deadpanic wrote: Actually, yes, it is more objective. Everyone is taking the same test, virtually.
So multiple-choiced exams are more indicative of intelligence than essays too, right? After all, multiple choice can be graded objectively whereas essays leave room for subjectivity, right?
The fact that people take the same test doesn't mean it accurately tests intelligence. People take the LSAT with different levels of preparation and under varying conditions. It's not as level a playing field as you like to think. In fact, LSAC has never claimed to test for intelligence. The LSAT tests specific skills under time constrains which are purported to reflect one's chances of succeeding in Law School and at best, it only accounts for an infinitesimal part of the whole equation.
The irony is the fact that the people who swear by the LSAT come back after 1L to complain about the element of luck in Law School exams. The LSAT is currently better than alternatives that exist, but it is by no means accurate or even close to it. A 5-foot man is considered tall among midgets but not necessarily a tall person in the grand scheme of things. It's all relative.
There are a lot of people with sub 3.0 gpa's who score above 170 on the LSAT. Let me guess, they are otherwise intelligent but not hardworking? How much hard work does it take to get a 3.0 or above?
Intelligence is a broad concept for which the LSAT cannot possibly test and there are different forms of intelligence. Certain people are analytic, others are mechanical. Some are good at math and science, others, at writing and subjects that require analysis, others are good at both. The point is however moot since LSAC has never claimed to test what you claim it tests.
tl;dr version: The LSAT tests a specific skill-set which is believed
to predict to a certain degree, one's potential to succeed in Law School, nothing more. It is relatively more important than the gpa because it is more standardized (i.e. more closely resembles a level-playing field) than the gpa.