Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT Forum

[Scallywaggums]

You're seriously telling me that the logic games somehow mimic real-life situations?

Are people often given sets of complex information that must be untangled in 7/8 minutes?

How exactly does this help someone in law school?

He's not suggesting that the games themselves mimic real-life situations; if I understand him correctly, I believe he's suggesting that one's ability to draw rules-based inferences to chop down the game's possible outcomes is the sort of ability that is manifested when someone spots something in the framework of a situation that others may not, giving them an advantage in the time it takes to analyze the situation, and perhaps also offering more accuracy in so doing.

[09042014]

Personally I feel that logic games mimic issue-spotters pretty well, in a very minimized way.

LG actually has the lowest correlation of the three sections.

And it's the easiest section to raise your score on by studying. Definitely needs to be thrown out!

Just because it's learnable doesn't necessary mean its flawed. After all, law school exams are learnable as well.

[Scallywaggums]

Personally I feel that logic games mimic issue-spotters pretty well, in a very minimized way.

LG actually has the lowest correlation of the three sections.

And it's the easiest section to raise your score on by studying. Definitely needs to be thrown out!

I'm not surprised it has the lowest correlation, but if it had absolutely no correlation it would probably already have been thrown out.

[Tautology]

Personally I feel that logic games mimic issue-spotters pretty well, in a very minimized way.

LG actually has the lowest correlation of the three sections.

And it's the easiest section to raise your score on by studying. Definitely needs to be thrown out!

Just because it's learnable doesn't necessary mean its flawed. After all, law school exams are learnable as well.

I was mostly joking, although I suspect that to the extent the LSAT predicts law school success because it is learnable it is prejudiced against those who don't have the time or money to study for them (the poor).

[IAFG]

I was mostly joking, although I suspect that to the extent the LSAT predicts law school success because it is learnable it is prejudiced against those who don't have the time or money to study for them (the poor) parents of young children.

fixed that for you

[Tautology]

I was mostly joking, although I suspect that to the extent the LSAT predicts law school success because it is learnable it is prejudiced against those who don't have the time or money to study for them (the poor) parents of young children.

fixed that for you

I don't see why mine needed to be stricken, but I like your addition.

[tomwatts]

Suggesting that it's learn-ability detracts from its worth requires the belief that only innate abilities are the most worthwhile to test for.

Heck yes. This is part of the reason that I like the LSAT more than other tests. LSAC writes the LSAT to test acquired skills, deliberately making it a test that you prepare for. It's partly a test of smarts, but it's more a test of how well you can study for a massive, high-stakes test, and I think testing your willingness to put in the work is more important than testing your innate intelligence.

Luck plays a big hand.

Unfortunately, the statistics on repeat testing do not support this assertion. Most people who take the test again without substantial studying do about the same (though I grant you that a few points' difference can be a big deal). But section order, exact question types, distribution of difficulty, etc., come out only two a few points (maybe 2-3 at most) statistically (hence the score band). It's not as though that sort of thing jumps you from a 155 to 170, the way that hardcore studying can.

[IAFG]

I was mostly joking, although I suspect that to the extent the LSAT predicts law school success because it is learnable it is prejudiced against those who don't have the time or money to study for them (the poor) parents of young children.

fixed that for you

I don't see why mine needed to be stricken, but I like your addition.

i don't think poor people have any less time than middle class people. people scraping by on unemployment have toooons of time.

[mst]

You're seriously telling me that the logic games somehow mimic real-life situations?

Are people often given sets of complex information that must be untangled in 7/8 minutes?

First off, it does not matter what purpose it serves in law school or as a lawyer. This is NOT a knowledge-based test. All that matters is its ability to help law schools identify students who will succeed or not. According to their research, it does that.


Not that it matters, but if you really want to know the ways that it could help (directly), then consider the numerous situations during a case or courtroom session or class where you are presented with several facts and must develop possible conclusions, restrictions, etc. on what happened. Consider how these situations usually don't involve hours where you get to sit around thinking about it. The games represent situations where you can identify these factors quickly and in a way that will be conducive to your learning.

Example: A professor will present several facts about a case. He'll call on you in class to make a call on that case. You don't have an hour to consider the possible outcomes, or possible reasons why something can or can't occur. You have a minute. When a witness is being questioned, you don't have an hour to analyze where the opposition is going with their questioning, or figure out why testimony may or may not fit within the context of the case. You have minutes. Life in law school and in law is at its core, being able to take principles, facts, details, etc. and develop logical outcomes, restrictions, conclusions, flaws, etc. in a shortened amount of time.

Just because YOU happen to be slower than many people in your effort to demonstrate those abilities doesn't mean the test is a bad detector of these abilities. The fact that you could not connect what appear to be meaningless games to real life situations only goes further in demonstrating that the LSAT probably didn't do that bad of a job with your score.

[Tautology]

I was mostly joking, although I suspect that to the extent the LSAT predicts law school success because it is learnable it is prejudiced against those who don't have the time or money to study for them (the poor) parents of young children.

fixed that for you

I don't see why mine needed to be stricken, but I like your addition.

i don't think poor people have any less time than middle class people. people scraping by on unemployment have toooons of time.

Well, I did mention money as well. Prep-tests and books cost money, not to mention courses. But my definition of poor was more to distinguish them from the children of upper-middle class and wealthy parents who don't have to worry about a job or paying bills at all. Under that definition, middle class would be included. But again, I don't think the cost of these things is irrelevant.

[IAFG]

Well, I did mention money as well. Prep-tests and books cost money, not to mention courses. But my definition of poor was more to distinguish them from the children of upper-middle class and wealthy parents who don't have to worry about a job or paying bills at all. Under that definition, middle class would be included. But again, I don't think the cost of these things is irrelevant.

i think you would be hard-pressed to find something more merit-based than law school admissions. it's not hard to come by preptests for free and the bibles aren't so expensive that even someone living at the poverty line couldn't buy them used. also, family names and money don't mean much, and neither do UGs or other things aside from two cold hard numbers.

[Ragged]

Personally I feel that logic games mimic issue-spotters pretty well, in a very minimized way.

LG actually has the lowest correlation of the three sections.

And it's the easiest section to raise your score on by studying. Definitely needs to be thrown out!

And there is no better place to start than June 2010.

[Tautology]

Well, I did mention money as well. Prep-tests and books cost money, not to mention courses. But my definition of poor was more to distinguish them from the children of upper-middle class and wealthy parents who don't have to worry about a job or paying bills at all. Under that definition, middle class would be included. But again, I don't think the cost of these things is irrelevant.

i think you would be hard-pressed to find something more merit-based than law school admissions. it's not hard to come by preptests for free and the bibles aren't so expensive used that even someone living at the poverty line couldn't buy them used. also, family names and money don't mean much, and neither do UGs or other things aside from two cold hard numbers.

I have never studied much for the LSAT or UG grades nor lived at or below the poverty line, so I'm not speaking from personal about either of these things, but I disagree about the extent to which both one's LSAT score and UG grades meritocratic. Surely they are to some extent, but someone who has to work their way through college has a harder time than someone who doesn't. I'm not saying you can't do well if you're poor, I'm just saying it's harder.

[09042014]

Well, I did mention money as well. Prep-tests and books cost money, not to mention courses. But my definition of poor was more to distinguish them from the children of upper-middle class and wealthy parents who don't have to worry about a job or paying bills at all. Under that definition, middle class would be included. But again, I don't think the cost of these things is irrelevant.

i think you would be hard-pressed to find something more merit-based than law school admissions. it's not hard to come by preptests for free and the bibles aren't so expensive used that even someone living at the poverty line couldn't buy them used. also, family names and money don't mean much, and neither do UGs or other things aside from two cold hard numbers.

I have never studied much for the LSAT or UG grades nor lived at or below the poverty line, so I'm not speaking from personal about either of these things, but I disagree about the extent to which both one's LSAT score and UG grades meritocratic. Surely they are to some extent, but someone who has to work their way through college has a harder time than someone who doesn't. I'm not saying you can't do well if you're poor, I'm just saying it's harder.

If you can't afford to buy an lsat book when you are 21, it's your fault, not society. They should get a fucking job. These aren't 17 year olds subjected to their parents finances, they are adults.

[WestOfTheRest]

Well, I did mention money as well. Prep-tests and books cost money, not to mention courses. But my definition of poor was more to distinguish them from the children of upper-middle class and wealthy parents who don't have to worry about a job or paying bills at all. Under that definition, middle class would be included. But again, I don't think the cost of these things is irrelevant.

i think you would be hard-pressed to find something more merit-based than law school admissions. it's not hard to come by preptests for free and the bibles aren't so expensive used that even someone living at the poverty line couldn't buy them used. also, family names and money don't mean much, and neither do UGs or other things aside from two cold hard numbers.

I have never studied much for the LSAT or UG grades nor lived at or below the poverty line, so I'm not speaking from personal about either of these things, but I disagree about the extent to which both one's LSAT score and UG grades meritocratic. Surely they are to some extent, but someone who has to work their way through college has a harder time than someone who doesn't. I'm not saying you can't do well if you're poor, I'm just saying it's harder.

If you can't afford to buy an lsat book when you are 21, it's your fault, not society. They should get a fucking job. These aren't 17 year olds subjected to their parents finances, they are adults.

I think maybe you've had the silver spoon stuck up your ass a bit too long. Just sayin.

[094320]

..

[09042014]

i think you would be hard-pressed to find something more merit-based than law school admissions. it's not hard to come by preptests for free and the bibles aren't so expensive used that even someone living at the poverty line couldn't buy them used. also, family names and money don't mean much, and neither do UGs or other things aside from two cold hard numbers.

I have never studied much for the LSAT or UG grades nor lived at or below the poverty line, so I'm not speaking from personal about either of these things, but I disagree about the extent to which both one's LSAT score and UG grades meritocratic. Surely they are to some extent, but someone who has to work their way through college has a harder time than someone who doesn't. I'm not saying you can't do well if you're poor, I'm just saying it's harder.

If you can't afford to buy an lsat book when you are 21, it's your fault, not society. They should get a fucking job. These aren't 17 year olds subjected to their parents finances, they are adults.

I think maybe you've had the silver spoon stuck up your ass a bit too long. Just sayin.

No silver spoon, but I won't claim I did everything on my own. I grew up solidly middle class.

But I bought my LSAT books with money I earned, and studied after my job. If I can work 45-50 hours, commute 10, and still find time to do a PT a day, the excuse the poor can't find time is bullshit.

You could argue that poverty irreparably harms a person, but that doesn't make it less of a meritocracy.

[WestOfTheRest]

No silver spoon, but I won't claim I did everything on my own. I grew up solidly middle class.

But I bought my LSAT books with money I earned, and studied after my job. If I can work 45-50 hours, commute 10, and still find time to do a PT a day, the excuse the poor can't find time is bullshit.

You could argue that poverty irreparably harms a person, but that doesn't make it less of a meritocracy.

I don't think you have the right to make any such claims. I'm not going to say that poverty is going to stop someone from doing well, but the fact is that people come from different circumstances and poverty is often one of the factors that makes these circumstances more negative. However, don't try to make judgements on things you really don't know about.

[Tautology]

If you can't afford to buy an lsat book when you are 21, it's your fault, not society. They should get a fucking job. These aren't 17 year olds subjected to their parents finances, they are adults.

This is a straw man based on a stupid argument. The stupid argument is the idea that all you need is one LSAT book in order to have the same opportunities as someone who can buy as many as they want, and take courses and hire a private tutor. The straw man is obviously the idea that I am arguing that poor people can't afford that one book. Neither of those is true.

[Scallywaggums]

While someone with a full time job should be able to purchase materials, not everyone is either gainfully employed or otherwise scamming the unemployment system. Purchasing new LG & LR Bibles, the three sets of 10 PTs and all the new ones runs ya a few hundred. Affordable unless you actually are poor poor.

[Tautology]

No silver spoon, but I won't claim I did everything on my own. I grew up solidly middle class.

But I bought my LSAT books with money I earned, and studied after my job. If I can work 45-50 hours, commute 10, and still find time to do a PT a day, the excuse the poor can't find time is bullshit.

You could argue that poverty irreparably harms a person, but that doesn't make it less of a meritocracy.

This is just dumb. The question isn't whether something is possible, the question is whether something is easier for one person than it is for another because of wealth. If studying the LSAT improves one's score, and if studying is easier for some people than for others because of their wealth, than those people are advantaged by their wealth.

[094320]

..

[taw856]

the question is whether something is easier for one person than it is for another because of wealth. If studying the LSAT improves one's score, and if studying is easier for some people than for others because of their wealth, than those people are advantaged by their wealth.

Don't worry dude.

people scraping by on unemployment have toooons of time.

[Scallywaggums]

H'okay, so just bringing some interesting data into the discussion and trying to steer it away a little.

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/rr/LSA ... udy-ES.htm

LSAT&LGPA is the best predictor for bar passage rates they can find, with adding UGPA not helping! Further proof that the LSAT is testing *something* that law schools care about.

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/rr/Sel ... n-1989.htm
This goes over how much people prep and the amount it helps.

6 points

Oh bother, the second one's from before the 180-point scale.

[jeremydc]

Interesting opinions.

I like the way the LSAT is formatted with the the 3 sections. My family has been in the lower class for a long time and I don't feel disadvantaged one bit. I was able to DL a torrent of the PS bibles and many tests and explanation. Even though this is frowned upon, there is no other way for me to come up with a few hundred for prep material. No bs, my total family income is at about 40,000$. We do not have welfare or any other government aid because my family believes that we are stable even to make it on our own.

I have been approved for the fee waiver, got a free copy of the superprep as well. I feel personally that I do need some financial help in this process and am blessed that LSAC provided me this service because it would be very difficult to apply to more then a few places for law school and afford the 125$ fee for the CRS service.

Personally, the LSAT is just a door filled with opportunities.