LSAT bash Forum

[d34d9823]

i dont think the lsat is useless at all and i definitely understand why it is important, i just think there should be more of a balance rather then what the current system allows

The imbalance happens because it's a lot easier to get a 4.0 than a 180. Correspondingly, there are orders of magnitude more people with 4.0s than 180s, which causes the 180s to be valued much more.

[Flanker1067]

This topic is lulz. You are not the first person to think of this. In fact, the stats show that LSAT score is a much better (albeit still pretty bad) predictor of success in law school than UG GPA is. So whatever you can say about how they overrate the LSAT, even more can be said about GPA.

Edited to make sense.

You're right that LSAT is more closely correlated (~0.4) than GPA (~0.3). That said, both of these correlations are not bad by any means. For a real-world system as complex and randomized as law school grades, 0.4 is a strong factor.

Picture shamelessly stolen from wikipedia to show what 0.4 looks like:

Hmm, I agree with you but last I read GPA was around ~0.1 and LSAT around ~0.3. That is what I banking on.

[swfangirl]

i dont think the lsat is useless at all and i definitely understand why it is important, i just think there should be more of a balance rather then what the current system allows

The imbalance happens because it's a lot easier to get a 4.0 than a 180. Correspondingly, there are orders of magnitude more people with 4.0s than 180s, which causes the 180s to be valued much more.

Yeah. High scorers on the LSAT are a more rare commodity.

[d34d9823]

Hmm, I agree with you but last I read GPA was around ~0.1 and LSAT around ~0.3. That is what I banking on.

Here's one study claiming a median of .33 for GPA and .46 for LSAT: http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/LSAT-Score- ... rmance.pdf.

[09042014]

1) Don't use the excuse you didn't have time to study. I worked 50 hours a week + 10 hours commuting and I had time to do an entire PT every night.

2) Most people don't improve much with studying, and most people study. I did about 15 tests and almost all my jump was in the first 5.

3) GPA is all about effort put in. I promise you that anyone who can score 170 can find a mediocre poli sci program and get a 3.7. Low gpa/high lsat is almost always a lazy person/not caring. If these people go out and show they can be successful in the working world, or in a master program then they shouldn't be penalized for being lazy at ages 18-22.

4) You can retake LSAT you can't retake GPA

5) You can fix lazy you can't fix stupid.

6) LSAT is more predictive, even though law schools are stacked by LSAT score. Most schools have wide variety of GPA and only a small variety of LSAT score and still LSAT is more predictive.

7) 4.0/160's are a dime a dozen, 172's are rare.

[Adjudicator]

1) Don't use the excuse you didn't have time to study. I worked 50 hours a week + 10 hours commuting and I had time to do an entire PT every night.

2) Most people don't improve much with studying, and most people study. I did about 15 tests and almost all my jump was in the first 5.

3) GPA is all about effort put in. I promise you that anyone who can score 170 can find a mediocre poli sci program and get a 3.7. Low gpa/high lsat is almost always a lazy person/not caring. If these people go out and show they can be successful in the working world, or in a master program then they shouldn't be penalized for being lazy at ages 18-22.

4) You can retake LSAT you can't retake GPA

5) You can fix lazy you can't fix stupid.

6) LSAT is more predictive, even though law schools are stacked by LSAT score. Most schools have wide variety of GPA and only a small variety of LSAT score and still LSAT is more predictive.

7) 4.0/160's are a dime a dozen, 172's are rare.

Excellent points! Well said.

[question231]

if you look to the extremes then yes i agree with you, and scoring 170+ is a great accomplishment which i am not taking away from anyone

but when the difference is between 164- 161 its a little different

[09042014]

if you look to the extremes then yes i agree with you, and scoring 170+ is a great accomplishment which i am not taking away from anyone

but when the difference is between 164- 161 its a little different

The school isn't deciding that he is a better applicant. They are using him to boost their LSAT median.

Schools hustle to gain rank in US News. It's stupid, but then again it wouldn't be that way if applicants didn't go to schools based on their USNews rank.

[d34d9823]

if you look to the extremes then yes i agree with you, and scoring 170+ is a great accomplishment which i am not taking away from anyone

but when the difference is between 164- 161 its a little different

The difference between a 161 and a 164 is 6.5 percentiles.

The difference between a 164 and a 170 is 7.1 percentiles.

[question231]

just about your number one point, i had crazy stips placed on my ug scholarship, and like a young kid seeing all that money made me ignore them and pack my bags, and i had to maintain a 3.6 so if you are forced to always be above that level, you have to spend a considerable amount of time studying and doing all of readings for class + working full time

just my personal experience, but again if someone is able to place in the 98th % of all test takers, that is very impressive and they deserve to go to a lot of good schools, i just think when coupled with a 2.8 it loses its value a tad

[dr123]

if you look to the extremes then yes i agree with you, and scoring 170+ is a great accomplishment which i am not taking away from anyone

but when the difference is between 164- 161 its a little different

dude when applicants are close there are many intangibles that come into play, who do you think is a better applicant: 3.0/164 mit comp engineering with amazing ps about growing up as an orphan, overcoming odds and shit, 5 years work experience at google or 3.6/161 fresh out of ug, no work exp, run of the mill ps.

[09042014]

just about your number one point, i had crazy stips placed on my ug scholarship, and like a young kid seeing all that money made me ignore them and pack my bags, and i had to maintain a 3.6 so if you are forced to always be above that level, you have to spend a considerable amount of time studying and doing all of readings for class + working full time

just my personal experience, but again if someone is able to place in the 98th % of all test takers, that is very impressive and they deserve to go to a lot of good schools, i just think when coupled with a 2.8 it loses its value a tad

I agree, but they should be allowed to recover from the low GPA. Either with real world success or taking classes and doing well.

[question231]

i just feel like the lsat is one day, and yes you can take it 3 times in 2 years but i mean there are the people who just have 3 bad days, i.e. scoring in the 170s on pts and ending up with a lower score, while when you are in undergrad you are taking around 40-45 classes while you are there and i just think that being able to succeed and do well when you are constantly tested, and tested while taking 4 other classes shows more academic potential

but then again im just a reverse splitter crying out so whatever at least i can admit that

[09042014]

i just feel like the lsat is one day, and yes you can take it 3 times in 2 years but i mean there are the people who just have 3 bad days, i.e. scoring in the 170s on pts and ending up with a lower score, while when you are in undergrad you are taking around 40-45 classes while you are there and i just think that being able to succeed and do well when you are constantly tested, and tested while taking 4 other classes shows more academic potential

but then again im just a reverse splitter crying out so whatever at least i can admit that

Law school exams are 3 hours on one day. If someone is a choker they will probably choke on exams as well.

[swfangirl]

i just feel like the lsat is one day, and yes you can take it 3 times in 2 years but i mean there are the people who just have 3 bad days, i.e. scoring in the 170s on pts and ending up with a lower score, while when you are in undergrad you are taking around 40-45 classes while you are there and i just think that being able to succeed and do well when you are constantly tested, and tested while taking 4 other classes shows more academic potential

but then again im just a reverse splitter crying out so whatever at least i can admit that

I'm neither a splitter nor reverse splitter and I don't think my GPA demonstrates very much. It just means I was neither depressed nor lazy nor underprepared in college and that I was mature about it. My ability to do well on an exam in some random specific subject doesn't really say much about how I'll do in law school. I'd be a lot more concerned about people who can't master reading comprehension or logical reasoning.

[question231]

did you master it the first time you took it?

[rinkrat19]

did you master it the first time you took it?

Are you implying that the LSAT can't be mastered the first time you take it?

And are you referring to cold diagnostics or first attempts at the actual test?

[question231]

cold diagnostics

if someone bangs out a 170 on their first cold diagnostic then that is something that is realllly impressive, but if you get a 163 and just take the test 1000 times and improve the 7 points it speaks less in my opinion

but the 170 is still very impressive as i am not bashing anyone who does very well on this test, but more on the system

[09042014]

cold diagnostics

if someone bangs out a 170 on their first cold diagnostic then that is something that is realllly impressive, but if you get a 163 and just take the test 1000 times and improve the 7 points it speaks less in my opinion

but the 170 is still very impressive as i am not bashing anyone who does very well on this test, but more on the system

Cold Diags mean nothing. At that point it's more a measure of how fast you can do the problems and how familiar you are with logic puzzles close to the LSAT.

Give a person a couple PT's to learn the test framework and then you start getting an idea.

[question231]

ok so being fair, after 3 practice tests, the 4th should show their actual ability, would you agree that that would be fair?

[09042014]

ok so being fair, after 3 practice tests, the 4th should show their actual ability, would you agree that that would be fair?

Probably. But most people are studying. Putting everyone back on even footing again.

If you didn't hit your potential, retake.

And even with the ability to study your score higher, it's still better than GPA.

After all what is GPA but a measurement how much you study?

[question231]

hence why im not saying the gpa is more important, but rather is should weighted 50/50

[dr123]

hence why im not saying the gpa is more important, but rather is should weighted 50/50

all that would do is encourage people to take on bs majors like general studies and put people who had rigorous majors like math or chem at serious disadvantage

At many schools the amount of work it takes to get a 3.2 in hard sciences can be more than the amount of work it takes to get a 3.8 in the humanities

[swfangirl]

cold diagnostics

if someone bangs out a 170 on their first cold diagnostic then that is something that is realllly impressive, but if you get a 163 and just take the test 1000 times and improve the 7 points it speaks less in my opinion

but the 170 is still very impressive as i am not bashing anyone who does very well on this test, but more on the system

I managed a 170+ on my first cold diagnostic, but still did ~20 PTs to hedge against choking, and I'm really not that impressive. Again, not sure what you're suggesting. That they equate the two? It's been said---a 4.0 is a dime a dozen next to a 180, and the GPA is not standardized by a long shot. You're complaining about severe splitters (people with 3.0s), but really, most of the T14 actually shuts them out for the reason you're talking about. I don't see the problem with Northwestern's view of giving some who screwed up at age 18 a second shot after they've proven themselves in a work experience environ., or UVa & GTown taking some splitters as well.

[09042014]

hence why im not saying the gpa is more important, but rather is should weighted 50/50

If you took the R^2 values for the correlation between the two and law grades you'd get: .16 : .09 or more like 64% LSAT to 36% GPA. Which is about what it is now.