Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
LSATclincher
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:09 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby LSATclincher » Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:53 pm

I don't support dropping the LSAT entirely. I think schools should reward those who put the extra effort in studying for the exam. However, I do think this percentile stuff is a bit outrageous. Some schools differentiate by only 3 points between the 25% and the 75%. And they don't accept students who are not right near that 25%. We all know the difference between a point on the LSAT could be one question. So it is a fact that some students could miss out on a school because of one or two missed questions on the LSAT. This seems quite absurd.

I'm not for allowing a 150 scorer to enter into a top-20 program, but I do believe schools should extend their percentiles to allow some slightly lower LSAT scores (from the 25%) into the school. Law school grades are the result of hard work and motivation. Legal work experience prior to law school really increases that inner drive to become an attorney. Actually seeing real attorneys at work, and trying to emulate them shapes one's character and drive to become an attorney.

We need to stop solely rewarding book smarts, and start awarding practical accomplishments, as well. I guess my model would compare more to MBA programs. Though, I'm not aware of "all" of the B-school requirements, so I'm hesitant to make any comparisons.

ExpectLess
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby ExpectLess » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:00 pm

Drake014 wrote:
megaTTTron wrote:
ExpectLess wrote:The law school application process will never be like the med school application process because law school is not like medical school. Graduates from pretty much any medical school will get a job because the AMA accredits only quality institutions. This ensures that, for the most part, only quality applicants will be accepted to med school and that the number of doctors doesn't exceed the number of positions available. Hence, the rankings for medical school are not nearly as consequential because no one needs to care about them.

The ABA decides to accredit every building with a roof over its head, allowing virtually anyone to become a lawyer and causing massive glut of lawyers relative to positions. This in turn makes law school rankings absolutely vital when it comes to differentiating between schools and students, and vital when it comes to securing jobs. Now, after being solely responsible for this landscape of rankings-based legal education, the ABA is debating get rid of the only distinguishing factor that puts every prospective student on equal footing and the best predictor of success in law school? They are fascinatingly stupid.


This post is full of fabulous. + a million.


I should just copy and paste the following to a word doc so that I can paste it every time someone makes these arguments:
1. the country has a severe shortage in doctors. The AMA is screwing the rest of the nation for the benefit of its members. This shouldn't be admired, allowed, or mimicked. And btw, you're forgetting about residencies. There aren't enough residency positions for everyone in medical school. Its still somewhat competitive even at that stage.
2. The LSAT has a small correlation with 1L grades. That's it. Just 1L and just a small correlation. It has no correlation to quality of lawyer so getting rid of the LSAT requirement will not likely make any difference in the quality of lawyers out there.


1. That the country apparently has both a shortage of doctors but an abundance of residents suggests to me something wrong with the medical field, not the AMA. That's not to suggest that the AMA isn't self-interested--I'm sure they are to some extent--but unlike the ABA, it seems like the AMA at least understands the concept that adding more sub-par medical schools isn't going to create residency positions nor quality doctors. Nonetheless, my argument wasn't really about the specifics of medical school so much as it was showing how it was different from law school.

2. There hasn't been a study linking lawyer quality and LSAT score, as far as I'm aware, so that suggestion seems a little premature. At any rate, your admission that it does correlate with 1L grades--and as DF commented, it is a pretty remarkable correlation at that--supports the fact that it probably does correlate to being a better lawyer, on the assumption that grades in law school indicate to some extent your quality as a lawyer.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby firemed » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:26 pm

Hey all, I wanted to post this earlier because of all the comments about people taking easy degrees at a TTT state school. Yeah.... so turns out Sociology at Harvard probably makes it easier to obtain a 4.0 at than at TTT state. While I am sure some of this is selection bias, if you look at the numbers you can see huge increase that cannot simply be explained by better quality candidates (you really think kids attending Harvard are that much smarter than kids attending Harvard in the 70s?)

http://gradeinflation.com/

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby 09042014 » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:28 pm

firemedicprelaw wrote:Hey all, I wanted to post this earlier because of all the comments about people taking easy degrees at a TTT state school. Yeah.... so turns out Sociology at Harvard probably makes it easier to obtain a 4.0 at than at TTT state. While I am sure some of this is selection bias, if you look at the numbers you can see huge increase that cannot simply be explained by better quality candidates (you really think kids attending Harvard are that much smarter than kids attending Harvard in the 70s?_

http://gradeinflation.com/


Easier as in the median GPA is higher? Yes

Easier as in it requires more effort at the TTT? You haven't shown that.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby firemed » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:38 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
firemedicprelaw wrote:Hey all, I wanted to post this earlier because of all the comments about people taking easy degrees at a TTT state school. Yeah.... so turns out Sociology at Harvard probably makes it easier to obtain a 4.0 at than at TTT state. While I am sure some of this is selection bias, if you look at the numbers you can see huge increase that cannot simply be explained by better quality candidates (you really think kids attending Harvard are that much smarter than kids attending Harvard in the 70s?_

http://gradeinflation.com/


Easier as in the median GPA is higher? Yes

Easier as in it requires more effort at the TTT? You haven't shown that.


True that I haven't shown effort has anything to do with it, but there is correspondingly no proof that a 4.0 at an Ivy automatically means more effort that a 4.0 at a TTT. To be honest, the number of TTT UG attendees who later went to an Ivy is low, allowing at best a small sample of anecdotal evidence.

The only evidence we have is here, where we see that a 4.0 is more likely from an Ivy than from TTT state. So, therefore, I think maybe the comments about "4.0 from TTT state" sullying their effort are probably pointless.

Oh, and obviously, I took you off the ignore list. :D

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby rundoxierun » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:41 pm

LSATclincher wrote:I don't support dropping the LSAT entirely. I think schools should reward those who put the extra effort in studying for the exam. However, I do think this percentile stuff is a bit outrageous. Some schools differentiate by only 3 points between the 25% and the 75%. And they don't accept students who are not right near that 25%. We all know the difference between a point on the LSAT could be one question. So it is a fact that some students could miss out on a school because of one or two missed questions on the LSAT. This seems quite absurd.

I'm not for allowing a 150 scorer to enter into a top-20 program, but I do believe schools should extend their percentiles to allow some slightly lower LSAT scores (from the 25%) into the school. Law school grades are the result of hard work and motivation. Legal work experience prior to law school really increases that inner drive to become an attorney. Actually seeing real attorneys at work, and trying to emulate them shapes one's character and drive to become an attorney.

We need to stop solely rewarding book smarts, and start awarding practical accomplishments, as well. I guess my model would compare more to MBA programs. Though, I'm not aware of "all" of the B-school requirements, so I'm hesitant to make any comparisons.


But why would they arbitrarily extend their percentiles when they are easily able to fill a class with people who meet the current percentiles?? It makes absolutely no sense to just do it to represent more of the LSAT pool.

What about non-attorney legal work experience prior to law school makes it more valuable than corporate, consulting or any other experience?? Why am I less likely to work hard or be motivated because I worked as a financial analyst rather than a paralegal?? If look at the actual accomplishments of the kids going into top-20 programs plenty of them have more than just being a "bookworm" on their resume.

I dont see why people advocate creating greater "equity" by making the process anti-intellectual. If you have to keep grasping at straws and making logical jumps to justify something then maybe it shouldnt be justified. This is the real word. No one cares if you want something really bad.

Plus, its not like top-20 programs get super excited about producing decent attorneys. They get most excited about producing leading legal scholars, judges, top law firm partners and high-end clerks. In aggregate, the people you define as "bookworms" are the people most likely to get, and excel at, these jobs.

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby rundoxierun » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:44 pm

firemedicprelaw wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
firemedicprelaw wrote:Hey all, I wanted to post this earlier because of all the comments about people taking easy degrees at a TTT state school. Yeah.... so turns out Sociology at Harvard probably makes it easier to obtain a 4.0 at than at TTT state. While I am sure some of this is selection bias, if you look at the numbers you can see huge increase that cannot simply be explained by better quality candidates (you really think kids attending Harvard are that much smarter than kids attending Harvard in the 70s?_

http://gradeinflation.com/


Easier as in the median GPA is higher? Yes

Easier as in it requires more effort at the TTT? You haven't shown that.


True that I haven't shown effort has anything to do with it, but there is correspondingly no proof that a 4.0 at an Ivy automatically means more effort that a 4.0 at a TTT. To be honest, the number of TTT UG attendees who later went to an Ivy is low, allowing at best a small sample of anecdotal evidence.

The only evidence we have is here, where we see that a 4.0 is more likely from an Ivy than from TTT state. So, therefore, I think maybe the comments about "4.0 from TTT state" sullying their effort are probably pointless.

Oh, and obviously, I took you off the ignore list. :D


Its extremely pointless evidence though. You would need to switch student bodies and compare their results at both schools for that to have an meaning. And trust me, if you switched student bodies the gpa at the TTT UG would fly through the roof. (and I didnt go to an Ivy UG).

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby 09042014 » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:49 pm

I'm not super elitist but there are schools with ACT averages of 17. That's pretty fucking stupid. Getting an A there doesn't mean much to be honest. I'm talking about schools like Chicago State University NOT like University of Illinois-Chicago.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby firemed » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:52 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
Its extremely pointless evidence though. You would need to switch student bodies and compare their results at both schools for that to have an meaning. And trust me, if you switched student bodies the gpa at the TTT UG would fly through the roof. (and I didnt go to an Ivy UG).


I am not sure I agree. I think we can all agree that UGPA doesn't actually measure intelligence, right? It is easier to get a 4.0 if you are smart... but very stupid people have and will obtain a 4.0 via effort.

So if we are talking about the amount of effort involved, it is impossible to determine who is putting in more effort (unless their is hard data on study hours available I am not aware of). So, basically, since the only thing we know for sure at this point is that a 4.0 at TTT state is harder to get than a 4.0 at an Ivy.... well, it appears to me that the 4.0 PoliSci from TTT state means just as much as the one from an Ivy....

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby firemed » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:54 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I'm not super elitist but there are schools with ACT averages of 17. That's pretty fucking stupid. Getting an A there doesn't mean much to be honest. I'm talking about schools like Chicago State University NOT like University of Illinois-Chicago.



Yeah, but what is their GPA average? And how many do they fail out? My local state U has something like a third of freshmen and a third of sophomores drop out, mostly because of low GPA keeping them from getting financial aid. What remains is most likely smarter and harder working, you know?

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby rundoxierun » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:56 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I'm not super elitist but there are schools with ACT averages of 17. That's pretty fucking stupid. Getting an A there doesn't mean much to be honest. I'm talking about schools like Chicago State University NOT like University of Illinois-Chicago.


My degree-granting UGs average ACT was in the low 20s and my ACT was in the low 30s. It was almost criminal how much of preparedness/intellegence/academic talent difference there was between the top 10% of students there and the other 90%. Switch those 90% out for Ivy kids and the GPA would definitely be close to, or exceeding, the Ivies.

Now if you want to argue about the gpa difference between top publics like UC-Berk, UCLA, UMich, etc. and Ivies then you have something to talk about.

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby rundoxierun » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:02 pm

firemedicprelaw wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
Its extremely pointless evidence though. You would need to switch student bodies and compare their results at both schools for that to have an meaning. And trust me, if you switched student bodies the gpa at the TTT UG would fly through the roof. (and I didnt go to an Ivy UG).


I am not sure I agree. I think we can all agree that UGPA doesn't actually measure intelligence, right? It is easier to get a 4.0 if you are smart... but very stupid people have and will obtain a 4.0 via effort.

So if we are talking about the amount of effort involved, it is impossible to determine who is putting in more effort (unless their is hard data on study hours available I am not aware of). So, basically, since the only thing we know for sure at this point is that a 4.0 at TTT state is harder to get than a 4.0 at an Ivy.... well, it appears to me that the 4.0 PoliSci from TTT state means just as much as the one from an Ivy....


Umm we dont know this at all.. I went to a standard state school and got a 4.0, it wasnt extraordinarily hard. I also spent time at a top-tier LAC. It was definitely NOT easier to get a 4.0 there. I have a bunch of friends at Ivies. The ones with 3.8+ gpas definitely are not working less than getting a 4.0 at a standard state school(and im not talking just TTTs).

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby firemed » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:05 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I'm not super elitist but there are schools with ACT averages of 17. That's pretty fucking stupid. Getting an A there doesn't mean much to be honest. I'm talking about schools like Chicago State University NOT like University of Illinois-Chicago.


My degree-granting UGs average ACT was in the low 20s and my ACT was in the low 30s. It was almost criminal how much of preparedness/intellegence/academic talent difference there was between the top 10% of students there and the other 90%. Switch those 90% out for Ivy kids and the GPA would definitely be close to, or exceeding, the Ivies.

Now if you want to argue about the gpa difference between top publics like UC-Berk, UCLA, UMich, etc. and Ivies then you have something to talk about.



Look at the charts on the page I referenced. As an example, over the last 40 years or so the UMich average went up .4.... but the Harvard one went up .8.

Also, I see what you are saying, but I think you miss the point.... Harvard is supposed to be hard, right? The majority of people (and I am guessing Adcomms) will say "oh, a 3.5 from Harvard... wow! That school is like, really hard." And the most people will say "oh, a 4.0 from Central Michigan. Yeah, didn't they let that guy whose only high school accomplishment was to pain himself green and streak in? They must be easy!" But, the thing is that this chart shows that the average at Harvard is sooooo much higher than the average at CM. So the 3.6 at CM actually means more. That really is a top 20% student. When referenced with an LSAT of say 170 you have great data. Whereas someone at Harvard with a 3.6/170 is actually a just above median GPA student. Very possibly they put in less effort than the 3.6 at CM.

NoJob
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby NoJob » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:06 pm

megaTTTron wrote:I would be so depressed if we dropped the LSAT. We need remove every ABA leader and replace them with AMA leaders. Law school needs to be run like medical school. Ugh. Less schools, more highly regulated = less jobless, debt ridden law grads.


Best statement I have seen on this Board.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby firemed » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:08 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
firemedicprelaw wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
Its extremely pointless evidence though. You would need to switch student bodies and compare their results at both schools for that to have an meaning. And trust me, if you switched student bodies the gpa at the TTT UG would fly through the roof. (and I didnt go to an Ivy UG).


I am not sure I agree. I think we can all agree that UGPA doesn't actually measure intelligence, right? It is easier to get a 4.0 if you are smart... but very stupid people have and will obtain a 4.0 via effort.

So if we are talking about the amount of effort involved, it is impossible to determine who is putting in more effort (unless their is hard data on study hours available I am not aware of). So, basically, since the only thing we know for sure at this point is that a 4.0 at TTT state is harder to get than a 4.0 at an Ivy.... well, it appears to me that the 4.0 PoliSci from TTT state means just as much as the one from an Ivy....


Umm we dont know this at all.. I went to a standard state school and got a 4.0, it wasnt extraordinarily hard. I also spent time at a top-tier LAC. It was definitely NOT easier to get a 4.0 there. I have a bunch of friends at Ivies. The ones with 3.8+ gpas definitely are not working less than getting a 4.0 at a standard state school(and im not talking just TTTs).



Um, yes we do... in the sense that more people get a 4.0 at Harvard than at TTT state. Perhaps easier isn't the right word.... maybe "more likely" would work better. A student is more likely to have a 4.0 at Harvard than at TTT state.

And as for your friends at Ivys... that evidence is anecdotal. I mean, knowing you it seems likely you wouldn't have found getting a 4.0 at an Ivy particularly difficult either.

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby rundoxierun » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:15 pm

firemedicprelaw wrote:Look at the charts on the page I referenced. As an example, over the last 40 years or so the UMich average went up .4.... but the Harvard one went up .8.

Also, I see what you are saying, but I think you miss the point.... Harvard is supposed to be hard, right? The majority of people (and I am guessing Adcomms) will say "oh, a 3.5 from Harvard... wow! That school is like, really hard." And the most people will say "oh, a 4.0 from Central Michigan. Yeah, didn't they let that guy whose only high school accomplishment was to pain himself green and streak in? They must be easy!" But, the thing is that this chart shows that the average at Harvard is sooooo much higher than the average at CM. So the 3.6 at CM actually means more. That really is a top 20% student. When referenced with an LSAT of say 170 you have great data. Whereas someone at Harvard with a 3.6/170 is actually a just above median GPA student. Very possibly they put in less effort than the 3.6 at CM.


Im familiar with those charts. Like I said.. when you are talking about UMich and schools like that you might have a point. When you are talking about standard state undergrads then No I really dont think you have a point. You are strongly misrepresenting what those graphs are telling you. Most of UG is not curved like law school (at least in the US). When you have a school of people who have already been identified as top students then it isnt really shocking if the majority of them get a 3.5+. Thats how its supposed to be. They shouldnt get penalized for going to a school with other top students. Law schools arent looking to identify the top x% of each school. They are looking for students who are academically capable. Grade inflation represents the difficulty of achieving a certain gpa at the same school over a period of time (assuming SAT/ACT scores stable). There is no comparison when the schools have different quality students with completely different test scores.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby firemed » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:22 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
Im familiar with those charts. Like I said.. when you are talking about UMich and schools like that you might have a point. When you are talking about standard state undergrads then No I really dont think you have a point. You are strongly misrepresenting what those graphs are telling you. Most of UG is not curved like law school (at least in the US). When you have a school of people who have already been identified as top students then it isnt really shocking if the majority of them get a 3.5+. Thats how its supposed to be. They shouldnt get penalized for going to a school with other top students. Law schools arent looking to identify the top x% of each school. They are looking for students who are academically capable. Grade inflation represents the difficulty of achieving a certain gpa at the same school over a period of time (assuming SAT/ACT scores stable). There is no comparison when the schools have different quality students with completely different test scores.



I agree. What started this was people saying that a "4.0 at a TTT UG" was undermining their lower GPA from a great school. And what I am saying is that people from a TTT state school with a 4.0 are a rarity and therefore worth something.

ETA: now, the person with a 3.6 from Harvard getting turned down for someone with a 3.7 from TTT state.... that is worth bitching about.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby firemed » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:26 pm

The most important thing to take from that chart, in my opinion, is that public universities have less grade inflation than private Ivys. That was what I was mostly trying to reference.


ETA: you know what tk, I realized that the conversation we are having is actually the best proof we can have to keep the LSAT. :D

User avatar
LSATWIZ
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby LSATWIZ » Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:55 am

To say that we should employ an objective test to admit the most talented students to top law schools goes against everything we have been fighting for in America. The best man for the job is so 20th century, and is a philosophy that will actively combat our economy from further faltering, which is something I personally will not stand for. We need to ruin equality in every way possible. This is what America is all about, at least according to the ABA, and the ABA's long history proves they are always right.

To those who say the LSAT is biased: You know what is more biased? Being from a dirt poor family, and having to support your way through undergrad when you can be homeless if you miss a week or two of work. Although you get A's on all of the tests, you get B's and C's for absences and latenesses not spent drinking or partying, but working.

You do not need a course to study effectively, but does it help? Yes. The tutoring company I work for has helped people improve 20-30 points, and I'm sure Kaplan and Powerscore have done likewise. It also helps to not have to work through UG, but at the end of the day:

The LSAT does not penalize you for working while studying. The UG system does.

It is offensive that this is now going to be removed. What is basically says if you are highly intelligent but need to work through school because you can't get student loans if your parents lack credit, and must work your way through school, you might want to consider go-go dancing or sweeping for a career because while you might have merit, if you are poor and can't even show URM status, you are not top LS material.

What this is going to do is bring back the racist admissions of the past century, but discriminate against poor white people.

User avatar
t14bound
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:07 am

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby t14bound » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:19 am

Flippin ridiculous...anyone who walks through the door can enter law school...

DreamShake
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:03 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby DreamShake » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:27 am

(accidental double post)
Last edited by DreamShake on Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DreamShake
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:03 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby DreamShake » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:27 am

tkgrrett wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I'm not super elitist but there are schools with ACT averages of 17. That's pretty fucking stupid. Getting an A there doesn't mean much to be honest. I'm talking about schools like Chicago State University NOT like University of Illinois-Chicago.


My degree-granting UGs average ACT was in the low 20s and my ACT was in the low 30s. It was almost criminal how much of preparedness/intellegence/academic talent difference there was between the top 10% of students there and the other 90%. Switch those 90% out for Ivy kids and the GPA would definitely be close to, or exceeding, the Ivies.

Now if you want to argue about the gpa difference between top publics like UC-Berk, UCLA, UMich, etc. and Ivies then you have something to talk about.


This. My UG's middle 50% was basically a 1600 SAT (on the 2400 scale)--almost exactly average--and my score was 99%. By contrast, my buddy's roommates at an elite LAC are by turn headed to Goldman Sachs, a Rhodes Scholar, and a Fullbright recipient. The fact that there are simply more highly intelligent, more dedicated individuals at prestigious schools accounts for at least most of the differential in GPA for uncurved classes. Most students at my TTT simply weren't on the same level in terms of dedication and academic ability. Hell, if GPA was all that mattered, who wouldn't rather compete with my TTT classmates than the kids with Fullbrights and Rhodes schollies?

TarHeel11
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:16 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby TarHeel11 » Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:49 am

SrLaw wrote:
DCLaw11 wrote:
SrLaw wrote:States like Montana, WVU, Nebraska etc. should be able to keep their schools. They are landgrant flagship state schools that offer opportunity in their respected states. Charlotte, Elon etc are just junk schools in a state that has countless better/real LS's.


I agree, that's why I'm only applying to UNC


Duke, Wake, UNC. That is all NC needs.


This is wrong. I'll give you that we don't need seven law schools. But when there were only four: Duke, UNC, Wake and Central, there was a serious shortage of lawyers willing to work in the state's rural communities, particularly Down East. That was the void that Campbell sought to fill, and they filled it well. The state's population has since doubled.

User avatar
TIKITEMBO
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:07 pm

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby TIKITEMBO » Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:59 pm

.
Last edited by TIKITEMBO on Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement?

Postby ahduth » Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:44 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
firemedicprelaw wrote:Hey all, I wanted to post this earlier because of all the comments about people taking easy degrees at a TTT state school. Yeah.... so turns out Sociology at Harvard probably makes it easier to obtain a 4.0 at than at TTT state. While I am sure some of this is selection bias, if you look at the numbers you can see huge increase that cannot simply be explained by better quality candidates (you really think kids attending Harvard are that much smarter than kids attending Harvard in the 70s?_

http://gradeinflation.com/


Easier as in the median GPA is higher? Yes

Easier as in it requires more effort at the TTT? You haven't shown that.


God, I'd have had a 3.9. Although I suppose all my "bad" grades came overseas.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests