r2b2ct wrote:Morrissey'sGhost wrote:There are three reasons that a given individual may do better than another on the LSAT : (1) he really has better logical/analytical skills (2) he has better nerves and doesn't stress as much on test day and (3) he studies his ass off far more than his competitor
I love how everyone completely neglect (2) and ESPECIALLY (3) in their discussions on these boards. How do you know how long the 172 studied compared to the 169? I have a hunch that there's a good deal of Trolls on here who holed themselves up for 5 months, shunned the daylight, pounded away for hours a day at this one test, hit 172, and now have the arrogance to come on here and pronounce their unquestionable intellectual superiority over those in the 169 camp, many of whom studied for one half or less the time.
I think Berkeley's admission policy takes these factors into account. They realize that there is no real way to distinguish between the true geniouses who ace the LSAT with minimal prep and those who dedicate decades of their life to studying for this one test, who then try to pass of their work ethic as pristine intellect. Berkeley realizes that due to these totally unobservable discrepencies in prep time, the 169 with good grades, a compelling personality( as indicated by their personal statement), and substantive extracurricular/professional activities may very well be, ON AVERAGE, just as, if not more, intelligent than the 173 without those additional factors.
I feel you bro. I also hate it when people neglect those who choose to study minimally in UG. I mean come on, how do you know how long the 3.9 studied compared to the 3.1?
I think that choosing to not study for four years and get a sub 3.4 GPA is a lot more indicative of someone who will not be successful in law school than someone who who gets nervous for a test, though.