Pricer wrote:The LSAT is supposed to predict how well you will do in law school, correct? My question is, then, why are we allowed to prepare for it? The questions seems to go from "Who thinks the most like a lawyer/law school student?" to "Who can pay enough money to learn how to ace this test?". I understand that this could easily catch up with someone, as getting into a school you should not be admitted to will quickly place you in the bottom quartile of your class. Still, that person should not have had a chance to even go to that school.
Incorrect, LSAT is a tool use by law school admission to admit or deny applicants under an uniform standard. Before invention of LSAT, law school admission is highly subjective. Thus, the issue was never "Who thinks the most like a lawyer/law school student", the issue is "on what basis does an applicant, relative to other applicants, deserve an opportunity for admission?". Even the maker of LSAT made it very clear that LSAT does not measure "who thinks the most like a lawyer", it is just an universal standard for measuring applicants for admission. Sure, people with more money can afford to take Prep courses while people without money couldn't afford. It is not fair. BUT, this unfairness has nothing to do with one's ability or one's standing in class. Rather, one's character, strength, adaptation to new circumstances and determination for success will determine one's standing in law school.
The utter ridiculousness of URM status guaranteeing admission with mediocre GPAs and LSAT scores is discouraging enough for a white male trying to secure a spot at a good law school
Affirmative Action and URM boost is an evil and it is completely discriminatory. However, the Supreme Court, given its infinite wisdom and understanding of the reality on the ground (a trait completely lacked by at least the current majority justices who favored almost no regulation on campaign finance) has already decided that given the inherent unfairness and inequality faced by minority including blacks, mexican americans, and native indians, it is a compelling interest of the United States to afford the aforementioned minorities a certain boost. Thus, it is a necessary evil. Indeed, without URM boost, an entire generation of blacks, mexican americans, and native indians could be excluded from law school, substantially making the admission policy of these institution (base on non-race factors alone) a variant of racial segregation by denying these minorities a fair representation in term of student population.
but the fact that one can pretty much pay for his LSAT score seems to go against the whole point of the test
If only this is true, i would've sell my condo and pay LSAC to give me a 175. The truth is, many many people burn a huge pile of money into multiple LSAT prep courses and many failed to gain any meaningful LSAT score. So this claim is definitely not universal nor statistical.
I hate to sound like law school admission deans but you can blame no one but yourself for not scoring high enough on the LSAT. I am sorry you don't have the resources to take a prep course (trust me, you don't need to burn $1400 on these courses if you've study for at least three month) and i agree with you on the inherent unfairness of the system. The only option for you is to suck it up and move on