The LSAT Score is a Joke, and I am not laughing. Forum

[sunynp]

I feel that the extremely low correlation of LSAT to school performance is so low that it isn't significant. But it is the only tool available .

[onionz]

I feel that the extremely low correlation of LSAT to school performance is so low that it isn't significant. But it is the only tool available .

The median correlation between LSAT and performance was 0.36 and the combo between lsat+ugpa was 0.48. Anyone who studies statistics will tell you that those are meaningful correlations.

[20130312]

See ya after finals.

[WhiteyCakes]

You completely ignore the importance of assessment that is the same for everyone. Regardless of GPA, class rank, prestige, etc., you should have an assessment that lets law schools establish context and meaning to those other factors as well as be a standalone indicator of ability. In other words, you need the LSAT.

[paulinaporizkova]

See ya after finals.

he'll get better grades cuz he'll study more as evidenced by his stellar UGPA, breh

[DSman]

I don't agree with what the OP said but I do think the LSAT sucks as a test. It really does. Maybe its original intention was to truly understand a person's ability to use logic and analyze arguments but I think today thats pretty much all garbage. The LSAT exists in a bubble. Getting good at the LSAT is just learning to test and its tricks. I have improved drastically on my score since I started studying for this test and it really means nothing. I've just learned how to do the test better. Sure I've learned more about conditional reasoning and some formal logic but you could teach that stuff to a 1st year college kid with a week long course.

I can still understand why law schools use a test like this since the other factors can be variable.

[justonemoregame]

Shit, there should be an LSAT floor for admission to law school. It's weird that the ABA requires the score....but then doesn't require a minimum score. What's the point? You can drool on the thing for a few hours, mark an X on the writing portion, and you're good to go. You should have to score above average, especially now that re-takes do not have to be averaged.

I would sacrifice a handful of low-scoring future Learned Hands for about 6,000 fewer 1Ls crashing into a shit economy with tons of debt. Think macro

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I am a 1L at a T10 law school and I want to vent something. An LSAT Score does not adequately correlate with intelligence, hard work, determination, or law school performance. It is a joke and a crime that law schools are using it to determine who gets into which law schools. I propose we abolish the LSAT right now and replace it with a composite measure: Undergrad School Rank and/or Reputation and undergrad GPA (plus whatever softer factors the law schools want to use like extracurriculars, work experience, diversity, study abroad, etc.).

Here is the thing with the LSAT, it is pure luck that some people were born with a small growth in their brain (let's call it the LSAT tumor) that can crank out rapid answers to logical games and others were unlucky not to be born with it. That is where it ends. The LSAT is a lottery, it correlates with the presence of the LSAT tumor, and only mildly (if at all) with the hundreds of other important factors that go into making a great law school student.

Full disclosure: I had a low LSAT score but a near perfect undergrad GPA. I barely made it into my dream school off the waitlist, now I see to my joy/sorrow that the high LSATers who coasted in (with huge financial awards to boot) are not any better off when the rubber hits the road in law school.

Thanks for listening.

You should have tried studying harder for the LSAT. I've had plenty of students who made substantial jumps in score because of their hard work and determination. Too bad your faulty view of the test potentially cost you thousands and thousands of dollars in scholarship money.

[SuperCerealBrah]

I feel that the extremely low correlation of LSAT to school performance is so low that it isn't significant. But it is the only tool available .

This. It is just another hoop to jump through, but honestly what would be the alternative? They have to use something.

[NoodleyOne]

I prefer it over some bullshit "holistic" process where I would be boned because I didn't go to Princeton.

[guinness1547]

If you worked hard over the course of 4 years to get a good gpa then you can study for 6 weeks to get a stellar LSAT.

[TERS]

According to quantifiable evidence, the LSAT is (on average) more indicative of first year law school grades than UGPA is. What evidence do you have that contradicts this?

[CyanIdes Of March]

I prefer it over some bullshit "holistic" process where I would be boned because I didn't go to Princeton.

My sentiments exactly. The LSAT is more or less my ticket to a better law school than my otherwise unglamorous background could offer.

[rayiner]

Remember the LSAT correlation numbers are taken based on actual 1L classes, which are usually within 5-7 LSAT points, and basically only include the top 40% of all LSAT scorers to begin with. There was a Stanford study that hypothesized that the correlation would be closer to 0.7 if classes were composed of the whole range of 120-180 scorers.

Also, the LSAT has been a big factor in admissions for much longer than the USNWR has been around. E.g. the median LSAT at Berkeley in 1972 was in the 97th %-ile (equivalent to 169-170 today). See: http://academic.udayton.edu/thewhitestl ... led11c.htm.

[onionz]

Remember the LSAT correlation numbers are taken based on actual 1L classes, which are usually within 5-7 LSAT points, and basically only include the top 40% of all LSAT scorers to begin with. There was a Stanford study that hypothesized that the correlation would be closer to 0.7 if classes were composed of the whole range of 120-180 scorers.

Can you post that Stanford study? It sounds completely without merit. If someone got a 120 on the LSAT they are going to do really badly in law school. If we're magically creating schools that LSAT ranges of 120-130 and normally distributed grades and then go "ah-ha! See! No correlation" then I think there's a problem with the method...

[tomwatts]

Yes, factors like STUDYING ABROAD and UNDERGRAD PREFTIGE are likely to be much better predictors of success in law school than the LSAT.

I'm totally into those old, long S's that look like F's, too.

(I'm actually not, except when John Dunne uses them in The Flea. The line, "It suck'd me first, and now sucks thee," reads totally differently.)

[pacifica]

I agree with OP's sentiment, but disagree with his overall argument.

The best anecdotal example I can give is this: let's say theoretically everyone is given 2x the amount of time on every section, I'll bet a good chunk of cash that most people start scoring 10+ points better (if not near perfect). But in the real world, if you're given an assignment, it's hardly ever on 35 minute intervals. I mean it's rare that you're going to stop reading for your homework in law school because you've maxed out some pre-determined effort limit. So I have trouble seeing how LSAT translates into law school performance. While I agree statistical correlation is there (albeit low) between LSAT and performance, what's to say that if you just made everyone take something like an IQ test, the correlation wouldn't be better?

But I wholeheartedly disagree with the overall argument because I agree with what many people have mentioned here already: it's about a task that you have to accomplish. Filling out a bar application doesn't correspond to any "real life skill" either, but I'm pretty sure it is 100% correlated with whether or not you get to practice law. It's just like any other annoying thing; if you think you're such a hotshot because of your UGPA, work experience, soft factor, jedi abilities, etc, then prove it! Overcome an obstacle that everyone else is overcoming!

[Drake014]

Shit, there should be an LSAT floor for admission to law school. It's weird that the ABA requires the score....but then doesn't require a minimum score. What's the point? You can drool on the thing for a few hours, mark an X on the writing portion, and you're good to go. You should have to score above average, especially now that re-takes do not have to be averaged.

I would sacrifice a handful of low-scoring future Learned Hands for about 6,000 fewer 1Ls crashing into a shit economy with tons of debt. Think macro

Since when did the ABA start requiring the score? Last I heard Michigan had a program that allowed their undergrads to attend the law school without ever taking the LSAT... hence they would be breaking any such ABA rule if it existed.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/30/lsat

[Clearly]

I hate feeding trolls, so this is my thoughts to the rest of you.

The LSAT correlates. I believe more as an indicator of dedication than actually factoring in material useful in law school. If the test was on biology, the correlation might still stand. At the end of the day, the same kids that busted there asses learning logic games, are more likely to work hard in law school. The test can be on anything... Provided the material stays consistent enough to ensure that effort applied to studying would result in higher scores.

[delusional]

First of all, the LSAT is an indicator of law school success because it is, roughly speaking, a test of a particular kind of intelligence. It is not some weirdly tailored voodoo that does or doesn't correlate with law school success, and it's silly to argue about it. If schools had the time to call a series of people that applicants have interacted with over the years and ask those people if an applicant is smart, the results would also roughly correlate with 1L grades.

That said, sure it has shortcomings. It only measures particular types of intelligence, and only roughly. It's not "fair" in the sense that there are people who would do well who have no way to prove it, and there are people who can "only" do the LSAT and are not excluded by their other shortcomings. But there are a thousand things about law school and life that are not fair. Is it fair that white students are kicking themselves for being "unhireable" while their minority classmates with comparable skills are working at S & C? Is it fair that nobody teaches you how to take exams - they spend the whole first semester telling you that you'll be fine, and you must be really smart if you're attending school XYZ - and then not only are jobs dependent on grades, but also student organizations and some celebrity professor courses (Often taught by the same professors who wouldn't take the time to give you feedback on practice exams when you asked for it, because you're probably fine?)

None of that is "fair" but that's the way it is. I, for one, will be thrilled to ride my slacker background and killer LSAT score to a Harvard JD, and I'll try to remember that when I struggle with all the other crap that doesn't seem fair.

ETA: Accommodated testingLOL

[kwais]

Remember the LSAT correlation numbers are taken based on actual 1L classes, which are usually within 5-7 LSAT points, and basically only include the top 40% of all LSAT scorers to begin with. There was a Stanford study that hypothesized that the correlation would be closer to 0.7 if classes were composed of the whole range of 120-180 scorers.

Can you post that Stanford study? It sounds completely without merit. If someone got a 120 on the LSAT they are going to do really badly in law school. If we're magically creating schools that LSAT ranges of 120-130 and normally distributed grades and then go "ah-ha! See! No correlation" then I think there's a problem with the method...

Epic reading comp fail in the midst of a discussion on the importance of the LSAT.

[moonman157]

I am a 1L at a T10 law school and I want to vent something. An LSAT Score does not adequately correlate with intelligence, hard work, determination, or law school performance. It is a joke and a crime that law schools are using it to determine who gets into which law schools. I propose we abolish the LSAT right now and replace it with a composite measure: Undergrad School Rank and/or Reputation and undergrad GPA (plus whatever softer factors the law schools want to use like extracurriculars, work experience, diversity, study abroad, etc.).

Here is the thing with the LSAT, it is pure luck that some people were born with a small growth in their brain (let's call it the LSAT tumor) that can crank out rapid answers to logical games and others were unlucky not to be born with it. That is where it ends. The LSAT is a lottery, it correlates with the presence of the LSAT tumor, and only mildly (if at all) with the hundreds of other important factors that go into making a great law school student.

Full disclosure: I had a low LSAT score but a near perfect undergrad GPA. I barely made it into my dream school off the waitlist, now I see to my joy/sorrow that the high LSATers who coasted in (with huge financial awards to boot) are not any better off when the rubber hits the road in law school.

Thanks for listening.

Ya, if only your law school peers had studied abroad or joined another club in undergrad, then they would have deserved their admission/scholarship money that you were so wrongly denied.

[Miracle]

No way!!! LSAT is the best! Undergrad GPA is totally BS with regards to law schools.

[ben4847]

Also, lol at deciding 2 weeks into 1L that your peers aren't better at law school than you.

[ben4847]

I agree with OP's sentiment, but disagree with his overall argument.

The best anecdotal example I can give is this: let's say theoretically everyone is given 2x the amount of time on every section, I'll bet a good chunk of cash that most people start scoring 10+ points better (if not near perfect). But in the real world, if you're given an assignment, it's hardly ever on 35 minute intervals. I mean it's rare that you're going to stop reading for your homework in law school because you've maxed out some pre-determined effort limit. So I have trouble seeing how LSAT translates into law school performance.

Well, law school exams are similar in terms of the time constraint. Your real issue is how law school exams correlate with law practice.