DC, you've said a lot of illogical things and made a lot of bad arguments in this forum, but this takes the cake. You claim to want objective criteria, but you rail against the only truly objective, standard criterion in the entire process! And you want to replace that criterion with a greater emphasis on other things that are a)entirely subjective, and b)in large part, determined by opportunities available to candidates based on factors of economic privilege.DCLaw11 wrote:However, there must be (more) objective criteria for law school, somehow. I just can't see how one test could be an indicator of success, especially if a person has been out of school for a while and has an impressive resume, but not an impressive GPA (this is not me, but just sayin).
The LSAT is the single most reliable metric for predicting law school success. Combined with UGPA, it forms a metric that is even stronger in its predictive value. The fact that people know other people who beat the odds does not change this one iota. "Softs" (or "achievements," if you will) do not have this kind of predictive value, precisely because they are so subjective and varied.