creatinganalt wrote: r2b2ct wrote:
creatinganalt wrote:The PROBLEM with applying that same principle to a high LSAT splitter is that the high LSAT could or could not be the result of a budding brilliant legal mind diamond in the rough or someone who has taken a prep course or studied for 1 year to bring themselves up to a high 170s. As the Dean said, 'they could have just taken a prep course'. I think we can all agree that a cold 170 is more impressive (and more indicative of the aptitude that the LSAT is meant to test for) than a 170 post 8 months of study. I say this as someone who studied! But the point is that the Dean can't know which the LSAT is.
I don't see how this is a problem. Why is work ethic a positive if it applies to non-law school related UG work, but not when it applies to the law school admissions test? If someone studies for 8 months for the law school admissions test, I think it's a good bet he's taking law school seriously and has a strong work ethic.
BTW, the whole idea that 170+s are easy as long as someone "just takes a prep course" is ridiculous.
edited to clarify
Because it doesn't show anything other than a high LSAT. A high LSAT doesn't 'mitigate' a low GPA - it defeats it (generally). So those two numbers are still (presumably) predictive. But someone who shows that the LSAT is not likely to be predictive for them lessens the value of that number in the admissions process for them at Berkeley.
There's also no way to separate someone who could score higher than a 180 if allowed and finished the LSAT in half the time and so is a genuine LSAT genius from someone who is just a high scorer. But presumably the Harvard valedictorian/insane publications/LOR which say 'best student I've ever seen type stuff can (hypothetically) separate the crappy college crappy subject people from those people who have the ability but just not on standardized tests.
Btw - this is from a person who has a higher LSAT than GPA and studied hard for it. I think I'm bright BUT having a high LSAT is not like being a Rhodes Scholar or something. I really don't believe that every single person who scores lower on the LSAT than me is dumber than me or will do worse at law school.
If this is your point then I basically agree. I feel that your earlier post made much stronger claims, but I may have misinterpreted. I originally interpreted it to mean that being a high LSAT splitter could potentially be rendered completely uninformative simply because they could have taken a prep course or studied extensively. I don't think that either of these possibilities is sufficient to marginalize a high LSAT splitter. First, prep courses are simply not that good. Second, studying extensively and scoring in the 99th percentile still shows a telling combination of talent and motivation.
That said, I think that Boalt's preference for high GPAs is actually a smart move for several reasons. The most convincing of which is that most top tier law schools marginalize high GPA splitters and Boalt being one of the few that doesn't probably means they snatch up a sizable proportion of the subset of whom would perform well in a top tier law school. It is also true that a GPA provides a more detailed trail for an admissions committee to follow, which allows Boalt to more accurately separate those with the most meaningful academic records from the 4.0s in fluff majors.
However, the difference here is that a high LSAT naturally requires a lot less separating by virtue of it being standardized. Of course it's impossible to separate those who studied extensively from those who barely studied or took it cold (like you said, all you get is a number), but I don't think either possibility systematically lessens the predictive quality of the LSAT (both show positive qualities).