Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?  (Read 3789 times)

queencruella

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4213
    • View Profile
Re: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2006, 02:49:23 PM »
Don't you think that preparing for the LSAT in itself should be a desirable quality?

I don't.  I would like to see it as a test of ability rather than a test of who prepped the most.  This would also seem to be its nominal purpose.

I think the LSAT is a combination between testing ability and testing how "serious" someone is about applying to law schools.  I would think that law schools would be interested in both these qualities. 

Picture someone who did not prep and got a 163.  He might have studied and gotten a 170, but instead he just walked into the testing room because he figured law school might be fun if he had nothing else to do.  Compare that to someone who started off his practicing at 163, worked his a$$ off for two months, and eventually scored a 170 because he knew that he had to get a 170 to get into his top choice law school.  Even though the two candidates started off at the same level, it seems that the second candidate is the better choice since he has displayed more motivation. 

I don't think using two high-scoring individuals as a comparison is very valid. Not every student is aiming to go to a T14, so the 163 guy may have already had an idea of where he wanted to go and athe 163 was more than sufficient. Where this theory applies more is at the lower levels, especially considering the fact that more than half the people who take the LSAT do not end up going to law school that year. There are also plenty of valid reasons why someone might prepare less than another- one may work full time and have a family while another may be a college student with a full summer off and nothing he/she needs to do.

goodgal

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2006, 02:54:16 PM »
someone who starts at 163 (cold) probably wouldn't have to work their ass off to get a 170. js

Hank Rearden

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2006, 03:25:15 PM »
Don't you think that preparing for the LSAT in itself should be a desirable quality?

I don't.  I would like to see it as a test of ability rather than a test of who prepped the most.  This would also seem to be its nominal purpose.

I think the LSAT is a combination between testing ability and testing how "serious" someone is about applying to law schools.  I would think that law schools would be interested in both these qualities. 

Picture someone who did not prep and got a 163.  He might have studied and gotten a 170, but instead he just walked into the testing room because he figured law school might be fun if he had nothing else to do.  Compare that to someone who started off his practicing at 163, worked his a$$ off for two months, and eventually scored a 170 because he knew that he had to get a 170 to get into his top choice law school.  Even though the two candidates started off at the same level, it seems that the second candidate is the better choice since he has displayed more motivation. 

I don't think using two high-scoring individuals as a comparison is very valid. Not every student is aiming to go to a T14, so the 163 guy may have already had an idea of where he wanted to go and athe 163 was more than sufficient. Where this theory applies more is at the lower levels, especially considering the fact that more than half the people who take the LSAT do not end up going to law school that year. There are also plenty of valid reasons why someone might prepare less than another- one may work full time and have a family while another may be a college student with a full summer off and nothing he/she needs to do.

You're right that many people who score below 150 did not prep at all, and with more prep they could have raised their scores at least enough to get into the 150's.  But I don't see how that pertains to what I'm saying...if they scored in the 140's because they did no preparation, why should they get as much reward as someone who studied and scored ten points higher?  The person who studies obviously cares more about going to law school.  And if you're so busy that you don't have time to study for the LSAT, how are you going to find time to go to law school?  
CLS '10

The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing.  When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.

SouthSide

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1563
  • Full speed ahead.
    • View Profile
Re: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2006, 03:33:12 PM »
Don't you think that preparing for the LSAT in itself should be a desirable quality?

I don't.  I would like to see it as a test of ability rather than a test of who prepped the most.  This would also seem to be its nominal purpose.

I think the LSAT is a combination between testing ability and testing how "serious" someone is about applying to law schools.  I would think that law schools would be interested in both these qualities. 

Picture someone who did not prep and got a 163.  He might have studied and gotten a 170, but instead he just walked into the testing room because he figured law school might be fun if he had nothing else to do.  Compare that to someone who started off his practicing at 163, worked his a$$ off for two months, and eventually scored a 170 because he knew that he had to get a 170 to get into his top choice law school.  Even though the two candidates started off at the same level, it seems that the second candidate is the better choice since he has displayed more motivation. 

I don't think using two high-scoring individuals as a comparison is very valid. Not every student is aiming to go to a T14, so the 163 guy may have already had an idea of where he wanted to go and athe 163 was more than sufficient. Where this theory applies more is at the lower levels, especially considering the fact that more than half the people who take the LSAT do not end up going to law school that year. There are also plenty of valid reasons why someone might prepare less than another- one may work full time and have a family while another may be a college student with a full summer off and nothing he/she needs to do.

You're right that many people who score below 150 did not prep at all, and with more prep they could have raised their scores at least enough to get into the 150's.  But I don't see how that pertains to what I'm saying...if they scored in the 140's because they did no preparation, why should they get as much reward as someone who studied and scored ten points higher?  The person who studies obviously cares more about going to law school.  And if you're so busy that you don't have time to study for the LSAT, how are you going to find time to go to law school?  

I fully support studying. What I don't support is extremely resource-intensive training that is only available to the rich.

Take two kids, both getting a 163 cold. One can't afford a class, but works his butt off and works up to a 169. The other goes to a class where they teach him a bunch of tactics to beat the LSAT, and scores a 170. How is that fair?

Even if you don't accept this, you should still support transparency. Let law schools have all the information, and they can decide what to do with it.
Columbia 2L.

queencruella

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4213
    • View Profile
Re: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2006, 03:34:48 PM »
The reason why the SAT was removed from Mensa (I'm guessing) is that it used to be a poorly disguised IQ test. Your SAT score was supposed to be your IQ+100. Now that everyone's prepping and the College Board says it's not an aptitude test, Mensa probably doesn't want to have anything to do with it anymore.

As for people being rewarded for being "more motivated," I don't think study time for the LSAT is the sole determiner of whether a person is motivated. Many people work full-time, have families and lives outside of work, and can't afford to spend 6 hours a day studying like some people who are still in UG can. Does that mean that they are less motivated? Some of these people may be working more to save up money for law school, uprooting their families to pursue a better life, etc.

Hank Rearden

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2006, 03:41:37 PM »


Take two kids, both getting a 163 cold. One can't afford a class, but works his butt off and works up to a 169. The other goes to a class where they teach him a bunch of tactics to beat the LSAT, and scores a 170. How is that fair?

Even if you don't accept this, you should still support transparency. Let law schools have all the information, and they can decide what to do with it.

Eh, I don't know about that.  From everything I've heard, these courses don't really help you go from 165 to 170 as much as from 150 to 155 or 160.  I really don't think there is anything in a course that a smart and dedicated person couldn't figure out on his own simply by taking practice test after practice test.  

I'm all for transparency.  As I recall, there was one part of the LSAT where you listed how you prepared for the test, if you prepared at all.  I would not be against making that section mandatory and having it reported to the law schools along with your score report.  Would that make much difference?  Maybe at some schools.  I would be interested in knowing how many 170+ scorers actually take these classes though; it just doesn't seem that courses are structured to teach someone how to get this sort of score.  
CLS '10

The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing.  When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.

SouthSide

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1563
  • Full speed ahead.
    • View Profile
Re: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2006, 03:46:42 PM »


Take two kids, both getting a 163 cold. One can't afford a class, but works his butt off and works up to a 169. The other goes to a class where they teach him a bunch of tactics to beat the LSAT, and scores a 170. How is that fair?

Even if you don't accept this, you should still support transparency. Let law schools have all the information, and they can decide what to do with it.

Eh, I don't know about that.  From everything I've heard, these courses don't really help you go from 165 to 170 as much as from 150 to 155 or 160.  I really don't think there is anything in a course that a smart and dedicated person couldn't figure out on his own simply by taking practice test after practice test.  

I'm all for transparency.  As I recall, there was one part of the LSAT where you listed how you prepared for the test, if you prepared at all.  I would not be against making that section mandatory and having it reported to the law schools along with your score report.  Would that make much difference?  Maybe at some schools.  I would be interested in knowing how many 170+ scorers actually take these classes though; it just doesn't seem that courses are structured to teach someone how to get this sort of score.  

You're right about high scorers. They can't promis much of a bump once you're already in themid 160s. At least I know that's how it works with the SAT classes (I used to teach for one of the companies, and they basically didn't want anybody who was already scorign 1300 or better), and I'm sure the LSATs aren't much diffeent.

It doesn't make any difference for my argument, though. It still sucks for the kid getting the 155 that his wealthy counterpart is pulling down a 159.
Columbia 2L.

Einstein

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
    • View Profile
Re: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2006, 03:52:47 PM »

I still think an IQ test is the better measure.

The LSAT is def. not an IQ test.  My IQ was tested in the third grade to be a 145 by my schools gifted and talented program. 

But my LSAT is in the high 150's with prep.  Not a correlation, at least in my case. 

The IQ test, from what I remember, consisted of a lot of pattern recognition. 

Like a list of shapes and then they ask you what comes next in the sequence.  Or the same with numbers.  But my memory is very blurrly seeing that it was such a long time ago.
Practice LSAT: 147(d), 150, 151,143,152, 156,161,163,161,160,157,163,158,162

University of San Diego School of Law!

CLS20091L

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2006, 03:59:09 PM »

I still think an IQ test is the better measure.

The LSAT is def. not an IQ test.  My IQ was tested in the third grade to be a 145 by my schools gifted and talented program. 

But my LSAT is in the high 150's with prep.  Not a correlation, at least in my case. 

The IQ test, from what I remember, consisted of a lot of pattern recognition. 

Like a list of shapes and then they ask you what comes next in the sequence.  Or the same with numbers.  But my memory is very blurrly seeing that it was such a long time ago.

Depends on the breakdown of the IQ test. LSAT probably benefits more from verbal IQ, so if you tested very high on spatial, that might be why you don't see the correlation.

CLS20091L

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: Why not require disclosure? Crazy Idea?
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2006, 04:01:35 PM »
Don't you think that preparing for the LSAT in itself should be a desirable quality?

I don't.  I would like to see it as a test of ability rather than a test of who prepped the most.  This would also seem to be its nominal purpose.

I think the LSAT is a combination between testing ability and testing how "serious" someone is about applying to law schools.  I would think that law schools would be interested in both these qualities. 

Picture someone who did not prep and got a 163.  He might have studied and gotten a 170, but instead he just walked into the testing room because he figured law school might be fun if he had nothing else to do.  Compare that to someone who started off his practicing at 163, worked his a$$ off for two months, and eventually scored a 170 because he knew that he had to get a 170 to get into his top choice law school.  Even though the two candidates started off at the same level, it seems that the second candidate is the better choice since he has displayed more motivation. 

I don't think using two high-scoring individuals as a comparison is very valid. Not every student is aiming to go to a T14, so the 163 guy may have already had an idea of where he wanted to go and athe 163 was more than sufficient. Where this theory applies more is at the lower levels, especially considering the fact that more than half the people who take the LSAT do not end up going to law school that year. There are also plenty of valid reasons why someone might prepare less than another- one may work full time and have a family while another may be a college student with a full summer off and nothing he/she needs to do.

You're right that many people who score below 150 did not prep at all, and with more prep they could have raised their scores at least enough to get into the 150's.  But I don't see how that pertains to what I'm saying...if they scored in the 140's because they did no preparation, why should they get as much reward as someone who studied and scored ten points higher?  The person who studies obviously cares more about going to law school.  And if you're so busy that you don't have time to study for the LSAT, how are you going to find time to go to law school? 

I fully support studying. What I don't support is extremely resource-intensive training that is only available to the rich.

Take two kids, both getting a 163 cold. One can't afford a class, but works his butt off and works up to a 169. The other goes to a class where they teach him a bunch of tactics to beat the LSAT, and scores a 170. How is that fair?

Even if you don't accept this, you should still support transparency. Let law schools have all the information, and they can decide what to do with it.

What do you consider resource-intensive training? I'd argue that the special tutoring shops that cost $20k are, but that regular classes that cost $1200-1300 aren't. Anyone who really wants to go to law school could find the $1,300, even if it means they have to float it on a credit card for a year until they get approved for student loans.