The Official June 2015 Study Group Forum

[TheWalkingDebt]

Not sure if everyone saw this:
http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/2015-a ... -of-32015/

175-180 down 21.3%
170-174 down 10.7%

[Rigo]

& okay Abyss, I may hit you up for gear advice if online forums/backpacker mag/REI gets too confusing due to too many options.

A Triple Crown is on my bucket list. We'll see how my trial run goes this summer (not doing a long distance hike, just for clarification).

[RZ5646]

Not sure if everyone saw this:
http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/2015-a ... -of-32015/

175-180 down 21.3%
170-174 down 10.7%

I think I've said this before, but I bet some of the 175-180 drop is due to students knowing that they don't have to study as hard to get a good outcome. Since the economy started to recover and word got out about the law school scam, it's become a buyer's market.

[Rigo]

I think I've said this before, but I bet some of the 175-180 drop is due to students knowing that they don't have to study as hard to get a good outcome. Since the economy started to recover and word got out about the law school scam, it's become a buyer's market.

That's not how the curve works. Obviously higher scorers aren't applying but it has nothing to do with effort put into studying.

[RZ5646]

I'm not saying anything about the curve, I'm just questioning the usual explanation for the drop at the top—that the smartest students are turning away from law. It seems more likely to me that at least some smart applicants who would have been 175-180 when law admissions was more competitive are now deciding to put in less effort because they know they can get the outcome they want with a lower score. In reality, both explanations are probably correct.

ETA: Curve is set beforehand so it's not necessarily the case that there is the same portion of people in each score range each year. Theoretically everyone could get 180 or 120 or whatever.

I didn't actually read the article but what I'm saying is that if you compare the numbers of people who get that score each year you'd still see a drop because they know they can get in with say a 173 instead of a 176; it's not just people getting high scores and deciding that they don't want to attend. Sounds like the article is based on applications data. Don't know if raw data is available (and of course you could still say that the brightest people self-select out and never take the LSAT to begin with... again, it's a complicated issue).

[TheWalkingDebt]

I'm not saying anything about the curve, I'm just questioning the usual explanation for the drop at the top—that the smartest students are turning away from law. It seems more likely to me that smart applicants who would have been 175-180 when law admissions was more competitive are now deciding to put in less effort because they know they can get the outcome they want with a lower score. In reality, both explanations are probably correct.

ETA: Curve is set beforehand so it's not necessarily the case that there is the same portion of people in each score range each year. Theoretically everyone could get 180 or 120 or whatever.

I didn't actually read the article but what I'm saying is that if you compare the numbers of people who get that score each year you'd still see a drop because they know they can get in with say a 173 instead of a 176; it's not just people getting high scores and deciding that they don't want to attend. Sounds like the article is based on applications data.

I agree theoretically everyone could score at either end, but the reality is that proportionality exists by the simple nature of aggregating that many test-takers. The corresponding drop at the top end of the scoring makes sense in that regard.

[Rigo]

You don't get it, dude. The curve is set beforehand, so the wouldbe 175-180 scorers are still 175-180 scorers. Less effort, and they wouldn't be 175-180 scorers.

The proportion of scorers relative to the test pool is still the same as 2010. It's not that there are LESS people with high scorers (as in a smaller proportion of the whole).
It's simply that less people with those actual scores are actually applying. You are likely correct that those people have better options than law (though that hypothesis is in no way novel), but you're incorrectly extrapolating it regarding how the curve and percentiles work.

[Rigo]

Can't wait to see RZnumbers double down some more and alienate the rest of the thread.

[RZ5646]

You don't get it, dude. The curve is set beforehand, so the wouldbe 175-180 scorers are still 175-180 scorers. Less effort, and they wouldn't be 175-180 scorers.

This is the source of our disagreement: I'm referring to people with the potential to score 175-180, whether they put in the hours studying and actually do it or not. I'm saying that people with the raw intelligence to get 175+ are still applying, but they aren't getting those scores because they know that they don't need them. So the widely publicized "law school brain drain" is exaggerated.

The proportion of scorers relative to the test pool is still the same as 2010

That might be true. I haven't actually looked at the statistics so this is all conjecture. If the numbers prove me wrong, then I'm wrong.

[Rigo]

Sounds like the article is based on applications data.

Ah a backtrack instead. Glad you caught your RC slip up and edited.

[Rigo]

Your whole raw intelligence argument is dumb, because the LSAT doesn't measure that. It's moreso a test of diligence and perserverance.

[Rigo]

Tell us something cool or interesting about you as a person, RZ.

[JackelJ]

I was hoping if I took a week or so off from this thread it would get better. I didn't bother reading through all the posts I missed but it still seems as lame as ever.

On topic: I didn't get a chance to study so far this week since I was on spring break but I'm going to drill some LR and RC tonight

[Rigo]

How was Spring Break, Jackel?

[RZ5646]

Your whole raw intelligence argument is dumb, because the LSAT doesn't measure that. It's moreso a test of diligence and perserverance.

I was responding to the law school brain drain narrative that's been in the media. We're talking past each other.

[biggestlawman]

Sup Buds!

I've been ignoring my LSAT responsibilities for more than few days now. General melancholy, office nonsense, big changes at work, etc., have kept me retired. I possibly let things affect my agenda too much! I wonder how some people are just able to pull themselves together and keep producing, no matter!

With 2.5 months to go, I need to really buckle down. For me, it is important that I reach a place where I feel confident in my abilities to ace LSAT, or else I won't do too well. Reaching that level of confidence will mean putting in a serious amount of work.

People at work can really be a bunch of bitches. And it does not help that the likes of this RZ"whatever" keep spewing nonsense about law as a career, when everyone here is trying to head exactly in that direction.

[RZ5646]

And it does not help that the likes of this RZ"whatever" keep spewing nonsense about law as a career, when everyone here is trying to head exactly in that direction.

Dude if you think I'm especially negative about law as a career you haven't been on TLS very long

[JackelJ]

How was Spring Break, Jackel?

It was wonderful. Great company, skiing, and weather. I brought some stuff to drill but didn't even take it out of my bag. I figured 4 more days of not studying wouldn't hurt too much and I was pretty tired from finals which finished up on Saturday. But my gpa went up a whole 0.01 and now I'll start studying hard until June.

[Rigo]

And it does not help that the likes of this RZ"whatever" keep spewing nonsense about law as a career, when everyone here is trying to head exactly in that direction.

Dude if you think I'm especially negative about law as a career you haven't been on TLS very long

Yeah but you're in a thread full of aspiring lawyers so it's just weird.

[biggestlawman]

And it does not help that the likes of this RZ"whatever" keep spewing nonsense about law as a career, when everyone here is trying to head exactly in that direction.

Dude if you think I'm especially negative about law as a career you haven't been on TLS very long

Yeah but you're in a thread full of aspiring lawyers so it's just weird.

[Rigo]

How was Spring Break, Jackel?

It was wonderful. Great company, skiing, and weather. I brought some stuff to drill but didn't even take it out of my bag. I figured 4 more days of not studying wouldn't hurt too much and I was pretty tired from finals which finished up on Saturday. But my gpa went up a whole 0.01 and now I'll start studying hard until June.

I didnt think you would but I'm glad you have a nice little vacation.
Congrats on your GPA increase!
Now buckle down and go claim that 175+!

[JackelJ]

I didnt think you would but I'm glad you have a nice little vacation.
Congrats on your GPA increase!
Now buckle down and go claim that 175+!

Thanks! I'll get on it.

[TheWalkingDebt]

Mixed bag on PT 39, which is my 6th PT.

Timed: 165 (highest scaled score so far)
Raw: 80 correct (tied for highest correct)

BR: 168 (2nd highest)

LR continues to be a problem with the toughest level questions. By section:

Timed breakdown
Section 1 (LG): -4 (stupid mistakes that I keep making because the clock is ticking)
Section 2 (LR1): -8
Section 3 (RC): -2
Section 4 (LR2): -7

[Rigo]

Grats on your PT PR.

[TheWalkingDebt]

Grats on your PT PR.

PR?