kill lsat wrote:In examining the posts thus far, it looks like the only people who have weighed in are those who committed to the LSAT long ago -- that appears to be why they come to this blog. People just aren't evaluating my arguments directly. So, "your arguments will [b]remain [/b]unconvincing" (emphasis added) is hardly a statement based on a realistic sample of LSAT takers or the prospective law school students who never get past the LSAT threshold.
I meant they would remain unconvincing to me. I'm not trying to speak for anyone else, although I recognize my language was potentially ambiguous.
kill lsat wrote:Since no one is critically evaluating my arguments, let's look at yours.
As for your data, you might want to check into this because you're mortally wounding your position. The standard number LSAC reports is a correlation of LSAT performance to 1L grades of .4. (See LSAT apologist Frank Homer at --LinkRemoved--.) That's an abomination because it's just the "r" value. r-squared is only .16, which shows that only 16% of the change in one variable (LSAT score) is explained by a change in the other (1L grades). One of my sociology professors warned us about this trick in the SAT results decades ago. It looks like the LSAT people are conmen too. Essentially, according to LSAC, the LSAT is a terrible indicator. We could probably do a take on the Random Walk Down Wallstreet and find that throwing darts at law school applications is a better predictor of A, B, C or F
Happily, my position has nothing to do with the absolute correlation values. you will note I made only a couple of relevant remarks about the predictive capabilities of the LSAT: 1) that they are more highly correlated with 1L grades than any other known single metric, and 2) that the predictive value of the LSAT would likely not be enhanced by removing the AR section. Since you responded to neither of these points, I don't really have anything more to say on the subject.
kill lsat wrote:So, by your argument, we ought to abolish the LSAT altogether, not just AR.
Why on earth would law schools abolish the best single metric they have to predict the academic success of prospective students?
kill lsat wrote:I would hope, however, that we can demonstrate statistically that the AR section is not helpful. I will take your suggestion and see if LSAC publishes information on correlations by section. However, since the overall LSAT correlations are laughable and the test results have already been contaminated by the preparation process students are forced to go through, the results will be tainted as well. They can't be any worse than .16, I presume. I'll report back with what I find or if someone else has this data, please present it.
I will patiently await the data.