Even with a 4.0 GPA it is hard as in [nearly] impossible to gain admission into medical school if you fail to score well in their version of the LSAT. IMO: a 160 LSAT equates to not scoring well — that is why those with a 160 are turned away by the T14 and most of tier-1 schools. So where do these people head to… the schools with their hand out to grab $ in return for a slim chance of success.ph5354a wrote:Skye wrote:160 LSAT minimum for the student, or no admission. LS denial is not groundbreaking, Harvard does it all the time to applicants with 160. The medical profession isn’t shy about saying no to applicants who do not measure up (and I do believe we have doctors of all colors and nationalities). The question is, do you want to fix the problem, or just kinda fix it?
I see your point, but the LSAT isn't an aptitude test. The difference between a 155 and a 165 test taker can easily be attributed to one test prep course or the ability to take time off of work to study full time and may have little correlation to their law school and lawyering abilities. If law schools want to take these socioeconomic factors into account, then I think they should be able to. Having a median floor gives them that flexibility. I think the results of median floor vs. admissions floor would be pretty similar in that schools outside of the top 100 or to 75 would have to close.
And while you and others bring up reasons on why this is not a picture perfect solution, the point remains, it is an efficient means to an end. Not so much that it denies schools a path to easy money, as much as it saves students from wasting three years and running up a cliff-diving debt.
Sounds good, but it just does not work.Either way, I think the prescription should focus more on outcomes (bar passage and FTLT JD required jobs) than admissions standards.