Jump to content
Diplock

We don't believe all your 170 LSATs

Recommended Posts

I think for a lot of people the 170 represents hope when there are other big weaknesses in their application, they might just want to hear that it's possible still. I don't think the intent is to show off, I think it's just to demonstrate that they know they have something big to overcome, and that's the number they think will get them there.

I agree that it's not helpful in getting advice, and discouraging to others that don't know that it really doesn't happen often. The question might serve everyone better if instead of saying "I have a shitty personality but a 10",  and really should ask "how many inches should I aim for based on my shitty personality for this particular orifice, and can you recommend a good penis pump"?

Edited by legallybrunette3
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, lawstudent20202020 said:

Just some fun napkin math to back up this wonderful thread. 170 this the 97th percentile, according to lsac each LSAT had between 10,000-20,000 reportable score. So in the entire world (but most north America) there's only about 300-600 people that score 170 or above. Google machine says about 8% of LSAT takers take it in Canada, which is probably a reasonable assumption to say roughly 8% of test takers are applying in Canada. 

That means that there is roughly 24-48 people in Canada from any test date that get 170 or above.

Which leaves the following 2 conclusions:

1. This website has managed to attract all of the top test scores, or

2. Someone's lieing.

Sources:google, lsac, the rum I put in my coffee this morning.

 

 

 

 

You need to multiply this by the hypothetical number of LSAT administrations pertinent to each cycle though, no? Otherwise by this math the LSAT medians for any of the top US and Canadian schools wouldn't make any sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, lawstudent20202020 said:

That means that there is roughly 24-48 people in Canada from any test date that get 170 or above.

That may even be an over estimation, this is just conjecture as I don't have hard data to line up against, but Canadian law schools appear to have lower LSAT medians compared to the higher ranked law schools in the U.S., and with a more holistic application process of GPA/LSAT/EC/etc., test takers in Canada may not be prepping as long or are content with their 1st/2nd take that's close to the medians. 

If that's true, Canada's distribution may skew lower than the U.S majority, leading to less people per test scoring in the 170s. Would have to multiply that number across multiple tests in the cycle, but would still be a very low amount. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, RUIQ said:

That may even be an over estimation, this is just conjecture as I don't have hard data to line up against, but Canadian law schools appear to have lower LSAT medians compared to the higher ranked law schools in the U.S., and with a more holistic application process of GPA/LSAT/EC/etc., test takers in Canada may not be prepping as long or are content with their 1st/2nd take that's close to the medians. 

If that's true, Canada's distribution may skew lower than the U.S majority, leading to less people per test scoring in the 170s. Would have to multiply that number across multiple tests in the cycle, but would still be a very low amount. 

According to LSAC Canadian scores actually are slightly higher than American ones, but marginally so. Also this is just reported scores to LSAC and is completely independent from the law school applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MountainMon said:

You need to multiply this by the hypothetical number of LSAT administrations pertinent to each cycle though, no? Otherwise by this math the LSAT medians for any of the top US and Canadian schools wouldn't make any sense. 

https://report.lsac.org/TestTakers.aspx Here's where i sourced my data.

My numbers just provide a rough range of the raw numbers of people in Canada scoring above 170 for a specific LSAT cycle. Using my napkin math to figure out how many people are actually applying with a 170 or great doesn't really work. The applicant pool has scores from up to 3 years of LSAT cycle, there's about 115k scores reported each year about half of which are repeat takers. Much easier to just look at the number of applicants a school gets, multiple by .03 to get the rough number of how many people you are competing against have a 170+. eg, U of T had 2204 applicants for 2020, which means about 66 people applied with a 170+ score. Of course many of those people will have applied to other schools or even the states since they have a shot at top 3 schools there, and some people will still have that score and get a rejected application. Even this has problems because it assumes that people apply to law school in randomized way to maintain the proportions, which is clearly not true. Its a reasonable assumption that the lower end of the distribution will apply in a smaller proportion than the upper end. 

My post is just a direct response to the fact that each time scores come out there's at least 20 people on here claiming to have scored above 170, and which for a smaller lsat cycle is just about everyone in Canada that got that score posting on here about it, which I find really unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d like to revisit equating a 170 LSAT  score with a 10 inch penis — they’re  essentially dissimilar. You can get in almost anywhere with a 170, but you might get a few vehement refusals if you bust out a 10 incher.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

you might get a few vehement refusals if you bust out a 10 incher.

brazzers has soundly disproved this 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours 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

Aahh okay fair enough! I guess with all the 3.9s and 4.0s I'm seeing on the site I've tricked myself into thinking that a 3.73 isn't that great. I'm hoping for U of T so that's where my stress comes from haha :)

 

But yeah, I've been confused about posts like that as well, especially when you take percentiles into consideration. My 173 was considered 99th percentile, so how did so many people get 170+?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have this wonderful new ability to merge accounts. So when people post bullshit under one account and their other account (oh sorry, their “roommate’s account that they must have forgotten to sign out of, ha ha”) posts an actual score, we merge them.

And it becomes obvious who the liars are. And no, we don’t let you delete that shit. 
 

Don’t say you weren’t warned :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mods can move this post if its ultimately deemed irrelevant, but one thing I want to say which I feel needs to be said:

0Ls - please use discretion and common sense when making a chances post. Asking whether a 3.7 GPA and a 165 (or, to be more appropriate to the topic of this thread) a 170 LSAT is good enough for a school and then freaking out about your chances makes your fellow applicants, who may be legitimately wondering if their stats are good enough for law school, feel worse about their chances. Not to mention, the lack of awareness of what constitutes good stats makes it seem like a humble brag which is always annoying.

Am I off base here? Seeing a lot of this lately but I imagine it's not a new practice.

Edited by capitalttruth
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, capitalttruth said:

Mods can move this post if its ultimately deemed irrelevant, but one thing I want to say which I feel needs to be said:

0Ls - please use discretion and common sense when making a chances post. Asking whether a 3.7 GPA and a 165 (or, to be more appropriate to the topic of this thread) a 170 LSAT is good enough for a school and then freaking out about your chances makes your fellow applicants, who may be legitimately wondering if their stats are good enough for law school, feel worse about their chances. Not to mention, the lack of awareness of what constitutes good stats makes it seem like a humble brag which is always annoying.

Am I off base here? Seeing a lot of this lately but I imagine it's not a new practice.

I don't think any of that is off topic or wrong. Though I'd rank it lower, as an issue, than outright deception.

I'll throw a minor off-topic curve myself and say that I do sometimes wonder who shows up here, and what generalizations about our user base may be reasonable. I don't think we get an unrepresentative sampling of great LSAT scorers, but I do think we get a greater percentage of the truly clueless. I don't mean that in an unkind way. It's just, would-be law students who already have access to networks, mentorship and just, well, lawyers, are less desperate for anonymous advice on the Interweb. My personal suspicion is that those who come here tend to be less clued in generally. I'm more inclined to allow some slack for folks who ask ridiculous questions founded in ignorance. I mean, I remember when I was there myself.

So you're totally right. But I've got more room for this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Diplock said:

I don't think any of that is off topic or wrong. Though I'd rank it lower, as an issue, than outright deception.

I'll throw a minor off-topic curve myself and say that I do sometimes wonder who shows up here, and what generalizations about our user base may be reasonable. I don't think we get an unrepresentative sampling of great LSAT scorers, but I do think we get a greater percentage of the truly clueless. I don't mean that in an unkind way. It's just, would-be law students who already have access to networks, mentorship and just, well, lawyers, are less desperate for anonymous advice on the Interweb. My personal suspicion is that those who come here tend to be less clued in generally. I'm more inclined to allow some slack for folks who ask ridiculous questions founded in ignorance. I mean, I remember when I was there myself.

So you're totally right. But I've got more room for this one.

I think it's pretty simple: this site attracts people who think the internet is a valuable source of information. I think it's rather odd to assume that this site is mostly for the ill- or un-informed and that people who are otherwise "well-connected" know better.  My own experience supports this. Maybe this site attracts a certain type of person but I'd disagree that it is a function of being "clued in" or not. Of those I know applying  to or in LS I'm confident that I'm the only one who uses this site frequently yet I'd definitely be considered clued in" by the standards you've laid out. 

Edited by MountainMon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GoblinKing said:

I’d like to revisit equating a 170 LSAT  score with a 10 inch penis — they’re  essentially dissimilar. You can get in almost anywhere with a 170, but you might get a few vehement refusals if you bust out a 10 incher.

I have no experience with the former situation, but I can personally attest to the latter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SNAILS said:

I have no experience with the former situation, but I can personally attest to the latter.

I have neither of those things. I do have a wonderful personality though. 

insert: you tried star | Tumblr

  • Like 4
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so it doesn’t get lost in the midst of a sea of posts I just wanted to catalog some of the amazing things that have transpired in this thread:

1.       Diplock compares 170+ to 10 inch+ schlongs

2.       Many posters seem to agree even if only implicitly that this is a humorous, though potentially apt comparison

3.       Continuing the theme, it’s pointed out that if people really had 10+ incher tackle they would know it’s an impressive thing. The fact that they have to even ask what it means to be endowed with a 10+ incher indicates that they are misreading the measuring tape

4.       A poster in this very thread called out for comparing their schlong to someone else’s, despite the person they are comparing to having been measured by the official committee and theirs has not

5.       Realpseudonym explains that no matter how much one studies, they may not achieve a 170+; and that this is an okay thing (it is). Ostensibly this is being implicitly compared to men taking penis enhancing pills / performing exercises for enhancement that never comes close to the 10+ mark (also okay)

6.       Diplock compares drugs and alcohol to performance enhancing substances in the context of online forum discussions

7.       On page 2, the comparison to dicks starts to be explicitly questioned. Specific porn companies are referenced

8.       A mod posts in this thread, completely ignoring the conversation about dicks (implicitly sanctioning the discussion), and leaves a warning for those types of people being talked about

9.       A poster literally insinuates that they either have a 10+ pecker, or else has intimate knowledge of the encounters of someone who has one. Seems to suggest that such endowments may not always be desirable (thus again questioning the comparison to a 170+, which presumably does not have such downsides)

10.   Someone has a good personality

Sometimes life just gives you gems. This thread is one of them. Thanks for being you lawstudents.ca! It very much feels like our own version of the jerk algorithm discussion.

  • Haha 8

Share this post


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

Just so it doesn’t get lost in the midst of a sea of posts I just wanted to catalog some of the amazing things that have transpired in this thread:

1.       Diplock compares 170+ to 10 inch+ schlongs

2.       Many posters seem to agree even if only implicitly that this is a humorous, though potentially apt comparison

3.       Continuing the theme, it’s pointed out that if people really had 10+ incher tackle they would know it’s an impressive thing. The fact that they have to even ask what it means to be endowed with a 10+ incher indicates that they are misreading the measuring tape

4.       A poster in this very thread called out for comparing their schlong to someone else’s, despite the person they are comparing to having been measured by the official committee and theirs has not

5.       Realpseudonym explains that no matter how much one studies, they may not achieve a 170+; and that this is an okay thing (it is). Ostensibly this is being implicitly compared to men taking penis enhancing pills / performing exercises for enhancement that never comes close to the 10+ mark (also okay)

6.       Diplock compares drugs and alcohol to performance enhancing substances in the context of online forum discussions

7.       On page 2, the comparison to dicks starts to be explicitly questioned. Specific porn companies are referenced

8.       A mod posts in this thread, completely ignoring the conversation about dicks (implicitly sanctioning the discussion), and leaves a warning for those types of people being talked about

9.       A poster literally insinuates that they either have a 10+ pecker, or else has intimate knowledge of the encounters of someone who has one. Seems to suggest that such endowments may not always be desirable (thus again questioning the comparison to a 170+, which presumably does not have such downsides)

10.   Someone has a good personality

Sometimes life just gives you gems. This thread is one of them. Thanks for being you lawstudents.ca! It very much feels like our own version of the jerk algorithm discussion.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey if you all want to talk about dicks all day long that’s fine; just keep it to this thread and don’t break the forum rules is all I’m saying. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hegdis said:

Hey if you all want to talk about dicks all day long that’s fine; just keep it to this thread and don’t break the forum rules is all I’m saying. 

lol this gives me strong "if you're gonna drink I'd rather you do it in the house" vibes

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7

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.



×
×
  • Create New...