Do people who over study for the LSAT do worse in law school Forum

[cotiger]

But people in this and the other thread do seem awfully invested in the idea that the LSAT has some kind of significant meaning apart from its role in admissions.

How so in the other thread? The entire discussion is about its role in admissions, not about how much impact it actually has on grades. Honestly, that's not even really up for debate. It explains about 13% of grades for unaccommodated applicants.

If people itt are debating whether overstudying/retakers underperform what their top score predicts, the simple answer is yes. There are papers from LSAC that demonstrate this. Internet searches, people.

[A. Nony Mouse]

But people in this and the other thread do seem awfully invested in the idea that the LSAT has some kind of significant meaning apart from its role in admissions.

How so in the other thread? The entire discussion is about its role in admissions, not about how much impact it actually has on grades. Honestly, that's not even really up for debate. It explains about 13% of grades for unaccommodated applicants.

If people itt are debating whether overstudying/retakers underperform what their top score predicts, the simple answer is yes. There are papers from LSAC that demonstrate this. Internet searches, people.

But part of the whole discussion in the other thread was that an accommodated LSAT doesn't accurately predict grades and therefore people who get accommodations and thus get into schools they wouldn't otherwise "deserve" to get into will do worse in law school and do worse on the bar exam. That presumes the LSAT means something about performance in school and on the bar exam. (And before you bring it up: yes, it has some predictive power. That works in the aggregate, not for any one individual person - we all know/know of plenty of people who had ordinary LSATs, killed it in LS, and transferred to schools they couldn't have got into when they were initially applying.)

[cotiger]

But people in this and the other thread do seem awfully invested in the idea that the LSAT has some kind of significant meaning apart from its role in admissions.

How so in the other thread? The entire discussion is about its role in admissions, not about how much impact it actually has on grades. Honestly, that's not even really up for debate. It explains about 13% of grades for unaccommodated applicants.

If people itt are debating whether overstudying/retakers underperform what their top score predicts, the simple answer is yes. There are papers from LSAC that demonstrate this. Internet searches, people.

But part of the whole discussion in the other thread was that an accommodated LSAT doesn't accurately predict grades and therefore people who get accommodations and thus get into schools they wouldn't otherwise "deserve" to get into will do worse in law school and do worse on the bar exam. That presumes the LSAT means something about performance in school and on the bar exam. (And before you bring it up: yes, it has some predictive power. That works in the aggregate, not for any one individual person - we all know/know of plenty of people who had ordinary LSATs, killed it in LS, and transferred to schools they couldn't have got into when they were initially applying.)

I don't know what's controversial about saying what the data reveals: on average, a standard time 170 will do better in school than an extended time 170. The fact that there are other, unmeasurable factors that go into grades is irrelevant. That's what softs are for and why people with identical numbers can have vastly different admissions cycles.

Yeah, accommodated has even less predictive power. But I don't know why that means that it makes sense to represent that score as indicating a higher predicted aptitude than it actually does and on top of that represent that that test is more predictive than it actually is.

Part of whole argument for flagging is that we don't know wtf that score really means. The amount of grades that is explained drops from 13% unaccommodated to only 2% for those with extended time for ADHD. Why should we weight those equally, especially when they're random one tends to exaggerate the aptitude of the applicant?

This discussion is better suited for the other thread.

[094320]

..

[09042014]

To steer back to the original point (oh hai nony!), I'm with DF here. I don't think learning to do well on the LSAT usually involves learning of the actual skills. Back when I was prepping for the LSAT many years ago, I managed to shave 10 minutes off of the amount of time it took me to do the logic games section by doing a lot of them. I didn't become better at logic; I became better at logic games.

I'm willing to admit that you might gain some real skills while studying. But the vast majority of the score diff is going to be just getting better at taking the test itself.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, sorry to derail. I just agree with NYS and Theo that people get REALLY (overly?) invested in the LSAT. (But that's probably my low score talking.)

[094320]

..

[Pneumonia]

Yeah, sorry to derail. I just agree with NYS and Theo that people get REALLY (overly?) invested in the LSAT. (But that's probably my low score talking.)

Yeah the first part of this is tcr.
To be fair though the overvaluation by applicants is just the logical response to the way adcoms treat the score. The intuitive thinking goes something like "if X school is willing to offer me 150k for answering 5 additional questions right, then those 5 questions must be indicative of something right?" But lol nope turns out all it means is that you were able to successfully study for something and that is pretty much it. People come to realize this at different speeds though, and I suspect you're right- those speeds are inversely correlated with their scores.

eta- pretty much scooped by atl.
I guess the same line of thinking is initially reasonable for 1L grades though: if employers are willing to make these really fine grained grading distinctions then they must be indicative of some substantial differences in ability. But again, it seems like nope.

[Power_of_Facing]

Yeah, sorry to derail. I just agree with NYS and Theo that people get REALLY (overly?) invested in the LSAT. (But that's probably my low score talking.)

It really is an interesting phenomenon. Two people who achieved the same score -- one by way of natural talent and the other by way of dedicated study -- value the means of their achievement for conflicting reasons. What the studier considers hard work and learning, the natural calls gaming and tricks. What the natural views as genuine intellectual firepower power, the toiler regards as a justification for complacency.

What's more valuable/impressive, effortlessness or work ethic?

[094320]

..

[Power_of_Facing]

Yeah, sorry to derail. I just agree with NYS and Theo that people get REALLY (overly?) invested in the LSAT. (But that's probably my low score talking.)

It really is an interesting phenomenon. Two people who achieved the same score -- one by way of natural talent and the other by way of dedicated study -- value the means of their achievement for conflicting reasons. What the studier considers hard work and learning, the natural calls gaming and tricks. What the natural views as genuine intellectual firepower power, the toiler regards as a justification for complacency.

What's more valuable/impressive, effortlessness or work ethic?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but this seems to be a fairly false dichotomy. It's not like those who found it effortless aren't also hard-working people.

I'm not saying I believe this, necessarily, but the dichotomy does seem to be an undertone permeating much of the argument in this thread.

Also, if someone just naturally dropped a 172 after a few weeks prep, and then didn't bust their ass for the within-reach 175-180, that could very well be considered an example of settling/being complacent...

[094320]

..

[Power_of_Facing]

I'm not saying I believe this, necessarily, but the dichotomy does seem to be an undertone permeating much of the argument in this thread.

Also, if someone just naturally dropped a 172 after a few weeks prep, and then didn't bust their ass for the within-reach 175-180, that could very well be considered an example of settling/being complacent...

But who here in this conversation did that?

The oxymoronically hypothetical people with "real" (in DF's words) LSAT scores.

If everyone worked ~equally hard to achieve their score, then this argument becomes moot in practice.

[094320]

..

[Power_of_Facing]

Because of my excessive editing, the crux of my argument is lost in a post I edited.

I know the feeling.

[Power_of_Facing]

I'm not saying I believe this, necessarily, but the dichotomy does seem to be an undertone permeating much of the argument in this thread.

Also, if someone just naturally dropped a 172 after a few weeks prep, and then didn't bust their ass for the within-reach 175-180, that could very well be considered an example of settling/being complacent...

But who here in this conversation did that?

Also a 172 after a few weeks of prep =/= natural ability at the LSAT.

Disagree with the bolded. If that same person scored a cold 167-169 (which seems reasonable), I say that's some pretty natural talent.

[Straw_Mandible]

I'm not saying I believe this, necessarily, but the dichotomy does seem to be an undertone permeating much of the argument in this thread.

Also, if someone just naturally dropped a 172 after a few weeks prep, and then didn't bust their ass for the within-reach 175-180, that could very well be considered an example of settling/being complacent...

But who here in this conversation did that?

Also a 172 after a few weeks of prep =/= natural ability at the LSAT.

How so?

Also, instead of saying "natural" ability, can we say "prior" ability? "Natural" implies that these people were somehow born with high scoring capacity.

[Power_of_Facing]

I'm not saying I believe this, necessarily, but the dichotomy does seem to be an undertone permeating much of the argument in this thread.

Also, if someone just naturally dropped a 172 after a few weeks prep, and then didn't bust their ass for the within-reach 175-180, that could very well be considered an example of settling/being complacent...

But who here in this conversation did that?

Also a 172 after a few weeks of prep =/= natural ability at the LSAT.

How so?

Also, instead of saying "natural" ability, can we say "prior" ability? "Natural" implies that these people were somehow born with high scoring capacity.

For better or worse, I think that's the intended implication.

[Straw_Mandible]

I'm not saying I believe this, necessarily, but the dichotomy does seem to be an undertone permeating much of the argument in this thread.

Also, if someone just naturally dropped a 172 after a few weeks prep, and then didn't bust their ass for the within-reach 175-180, that could very well be considered an example of settling/being complacent...

But who here in this conversation did that?

Also a 172 after a few weeks of prep =/= natural ability at the LSAT.

How so?

Also, instead of saying "natural" ability, can we say "prior" ability? "Natural" implies that these people were somehow born with high scoring capacity.

For better or worse, I think that's the intended implication.

I sincerely hope people ITT understand that's not how ability works.

[094320]

..

[Power_of_Facing]

How so?

Also, instead of saying "natural" ability, can we say "prior" ability? "Natural" implies that these people were somehow born with high scoring capacity.

Sure.

This seems to be straying into nature vs. nurture territory.

Because after a few weeks of prep, that's not really prior ability. I only did a few weeks of prep, and I made major improvements in that time that came from familiarizing myself with the exam, not actually improving in RC, LG, or LR at all. I don't necessarily stake the diagnostic as the measure of prior ability since unfamiliarity with the format might throw someone off, but the test after reviewing exam format is.

ETA: I take the same attitude towards board games. I consider my second time playing the game a measure of prior ability at board games. My performance afterward is part of learning how to play that particular game rather well.

Chess might complicate this.

[Power_of_Facing]

I sincerely hope people ITT understand that's not how ability works.

Sometimes it is, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3IMP0fwlCM

[Straw_Mandible]

How so?

Also, instead of saying "natural" ability, can we say "prior" ability? "Natural" implies that these people were somehow born with high scoring capacity.

Sure.

This seems to be straying into nature vs. nurture territory.

Because after a few weeks of prep, that's not really prior ability. I only did a few weeks of prep, and I made major improvements in that time that came from familiarizing myself with the exam, not actually improving in RC, LG, or LR at all. I don't necessarily stake the diagnostic as the measure of prior ability since unfamiliarity with the format might throw someone off, but the test after reviewing exam format is.

ETA: I take the same attitude towards board games. I consider my second time playing the game a measure of prior ability at board games. My performance afterward is part of learning how to play that particular game rather well.

I think it's been there the whole time.

But your comment makes a lot of sense. Two weeks is enough time to learn how the test works, but not enough time to actually improve the skills it is meant to assess.

(Some people here seem to be suggesting that no time is enough time to improve those skills--and that's where I disagree.)

[09042014]

Not pointing fingers, but the people clinging to their hard earned LSAT scores seem to be making some really shitty illogical arguments in this thread. Kind of proves my point.

[094320]

..