Law School Discussion

LSAT 163 = IQ 132

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2004, 07:04:50 PM »
Quote
[...] when I saw that that was a researched study undertaken by SALT, I became really suspicious of this test and its effectiveness in assassing law school applicants' skills

there's a typo in here, lolly :)

In regard to the conservatives and liberals' discussion ... too much fuss here about conservatives' inadequacies and faults ... well, you know what, I don't like liberals either!

In fact, the Left does not disagree with the Right intellectually ... with few exceptions, they are virtually incapable of intellectual disagreement. The Left disagrees *emotionally*. Really, this is a psychological and not ideological phenomenon: it is a mass neurosis of sorts. When millions of people cling to worldviews which have failed for the last 80 years, something is wrong. When people celebrate degeneration in defense of freedom of speech, there is something wrong. When people elevate the murder of innocent unborn children to a "right" but simultaneously fight against the application of capital punishment for heinous crimes, something is wrong. Liberalism is so full of logical and factual contradictions that one wonders how a rational person can subscribe to such a worldview. The mind of the liberal is literally shut off to logic and facts.

Liberalism (or what it has come to connote), is really the result of decades of emotional conditioning which has left those conditioned without the faculty of critical thought.  Certainly those emotions are there to begin with. Humans are animals. It is the taming of our base animalistic impulses that makes civilization possible. When those taming influences are supplanted by devices that condition and reinforce the animalistic impulses, civilization crumbles. This is why morality and social structure are so important (stating the obvious in this age is iconoclastic..lol) The point here is that what has happened over the last 40 years is that our consumption of entertainment -- television primarily, movies secondarily, and in some cases novels -- has had the negative effect of conditioning either by design or inadvertently, emotions and worldviews inconsistent with reality. These condititioned fantasy and utopian worldviews can result in societal collapse. Cognitive dissonance is but one vehicle in the war of the mind.

Cults can easily be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. All inconsistent cognitions are dealt with by violence. In a cult, inconsistent cognitions are dealt with by shunning, by starving, by confinement, etc... Liberalism does the same thing! Political Correctness, the illegitimate step-child of liberalism, is cult-like in its establishment of correct speech. This is what cults do ... they prohibit certain words and discussion of certain topics. 

The Left are essentially a "cult of cognitive dissonance."
 

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2004, 10:48:28 PM »
mirabile, given the fact that you're neither a Republican nor a Democrat, can I ask what are you, a Socialist, Anarchist, maybe?

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2004, 06:32:09 PM »
Quote
mirabile, given the fact that you're neither a Republican nor a Democrat, can I ask what are you, a Socialist, Anarchist, maybe?

Isn't it that an anarchist is individualist to the extreme and a socialist someone who is completely against individualism and the like? I guess the two of them do not go together ...

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2004, 05:43:49 PM »
You could be a socialist as far as the economic structure of the society you envision is concerned, and a libertarian anarchist as far as individual rights of the citizens are concerned (governement role reduced as much as possible, probably down to zero.) 

Artificial selection: LSAT bias affects us all
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2004, 03:43:46 AM »
It's easy for students here to believe they are the product of a Darwinian selection process that culminates in their anointment as the best and brightest, as future leaders of America. The Law School reifies its choices by praising its incoming 1Ls, who "deserve" to be here. In analyzing this claim, we would like to unpack the most critical (and, in some cases, sole) admissions criterion: the LSAT. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the LSAT is a biased exam that disadvantages women and minorities, yet law schools continue to rely on the LSAT score to differentiate between applicants. While some may argue that affirmative action balances the LSAT bias, this is contradicted by the facts. As researcher William C. Kidder has noted, "Even when diversity is a factor in admission decisions, the negative impact of the LSAT is so severe that among applicants with approximately the same GPAs, whites consistently have the greatest chance of being accepted into ABA law schools." Further, the differences in LSAT scores along racial and gender lines cannot be explained as matters of qualitative "deficiency" because, according to at least one study, racial and ethnic gaps on the LSAT are found to be larger than differences in undergraduate grades, law school grades or measures of subsequent success in the legal profession.

If qualitative differences do not account for differentiation in LSAT scores along race and gender lines, then, how can we explain that differentiation? It's actually quite simple:

EVERY QUESTION ON THE EXAM IS PRE-TESTED TO ENSURE THAT MINORITIES AND WOMEN DO NOT HAVE A STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE. 

Doubtful? In his expert report submitted on behalf of intervening defendants in Grutter v. Bollinger, Jay Rosner, Executive Director of the Princeton Review Foundation explained: "The actual task that Law Services performs, year-in and year-out, is accumulating a test full of individually chosen LSAT questions with foreseeable cumulative effects, which are that, on average: whites will score higher than blacks, men will score higher than women, and wealthy students will score higher than poor students. This occurs not by chance; on the contrary, it arises from the fact that virtually all of the individual questions chosen to appear on the LSAT have, in pre-testing, favored whites and men and the wealthy."

Rosner explains that, in addition to question selection, another reason for LSAT score bias is the expensive preparatory classes that generally advantage wealthy and non-minority students. By training students to take the LSAT, these classes provide essential test-taking strategies to those students who can afford it. Rosner concludes that "all (or nearly all) of the individual pre-tested questions selected for use on the LSAT favor whites over African Americans. Disparate results occur not by happenstance, but by design." Law school administrators have been aware of the LSAT's discriminatory effects for years, but they continue to report the high scores of their students in an effort to maintain their ranks. This discriminatory exam injects its poison into the law school admissions procedure, perverting the outcome so that the "merit" it creates embodies preexisting privilege rather than a more substantively accurate assessment of the ability to excel in law school. Unfortunately, there are significant social consequences to the use of these purposefully discriminatory test results as the primary criterion in law school admissions. "Research shows a negative correlation between social activism and performance on the LSAT for the national pool of test takers," Kidder has explained. Students with high LSAT scores, who are more likely to be accepted at elite schools, are less likely to use their influence, knowledge and connections to contribute to social causes. Take a moment, then, to consider HLS. The effect of "elite" admissions criteria is the explicit selection against diversity and social activism, which means that members of certain groups are effectively prevented from using legal power to benefit their communities. It is our solemn responsibility, as beneficiaries of this regressive diagnostic tool, to consider its effects upon our discourse and refuse to submit to the reflexive self-worship and praise of alma mater.

A Link
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2004, 03:45:20 AM »

zpops

  • ****
  • 773
  • Going to NYU in the fall! 3.99/175
    • AOL Instant Messenger - zp0ps
    • View Profile
    • The Digital Rant
    • Email
Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2004, 09:08:37 AM »
Care to tell us who shot Kennedy?  How about where area 51 is, or how the government is using fluoride in the drinking water to control out minds?  This article smacks of ridiculous and baseless conspiracy theory.  It is a fact that certain minorities and women perform poorly on standardized tests, such as the LSAT or SAT, and while I'm in no position to explain why this is so, the charge that LSAC chooses questions specifically to favor wealthy whites is just absurd.

jas9999

  • ****
  • 726
  • Actual Law Student
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2004, 11:10:41 AM »
I've always believed, for undergrad and law/grad schools, that your testing prep methods should be disclosed on applications. If you took Kaplan three times, you should have to write that on your application, so that score can be compared accurately with someone who self-prepared (or didn't prepare) and got the same numerical score. That would help reduce the family income bias, which is the largest predictor of score (moreso than race), at least for the SAT.

I read one book and did ten practice exams, over a 2-3 month period, and scored a 168. Why should that be considered the same as someone who got a 168 after fifty practice exams, private tutoring and one or more prep classes spanning a year?

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #38 on: April 28, 2004, 11:26:45 AM »
If the LSAT is such a wretched measure of success in law school, why do the schools continue to use it?  If it were so conclusively proven that the LSAT is nonpredictive, wouldn’t the schools de-emphasize it as a factor?  The SALT article cites one study to show that LSAT and law school success show no correlation; I’m just a liberal arts major, but I’m not going to believe something as being completely true simply because a single study said it to be so.  If people admitted to Harvard on their numbers alone make up the bottom of the class, the admissions office would take it into account.

Also, how can people say that the LSAT is intended to be racist and that law schools rely to heavily on them?  The University of Texas weights LSAT three times as heavily as GPA, yet the school is fighting the governor to be able to use affirmative action a year sooner than the law currently allows.  UT cannot be both eager to help minorities with AA while at the same time measuring its applicants almost totally by an intentionally racist test.

Law school requires more than hard work and studying.  Law school requires that you be able to read a complicated statute precisely, that you have the ability to use reasoning to resolve a problem and that you be able to articulate your finding in a coherent argument while anticipating and deconstructing opposing arguments.  Wait, isn’t that what the LSAT tests you on?

M2

Re: LSAT 163 = IQ 132
« Reply #39 on: April 28, 2004, 11:42:37 AM »
The point is that the LSAT is learnable...(i know some will disagree...but if its not learnable then why are u practicing?)

So those with access to classes and the ability to take off from work to study are at an advantage.