Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement? Forum

[cubswin]

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.

You are mistaken, at the very least about the GRE, which plays a really small role in most graduate admissions. It's a weed-out mechanism, if anything.

Also, your idea to "quantify each student's achievements" sounds really nice, but it lacks specifics. Probably because it would be impossible to quantify qualitative factors like achievements.

[Cmart050]

configuring a way to quantify each student's achievements displayed on their resume or transcript.

So you'd rather teach to how best to configure a resume and transcript?

Why not? At least then the person would have experience in working, volunteering, or other meaningful activities where experiences are gained. My opinion is that we do not put enough emphasis on what people do and what they gain from it. Instead, we look at a numerical score because it is easily quantifiable.

I think the method used now is a fair one. Equally measuring a generally subjective body of work and an objectively administered test gives a good indicator a student's potential to succeed in law school. In RE: to the applicants who score well below their potential because of anxiety issues or being predisposition to panicing in pressure situations, wouldn't a law school WANT to know about that? They have 3 years of school in which many classes will administer only one or two tests. And the bar itself!

Admittedly, I believe lowering the importance of GPA and increasing the relevance of softs would be a definite improvement. Unfortunately, law schools are prestige and ranking based, and you cannot rank without quantifiable measurables (Just made up a word). That's my only complaint, the larger issue, once again, being about 75 too many schools. But I digress.

[SrLaw]

If anything, drop GPA. I am tired of seeing people with a 160 LSAT and a 3.88 GPA from their TTT in Poli Sci gain admission to schools in which they cannot compete.

[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.

You are mistaken, at the very least about the GRE, which plays a really small role in most graduate admissions. It's a weed-out mechanism, if anything.

Also, your idea to "quantify each student's achievements" sounds really nice, but it lacks specifics. Probably because it would be impossible to quantify qualitative factors like achievements.

Yes, I know the GRE has a small role in the admissions process. I have taken one and I am currently in a grad program that I will be finishing this spring. However, I still believe these tests are almost useless. Yes, quantifying each student's achievements is not specific, but if anyone gave it a little thought I'm sure we could all come up with a basic ranking system.

As a former inner-city tutor/teacher, I have seen "teaching to the test" firsthand. This starts from our elementary days, and even through today, as we study for the LSAT. It is an inherently privileged system.

You have to believe these tests are teachable. If we all sat around and studied for a year and learned every nuance of the test, then most would do well. However, many do not have these resources. I still believe it is best to judge by achievements and experiences (internships, volunteering, work), as I've said before.

[Miracle]

Even if change was to take place-which i do not believe it will be, i don't believe we're going to see it soon. We might be done with law school before anything happens. I think they should leave LSAT's alone, and focus more on closing 100+ schools that are sinking the legal profession rather than lowering the standards so that more people can enter, and demolish our profession.

[SrLaw]

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.

You are mistaken, at the very least about the GRE, which plays a really small role in most graduate admissions. It's a weed-out mechanism, if anything.

Also, your idea to "quantify each student's achievements" sounds really nice, but it lacks specifics. Probably because it would be impossible to quantify qualitative factors like achievements.

Yes, I know the GRE has a small role in the admissions process. I have taken one and I am currently in a grad program that I will be finishing this spring. However, I still believe these tests are almost useless. Yes, quantifying each student's achievements is not specific, but if anyone gave it a little thought I'm sure we could all come up with a basic ranking system.

As a former inner-city tutor/teacher, I have seen "teaching to the test" firsthand. This starts from our elementary days, and even through today, as we study for the LSAT. It is an inherently privileged system.

You have to believe these tests are teachable. If we all sat around and studied for a year and learned every nuance of the test, then most would do well. However, many do not have these resources. I still believe it is best to judge by achievements and experiences (internships, volunteering, work), as I've said before.

thank God this decision is not up to you.

[SrLaw]

Even if change was to take place-which i do not believe it will be, i don't believe we're going to see it soon. We might be done with law school before anything happens. I think they should leave LSAT's alone, and focus more on closing 100+ schools that are sinking the legal profession rather than lowering the standards so that more people can enter, and demolish our profession.

Law School Admissions should = Medical School Admissions in terms of difficulty and weeding out.

[DeeCee]

Yeah, God forbid we go by criteria that matters.

[SrLaw]

Yeah, God forbid we go by criteria that matters.

performing well under pressure/ performing well at things that are fundamental to success in LS does matter.

[DeeCee]

Even if change was to take place-which i do not believe it will be, i don't believe we're going to see it soon. We might be done with law school before anything happens. I think they should leave LSAT's alone, and focus more on closing 100+ schools that are sinking the legal profession rather than lowering the standards so that more people can enter, and demolish our profession.

Law School Admissions should = Medical School Admissions in terms of difficulty and weeding out.

I agree with both of your statements. My only argument is that standardized tests are not the only answer to admissions criteria.

[northwood]

Law School Admissions should = Medical School Admissions in terms of difficulty and weeding out.

[Miracle]

Even if change was to take place-which i do not believe it will be, i don't believe we're going to see it soon. We might be done with law school before anything happens. I think they should leave LSAT's alone, and focus more on closing 100+ schools that are sinking the legal profession rather than lowering the standards so that more people can enter, and demolish our profession.

Law School Admissions should = Medical School Admissions in terms of difficulty and weeding out.

I agree with both of your statements. I only argument is that standardized tests are not the only answer to admissions criteria.

I know. I personally believe they should definitely raise the bar for admission to Law school in general. I think they should start doing mandatory interviews etc.

[Cmart050]

Even if change was to take place-which i do not believe it will be, i don't believe we're going to see it soon. We might be done with law school before anything happens. I think they should leave LSAT's alone, and focus more on closing 100+ schools that are sinking the legal profession rather than lowering the standards so that more people can enter, and demolish our profession.

Law School Admissions should = Medical School Admissions in terms of difficulty and weeding out.

I agree with both of your statements. I only argument is that standardized tests are not the only answer to admissions criteria.

Certainly not the only answer. But an important one nevertheless. And wholly necessary.

[DeeCee]

Yeah, God forbid we go by criteria that matters.

performing well under pressure/ performing well at things that are fundamental to success in LS does matter.

The problem is this. Some people can not afford the test preparation it takes to earn a high score. The LSAT is teachable to most that have the time and resources. Do you think this is not privileged?

[Miracle]

Yeah, God forbid we go by criteria that matters.

performing well under pressure/ performing well at things that are fundamental to success in LS does matter.

The problem is this. Some people can not afford the test preparation it takes to earn a high score. The LSAT is teachable to most that have the time and resources. Do you think this is not privileged?

No not really. I think that's the problem with todays education. We often let students slide, because they are not as good as the person next to them-don't have the same resources. In my opinion that's what the main problem is in United States education system

[d34d9823]

Yeah, God forbid we go by criteria that matters.

performing well under pressure/ performing well at things that are fundamental to success in LS does matter.

The problem is this. Some people can not afford the test preparation it takes to earn a high score. The LSAT is teachable to most that have the time and resources. Do you think this is not privileged?

This isn't true. The courses don't help people in any larger sense than forcing them to study. The previous tests are where it's at, and you can get a whole book full of them for $10.

[Cmart050]

Yeah, God forbid we go by criteria that matters.

performing well under pressure/ performing well at things that are fundamental to success in LS does matter.

The problem is this. Some people can not afford the test preparation it takes to earn a high score. The LSAT is teachable to most that have the time and resources. Do you think this is not privileged?

No. I take issue with the time. If you REALLY want to be a lawyer, something that you will be practicing the next 30-40 years of your life, you FIND time to study for a test that will give you a chance at shaping the rest of your life like no other. The system is generally fair and set. It is the applicant's duty to make it work most in their favor. That sounds awfully analogous to something...

[DeeCee]

Yeah, God forbid we go by criteria that matters.

performing well under pressure/ performing well at things that are fundamental to success in LS does matter.

The problem is this. Some people can not afford the test preparation it takes to earn a high score. The LSAT is teachable to most that have the time and resources. Do you think this is not privileged?

No not really. I think that's the problem with todays education. We often let students slide, because they are not as good as the person next to them-don't have the same resources. In my opinion that's what the main problem is in United States education system

But I think if we have standards and expect people to work hard (NOT teach a test, but teach material), this would be more beneficial to everyone. And yes, I believe there are BIG problems with US education, too.

But seriously, applying to law school is a little elitist. I could hardly afford to do so, living off of a graduate assistantship salary. It took a big chunk of my loans to pay for Powerscore Bibles, signing up with LSAC, the LSAT test, and application fees. This is certainly not attainable for everyone.

[Cmart050]

And if you are a terrible test taker and cannot perform well under pressure, well then damn. I want to be an NBA player, but I'm six foot and can't jump. Some things just aren't meant to be. Hate to be a social Darwinist, but whatever.

[DeeCee]

Yeah, God forbid we go by criteria that matters.

performing well under pressure/ performing well at things that are fundamental to success in LS does matter.

The problem is this. Some people can not afford the test preparation it takes to earn a high score. The LSAT is teachable to most that have the time and resources. Do you think this is not privileged?

No. I take issue with the time. If you REALLY want to be a lawyer, something that you will be practicing the next 30-40 years of your life, you FIND time to study for a test that will give you a chance at shaping the rest of your life like no other. The system is generally fair and set. It is the applicant's duty to make it work most in their favor. That sounds awfully analogous to something...

Yes you find time. But you don't find money.

[taxguy]

First, let me start off noting that I am an attorney, and I did reasonably well on the LSAT many years ago.

With that said, both I and every lawyer that I know feel that the LSAT is probably the worst standarized admission test for the predicability of law school performance. We can't believe that the law schools use it as heavily as they do. Why?

First, most of the questions don't seem applicable to testing law school performance with maybe the exception of reading comprehension. Even that is questionable.

The main reason,however, has little to do with the nature of the questions. The main reason that the test is the most time sensitive exam given among the admission tests. The test is NOT designed to be finished by most test takers. which is absurd. Law students have plenty of time for briefing cases and preparing outlines. To have a test that is so time sensitive greatly diminishes the effectiveness of the test.

Moreover the ABA council that is recommending that the LSAT become optional acknowledges this. They themselves state that the LSAT isn't very "reliable" for law school admission.

Finally, I can tell you that I have met a number of young lawyers. Many of whom have outperformed what was expected of them by their scores. In particular, I know two young guys who scored at least 10 points below their law school medians for admission, but were accepted because of strong GPAs. They both finished in the top 5% of their law school class. I would bet that private studies by law schools confirm this lack of corelation.

We had two guys in our law school from Harvard with fabulous LSATs. Both got great scholarships. One flunked out and the other was in the bottom 5%.

[Miracle]

That's why they have Fee Waivers. Books are not all that expensive when you think about it.

[d34d9823]

Yes you find time. But you don't find money.

Can you explain to me how someone who's preparing to spend $200K to go to law school can't come up with $1K to prepare?

[3ThrowAway99]

If anything, drop GPA.

+1

[d34d9823]

Finally, I can tell you that I have met a number of young lawyers. Many of whom have outperformed what was expected of them by their scores. In particular, I know two young guys who scored at least 10 points below their law school medians for admission, but were accedpted because of strong GPAs. They both finished in the top 5%. I would bet that private studies by law schools confirm this lack of corelation.

The data shows ~0.4 correlation for LSAT and ~0.3 for GPA. Since they are correlated themselves, the sum correlation is less than the sum of the correlations, ~0.6.

Both of these are extremely strong, which is why these two factors are used most heavily in admissions decisions. I appreciate your experience, but honestly, we can tell that you're a lawyer, not a statistician.