Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement? Forum

[firemed]

Cooley (I have a soft spot for them, don't ask me why)

Could it be the size of their library?

I think it was that their creepy stalkerish emails eventually won me over.

[Cmart050]

Many of you are assuming that if you study well for the LSAT, you will always do well. This is NOT the case. Fully 50% of test takers get under a 150 for the LSAT. I personally know someone who took the Powerscore course and thoroughly did the course. He then studied ALL of the Powerscore bibles and then took about 15 or more actual LSAT tests. Despite studying for 6 months, his high score was 146! Moreover, this same kid never has done well in a standardized test in his life but has outperformed the score expectations. He did much better in undergrad then his SAT would have shown. He was in the bottom 25% of the GMATs and yet graduated from a graduate business program and was number one in his class, graduating with High Distinction. I could go on and on,but not everyone does well on the LSAT even with a LOT of work.

I've read several of your posts in other threads, and I believe selection bias is at play here.

I'm sure the kid is very bright, but there are always outliers. For the vast majority of students the LSAT is a pretty good indicator of intelligence and ability, which I believe is the ultimate goal as universal fairness is an impossibility.

Oh, and yes. Representative sample size.

[d34d9823]

some people can not ace the LSAT, no matter what.

This is true. Most of those people should not be in law school. The existence of some who would make good lawyers but suck at logical reasoning and reading comprehension is the lesser of two evils.

[DeeCee]

Many of you are assuming that if you study well for the LSAT, you will always do well. This is NOT the case. Fully 50% of test takers get under a 150 for the LSAT. I personally know someone who took the Powerscore course and thoroughly did the course. He then studied ALL of the Powerscore bibles and then took about 15 or more actual LSAT tests. Despite studying for 6 months, his high score was 146! Moreover, this same kid never has done well in a standardized test in his life but has outperformed the score expectations. He did much better in undergrad then his SAT would have shown. He was in the bottom 25% of the GMATs and yet graduated from a graduate business program and was number one in his class, graduating with High Distinction. I could go on and on,but not everyone does well on the LSAT even with a LOT of work.

I've read several of your posts in other threads, and I believe selection bias is at play here.

I'm sure the kid is very bright, but there are always outliers. For the vast majority of students the LSAT is a pretty good indicator of intelligence and ability, which I believe is the ultimate goal as universal fairness is an impossibility.

Just going to throw this out there. My IQ is a 141. My LSAT is a 157. My LSAT score has nothing to do with my intelligence or lack of studying.

[d34d9823]

Just going to throw this out there. My IQ is a 141. My LSAT is a 157. My LSAT score has nothing to do with my intelligence or lack of studying.

So you automatically assume that the LSAT was the flawed test?

[DeeCee]

Just going to throw this out there. My IQ is a 141. My LSAT is a 157. My LSAT score has nothing to do with my intelligence or lack of studying.

So you automatically assume that the LSAT was the flawed test?

One of them is!! haha.....

[DeeCee]

Just going to throw this out there. My IQ is a 141. My LSAT is a 157. My LSAT score has nothing to do with my intelligence or lack of studying.

So you automatically assume that the LSAT was the flawed test?

One of them is!! haha.....

Just kidding. I am saying that SOME PEOPLE are not the same as you. Please understand that. And they are not dumb as a result of not doing well on the LSAT.

[d34d9823]

Just kidding. I am saying that SOME PEOPLE are not the same as you. Please understand that. And they are not dumb as a result of not doing well on the LSAT.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. The LSAT is to get people into law school who are strong in specifically chosen analytical areas. Harvard Law wants good law students, not smart people in general.

[DeeCee]

Just kidding. I am saying that SOME PEOPLE are not the same as you. Please understand that. And they are not dumb as a result of not doing well on the LSAT.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. The LSAT is to get people into law school who are strong in specifically chosen analytical areas. Harvard Law wants good law students, not smart people in general.

good LSAT= good law students, lol

[Cmart050]

A kid from Shitty state university gets a 4.0 studying political science and underwater basket weaving, and starts a bullshit charity that does nothing but that he can inflate the hell out of on his personal statement.

Another kid from MIT gets a 3.1 doing a dual major in electrical engineering and physics.

Harvard is analyzing who to accept, and does what in all likelihood is the right thing, taking the kid with the 3.1.

But now, Harvard's ranking is slipping because their GPA is being lowered and there is no way to quantify the quality of a person's degree/school/accomplishments etc. Then big firms are hiring crappier schools grads because they are shooting up the rankings because of their superior GPA medians. Sounds stupid, but how else do you quantify the quality of applicants in an empirical way?

The story is obviously an exaggeration, but coupled with the LSAT, a cold hard test that is an excellent attempt at being objective, we have a pretty fair admissions process that generally works out. I am getting into the schools that I believe are fair for a person of my intelligence and work ethic. May not always work out, but it never will so long as people are different.

[firemed]

Just going to throw this out there. My IQ is a 141. My LSAT is a 157. My LSAT score has nothing to do with my intelligence or lack of studying.

Wait... 141 is what, like the 99.7 percentile right?

And 157 is about 75th percentile?

So, out of a self selected group of people who have an IQ of approximately 117.5 on average (85th percentile on average) taking the test... well, it seems like it might have a correlation. I ain't running the numbers (I'm not at home, don't have my stats textbook with me).... but my guess is you ended up on the lower end of a statistically acceptable range for your IQ.

[invisiblesun]

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.)

That's why I say go by achievements. Any adcomm should be able to recognize that was several years ago and that you have grown since then.

That's all great and beautiful. Pray tell, how should schools compare people's achievements? Wouldn't that also be biased toward those with privileged backgrounds since they're more likely to have more "impressive" achievements?

The LSAT is the best existing standardized aptitude test for the type of argument analysis frequently encountered in law school. Yes, it doesn't perfectly predict success in law school, but it has more predictive power for success in 1L than any other single metric.

I actually see the LSAT as a great equalizer. Regardless of whether you attended a TTT undergrad or HYP, you need to earn your stripes on the LSAT. A 175, 3.9 kid from most any respectable undergrad will be accepted to HYS law schools before a 165 4.0 kid from HYP. This would seem to indicate that admissions favor aptitude over privilege. I would concede that it's silly to penalize someone excessively for choking on one day, but many schools' policy of treating an applicant by his/her highest score solves this problem.

A friend of mine from a pretty needy background got a 172 and money at Columbia studying only off powerscore bibles and preptests. She obtained all these materials (albeit possibly illegally) off the internet. My point is, where there's a will, there's a way, and the LSAT gave her an opportunity to stand out even among privileged kids from top UGs. If that's not a legitimate achievement, i'm not sure what is.

[Miracle]

Many of you are assuming that if you study well for the LSAT, you will always do well. This is NOT the case. Fully 50% of test takers get under a 150 for the LSAT. I personally know someone who took the Powerscore course and thoroughly did the course. He then studied ALL of the Powerscore bibles and then took about 15 or more actual LSAT tests. Despite studying for 6 months, his high score was 146! Moreover, this same kid never has done well in a standardized test in his life but has outperformed the score expectations. He did much better in undergrad then his SAT would have shown. He was in the bottom 25% of the GMATs and yet graduated from a graduate business program and was number one in his class, graduating with High Distinction. I could go on and on,but not everyone does well on the LSAT even with a LOT of work.

Thank you for your insight. I believe this also. In general, most people on this site test well and do not understand that some people can not ace the LSAT, no matter what.

But they have addendum for those type of students. Just like they have addendum for students with <3.00 like me. I got 170+ on my lsat, and my GPA is terrible, but so many lesson came out of it, and are visible on a daily basis that I wouldn't change it for any 4.0 GPA. Does that mean that I'm not a good candidate for law school. In some instances I'm a better candidate than someone with 4.0, and a rare one for that matter.

Taking after in consideration, I believe the process is pretty much fair, and if anything should only get stricter.

[d34d9823]

But they have addendum for those type of students. Just like they have addendum for students with <3.00 like me. I got 170+ on my lsat, and my GPA is terrible, but so many lesson came out of it, and are visible on a daily basis that I wouldn't change it for any 4.0 GPA. Does that mean that I'm not a good candidate for law school. In some instances I'm a better candidate than someone with 4.0, and a rare one for that matter.

Taking after in consideration, I believe the process is pretty much fair, and if anything should only get stricter.

To be fair, 150(median)/4.0 is getting in nowhere that is not career suicide.

[DeeCee]

Just going to throw this out there. My IQ is a 141. My LSAT is a 157. My LSAT score has nothing to do with my intelligence or lack of studying.

Wait... 141 is what, like the 99.7 percentile right?

And 157 is about 75th percentile?

So, out of a self selected group of people who have an IQ of approximately 117.5 on average (85th percentile on average) taking the test... well, it seems like it might have a correlation. I ain't running the numbers (I'm not at home, don't have my stats textbook with me).... but my guess is you ended up on the lower end of a statistically acceptable range for your IQ.

I was PTing much higher, but due to extreme family circumstances at the time, I decided to roll with my score and see what happens this cycle. If I'm not happy in the end, I'll retake and reapply next cycle.

But I think everyone is missing my point. Standardized tests are not standard for everyone. I am just offering another solution. It seems like the ABA feels similar.

[DeeCee]

Many of you are assuming that if you study well for the LSAT, you will always do well. This is NOT the case. Fully 50% of test takers get under a 150 for the LSAT. I personally know someone who took the Powerscore course and thoroughly did the course. He then studied ALL of the Powerscore bibles and then took about 15 or more actual LSAT tests. Despite studying for 6 months, his high score was 146! Moreover, this same kid never has done well in a standardized test in his life but has outperformed the score expectations. He did much better in undergrad then his SAT would have shown. He was in the bottom 25% of the GMATs and yet graduated from a graduate business program and was number one in his class, graduating with High Distinction. I could go on and on,but not everyone does well on the LSAT even with a LOT of work.

Thank you for your insight. I believe this also. In general, most people on this site test well and do not understand that some people can not ace the LSAT, no matter what.

But they have addendum for those type of students. Just like they have addendum for students with <3.00 like me. I got 170+ on my lsat, and my GPA is terrible, but so many lesson came out of it, and are visible on a daily basis that I wouldn't change it for any 4.0 GPA. Does that mean that I'm not a good candidate for law school. In some instances I'm a better candidate than someone with 4.0, and a rare one for that matter.

Taking after in consideration, I believe the process is pretty much fair, and if anything should only get stricter.

See, the adcomms decided your overall application was more important than one part (GPA), and treated you more fairly as a result. I believe the same should be true for the LSAT.

[firemed]

I was PTing much higher, but due to extreme family circumstances at the time, I decided to roll with my score and see what happens this cycle. If I'm not happy in the end, I'll retake and reapply next cycle.

But I think everyone is missing my point. Standardized tests are not standard for everyone. I am just offering another solution. It seems like the ABA feels similar.

Yeah.... I agree that standardized tests are not standardized for everyone. But, as pointed out before, no human created system will be perfect. You have to work with what you have. My opinion is that the removal of LSAT will make the process more unfair... not less.

If you want to make the system more fair, I would say do something about: Getting study materials to the poor, waivers to the poor, grade inflation, etc.

ETA: and un-accredit the T4.

[DeeCee]

ETA: and un-accredit the T4.

TITCR, for the T4.

[Cmart050]

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.

[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 was enjoying the argument though!!! lol.

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......

[invisiblesun]

I was PTing much higher, but due to extreme family circumstances at the time, I decided to roll with my score and see what happens this cycle. If I'm not happy in the end, I'll retake and reapply next cycle.

But I think everyone is missing my point. Standardized tests are not standard for everyone. I am just offering another solution. It seems like the ABA feels similar.

Yeah.... I agree that standardized tests are not standardized for everyone. But, as pointed out before, no human created system will be perfect. You have to work with what you have. My opinion is that the removal of LSAT will make the process more unfair... not less.

If you want to make the system more fair, I would say do something about: Getting study materials to the poor, waivers to the poor, grade inflation, etc.

ETA: and un-accredit the T4.

Wouldn't it be great if the ABA actually got to work on preventing law schools from scamming students into paying for worthless degrees instead of mulling over making law school admissions even more nebulous than they already are?

Maybe this is a little bit self-interested but it'd be nice if saying "i'm a lawyer" actually meant something like "i'm a doctor"...

just sayin

[firemed]

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 look forward to our generation of lawyers getting elected to the ABA. Should be amusing.

[firemed]

Wouldn't it be great if the ABA actually got to work on preventing law schools from scamming students into paying for worthless degrees instead of mulling over making law school admissions even more nebulous than they already are?

Maybe this is a little bit self-interested but it'd be nice if saying "i'm a lawyer" actually meant something like "i'm a doctor"...

just sayin

What is really sad was that my first reaction was derision.... until I remembered that it used to, actually....


ETA: oh, and it has been wonderful interacting with you all... but I gots to get to sleep.

[firemed]

I was enjoying the argument though!!! lol.

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......

Last thought: this is why I suggested putting the T3 on probation to get rid of egregious offenders... so that T3s that serve a purpose could remain.

[DeeCee]

I was enjoying the argument though!!! lol.

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......

Last thought: this is why I suggested putting the T3 on probation to get rid of egregious offenders... so that T3s that serve a purpose could remain.

True---forgot about that post from a little while back.