Help me connect the dots here...

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
washin34
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:43 am

Help me connect the dots here...

Postby washin34 » Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:33 pm

I'm curious to find out what is learned in law school other than "legal theory". The reason I ask is because many deduce that since I am struggling to gain a grasp on the LSAT, that I will be a bad canidate for law school. Is there a correlation between compentency and the LSAT? What is it about logic games that can predict whether you will be able to comprehend law when it is taught to you? What are your assignments like in law school?

NewtonLied
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Help me connect the dots here...

Postby NewtonLied » Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:21 pm

washin34 wrote:I'm curious to find out what is learned in law school other than "legal theory". The reason I ask is because many deduce that since I am struggling to gain a grasp on the LSAT, that I will be a bad canidate for law school. Is there a correlation between compentency and the LSAT? What is it about logic games that can predict whether you will be able to comprehend law when it is taught to you? What are your assignments like in law school?


.4

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Help me connect the dots here...

Postby 270910 » Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:51 am

washin34 wrote:I'm curious to find out what is learned in law school other than "legal theory". The reason I ask is because many deduce that since I am struggling to gain a grasp on the LSAT, that I will be a bad canidate for law school. Is there a correlation between compentency and the LSAT? What is it about logic games that can predict whether you will be able to comprehend law when it is taught to you? What are your assignments like in law school?


It's a weak correlation but it's there. Big score differences are more meaningful.

Logic games don't ever come up directly, but that kind of thought process is always used in a fairly shallow way in judicial opinions. Logical reasoning same-same. Reading comprehension comes closest to useful, just because you're often reading extremely dense material.

At the end of the day, the LSAT is a decent predictor of bar passage and law school performance, but not a good one. It's still the best metric available and so schools use it.

User avatar
holydonkey
Posts: 1184
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 pm

Re: Help me connect the dots here...

Postby holydonkey » Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:13 am

washin34 wrote:I'm curious to find out what is learned in law school other than "legal theory". The reason I ask is because many deduce that since I am struggling to gain a grasp on the LSAT, that I will be a bad canidate for law school. Is there a correlation between compentency and the LSAT? What is it about logic games that can predict whether you will be able to comprehend law when it is taught to you? What are your assignments like in law school?
Yes, the correlation is 16%. Ability to understand complex logic. Reading, tests, memo writing.

I think a good example of the link between logic games and understanding the law would be in looking at something like causation in tort law. http://www.west.net/~smith/causation.htm

Of course, I'm still a 0L, so maybe someone else can offer a better example.

Dman
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:28 am

Re: Help me connect the dots here...

Postby Dman » Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:25 am

As a 1L, and someone who did very well on LG section on the LSAT, I do see being able to understand LG and do those type of problems quickly as very helpful in a few classes. One being claim joinder in Civ Pro. There are many rules that operate on "may" and "must" and to effectively diagram and make inferences, allows you to quickly get to the big policy questions faster (if you get there at all). Another example is Notice under recording acts in property. Chain of title problems often have numerous parties over many years, that again with fast and correct diagramming you are able to draw inferences and will be able to answer who could have notice and how.

So in the above sense, there is a relation to what the LSAT tests. However the skills are just pieces to the bigger picture.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Help me connect the dots here...

Postby nealric » Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:00 pm

helpful in a few classes. One being claim joinder in Civ Pro. There are many rules that operate on "may" and "must" and to effectively diagram and make inferences, allows you to quickly get to the big policy questions faster (if you get there at all). Another example is Notice under recording acts in property. Chain of title problems often have numerous parties over many years, that again with fast and correct diagramming you are able to draw inferences and will be able to answer who could have notice and how.


I agree that civpro is very logic games-like. However, one of my strongest (and favorite) 1L subjects was Civpro, but my weakest (by far) section of the LSAT was the logic games. Part of the discrepancy was time. Given unlimited time, I could solve any logic game no problem. It just usually took me longer to figure out the necessary inferences than the test allowed. But when you are studying civpro, you have all the time you need to crack the "game". After that, it's just getting it memorized and organized in your head.

washin34
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:43 am

Re: Help me connect the dots here...

Postby washin34 » Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:02 pm

nealric wrote:
helpful in a few classes. One being claim joinder in Civ Pro. There are many rules that operate on "may" and "must" and to effectively diagram and make inferences, allows you to quickly get to the big policy questions faster (if you get there at all). Another example is Notice under recording acts in property. Chain of title problems often have numerous parties over many years, that again with fast and correct diagramming you are able to draw inferences and will be able to answer who could have notice and how.


I agree that civpro is very logic games-like. However, one of my strongest (and favorite) 1L subjects was Civpro, but my weakest (by far) section of the LSAT was the logic games. Part of the discrepancy was time. Given unlimited time, I could solve any logic game no problem. It just usually took me longer to figure out the necessary inferences than the test allowed. But when you are studying civpro, you have all the time you need to crack the "game". After that, it's just getting it memorized and organized in your head.


I was hoping that there was someone like you out there.

User avatar
firebreathingliberal
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:57 pm

Re: Help me connect the dots here...

Postby firebreathingliberal » Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:55 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Correlation does not imply causation, no pun intended with regards to legal causation.

Just because you didn't do well on the LSAT doesn't mean you wont be a good law student/attorney. And the flip side, just because you did do well on the LSAT doesn't mean you WILL be a good law student/attorney.




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests