If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

User avatar
DeSimone
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby DeSimone » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:22 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Nah, UGPA is mostly about effort.

Agreed. I still hold that in the admissions formula, if there is one, GPA measures effort and LSAT represents intelligence. Both are necessary factors for law school success.

Let me qualify an earlier statement: assuming one studies his/her ass off, the upper limit of the LSAT score correlates closely with IQ. Scores produced after inadequate or no studying are worthless.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby dresden doll » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:28 pm

ITT: Random Internet personality exhorts us to trust him over the official studies indicating correlation between LSAT and grades. Lulzy.

User avatar
GATORTIM
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby GATORTIM » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:31 pm

dresden doll wrote:ITT:On This Site Random Internet personalityties exhorts us to trust himthem over the official studies indicating correlation between LSAT and grades anything else. Lulzy.

User avatar
TUP
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:00 am

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby TUP » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:40 pm

DeSimone wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Nah, UGPA is mostly about effort.

Agreed. I still hold that in the admissions formula, if there is one, GPA measures effort and LSAT represents intelligence. Both are necessary factors for law school success.

Let me qualify an earlier statement: assuming one studies his/her ass off, the upper limit of the LSAT score correlates closely with IQ. Scores produced after inadequate or no studying are worthless.


Nice avatar.

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby Hannibal » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:47 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:The LSAT is remarkably consistent over the years. There are a few very minor changes that happen, but it's consistent.

If you can't get a 160 with studying you probably have a learning disability.


I think this is the point. I know someone who studied her ass off and still was happy to get a 155. But I also know she didn't think in the rational way those of us on this board seem to (I was incapable of having an argument with her since she'd constantly use emotional appeals). I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

And no I'm pretty sure she does not have a learning disability.


Being stupid is a learning disability.


So the LSAT is to weed out stupid people with high GPAs.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby 09042014 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:52 pm

Hannibal wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
I think this is the point. I know someone who studied her ass off and still was happy to get a 155. But I also know she didn't think in the rational way those of us on this board seem to (I was incapable of having an argument with her since she'd constantly use emotional appeals). I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

And no I'm pretty sure she does not have a learning disability.


Being stupid is a learning disability.


So the LSAT is to weed out stupid people with high GPAs.


Close enough. There is a reason why T50 schools aren't jumping all over themselves for 4.0/140's but are for 170/2.9's

czelede
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby czelede » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:34 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
KibblesAndVick wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
KibblesAndVick wrote:
But don't worry. Even if you don't score well on the LSAT you can still be a great, successful lawyer because the LSAT doesn't correlate to the work you do in law school.


The LSAT does correlate to the work you do in law school. But the work you do in law school apparently doesn't really correlate with what makes a successful lawyer.


Fair enough. Either way it's idiotic to think that the LSAT doesn't matter and that you shouldn't be worried if you can't score highly. You might make the normative argument that it shouldn't matter. But saying that the LSAT doesn't matter is functionally equivalent to saying where you go to law school doesn't matter.


Agreed. If anyone thinks that going to Duke is effectively the same as going to Florida International they are fooling themselves.

Hell the FI student might make a better shit law soldier, but the Duke grad will have a much better care trajectory (ITE only if they finish above median).


Hey now, TTT schools have feelings too.

taxguy
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:46 pm

QQ

Postby taxguy » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:21 pm

Someone noted,"Let me qualify an earlier statement: assuming one studies his/her ass off, the upper limit of the LSAT score correlates closely with IQ. Scores produced after inadequate or no studying are worthless."

Response: This is partially right. Studying does help,but I think that it only helps to give familiarity with the questions. I would bet that there are a large number of people who study very hard for the test and still don't do well.

Yes, it probably is a type of IQ test. However, the problem with the LSAT,which is the same problem as the IQ, is its serverely timed nature of the test. Folks can still be geniuses yet do badly on the test. Einstein was a renown thinker who took his time thinking a problem through. He would not do well on standardized tests that are very time sensitive. I have no problem with the questions on the LSAT. My beef is with its severe, stupid timing. I just don't see how this would correlate with law school work,which usually allows for a lot of time to finish both case analysis and tests.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: QQ

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:32 pm

taxguy wrote:Someone noted,"Let me qualify an earlier statement: assuming one studies his/her ass off, the upper limit of the LSAT score correlates closely with IQ. Scores produced after inadequate or no studying are worthless."

Response: This is partially right. Studying does help,but I think that it only helps to give familiarity with the questions. I would bet that there are a large number of people who study very hard for the test and still don't do well.

Yes, it probably is a type of IQ test. However, the problem with the LSAT,which is the same problem as the IQ, is its serverely timed nature of the test. Folks can still be geniuses yet do badly on the test. Einstein was a renown thinker who took his time thinking a problem through. He would not do well on standardized tests that are very time sensitive. I have no problem with the questions on the LSAT. My beef is with its severe, stupid timing. I just don't see how this would correlate with law school work,which usually allows for a lot of time to finish both case analysis and tests.


I've heard very differently. From what I've heard from my friends in law school, 1Ls are often incredibly stressed for time on their exams and pacing can make/break their scores. The timing is relevant---part of intelligence in general is that intelligent people tend to be able to think more quickly. Einstein thought slowly about very difficult questions...I'm sure he'd be fine with a logical reasoning question.

That said, the LSAT is not an IQ test. It measures three skills: reading comprehension, analytical reasoning, and logical reasoning. I think in general you want a lawyer who can read(reading comprehension....) and reason well(LR & LG).

It's not measuring work ethic. It's not measuring necessarily this broad idea of intelligence (though being "intelligent", whatever that means, would tend to help with most cognitive skills test...). It's narrowly measuring 3 very relevant cognitive skills.

Plenty of people do well in life without being very good at reading or even reasoning logically. I know plenty of financially successful people who are frustratingly illogical in their reasoning and arguments. But these are skills that are particularly relevant to succeeding in law school, and probably relevant to being a lawyer as well.

I think success in law school tends to not necessarily predict success as a lawyer because it doesn't take into account the business aspect of being a lawyer(charisma with clients, etc.), only the intellectual side.
Last edited by acrossthelake on Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

taxguy
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: QQ

Postby taxguy » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:37 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
taxguy wrote:Someone noted,"Let me qualify an earlier statement: assuming one studies his/her ass off, the upper limit of the LSAT score correlates closely with IQ. Scores produced after inadequate or no studying are worthless."

Response: This is partially right. Studying does help,but I think that it only helps to give familiarity with the questions. I would bet that there are a large number of people who study very hard for the test and still don't do well.

Yes, it probably is a type of IQ test. However, the problem with the LSAT,which is the same problem as the IQ, is its serverely timed nature of the test. Folks can still be geniuses yet do badly on the test. Einstein was a renown thinker who took his time thinking a problem through. He would not do well on standardized tests that are very time sensitive. I have no problem with the questions on the LSAT. My beef is with its severe, stupid timing. I just don't see how this would correlate with law school work,which usually allows for a lot of time to finish both case analysis and tests.


I've heard very differently. From what I've heard from my friends in law school, 1Ls are often incredibly stressed for time on their exams and pacing can make/break their scores. The timing is relevant---part of intelligence in general is that intelligent people tend to be able to think more quickly. Einstein thought slowly about very difficult questions...I'm sure he'd be fine with a logical reasoning question. That said, the LSAT is not an IQ test. It measures three skills: reading comprehension, analytical reasoning, and logical reasoning. I think in general you want a lawyer who can read(reading comprehension....) and reason well. It's not measuring work ethic. It's not measuring necessarily this broad idea of intelligence (though being "intelligent", whatever that means, would tend to help with most cognitive skills test...). It's narrowly measuring 3 very relevant cognitive skills.


Yes, but it narrowly measures these skills in the context of a severely time oriented test. Again, I am not against the questions per se. I am against the severe timing necesary to do well. Also, I am not saying that folks shouldn't worry about it. Of course they should. However, it shouldn't have the big impact that it does for admission.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: QQ

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:38 pm

taxguy wrote:
Yes, but it narrowly measures these skills in the context of a severely time oriented test. Again, I am not against the questions per se. I am against the severe timing necesary to do well. Also, I am not saying that folks shouldn't worry about it. Of course they should. However, it shouldn't have the big impact that it does for admission.


If one is strong in those skills, timing shouldn't be an issue, unless one has a specific disorder or something like dyslexia that slows them down.

ETA: Or slow reading speed in general.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: QQ

Postby 09042014 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:39 pm

taxguy wrote:
Yes, but it narrowly measures these skills in the context of a severely time oriented test. Again, I am not against the questions per se. I am against the severe timing necesary to do well. Also, I am not saying that folks shouldn't worry about it. Of course they should. However, it shouldn't have the big impact that it does for admission.


IIRC studies have been done on timing as a factor on standardized tests and it was found that timing didn't really change much. Everyone does about the same on the bell curve.

If the LSAT had no time limits, they'd just add tougher questions to weed you guys out.

User avatar
KibblesAndVick
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:29 am

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby KibblesAndVick » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:46 pm

I'll just leave this here...

--LinkRemoved--

taxguy
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby taxguy » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:56 pm

KibblesAndVick wrote:I'll just leave this here...

--LinkRemoved--


I am NOT a statistician,but there seems to a HUGE difference between those that got over a 3.5 in law school and who scored below 170 on the LSAT and those that got the same 3.5 and scored above a 3.5. In fact, it seems that getting a 155-170 on the LSAT magnifies your chances of doing well in law school by ten to twenty fold over those that got over a 170 on the LSAT. If I am reading this right, the LSAT may be have a somewhat reverse correlation. This seems to amplify my point that the LSAT should be much less of an admission factor than it currently is.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:01 pm

taxguy wrote:
KibblesAndVick wrote:I'll just leave this here...

--LinkRemoved--


I am NOT a statistician,but there seems to a HUGE difference between those that got over a 3.5 in law school and who scored below 170 on the LSAT and those that got the same 3.5 and scored above a 3.5. In fact, it seems that getting a 155-170 on the LSAT magnifies your chances of doing well in law school by ten to twenty fold over those that got over a 170 on the LSAT. If I am reading this right, the LSAT may be have a somewhat reverse correlation. This seems to amplify my point that the LSAT should be much less of an admission factor than it currently is.


Wait what? Where was this in the study? I'm only seeing a positive correlation being reported, not a negative one.

The only problem with how the LSAT is used, and even the makers note this, is that there really isn't much of a difference in their eyes between a 173 and 176 scorer, but this makes a big difference in admissions.

ETA: In fact, I don't see them break it down by combination like that.
However, seeing as how the LSAT is the *best* predictor they currently have--what else do you suggest they use?

User avatar
KibblesAndVick
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:29 am

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby KibblesAndVick » Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:10 pm

Stilwel, et al wrote: This national summary of the LSAT correlation studies conducted in the years 2005 and 2006 lends continued support for the validity of LSAT scores in the law school admission process. Major findings from this study are summarized as follows:
- The combination of LSAT score and UGPA is a useful predictor of academic performance in the first year of law school. The average multiple correlation between FYA in law school and the combined predictors of LSAT score and UGPA is 0.46 for both 2005 and 2006 study years. This value is high, but slightly lower than multiple correlation coefficients reported for previous correlation study years. As has always been the case, these combined predictors continue to be superior to either predictor alone for predicting FYA.
- LSAT score alone continues to be a better predictor of law school performance than is UGPA alone. The median validity for LSAT score alone is 0.34 for 2005 and 0.33 for 2006, compared with mean validity values of 0.29 (2005) and 0.28 (2006) for UGPA alone.
- When schools are grouped by the correlation between LSAT score and UGPA, the validity coefficients increase when the correlations between the predictors increase. This relationship provides some indication of the impact of the restriction of range resulting from using only matriculated students on the estimates of validity, particularly in the presence of a compensatory admission model.
- A substantial amount of the variability in validity coefficients obtained among different law schools is directly attributable to the amount of variation in LSAT scores and UGPAs in the data used to estimate the validity.
- Cross-validation studies support the use of regression equations based on previous first-year classes to predict future performance of law school applicants.
-The restriction of range typically observed for LSAT score and UGPA was more pronounced for LSAT scores for the 2005 and 2006 correlation study years as compared to previous correlation study years, resulting in a reduction, on average, in the correlation between LSAT score and FYA. This further resulted in a reduction in the mean percentage of variance accounted for by LSAT score in the equation combining LSAT score and UGPA to predict FYA, and a corresponding increase in the mean proportion of variance accounted for by UGPA. However, in general, LSAT score continues to account for the greater proportion of the variance in this prediction equation.


The LSAT is a very good predictor of a student's grades in law school. Most people assume that studies would find an even high correlation if it weren't for the fact that students at a given law school already have a very clustered range of LSAT scores. The 25% 75% spread for most of the T14 is only 4 or 5 points. To be fair, the predictive validity of UGPA would probably also rise if the ranges were more extreme.

I'm not saying the LSAT is the end all be all. It's not a perfect correlation. Low scorers can excel and high scorers can fail. But to claim that the test is stupid and doesn't generally predict how well a student will perform in law school is refuted by very strong empirical evidence...

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:21 pm

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/rr/Spe ... -Exams.pdf

In many publications by LSAT they note that their predictive value is weaker at very very top law schools because the score band there is too restrictive--if most people are falling into a very small range in the 170s, then yes, the LSAT isn't going to be able to distinguish between them. 176 scorer isn't necessarily predicted to do better than the 174 scorer. 176 scorer will usually outperform a 153 scorer, though.

ETA quotes:

In both the national and regional law school samples, the LSAT had its greatest
predictive power on in-class exams (see Tables 9, 10, 16, 19).


Factors affecting performance on LSAT and UGPA
Reasoning ability LSAT--Yes UGPA--Yes
Test-taking speed LSAT-- Yes UGPA--Probably
Motivation and persistence LSAT--No UGPA--Yes
Writing ability LSAT--No UGPA--Yes, varies with curriculum
Objective grading (i.e., based on identical
analytical tasks) LSAT-- Yes UGPA--Yes and No, mixture of papers and exams


Phrased/formatted differently:

Of the factors that are relevant to law school grades:
LSAT is influenced by reasoning ability, test-taking speed, and objective grading.
It is *not* measuring motivation and persistence or writing ability/
Last edited by acrossthelake on Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: QQ

Postby d34d9823 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:08 pm

taxguy wrote:Yes, but it narrowly measures these skills in the context of a severely time oriented test. Again, I am not against the questions per se. I am against the severe timing necesary to do well. Also, I am not saying that folks shouldn't worry about it. Of course they should. However, it shouldn't have the big impact that it does for admission.

Calling the time limits severe seems a little bit extreme. Most of the really high scorers I know are finishing sections with 10+ on the clock.

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby thecilent » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:26 pm

acrossthelake wrote:http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/rr/Speed-as-a-Variable-on-the-LSAT-and-Law-School-Exams.pdf

In many publications by LSAT they note that their predictive value is weaker at very very top law schools because the score band there is too restrictive (if most people are falling into a very small range in the 170s, then yes, the LSAT isn't going to be able to distinguish between them. 176 scorer isn't necessarily predicted to do better than the 174 scorer. 176 scorer will usually outperform a 153 scorer, though.

Closing parenthesis fail.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:35 pm

thecilent wrote:
acrossthelake wrote:http://lsacnet.lsac.org/research/rr/Speed-as-a-Variable-on-the-LSAT-and-Law-School-Exams.pdf

In many publications by LSAT they note that their predictive value is weaker at very very top law schools because the score band there is too restrictive (if most people are falling into a very small range in the 170s, then yes, the LSAT isn't going to be able to distinguish between them. 176 scorer isn't necessarily predicted to do better than the 174 scorer. 176 scorer will usually outperform a 153 scorer, though.

Closing parenthesis fail.


Whatever, flame. :lol:

fosterp
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:09 am

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby fosterp » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:04 pm

taxguy wrote:
KibblesAndVick wrote:I'll just leave this here...

--LinkRemoved--


I am NOT a statistician,but there seems to a HUGE difference between those that got over a 3.5 in law school and who scored below 170 on the LSAT and those that got the same 3.5 and scored above a 3.5. In fact, it seems that getting a 155-170 on the LSAT magnifies your chances of doing well in law school by ten to twenty fold over those that got over a 170 on the LSAT. If I am reading this right, the LSAT may be have a somewhat reverse correlation. This seems to amplify my point that the LSAT should be much less of an admission factor than it currently is.


I think you are confusing what the dots actually represent. The dots simply represent each set of gpa/lsat score data point - or each person they are tracking. The reason you see so many 160s in the upper gpa's compared to the 170s is simply because there were more 160 scorers to track. But the line is drawn in a way that there is generally an equal number of low gpas with the same lsat scores below that line. Obviously theres a lot of variance because r is .62, but if you look at the cluster as a whole it does continue going up as lsat rises.

User avatar
F458JE
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:40 pm

Re: QQ

Postby F458JE » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:33 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
taxguy wrote:Yes, but it narrowly measures these skills in the context of a severely time oriented test. Again, I am not against the questions per se. I am against the severe timing necesary to do well. Also, I am not saying that folks shouldn't worry about it. Of course they should. However, it shouldn't have the big impact that it does for admission.

Calling the time limits severe seems a little bit extreme. Most of the really high scorers I know are finishing sections with 10+ on the clock.



+1

I usually finish RC with 7-10 minutes left, and 5 minutes left with LR & LG.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby northwood » Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:19 pm

Are there always going to be people who do better/ worse in law school than their score would indicate? Yes. Is this a large population? not really. ( although it is easier to do worse in law school than your score would indicate) Rightly or wrongly, the lsat is the best way for schools to provide a level field for all canidates. If UG GPA was the biggest indicator, then people with hard majors ( math, science, engineering, etc) would not have an equal starting point ( how many times did you change your career goals throughout undergrad). Also, for many people, undergrad is the first time away from home, where no one will nag you to go to class, do work, or remind you of upcoming tests and due dates. Some people need a kick in the pants ( bad freshman gpa) to mature and develop good study habits. All of these variables makes the undergrade gpa difficult to predict success. Graduate gpas dont count, as they would only benefit those with them ( they are more motivated to do well in graduate school due to their interest in the subject among other things).

The fact of the matter is this: the LSAT is the best thing law schools have. Its the best way to fairly and evenly guage a canidates ability, and work ethic under timed conditions). Sure its not perfect, and doesnt measure overall intelligence ( only your capabilities in reading comprehension, analyitical and spatial reasoning). It does measure skill areas that are needed to be successful in law school, and later as a lawyer.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test

Postby Patriot1208 » Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:37 pm

I feel better




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gwillygecko, Majestic-12 [Bot], packerboy31489, Pozzo, proteinshake and 27 guests