For TLSers who get angry when people trivialize their score Forum

[maxm2764]

OP, pull the giant stick out of your ass. Saying a few big words doesn't make you look smart, it makes it look like you're trying too hard.

[JohnBoy]

I love how people act like being a lawyer is a guarantee to a massive salary.

[KibblesAndVick]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

wtf?

I spent about 150 dollars on prep. I earned that money working in a restaurant while I was still in college on student loans. The LSAT is, without a doubt, one of the most beneficial aspects of law school admissions when it comes to helping poor students. The system isn't perfect but the LSAT is probably the fairest part.

[Audio Technica Guy]

Oh, you're going to love the Socratic method!

I don't know this guy and maybe his awesome personality just doesn't come across as well as it could on a message board, but... He really seems like the kind of kid who was used to being the big fish in the small pond. Smarter than most of the kids in his high school, smarter than most of the kids at his UG, but then when he ran into the LSAT, all the sudden he was meeting this group of people who were substantially smarter than him. And it is KILLING him. He's torn between a sort of realization that he's not as smart as he thought he was and this urge to prove that he is still the smartest guy around. He's simultaneously disdainful of those around him, but when people make fun of his score it infuriates him to no end. We called this SLAC syndrome at my law school, because it was overwhelmingly the province of those from artsy fartsy small liberal arts colleges that pretended to be prestigious. The kids from legit top undergrads were used to SOMEONE being smarter than they are so it didn't bother them as much, and the kids from big state schools didn't really care in the first place. But the SLAC'ers would flip the fuck out when people gave them the "are you really that dumb?" look that EVERYONE gets at some point in law school.

Kind of funny.

Again, I could be totally off base regarding the OP, but he should at least be aware that this is the way he is coming off.

[Nikrall]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

Yeah, basically.

Which is why there were so many kids who grew up poor at my law school. The kids who grew up poor and made it into a good school are very much the exception, not the rule.

[LoyolaLaw2012]

I love how people act like being a lawyer is a guarantee to a massive salary.

It doesn't? Ugh that ruins all of my plans.

[maxm2764]

Oh, you're going to love the Socratic method!

I don't know this guy and maybe his awesome personality just doesn't come across as well as it could on a message board, but... He really seems like the kind of kid who was used to being the big fish in the small pond. Smarter than most of the kids in his high school, smarter than most of the kids at his UG, but then when he ran into the LSAT, all the sudden he was meeting this group of people who were substantially smarter than him. And it is KILLING him. He's torn between a sort of realization that he's not as smart as he thought he was and this urge to prove that he is still the smartest guy around. He's simultaneously disdainful of those around him, but when people make fun of his score it infuriates him to no end. We called this SLAC syndrome at my law school, because it was overwhelmingly the province of those from artsy fartsy small liberal arts colleges that pretended to be prestigious. The kids from legit top undergrads were used to SOMEONE being smarter than they are so it didn't bother them as much, and the kids from big state schools didn't really care in the first place. But the SLAC'ers would flip the fuck out when people gave them the "are you really that dumb?" look that EVERYONE gets at some point in law school.

Kind of funny.

Again, I could be totally off base regarding the OP, but he should at least be aware that this is the way he is coming off.

Or OP is a giant douche.

[Audio Technica Guy]

I love how people act like being a lawyer is a guarantee to a massive salary.

wait, when did people start mentioning salary in this thread? Or has this just turned into "random things that infuriate JohnBoy for no real reason"?

[Nikrall]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

wtf?

I spent about 150 dollars on prep. I earned that money working in a restaurant while I was still in college on student loans. The LSAT is, without a doubt, one of the most beneficial aspects of law school admissions when it comes to helping poor students. The system isn't perfect but the LSAT is probably the fairest part.

Well done. Your experience is not representative. Of course you haven't actually said your LSAT score and at this point I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, you got in the 170's.

[Audio Technica Guy]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

Yeah, basically.

Which is why there were so many kids who grew up poor at my law school. The kids who grew up poor and made it into a good school are very much the exception, not the rule.

The causation/correlation flaw you are making is that you're assuming that smart people don't make more money and then have smart kids due to genetics and that smart kids then don't do better on the GPA/LSAT. This would explain why rich kids go to good law schools, without your "it has to be money and influence buying spots" point.

I'm not necessarily making that argument, but it is a valid point to make and you have to refute it to make the point you're trying to make. There is no guarantee that intelligence is uniformly distributed across all socioeconomic classes.

[mallard]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

Yeah, basically.

Which is why there were so many kids who grew up poor at my law school. The kids who grew up poor and made it into a good school are very much the exception, not the rule.

That has largely to do with other advantages obtained outside the LSAT. The costs of LSAT prep are vastly less than the costs of law school.

[KibblesAndVick]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

wtf?

I spent about 150 dollars on prep. I earned that money working in a restaurant while I was still in college on student loans. The LSAT is, without a doubt, one of the most beneficial aspects of law school admissions when it comes to helping poor students. The system isn't perfect but the LSAT is probably the fairest part.

Well done. Your experience is not representative. Of course you haven't actually said your LSAT score and at this point I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, you got in the 170's.

I understand that it's not representative but that's not exactly the point. The point is that it's there for the taking. It's not a closed party. Everyone's invited. I understand it's not completely equal. There are still advantages to being well off in LSAT prep. But, regardless, there's no good reason why a poorer student can't achieve their potential on the LSAT.

[Nikrall]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

Yeah, basically.

Which is why there were so many kids who grew up poor at my law school. The kids who grew up poor and made it into a good school are very much the exception, not the rule.

The causation/correlation flaw you are making is that you're assuming that smart people don't make more money and then have smart kids due to genetics and that smart kids then don't do better on the GPA/LSAT. This would explain why rich kids go to good law schools, without your "it has to be money and influence buying spots" point.

I'm not necessarily making that argument, but it is a valid point to make and you have to refute it to make the point you're trying to make. There is no guarantee that intelligence is uniformly distributed across all socioeconomic classes.

Indeed I am assuming that, as I've never seen any evidence that has shown it to be true and there is boatloads of evidence showing that intelligence is linked to all sorts of environmental factors.

Aside from that, it would have to be more than that smart people have smart kids. You would also have to assume that the same type of intelligence that is required to make money is the type tested on the LSAT.

Edit: You are also confusing something that is objectively demonstrable with something that has evidence, but is merely an opinion.

[Nikrall]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

Yeah, basically.

Which is why there were so many kids who grew up poor at my law school. The kids who grew up poor and made it into a good school are very much the exception, not the rule.

That has largely to do with other advantages obtained outside the LSAT. The costs of LSAT prep are vastly less than the costs of law school.

Lenders are happy to loan you money for law school. Loans for LSAT prep....less so.

[Nikrall]

Right. A test in which test prep is incredibly expensive and it is fairly impossible to do well without lots of study is a good way of increasing intergenerational mobility.

wtf?

I spent about 150 dollars on prep. I earned that money working in a restaurant while I was still in college on student loans. The LSAT is, without a doubt, one of the most beneficial aspects of law school admissions when it comes to helping poor students. The system isn't perfect but the LSAT is probably the fairest part.

Well done. Your experience is not representative. Of course you haven't actually said your LSAT score and at this point I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, you got in the 170's.

I understand that it's not representative but that's not exactly the point. The point is that it's there for the taking. It's not a closed party. Everyone's invited. I understand it's not completely equal. There are still advantages to being well off in LSAT prep. But, regardless, there's no good reason why a poorer student can't achieve their potential on the LSAT.

This is a terrible argument and its used constantly to justify the system.

That some people who are poor can get into law school due to the LSAT, does not mean that the LSAT does not discriminate, in the aggregate, against the poor.

Can some poor people do great on the LSAT? Yes. Is it more likely to fuck them then rich folks? Also yes.

[JohnBoy]

Audioguy,

Yeah, you're off base about somethings.

My PT average is 175 with a 170 in June 10'.

But, you are right about others.

I am not smart. I'm glad the LSAT doesn't test knowledge. I grew up in a place where less than 25% of my high school went on to college; a pretty small fuckin pond. I also don't base my self-worth on how smart I am in relation to my peers, being smart was not a desirable trait where I'm from.

And it is less about people making fun of my 170 than certain parents saying I didn't try hard enough. But you are right, I didn't go to a top undergrad..I'm sure it is far from it. Unfortunately, I had to take the full ride option because mommy and daddy didn't hold my hand and pave the way for me.

[mallard]

Lenders are happy to loan you money for law school. Loans for LSAT prep....less so.

It's true that somebody without a home, for example, will probably be unable to shell out the $25 for 4 practice LSATs.

[JohnBoy]

I love how people act like being a lawyer is a guarantee to a massive salary.

wait, when did people start mentioning salary in this thread? Or has this just turned into "random things that infuriate JohnBoy for no real reason"?

Someone said taking the LSAT and going to law school is upward mobility in the United States, measured in terms of salary.

So I commented on it.

[mallard]

I love how people act like being a lawyer is a guarantee to a massive salary.

wait, when did people start mentioning salary in this thread? Or has this just turned into "random things that infuriate JohnBoy for no real reason"?

Someone said taking the LSAT and going to law school is upward mobility in the United States, measured in terms of salary.

So I commented on it.

Standardized testing in general has helped upward mobility significantly. Anybody who doesn't know this knows nothing about the history of standardized testing.

[KibblesAndVick]

Lenders are happy to loan you money for law school. Loans for LSAT prep....less so.

No one will ever need a loan to successfully prepare for the LSAT. At most they'll need (1) a minimum wage job and (2) patience and dedication. (1) isn't exactly hard to find and (2) is in your own hands. The fact that Daddy's credit card makes it easier and more pleasant doesn't mean the system is conspiring to keep you down. At some point you have to take responsibility for your own life and stop bitching about circumstance.

[romothesavior]

This is a terrible argument and its used constantly to justify the system.

That some people who are poor can get into law school due to the LSAT, does not mean that the LSAT does not discriminate, in the aggregate, against the poor.

Can some poor people do great on the LSAT? Yes. Is it more likely to fuck them then rich folks? Also yes.

So what "system" do you recommend?

edit: quote fail

[Nikrall]

Lenders are happy to loan you money for law school. Loans for LSAT prep....less so.

It's true that somebody without a home, for example, will probably be unable to shell out the $25 for 4 practice LSATs.

Right. Kaplan, Blueprint, Powerscore, Knewton, Testmasters, Atlas are all just scams. People could figure it out on their own easy as pie if they would just buy $25 worth of preptests.

You said before you tutor. When people hire you, do you tell them just to buy $25 of preptests and they'll be fine? Somehow I highly doubt it.

[Audio Technica Guy]

Indeed I am assuming that, as I've never seen any evidence that has shown it to be true and there is boatloads of evidence showing that intelligence is linked to all sorts of environmental factors.

Aside from that, it would have to be more than that smart people have smart kids. You would also have to assume that the same type of intelligence that is required to make money is the type tested on the LSAT.

You should read The Bell Curve. A lot of people have accused it of being racist, but nobody has ever really disproved any of the studies it presented. A slightly less controversial work that addresses some of these issues in a less controversial way is Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. Both are tremendously important works that well informed citizens should at least have a passing knowledge with.

You've never seen any evidence that intelligence is linked to genetics? Really? Really?

You also wouldn't have to assume that the same type of intelligence that is required to make money is the type tested on the LSAT, just that the two are correlated, which isn't a very hard supposition to make at all.

I'm not saying I totally agree with this argument, but you're dismissing it whole hog out of hand, when it seems as if you have no idea whatsoever about the relevant work that his been done.

[mallard]

Lenders are happy to loan you money for law school. Loans for LSAT prep....less so.

It's true that somebody without a home, for example, will probably be unable to shell out the $25 for 4 practice LSATs.

Right. Kaplan, Blueprint, Powerscore, Knewton, Testmasters, Atlas are all just scams. People could figure it out on their own easy as pie if they would just buy $25 worth of preptests.

You said before you tutor. When people hire you, do you tell them just to buy $25 of preptests and they'll be fine? Somehow I highly doubt it.

First, yes, I stopped tutoring because I think it's kind of a scam. Second, I didn't need a course and neither do a lot of people. Third, what's the alternative - what's going to replace standardized testing that is less biased towards money?

[JohnBoy]

I love how people act like being a lawyer is a guarantee to a massive salary.

wait, when did people start mentioning salary in this thread? Or has this just turned into "random things that infuriate JohnBoy for no real reason"?

Someone said taking the LSAT and going to law school is upward mobility in the United States, measured in terms of salary.

So I commented on it.

Standardized testing in general has helped upward mobility significantly. Anybody who doesn't know this knows nothing about the history of standardized testing.

I'm sure that is one view. I know there are others that say standardized testing is geared towards white males, putting women and minorities at a disadvantage. I don't know either way, it is more complicated than a one sentence opinion.