Berkeley Prof wants to ban LSAT?
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:32 am
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=106441
Meaning:Make it much easier so less qualified people aren't relegated to NOT attending law school. Because this is America and we cant have the qualified amongst us get anything that the unqualified can't. See also: new SAT.ChaotiCait wrote:He never said he wanted to ban the LSAT, and if you notice he's a psychology professor, not a law prof. They're working with the LSAC about expanding the test to include more factors.
I think I kind of agree with you, but what did they do with the SAT?DCD wrote:Meaning:Make it much easier so less qualified people aren't relegated to NOT attending law school. Because this is America and we cant have the qualified amongst us get anything that the unqualified can't. See also: new SAT.ChaotiCait wrote:He never said he wanted to ban the LSAT, and if you notice he's a psychology professor, not a law prof. They're working with the LSAC about expanding the test to include more factors.
The 2400 system made it more subjective and easier (in my opinion) than the old 1600 system that most of us knew.monkeyboy wrote:I think I kind of agree with you, but what did they do with the SAT?DCD wrote:Meaning:Make it much easier so less qualified people aren't relegated to NOT attending law school. Because this is America and we cant have the qualified amongst us get anything that the unqualified can't. See also: new SAT.ChaotiCait wrote:He never said he wanted to ban the LSAT, and if you notice he's a psychology professor, not a law prof. They're working with the LSAC about expanding the test to include more factors.
Oh yeah, I took the 1600 system version.DCD wrote:The 2400 system made it more subjective and easier (in my opinion) than the old 1600 system that most of us knew.monkeyboy wrote:I think I kind of agree with you, but what did they do with the SAT?DCD wrote:Meaning:Make it much easier so less qualified people aren't relegated to NOT attending law school. Because this is America and we cant have the qualified amongst us get anything that the unqualified can't. See also: new SAT.ChaotiCait wrote:He never said he wanted to ban the LSAT, and if you notice he's a psychology professor, not a law prof. They're working with the LSAC about expanding the test to include more factors.
er, what? how did it make it easier? i agree that it's more subjective -- a professional test grader recently wrote a long article for NYT about just how subjective the writing section really is. for me, the subjectivity makes it much, much more terrifying, and thereby harder.DCD wrote: The 2400 system made it more subjective and easier (in my opinion) than the old 1600 system that most of us knew.
Capriciousness = difficultyjayn3 wrote:er, what? how did it make it easier? i agree that it's more subjective -- a professional test grader recently wrote a long article for NYT about just how subjective the writing section really is. for me, the subjectivity makes it much, much more terrifying, and thereby harder.DCD wrote: The 2400 system made it more subjective and easier (in my opinion) than the old 1600 system that most of us knew.
Yeah, I'm not an academic by any means and there is a lot involved here that I don't know a lot about, but I agree with what you're saying. Personality tests are very beatable. I've taken them after interviewing for sales jobs, etc, and it's not hard to figure out what they are looking for.Desert Fox wrote:Putting a personality test on the LSAT is a horrible idea. Personality and emotional tests may be good predictors of good lawyering when taken honestly, but who in their right mind wouldn't purposely answer the questions in order to boost ones score? You'll just have a Powerscore Personality Bible.
The part about judging a person's past experiences is even worse. That is what the application process is about. The LSAT is supposed to be an objective piece of the application. Judging experience is what the personal statement and resume are for.
Trying to put all the factors into admissions into one single metric is unbelievably small thinking.
/176 trolling
IIRC they also got rid of analogies, which a lot of people found especially difficult.Desert Fox wrote:Capriciousness = difficultyjayn3 wrote:er, what? how did it make it easier? i agree that it's more subjective -- a professional test grader recently wrote a long article for NYT about just how subjective the writing section really is. for me, the subjectivity makes it much, much more terrifying, and thereby harder.DCD wrote: The 2400 system made it more subjective and easier (in my opinion) than the old 1600 system that most of us knew.
IMO, charging for PT's for a supposedly standardized test is bullshit. PT's 1-58 should be available in paperback for 20 bucks, and should be available online for free from LSAC.tumbleweed664 wrote:It seems like before they change the LSAT they should deal with other factors that are currently making it less standardized (expensive prep courses, etc.). Once it is actually measuring just logical reasoning/reading comprehension instead of those plus ability to pay for classes and books and to spend a large amount of time studying, then they should consider changing or supplementing what it measures.
I agree, though given how much the rankings have become the tail that wags the dog, I can see why people might be tempted to contrive a way to make this into something easily quantifiable and thus worthy for US News to measure.Desert Fox wrote:Putting a personality test on the LSAT is a horrible idea. Personality and emotional tests may be good predictors of good lawyering when taken honestly, but who in their right mind wouldn't purposely answer the questions in order to boost ones score? You'll just have a Powerscore Personality Bible.
The part about judging a person's past experiences is even worse. That is what the application process is about. The LSAT is supposed to be an objective piece of the application. Judging experience is what the personal statement and resume are for.
Trying to put all the factors into admissions into one single metric is unbelievably small thinking.
/176 trolling
I took the SAT in 8th grade to qualify for some gifted program (why would they use this to qualify? Hell if I know). And I thought the SAT was a pretty poor test. It was vocab and math skills. Is that really the best objective measurement of college ability?Aeroplane wrote:IIRC they also got rid of analogies, which a lot of people found especially difficult.Desert Fox wrote:Capriciousness = difficultyjayn3 wrote:er, what? how did it make it easier? i agree that it's more subjective -- a professional test grader recently wrote a long article for NYT about just how subjective the writing section really is. for me, the subjectivity makes it much, much more terrifying, and thereby harder.DCD wrote: The 2400 system made it more subjective and easier (in my opinion) than the old 1600 system that most of us knew.
The point of making the 2400 SAT worth 2/3 English/writing was to give girls a chance to catch up to boys, who tend to score higher on math and slightly lower on verbal. I believe another intended consequence was that the minority gap decreased on a percentage basis, because writing scores are generally inflated compared to the other 2.DCD wrote:The 2400 system made it more subjective and easier (in my opinion) than the old 1600 system that most of us knew.monkeyboy wrote:I think I kind of agree with you, but what did they do with the SAT?DCD wrote:Meaning:Make it much easier so less qualified people aren't relegated to NOT attending law school. Because this is America and we cant have the qualified amongst us get anything that the unqualified can't. See also: new SAT.ChaotiCait wrote:He never said he wanted to ban the LSAT, and if you notice he's a psychology professor, not a law prof. They're working with the LSAC about expanding the test to include more factors.
I don't know where you got this information. I was a member of the first class to take the 3-section SAT, and I was told that the new SAT was created after years of professors complaining that students were coming to college unprepared to write. I don't think the new SAT fixes this problem, but as far as I know, that was its intention.im_blue wrote:The point of making the 2400 SAT worth 2/3 English/writing was to give girls a chance to catch up to boys, who tend to score higher on math and slightly lower on verbal. I believe another intended consequence was that the minority gap decreased on a percentage basis, because writing scores are generally inflated compared to the other 2.DCD wrote:The 2400 system made it more subjective and easier (in my opinion) than the old 1600 system that most of us knew.monkeyboy wrote:I think I kind of agree with you, but what did they do with the SAT?DCD wrote:
Meaning:Make it much easier so less qualified people aren't relegated to NOT attending law school. Because this is America and we cant have the qualified amongst us get anything that the unqualified can't. See also: new SAT.
Yup. Which promptly got the Writing SAT ignored by everyone except the UCs. Most colleges still only report their incoming class's Math/Reading Comp medians.ravens20 wrote:Didn't the UC schools also threaten to ignore the SAT, which led to several changes in the test including the writing section?
Thank god I took the 1600 point SAT back in the 90s. The writing section is nothing more than subjective nonsense intended to diminish the gap of underperforming groups. I can't consider it to be a standardized test anymore. Not when you have hundreds, if not thousands, of different people grading the writing portion. Per Wikipedia:goingoingone wrote: I don't know where you got this information. I was a member of the first class to take the 3-section SAT, and I was told that the new SAT was created after years of professors complaining that students were coming to college unprepared to write. I don't think the new SAT fixes this problem, but as far as I know, that was its intention.
yes, this is the stated purpose of the test. but the rank of your law school greatly affects job prospects, so the "chain" effect of the LSAT is that it determines your work opportunities for the early stage of your career (which in turn determines your opportunities for later stages of your career). so whether its intended or not, the LSAT has a drastic effect on your career as a future attorney. it is probably the highest of high stake tests.cdd_04 wrote:Maybe I'm wrong here, but the proposed changes seem to be designed to test how effective you'll be as a lawyer? Thats great and all, but isn't the point of the LSAT supposed to be designed to test an applicant's potential as a law school student?.
agreed. it would be silly to try to incorporate those other things in a standardized test. most of them are learnable, and even if they weren't very easily gamed. the only realistic way to add this to the admissions process would be an interviewing component similar to mba programs.I understand that law schools want to produce good lawyers, but the measures tested by the new test are skills you can learn (at least partly) in law school and is in large part the responsibility of the student;
englawyer wrote:cdd_04 wrote:Maybe I'm wrong here, but the proposed changes seem to be designed to test how effective you'll be as a lawyer? Thats great and all, but isn't the point of the LSAT supposed to be designed to test an applicant's potential as a law school student?.
cdd_04 wrote:englawyer wrote:yes, this is the stated purpose of the test. but the rank of your law school greatly affects job prospects, so the "chain" effect of the LSAT is that it determines your work opportunities for the early stage of your career (which in turn determines your opportunities for later stages of your career). so whether its intended or not, the LSAT has a drastic effect on your career as a future attorney. it is probably the highest of high stake tests.