ToTransferOrNot wrote: A'nold wrote:
ToTransferOrNot wrote:Meh. LSAT may be the best indicator, but it is still an awful indicator.
If everyone were on equal footing as far as hours spent studying, methods, etc. I'd almost say it could predict within 20% a student's first year ranking (relative to classmates).
Also, if you are FAR above a school's 75th, with a good amount of work put in, you should definitely make top 20% or you didn't work hard enough, IMO.
And this explains the fact that transfer students typically do very well at their transfer schools, despite presumably being at the very, very bottom of the LSAT pile... how? Are we to assume that every transfer student didn't work hard enough on the LSAT? I certainly don't think I had a 174 (or whatever Chicago's 80% LSAT percentile is) in me--nor do I think I had a 165 in me (which would have put me at Wisconsin's 80th, I think).
I think you over-estimate that stupid test's ability to measure anything relevant.
That is a very good point but wouldn't that be more of an exception than the rule? I agree with you that I didn't have a 170+ in me, but now that I'm in ls and excelling, I really do think I could have done much better on the LSAT, actually.....I think I was approaching that test all wrong and didn't know it until I succeeded in my 1st semester in ls.
I guess the point is this: you are right about the transfer thing and I really would say that in these cases the LSAT really wasn't a true predictor of our ability, BUT over a general, larger sample of students, I think it does speak volumes as to a law student's potential.
I might have a slightly skewed view because I go to a t3 where I see a large gap b/w the intelligence of a lot of students wrt how well it seems they did on the LSAT and how "quick on the uptake" they are as students. Many of the students here did well in UG b/c they can "work hard" and memorize and regurgitate. I really do believe in the TLS cliche' that hard work can't get you the grades unless you work right. If you were a 4.0 student in UG AND you "work hard" like arrow did (meaning working hard on understanding what you are meant to understand for exams) you might be able to outwork others and achieve top grades.
This UG GPA talk above was also in response to one of the above posters that wondered why I don't think GPA matters.
Law school is a whole different ballgame. I am lucky b/c I picked up on how to think logically when I was raised to think illogically, think in conclusory judgmental statements, and never took the time to get good in math. Those things KILLED me on the LSAT. I have very much concentrated on "thinking like a lawyer" and have concentrated on being more logical.
The LSAT tests your ability to think logically. Unfortunately for me, it also tests reading comprehension and the ability to absorb very detailed texts at once while ignoring all distractions. That is one area I don't think I could really have ever improved on for that test. Luckly for me, ls exams seem to focus on the LR type stuff and a little on LG stuff, less on the RC, I just have to put more hours in than the average person when it comes to reading.
What did all of this have to do with answering ToTransferOrNot's post? Nothing really, I just rambled on and completely lost my train of thought. Sorry dude.
Oh, and another thing: the main point I was trying to make about the LSAT being a great predictor of law school success was really irt splitters. I was a "splitter" I guess, because my school's median LSAT is so low even though my LSAT was about average or a little below average for this site.
If you asked me who would do better at a school with a 155 LSAT, someone with a 172, 2.5 or someone with a 4.0 155, I'd say the 172, 2.5 without hesitation.