Only 2% get a 170+ on the LSAT Forum

[Scallywaggums]

Just to repeat it for everyone's benefit my original argument was that learnability was a trait that probably provides disadvantages to certain groups of people (the poor was the one I named, people with children was another suggested group) and was therefore an undesirable trait in a standardized test.

While we've agreed that anyone with a job can afford it, I've agreed with the first half of what I emboldened, because there certainly are people who can't afford the materials. But since the LSAT is supposed to test for a skill set that is learn-able, I disagree with the second half: I don't think it's an undesirable trait, I think it's a necessary trait if your aim is correlation with LS performance. Unfortunate, yes, but as a couple have pointed out, it's far less biased against poor folk than most of life. My suggested solution was for LSAC to provide a bunch of PT's for those who qualify for a fee waiver.

I think you may be arriving at your "learn-ability" is "undesirable" in part because you say you're a natural LSAT whiz

[Tautology]

Just to repeat it for everyone's benefit my original argument was that learnability was a trait that probably provides disadvantages to certain groups of people (the poor was the one I named, people with children was another suggested group) and was therefore an undesirable trait in a standardized test.

While we've agreed that anyone with a job can afford it, I've agreed with the first half of what I emboldened, because there certainly are people who can't afford the materials. But since the LSAT is supposed to test for a skill set that is learn-able, I disagree with the second half: I don't think it's an undesirable trait, I think it's a necessary trait if your aim is correlation with LS performance. Unfortunate, yes, but as a couple have pointed out, it's far less biased against poor folk than most of life. My suggested solution was for LSAC to provide a bunch of PT's for those who qualify for a fee waiver.

I think you may be arriving at your "learn-ability" is "undesirable" in part because you say you're a natural LSAT whiz

You may be right in your accusation, although I'm not against people working hard for their results. Perhaps I have a second thing that I'm doing and not being fair about, and that is distinguishing between learnability (I will continue to make it one word I don't care what you or spell check say about it) that has to do with learning the underlying skills involved and learnability that has to do with learning the test. A lot of the benefit from prep seems to be learning how to deal with logic games or the different kinds of LR questions than it has to do with learning logic and reasoning at a more basic level. Maybe there's some kind of transferability that's important to me. If the learning is transferable to other things I mind it less than learning skills specifically for the test.

[Scallywaggums]

...distinguishing between learnability (I will continue to make it one word I don't care what you or spell check say about it)

3 points. I let spell check get the better of me. You, sir, have testicles.

As for the degree to which the LSAT tests for an applicable skill set, I feel like we've covered that question quite thoroughly, earlier on.

[kk19131]

I don't even know what's going on in here anymore.

[094320]

..

[WestOfTheRest]

I don't even know what's going on in here anymore.

I know, it's totally off-topic from the original post.

This has become the unofficial wait thread.

[truffleshuffle]

I don't even know what's going on in here anymore.

I know, it's totally off-topic from the original post.

The original post was just a statement of a fact that most people already knew. How it got beyond one page is truly amazing

[094320]

..

[WestOfTheRest]

The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.

I think this statement is what sparked it off in a different direction.

Yep, you guys all felt the need to express your hard ons for the lsat.

[kk19131]

And I stand by it.

All this talk of correlation and predictability is suspect to me.

[09042014]

Just to repeat it for everyone's benefit my original argument was that learnability was a trait that probably provides disadvantages to certain groups of people (the poor was the one I named, people with children was another suggested group) and was therefore an undesirable trait in a standardized test.

And that claim is without any empirical data to back it up.

[Tautology]

The LSAT is rubbish.

Despite what people like to say, it tests little more than a person's ability to take a particular LSAT.

I think this statement is what sparked it off in a different direction.

Yep, you guys all felt the need to express your hard ons for the lsat.

Every time someone mentions LR or RC I have to go masturbate. LG I can usually resist.

[3|ink]

Every time someone mentions LR or RC I have to go masturbate. LG I can usually resist.

About that...LG was talking to me the other day. She was depressed that she can't get you excited any more. I told her to try dressing up like an intern. It worked for Lewinsky.

[karcirate]

Now that we are off topic, here's a good one for you: What's the difference between Bill Clinton and a screwdriver?

One turns in screws, the other screws in-turns.

[bigben]

If it hurts one on the LSAT it will hurt one on a law exam.

This is a garbage argument. You are basically arguing that if something hurts someone on the lsat it is bound to hurt them on a law school exam.

180

I LOL'D

[bigben]

People who whine about the LSAT being unfair = insufferable idiots

[bigben]

I want to see evidence that the test is biased against lower income levels. Do poor students do better in law school than the LSAT says they should? That would be a huge blow against the LSAT.

I agree that evidence trumps speculation, but I have been unable to find such evidence

If a shred of such evidence existed, it would have already been trumped up and published by some hippie at Doalt Hall.

[3|ink]

I want to see evidence that the test is biased against lower income levels. Do poor students do better in law school than the LSAT says they should? That would be a huge blow against the LSAT.

I agree that evidence trumps speculation, but I have been unable to find such evidence

If a shred of such evidence existed, it would have already been trumped up and published by some hippie at Doalt Hall.

How would you even accurately test this? You don't have to state your income when you sign up for the test. At best, they could monitor the performance of those who ask for waivers.

Exactly how much free material does the LSAC provide? I heard a rumor that they will supply you with three tests free of charge, but I don't like going off of hearsay. If their free material is rather limited, I think that extending the free material they offer would strengthen the credibility of the exam. I don't have access to the LSAC's balance sheets, but I'd be willing to bet they're making way more than what is necessary to stay afloat. Forfeiting some of their copyrighted material would put too much of a dent on their bottom line.

[LSAT Blog]

http://www.lsac.org/lsat/fee-waivers.asp

Official LSAT SuperPrep contains 3 real PrepTests with complete explanations written by LSAC.


Aside from what LSAC grants to fee waiver recipients, LSAC also gives away PDFs of Oct 1996 (PT20) and June 2007:

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/test.pdf
http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/SamplePTJune.pdf


It also gives away a PDF with an overview of the exam, along with some sample questions and explanations:

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/LSATPreparationweb.pdf

[jeremydc]

I have the fee waiver and it comes with the Suprep book (as mentioned above), 2 free LSAT tests in 3 years (i think). the CRS registration and LOR registration (if I am not mistaken).

[IAFG]

I have the fee waiver and it comes with the Suprep book (as mentioned above), 2 free LSAT tests in 3 years (i think). the CRS registration and LOR registration (if I am not mistaken).

i got the fee waiver too and my parents are solidly upper middle class. this is too gameable to be a good pool to study.

[3|ink]

http://www.lsac.org/lsat/fee-waivers.asp

Official LSAT SuperPrep contains 3 real PrepTests with complete explanations written by LSAC.


Aside from what LSAC grants to fee waiver recipients, LSAC also gives away PDFs of Oct 1996 (PT20) and June 2007:

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/test.pdf
http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/SamplePTJune.pdf


It also gives away a PDF with an overview of the exam, along with some sample questions and explanations:

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/LSATPreparationweb.pdf

Sounds fair enough.

[flyingpanda]

ITT, good test takers defend the LSAT while those destined for the 150s blast it. Move along people, nothing to see.

[Chimica]

I have to see how I did before I can comment on whether the LSAT is a stupid test or a measure of genius.

[Hey-O]

ITT, good test takers defend the LSAT while those destined for the 150s blast it. Move along people, nothing to see.

This is a logical fallacy: ad hominem attack. Something useful I learned from the LSAT.