UCLA. Absolutely hideous.
Topics - Candide
« on: July 20, 2004, 09:58:09 PM »
I have several questions concerning the newest pre-law obsession, chiashu (http://www.chiashu.com/lsat.html).
First, where does it come from? Who wrote the page and made the formula?
ZPops: He's been singing the praises of chiashu on several websites, and his style of writing and LSAT (175) are very similar to that of
"calculator" (176), a guest who claims to have created the site (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,473.0.html). According to Calculator, this is how the data was obtained and used:
My data came from the LSAC.
The first skeptic to question Calculator's site was none other than "Andrew", an LSD Site Administrator:
My data came from the LSAC.
I'm just curious how it works - not questioning the accuracy of your methods. I haven't looked at this stuff in a long time.
Let's just say it's not that hard to harvest the information that the lsac is trying to hide if you're tech savvy.
My guess is that it's probably a combination of altruism and greed. I guarantee that since the calculator was put on that website, the creator has made some money from the Amazon ads.
The problem with chiashu is that the methodology isn't published on the site. How do we know what year the data is from? Is the formula "peer-reviewed"?
Maroon brings up another problem that I've noticed when comparing chiashu to the new 2005 ABA LSAC Official Guide statistics:
I don't understand some of the calculations. For example, according to the calculator, I would have a 74% chance of being accepted to Vanderbilt with a 3.6 and a 170. However, according to the LSAC website, Vanderbilt accepted 27 out of 27 who applied with GPAs between 3.5-3.75 and LSATs between 170-174. That is a 100% vs. 74%. Something just doesn't seem right...
Until these questions are answered, one shouldn't rely on chiashu when deciding where to apply.
« on: July 20, 2004, 07:14:38 PM »
Seems like we haven't had one of these pointless hypothetical topics in a while, so here goes:
One of the LSAC techies gets tired of his $40,000K job and all the sudden decides to try his entrepreneurial hand (kind of like Green). He's selling LSAT points, at the rock-bottom price of $1,000 a point. If you buy any, how many do you buy? If his prices went up, what's the highest you would pay him for a point?
Please don't respond with moral objections, or concerns about getting caught.
edit: ...or test prep company trolling.
« on: July 19, 2004, 02:48:09 AM »
The way I understand it, each applicant gives law school admissions people two numerical presents: an LSAT score, and a GPA. These presents can look good or bad, depending on the law school and what they want to accept and keep to show to USNews.
My question is this: will the 4th year undergrad who sends his application in October, as part of the early admissions cycle, be at a disadvantage because his UGPA is not set in stone? Will admissions deans be weary of accepting him, because he could bomb his next two semesters and drag his GPA, and thus the law school’s incoming class GPA, down?
I’ve been working under the assumption that this is not the case, and the GPA statistics reported to USNews come from the LSDAS GPA reported to the law school when the decision to admit was made, and not when the undergrad transcript was complete. Am I right?
« on: July 12, 2004, 07:55:22 PM »
Check out this page on Northwestern´s website: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissions/profile/
I had no idea any law schools were placing this much importance on post-college work experience. I knew NU would be a reach for me, but now it looks impossible.
Check out footnote 14 in LSAC's latest, Official LSAT Superprep. Flipping through the book this caught my eye and for a second I thought, through some monumental publishing error, LSAC had let part of a question slip out before the test was given.
Unfortunately that's not the case. The footnote references this LR example:
Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission. Lee has wanted that job for a long time, and Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election.
I remember this one from an old test...I bet it's June 1994.
The only question remaining is whether or not the footnote was a real mistake. I can definitely see LSAC planting this "June 2004" here to stir up a whole bunch of antsy June test takers to go out and buy Superprep because they heard it's got a question in it that's gonna be on the test.
« on: June 06, 2004, 04:24:41 PM »
Section 4, Problem 18.
Coach: Our team has often been criticized for our enthusiasm in response to both our successes and our opponents' failures. But this behavior is hardly unprofessional, as our critics have claimed. On the contrary, if one looks at the professionals in this sport, one will find that they are even more effusive. Our critics should leave the team alone and let the players enjoy the game.
The coach's argument is most vulnerable to the charge that it
(A) misleadingly equates enthusiasm with unethical play
(B) misinterprets the critics' claim that the team is unprofessional
(C) too quickly generalizes from the sport at one level to the sport at a different level
(D) shifts the blame for the team's behavior to professional players
(E) takes everyone on the team to have performed the actions of a few
OK, before I even looked at the answers I knew the vulnerability was that the coach misinterpreted the critics' claim that the team was too enthusiastic.
I saw B and was confused because it too misinterprets the critics' claim. It should read "misinterprets the critics' claim" or "misinterprets the critics' claim; interpreting that the team is unprofessional."
I (incorrectly) chose D, using POE. Is my reasoning due to a grammatical idiosyncrasy or did anyone else find a problem with answer B?