Top Law Schools

.

I saw the whole video; it's been mentioned before on this site. Frankly alot of the information is troubling, like the small amount of AA students that score above a 160 and lsac's inability of explaining the gap between minority students and white students. It's also just as troubling how USNWR has so much sway over schools which systematically rejects students who have lower numbers. In general his insights just further serve to demonstrate the inequities that exist for minorities in higher education which is a pretty fucked up situation if you ask me.

What about minorities who score higher on the LSAT, such as Asians and Jews?

.

MTal wrote:What about minorities who score higher on the LSAT, such as Asians and Jews?

They get more of the question right?

The video doesn't mention them but those "minority" groups are over represented in higher education given their proportions in society. That being said the statistics on Aa and a larger extent urm numbers serve to show that something in the system is broken and adversally affecting those groups which pretty much does not allow for an equal playing field which is further exacerbated by USNWR. I believe that's the most troubling part.

Great video......you should post this in the 'will the ABA get rid of the LSAT' forum I've been posting in. We have had some engaging (and scathing) conversations in there because of my belief that the LSAT is not the best indicator for all students. Unfortunately, most people believe through just enough hard work everyone can make above a 160. Obviously, this is not the case.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4#p3866894

DCLaw11 wrote: Unfortunately, most people believe through just enough hard work everyone can make above a 160. Obviously, this is not the case.

True, some people were just born too dumb to achieve that high of a score.

Anyone ever thought that the players not the system needs adjusting?

FiveSermon wrote:Anyone ever thought that the players not the system needs adjusting?

The players, as in USNWR?

I think some schools (top schools) should opt out of USNWR, thereby making it worthless. Then they could focus on other things

.

mala2 wrote:I think some schools (top schools) should opt out of USNWR, thereby making it worthless. Then they could focus on other things

Why would a school do that? There's no incentive for them to do this.

FiveSermon wrote:Anyone ever thought that the players not the system needs adjusting?

What? How dare you Sir!

mala2 wrote:I think some schools (top schools) should opt out of USNWR, thereby making it worthless. Then they could focus on other things

+1. Although, these are precisely the schools that profit most from rankings, unfortunately.

DCLaw11 wrote:Great video......you should post this in the 'will the ABA get rid of the LSAT' forum I've been posting in. We have had some engaging (and scathing) conversations in there because of my belief that the LSAT is not the best indicator for all students. Unfortunately, most people believe through just enough hard work everyone can make above a 160. Obviously, this is not the case.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4#p3866894

I went to a minority summer program at a law school once and someone actually argued that people should get extra bonus points for the amount of effort they put in for a particular set of grades and how much they really wanted to go to a school (Harvard was the particular shcool). As if we should start rewarding inefficiency.

If you cant get above a particular score on the LSAT too bad. Hell, a lot of people are born too short and slow to realistically be basketball stars. Should we adjust the game?? .. Should we start ignoring SATs and ACTs at the high school level because a lot of valedictorians have bad scores?? Standardized test scores are a way to compare a pool of students when other things are extremely variable. If you cant beat the pool too bad. Even if the ABA drops the requirement down to voluntary, no reputable school is going to stop requiring it. I remember when was applying to undergrads a bunch of schools were pushing the whole "voluntary SAT/ACT score" thing. It was all a big fakeout.. the first thing they asked me when they sent admissions people to visit me at my high school was "what was your SAT/ACT score".

ETA: And there isnt much arbitrary about LSAT scores among minorities. In my experience, the ones with the higher LSAT scores are the smarter ones on average (with exceptions of course).

TIKITEMBO wrote:.

He did make a good point about how this could bring back the good ole' boy system.

Great video. I must say that my favorite part was when he dismissed as straight-up bad advice, the idea that you have to go to a top-20 to have a career. I know many lawyers and they always laugh when I repeat what I hear on here about T-14 or bust. Don't get me wrong, I want a top school and I will pay extra for it but I just hate when a low scorer asks a question on TLS and the only thing they get is "don't go to law school". I would venture to say that this professor is a little more reliable than the 2L on this site who just got shut out of OCI and runs here to warn the world. my .02

I think if anything the LSAT should be given MORE weight in admissions.

kwais wrote:Great video. I must say that my favorite part was when he dismissed as straight-up bad advice, the idea that you have to go to a top-20 to have a career. I know many lawyers and they always laugh when I repeat what I hear on here about T-14 or bust. Don't get me wrong, I want a top school and I will pay extra for it but I just hate when a low scorer asks a question on TLS and the only thing they get is "don't go to law school". I would venture to say that this professor is a little more reliable than the 2L on this site who just got shut out of OCI and runs here to warn the world. my .02

Exactly. I used to think towards the whole t-14 or bust but after a while you realize how wrong/ridiculous it is, that only 14 law schools provide gainful employment for their students. Obviously there are limits but the level of some people's hysteria and the frequency it gets regurgitated/repeated as fact is alarming.

Somewhat cynical summary of video: There's a disparity that falls sharply along racial lines that nobody has explained. The LSAT is better at ameliorating that problem than other tests, and is working towards doing better; so it's not LSAC's fault. The big problem with admissions is USNWR; it's their fault. Adcomms don't understand math or statistics; it's their fault. It's the ABA's fault too, and by extension the DoE's. And it's the applicants' faults too for thinking "T14 or bust" and not applying to lower schools and for thinking of AA as a magic wand. The ABA might get rid of the LSAT, but it might be worse because it could go back to being just about who you know and where you went to UG.

All joking aside, it was an interesting video nonetheless, and very educational.

joebloe wrote:Somewhat cynical summary of video: There's a disparity that falls sharply along racial lines that nobody has explained. The LSAT is better at ameliorating that problem than other tests, and is working towards doing better; so it's not LSAC's fault. The big problem with admissions is USNWR; it's their fault. Adcomms don't understand math or statistics; it's their fault. It's the ABA's fault too, and by extension the DoE's. And it's the applicants' faults too for thinking "T14 or bust" and not applying to lower schools and for thinking of AA as a magic wand. The ABA might get rid of the LSAT, but it might be worse because it could go back to being just about who you know and where you went to UG.

All joking aside, it was an interesting video nonetheless, and very educational.

+1

A less cynical summary of the video was that he presented and left all possible avenues of enquiry open for those interested in/invested in the story of minority admissions in higher education- a very refreshing departure from some of the more ideology-driven rhetoric surrounding this issue. I would love to hear more professionals within law school admissions discuss these disparities and their methods for creating diverse classrooms in a more transparent manner.

Rand M. wrote:

MTal wrote:What about minorities who score higher on the LSAT, such as Asians and Jews?

They get more of the question right?

I think it would be kind of interesting for psychometricians and their minions to approach the question from this angle. I haven't heard of a standardized test on which Asians don't place highest (data for Jews is harder to come by these days because of their earlier struggle to be subsumed by the "white" category), and maybe the same factor responsible for their high performance is responsible for URM's poor performance. It might be easier to tackle the question from the "Why is X better?" perspective, as opposed to the "Why is Y worse?" angle (though maybe a combination would be best?). In all fairness, though, the confounding variable is probably something beyond their purview--parenting style, peer influence, etc. Quite a few non-standardized testing related studies on the influences of these factors that show huge effects on academic success, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that positive exposure to academics can have an effect on performance on tests designed to measure fluid intelligence.

Still doesn't justify artificially boosting URM's applications, nor does it mean the LSAT should fall by the wayside. In fact, it's kind of hilarious that they'd consider throwing away something with such high predictive value in the interest of political correctness.

MTal wrote:

DCLaw11 wrote: Unfortunately, most people believe through just enough hard work everyone can make above a 160. Obviously, this is not the case.

True, some people were just born too dumb to achieve that high of a score.

Honestly, I am pretty stupid, and I got a 178.

.