What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

notaznguy
Posts: 318
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:48 am

What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby notaznguy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:42 am

Most of my friends are actually shocked to hear that I'm spending money on a prep course and taking 3.5 months to prepare for it. Then they'll go on and tell me how the LSAT is just common sense and as long as you're a good writer and fluent in English, you can do exceptionally well.

What do your non-law friends say about the LSAT or the effort you put into studying (if any?)

User avatar
tmon
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:52 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby tmon » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:11 am

The common belief I've encountered is that it's basically an IQ test that you can't study for, though I've actively combatted that belief with everyone I've found who holds that. A few of my friends have enough trust in me that they've realized how much of a mindfuck it can be though, which is refreshing. I think the crazy amount of time I've put into the test has thoroughly convinced my close friends that it's not to be taken lightly though :)

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby KevinP » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:12 am

I have a friend and her brother is applying to law school so she slightly knows about the LSAT. My previous score is in the 160s (royally screwed up games by misreading) and she thinks I am a freaking genius for scoring in the 160s lol.

User avatar
bport hopeful
Posts: 4913
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby bport hopeful » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:16 am

notaznguy wrote:Most of my friends are actually shocked to hear that I'm spending money on a prep course and taking 3.5 months to prepare for it. Then they'll go on and tell me how the LSAT is just common sense and as long as you're a good writer and fluent in English, you can do exceptionally well.

What do your non-law friends say about the LSAT or the effort you put into studying (if any?)

Your friends are tards. Do they realize that its a standardized test, and that most of the test takers are fluent in English, and that its a multiple choice test?

You have to get a curve somehow.


Whats sadder than what my non-law friends think, is what my non-TLS law friends think.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby PDaddy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:01 am

tmon wrote:The common belief I've encountered is that it's basically an IQ test that you can't study for :)


...but you actually CAN study for IQ tests, although it is a much more painstaking process than preparing for the LSAT. That having been said, the LSAT is not an "IQ" test, it is a "skills" test. Skills are not innate, they are acquired.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby PDaddy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:10 am

KevinP wrote:I have a friend and her brother is applying to law school so she slightly knows about the LSAT. My previous score is in the 160s (royally screwed up games by misreading) and she thinks I am a freaking genius for scoring in the 160s lol.


Well, isn't 160 above the 80th percentile? And wouldn't any person within the top 20% on any exam have to be pretty damn intelligent and/or well-prepared? We TLSers talk so much about 170-180 that we forget that only 3% maximum score within that range. The other 16% or so scores between 159 and 170, and the other 80% are at or below 159. Just by having scored 160 or above, you are in a pretty elite group. Unfortunately, we don't tend to see it that way because, for non-URM's, 160-164 usually doesn't tend to translate to admission to elite schools.

Maybe if the top firms and corporations would recruit at a larger variety of schools instead of continually slobbering over HYS grads so much, we would all have a more realistic view of the quality and value of lower-ranked schools, and thus a more realistic and appropriate impression of the great accomplishments required to get into those schools. Scoring at or above 160 and going to a top-50 (or even top-60) law school is a hell of an accomplishment.

If you get into Medical school, people don't care whether its Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Howard, Minnesota, or Temple. They make few or no judgments. They just know that you went to medical school. The elitism in law admissions does not exist in medical school admissions...why?

bruss
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 3:58 am

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby bruss » Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:05 am

Whats sadder than what my non-law friends think, is what my non-TLS law friends think.

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby incompetentia » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:38 am

Originally, I wasn't even going to respond.
PDaddy wrote:Well, isn't 160 above the 80th percentile? And wouldn't any person within the top 20% on any exam have to be pretty damn intelligent and/or well-prepared? We TLSers talk so much about 170-180 that we forget that only 3% maximum score within that range. The other 16% or so scores between 159 and 170, and the other 80% are at or below 159. Just by having scored 160 or above, you are in a pretty elite group. Unfortunately, we don't tend to see it that way because, for non-URM's, 160-164 usually doesn't tend to translate to admission to elite schools.

Early applicants usually have a median somewhere closer to 160 than 150. (Interpolating the data says 158-ish.)
--ImageRemoved--
Additionally, considering that LS usually has about 40,000 matriculants in any given year, the fact that the 40,000th highest test in any given year lands in the range of roughly the 70th percentile is important to note.

Maybe if the top firms and corporations would recruit at a larger variety of schools instead of continually slobbering over HYS grads so much, we would all have a more realistic view of the quality and value of lower-ranked schools, and thus a more realistic and appropriate impression of the great accomplishments required to get into those schools. Scoring at or above 160 and going to a top-50 (or even top-60) law school is a hell of an accomplishment.

So what you're saying is that we would have a more realistic view of the quality and value of lower-ranked schools if the lower-ranked schools didn't have all of the qualities that make them lower-ranked? T2-range schools are usually strong regionally, and that's fine. However, for biglaw purposes, by your standards, you're going to need to be a hell of an accomplisher to be considered. Why is this so unacceptable?

If you get into Medical school, people don't care whether its Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Howard, Minnesota, or Temple. They make few or no judgments. They just know that you went to medical school. The elitism in law admissions does not exist in medical school admissions...why?

Because medical school admissions are very carefully regulated, and there are no more taken than what is needed to sustain the medical profession. If the ABA wipes out the bottom 80-100 law schools, the situations would be more analogous.

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby incompetentia » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:43 am

If this weren't a common story, there would obviously be less worry about top schools.

User avatar
buckilaw
Posts: 840
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:27 am

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby buckilaw » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:50 am

I think that chart lists only LSAT takers that actually apply, the chart might be ommiting LSAT takers who bomb and decide to not apply; wouldn't be surprised if the 120-140 crowd is underrepresented.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby IAFG » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:54 am

tmon wrote:The common belief I've encountered is that it's basically an IQ test that you can't study for, though I've actively combatted that belief with everyone I've found who holds that. A few of my friends have enough trust in me that they've realized how much of a mindfuck it can be though, which is refreshing. I think the crazy amount of time I've put into the test has thoroughly convinced my close friends that it's not to be taken lightly though :)

Jesus son, maybe they're just making conversation.

User avatar
Holly Golightly
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:30 am

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby Holly Golightly » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:56 am

LTK alt?

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby incompetentia » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:04 am

buckilaw wrote:I think that chart lists only LSAT takers that actually apply, the chart might be ommiting LSAT takers who bomb and decide to not apply; wouldn't be surprised if the 120-140 crowd is underrepresented.

Yes, but that's the point. If a median LSAT score is good enough to get you into school, then his argument has some validity. The numbers don't bear that out.

User avatar
Pizon
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:53 am

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby Pizon » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:03 am

My non-law friends never heard of the LSAT.

They think lawyers major in "law" in a 4-year college, then take the bar exam.

User avatar
The Valkyrie
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby The Valkyrie » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:05 am

Pizon wrote:My non-law friends never heard of the LSAT.

They think lawyers major in "law" in a 4-year college, then take the bar exam.



Like every other country on earth. Le sigh

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby PDaddy » Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:12 am

incompetentia wrote:
1. Additionally, considering that LS usually has about 40,000 matriculants in any given year, the fact that the 40,000th highest test in any given year lands in the range of roughly the 70th percentile is important to note.

2. So what you're saying is that we would have a more realistic view of the quality and value of lower-ranked schools if the lower-ranked schools didn't have all of the qualities that make them lower-ranked? T2-range schools are usually strong regionally, and that's fine. However, for biglaw purposes, by your standards, you're going to need to be a hell of an accomplisher to be considered. Why is this so unacceptable?

3. Because medical school admissions are very carefully regulated, and there are no more taken than what is needed to sustain the medical profession. If the ABA wipes out the bottom 80-100 law schools, the situations would be more analogous.


Well, I do have a reply.

1'. First, those stats you cite are unrepresentative of all "scorers". There are roughly 150,000 test takers, as of last year, 90,000 + of which apply to law school, and approximately 44,000 of which gain admission to at least one law school. Your stats are unrepresentative because they show "matriculants" as opposed to all "applicants" - let alone all "test takers". It is the the stats of all test takers that is most relevant here.

2'. Secondly, you're essentially arguing that only grads from higher ranked schools are naturally more "qualified" for BigLaw jobs than are their counterparts, solely on the basis that most BigLaw associates tend to come from higher ranked schools. This type of circular reasoning would lose you a point on the LSAT. The status quo isn't even worthy of being called a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the curricula from all schools is 80% the same. And we additionally know that students are sorted out among the schools mostly by grades and LSAT scores, which do very little to predict what kind of lawyer one turns out to be. That makes it unacceptable.

There is no doubt that BigLaw hiring partners could find equally talented associates if they recruited only from lower ranked schools. It's not that grads from higher ranked schools are so much more suited to corporate law practice as it is that the BigLaw firms are lazy and conveniently rely on the sorting method established by the LSAC and the schools. Hence, your argument fails on this point, as well.

3'. Thirdly, I never argued against regulation of the current ol and law employment practices. To the contrary, I have implicitly argued above that some regulation is in order. In fact, I think the entire system needs an overhaul. I believe the law process should be more analogous to that of the med school process. While there may be some American law schools out there that do a lousy all-around job, most of them actually provide a good legal education. The problem is that there are too many of them for the number of available jobs.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby soj » Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:37 am

PDaddy wrote:1'. First, those stats you cite are unrepresentative of all "scorers". There are roughly 150,000 test takers, as of last year, 90,000 + of which apply to law school, and approximately 44,000 of which gain admission to at least one law school. Your stats are unrepresentative because they show "matriculants" as opposed to all "applicants" - let alone all "test takers". It is the the stats of all test takers that is most relevant here.

But recruiters recruit from law school matriculants, not LSAT scorers. I understand you want only scorer statistics, but you haven't convinced me that matriculant statistics are less relevant.

PDaddy wrote:2'. Secondly, you're essentially arguing that only grads from higher ranked schools are naturally more "qualified" for BigLaw jobs than are their counterparts, solely on the basis that most BigLaw associates tend to come from higher ranked schools. This type of circular reasoning would lose you a point on the LSAT.

That's not what incompetentia is arguing. Biglaw firms recruit only at top schools because it's expensive to recruit at every school where qualified candidates might be and because there are enough qualified candidates at top schools alone to pick and choose from. Even if you are right that students at higher-ranked schools and students at lower-ranked schools are roughly equally talented, firms are unwilling and unable to cast their nets that widely for hires. There will unavoidably be some schools where firms recruit more heavily than in others. And that's an understatement; firms will recruit at only a few schools because it's cheaper and they'll still get plenty of qualified hires. Right now, those schools are the top schools with the most numerically qualified students. You tell me a better way firms should select schools at which to interview. Neither firms nor I care, but maybe there are others here who do and would like to hear your proposal.

PDaddy wrote:The problem is that there are too many of them for the number of available jobs.

I agree. I heard some TTTs provide a pretty shitty legal education in their own right, but let's face it, not even top schools teach things directly relevant to real lawyering, and I'm not convinced the stuff not directly relevant to real lawyering is useful.

User avatar
Holly Golightly
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:30 am

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby Holly Golightly » Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:14 am

The Valkyrie wrote:
Pizon wrote:My non-law friends never heard of the LSAT.

They think lawyers major in "law" in a 4-year college, then take the bar exam.



Like every other country on earth. Le sigh

Eh, in a lot of European countries you need the UG degree and a masters to actually practice.

User avatar
The Valkyrie
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby The Valkyrie » Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:54 am

Holly Golightly wrote:
The Valkyrie wrote:
Pizon wrote:My non-law friends never heard of the LSAT.

They think lawyers major in "law" in a 4-year college, then take the bar exam.



Like every other country on earth. Le sigh

Eh, in a lot of European countries you need the UG degree and a masters to actually practice.


Which European countries are you referring to?

lawgod
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:22 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby lawgod » Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:05 am

PDaddy wrote:If you get into Medical school, people don't care whether its Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Howard, Minnesota, or Temple. They make few or no judgments. They just know that you went to medical school. The elitism in law admissions does not exist in medical school admissions...why?


That's because it actually makes a visible difference whether you are a good lawyer or a better lawyer.

If there were elite doctors offices which charged twice as much, but you knew you were actually going to get a much higher skilled doctor, you'd see everyone who could afford it taking their business there, and the lesser skilled doctors falling off the map. Lets face it: you have no idea whether your doctor who took 3 weeks to figure out what was wrong with you simply is clueless.

This is aggravated in the legal world, where disputes are so often zero sum, so that having the better lawyer can make the difference between the entire amount won or lost, or badly contracted.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby PDaddy » Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:58 pm

soj wrote: But recruiters recruit from law school matriculants, not LSAT scorers. I understand you want only scorer statistics, but you haven't convinced me that matriculant statistics are less relevant.

So what you're saying is that we would have a more realistic view of the quality and value of lower-ranked schools if the lower-ranked schools didn't have all of the qualities that make them lower-ranked? T2-range schools are usually strong regionally, and that's fine. However, for biglaw purposes, by your standards, you're going to need to be a hell of an accomplisher to be considered. Why is this so unacceptable?


Pursuant to your question above (See Why...unacceptable?), you have argued that the recruiters should recruit from top schools because higher scorers are distributed into them. Wasn't OP was talking about his friends thinking he was a genius because of his score? I don't remember OP saying that his friends knew the distributions among matriculants, so matriculation did not figure into the original topic. In a vacuum, OP mentioned "scores".

The scores of all test takers is more relevant to this subject because that is where the distributiion of students begins...it ends after law school. My argument is that anyone who scores at or above 80th percentile has a lot to be proud of - and even brag about - regardless of what school they attend. The downside is that anyone who scores within certain percentiles is sorted accordingly, but the reality is that the schools they are sorted into don't actually reflect the prestige of their accomplishment because those schools are under-recruited by prestigious firms.

To the extent that you are arguing that recruiters are saving money on recruiting by concentrating efforts at top schools, that doesn't change my argument. They are relying on the LSAC and the schools to sort students for them, so their efforts to save money, time, etc. really amounts to laziness, especially given your admission that the recruiters could find equally talented students at lower ranked schools. Contrary to what some people may think, there are plenty of lower scorers who kick Harvard ass every day.

High LSAT scores don't make one any more likely to be a better lawyer. There are limits to this argument. Most high scorers (160-180) are going to predict well, and most low scorers (121-139) predict poorly. But scores between 145 and 159 (where 50% of all test takers score) are highly unpredictive of potential for law practice, and that is why top scholars want the test re-made and caution schools' against its overuse of the test in admissions.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby soj » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:29 pm

PDaddy wrote:given your admission that the recruiters could find equally talented students at lower ranked schools

I never admitted that. I said even if it's true, firms don't care, and neither do I. You think it's unfair, but I think it's unreasonable to expect firms to spend so much money recruiting from lower-ranked schools. There are more than enough qualified candidates at just the top schools.

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby acrossthelake » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:36 pm

My friends know what I've told them when they've asked questions about it, and that's about it. I'm also the oddball not going into academia or med school.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby bk1 » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:51 pm

ITT: PDaddy argues against prestige in a thread that has nothing to do with prestige.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: What do many of your non-law friends say about the LSAT?

Postby firemed » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:54 pm

KevinP wrote:I have a friend and her brother is applying to law school so she slightly knows about the LSAT. My previous score is in the 160s (royally screwed up games by misreading) and she thinks I am a freaking genius for scoring in the 160s lol.



Yeah... an acquaintance's wife who scored 150 thinks I am a genius for my 160+ score. Lulz.

What was even funnier was talking to not one but two Tulane grads who were very impressed with my score. I am guessing they had high GPAs or something.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], dontsaywhatyoumean and 2 guests