A. Nony Mouse wrote:Yeah, I'm just suspicious of the idea that the LSAT really tests skills necessary for law school significantly more effectively than any other standardized test.
I think you know this too and it is too obvious to state again. But I will just say this. Currently, there is simply no other test that tests skills necessary for law school performance better than the LSAT. Being able to understand and dissect conditional statements and causal reasoning is fundamental to studying law. Speed is essential too given the amount of reading per day a typical 1L student has to handle. Not only is GRE easier (I took it), but also it tests skills such as math and vocab which are not as important as speedy and accurate analytical, logical thinking for succeeding in law school. Obviously, the LSAT cannot meaningfully predict one's success in the legal industry. But that's true with anything we do in preparation for or during school. Life is not just about studying hard, being diligent and smart. Networking ability and connections matter tremendously.
And I think the retakes limitation had a value apart from simply limiting the number of stupid people applying to law schools. There are no retakes in life. When you make a mistake that is significant enough, you just get fired. You just cannot f up a job big time and ask for a retake in a professional setting. Because the stakes are obviously a lot lower when it comes to taking a test, people should be able to take a test again but there should be some limits to force people to think more seriously about their tests. Of course smart and diligent people will do so regardless of the number of retakes they are allowed to do. But most young people, the vast majority of people applying to law schools, are not thoughtful enough.