kill lsat wrote:Forum Questions: Is the Analytical Reasoning section so artificial and removed from the actual practice of law that it renders the LSAT an unnecessary and unhelpful barrier to selecting qualified and diverse students?
Is it inherently unfair to those without the funds to take a great prep course or those who just don't have the time to do endless examples?
Does it pose an onerous burden on prospective law students?
Does it harm the reputation of law schools that de-emphasize it?
Should we campaign for its elimination or drastic modification?
What can we do to make this happen?
Background/Argument: I am a professional with a solid engineering background. I fully understand that law schools need to know how well prospective students can apply the rules of logic and deductive reasoning to solve problems they will face as lawyers. However, AR tests nothing of the sort.
yes it does
In just 8.5 minutes, you are expected to learn about an artificial world, with bizarre rules, and then draw inferences that will enable you to answer questions that require further inferences. There simply is no analog in legal work.
of course there is
Lawyers have weeks to write briefs, not minutes.
because writing briefs is a whole lot harder than doing logic games
Even oral argument is based on a known set of cases and specific background. Going 3 levels deep into inferences would lose everyone in the courtroom.
but if you can't score well on the LSAT, you're less likely to have the mental capacity to understand the law, much less put forth a cogent argument to support your case
You would be called supercilious, an idiot or irritating. And, if you were wrong, ....
sticks & stones...
I might be able to understand 1 game in 35 minutes, with 23 questions -- the vast majority of which test your understanding of basic logic. You would have a reasonable opportunity to adjust to a brave new (artificial) world and demonstrate that you have a basic, intermediate or advanced knowledge of logic and reasoning.
that's exactly what the AR section does already.
Unfortunately, 4 games in 35 minutes is more like a cruel joke. Only through quality instruction and significant practice, then a little luck on test day can all but the exceptionally gifted among us do well on that section.
over generalization & over simplification of reality
If you have neither the money to attend a solid prep course nor the time to do much prep, then you have nothing. Your innate intelligence, academic background and professional experience will not help you -- unlike in the other sections.
i'm guessing you did poorly on the LR section as well. your argument here is a 1 star difficulty flaw question
In the end, the games section (and, more generally, the entire LSAT)
is little more than a con having the effect of preventing the vast majority of people from getting into the law school of their choice
would you force harvard to accept all 9K applicants?
-- and of sewing a bright red letter of inferiority across the coat-of-arms of law schools who dare to de-emphasis LSAT scores.
because the students at those schools aren't as bright
Since our entire system of justice depends (in theory) on application of the law and having a good lawyer to represent you, this profession is simply too important to leave the weeding out process to the inequities and vagaries of time and money.
Law schools should be picking the best-prepared candidates
they already do this by favoring high LSAT scores.
and/or those who are likely to make a significant difference in society or on campus (diversity).
they already do this by favoring high LSAT scores
The best way to do that is to kill the games section in its current form (and hopefully, the entire LSAT, but I won't argue that for now).
^this is the conclusion of your argument. It does not follow from the premises.
Any suggestions on how we can make this happen?
it's not going to happen.