Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement? Forum

[DeeCee]

So consensus is get rid of T4, and most of the T3, and the problem is (mostly) solved. Am I correct? I think we should all write a letter to the ABA, since letters tend to get shit done.

[Drake014]

If you've said one of the following, you're an idiot:

1. I prepared for the LSAT in such and such a way and if I can do it, anyone can do it because everyone else in society is a carbon copy of me and will benefit from my particular method of preparing for the LSAT.

2. The ABA should take accreditation away from some law schools. I believe this fact because I'm too stupid to do a little research which would have easily informed me that the ABA was successfully sued in court under antitrust laws for trying to make accreditation harder.

3. The ABA should operate law schools more like medical schools because we have a major doctors shortage and I would like to bring those kind of problems to the legal field.

[JCougar]

Even if the LSAT is not mandatory, the top schools will still require it. I've seen the presentations schools give to employers, and the top ones all brag about their LSAT median, letting the firms know that it's okay to hire deeper into their classes because the competition is so stiff.

The LSAT is one of the best selling points a top school's CSO has. They're not going to give it away. Employers themselves mostly know that uGPA is a very arbitrary measure of the talent pool, so without the LSAT, how are they going to trust that Harvard's students are any better than those at Brooklyn?

The LSAT is far from a perfect test, but it's better and more objective than anything else out there.

[DeeCee]

If you've said one of the following, you're an idiot:

1. I prepared for the LSAT in such and such a way and if I can do it, anyone can do it because everyone else in society is a carbon copy of me and will benefit from my particular method of preparing for the LSAT.

2. The ABA should take accreditation away from some law schools. I believe this fact because I'm too stupid to do a little research which would have easily informed me that the ABA was successfully sued in court under antitrust laws for trying to make accreditation harder.

3. The ABA should operate law schools more like medical schools because we have a major doctors shortage and I would like to bring those kind of problems to the legal field.

Nice to hear your opinions. Even though we all may agree and disagree on some things in here, we have yet to call each other idiots. In fact, though I disagree with many opinions ITT, I respect them.

[invisiblesun]

If you've said one of the following, you're an idiot:

1. I prepared for the LSAT in such and such a way and if I can do it, anyone can do it because everyone else in society is a carbon copy of me and will benefit from my particular method of preparing for the LSAT.

2. The ABA should take accreditation away from some law schools. I believe this fact because I'm too stupid to do a little research which would have easily informed me that the ABA was successfully sued in court under antitrust laws for trying to make accreditation harder.

3. The ABA should operate law schools more like medical schools because we have a major doctors shortage and I would like to bring those kind of problems to the legal field.

Wow, sir, those are some nice straw men you've set up there

[Drake014]

If you've said one of the following, you're an idiot:

1. I prepared for the LSAT in such and such a way and if I can do it, anyone can do it because everyone else in society is a carbon copy of me and will benefit from my particular method of preparing for the LSAT.

2. The ABA should take accreditation away from some law schools. I believe this fact because I'm too stupid to do a little research which would have easily informed me that the ABA was successfully sued in court under antitrust laws for trying to make accreditation harder.

3. The ABA should operate law schools more like medical schools because we have a major doctors shortage and I would like to bring those kind of problems to the legal field.

Nice to hear your opinions. Even though we all may agree and disagree on some things in here, we have yet to call each other idiots. In fact, though I disagree with many opinions ITT, I respect them.

Which is why you want to take away a huge portion of the population's ability to attend ABA approved law schools. Eh, I like my way better. Its straight to the point and seems less elitist.

Wow, sir, those are some nice straw men you've set up there

We're proud of you for learning what straw man was in undergrad/high school. How about actually arguing against the points I made?

[d34d9823]

Its straight to the point and seems less elitist.

Oh, definitely. I love being a total dick so people will know that I'm not an elitist.

[DeeCee]

If you've said one of the following, you're an idiot:

1. I prepared for the LSAT in such and such a way and if I can do it, anyone can do it because everyone else in society is a carbon copy of me and will benefit from my particular method of preparing for the LSAT.

2. The ABA should take accreditation away from some law schools. I believe this fact because I'm too stupid to do a little research which would have easily informed me that the ABA was successfully sued in court under antitrust laws for trying to make accreditation harder.

3. The ABA should operate law schools more like medical schools because we have a major doctors shortage and I would like to bring those kind of problems to the legal field.

Nice to hear your opinions. Even though we all may agree and disagree on some things in here, we have yet to call each other idiots. In fact, though I disagree with many opinions ITT, I respect them.

Which is why you want to take away a huge portion of the population's ability to attend ABA approved law schools. Eh, I like my way better. Its straight to the point and seems less elitist.

Have you read the last several pages of my argument, where I believe law school should be less elitist? Perhaps you should read back.......

[Cmart050]

If you've said one of the following, you're an idiot:

1. I prepared for the LSAT in such and such a way and if I can do it, anyone can do it because everyone else in society is a carbon copy of me and will benefit from my particular method of preparing for the LSAT.

2. The ABA should take accreditation away from some law schools. I believe this fact because I'm too stupid to do a little research which would have easily informed me that the ABA was successfully sued in court under antitrust laws for trying to make accreditation harder.

3. The ABA should operate law schools more like medical schools because we have a major doctors shortage and I would like to bring those kind of problems to the legal field.

As an economic supporter of the GOP, my first inclination was to say let the people who cannot properly weigh the risks in attending a TTT/T4 school screw themselves, as I am a big believer in social darwinism. Probably should have been consistent and stuck with it. Whatever.

[Drake014]

Its straight to the point and seems less elitist.

Oh, definitely. I love being a total dick so people will know that I'm not an elitist.

You have to be the right kind of dick.

For instance, wrong kind of dick:

[DeeCee]

Just like in public schools, high school, and undergraduate studies, standardized testing is overly emphasized. By emphasizing the LSAT, GRE, SAT, and any other test, we teach to the test, not to intelligence. Intelligence and work ethic could be best measured by taking a few minutes to look at each student's accomplishments. Instead, many choose standardized testing because looking at a score generated by one test is much easier than configuring a way to quantify each student's achievements displayed on their resume or transcript.

I just can't believe how elitist my opinions are

Read pages 1-5.

[invisiblesun]

If you've said one of the following, you're an idiot:

1. I prepared for the LSAT in such and such a way and if I can do it, anyone can do it because everyone else in society is a carbon copy of me and will benefit from my particular method of preparing for the LSAT.

2. The ABA should take accreditation away from some law schools. I believe this fact because I'm too stupid to do a little research which would have easily informed me that the ABA was successfully sued in court under antitrust laws for trying to make accreditation harder.

3. The ABA should operate law schools more like medical schools because we have a major doctors shortage and I would like to bring those kind of problems to the legal field.

Nice to hear your opinions. Even though we all may agree and disagree on some things in here, we have yet to call each other idiots. In fact, though I disagree with many opinions ITT, I respect them.

Which is why you want to take away a huge portion of the population's ability to attend ABA approved law schools. Eh, I like my way better. Its straight to the point and seems less elitist.

Wow, sir, those are some nice straw men you've set up there

We're proud of you for learning what straw man was in undergrad/high school. How about actually arguing against the points I made?

1. Nobody said this. I personally said it's an equalizer among people who come from various levels of privilege and undergrad eliteness. I elaborated on this on page 3.

2. This is a straw man. You falsely equate "trying to take away accreditation" with "trying to make it harder to obtain accreditation", and you ignore the possibility that the ABA could exercise several privileges to improve the quality of law schools across the board. One example would be increasing requirements on transparency and the ways schools report employment statistics. This would not be considered anticompetitive because it can be argued as helping prospective students. The violations cited in the lawsuit mainly revolved around measures that would make it more difficult for new schools to emerge, which would be anticompetitive. Law school is a massive investment for prospective students, so it is not difficult to defend transparency in employment prospects.

3. You falsely equate "operating more like med schools" with "having a major doctors shortage". As if there aren't other differences in how med schools are run as compared to law schools?

[DeeCee]

If you've said one of the following, you're an idiot:

1. I prepared for the LSAT in such and such a way and if I can do it, anyone can do it because everyone else in society is a carbon copy of me and will benefit from my particular method of preparing for the LSAT.

2. The ABA should take accreditation away from some law schools. I believe this fact because I'm too stupid to do a little research which would have easily informed me that the ABA was successfully sued in court under antitrust laws for trying to make accreditation harder.

3. The ABA should operate law schools more like medical schools because we have a major doctors shortage and I would like to bring those kind of problems to the legal field.

Nice to hear your opinions. Even though we all may agree and disagree on some things in here, we have yet to call each other idiots. In fact, though I disagree with many opinions ITT, I respect them.

Which is why you want to take away a huge portion of the population's ability to attend ABA approved law schools. Eh, I like my way better. Its straight to the point and seems less elitist.

Wow, sir, those are some nice straw men you've set up there

We're proud of you for learning what straw man was in undergrad/high school. How about actually arguing against the points I made?

1. Nobody said this. I personally said it's an equalizer among people who come from various levels of privilege and undergrad eliteness. I elaborated on this on page 3.

2. This is a straw man. You falsely equate "trying to take away accreditation" with "trying to make it harder to obtain accreditation", and you ignore the possibility that the ABA could exercise several privileges to improve the quality of law schools across the board. One example would be increasing requirements on transparency and the ways schools report employment statistics. This would not be considered anticompetitive because it can be argued as helping prospective students. The violations cited in the lawsuit mainly revolved around measures that would make it more difficult for new schools to emerge, which would be anticompetitive. Law school is a massive investment for prospective students, so it is not difficult to defend transparency in employment prospects.

3. You falsely equate "operating more like med schools" with "having a major doctors shortage". As if there aren't other differences in how med schools are run as compared to law schools?

Thank you.

[Drake014]

Just like in public schools, high school, and undergraduate studies, standardized testing is overly emphasized. By emphasizing the LSAT, GRE, SAT, and any other test, we teach to the test, not to intelligence. Intelligence and work ethic could be best measured by taking a few minutes to look at each student's accomplishments. Instead, many choose standardized testing because looking at a score generated by one test is much easier than configuring a way to quantify each student's achievements displayed on their resume or transcript.

I just can't believe how elitist my opinions are

Read pages 1-5.

::sigh::

Sometimes I forget how sensitive future law school students are. The three arguments I highlighted are arguments I've heard over and over and over again from 0Ls. It gets tiring. My calling people who use those arguments idiots is a short way of simply pointing out that they are deeply flawed arguments for reasons made apparent by my sarcastic way of phrasing them. If you took deep offense, I apologize. No, you don't seem particularly elitist, but people who ascribe to the argument of "all these TTT schools are ruining the profession" or something similar, do sound elitist. If you give to puppies and orphanages later on, good for you. But people are complicated and can say something that sounds eltist one minute and something that doesn't the next.

[d34d9823]

::sigh::

Sometimes I forget how sensitive future law school students are. The three arguments I highlighted are arguments I've heard over and over and over again from 0Ls. It gets tiring. My calling people who use those arguments idiots is a short way of simply pointing out that they are deeply flawed arguments for reasons made apparent by my sarcastic way of phrasing them. If you took deep offense, I apologize. No, you don't seem particularly elitist, but people who ascribe to the argument of "all these TTT schools are ruining the profession" or something similar, do sound elitist. If you give to puppies and orphanages later on, good for you. But people are complicated and can say something that sounds eltist one minute and something that doesn't the next.

Dude, you seem to constantly be trying to frame yourself as this wise sage or something. Are you looking for approval or what?

[DeeCee]

ETA: and un-accredit the T4.

TITCR, for the T4.

Why stop there. TTT can go, too. It is kind of silly to be arguing over this when everyone agrees on the real issue. I know there is some crappy analogy but I cannot think of it.

I haven't looked into this, but what about some states (western states, especially) who have a T3 flagship state school? I think those should be able to stay as they serve a regional purpose. At the same time, I do not think the U.S. need more than 100 law schools, really......

This was my statement. I feel like I've been playing devil's advocate here for the non-LSAT side and accreditation and now I'm elitist. Whatever I guess...

[peter844]

Sorry about my "poor subject-verb agreement." It's late and really, who cares.

Also, The LSAT does not correlate with achievements at all. You just don't want it taken away because you (and most people on TLS) worked so hard for your score. That's what it really comes down to.

You don't want your GPA taken away because you worked hard for it. There is selection bias going on both sides. I have a 2.9. Got a 166. Failed three classes my first year. Have had a 3.5-3.6 since. Why should my GPA keep me out of excellent schools when it was something that happend 4 years ago????

(Please note that was sarcasm. The system is fine, just get eliminate 75 schools and just about everything would be fixed.)

do not know why I am on tls this late ( early) but need to respond. I think something you did a while ago (low gpa) should not significantly hurt you= LSAT good to have.
However, weight should be emphasized subjectively based on where someone is in their life. Ie. Undergrad then gpa ( assuming your major isn't basket weaving) with less weight on the LSAT, and more and more weight on the LSAT post graduation. This in an ideal world. I understand the subjectivity would drive adcomms insane.

My 3.0 held me back from something I did 12 years ago. Without the LSAT I never would have even gotten into the T2 schools I have. It allowed me to demonstrate some intelligence (got a 160 cold if I remember correctly) and that I could study hard (though that only got me up to 165). It is worth something.

I also agree, definitely, that all of the T4 except Cooley (I have a soft spot for them, don't ask me why) needs to go away, and the T3 needs to be put on probation as a whole so that 20 or 30 of them can go away in the next few years. Oh, and class sizes should be strictly regulated, no more than 100 per class, period.

[Drake014]

1. Nobody said this. I personally said it's an equalizer among people who come from various levels of privilege and undergrad eliteness. I elaborated on this on page 3.

2. This is a straw man. You falsely equate "trying to take away accreditation" with "trying to make it harder to obtain accreditation", and you ignore the possibility that the ABA could exercise several privileges to improve the quality of law schools across the board. One example would be increasing requirements on transparency and the ways schools report employment statistics. This would not be considered anticompetitive because it can be argued as helping prospective students. The violations cited in the lawsuit mainly revolved around measures that would make it more difficult for new schools to emerge, which would be anticompetitive. Law school is a massive investment for prospective students, so it is not difficult to defend transparency in employment prospects.

3. You falsely equate "operating more like med schools" with "having a major doctors shortage". As if there aren't other differences in how med schools are run as compared to law schools?

1. Sigh, are you actually going to make me go back through the thread and quote someone who was making an argument similar to the one I was sarcastically portraying? If it doesn't exist then there's no harm done, I qualified my criticism to "if you said the following." So if no one did, no harm no foul. If you want to find someone who did, I advise you look back through the previous few pages.

2. Again, I qualified it with "if you said the following." Therefore, no strawman. However, while some posters were arguing for increased transparency, others had arguments that fit my sarcastic portrayal.

3. I can't even respond to this one because you don't really make an argument here.

[peter844]

Sorry about my "poor subject-verb agreement." It's late and really, who cares.

Also, The LSAT does not correlate with achievements at all. You just don't want it taken away because you (and most people on TLS) worked so hard for your score. That's what it really comes down to.

You don't want your GPA taken away because you worked hard for it. There is selection bias going on both sides. I have a 2.9. Got a 166. Failed three classes my first year. Have had a 3.5-3.6 since. Why should my GPA keep me out of excellent schools when it was something that happend 4 years ago????

(Please note that was sarcasm. The system is fine, just get eliminate 75 schools and just about everything would be fixed.)

LSAT = more weight post graduation as time goes on
gpa = more weight in undergrad ( as long as no basket weaving)
subjective for adcomms = more painful but this is in an ideal world
I wrote a long winded comment but tls site deleted it or I did this is summed up what I said. It's sad I am writing from an iPhone I apologize if this is incoherent
do not know why I am on tls this late ( early) but need to respond. I think something you did a while ago (low gpa) should not significantly hurt you= LSAT good to have.
However, weight should be emphasized subjectively based on where someone is in their life. Ie. Undergrad then gpa ( assuming your major isn't basket weaving) with less weight on the LSAT, and more and more weight on the LSAT post graduation. This in an ideal world. I understand the subjectivity would drive adcomms insane.

My 3.0 held me back from something I did 12 years ago. Without the LSAT I never would have even gotten into the T2 schools I have. It allowed me to demonstrate some intelligence (got a 160 cold if I remember correctly) and that I could study hard (though that only got me up to 165). It is worth something.

I also agree, definitely, that all of the T4 except Cooley (I have a soft spot for them, don't ask me why) needs to go away, and the T3 needs to be put on probation as a whole so that 20 or 30 of them can go away in the next few years. Oh, and class sizes should be strictly regulated, no more than 100 per class, period.

[DeeCee]

Peter844, are you trying to debate the merits of the LSAT?

[peter844]

Great I fuked up my comment. Disregard my previous posts

[peter844]

Peter844, are you trying to debate the merits of the LSAT?

Haha trying a bit. Although it's hard to post from a phone

[Drake014]

Peter844, are you trying to debate the merits of the LSAT?

I'm fine with the ABA dropping the LSAT as a requirement. Schools will still allow it to let people like Peter and myself make up for lower GPAs. the ABA is considering dropping the requirement... the article didn't say they'd disallow its use (I don't even think they have the power to do this). Law schools will still allow it to be used for some time even if the ABA does not require its use.

[Drake014]

Peter844, are you trying to debate the merits of the LSAT?

Haha trying a bit. Although it's hard to post from a phone

I'd advise using a PC.

[peter844]

Peter844, are you trying to debate the merits of the LSAT?

Haha trying a bit. Although it's hard to post from a phone

I'd advise using a PC.

I agree