LSAT bash Forum

[09042014]

I'm not a fan of the LSAT either, I got >700 on two SAT sections and I couldn't crack 153 on the LSAT. And I actually did some practice tests for the LSATs and nothing for the SATs. Unreal.

I'll be honest, I find it hard to believe this...unless you were allotted extra time on the SATs for a learning disorder.

I bet one of those two SAT sections was writing.

[bk1]

I'm not a fan of the LSAT either, I got >700 on two SAT sections and I couldn't crack 153 on the LSAT. And I actually did some practice tests for the LSATs and nothing for the SATs. Unreal.

A lot of heroin will do that to you.

[goldenbearrec]

I'm not a fan of the LSAT either, I got >700 on two SAT sections and I couldn't crack 153 on the LSAT. And I actually did some practice tests for the LSATs and nothing for the SATs. Unreal.

I'll be honest, I find it hard to believe this...unless you were allotted extra time on the SATs for a learning disorder.

I bet one of those two SAT sections was writing.

I bet the other section was math.

[paratactical]

1) POOR PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THE IVY LEAGUE DUE TO VERY GENEROUS FINANCIAL AID. In fact, it's often cheaper than their state school alternative.

LOLwut?

[edgarfigaro]

Showing my age...forgot that writing was mandatory now.

[rinkrat19]

Both GPA and LSAt have their drawbacks. I think the hard major argument is crap though. Generally speaking, someone pursues a major because they have atleast a solid ability to succeed in it (most of the time). Engineering would be an awful major for me because I am awful at math, but english is a breeze because I have always done well in it. I just don't see how a major can be considered harder than another, because they are basically made to divide people into categories that they are good at.

Sure, but English is harder than Engineering for nobody.

You clearly have no idea how many engineers can't write.

Engineers can write better than English majors can engineer.

[swfangirl]

1) POOR PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THE IVY LEAGUE DUE TO VERY GENEROUS FINANCIAL AID. In fact, it's often cheaper than their state school alternative.

LOLwut?

Yeah, I know people here who say that when they crunched the numbers, going here was cheaper than going to their state school...because they were given free tuition, health insurance, room, and board, and given funds for travel to/from, books, and personal expenses. And the amount allotted for some of that (travel, food, books, personal expenses) even exceeded what they needed. I don't quite get why people don't believe this.

[Moral_Midgetry]

This thread delivers the lulz.

[taxguy]

I have been a lawyer for many years. For what it's worth, I agree with you. The LSAT is one of the worst standardized tests in existence. I have seen FAR to many outliers, both ways, for me to accept that test as a valid indicator of law school performance or how you will perform in law. I personally know two lawyers who scored at the bottom of their law school class, LSAT wise, yet graduated in the top5%. I know folks who aced the LSAT and did horribly in law school. The corelation statisics mentioned do not show how wide the outliers can be. Moreover, any test that is as time senstive as the LSAT, can't be that accurate a predictor. After all, law students do get plenty of time for outlines, briefs and final prep.

Most lawyers privately agree with my attitude as well.In fact, even the American Bar Association has problems with the LSAT. A committee designed to study the effect of the LSAT has recommended that it no longer be absolutely required by law schools but can be an optional test due to its "lack of reliability."

However, with all that said above, law schools place GREAT emphasis on it and will continue to do so in the near future. Why?
First, there just isn't another test to compare applicants. As noted, GPAs vary from school to school and by major. It is the one test that does attempt some sort of standarization.
Second, law schools use the scores to try to attract recruiters.
Third, rankings are partly based on admission statistics,which are inturn, LSAT related.

I agree that the whole admission system stinks. However, for the reasons given, it isn't going to change soon

The LSAT doesn't account for work ethic. Work ethic may have been the sole distinguishing factor among the outliers you describe.

That doesn't mean it doesn't measure aptitude. GPA=work ethic/dedication. LSAT=aptitude for law school. Together, you've got an ok combination to rank applicants. But either by itself gives incomplete information.

NO, I honestly don't think the LSAT measures apptitude, especially due to its serverely timed nature.It also greatly limits the admission of certain non-verbal majors such as engineering, accounting etc who generally don't perform as well on the LSAT as their philosophy and liberal arts counterparts.

[Kurt Cobain]

I'm not a fan of the LSAT either, I got >700 on two SAT sections and I couldn't crack 153 on the LSAT. And I actually did some practice tests for the LSATs and nothing for the SATs. Unreal.

I'll be honest, I find it hard to believe this...unless you were allotted extra time on the SATs for a learning disorder.

I bet one of those two SAT sections was writing.

Nah, never got any extra time. But yes, math and writing were the sections.

And to the heroin comment, very funny

[goldenbearrec]

I have been a lawyer for many years. For what it's worth, I agree with you. The LSAT is one of the worst standardized tests in existence. I have seen FAR to many outliers, both ways, for me to accept that test as a valid indicator of law school performance or how you will perform in law. I personally know two lawyers who scored at the bottom of their law school class, LSAT wise, yet graduated in the top5%. I know folks who aced the LSAT and did horribly in law school. The corelation statisics mentioned do not show how wide the outliers can be. Moreover, any test that is as time senstive as the LSAT, can't be that accurate a predictor. After all, law students do get plenty of time for outlines, briefs and final prep.

Most lawyers privately agree with my attitude as well.In fact, even the American Bar Association has problems with the LSAT. A committee designed to study the effect of the LSAT has recommended that it no longer be absolutely required by law schools but can be an optional test due to its "lack of reliability."

However, with all that said above, law schools place GREAT emphasis on it and will continue to do so in the near future. Why?
First, there just isn't another test to compare applicants. As noted, GPAs vary from school to school and by major. It is the one test that does attempt some sort of standarization.
Second, law schools use the scores to try to attract recruiters.
Third, rankings are partly based on admission statistics,which are inturn, LSAT related.

I agree that the whole admission system stinks. However, for the reasons given, it isn't going to change soon

The LSAT doesn't account for work ethic. Work ethic may have been the sole distinguishing factor among the outliers you describe.

That doesn't mean it doesn't measure aptitude. GPA=work ethic/dedication. LSAT=aptitude for law school. Together, you've got an ok combination to rank applicants. But either by itself gives incomplete information.

NO, I honestly don't think the LSAT measures apptitude, especially due to its serverely timed nature.It also greatly limits the admission of certain non-verbal majors such as engineering, accounting etc who generally don't perform as well on the LSAT as their philosophy and liberal arts counterparts.

That's not necessarily true.

--LinkRemoved--

[Moral_Midgetry]

Many people bash the LSAT until they retake and score 160s/170s. At that point the LSAT becomes a good measure of aptitude.

[bk1]

Many people bash the LSAT until they retake and score 160s/170s. At that point the LSAT becomes a good measure of aptitude.

Clearly any test that measures me as average is invalid and any test that measures me as way above average is the best thing since sliced bread.

[Moral_Midgetry]

Many people bash the LSAT until they retake and score 160s/170s. At that point the LSAT becomes a good measure of aptitude.

Clearly any test that measures me as average is invalid and any test that measures me as way above average is the best thing since sliced bread.

TITCR.

[DeeCee]

Many people bash the LSAT until they retake and score 160s/170s. At that point the LSAT becomes a good measure of aptitude.

Clearly any test that measures me as average is invalid and any test that measures me as way above average is the best thing since sliced bread.

TITCR.

LOL, love this.

[DeeCee]

I'm not a fan of the LSAT either, I got >700 on two SAT sections and I couldn't crack 153 on the LSAT. And I actually did some practice tests for the LSATs and nothing for the SATs. Unreal.

I find this pretty hard to believe that you aced the SAT but could hardly break into the 150s on the LSAT. I scored very similar percentiles on the LSAT, the GRE, and the SAT. Now I know this isn't true for everyone, but it seems as if you must have not studied much for the LSAT, or you were a good guesser on the SAT. Anyway, my consistency just shows that I perform to a certain rank on standardized tests.

However, in school I have always been at the top 1-5% of my class, which is perplexing because I have taken many tests and written lots of papers, and done better in everything compared to what my test scores suggest.

[delusional]

I don't know how anyone can argue that the LSAT is dramatically flawed. Everyone points out the .16 correlation, but that meant nothing until I saw that lecture from the guy at UVA about AA and the LSAT. He broke it down like this:

If you have 100 people divided into quartiles by LSAT score, when you later come and break down the quartiles by law school performance, half the top LSATs will be in the top performance quartile, and a further third in the second. That means that 80% or so of the top quartile of LSATs will be above median. The opposite is roughly true for the bottom LSATters - half will be in the lowest quartile, and a further third in the second lowest, leaving over 80% below median.

I'm pretty sure that he meant this in practice, which mean that the actual sample is among scores with only a seven point range or so. Imagine how much more marked it would be if you put 175s in the same class as 155s - and how difficult it would be to teach and score the whole group in a specific manner. If there was a school that had scorers of 180 and scorers of 120, the correlation would be insane. So it seems to me that forming classes based on LSAT score is perfectly reasonable.

[FiveSermon]

Both GPA and LSAt have their drawbacks. I think the hard major argument is crap though. Generally speaking, someone pursues a major because they have atleast a solid ability to succeed in it (most of the time). Engineering would be an awful major for me because I am awful at math, but english is a breeze because I have always done well in it. I just don't see how a major can be considered harder than another, because they are basically made to divide people into categories that they are good at.

I can confidently say that upper level engineering classes are objectively harder than lolEnglish.

[sch6les]

.

[paratactical]

1) POOR PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THE IVY LEAGUE DUE TO VERY GENEROUS FINANCIAL AID. In fact, it's often cheaper than their state school alternative.

LOLwut?

Yeah, I know people here who say that when they crunched the numbers, going here was cheaper than going to their state school...because they were given free tuition, health insurance, room, and board, and given funds for travel to/from, books, and personal expenses. And the amount allotted for some of that (travel, food, books, personal expenses) even exceeded what they needed. I don't quite get why people don't believe this.

Because you're talking about one school as if that evidence makes it true everywhere when that is not the case at all.

[FiveSermon]

Unless you're a reverse splitter who went to Harvard UG, quit complaining.

Diminishing the LSAT will do nothing but enhance elitism. Seriously, GPA's are so different between schools that minimizing the LSAT will force schools to start ranking undergraduate institutions more than they already do.

Those who want to scrap the LSAT are proposing that we screw over those whose family's didn't have money to send them to an Ivy League UG. At least the LSAT (as an equilizer) gives low income students from state schools a chance to go to the likes of Harvard. Without the LSAT, those who went to the University of Wyoming on a full scholarship because their family lived in Wyoming and couldn't send them to Yale are screwed for life.

What's the alternative to the LSAT? A new aristocracy whose admissions requirements are Ivy League legacies and the ability to pay $200,000 for an undergraduate degree in an era where most UG degrees do not lead directly to a good job?

T14 Common Application Question #1: Does Daddy have money?

Retake.

The best decision I ever made.

Ugh, this is a common misconception I feel the need to clear up:
1) POOR PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THE IVY LEAGUE DUE TO VERY GENEROUS FINANCIAL AID. In fact, it's often cheaper than their state school alternative.
2) The lower upper middle class usually can't or find it to be a sacrifice.
3) Legacies only make up ~10% of most incoming classes. Though their admissions rates tend to be double that of non-legacies, this is partially due to the fact that they are often strong applicants anyway.

To be fair, I believe that kind of financial aid is only avaible at HYP. It isn't anywhere near as generous at the other ivies, Stanford, etc.

I know as an international student you are getting close to $0 from everywhere except HYP no matter your situation.

Also if you want to assess LS applicants on the basis of LSAT score only, you might as well take it up a notch and say every single job/school on the Earth should make decisions solely on the basis of professionally-applied IQ tests.

School sure. Job -- not so much.

[naurae29]

NO, I honestly don't think the LSAT measures apptitude, especially due to its serverely timed nature.It also greatly limits the admission of certain non-verbal majors such as engineering, accounting etc who generally don't perform as well on the LSAT as their philosophy and liberal arts counterparts.

pretty sure the games section is owned by engineering and math majors.

[edgarfigaro]

pretty sure the games section is owned by <strike>engineering and math majors</strike> people that play the Professor Layton series.

Fixed

/that's my story and I'm sticking with it

[ahduth]

pretty sure the games section is owned by engineering and math majors people who didn't drink so much coffee their bladder was about to burst during that section.

Seriously. How am I supposed to know if Patricia took photography in Palermo if I can't even see straight? Pains me to think how high of a score I could've gotten if I'd managed my potty breaks more effectively...

[cubswin]

Moreover, any test that is as time senstive as the LSAT, can't be that accurate a predictor. After all, law students do get plenty of time for outlines, briefs and final prep.

Don't they ultimately have to perform well on an exam under timed conditions?

I have been a lawyer for many years. For what it's worth, I agree with you. The LSAT is one of the worst standardized tests in existence. I have seen FAR to many outliers, both ways, for me to accept that test as a valid indicator of law school performance or how you will perform in law. I personally know two lawyers who scored at the bottom of their law school class, LSAT wise, yet graduated in the top5%. I know folks who aced the LSAT and did horribly in law school. The corelation statisics mentioned do not show how wide the outliers can be.

Come on, that's like saying that global warming can't be real because it still snows. Predictive validity is about huge statistical trends. Of course there are going to be a lot of outliers.