Law School Discussion

LSAT Preparation => Studying for the LSAT => Topic started by: jsp2 on July 13, 2005, 07:51:01 PM

Title: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: jsp2 on July 13, 2005, 07:51:01 PM
Hey i posted this topic in the wrong thread. I really need advice.. thanks for any ideas or help!
xx

Hey, i've heard of other cases similar to my own and am wondering if anyone has any advice/explanation about this phenomenon.

I took about 8 practice tests, used real LSATs from past administrations, didn't cheat, and was scoring about the same consistently. My real LSAT score was 10 points lower.

I can't think of any explanation except nerves. Anyone have any ideas?
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: wildcataz2004 on July 13, 2005, 08:01:44 PM
You just choked as do a lot of people
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: supergirluw on July 13, 2005, 10:29:39 PM
you didn't prep right. take the test again. this time, actually prepare - don't assume you know what you're doing.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: consideringcancel on July 13, 2005, 10:32:09 PM
You just choked as do a lot of people

(http://www.johnnygoodtimes.com/archives/miller_with_no_ball08.jpg)

I could hardly bubble in my answers during the first section.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: BigBadBo on July 13, 2005, 10:46:56 PM
I did the exact same thing.  Prepped from 171-176.  Sick/Incredibly Nervous - scored 161.  Retook far more relaxed and with lots of sleeping pills... 172. 

It's all about relaxation.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: upNdown on September 14, 2005, 01:02:27 PM
If that is true - a lot of people'd scores drop when they take the test for real, it is most likely attributable to nerves, since the content should be comparable, since prep tests were real tests.  If this is the case, is there also a group of people who get 'pumped up' for the exam and do significantly better? 
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: allyreese on September 21, 2005, 12:19:12 PM
Somebody once posted this advice somewhere on the board, although I don't remember who or where so I'll just pretend that it was my idea -

When you practice time yourself a bit shorter than the 35 minutes.  I give myself 33 but I think even 34 would be good.  That way when you do the real thing you'll have at least a minute extra to compensate for the nerves.

The other thing I've done when I practice is I have hubby take and hide the answers to the test I'm taking.  When I know that I have the answers I spend a lot of time thinking about my score instead of focusing on the questions.

Finally, I've heard some people say that they actually went to their testing site to practice.  I'm not sure how helpful that is, but if you anticipate being intimidated by the environment, it can't hurt.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: SkullTatt on September 28, 2005, 04:39:47 PM
Two majors factors I think most people don't account for when they are practice-testing (other than nerves and getting no sleep the night before):

1. The test is at 9AM. If you are groggy at this time of day normally, that is bad.

2. The actual test has 5 sections, not 4. (Ignoring the essay at the end.) That's 35 extra minutes of doing problems, and the section that is not counted is usually section 2 or 3, when you are presumably less tired, less frazzled, and more able to answer questions correctly than you would be toward the end. On the real test, you have to push yourself through an extra 35 minutes of problems and try to do as well on those last problems as you would during practice, in order to match your practice score(s).
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: tier 7 hopeful on September 28, 2005, 08:06:54 PM
Am I the only one that planned to score better on the real thing than my preptests and actually did?

I still can't decide if I just didn't try that hard on the preptests because I knew they didn't mean anything or if I just work better under pressure...it's worth mentioning that I didnt discover this site until after I took the test and received my score, so I wasn't subjected to the frenzied competition that everyone on here seems to be engaged in.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: tms31078 on September 28, 2005, 09:02:02 PM
You just choked as do a lot of people
You got into UofA with those numbers? Do you mind me asking what race you are?
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: SkullTatt on September 29, 2005, 10:24:14 AM
Rude...
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: tms31078 on September 29, 2005, 11:34:56 AM
Rude...
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: SCgrad on September 30, 2005, 07:56:17 PM
Rude...
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Also, take some shots, there is only one surefire way to not get in...
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: tms31078 on September 30, 2005, 10:58:24 PM
Rude...
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Also, take some shots, there is only one surefire way to not get in...
sure there is, but affirmative action, being the joke it is, lets very unqualified people into schools based on race. not socioeconomic factors, but race and race alone. being a white male i dont have that going for me, hence the reason i asked about race.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: ark2612 on October 01, 2005, 02:11:20 PM
There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Um....not really.  When you start being indexed on things OTHER then LSAT, gpa and race.  Get back to me.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: Lsassy on October 01, 2005, 02:39:44 PM
Ummmm...I'm not sure you can just look at her numbers and assume that she must've been of a non-white race to get in...what about her personal statement, her resume, her activities...

Using your line of reasoning then I guess I can ask: who is she sleeping with? (if she's not black or hispanic or...the rest)

Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: TruOne on October 02, 2005, 11:10:17 AM
Rude...
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Also, take some shots, there is only one surefire way to not get in...
sure there is, but affirmative action, being the joke it is, lets very unqualified people into schools based on race. not socioeconomic factors, but race and race alone. being a white male i dont have that going for me, hence the reason i asked about race.

You also have to admit that Law Schools don't want assholes in their classes. With a perspective like that, I'd admit a retarded monkey with a 123 over you.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: tms31078 on October 02, 2005, 02:49:49 PM
Rude...
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Also, take some shots, there is only one surefire way to not get in...
sure there is, but affirmative action, being the joke it is, lets very unqualified people into schools based on race. not socioeconomic factors, but race and race alone. being a white male i dont have that going for me, hence the reason i asked about race.

You also have to admit that Law Schools don't want assholes in their classes. With a perspective like that, I'd admit a retarded monkey with a 123 over you.
saying someone is an a-hole because they dont agree with affirmative action is a pretty ignorant statement.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: upNdown on October 03, 2005, 07:28:44 AM
Rude...
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Also, take some shots, there is only one surefire way to not get in...
sure there is, but affirmative action, being the joke it is, lets very unqualified people into schools based on race. not socioeconomic factors, but race and race alone. being a white male i dont have that going for me, hence the reason i asked about race.

You also have to admit that Law Schools don't want assholes in their classes. With a perspective like that, I'd admit a retarded monkey with a 123 over you.
saying someone is an a-hole because they dont agree with affirmative action is a pretty ignorant statement.

Also, saying somebody who got in is 'unqualified' is pretty stupid.  If she got in, she's qualified. 
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: practiceboy02 on October 03, 2005, 08:32:44 AM
Rude...
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Also, take some shots, there is only one surefire way to not get in...
sure there is, but affirmative action, being the joke it is, lets very unqualified people into schools based on race. not socioeconomic factors, but race and race alone. being a white male i dont have that going for me, hence the reason i asked about race.

You also have to admit that Law Schools don't want assholes in their classes. With a perspective like that, I'd admit a retarded monkey with a 123 over you.
saying someone is an a-hole because they dont agree with affirmative action is a pretty ignorant statement.

Also, saying somebody who got in is 'unqualified' is pretty stupid.  If she got in, she's qualified. 

Yeah.  tms... You do realize that "qualified" is a subjective consideration, right?  And you also realize that it's ADCOMS who decide the definition of qualified, not you, right?  And nobody cares whether or not you think a particular candidate is qualified?
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: tms31078 on October 03, 2005, 12:11:29 PM
Rude...
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.
There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Also, take some shots, there is only one surefire way to not get in...
sure there is, but affirmative action, being the joke it is, lets very unqualified people into schools based on race. not socioeconomic factors, but race and race alone. being a white male i dont have that going for me, hence the reason i asked about race.

You also have to admit that Law Schools don't want assholes in their classes. With a perspective like that, I'd admit a retarded monkey with a 123 over you.
saying someone is an a-hole because they dont agree with affirmative action is a pretty ignorant statement.

Also, saying somebody who got in is 'unqualified' is pretty stupid.  If she got in, she's qualified. 
but race shouldnt be something that makes someone qualified over another and it definitely is. all it does it draw races further apart and adds even more to a divided society based on color.

Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: greg556 on October 07, 2005, 01:50:34 AM
tms, even your leader George W. Bush is now admitting there are historical reasons for inequalities among the races, and you, as the beneficiary of 200 years of racial inequality, have an inherited responsibility to right the wrongs of our ancestors.  It is absolutely fair and right that an under-represented minority should get into a school ahead of you.  Our, all of us, our duty is to make a world where racial inequality is no longer an issue.  After Katrina, you should be ashamed of yourself.  If you have to work twice as hard to get into a school, good.  It will build character.  The only reason there needs occasionally to be race-based preferences is because our primary and secondary education systems are so grossly unequal.  You may have had a superior education for 16 years to the person you are competing with, and now you're bitching the one time that person is given a little bit of a boost.  What you should be doing is bitching that they weren't given equal opportunity when they were in K through 12.  If the playing field were equal, they'd probably be beating you out of your spot anyway.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: tms31078 on October 07, 2005, 09:17:13 AM
tms, even your leader George W. Bush is now admitting there are historical reasons for inequalities among the races, and you, as the beneficiary of 200 years of racial inequality, have an inherited responsibility to right the wrongs of our ancestors.  It is absolutely fair and right that an under-represented minority should get into a school ahead of you.  Our, all of us, our duty is to make a world where racial inequality is no longer an issue.  After Katrina, you should be ashamed of yourself.  If you have to work twice as hard to get into a school, good.  It will build character.  The only reason there needs occasionally to be race-based preferences is because our primary and secondary education systems are so grossly unequal.  You may have had a superior education for 16 years to the person you are competing with, and now you're bitching the one time that person is given a little bit of a boost.  What you should be doing is bitching that they weren't given equal opportunity when they were in K through 12.  If the playing field were equal, they'd probably be beating you out of your spot anyway.
Based on the illogical assumptions and horrible writing this isn't even worth a response, but I will opine. Either you are very confused or lying because you use the word our, implying Americans, and then you imply that George Bush is my leader, but not yours, so which one is it? If the goal is to have a society that is color blind, what good does having laws and policies that make determinations based on race do? Paradoxically Afirmative action only drives a deeper divide between the races. AA should be based on socioeconomic factors, not the color of your skin. Also, to assume you know where I went to school is extremely ignorant. If you call an inner city school in Long Beach, CA superior, you truly have no idea what you are talking about! Oh and what in the world does any of this have to do with Katrina, lol.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: greg556 on October 07, 2005, 10:43:06 AM
Your leader: you, white people who would complain about affirmative action.  Racists, republicans.

"Our": we the people, all of us, Americans.  I meant Bush's role as leader of the right-wing; I'm not sure anyone could say he's leading the country.

If you've looked at any law school applications, you'll see that the schools try very hard to find out what adversity you've overcome.  They are not interested in your race, but rather in your background and your travails.  At the same time, the racial make-up of their student body is public, so race is an issue as well.

AA drives deeper wedges between racist white people and URMs.  It certainly doesn't drive a wedge between me and other races.  As I said, I would give your spot at school to a URM any day of the week.

If you go by the applications, AA _is_ based on socioeconomic factors.  Who knows how representative the apps are of their actual acceptance policies, but ostensibly at least that is the case.

I said nothing about where you go to school.  If you read my post carefully (a skill you'll need for the LSAT), you will see that.

If you can't see how Katrina is related to this discussion, I unfortunately don't have time to explain it.

So, on a personal note, it's really easy for me to get sucked into conversations with people who are not interested or not capable of having an actual reasoned debate.  I am trying very hard to break myself of that habit.  In this message you bizarrely attacked the quality of my writing (apparently if you disagree with it it means the writing is bad), and you resort repeatedly to ad hominem attacks (something else you'll have to learn not to do if you expect to do well on the LSAT).

Every day in every way I'm getting better and better, and thus I will not respond to you again.  I'll wait till someone interested in a real discussion comes along.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: tms31078 on October 07, 2005, 10:50:41 AM
Your leader: you, white people who would complain about affirmative action.  Racists, republicans.

"Our": we the people, all of us, Americans.  I meant Bush's role as leader of the right-wing; I'm not sure anyone could say he's leading the country.

If you've looked at any law school applications, you'll see that the schools try very hard to find out what adversity you've overcome.  They are not interested in your race, but rather in your background and your travails.  At the same time, the racial make-up of their student body is public, so race is an issue as well.

AA drives deeper wedges between racist white people and URMs.  It certainly doesn't drive a wedge between me and other races.  As I said, I would give your spot at school to a URM any day of the week.

If you go by the applications, AA _is_ based on socioeconomic factors.  Who knows how representative the apps are of their actual acceptance policies, but ostensibly at least that is the case.

I said nothing about where you go to school.  If you read my post carefully (a skill you'll need for the LSAT), you will see that.

If you can't see how Katrina is related to this discussion, I unfortunately don't have time to explain it.

So, on a personal note, it's really easy for me to get sucked into conversations with people who are not interested or not capable of having an actual reasoned debate.  I am trying very hard to break myself of that habit.  In this message you bizarrely attacked the quality of my writing (apparently if you disagree with it it means the writing is bad), and you resort repeatedly to ad hominem attacks (something else you'll have to learn not to do if you expect to do well on the LSAT).

Every day in every way I'm getting better and better, and thus I will not respond to you again.  I'll wait till someone interested in a real discussion comes along.

Just by the fact that you made the statement law schools aren't interested with your race shows how out of touch you are with the admissions process. There is no need for me to respond anymore to someone who blatently lies!
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: SkullTatt on October 14, 2005, 03:35:18 PM
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

Well, everybody should try a few long shots. Basically if you are a white male, you should try to emphasize something unique about yourself that schools can latch onto. They see too many generic fratboy 23 y/o poly sci majors and they can't admit them all. Not that that necessarily describes you, just an example.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: JPhilmore on November 02, 2005, 11:46:53 AM
I'm kind of ambivalent about AA, so don't normally jump into these debates.  However, I thought the line about having a superior education for 16 years was interesting.  Don't URM's get a boost when applying to undergraduate institutions as well?  If a URM got him/herself into Harvard as an undergrad, wouldn't they have a superior education to a non-URM attending BU or UCLA?  How many times do you have to level the playing field?  I understand that having to work throughout college can be a burden, but again that comes back to the question of whether affirmative action should be race-based or look instead at socioeconomic factors.  I agree with AA in principle, but I think there are some serious issues with how it is implemented, and this post ignores a lot of those issues.

tms, even your leader George W. Bush is now admitting there are historical reasons for inequalities among the races, and you, as the beneficiary of 200 years of racial inequality, have an inherited responsibility to right the wrongs of our ancestors.  It is absolutely fair and right that an under-represented minority should get into a school ahead of you.  Our, all of us, our duty is to make a world where racial inequality is no longer an issue.  After Katrina, you should be ashamed of yourself.  If you have to work twice as hard to get into a school, good.  It will build character.  The only reason there needs occasionally to be race-based preferences is because our primary and secondary education systems are so grossly unequal.  You may have had a superior education for 16 years to the person you are competing with, and now you're bitching the one time that person is given a little bit of a boost.  What you should be doing is bitching that they weren't given equal opportunity when they were in K through 12.  If the playing field were equal, they'd probably be beating you out of your spot anyway.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: wowand135 on November 16, 2005, 08:53:13 AM
 i think it's ignorant of greg to assume that because somebody does not agree with AA they must be a republican. did you know that the whole state of california has made AA illegal? Do you think most californians are republicans?
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: RochelleD on June 08, 2006, 12:53:00 PM
I agree with the above post, and I take issue with the unwarranted assumption that people so often make when they equate being a republican with being racist. I am a republican and honestly donít have a racist bone in my body. I feel this assumption is very offensive and ignorant.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: SCgrad on June 08, 2006, 09:36:57 PM
There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Um....not really.  When you start being indexed on things OTHER then LSAT, gpa and race.  Get back to me.

so how, pray tell, did ruskiegirl get into Boalt Law with a 157, being a pasty white?

if you can't back up your generalizations, then stfu.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: Reach on June 09, 2006, 06:53:54 AM
Wow...this is simply an overall pathetic thread.  It just goes to show there are some damn ignorant people out there and it is true of both sides of a divisive issue.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: SCgrad on June 09, 2006, 06:59:10 AM
Wow...this is simply an overall pathetic thread.  It just goes to show there are some damn ignorant people out there and it is true of both sides of a divisive issue.

don't forget about all the people who are here to sit on their high horses and point this out without letting the minions know the errors of their way.

 ::)
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: tmiller1108 on June 12, 2007, 10:32:29 PM
When your scores are in the range that they are, just making a mistake on 3 to 5 questions can make your score deplete by 10 points.  Your score is great and you should not have any problem getting into any Law Schools expect, maybe, the top 5.

Vince
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: rickster on July 02, 2007, 09:51:10 AM
Rude...
i wasn't asking at all being rude, but those numbers are almost identical to mine and i have really written off any top 50 schools, as i am a white male, but if she is a white female, maybe i should reconsider and try a few long shots.

There is more to an app than LSAT/GPA/race.

Also, take some shots, there is only one surefire way to not get in...
sure there is, but affirmative action, being the joke it is, lets very unqualified people into schools based on race. not socioeconomic factors, but race and race alone. being a white male i dont have that going for me, hence the reason i asked about race.

You also have to admit that Law Schools don't want assholes in their classes. With a perspective like that, I'd admit a retarded monkey with a 123 over you.

I've never met a retarded monkey who wasn't an a-hole.  Come on, man.
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: Pop Up Video on July 02, 2007, 04:14:48 PM
Why are you responding to posts from 2005?
Title: Re: LSAT discrepancies
Post by: Pop Up Video on July 02, 2007, 04:34:22 PM
Why are you responding to posts from 2005?

.