Jump to content
Diplock

We don't believe all your 170 LSATs

Recommended Posts

Agreed. I suspect that more than a few folks, before even glancing at a practice test, look at their high GPA stats (which they have a concrete idea of), and simply extrapolate their high academic performance to a high LSAT performance. They don't realize how much of a leap this is -- the LSAT introduces a method of analytical thinking that is largely foreign to a typical undergraduate education (from my own experience as well as from what I've heard). I like to think that I'm a fairly smart dude, but if I ever have to write out F G H J K L at the top of a printer paper sheet ever again, I'm going to have a brain aneurysm.

And a 170 is the 97th percentile of test-takers who think they have a worthwhile shot of entering law school! No one should be so presumptuous as to think that such a result is guaranteed! I would never, ever get a result that high. But I also don't totally tie my self-perception of my intelligence, industriousness, worth, and perseverance to one standardized test -- and neither should the frantic 0L posting a hypothetical "Chance Me!".

Oh, and uh, Merry Christmas.

 

Edited by TheMidnightOil
  • Like 6
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How intoxicated are you at the moment? 

Per usual I agree with your underlying message: it's high time people stopped rigging the tape measure! 🤣 But I don't think you want to make a statistical argument regarding any particular score being over reported on these boards.

I myself am a few drinks in but here's the jist of what you should consider before saying things are statistically impossible in aggregate: the typical SE is around 2.7 scaled points (rounded to 3 on score reports). The psychometricians at LSAC calibrate scores over multi year periods to aid in standardizing scores across cohorts (a 160 is supposed to be a 160 which is supposed to be a 160). The change to the flex has no doubt reaked havoc with the standard calibrations. LSAC can muddle raw to scaled conversions on a test by test basis of course, but they'd be unlikely to do so unless the range of scores fell well outside that expected (note that standardized test score conversions should not require post-hoc intervention on a regular basis. They wouldn't serve their purpose otherwise). Typically such thresholds are taken at 2*SE. Though we cannot be sure in the case of LSAC. 

What that means is that the variation from the regular 5 section exam to the flex may be within the threshold for action (note how wide the SE is) even if scores have come in higher than anticipated from the switch. And it might be that variation which is what you are observing rather than outright lying. Note that given the percentiles you are talking about this phenomenon would be particularly acute (say as compared to 60th percentile scores).

Meh. Or you could be right. Though I do agree that people should not post chances threads with assumed LSAT scores. That's just a waste of time

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Christmas and I'm tipsy, but I'm hopping on the thread anyway. 

There are obviously some legitimate 170s. But I also think a few posters are lying about it because they want to know their chances if they theoretically score a 170, and/or think if they just pull up their bootstraps they can get a 170. Or they really need something to boast about I guess, and no one has any way to call them on the lie.

Once/if I get into law school, my LSAT will be meaningless. So I'm going to tell everyone I got a 135 or something and watch them figure that out forever.

Merry Chrysler y'all.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of the supposed 170 scores are cases of self delusion. 

I imagine they work something like this (a scenario based off my own LSAT experience). Applicant Bloggins is getting PT results ranging from 164-167. 167 (the top of their range) is fairly close to 170. The applicant assumes that their test score will be slightly higher than their PT peak. 

From this we get an applicant who, in all likehood, will score between a 159-165 claiming a 170 (as it is, in their mind, inevitable). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Diplock said:

Speaking as a guy, the harm in every guy telling other guys that he's got a 10-inch dick is that every single fucking guy who participates in that conversation (with the odd rare exception - and good on you buddy!) leaves that conversation feeling less adequate.

This is peak diplock argumentation

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SadNWO said:

I think most of the supposed 170 scores are cases of self delusion. 

I imagine they work something like this (a scenario based off my own LSAT experience). Applicant Bloggins is getting PT results ranging from 164-167. 167 (the top of their range) is fairly close to 170. The applicant assumes that their test score will be slightly higher than their PT peak. 

From this we get an applicant who, in all likehood, will score between a 159-165 claiming a 170 (as it is, in their mind, inevitable). 

I think it’s even lower, likely a 157-163.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LSAT feels like so long ago I barely remember it. So, my advice to any 0Ls who are applying, please don't feel the need to inflate your scores. Noone cares about the LSAT once you get to law school, and there will be so many more challenges once getting into law school that the LSAT will all but feel like a distant memory. Do your best, of course, but don't put all your eggs into one basket and think a 170 LSAT is a make or break thing. Anything above a 160 will be good enough for (most) schools.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been annoyed and baffled by the numerous claims of a 170 LSAT for a long time as well.

I am especially baffled when someone posts a below average GPA and a super high LSAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SNAILS said:

I have been annoyed and baffled by the numerous claims of a 170 LSAT for a long time as well.

I am especially baffled when someone posts a below average GPA and a super high LSAT.

It definitely happens, though. I got a 173 on the LSAT and my GPA is only 3.73 -- I did a year abroad which really affected my cGPA as all of my classes were in my second language. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Terracycle said:

Girl I- I don’t think he means your stats. Surely you know a 3.73 is at or well above the averages for schools right? 
 

I think he means more along the lines of 2.9, 172

I absolutely agree with the post in general but when i see a 2.9 and a 170+ all i can think is that an engineer wrote that post.....lol. I have a few engineering friends and one of them went to law school and had a terrible GPA but did wonderfully on the LSAT and got into a great school. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I've been thinking about this as well. Even if we accept that the flex was somewhat easier because of the number of sections, it's still surprising to see so many 170s. The test itself wasn't any easier than the in-person LSAT. If anything, the games became trickier and the LR stimulus is lengthier now. (Coming from someone who wrote both the in-person and two flex tests)

However, I also think people who are basically "lying" about their 170s and posing them as their actual score are doing themselves no favours. They're asking for their admissions chances based on a made up number they believe they can achieve without even writing the official test. They're setting an expectation that will later disappoint them when they open that 9am LSAC email on score release day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boundless said:

I absolutely agree with the post in general but when i see a 2.9 and a 170+ all i can think is that an engineer wrote that post.....lol. I have a few engineering friends and one of them went to law school and had a terrible GPA but did wonderfully on the LSAT and got into a great school. 

That story is music to my ears. I think this disparity is more possible than people assume. The LSAT, ultimately, is just one test with fairly limited subject matter. If you study really effectively, for a long time, or both, it's possible to get a killer score almost regardless of GPA. I say this as someone with a very average GPA of 3.09, but an LSAT score of the variety discussed here. 

Not to argue with the general premise, by definition if 170 is 97th percentile, there can't be that many of them out there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TotallyBucked said:

That story is music to my ears. I think this disparity is more possible than people assume. The LSAT, ultimately, is just one test with fairly limited subject matter. If you study really effectively, for a long time, or both, it's possible to get a killer score almost regardless of GPA. I say this as someone with a very average GPA of 3.09, but an LSAT score of the variety discussed here. 

Not to argue with the general premise, by definition if 170 is 97th percentile, there can't be that many of them out there. 

 

On 12/14/2020 at 10:01 AM, TotallyBucked said:

My doppleganger! I just got 168 on my last PT, same application plan. 

Okay. So in a thread calling out people for having LSAT scores which are aspirational, theoretical, and/or delusional, you just claimed to "have" one such LSAT score, despite the fact that you've never actually written the damn test yet.

Look, I wrote a lot more, and in very strong language, but I'm editing this down because I believe the deception was accidental. You scored some recent practice tests in the high 160s. You want to believe that's the next closest thing to 170, you want to count on those future gains, and most importantly you want to put those practice scores in the bank and assume that your eventual score, when you actually write the test in January, will resemble your best successes in practice. Maybe that's all true. But right now that is exactly the sort of hypothetical, aspirational, possibly delusional crap I've been talking about.

I know you don't realize you're doing this, but you are part of the problem. You're telling yourself what you need to believe and repeating it here like it's some kind of truth. Both that you have a score already which you don't actually have and which a fair percentage of people in your situation will never have. Which is exactly how these ridiculous inflated claims become so common. And you are also claiming that anyone should be able to practice their way into a "killer" LSAT score. Have you considered how demoralizing that claim would be to someone who can't do that? Where do you get off claiming to have any kind of word on this when it's something you've never even attempted yet yourself, much less succeeded at?

I'm trying to be calm but I'm working my way up again. The bottom line is this. People here will help you. People here will encourage you. People here are not trying to screw with your dreams and your goals. But if the techniques you want to use to motivate yourself create the side-effect of screwing with other people, it's gone too far.

The takeaway is very simple. Stop making shit up that isn't true. It's not really an unreasonable expectation that you bring that much to the table here, for all the free help and advice you find on this site.

Edited by Diplock
  • Like 3
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AllanRC said:

How intoxicated are you at the moment?

 

7 hours ago, DABMAN said:

This was a good christmas gift from diplock

 

14 hours ago, MountainMon said:

This is peak diplock argumentation

Thank you for the appreciation everyone. And just for the record, I was stone cold sober. If you want evidence to the contrary, you should be looking at my spelling and grammar rather than my subject matter or tone. When it comes to outrage, I need no performance enhancing substances. Though I was in an odd mood.

Anyway, in the cold light of day I'm still glad I finally said something. This one has been bugging me for a while.

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • On this site I regularly see people with LSAT scores 20-30 points lower than mine making ridiculous assertions about the amount of work that is supposedly required to get a top score. By contrast my personal experience was that the prep required to get a 99th percentile LSAT score consisted of learning basic logic game diagramming and writing a handful of practice tests. I see people with scores in the 150s knowing all the names of the different types of logical reasoning questions and discussing the logic behind them in terms I never learned and don't understand. All I know is if you put the test in front of me I intuitively understand what almost all of the answers are, but I couldn't do a good job of articulating why--the answers simply seem self-evident and to be taken for granted. Just chiming in because your statement squares with my experience (although I didn't reach 177). But by and large people with mediocre scores invariably claim that the LSAT is all about effort and just don't want to believe that innate aptitude has anything to do with it, because they tend to view it as an attack on their intelligence in general. (Just so I don't seem like a totally arrogant douche, everyone: for what it's worth I've put in serious effort trying to learn instruments and second languages and my innate aptitude in both of those areas is abysmal--I found such endeavors nearly impossible. Also the innate LSAT aptitude did not translate into innate law school aptitude, and I certainly would have preferred the latter. But yeah, the fact that I suck at other things but can effortlessly get an LSAT score in the 170s just emphasizes how much of it is innate. And the degree to which there are different kinds of intelligences that people have varying aptitudes for. The LSAT is irrelevant to me now in practical terms but I do find the subject interesting from a psychological perspective.)
    • Play nice. I'm all for disagreeing with someone, but if we can't be civil and start name calling, it's not possible to have real discussion.
    • The vast majority of people that score 170+ and post here put in a fraction of the effort the people grinding through the 150s and low 160s do. And I’m sure a ton of those grinders put in as much effort as is humanly possible into studying without having an innate grasp of the LSAT. But the people scoring 177-180 for example? Probably putting in some of the least effort into studying.
    • This is what I'm talking about, no one is actually making an argument, it's name calling and non sequiturs 
    • 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. 

×
×
  • Create New...