My nightmare just got worse Forum

[Adjudicator]

Fully half of the LSAT is about analyzing arguments. Another part is about being able to understand what you read. Pretty good skills to have.

Also, when I read MrAdams' posts I imagine him sounding like Colin Firth.

[AverageTutoring]

Fully half of the LSAT is about analyzing arguments. Another part is about being able to understand what you read. Pretty good skills to have.

Also, when I read MrAdams' posts I imagine him sounding like Colin Firth.

That is a dirty lie. I don't retain/understand anything I read in those passages...something about honeybees dancing but not to communicate the source of food, but perhaps to communicate the source of food but with quality in the dance. Yeah...

[DieAntwoord]

There is a correlation between correlations relating to law school and angry people.

um, post of the year.

[JazzOne]

You may disagree all you like. If you study law though, you should know that the mischeif, golden and literally rules are primarily those used by judges in interpreting statutes and case law. Never have I read (or heard of) a judge on the international scene or in the English judiciary refer to contrapositives or formal logic, or indeed, just who of Frank, Zoe, Charlie and Dale should go on the canoe trip, in interpreting and inferring rules from legal sources. They use the mischeif rule, the golden rule, the literally rule and the purpose rule. It is that simple.

Are you freakin' kidding me? Yeah, I'm sure judges use the golden rule to decide procedural issues. GTFO.

Civil procedure is very much like a logic game: complicated and somewhat arbitrary rules applied to a factual context.

Edit: You have to make inferences to interpret how the rules interact with each other.

[teaadntoast]

You may disagree all you like. If you study law though, you should know that the mischeif, golden and literally rules are primarily those used by judges in interpreting statutes and case law. Never have I read (or heard of) a judge on the international scene or in the English judiciary refer to contrapositives or formal logic, or indeed, just who of Frank, Zoe, Charlie and Dale should go on the canoe trip, in interpreting and inferring rules from legal sources. They use the mischeif rule, the golden rule, the literally rule and the purpose rule. It is that simple.

This is like saying that because I know a skyscraper involves steel, wood and cables that I know how to build one.

Appropriate application of rules and logical consistency are, it turns out, important, regardless of jurisdiction. You can know all the rules you like, but if you can't apply them properly you're not much use as a lawyer. The LSAT tests precisely those skills.

[Aqualibrium]

No one has even mentioned that OP doesn't actually know his score yet. You guys are calling him a douche from complaining about his "awesome score," but he hasn't even seen his score yet.

Lets wait until he actually gets it....he may have a genuine complaint at that point

[HOV]

So my score from LSAC is still on hold because I submitted a fee waiver appeal a few days before the score release (I never made the connection between a fee waiver appeal = delaying a score for a test you paid for). Now, a guy who shares an office with me just told the partners he got a 175. I didn't find out til today because I took yesterday off (and so did he, but we don't communicate with each other at all). I came out of the test guessing on two LG and figured two wrong on LR and one wrong on RC. After reading various discussions on the internet, I guessed correctly on one of the two LG, still at one wrong for sure RC, and still at one wrong for sure on LR. That leaves only three more I can be wrong about to tie him or else I'll have a worse score to a guy I can't stand. \ self.

it's a matter of pride for OP. i get it and i respect it.

[JazzOne]

No one has even mention that OP doesn't actually know his score yet. You guys are calling him a douche from complaining about his "awesome score," but he hasn't even seen his score yet.

Lets wait until he actually gets it....he may have a genuine complaint at that point

That's what I'm saying. Everyone jumped on OP for venting on here, and then they went off on these crazy, unsupported tangents. TLS is a riot.

[MrAdams]

Well, if the LSAT was - here is an argument, now you construct a rebuttal argument that will strengthen/weaken it - then yeah, it could have a useful benefit for law school. Prephrasing is a great way of conducting LSAT tests, and being a solid prephraser will put you in good stead for law school. However, the LSAT doesn't follow that route, it gives you the answer that you pick out. Given the sheer volume of LSAT questions, it is extremely easy to develop an instinct to just 'know' which is the right answer, which probably explains why people suddenly 'click' in LR sections. Even worse, you can at times select the right answer meerly by a process of elimination. The study and practice of law is about adaptive argumentative creativity, which is not tested by the LSAT.


p.s. --LinkRemoved--) <- this rule is used, as I indicated in statutory and case law interpretation and inference.

[jeremychristiansen]

This topic single handedly makes me want to punch an innocent bystander. Have less of an ego please. Some people on these forums would kill to have a 174-175 range and you're whining about it because 1 guy did better than you. You do know that the LSAT has no correlation to how well you do in law school or great of a lawyer you will be afterwards right?

Suck up your 174 and quit complaining.

You do know that you're incorrect right? LSAT scores are statistically correlated with 1L grades.

But isn't it like r^2= .16? Or in other words 16% of your grades are determined by your LSAT. I may be mistaken but I think the guy who is at UVA that used to be at LSAC said this. He said it is the strongest correlation for graduate school tests. Personally I think that is a pretty poor correlation, and (i know it is anecdotal) I know and know of lots of hard working people who goofed their LSAT but finished top of their class. I even thought that the UVA guy said statistically you would always have (if they were admitted) people from the bottom 25% LSAT who finish in the top 25% of law school. Granted, there aren't as many, but an LSAT score really isn't the final say on your life as a lawyer. My sister had one of the lowest LSAT's in her class, but finished near the top working at a high paying law firm doing corporate litigation, she is in the court room all the time, happy and making money..moral of story-->LSAT =/= life and death nor law school outcome.

[JazzOne]

Well, if the LSAT was - here is an argument, now you construct a rebuttal argument that will strengthen/weaken it - then yeah, it could have a useful benefit for law school. Prephrasing is a great way of conducting LSAT tests, and being a solid prephraser will put you in good stead for law school. However, the LSAT doesn't follow that route, it gives you the answer that you pick out. Given the sheer volume of LSAT questions, it is extremely easy to develop an instinct to just 'know' which is the right answer, which probably explains why people suddenly 'click' in LR sections. Even worse, you can at times select the right answer meerly by a process of elimination. The study and practice of law is about adaptive argumentative creativity, which is not tested by the LSAT.


p.s. --LinkRemoved--) <- this rule is used, as I indicated in statutory and case law interpretation and inference.

lol

That link works about as well as your logic.

[JazzOne]

This topic single handedly makes me want to punch an innocent bystander. Have less of an ego please. Some people on these forums would kill to have a 174-175 range and you're whining about it because 1 guy did better than you. You do know that the LSAT has no correlation to how well you do in law school or great of a lawyer you will be afterwards right?

Suck up your 174 and quit complaining.

You do know that you're incorrect right? LSAT scores are statistically correlated with 1L grades.

But isn't it like r^2= .16? Or in other words 16% of your grades are determined by your LSAT. I may be mistaken but I think the guy who is at UVA that used to be at LSAC said this. He said it is the strongest correlation for graduate school tests. Personally I think that is a pretty poor correlation, and (i know it is anecdotal) I know and know of lots of hard working people who goofed their LSAT but finished top of their class. I even thought that the UVA guy said statistically you would always have (if they were admitted) people from the bottom 25% LSAT who finish in the top 25% of law school. Granted, there aren't as many, but an LSAT score really isn't the final say on your life as a lawyer. My sister had one of the lowest LSAT's in her class, but finished near the top working at a high paying law firm doing corporate litigation, she is in the court room all the time, happy and making money..moral of story-->LSAT =/= life and death nor law school outcome.

I just said they were correlated, which they are. The correlation is not perfect, but I was rebutting the argument that there was "no correlation" whatsoever.

[AverageTutoring]

I just said they were correlated, which they are. The correlation is not perfect, but I was rebutting the argument that there was "no correlation" whatsoever.

But what is the correlation of 1L grades to post-graduate success? Even if the LSAT correlated 100% to 1L grades I still wouldn't care if it correlated poorly with post-graduate earnings/success. Which I believe that they do? If I recall correctly...Does anybody know?

[MrAdams]

Well, if the LSAT was - here is an argument, now you construct a rebuttal argument that will strengthen/weaken it - then yeah, it could have a useful benefit for law school. Prephrasing is a great way of conducting LSAT tests, and being a solid prephraser will put you in good stead for law school. However, the LSAT doesn't follow that route, it gives you the answer that you pick out. Given the sheer volume of LSAT questions, it is extremely easy to develop an instinct to just 'know' which is the right answer, which probably explains why people suddenly 'click' in LR sections. Even worse, you can at times select the right answer meerly by a process of elimination. The study and practice of law is about adaptive argumentative creativity, which is not tested by the LSAT.


p.s. --LinkRemoved--) <- this rule is used, as I indicated in statutory and case law interpretation and inference.

lol

That link works about as well as your logic.

It is certainly as effective as your argumentative skills.

[JazzOne]

Well, if the LSAT was - here is an argument, now you construct a rebuttal argument that will strengthen/weaken it - then yeah, it could have a useful benefit for law school. Prephrasing is a great way of conducting LSAT tests, and being a solid prephraser will put you in good stead for law school. However, the LSAT doesn't follow that route, it gives you the answer that you pick out. Given the sheer volume of LSAT questions, it is extremely easy to develop an instinct to just 'know' which is the right answer, which probably explains why people suddenly 'click' in LR sections. Even worse, you can at times select the right answer meerly by a process of elimination. The study and practice of law is about adaptive argumentative creativity, which is not tested by the LSAT.


p.s. --LinkRemoved--) <- this rule is used, as I indicated in statutory and case law interpretation and inference.

lol

That link works about as well as your logic.

It is certainly as effective as your argumentative skills.

Wow. "I know you are, but what am I?" Very clever.

[incompetentia]

But what is the correlation of 1L grades to post-graduate success?

OH MY GOD I NEED TO SCORE IN THE TOP 10% OF MY CLASS WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING ME FUUUCK

[MrAdams]

Looking at your retorts in this debate, I would say I too was making an observation, rather than engaging in tit-for-tat.

[jeremychristiansen]

This topic single handedly makes me want to punch an innocent bystander. Have less of an ego please. Some people on these forums would kill to have a 174-175 range and you're whining about it because 1 guy did better than you. You do know that the LSAT has no correlation to how well you do in law school or great of a lawyer you will be afterwards right?

Suck up your 174 and quit complaining.

You do know that you're incorrect right? LSAT scores are statistically correlated with 1L grades.

But isn't it like r^2= .16? Or in other words 16% of your grades are determined by your LSAT. I may be mistaken but I think the guy who is at UVA that used to be at LSAC said this. He said it is the strongest correlation for graduate school tests. Personally I think that is a pretty poor correlation, and (i know it is anecdotal) I know and know of lots of hard working people who goofed their LSAT but finished top of their class. I even thought that the UVA guy said statistically you would always have (if they were admitted) people from the bottom 25% LSAT who finish in the top 25% of law school. Granted, there aren't as many, but an LSAT score really isn't the final say on your life as a lawyer. My sister had one of the lowest LSAT's in her class, but finished near the top working at a high paying law firm doing corporate litigation, she is in the court room all the time, happy and making money..moral of story-->LSAT =/= life and death nor law school outcome.

I just said they were correlated, which they are. The correlation is not perfect, but I was rebutting the argument that there was "no correlation" whatsoever.

I get you, and I think OP should get over it..there is ALWAYS someone smarter than yourself. I just think that .16 isn't very strong at all. I was shocked to hear that that was all it was. 16% seems like very little, even 24% doesn't seem like a whole a lot to me. I think people who don't do as well on the LSAT (not his guy with his oh-so-awful 174 ) in generally should not go throw themselves off a bridge thinking "I'll never be lawyer, I hate myself." Which happens a lot.