Ragged wrote:kk19131 wrote:Tautology wrote:I still think that to the extent the LSAT is learnable, it advantages those with the time and money to put into learning it, and disadvantages those without it or who having a harder time getting it (this isn't a binary either you have the time or you don't, people have to make different sacrifices depending on their circumstances to make that time or get that money), a group I thought largely to include the poor. To me this suggests that the more learnable the LSAT is the more it is biased towards the wealthy, and so lack of learnability would be a desirbale trait for the LSAT to have.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
No No No.
And getting a Nobel Prize also requires time and money and those who don't have them are not likely to win it. Anything thats anything requires time and money, including LS. Everything is biased towards the wealthy. Not qualifying it, just stating a fact.
Besides, in LS you are expected to study alot and have options to buy study materials. Since LSAT is designed to predict your performance in LS it makes sense that it requires you to study alot and you have the option of buying study materials.
In law school people will have money, be it through debt or scholarships. Either way there will be more money.