How Many People Get Perfect 180? Forum

[20130312]

I don't think I'm going to be drawn into an Internet argument with someone who can't tell the difference between legal research and whatever it is you're doing in this thread. Peace out, yo.

[Nikrall]

I don't think I'm going to be drawn into an Internet argument with someone who can't tell the difference between legal research and whatever it is you're doing in this thread. Peace out, yo.

You are the one who made the claim of people doing "hours of research", not me. I am sorry that I upset you so much that you won't be posting ITT anymore. Your clearly well thought out replies and careful analysis of the issues will be missed.

[Mr. Somebody]

As I said before, the screenshot doesn't have his name on it. So I don't see why you're relying on it as evidence.

If I was in fact RELYING on it, it would be because this is a fucking internet FORUM, in which the only evidence I have is the evidence people give. Otherwise, if I wanted to conclusively gain verifiable evidence, I would have to make a trip out to SoCal and physically see him sign in to see his scores.

In all seriousness, I was basically trying to say that you can a) believe it, b) don't believe it, c) partially believe it, d) or I don't give a shit whether you believe it or not.

I choose D.

Like I said, there are relevant statistics out there (albeit, I doubt they have anyone's name on it. Sorry. ) to help the OP find the answer to his question.

OP, I believe its around .002% of test takers that score 180 and .008% that score 179, which is who make up the top .01%, thus scoring roughly in the .99 percentile.

I also found this posted by someone else:
In the 2007-2008 cycle, there were 142,331 test takers. We can conclude that around 140 people got a 179 or 180 during that cycle.

Faulty math if the numbers you gave are correct. 1% is 1 out of 100, .1% is 1 out of 1000, and .01% is 1 out of 10,000. That would mean, assuming .01 percent get 179-180, its like 15 people a year. I'm guessing this is false though, and that I misinterpreted your numbers somewhere?

Maybe the math is faulty (it's late and I'm terrible at math anyway), but what I really mean is that people who score 179-180 are in roughly the top 1 percent of scorers. Now, the people who get perfect 180s are about 2/10ths of that one percent and the people who score 179 are the remaining 8/10ths of the 1 percent. (again, these are rough, but rounded numbers to make the math look pretty)

Look at the bolded though, bc my percentages aren't reflective of the latter statistic of people who scored 179/180, given by another poster.

Hate to put this back on topic but was this ever resolved? By your calcs then about 30 a year get 180

[Tiago Splitter]

Hate to put this back on topic but was this ever resolved? By your calcs then about 30 a year get 180

This is correct.

[TatNurner]

Regardless, I don't really care whether he is lying or not. I just find it interesting, and somewhat funny, how randomly TLS'ers decide to viciously attack someone v. circle the wagons around someone. It really seems based on little more than how much one identifies with the given poster as opposed to what they are actually saying.

So true. This is a simple case of what is true and isn't. If a person has been lying about who they are, and using that as a platform to give advice and advertise their services, then we need to know. If the accusations are false, then we need to know that too. It's not about who you like etc.

I have not sought advice from Dave, nor do I have anything to do with competitors, so I'm impartial. As an impartial observer I have to say the evidence, while not conclusive, seems to be piling up against Dave. Dave could end this very easily, but because he is refusing to do so, that speaks volumes.

Some of you have said that we should ignore facts because he has helped folks. Perhaps he has, but the help he has provided does not excuse him from being held to the same standard as others in his field. If you are defending Dave as the evidence stands, then it means you are committed to:

1) People being able to tutor LSAT without providing adequate evidence of their abilities, which translates to you being ok with the very real possibility of some students being scammed by people who misrepresent their scores
or
2) A special exception being made for Dave because you like him.

Neither of these positions are defensible and you should be ashamed if you support them. Finally, this man also makes a good point for the "he helped us" camp:

I wonder how helpful Dave's advice really is and how much of it is placebo effect. Omg, this guy who got 3 180's is giving me a strategy to use for logic games, therefore his strategy must be good, therefore because I think it's good, I try really hard on logic games and therefore get a better score and therefore attribute it to Dave's strategy instead of my own hard work

Dave just show the screenshot with your name on it and the proper dates if you have nothing to hide.

[suspicious android]

Interesting stuff... can anyone link me to the list of official score release dates? I have multiple LSATs, I'd like to see if my score report mathes up.

[Nikrall]

Interesting stuff... can anyone link me to the list of official score release dates? I have multiple LSATs, I'd like to see if my score report mathes up.

http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/lsat-sc ... ase-dates/

[suspicious android]

Sorry guys, my scores don't match up either. Does this mean I'm a fraud?

[Nikrall]

Sorry guys, my scores don't match up either. Does this mean I'm a fraud?

Hmm? What exactly do you mean by "your scores don't match up"?

[bruss]

Sorry guys, my scores don't match up either. Does this mean I'm a fraud?

Hmm? What exactly do you mean by "your scores don't match up"?

yeah you are gonna have to be a bit more specific. by match up are you taking about official release date or actual release date not matching?

[suspicious android]

Sorry guys, my scores don't match up either. Does this mean I'm a fraud?

Hmm? What exactly do you mean by "your scores don't match up"?

From my LSAC LSAT status:
Admin Date: Saturday, February 12, 2011
Score e-mail date: 03/03/2011

Powerscore's website: Friday, March 4, 2011

[Nikrall]

Sorry guys, my scores don't match up either. Does this mean I'm a fraud?

Hmm? What exactly do you mean by "your scores don't match up"?

From my LSAC LSAT status:
Admin Date: Saturday, February 12, 2011
Score e-mail date: 03/03/2011

Powerscore's website: Friday, March 4, 2011

Yes, you are a fraud.

No, actually, it seems that Powerscore had the incorrect date. It was actually the 3rd of March.

I checked the date on LSATBlog for the Oct 2009 administration of the LSAT. They say 10/16/2009 as well.

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/oc ... dates.html

[suspicious android]

We've got to make sure that the dates are accurate before you go using them to accuse someone of dishonesty. I admire the muckracking tendencies shown in this thread, I really do. But you've got to be careful. The first date I checked on the Powerscore blog was inaccurate. My other score matched up with both PS and LSAT Blog. But where does this data come from?

Anyone else out there check their score report data with the dates from either of those two sources?

[Nikrall]

We've got to make sure that the dates are accurate before you go using them to accuse someone of dishonesty. I admire the muckracking tendencies shown in this thread, I really do. But you've got to be careful. The first date I checked on the Powerscore blog was inaccurate. My other score matched up with both PS and LSAT Blog. But where does this data come from?

Anyone else out there check their score report data with the dates from either of those two sources?

The exact date itself isn't the real issue (that is whether its off by a day or 2).

The issue is that Dave has e-mail correspondence with Sheena on Oct 23rd or so wondering where his score is. But LSAC says his scores were e-mailed out on October 16th from the document he posted. LSATBlog and Powerscore both say October 16th was the e-mail date of the scores.

Of course note this makes his claim problematic, not demonstrably false. LSAC isn't exactly the most competent of companies. But this along with issues in his other correspondence and his weird continuance to post full explanations to things and overly explain them as opposed to just posting his IRR strikes me as increasingly fishy.

[bruss]

Differences
MAnhatten: october 9 2010 ...: Officiai Nov 1....Actual release date: Oct 30
Powerscore: october 9 2010 ...Official:Nov1.... Actual release date: Oct 29
Lsatblog: October 9 2010... official: Nov1.... Actual release date: Oct 29


that is the only difference btw those 3 companies. They all agree on ever single other date

[LSChick22]

It's just last year's version of this document. I don't immediately see the problem with the data interpretation provided above, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that LSAC has secretly removed bizarre data points, such as a six-time repeater like Dave.

It's not unheard of for people to scrub data a little before publication.

This has to be the weakest alternative explanation I've ever seen.

[happyshapy]

It's just last year's version of this document. I don't immediately see the problem with the data interpretation provided above, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that LSAC has secretly removed bizarre data points, such as a six-time repeater like Dave.

It's not unheard of for people to scrub data a little before publication.

This has to be the weakest alternative explanation I've ever seen.

I don't find it that hard to believe. Usually scores are held for irregularities and misconduct. Why would LSAC want to include those scores in their reporting data when they have all the resources to prevent it?

I guess I don't really care about how many 180s Dave's received. I think his advice is very good, and I would take his course based on that alone.

It just seems weird that there are now four accounts created in the past two days that are only posting on these two threads.

[jmassialas]

It's just last year's version of this document. I don't immediately see the problem with the data interpretation provided above, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that LSAC has secretly removed bizarre data points, such as a six-time repeater like Dave.

It's not unheard of for people to scrub data a little before publication.

This has to be the weakest alternative explanation I've ever seen.

I don't find it that hard to believe. Usually scores are held for irregularities and misconduct. Why would LSAC want to include those scores in their reporting data when they have all the resources to prevent it?

maybe you should contact the lsac to find out

be sure to forward them dave's phony score report while you're at it

[6lehderjets]

The facts you are assuming and reasoning from are somewhat incorrect and your reasoning is flawed.

See:
http://www.testmasters.net/Lsat/Faculty-Instructors

You can view the full IRR report of every teacher/tutor currently working for them. Please get your facts straight before you make claims and form conclusions.

Hopefully to preempt a false accusation in a reply from you, NO, I am not an employee of Testmasters.

This matter about Mr. Hall has to do with ethics, honesty and truth.

Enough evidence that proves beyond the legal standards of preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and even possibly beyond a reasonable doubt have been presented to prove that he has made false claims in order to promote/market his online for profit service.

False advertising is illegal, even on discussion boards. There are several state and Federal laws and regulations that prohibit such practices.

Compare the dates in the column "Score E-mail Date" in the screen shot he posted
--LinkRemoved--

to this (The chart is accurate):
http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/lsat-sc ... #more-2350

Three of them do not match up.

Granted, some of his advice has been decent. However, most of it I've read has been superficial and glib, mainly stuff about LSAT 101 basics including a lot of stuff about pattern recognition regarding learning what the LR question types are. Learning what the question types are is just the beginning and is nothing magical.

He may be very enthusiastic in a way that entertains people in order to try to get them excited about studying for the test and to do the homework. It might make the videos and/or his classes more entertaining, however, that doesn't make him an LSAT messiah, especially given his dishonesty. I don't care how smart a person is or seems to be if they are deceptive and dishonest.

Some of the most successful con-men and criminals in known history have been extremely intelligent, but also very deceptive in order to get what they seek.

Going to law school is about becoming a Lawyer, not a liar. The law/legal systems in civilized countries are about determining the truth and casting judgment based on the proven to be true facts.

Prove it up Dave Hall, IRR report please since you are using your score claims as a marketing ploy.

.

Just because you partially proved one of my points to be inaccurate does not change the overall point of my post. Read for the main point, don't simply attack the evidence, even if you seem to be having an inferiority complex with Dave Hall. Also, great TM does it, why don't you dig up some links that verify the 99th percentile scoring of Powerscore instructors?

I'm done with this nonsense. Either you believe he scored multiple 180s, don't believe it, or don't care. Whatever side you are on hopefully you find what you are looking for.

[bruss]

The facts you are assuming and reasoning from are somewhat incorrect and your reasoning is flawed.

See:
http://www.testmasters.net/Lsat/Faculty-Instructors

You can view the full IRR report of every teacher/tutor currently working for them. Please get your facts straight before you make claims and form conclusions.

Hopefully to preempt a false accusation in a reply from you, NO, I am not an employee of Testmasters.

This matter about Mr. Hall has to do with ethics, honesty and truth.

Enough evidence that proves beyond the legal standards of preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and even possibly beyond a reasonable doubt have been presented to prove that he has made false claims in order to promote/market his online for profit service.

False advertising is illegal, even on discussion boards. There are several state and Federal laws and regulations that prohibit such practices.

Compare the dates in the column "Score E-mail Date" in the screen shot he posted
--LinkRemoved--

to this (The chart is accurate):
http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/lsat-sc ... #more-2350

Three of them do not match up.

Granted, some of his advice has been decent. However, most of it I've read has been superficial and glib, mainly stuff about LSAT 101 basics including a lot of stuff about pattern recognition regarding learning what the LR question types are. Learning what the question types are is just the beginning and is nothing magical.

He may be very enthusiastic in a way that entertains people in order to try to get them excited about studying for the test and to do the homework. It might make the videos and/or his classes more entertaining, however, that doesn't make him an LSAT messiah, especially given his dishonesty. I don't care how smart a person is or seems to be if they are deceptive and dishonest.

Some of the most successful con-men and criminals in known history have been extremely intelligent, but also very deceptive in order to get what they seek.

Going to law school is about becoming a Lawyer, not a liar. The law/legal systems in civilized countries are about determining the truth and casting judgment based on the proven to be true facts.

Prove it up Dave Hall, IRR report please since you are using your score claims as a marketing ploy.

.

Just because you partially proved one of my points to be inaccurate does not change the overall point of my post. Read for the main point, don't simply attack the evidence, even if you seem to be having an inferiority complex with Dave Hall. Also, great TM does it, why don't you dig up some links that verify the 99th percentile scoring of Powerscore instructors?

I'm done with this nonsense. Either you believe he scored multiple 180s, don't believe it, or don't care. Whatever side you are on hopefully you find what you are looking for.

He didn't cross check their scores because they showed their IRR.

[Soba306]

Two TLS moderators (dailygrind and vanwinkle) recently stepped in and are CENSORING all discussion of Dave Hall's forgery of his LSAT scores. They have already banned two posters--jeffort and earlcat--who have been members here since 2007 and 2008, respectively. Both have taught LSAT classes for many years and have offered expert LSAT advice to other TLS members on countless occasions. Their crime? Daring to question TLS's endorsement of Dave Hall's deception.
 
According to these moderators, NO ONE is permitted to discuss Dave Hall's fake score claims anywhere but on this thread. They also plan on locking this thread very soon, thereby making it impossible for anyone to discuss these subjects. Meanwhile, Dave Hall has carte blanche to continue peddling his services and lying to consumers who visit this forum. But unlike before, no one will be able to call Dave out on his lies, so consumers won't have the opportunity to learn about them. Instead, consumers will do exactly what Dave wants them to do: believe that he actually did score three 180s.
 
I'd like to know what everyone thinks about this development, though I'm sure many won't speak up for fear of getting banned.

[marsdentromba]

I don't really want to get involved in either side of the debate, but isn't this the document in question?

--ImageRemoved--

[20130312]

I don't really want to get involved in either side of the debate, but isn't this the document in question?

[img]awesome.png[/img]

LIKE A BAWS

[Soba306]

I don't really want to get involved in either side of the debate, but isn't this the document in question?

--ImageRemoved--

You joined this forum recently and acted as if you had just met Dave Hall. Now you're posting his purported IRR? This story's getting stranger by the minute.

[dailygrind]

Alright. Anyone who wants to continue debating the legitimacy of Dave's scores can do so here:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &start=175

since that thread appears to have been fully repurposed at this point. Anyone who continues to do so in this thread will be banned.

Me thinks a lot of these people are just jealous of Dave's expertise, personally whether he got a 3 180's or a high of 177 is irrelevant to 99.9% of students (like myself) who would kill just to have a 177. Internet detectives kill me man, why waste your time on something so irrelevant to your own goals? Who are you protecting, people who actually enjoy the advice he gives?

I'm not here to question anyone's scores. That's already been done. And I've complimented Dave's advice in the past because, frankly, he's given some good advice. However, the truth of someone's scores, even the difference between a 177 and a 180, is significant for those of us who put in years of hard work to actually achieve such high scores and, more importantly, whose livelihoods have depended on distinguishing ourselves as being among the few who have mastered this test. It also should matter to students who often pay a premium to learn from tutors whose scores are even marginally better than their lower-priced competitors.

A tutor claiming greater credentials than he actually has is no better than a shill "student" announcing how wonderful the tutor's services are. Why should latter be banned while the former gets a protected thread?

When a mod says to drop a subject, drop it.

So you aren't going to ban Earlcat for doing the same thing Jeffort did, bringing up how the topic of Daves score is relevant to the interest of those seeking Dave's advice? Also the inconsistency of you guys wanting one thread to get back on track, but having anotherThread go to shit makes no sense. You guys consistently allow trolls and other threads to be hijacked but you are giving special consideration to this one. You guys frequently ban 1-posters who come in saying "golly gee come to my company its the bestest". Lets be consistent. If your goal is to add helpful content then I beg you to unlock my Three 120's and im taking your questions thread.

I believe my thread offering advice on what not to do on the basis of me scoring 3 120's would be an added bonus because a 120 is almost as elusive as a scoring a 180 and would provide a different insight into the test that most do not have.

I implore you to unban Jeffort and all those involved, release my topic, and lets just all forget about this less you seem inconsistent and unjust.

I'm moving your post here so as to prevent further derailing. And vanwinkle banned Earlcat, much as I am now banning you.