Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement? Forum

[bgdddymtty]

However, there must be (more) objective criteria for law school, somehow. I just can't see how one test could be an indicator of success, especially if a person has been out of school for a while and has an impressive resume, but not an impressive GPA (this is not me, but just sayin).

DC, you've said a lot of illogical things and made a lot of bad arguments in this forum, but this takes the cake. You claim to want objective criteria, but you rail against the only truly objective, standard criterion in the entire process! And you want to replace that criterion with a greater emphasis on other things that are a)entirely subjective, and b)in large part, determined by opportunities available to candidates based on factors of economic privilege.

The LSAT is the single most reliable metric for predicting law school success. Combined with UGPA, it forms a metric that is even stronger in its predictive value. The fact that people know other people who beat the odds does not change this one iota. "Softs" (or "achievements," if you will) do not have this kind of predictive value, precisely because they are so subjective and varied.

[Cmart050]

DC has MAJOR selection bias going on. Admittedly, I do too, but I think my GPA/LSAT combo tells a fair story of who I am.

[DeeCee]

In graduate school, the GRE counts only to a small extent. In some institutions, they use a bottom line formula to determine if one is eligible for their graduate school. It is something like (GPA x a weighted factor) + (GRE x a smaller weighted factor) = a number. Usually this final number is a little low, and weeds out a few candidates, but not most. Why couldn't we use this number as a baseline for each law school? Then, perhaps look at each application to make final determinations for each student.

Everyone scoffs at the idea of using achievements as admissions criteria. However, this is how graduate schools do it. I think it's worth a closer look.....the LSAT simply takes too much importance over everything else a student has done.

[FiveSermon]

In graduate school, the GRE counts only to a small extent. In some institutions, they use a bottom line formula to determine if one is eligible for their graduate school. It is something like (GPA x a weighted factor) + (GRE x a smaller weighted factor) = a number. Usually this final number is a little low, and weeds out a few candidates, but not most. Why couldn't we use this number as a baseline for each law school? Then, perhaps look at each application to make final determinations for each student.

Everyone scoffs at the idea of using achievements as admissions criteria. However, this is how graduate schools do it. I think it's worth a closer look.....the LSAT simply takes too much importance over everything else a student has done.

So your argument comes down to other schools do it so law schools should do it? Nice.

[DeeCee]

However, there must be (more) objective criteria for law school, somehow. I just can't see how one test could be an indicator of success, especially if a person has been out of school for a while and has an impressive resume, but not an impressive GPA (this is not me, but just sayin).

DC, you've said a lot of illogical things and made a lot of bad arguments in this forum, but this takes the cake. You claim to want objective criteria, but you rail against the only truly objective, standard criterion in the entire process! And you want to replace that criterion with a greater emphasis on other things that are a)entirely subjective, and b)in large part, determined by opportunities available to candidates based on factors of economic privilege.

The LSAT is the single most reliable metric for predicting law school success. Combined with UGPA, it forms a metric that is even stronger in its predictive value. The fact that people know other people who beat the odds does not change this one iota. "Softs" (or "achievements," if you will) do not have this kind of predictive value, precisely because they are so subjective and varied.

Thank you, logic police. I'm sorry if you don't like my comments, however throughout the conversation I might say things differently because certain posters have brought up good arguments. My feelings about this topic are fluid in some respects and if having an argument, making points, and learning from others makes me illogical, whatever.

My point is that throughout our educational system, we place way too much emphasis on standardized testing, and I believe there is a better way. Throughout this argument, and especially in the beginning, I have said the LSAT needs to go. Later on I stated that maybe the LSAT could stay and just play less of a role. I'm pretty sure the point of talking about this is to have an open mind and learn from what others say, which is really what I'm trying to do.

[SrLaw]

GRE is a shit test anyway. All memorization. GRE does not equal LSAT. Of course I am one who thinks most Master programs are bullshit.

[DeeCee]

In graduate school, the GRE counts only to a small extent. In some institutions, they use a bottom line formula to determine if one is eligible for their graduate school. It is something like (GPA x a weighted factor) + (GRE x a smaller weighted factor) = a number. Usually this final number is a little low, and weeds out a few candidates, but not most. Why couldn't we use this number as a baseline for each law school? Then, perhaps look at each application to make final determinations for each student.

Everyone scoffs at the idea of using achievements as admissions criteria. However, this is how graduate schools do it. I think it's worth a closer look.....the LSAT simply takes too much importance over everything else a student has done.

So your argument comes down to other schools do it so law schools should do it? Nice.

The current way in which the ABA is run certainly isn't working. Is anyone here open to other ideas besides keeping the status quo?

[SrLaw]

1. Keep the LSAT
2. Make Prelaw mandatory like premed
3. Look at UG major and school.
4. Remove a lot of shit law schools

[Cmart050]

In graduate school, the GRE counts only to a small extent. In some institutions, they use a bottom line formula to determine if one is eligible for their graduate school. It is something like (GPA x a weighted factor) + (GRE x a smaller weighted factor) = a number. Usually this final number is a little low, and weeds out a few candidates, but not most. Why couldn't we use this number as a baseline for each law school? Then, perhaps look at each application to make final determinations for each student.

Everyone scoffs at the idea of using achievements as admissions criteria. However, this is how graduate schools do it. I think it's worth a closer look.....the LSAT simply takes too much importance over everything else a student has done.

So your argument comes down to other schools do it so law schools should do it? Nice.

The current way in which the ABA is run certainly isn't working. Is anyone here open to other ideas besides keeping the status quo?

I fail to see how it isn't working. Because it didn't reflect highly upon you?

[DeeCee]

GRE is a shit test anyway. All memorization. GRE does not equal LSAT. Of course I am one who thinks most Master programs are bullshit.

I agree, the GRE is basically a graduate SAT. And Master's programs are actually more practical in terms of jobs than PhDs.

[DeeCee]

In graduate school, the GRE counts only to a small extent. In some institutions, they use a bottom line formula to determine if one is eligible for their graduate school. It is something like (GPA x a weighted factor) + (GRE x a smaller weighted factor) = a number. Usually this final number is a little low, and weeds out a few candidates, but not most. Why couldn't we use this number as a baseline for each law school? Then, perhaps look at each application to make final determinations for each student.

Everyone scoffs at the idea of using achievements as admissions criteria. However, this is how graduate schools do it. I think it's worth a closer look.....the LSAT simply takes too much importance over everything else a student has done.

So your argument comes down to other schools do it so law schools should do it? Nice.

The current way in which the ABA is run certainly isn't working. Is anyone here open to other ideas besides keeping the status quo?

I fail to see how it isn't working. Because it didn't reflect highly upon you?

It's working fine for me. However, the ABA seems to think there's a problem, perhaps they do not see the LSAT was working for everyone as well as it should.

[FiveSermon]

In graduate school, the GRE counts only to a small extent. In some institutions, they use a bottom line formula to determine if one is eligible for their graduate school. It is something like (GPA x a weighted factor) + (GRE x a smaller weighted factor) = a number. Usually this final number is a little low, and weeds out a few candidates, but not most. Why couldn't we use this number as a baseline for each law school? Then, perhaps look at each application to make final determinations for each student.

Everyone scoffs at the idea of using achievements as admissions criteria. However, this is how graduate schools do it. I think it's worth a closer look.....the LSAT simply takes too much importance over everything else a student has done.

So your argument comes down to other schools do it so law schools should do it? Nice.

The current way in which the ABA is run certainly isn't working. Is anyone here open to other ideas besides keeping the status quo?

The problem has very little to do with the heavy emphasis on the LSAT. It has way more to do with the overflooding of the market. Why don't we deal with the huge problems first before nitpicking on what you personally think is a problem?

[DeeCee]

In graduate school, the GRE counts only to a small extent. In some institutions, they use a bottom line formula to determine if one is eligible for their graduate school. It is something like (GPA x a weighted factor) + (GRE x a smaller weighted factor) = a number. Usually this final number is a little low, and weeds out a few candidates, but not most. Why couldn't we use this number as a baseline for each law school? Then, perhaps look at each application to make final determinations for each student.

Everyone scoffs at the idea of using achievements as admissions criteria. However, this is how graduate schools do it. I think it's worth a closer look.....the LSAT simply takes too much importance over everything else a student has done.

So your argument comes down to other schools do it so law schools should do it? Nice.

The current way in which the ABA is run certainly isn't working. Is anyone here open to other ideas besides keeping the status quo?

The problem has very little to do with the heavy emphasis on the LSAT. It has way more to do with the overflooding of the market. Why don't we deal with the huge problems first before nitpicking on what you personally think is a problem?

Because the title of the thread is "Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement," so I thought we would discuss the merits of the LSAT here. Most of us agree that the market is overflooded.

[SrLaw]

The MAIN problem is all of the shitty schools and lack of Due Diligence from applicants. The average 21 year old should not be able to make a potentially life ruining decision without doing their DD. Unfortunately, most kids who go to TTT/TTTT are not smart enough to think 10 years ahead or for that matter 3 years ahead.

[FiveSermon]

Because the title of the thread is "Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement," so I thought we would discuss the merits of the LSAT here. Most of us agree that the market is overflooded.

Good point. I still don't agree that the emphasis on the LSAT is a problem though. Like it's been mentioned it seems like it acts as the great equilizier.

[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......

[SrLaw]

States like Montana, WVU, Nebraska etc. should be able to keep their schools. They are landgrant flagship state schools that offer opportunity in their respected states. Charlotte, Elon etc are just junk schools in a state that has countless better/real LS's.

[DeeCee]

States like Montana, WVU, Nebraska etc. should be able to keep their schools. They are landgrant flagship state schools that offer opportunity in their respected states. Charlotte, Elon etc are just junk schools in a state that has countless better/real LS's.

I agree, that's why I'm only applying to UNC

[SrLaw]

States like Montana, WVU, Nebraska etc. should be able to keep their schools. They are landgrant flagship state schools that offer opportunity in their respected states. Charlotte, Elon etc are just junk schools in a state that has countless better/real LS's.

I agree, that's why I'm only applying to UNC

Duke, Wake, UNC. That is all NC needs.

[DeeCee]

States like Montana, WVU, Nebraska etc. should be able to keep their schools. They are landgrant flagship state schools that offer opportunity in their respected states. Charlotte, Elon etc are just junk schools in a state that has countless better/real LS's.

I agree, that's why I'm only applying to UNC

Duke, Wake, UNC. That is all NC needs.

Exactly.


EDIT: But Charlotte offered me a full-tuition scholarship!!!

[albusdumbledore]

I sympathize with DC's point to some extent. Although the problem with Grad school admissions is that it becomes extremely pedigree sensitive. My undergrad is fairly low on the totem pole which significantly hurt me when I was applying for Grad programs, but for law I have a very high LSAT and that's really all I need. There needs to be some kind of middle ground.

[DeeCee]

I sympathize with DC's point to some extent. Although the problem with Grad school admissions is that it becomes extremely pedigree sensitive. My undergrad is fairly low on the totem pole which significantly hurt me when I was applying for Grad programs, but for law I have a very high LSAT and that's really all I need. There needs to be some kind of middle ground.

This is true in graduate school. Upon entering grad school, I was amazed at how many people had so many resources. My friends in my program have been able to do things I could have never afforded. They had taken trips to Mongolia, they gave medical care to people in Venezuela, and other things I wish I was able to do.

However, I also had my own (inexpensive) experiences, which served me well for admissions. I agree though, we do need some middle ground.

[SemperLegal]

I think my numbers are a decent reflection of who I am intellectually. They are not perfect, but they are a lot more indicative of me than my "candid" personal statement and heavily-designed resume.

I did not lie, exaggerate or misrepresent anything on my application. However, only the UGPA and LSAT are totally objective. Of those two only the LSAT is objective between candidates.

As for economic factors, I respectfully disagree. I scored a mid-160 score after a slew of 148 diagnostics using only library books. A class done later (a class paid for with aid and grants) only increased my score to a 169, mostly the result of the more structured schedule and having easier access to PT. I probally could have broken 170 if I started my cram period a week earlier or taken an extra day off of work since I was breaking 171 occasionally during PTs at the end. Anything above the 170-172 range really comes down too a few questions and really isn't a matter of prep tests in my belief, but rather more subtle factors. However, since numbers in that range are at or above median at every school, softs become the controlling factor, with Yale explicitly stating that it gives an edge to those without prep classes.

Now it is true that rich person who doesn't really have the fight in him/her will do a lot better than an equally motivated working class or below person since the rich person can throw some money at tutors and a structured class that is simply out of the question for those without 3g to spare. However, an overly motivated 0L who is willing to spend hours on prep tests, studying, and working extra hours to pay for those few materials is not significantly disadvantaged.

Conversely, I would think being rich greatly inflates your GPA as working during UG takes a lot of time, stress, and focus. However, I read somewhere that it tends not to because student-workers tend to plan and budget their time better and the working hours are deducted from partying or loafing time. Students whose parents foot the bill waste around 20 hours a week sleeping late, recovering, partying, etc, so it equals out.

TL;DR Summary
Para 1: My numbers are reflective
Para 2: My Softs are less so, and I am sure other peoples are more "enhanced"
Para 3: Success can be done without significant costs
Para 4: Motivation >assets
Para 5: GPA should be greatly biased in favor of the rich, but may not be.

TL;DR of TL;DR
Being poor sucks. However like most obstacles in life, it is not insurmountable.

[NoJob]

The ABA is considering dropping the LSAT. Check out this article:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011 ... s_use_lsat

Do you think the ABA will do it?

Yeah. I can see them doing that. It makes it easier for the law schools to get at 0ls virgin credits and at those wonderful federal loans.

[NoJob]

The ABA is considering dropping the LSAT. Check out this article:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011 ... s_use_lsat

Do you think the ABA will do it?

Yeah. I can see them doing that. It makes it easier for the law schools to get at 0ls virgin credits and at those wonderful federal loans.

also shows the value of the lsat itself