Dr. Strangelove wrote:APHill wrote:If the unspoken assumption that dividing counsellors and boyscouts between two boats or placing red astronaut in a yellow spaceship equals smart then you are absolutely right.
However, one thing crucial for attorney LSAT does not measure is memory. For example, I might not be the fastest thinker, but I am a lighting fast memory recoverer. I might not be able to build an argument quickly, but recover a strong argument from a similar case I read 4 years ago. Which may help me prevail over an attorney who forgot all about that casebook case but would have been able to build an argument from scratch faster than me.
Clearly not an understatement of what the LSAT is supposed to test...
it may be an understatement of what it is supposed to test but i do not think it is much of an understatement of what actually is being tested. What logic games test IMO is whether you are a world class puzzle solver. Never been a great puzzle solver, but it never hindered my ability to have the guys who were to bite the dust in either work or school. There is certainly some overlap between "being smart" and doing well in LG, LR or RC, but that overlap is significantly lower than 100%. Correlations between LSAT score and class rank are weak, and the whole test is scheduled to be scrapped by LSAC in a few years (doubt that will happen, but they are seriously considering it).
Of course great LSAT takers will climb on the fence and start yelling that I am totally wrong. No problem, if I was a great LSAT taker I would be yelling about how important and reliable it is all over the place. also.