I've taken 14 sociology courses, 12 at u of t and 2 at ryerson. I dropped out a while back and decided to go back to school because I was tired of working construction so I went to ryerson to finish my degree.
I'm really torn on this debate. LSAT prep companies and books argue that anyone can score over 170 but there's an obvious conflict of interest there, and some people claim that it's limited to someone's innate ability. Nature vs. nurture.
A part of that was me being snarky with Rashabon, of course I don't think that only conservative people use rigorous statistics I was being a dick. Before I brought it up because let's be honest, any alternative explanation for a subject such as wage differences between races, or pay gaps in a sport get lumped into being conservative, as you can see from clean hands. People will consider conservatives as being stupid if they offer almost any refutal to the typical narrative. I mean I'm acknowledging that sexism definitely plays a role gender wage gap, that expectations of women to be mothers does to, but if I point out you can't apply it to every situation in terms of wage differences i'm an idiot. Maybe I am an idiot, hopefully I learn something and become a better thinker for it here.