Sandro777 wrote: KevinP wrote:
Sandro777 wrote:I would love to see some studies on LG's relation to LSAT score as a predictor of 1l success. I would bet my life it has the lowest correlation between the 3 diff types of sections.
Have you seen the latest game trends? I think LSAC thinks otherwise.
I just dont get what LG tests. In law school how many situations require you to absorb rules, diagram them, and then answer a series of rapid fire questions where you have less than 60 seconds to figure out each question? Im sure law school might have some equivalents where you must balances laws/regulations for specific instances - but you just had 4 months to study those laws and examples like the one you could be asked ?? The LSAT requires no prior knowledge - hopefully all the classes/studying that goes on isnt needless?
I'm just a 0L but I hope there's no rapid fire puzzle questions with diagrams on LS exams?
The skills required by RC and LR are much, much more concrete and identifiable.
You need to think outside the box. Logic games are a way to test your analytical reasoning. Being able to do logic games is not part of being a lawyer or law school. The aptitude needed to do logic games is part of being a lawyer and law school.
Look at it this way. There are certain physical tests that you must pass to be a police officer. I am not a cop but I know you must be able to do a certain number of push ups/pullups/run a mile in x time/etc. Now everyone knows that enforcing the law does not involve getting down and doing 50 pushups when you see a crime in progress. However those things test the kind of physical attributes you need to be able to sufficiently do your job. Someone who can't run a mile in 10 minutes or do 40 pushups at once probably won't be able to chase down criminals very well.
The LSAT uses its varying sections to test our mental aptitude in the same fashion. Reading comprehension might more closely resemble law school like running a physical obstacle course might better resemble chasing criminals, but other aspects must be considered as well, such as physical endurance and cardiovascular health that are also important and cannot be readily judged based just on one physical trial.
And like the LSAT, whether being able to do 40 pushups or 80 pushups would make someone better at chasing criminals is debatable, the score comparison between 160s and 170s in their ability to be a lawyer is debatable as well. But the fact of the matter is there has to be some way to measure aptitude, and the LSAT is the best we have. We can't exactly sit everyone down and do a "practice run" at law school to see who should get in.
My analogy probably sucks but I think it illustrates the basic idea.