Top Law Schools

Veritas

Either you're a flame or you're mad.

Either way, you're wrong.

P.S. No, this isn't an original thought and no, you haven't discovered something original.

BrownBears09 wrote:Either you're a flame or you're mad.

Either way, you're wrong.

P.S. No, this isn't an original thought and no, you haven't discovered something original.

No, I never claimed this was an original thought. No, you haven't provided evidence for your position, but yes, you are a lame for such a weak comment.

While it hasn't been proven either way, there are still only 2 possibilities; either the curve is pre-determined or not. If it was not pre-determined, certain administrations (such as December) would be advantageous to some test-takers because they are the more well prepared/less stressed minority compared to those writing exams etc. A 170 in December would mean something different than a 170 in say, October. This is the sort of view that LSAC wants to eliminate, the entire reliability and validity of their test depends on the fact that scores accross administrations mean the same level of skill.

You're also not considering the fact that it isn't totally predetermined because we're talking about a different set of test-takers than those who had the experimentals. Predetermined is too strong a word, the results of the experimental section aren't necessarily proven to follow through in a later test. But it gives LSAC good statistical evidence that they will.

Plato's Thoughts wrote:

BrownBears09 wrote:Either you're a flame or you're mad.

Either way, you're wrong.

P.S. No, this isn't an original thought and no, you haven't discovered something original.

No, I never claimed this was an original thought. No, you haven't provided evidence for your position, but yes, you are a lame for such a weak comment.

you sound like a tool

magicman554 wrote:You're also not considering the fact that it isn't totally predetermined because we're talking about a different set of test-takers than those who had the experimentals. Predetermined is too strong a word, the results of the experimental section aren't necessarily proven to follow through in a later test. But it gives LSAC good statistical evidence that they will.

Right, it would make more sense if they used the experimental results as guidelines to compare raw scores among the various strata. Not sure what they do if there is a discrepancy, but I'm sure given how many administrations they've gone through the statistical data correlate very well.

Premise: LSAC discloses in detail the test-equating method it uses to determine LSAT scores (http://www.lsac.org/LsacResources/Resea ... -92-01.asp)

Premise: LSAC has, to date, not been shown to be fraudulent or otherwise dishonest.

Conclusion: The LSAT scores are determined by the test-equating method disclosed by LSAC, and not by some secret curve.

This line of thought (i.e. that LSAC has some secret agenda in determining scores) has alternately baffled and amused me since I first found these forums. Unless a significant number of LSAC staff has a niece, Godson, or daughter sitting for a given administration, I'm not sure I understand why they would conspire to jimmy the outcome. Here's a classic -- IMO, one of the funniest threads in TLS history:

Premise: OP doesn't like his test score.

Conclusion: LSAC staff should be FIRED!!!!!!!!

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=110253

Every test cycle this comes up. It's the same problem every time, no one really wants to do the research...inevitably someone does and eventually everyone comes to the conclusion that the curve is predetermined, it's not set by the test takers that day...just give it time and this thread or some other will get there...or do some more research.

kkklick wrote:

magicman554 wrote:You're also not considering the fact that it isn't totally predetermined because we're talking about a different set of test-takers than those who had the experimentals. Predetermined is too strong a word, the results of the experimental section aren't necessarily proven to follow through in a later test. But it gives LSAC good statistical evidence that they will.

Right, it would make more sense if they used the experimental results as guidelines to compare raw scores among the various strata. Not sure what they do if there is a discrepancy, but I'm sure given how many administrations they've gone through the statistical data correlate very well.

They usually do, but reality dictates that there is a likelihood for some weird events to transpire and significantly alter the curve (e.g. E. Coli outbreak makes lots of test-takers sick and screws up the results.....not likely, but still precludes the accurate use of the word "predetermined" in this context).

fastforward wrote:Premise: LSAC discloses in detail the test-equating method it uses to determine LSAT scores (http://www.lsac.org/LsacResources/Resea ... -92-01.asp)

Premise: LSAC has, to date, not been shown to be fraudulent or otherwise dishonest.

Conclusion: The LSAT scores are determined by the test-equating method disclosed by LSAC, and not by some secret curve.

This line of thought (i.e. that LSAC has some secret agenda in determining scores) has alternately baffled and amused me since I first found these forums. Unless a significant number of LSAC staff has a niece, Godson, or daughter sitting for a given administration, I'm not sure I understand why they would conspire to jimmy the outcome. Here's a classic -- IMO, one of the funniest threads in TLS history:

Premise: OP doesn't like his test score.

Conclusion: LSAC staff should be FIRED!!!!!!!!

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=110253

see there you go

BrownBears09 wrote:Either you're a flame or you're mad.

Either way, you're wrong.

P.S. No, this isn't an original thought and no, you haven't discovered something original.

This is everything I was looking for when I opened this thread. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT#Scoring

The LSAT system of scoring is predetermined and does not reflect test takers' percentile, unlike the SAT. The relationship between raw questions answered correctly (the "raw score") and scaled score is determined before the test is administered, through a process called equating.[12] This means that the conversion standard is set beforehand, and the distribution of percentiles can vary during the scoring of any particular LSAT.

Of course, the citation leads to a dead URL. But Wikipedia is generally foolproof because not just any homeless person off the street can edit it. Editing it requires Internet access!

fastforward wrote:Premise: LSAC discloses in detail the test-equating method it uses to determine LSAT scores (http://www.lsac.org/LsacResources/Resea ... -92-01.asp)

Premise: LSAC has, to date, not been shown to be fraudulent or otherwise dishonest.

Conclusion: The LSAT scores are determined by the test-equating method disclosed by LSAC, and not by some secret curve.

Flaw in logic = time shift error.

But in the real world, this is true. In the LSAT world...

I don't trust anyone who admires Plato and his philosophy enough to make him their tar.

LSAC also (sometimes) gives the same test over again in a different context. This is the reason for the unreleased tests: they'll be given internationally one year, then five years later they'll be given as a February test, then six years later they'll be given as another international test somewhere else, and then maybe someday they'll be given as an American test and become a released PT. So if the test were curved based on test-takers' performances, then it would have a different scoring grid each time. That's ridiculous and untrue; it would violate everything about IRT and everything else that goes into making these things.

But either way, why would it matter? I mean, at all?

tomwatts wrote: But either way, why would it matter? I mean, at all?

Yeah, this.

Just get a lot of questions right.

tomwatts wrote:LSAC also (sometimes) gives the same test over again in a different context. This is the reason for the unreleased tests: they'll be given internationally one year, then five years later they'll be given as a February test, then six years later they'll be given as another international test somewhere else, and then maybe someday they'll be given as an American test and become a released PT. So if the test were curved based on test-takers' performances, then it would have a different scoring grid each time. That's ridiculous and untrue; it would violate everything about IRT and everything else that goes into making these things.

But either way, why would it matter? I mean, at all?

+1

(IRT = Item Response Theory)

androstan wrote:I don't trust anyone who admires Plato and his philosophy enough to make him their tar.

I wouldn't either, but to be fair, he probably just thinks it makes him look smart.

.

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:

suspicious android wrote:

androstan wrote:I don't trust anyone who admires Plato and his philosophy enough to make him their tar.

I wouldn't either, but to be fair, he probably just thinks it makes him look smart.

This might be the clack clack clack sound of the roller coaster right before it takes a huge dive.

FYI: Western Philosophy started with Plato, including political science and the concept of democracy, which Plato advocated in the "Laws".

Plato's Thoughts wrote: FYI: Western Philosophy started with Plato, including political science and the concept of democracy, which Plato advocated in the "Laws".

lol, every single part of this sentence is wrong, well done.

Western Philosophy was well one its way before Plato, e.g., Thales, the Pythagoreans, Heraclitus, Socrates, etc.

The father of political science is widely regarded to be Aristotle, and political thought in general had of course been well developed for hundreds of years before either of them.

Democracy existed a couple hundred years before Plato, and the city described in "Laws" is a Republic.

suspicious android wrote:

Plato's Thoughts wrote: FYI: Western Philosophy started with Plato, including political science and the concept of democracy, which Plato advocated in the "Laws".

lol, every single part of this sentence is wrong, well done.

Western Philosophy was well one its way before Plato, e.g., Thales, the Pythagoreans, Heraclitus, Socrates, etc.

The father of political science is widely regarded to be Aristotle, and political thought in general had of course been well developed for hundreds of years before either of them.

Democracy existed a couple hundred years before Plato, and in his dialogue Laws, he does not describe anything resembling a democracy.

Just further evidence of the fact that you should never make unsubstantiated claims on TLS, someone will call you out on it.

.

kkklick wrote:

suspicious android wrote:

Plato's Thoughts wrote: FYI: Western Philosophy started with Plato, including political science and the concept of democracy, which Plato advocated in the "Laws".

lol, every single part of this sentence is wrong, well done.

Western Philosophy was well one its way before Plato, e.g., Thales, the Pythagoreans, Heraclitus, Socrates, etc.

The father of political science is widely regarded to be Aristotle, and political thought in general had of course been well developed for hundreds of years before either of them.

Democracy existed a couple hundred years before Plato, and in his dialogue Laws, he does not describe anything resembling a democracy.

Just further evidence of the fact that you should never make unsubstantiated claims on TLS, someone will call you out on it.

By started, I meant put it into a coherent system that made it through history...My sentence is correct. Your wrong about Aristotle and obviously you haven't read the Laws... Following the Statesmen, where Plato completely argues for a Democracy, in the Laws Plato explains that human nature won’t allow for a state where justice is fully present, so he suggests a state that takes into account human flaws and argues that, in practice, a well-governed city is one where a democracy is present and moderation can be observed. If you fully read Plato's cannon, you might figure out that he doesn't think that the state he put forth in the Republic was feasible, even though he thought it was a just state, so he advocated a democracy because he thought this was the best way to limit the power of tyrannical rulers. Rookies...