[romothesavior]

Having a 175 and being poor, I endorse this statement.

Filthy splitter.

[Nikrall]

I understand thats your point. So why the fuck are you babbling about how I would fix a problem you don't even believe exists?

Because when you say something isn't "a good way" to do something, it suggests that there exists a better way.

Fail.

[Nikrall]

I think that any real argument for the LSAT seriously being biased against the poor is not in the purchasing of prep materials, but in knowing that you should prep and how to prep.

Just spitballing, but I would think that poorer kids have less of a chance of finding something like TLS that will tell them how much better the PS bibles and real PT's are than taking fake PT's and using some of the really bad prep books out there. This just isn't the sort of thing you can get from the reviews page on Amazon.com.

People prepping with fake PT's probably won't score as high as people using real PT's.

Just a thought.

This argument is crazy. We are talking about a free resource on the internets tubes. What you are talking about can only be an explanation for why poor people do poorly on the LSAT. But there can be no real argument about fairness or justice here. Those who do not look into a free resource widely referenced online and in pre-law circles have no argument from distributive justice.

You do know that knowledge is valuable and that those who have friends/partners/relatives who are in law school/are lawyers are more likely to know about TLS than those who don't, right? And more likely to tell them that it exists...

[KibblesAndVick]

180 (175 if you're poor)

Having a 175 and being poor, I endorse this statement.[/quote]

If only Kaplan didn't cost so damn much... Maybe you could have destroyed the LSAT and gotten into some great law schools. Alas, they won't judge you at the soup kitchen. They're good people.

[dresden doll]

dresden_doll: Ironically, you uncovered the reason for this thread while questioning that one even exists. Namely, to brag about LSAT score long after it's relevant.





I RAWKED IT.

I love how a perfect counter-example is somehow drawn into question by a blatant ad hominem.

I love it too. It's not like I was reacting to the idea that one must be wealthy in order to do well or anything.

[romothesavior]

Okay I'm out of pants (and out of shit).

Now what?

[stratocophic]

Having a 175 and being poor, I endorse this statement.

Filthy splitter.

You people and your damn GPAs. I coulda gone to Hahvahd

[JohnBoy]

dresden_doll: Ironically, you uncovered the reason for this thread while questioning that one even exists. Namely, to brag about LSAT score long after it's relevant.





I RAWKED IT.

I love how a perfect counter-example is somehow drawn into question by a blatant ad hominem.

Exceptional case/overgenearlization