This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Barnum
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 33
« on: July 19, 2008, 02:28:41 PM »
Also, you should take a real practice LSAT before you make that decision. Kaplan's fake tests are notorious for potentially misguiding students. Just because you did well on their LR and RC does not mean that you are actually doing well. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I have had students score 10 points higher on a Kaplan fake test than they do on the real practice tests.
« on: July 07, 2008, 05:24:00 PM »
What I don't get though is why on undergrad admissions adcom's are willing to overlook a low SAT or ACT for someone with great soft's or a good gpa or great LOR's because they know some people aren't cut out for standardized tests, and yet for the LSAT adcom's believe that it's a fairly accurate indicator of how someone will do in their first year of law school. Surely a great GPA is more indicative of how someone will do, non? If I'm an adcomm, surely I would want someone with a 3.9 and a 165 over someone with a 175 and a 3.15, because I care about how they will apply themselves in the classroom, not whether they can do well on a random test? Ah well.
You may want to look at this link http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/Predictive-Validity-of-the-LSAT-A-National-Summary-of-the-1999%E2%80%932000-Correlation-Studies.pdf
Page 9 has a nice chart. Studies have been done that show that the LSAT has a significantly higher correlation with law school success than LSAT. In 2000 the LSAT had a .40 correlation whereas UGPA only had a .26 correlation. Not that either of these is particularly strong, but it does explain why Law Schools would want a higher LSAT more than they would want a higher GPA
« on: May 17, 2008, 05:30:00 PM »
Simple answer -- yes.
And always changes to or...or always changes to and. It does not matter which side it starts on.
« on: May 16, 2008, 12:37:48 PM »
Please help me with this weird question.
Also, I don't see how (E) could be correct. Humans become ill after eating lobsters. Those lobsters could be from the harbor where sewage has been dumped, then it's good to rerout the sewage to further part of the sea. Is there something wrong in my reasoning?
There is nothing wrong with your reasoning on E. In fact, that is what makes it the correct answer. Since the conclusion of the argument is that the proposal is pointless, the argument is trying to conclude that there is no reason to reroute the sewage. Then the question wants you to weaken the conclusion that the proposal is pointless. By your own reasoning, answer choice E would absolutely give you a reason to reroute the sewage proving that the proposal has a point.
« on: April 30, 2008, 01:07:23 PM »
Yeah...I think it's personal interest. Care to prove me wrong, rather than talking about kittens?
I have to ask Penn, but have you read any of the thread? EarlCat has already stated many reasons why your argument about personal interest is flawed. He pointed out that not only did your argument begin as an ad hominam attack without addressing the issues already presented about all the negatives of a CAT, but also your presumptions of a financial interest for Jeffort was faulty on its own face.
« on: April 25, 2008, 02:12:32 PM »
One of the reasons, is that it would actually increase the cost of testing. This means they would pass that onto you the test taker. The reason for the increased expense is the greatly increased need for valid questions. Currently, the LSAT needs to essentially create just over 400 valid test questions a year. Since CAT tests are offered throughout the year, it is important to have an extremely large question pool to avoid the problem of having a test-taker disclose the questions they saw to another test-taker. At any given time the question pool on the GMAT, for example, is between 5,000 and 10,000 questions with some questions being changed out every month. This means that over the course of the year the GMAT goes through about 18,000 - 20,000 questions. That is a huge difference and a great expense.
Not to mention, that potential decrease to the validity of the test. That many more questions, means that much more chance of error. I teach people to take the GMAT, GRE, and the LSAT and I must say I cringe at the thought of the LSAT going to computer.
« on: April 18, 2008, 11:48:26 AM »
Was the full Kaplan test real or fake? Usually they administer a fake test for their marketing events or free test drives.
I ask because I have spoken with two people this week that scored much higher on the fake Kaplan LSAT than on a real administered practice test. One person got a 160 on the Kaplan test, took a real practice LSAT a week later and scored a 151. The other person had a similar experience. She took a Kaplan fake test, scored a 163, then followed up shortly with a real practice LSAT and only scored a 153. These are drastic discrepancies. Make sure to take a real practice LSAT soon (under proctored conditions if possible) to get an accurate gauge of your score.
« on: April 11, 2008, 10:53:43 AM »
except that for most people I think that practicing stuff timed after getting good at things untimed is important and helpful.
I wasn't necessarily suggesting that most people take my approach either. That was sort of my point at the beginning that different people need different things. I would definitely agree that almost everybody should take some timed material before the real test. At the very least it is usually important to get used to the "feel" of pressurehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdaHCLlBkWUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGksmlTWCFE
(i figured I'd save you the effort, Jeffort)
I just wanted to post to discuss what I think we agree on, which is that it is most important to first develop your LSAT skills before you worry about the clock.
« on: April 08, 2008, 10:25:17 AM »
On the timing issue, I always feel the need to add my 2 cents. I think different people have different needs when it comes to studying. I actually NEVER timed myself when studying. Some people may think this is crazy, but it worked well for me. I figured I didn't have the ability to control time and space so it made more sense to focus on getting as much done CORRECTLY in the time I had.
In the process of studying this way, I focused on the most efficient way to answer questions, the best set-ups for logic games, the flaws in the reasoning, etc. In so doing, I improved my understanding first, and with improved understanding came speed.
When you donít understand a problem it is a double whammy. (opportunity for Jeffort to include a youtube video of Wham or a clip from the game show Press Your Luck?). Questions people donít understand are the questions that they not only spend more time on, but are also the ones that they are more likely to get wrong.
There was a great post in here from Bernie a while back where she talked about an almost perfect correlation between a studentís untimed scores and his/her timed scores. This means that the student who does better untimed then his/her fellow classmates will also do better timed then his/her classmates.
Speed without accuracy is meaningless. Eliminate the time where you debate between choices or misinterpret a rule, and your score will improve. I didnít need a clock in front of me to force myself to work efficiently.
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 33