Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Has the LSAT gotten easier?  (Read 8414 times)

marsilni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Has the LSAT gotten easier?
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2009, 10:02:53 PM »
This has gone on way too long.  Can't say I feel strongly about either party, but from my limited exposure to this site, Julie Fern seems to offer useless advice and comes off quite arrogant on most posts.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Has the LSAT gotten easier?
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2009, 10:09:42 PM »
to idiot mars:  well, forrest, your unsupported conclusions hard remember because they not memorable.  but julie got your entirely unsupported conclusion it right when said

wrong. julie adding that your answer bull.

julie would love hear you explain your conclusion that overall test not easier but "Certain parts have become trickier, and others more straight foreward. For example, the LG section is markedly easier than it once was and RC has become slightly trickier."

this certainy be real hoot. and try be "straight foreward" about it.

your only "explanation" as follows:



Haven't you grown tired of losing arguments with me - each and every time. For evidence, check every test that has ever been published and note the changes through time.


that say nothing.  for example:  check every test to see what, exactly?

that not begin compare specificity of julie's argument:

listen up, tadpoles: to answer this question beyond bloviating require first you have define "easier," and that not going be easy.

one could define relative ease as comparing how many right answers necesary for given scaled score, such as 160, now versus earlier. however, that beg question of whether 160 of today equal to 160 of yesteryear. it also not account for number of questions on test, which vary; this could be accounted for by using % correct rather than raw score, but that going take some rounding off and so there's an additional inaccuracy.

one (or even two) also could define relative ease of particular percentile as function of raw score (or % correct), which at least reflect variation between tests, but even that not reflect differences between populations. belief that today's test-takers better than those of 10 yerars ago not subject to any proof that can be considered quantitative--and julie not consider anything thales say be credible unless it on subjects of shoplifting or herpes treatment. and even new tests will vary among selves, as will old tests.

and anyway: what hell point? you people need stopping examining navel and study for friggin' test.

and that julie's serious post on lsat for this month.


Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Has the LSAT gotten easier?
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2009, 10:13:22 PM »
This has gone on way too long. Can't say I feel strongly about either party, but from my limited exposure to this site, Julie Fern seems to offer useless advice and comes off quite arrogant on most posts.

well maybe you can enlighten us, cupcake.  otherwise, not pretend you have clue?  anyone reading this with half brain can see who get it and who not.

pull that stick out of your ass, if you still can see one end of it.

!закон и право!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1599
    • View Profile
Re: Has the LSAT gotten easier?
« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2009, 12:17:04 AM »
to idiot mars:  well, forrest, your unsupported conclusions hard remember because they not memorable.  but julie got your entirely unsupported conclusion it right when said

Your inability to retain and synthesize information is a testament to your failure as a potential attorney. I'll make it easy for you dumbfuck.

My claim:

Certain parts have become trickier, and others more straight foreward.

For example, the LG section is markedly easier than it once was and RC has become slightly trickier.

Your irrelevant rebuttal, after having supplied an obvious and useless addition about the relativity of "difficulty" or "easiness":

and julie not consider anything thales say be credible unless it on subjects of shoplifting or herpes treatment. 

The directed evidence for my claim, which, unsurprisingly, given your asshattedness, you were unable to compute:

You have yet to prove, definitively why I'm wrong, as you so adamently claim. I on the other hand have already directed you to the source of proof and comparison in support of my claim. Moreover I already have others, with both experience and high scores on the LSAT nonetheless, who agree with my statement. 

For evidence, check every test that has ever been published and note the changes through time.

In retrospect, when considering your limited cognitive potential, I should have made this clearer. "Compare" the logical difficulty of the RC and LG sections between those earlier and newer (post-2005) tests. Furthermore, "note the changes" in the frequency of appearance of certain game types (for LG) and question types (for RC).

One "specific" example of the differences I claim: there are far more question types that treat RC passages as LR stimuli than in past (pre-2005) tests (e.g. more "local" question types such as "strengthen" and "weaken" question stems). This is in comparison to the more "global" focus of older LSAT RC question stems. And this is just one example of the many changes that have since occurred in these sections.

Slow enough for you?

This has gone on way too long. Can't say I feel strongly about either party, but from my limited exposure to this site, Julie Fern seems to offer useless advice and comes off quite arrogant on most posts.

well maybe you can enlighten us, cupcake.  otherwise, not pretend you have clue?  anyone reading this with half brain can see who get it and who not.
pull that stick out of your ass, if you still can see one end of it.

Anyone with half a brain, including the majority of LSD and the above quoted poster, knows not to heed your "advice" or lackthereof.

Shall I reiterate?

Luckily no one on this forum listens to your trite and misinformation, asshat.

Yet another point for the mighty Thales. I look forward to destroying your TTT ass in court some day soon - goatfucker.


Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Has the LSAT gotten easier?
« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2009, 07:48:38 AM »
In retrospect, when considering your limited cognitive potential, I should have made this clearer. "Compare" the logical difficulty of the RC and LG sections between those earlier and newer (post-2005) tests. Furthermore, "note the changes" in the frequency of appearance of certain game types (for LG) and question types (for RC).

One "specific" example of the differences I claim: there are far more question types that treat RC passages as LR stimuli than in past (pre-2005) tests (e.g. more "local" question types such as "strengthen" and "weaken" question stems). This is in comparison to the more "global" focus of older LSAT RC question stems. And this is just one example of the many changes that have since occurred in these sections.


so now we see explanation you too embarrassed give until now.  "compare" difficulty how, exactly?  this absolutely serious question julie asking.  your own use quotation marks around "compare" suggest dim awareness not know how do this, and julie's point all along.

you have no norming data whatsoever (although lsac certainly do), and even if did they from different populations.  (that why lsat scores expire after three years.)  you even know what these terms mean, forrest?  if so, you show no awareness whatsoever.

frequency certain game types also mean nothing.  again, you no norming data, and even if did from different populations, so how establish some type games harder than others?  even within given test, not all games created equal.  (or you not know that either?)

same point as to "global" v. "local" rc questions:  you no norming data, and would be from different populations.  so, no way "compare."

thus, at best can make only qualitative judgment as to relative difficulty, and that going be inherently subjective and thus biased.  and that julie's point:  comparative "easiness" and "hardness" impossible prove without longitudinal norming data, which probably not exist, and quite difficult even if did.  and you no norming data whatsoever.

it took you forever make very weak "explanation" that appear above.  it worth wait only in that confirm you just pulling "everybody know this" statements out your ass.  julie sure you also enjoy meetings flat earth society.

julie happy those read these threads but not post--and there many--now know not listen your nonsense.  julie hope you can graduate community college within next couple years.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Has the LSAT gotten easier?
« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2009, 07:49:13 AM »
you welcome.

TimMitchell

  • Guest
Re: Has the LSAT gotten easier?
« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2009, 09:36:55 AM »
Dear Journal,

After about a year on LSD I saw Julie Fern giving advice/opinions about the LSAT, this is the first law school related post I've ever read from her. I'm infatuated wit her, she still hasn't responded seriously to my declarations of love for her.

!закон и право!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1599
    • View Profile
Re: Has the LSAT gotten easier?
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2009, 04:10:00 PM »
In retrospect, when considering your limited cognitive potential, I should have made this clearer. "Compare" the logical difficulty of the RC and LG sections between those earlier and newer (post-2005) tests. Furthermore, "note the changes" in the frequency of appearance of certain game types (for LG) and question types (for RC).

One "specific" example of the differences I claim: there are far more question types that treat RC passages as LR stimuli than in past (pre-2005) tests (e.g. more "local" question types such as "strengthen" and "weaken" question stems). This is in comparison to the more "global" focus of older LSAT RC question stems. And this is just one example of the many changes that have since occurred in these sections.


so now we see explanation you too embarrassed give until now.  "compare" difficulty how, exactly?  this absolutely serious question julie asking.  your own use quotation marks around "compare" suggest dim awareness not know how do this, and julie's point all along.

you have no norming data whatsoever (although lsac certainly do), and even if did they from different populations.  (that why lsat scores expire after three years.)  you even know what these terms mean, forrest?  if so, you show no awareness whatsoever.

frequency certain game types also mean nothing.  again, you no norming data, and even if did from different populations, so how establish some type games harder than others?  even within given test, not all games created equal.  (or you not know that either?)

same point as to "global" v. "local" rc questions:  you no norming data, and would be from different populations.  so, no way "compare."

thus, at best can make only qualitative judgment as to relative difficulty, and that going be inherently subjective and thus biased.  and that julie's point:  comparative "easiness" and "hardness" impossible prove without longitudinal norming data, which probably not exist, and quite difficult even if did.  and you no norming data whatsoever.

it took you forever make very weak "explanation" that appear above.  it worth wait only in that confirm you just pulling "everybody know this" statements out your ass.  julie sure you also enjoy meetings flat earth society.

julie happy those read these threads but not post--and there many--now know not listen your nonsense.  julie hope you can graduate community college within next couple years.

Another poor attempt to save face by the Fernboy. However, you still haven't approached my argument directly, but rather have used the same weaksauce and circular argument that difficulty is relative.

Idiotboy: consider that logical difficulty can and is judged quantitatively. Each and every LSAT has been equated according to an objective assessment - i.e. the number of respondants within the given normative sample who have answered a given question correctly - this in turn is used to establish a statistical relationship between raw score and scaled score. I'm not simply using the term "easy" qualitatively. Anyway, this is beside the point as has little to do with my initial claim.

The fact that the majority of modern LSAT scaled scores require a higher raw score than on past tests is attributed to one of three scenarios:

1. The LSAT is "easier", and therefore, one would require a greater raw sum to achieve a given scaled/percentile score. This is a scenario that I dispute for the same reasons that you have supplied. In other words, this is an assumption that should be obvious to any moron, including yourself evidently.
2. The format of the test has changed insofar as certain sections are logically easier (cf. equating) and therefore one would require a higher raw sum to achieve a said scaled score. This has been my point.
3. People are better prepared for the LSAT, and thus, a given percentile score requires a larger sum of raw points. This is entirely plausible, but not the only explanation.

By simply looking at modern tests and comparing the RC and LG sections to past tests is enough to support my conclusion; that is, that the LG section is "easier" and RC sections have focused more on local type questions. More "masterable", and therefore "easier" game types appear more often (i.e. grouping/linear) in the games section and proportionately fewer global question types appear in the RC section. I'm certainly not the only person who has made this claim.

Finally, you have yet to definitely prove that my argument is unfounded and/or wrong, again, as you so vehemently claim. You're simply referring, yet again, to the same useless and irrelevant premises of relative difficulty that I had ripped in my first response to you. Your reference to "longitudinal norms" is simply a convenient way for you to save face. Unfortunately, it does not directly affect my claim that the format of certain sections of the LSAT have changed through time.

I'm not going to waste my time with any more explanations. Your feeble mind has proven itself unworthy - shitforbrains.

!закон и право!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1599
    • View Profile
Re: Has the LSAT gotten easier?
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2009, 04:12:52 PM »
Dear Journal,

After about a year on LSD I saw Julie Fern giving advice/opinions about the LSAT, this is the first law school related post I've ever read from her. I'm infatuated wit her, she still hasn't responded seriously to my declarations of love for her.

This is funny Timmeh, but Fernboy has said nothing new, nor has he proven anyone wrong.

P.S. You sicken me.

TimMitchell

  • Guest
Re: Has the LSAT gotten easier?
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2009, 11:52:03 PM »
Dear Journal,

After about a year on LSD I saw Julie Fern giving advice/opinions about the LSAT, this is the first law school related post I've ever read from her. I'm infatuated wit her, she still hasn't responded seriously to my declarations of love for her.

This is funny Timmeh, but Fernboy has said nothing new, nor has he proven anyone wrong.

P.S. You sicken me.

Here's  a puzzle for you






























































That's me finding better company, mofo!