just voicing my frustration Forum

[swtlilsoni]

Hi I just want to voice my frustration
I ended up getting a 170 on the Dec 11 LSAT which I am happy about. Obviously I was shooting for higher but I am sooo glad I did not get below 170 that would have been a nightmare. So I am thankful for my score.

Then I looked at the item response sheet and noticed something crazy.
I only missed two on each of the first three sections (LR LG LR) and then missed 8 on RC!!! That is insane!! On all my PTs I never missed that much, 5 was the greatest including all 50 or so PTs I took, and the average missed was 3-4.

It's just a little frustrating because based on my performance on other sections I actually did really well and could have/should have gotten a higher score. But this freak accident of screwing up the RC dropped my score so much! It's hard to explain my frustration but if I consistenly did bad on all the sections then I'd feel like I deserved my score but other than RC I did so well otherwise!

[hotspur]

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

[swtlilsoni]

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

yeahh I'm glad I got a 170 it's just annoying that more than half of the ones I got wrong were in one section, when I'm usually okay in that section!

[iMisto]

I'm living that nightmare with my 167, and a -11 on that RC.

I would strangle a puppy for a 170 right now.

[HellOnHeels]

I'm living that nightmare with my 167, and a -11 on that RC.

I would strangle a puppy for a 170 right now.

you serious?

[Philosopher King]

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.

[Tom Joad]

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.

A lawsuit over what?

[Ludo!]

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.

Now I like where this thread is going

[Ludo!]

Found it in another thread:

I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info

[Philosopher King]

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.

Now I like where this thread is going

I do too. That makes two of us. I just had to say that.

[princeR]

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

Ya, because it was a hard test...

[Mr.Binks]

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.

A lawsuit over what?

[thederangedwang]

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.

A lawsuit over what?

He's just being stupid...or himself, whichever you prefer

[HBK]

I want to brag about my 170 by complaining about my performance. Very humble. Very douchey.

[lrslayer]

Found it in another thread:

I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info

i thought i read somewhere that it actually helps you out because you aren't reportable for rankings and therefore a school can accept you without a hit to their medians

[Philosopher King]

dude, you missed 14 questions and still got a 170. you should be sending LSAC a belated Christmas present

Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.

A lawsuit over what?

LSAC's policies that are illegal with regards to red flagging test scores taken with extra time.

[PDaddy]

Found it in another thread:

I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info

If I had time and a half, I could get a 180...easily and with much time to spare. All I would need is an additional 5 minutes per section and I would essentially have 180 in the bag. So forgive those of us who have little or no sympathy for the "disabled" test-takers who are given time-and-a-half and then reach 170+. It appears as if they could have acheived "decent scores" (159-165) even without the additional time and thus did not necessarily need it. This is coming from a guy who believes the LSAT to be a flawed test to begin with.

Still, I do not think it should be eliminated, as the LSAC is considering, just improved to measure more types of skills and traits. I also think that any accommodated test-taker who scores a 170+ has certainly shown that he/she can do the work.

As imperfect as it is, it's the only test we have. Almost any reasonably intelligent person - if dedicated and disciplined - can acheive a respectable score on it. The problem is that schools are misusing it by giving it too much weight in the admission process. A good score should certainly strengthen an application, but a lower score should not necessarily weaken an otherwise good application. That is, scoring well on the LSAT should be viewed only a sufficient condition for demonstrating potential success in law school, not a necessary one. Moreover, schools treat two and three-point score differences between otherwise similar applicants as if they are meaningful when they are not.

Schools should not read too much into the scores, good, bad or other.

[HBK]

If you're blind or dyslexic, then you should get accommodations on the LSAT. If you have ADD or some sort of "learning disability," I'm sorry. You're either dumb or like Aderrall enough to get a prescription. You should not get special accommodations.

[princeR]

Found it in another thread:

I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info

If I had time and a half, I could get a 180...easily and with much time to spare. All I would need is an additional 5 minutes per section and I would essentially have 180 in the bag. So forgive those of us who have little or no sympathy for the "disabled" test-takers who are given time-and-a-half and then reach 170+. It appears as if they could have acheived "decent scores" (159-165) even without the additional time and thus did not necessarily need it. This is coming from a guy who believes the LSAT to be a flawed test to begin with.

The part about the couple of point difference is just ridiculous. I mean, what is the difference between a 164 and a 167? It's just a couple of questions... sometimes only 4 or so.

Still, I do not think it should be eliminated, as the LSAC is considering, just improved to measure more types of skills and traits. I also think that any accommodated test-taker who scores a 170+ has certainly shown that he/she can do the work.

As imperfect as it is, it's the only test we have. Almost any reasonably intelligent person - if dedicated and disciplined - can acheive a respectable score on it. The problem is that schools are misusing it by giving it too much weight in the admission process. A good score should certainly strengthen an application, but a lower score should not necessarily weaken an otherwise good application. That is, scoring well on the LSAT should be viewed only a sufficient condition for demonstrating potential success in law school, not a necessary one. Moreover, schools treat two and three-point score differences between otherwise similar applicants as if they are meaningful when they are not.

Schools should not read too much into the scores, good, bad or other.

[Philosopher King]

Found it in another thread:

I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info

If I had time and a half, I could get a 180...easily and with much time to spare. All I would need is an additional 5 minutes per section and I would essentially have 180 in the bag. So forgive those of us who have little or no sympathy for the "disabled" test-takers who are given time-and-a-half and then reach 170+. It appears as if they could have acheived "decent scores" (159-165) even without the additional time and thus did not necessarily need it. This is coming from a guy who believes the LSAT to be a flawed test to begin with.

Still, I do not think it should be eliminated, as the LSAC is considering, just improved to measure more types of skills and traits. I also think that any accommodated test-taker who scores a 170+ has certainly shown that he/she can do the work.

As imperfect as it is, it's the only test we have. Almost any reasonably intelligent person - if dedicated and disciplined - can acheive a respectable score on it. The problem is that schools are misusing it by giving it too much weight in the admission process. A good score should certainly strengthen an application, but a lower score should not necessarily weaken an otherwise good application. That is, scoring well on the LSAT should be viewed only a sufficient condition for demonstrating potential success in law school, not a necessary one. Moreover, schools treat two and three-point score differences between otherwise similar applicants as if they are meaningful when they are not.

Schools should not read too much into the scores, good, bad or other.

I may not agree with you analysis of extra time accommodations but I do agree with what you said about the LSAT being overemphasized. You articulated this point very well and the point that it should not be a necessary condition is especially true.

[dba415]

I'm convinced that the reading was one of the hardest ever, possibly the hardest reading section ever. Harder than the June 2011 one. So you're not alone. I missed 10 on it.

[IGotMy170]

Hi I just want to voice my frustration
I ended up getting a 170 on the Dec 11 LSAT which I am happy about. Obviously I was shooting for higher but I am sooo glad I did not get below 170 that would have been a nightmare. So I am thankful for my score.

Then I looked at the item response sheet and noticed something crazy.
I only missed two on each of the first three sections (LR LG LR) and then missed 8 on RC!!! That is insane!! On all my PTs I never missed that much, 5 was the greatest including all 50 or so PTs I took, and the average missed was 3-4.

It's just a little frustrating because based on my performance on other sections I actually did really well and could have/should have gotten a higher score. But this freak accident of screwing up the RC dropped my score so much! It's hard to explain my frustration but if I consistenly did bad on all the sections then I'd feel like I deserved my score but other than RC I did so well otherwise!

I don't really get your complaint man. If the reading comprehension was easier, you might have missed fewer problems, but then the curve wouldn't be -14.

My test looked a lot like yours. I missed 2 on LR, 2 on LG, 2 on LR, and then 7 on RC.

[IGotMy170]

Found it in another thread:

I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info

If I had time and a half, I could get a 180...easily and with much time to spare. All I would need is an additional 5 minutes per section and I would essentially have 180 in the bag. So forgive those of us who have little or no sympathy for the "disabled" test-takers who are given time-and-a-half and then reach 170+. It appears as if they could have acheived "decent scores" (159-165) even without the additional time and thus did not necessarily need it. This is coming from a guy who believes the LSAT to be a flawed test to begin with.

Still, I do not think it should be eliminated, as the LSAC is considering, just improved to measure more types of skills and traits. I also think that any accommodated test-taker who scores a 170+ has certainly shown that he/she can do the work.

As imperfect as it is, it's the only test we have. Almost any reasonably intelligent person - if dedicated and disciplined - can acheive a respectable score on it. The problem is that schools are misusing it by giving it too much weight in the admission process. A good score should certainly strengthen an application, but a lower score should not necessarily weaken an otherwise good application. That is, scoring well on the LSAT should be viewed only a sufficient condition for demonstrating potential success in law school, not a necessary one. Moreover, schools treat two and three-point score differences between otherwise similar applicants as if they are meaningful when they are not.

Schools should not read too much into the scores, good, bad or other.

I may not agree with you analysis of extra time accommodations but I do agree with what you said about the LSAT being overemphasized. You articulated this point very well and the point that it should not be a necessary condition is especially true.

But you want more emphasis on GPA and it has already been demonstrated a million times over why more emphasis on GPA would be ridiculous.

[NYC Law]

Found it in another thread:

I get time and a half on my tests as an accommodation at my university and my slow processing speed is a well documented disability. I knew I could get accommodations on the LSAT for extra time but did not get them. Why? Because such test scores are stigmatized by LSAC. The most important problem is that, along with your score, they send a letter to the law schools you apply at telling them to interpret your test score "With great sensitivity and flexibility" which is basically thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the person got extra time which we had to give them to pretend that we're following the ADA." I plan to file a lawsuit against them as I am convinced that this practice is illegal. See below for more info

If I had time and a half, I could get a 180...easily and with much time to spare. All I would need is an additional 5 minutes per section and I would essentially have 180 in the bag. So forgive those of us who have little or no sympathy for the "disabled" test-takers who are given time-and-a-half and then reach 170+. It appears as if they could have acheived "decent scores" (159-165) even without the additional time and thus did not necessarily need it. This is coming from a guy who believes the LSAT to be a flawed test to begin with.

Still, I do not think it should be eliminated, as the LSAC is considering, just improved to measure more types of skills and traits. I also think that any accommodated test-taker who scores a 170+ has certainly shown that he/she can do the work.

As imperfect as it is, it's the only test we have. Almost any reasonably intelligent person - if dedicated and disciplined - can acheive a respectable score on it. The problem is that schools are misusing it by giving it too much weight in the admission process. A good score should certainly strengthen an application, but a lower score should not necessarily weaken an otherwise good application. That is, scoring well on the LSAT should be viewed only a sufficient condition for demonstrating potential success in law school, not a necessary one. Moreover, schools treat two and three-point score differences between otherwise similar applicants as if they are meaningful when they are not.

Schools should not read too much into the scores, good, bad or other.

I may not agree with you analysis of extra time accommodations but I do agree with what you said about the LSAT being overemphasized. You articulated this point very well and the point that it should not be a necessary condition is especially true.

We get it, you mad. Stop shitting up every thread.

[Blessedassurance]

LSAC's policies that are illegal with regards to red flagging test scores taken with extra time.

Accept your score, retake or move on. I think the LSAT is a stupid test but your incessant rants are getting ridiculous.

A lot of people could do better with additional time.