Top Law Schools

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

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

I would strangle a puppy for a 170 right now.

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

Philosopher King wrote:

hotspur wrote: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.

Philosopher King wrote:

hotspur wrote: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.

Sibley 2.0 wrote: 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

Ludovico Technique wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:

hotspur wrote: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

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

Tom Joad wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:

hotspur wrote: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?

Mr.Binks wrote:

Tom Joad wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:

hotspur wrote: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?

Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote: 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

Tom Joad wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:

hotspur wrote: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?

Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote: 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

PDaddy wrote:

Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote: 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.

PDaddy wrote:

Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote: 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.

swtlilsoni wrote: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!

Philosopher King wrote:

PDaddy wrote:

Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote: 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.

Philosopher King wrote:

PDaddy wrote:

Ludovico Technique wrote:Found it in another thread:

Sibley 2.0 wrote: 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.

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