Does Law School Work Correspond w/ LSAT Skills? Forum

[ksllaw]

How much do LSAT skills correspond with the work and what's required in law school? (Made this one a simply stated question rather than the novels I've sometimes written here!)

[ben4847]

Perfect correlation. My law school exams all consisted of old LSAT questions.

[gaud]

After a couple weeks in the only real correlation I can find is that you have to pay attention to what you read.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

I do think there's a strong correlation.

The biggest part of the LSAT is logical reasoning, and most of the LR section consists of either simply identifying the assumption inherent in an argument, or identifying it and then going a step further (identifying strengtheners/weakeners, identifying parallel reasoning in other arguments, etc.).

This skill is essential to the common law system. Because no two fact patterns will ever be identical, you are always going to have to analogize based upon the underlying assumptions. People who cannot effectively identify the underlying assumptions will not be able to draw proper analogies from case law, which is major skill tested on all law school exams.

[EvilClinton]

No.

[SuperCerealBrah]

No.

[bk1]

No.

Essentially this, though some of the skills that help on the LSAT help on law school exams (e.g. dealing with time pressure).

[The Platypus]

How much do LSAT skills correspond with the work and what's required in law school? (Made this one a simply stated question rather than the novels I've sometimes written here!)

LSAT = lots of work so you don't end up going to a horrible school and having a horrible life
Law School = lots of work so you don't end up getting a horrible job and having a horrible life
Lawyer = lots of work so you don't end up getting a horrible severance package and having a horrible life
Marriage = lots of work so you don't end up single and having horrible tax rates

It all goes together.

[SuperCerealBrah]

How much do LSAT skills correspond with the work and what's required in law school? (Made this one a simply stated question rather than the novels I've sometimes written here!)

LSAT = lots of work so you don't end up going to a horrible school and having a horrible life
Law School = lots of work so you don't end up getting a horrible job and having a horrible life
Lawyer = lots of work so you don't end up getting a horrible severance package and having a horrible life
Marriage = lots of work so you don't end up single and having horrible tax rates

It all goes together.

lol

[presh]

.

[SuperCerealBrah]

Do you know how to search the forum archives? Because it seems like a lot of your posts are about things that have been discussed multiple times already.

TBF, it is probably nice to get a fresh take on things from different people than the older forums.

[presh]

.

[IAFG]

Marriage = lots of work so you don't end up single and having horrible tax rates

Only works if you marry a poor

[Ruxin1]

Stop starting shit threads use the search feature. This is getting out of hand.

[ksllaw]

Do you know how to search the forum archives? Because it seems like a lot of your posts are about things that have been discussed multiple times already.

I've actually never tried. But I appreciate the suggestion.

(That green smiley has some big teeth )

Do you know how to search the forum archives? Because it seems like a lot of your posts are about things that have been discussed multiple times already.

TBF, it is probably nice to get a fresh take on things from different people than the older forums.

That's part of it. But, I think the bigger thing for me is that I find active dialogue more fun than a dry reading of older posts. Also, the potential for interactive questioning and dialogue can more helpful as well. You can clarify things and probe deeper into a subject.

But, still, I could do that too by just posting in an older thread is that right (essentially "bumping" it)? That way, it cuts down on the volume of threads overall. I think I'll make a stronger effort to search online and in the archives here before posting, since that appears to be what people prefer. Just takes a bit of getting used to on my part, but will go ahead and do that. Thanks everyone!

[quiver]

Here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=191654

[manofjustice]

Perfect correlation. My law school exams all consisted of old LSAT questions.

ha, funny.

I think your answer to this question depends on how well you do on the LSAT. If you do well, there is a correlation; if you don't, there isn't. It's motivated cognition.

I think reading comprehension is probably pretty important. Because you read a lot. (duh). Logic games, because you have to keep your thoughts organized.

But I'll bet most 3Ls, with high scores and low scores, would say that no matter your score, the best thing you can do to do well in law school is keep your game on. That means: don't suck at life. Be good at time management, working well, thinking about how you're thinking, not freaking out.

I mean, that's not easy in law school. There is no real test of that, except good grades in a very hard major, or some serious WE.

[SuperCerealBrah]

Perfect correlation. My law school exams all consisted of old LSAT questions.

ha, funny.

I think your answer to this question depends on how well you do on the LSAT. If you do well, there is a correlation; if you don't, there isn't. It's motivated cognition.

I think reading comprehension is probably pretty important. Because you read a lot. (duh). Logic games, because you have to keep your thoughts organized.

But I'll bet most 3Ls, with high scores and low scores, would say that no matter your score, the best thing you can do to do well in law school is keep your game on. That means: don't suck at life. Be good at time management, working well, thinking about how you're thinking, not freaking out.

I mean, that's not easy in law school. There is no real test of that, except good grades in a very hard major, or some serious WE.

I feel like logic games are the least relevant to law school. In hindsight, those things were really useless and stupid. Good thing they were very learnable at least though. The reading comprehension section I think is the most relevant.

[utlaw2007]

Perfect correlation. My law school exams all consisted of old LSAT questions.

This is pretty dang funny!

[Ti Malice]

I do think there's a strong correlation.

The biggest part of the LSAT is logical reasoning, and most of the LR section consists of either simply identifying the assumption inherent in an argument, or identifying it and then going a step further (identifying strengtheners/weakeners, identifying parallel reasoning in other arguments, etc.).

This skill is essential to the common law system. Because no two fact patterns will ever be identical, you are always going to have to analogize based upon the underlying assumptions. People who cannot effectively identify the underlying assumptions will not be able to draw proper analogies from case law, which is major skill tested on all law school exams.

Did you just copy and paste this from some page on the LSAC site?

[MarcusAurelius]

I do think there's a strong correlation.

The biggest part of the LSAT is logical reasoning, and most of the LR section consists of either simply identifying the assumption inherent in an argument, or identifying it and then going a step further (identifying strengtheners/weakeners, identifying parallel reasoning in other arguments, etc.).

This skill is essential to the common law system. Because no two fact patterns will ever be identical, you are always going to have to analogize based upon the underlying assumptions. People who cannot effectively identify the underlying assumptions will not be able to draw proper analogies from case law, which is major skill tested on all law school exams.

0L

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

I'm a 2L who teaches LSAT prep part-time for "a major test prep company" to keep my loans down.

The 3/4ths of the LSAT are reading comp and logical reasoning. Obviously reading comp is a necessary law school skill, so that doesn't need to be discussed.

For logical reasoning, the vast majority of the questions require you to identify the central assumption in an argument. This can be because the assumption is asked for, or because they want you to strengthen/weaken the argument, or because thy want you to identify the argument's flaws, etc.

Every time you read a case, you need to have the skill to identify the assumptions that the judge is making in order to properly extract the rule. If you cannot identify the assumptions, you will never be able to identify how the case can be generalized to apply to other fact patterns.

So yes, the skills necessary for the LSAT are skills necessary for Law School.

[rayiner]

Marriage = lots of work so you don't end up single and having horrible tax rates

Only works if you marry a poor

Well to be fair, you don't get marriage penalty-pwned if you marry someone with family money but no earning potential herself. The worst case scenario is two people with no family money and high incomes.

[ksllaw]

What about those in the bottom of the class at a school like Harvard?

There's the argument that since someone has to be at the bottom of a curved class, then even potentially brilliant students may end up at the bottom of a class. I choose Harvard for it's TOP 3 ranking and overall reputation as the place where the "best" and "brightest" go (overall, in all fields of study).

Suppose we took an incoming class of physics students comprised of the following members:

Paul Dirac
Leonard Susskind
Werner Heisenberg
Edward Witten
Isaac Newton
James Clerk Maxwell
Richard Feynman
Albert Einstein
Max Planck
Erwin Schrödinger
Steven Weinberg
Ernest Rutherford
Stephen Hawking
Frank Wilczek
Niels Bohr
Enrico Fermi
Galileo Galilei
Michael Faraday
Freeman Dyson
ksllaw

And let's say they are graded on a forced class curve, where bottom 20% essentially fails. Would the four bottom students on this list somehow be viewed as defective (try randomly selecting any four)? Almost any four you select (except for a grouping that included me, lol), would yield four of the all-time greatest physicists.

Recall that Einstein was considered such a goof-off and slacker (cutting classes) in his physics class that he couldn't get a job for several years after graduating. And when he finally did it wasn't as a physicst, but as a lowly patent clerk. It was there toiling in complete obscurity in his off time that he came up with his four famous miracle year papers. So he could have easily been at the bottom of this class in his youth.

Ah, but maybe you'll say I've stacked the deck here with all-time greats, given too small a sample size of incoming class members, and may even argue that Einstein - at that point of his career - deserved to be jobless, based on his school performance (which didn't necessarily capture/measure what his greatest asset was, creativity).

Possibly.

We can analyze this more with those things in mind. For example, do those timed, once-a-semester law school exams really capture all there is to being a good lawyer (e.g. Would a mock trial competition not be better in some respects, by forcing students to utilize their comprehensive legal skills in a simulated legal situation......or a brief or moot court competition, etc.)?

And, still, what of the basic common counter-argument that since someone has to place at the bottom of a curved class then even great students may be at the bottom of a class if the class is comprised with great students across the board? We could expand that class of great phycists above to include other greats as well (although, admittedly, that one does have literally some of the best of the best of the best of the best ...I threw in a few contemporaries, such as Susskind, who may or may not end up being viewed that way when he retires - probably soon).

Is the point system for law exams really capable of accurately telling apart students? What if Top 20% scored a 99, 2nd 20% scored a 98, third 20% scored a 97...and so on. If the scores are close together overall, then are the exams really capable of differentiating students adequately? Would it not be that possibly just the fastest writers of the bunch may have been the ones who did the best?

Just pushing the question further.

[ETA: I'm aware of some counter-arguments to this line of reasoning as well (e.g., law school admissions doesn't always adquately factor in rigor of program of study - due to an eye towards the USNWR ranking criteria - so that a person with a 4.0 GPA/168 LSAT in Women's Studies from Southern California Tropical Paradise College may not have been a better incoming student than the person with a 3.4/177 LSAT from Cal Tech in Physics), but just asking for the sake of discussion.]


OOPS Wrong Thread - Will post in the other one I started on whether law school grades are arbitrary, lol. Clicked wrong one!

[Scotusnerd]

1L here. They're kinda useful. I've had some attorneys make reference to them, but I think they're more trying to connect with us than actually prove any meaningful connection. Some attorneys I've talked to compare real estate title issues to logic games.

Reading comp obviously applies. If you can't read directions, you have no business being in law school. Logical reasoning is...debatable. I don't think it's that useful. The basic stuff, maybe. To be honest, I don't remember too much of it. Logic games seems mostly useful in analyzing complicated statutes, which I think I'll get to when we take Civ Pro. It seems useful for contracts, though...vaguely.

Writing the essay was actually pretty useful. That's an exam-taking skill. I know it's not scored, but I use the same time-management strategies I learned for that for mock exams, and it's done good for me. Time organization under pressure is essential.

I don't think it's as weak as some people bitch about, but I don't think it's a perfect correlation either. Somewhere in the middle.