The Official June 2015 Waiter's Thread (GREY DEY 7/1) Forum

jumbocolumbo · Post by **jumbocolumbo** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:21 pm

drtamale wrote: going in naked.

Did... can... can you take the LSAT naked?

whacka · Post by **whacka** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:21 pm

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:24 pm

Post removed.

Whnlifegvsulmns · Post by **Whnlifegvsulmns** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:27 pm

question#4reddituser · Post by **question#4reddituser** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:28 pm

Seamus887 wrote:
whacka wrote:LSAT skill is wholly innate .
Yea that is my view. I think you can improve some but I don't believe everyone can study to 175 or anything. I think everyone can study to atleast 160

\

its a curved test... everyone scores 160 then it becomes a 150.
There needs to be 150 scorers.

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:32 pm

Post removed.

buckiguy_sucks · Post by **buckiguy_sucks** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:33 pm

Post removed.

Whnlifegvsulmns · Post by **Whnlifegvsulmns** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:34 pm

question#4reddituser wrote:
Seamus887 wrote:
whacka wrote:LSAT skill is wholly innate .
Yea that is my view. I think you can improve some but I don't believe everyone can study to 175 or anything. I think everyone can study to atleast 160
\

its a curved test... everyone scores 160 then it becomes a 150.
There needs to be 150 scorers.

How does this stand up to those individuals who are aiming for upper 150s or a 160 (if they're lucky) and/or those who are PTing in the 140s-150s. Those tests aren't designed to curve people into those scores as they have already been scored and curved.

question#4reddituser · Post by **question#4reddituser** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:37 pm

Seamus887 wrote:
question#4reddituser wrote:
Seamus887 wrote:
whacka wrote:LSAT skill is wholly innate .
Yea that is my view. I think you can improve some but I don't believe everyone can study to 175 or anything. I think everyone can study to atleast 160
\

its a curved test... everyone scores 160 then it becomes a 150.
There needs to be 150 scorers.
No its not. It is curved on difficulty not test takers.

It is readjusted after they get the scores in... You are compared to the last 5 years of lsat takers. So if the bell curves shifts to the right they readjust the scores...

the raw number of questions u got right really means nothing to them. The test is so show seperation between you and others. so that's why the lsat is so dead set from 175 to 180 with 99.93-99.98 percentile...

0134580 · Post by **0134580** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:39 pm

Seamus887 wrote:
question#4reddituser wrote:
Seamus887 wrote:So I hate to be elitist and bla bla, but how can you score 150 something on the LSAT? I really don't get that.
i think this comes down to what they want: they want to stay in a small city/town, non-biglaw job, low debt, stayed connected to family

Testing well could help with the debt but in their mind the reason they want to stay in the small town is because of this connections so they want to still hang out with friends which i had to blow off a couple times. In the end we all die, so getting into law school isn't really important for them.

For me i want to have the new york job and the house in Connecticut.
No I mean how do you score 150 something. After three sections graded I am 150s without doing the fourth. I am not saying wow I am super smart, but that yea some questions are hard on the LSAT but like 75% are really really easy.

Wow just wow.... You MAY be smart but what an ugly soul

question#4reddituser · Post by **question#4reddituser** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:41 pm

Whnlifegvsulmns wrote:
question#4reddituser wrote:
Seamus887 wrote:
whacka wrote:LSAT skill is wholly innate .
Yea that is my view. I think you can improve some but I don't believe everyone can study to 175 or anything. I think everyone can study to atleast 160
\

its a curved test... everyone scores 160 then it becomes a 150.
There needs to be 150 scorers.

How does this stand up to those individuals who are aiming for upper 150s or a 160 (if they're lucky) and/or those who are PTing in the 140s-150s. Those tests aren't designed to curve people into those scores as they have already been scored and curved.

Everyone's score is curved. The raw number is based of percentiles. that's why raw number for 180 shifts. The point of the test is to put you into categories.

buckiguy_sucks · Post by **buckiguy_sucks** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:41 pm

Post removed.

whacka · Post by **whacka** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:41 pm

buckiguy_sucks · Post by **buckiguy_sucks** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:42 pm

Post removed.

drtamale · Post by **drtamale** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:46 pm

Post removed...

Whnlifegvsulmns · Post by **Whnlifegvsulmns** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:47 pm

question#4reddituser wrote:
Whnlifegvsulmns wrote:

How does this stand up to those individuals who are aiming for upper 150s or a 160 (if they're lucky) and/or those who are PTing in the 140s-150s. Those tests aren't designed to curve people into those scores as they have already been scored and curved.
Everyone's score is curved. The raw number is based of percentiles. that's why raw number for 180 shifts. The point of the test is to put you into categories.

Sorry I wasn't clear...I meant literally when taking PTs. Not on the LSAT, but on actual PTs where the test has already been administered. In this case, their tests aren't curved to put them into categorizies. The only way the curve could affect them is if it pushes it away from their median intelligence, not away from other individuals who took the same PT as them.

question#4reddituser · Post by **question#4reddituser** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:48 pm

buckiguy_sucks wrote:
question#4reddituser wrote: Everyone's score is curved. The raw number is based of percentiles. that's why raw number for 180 shifts. The point of the test is to put you into categories.
We all saw you write categorizies don't try to hide it

yeah spell check =(, but i hope you get what i mean. like the raw numbers mean nothing, it's all about percentile. After they separate us the raw score curve is then applied.

i hope people here know what a bell curve is and that's the lsat. you get people with disproportionate number of questions right, you shift the bell curve to the right. but in reality its really isn't by much.

whacka · Post by **whacka** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:49 pm

question#4reddituser · Post by **question#4reddituser** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:50 pm

Whnlifegvsulmns wrote:
question#4reddituser wrote:
Whnlifegvsulmns wrote:

How does this stand up to those individuals who are aiming for upper 150s or a 160 (if they're lucky) and/or those who are PTing in the 140s-150s. Those tests aren't designed to curve people into those scores as they have already been scored and curved.
Everyone's score is curved. The raw number is based of percentiles. that's why raw number for 180 shifts. The point of the test is to put you into categories.
Sorry I wasn't clear...I meant literally when taking PTs. Not on the LSAT, but on actual PTs where the test has already been administered. In this case, their tests aren't curved to put them into categorizies. The only way the curve could affect them is if it pushes it away from their median intelligence, not away from other individuals who took the same PT as them.

your right it has been established but chances are the population hasn't shifted to such a degree that 155's are now 150. So its safe to say its accurate what you would have scored. not 100 percent....

EnderWiggin · Post by **EnderWiggin** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:52 pm

buckiguy_sucks wrote:
question#4reddituser wrote: Everyone's score is curved. The raw number is based of percentiles. that's why raw number for 180 shifts. The point of the test is to put you into categories.
We all saw you write categorizies don't try to hide it

it was clearly the beginning of an ode to Seamus.

categorizies
categorizees
scattegorizees
scategorizees
sclateogorizees
clastegorizees
lastegorizees
lastegrizees
lastegizees
lastegizeesy
lasteizeesy
lastizeesy
lsatizeesy

LSAT IZ EEZY!!

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:54 pm

Post removed.

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:57 pm

Post removed.

buckiguy_sucks · Post by **buckiguy_sucks** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:58 pm

Post removed.

whacka · Post by **whacka** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 3:00 pm

buckiguy_sucks · Post by **buckiguy_sucks** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 3:01 pm

Post removed.