LSAT bash Forum

[Bildungsroman]

I wish I could go to an impressive school like the University of Texas.

UT bashing? I really didn't think you could be a bigger douche, but you proved me wrong. Your distaste for me says nothing about the quality of a rising law school. Moron.

[ahduth]

I'll post on topic. I really enjoyed the LSAT, and believe it's a much better of evaluation of the raw technical aptitude necessary to succeed in law school and as a lawyer than GPA.

Schools should require 3 LSAT scores from their applicants. This would remove any element of luck from the equation. Discuss.

[dr123]

I'll post on topic. I really enjoyed the LSAT, and believe it's a much better of evaluation of the raw technical aptitude necessary to succeed in law school and as a lawyer.

Schools should require 3 LSAT scores from their applicants. This would remove any element of luck from the equation. Discuss.

would that mean you could take it more than 3 times or if you had an absence or cancel you're just sol

[DeeCee]

I'll post on topic. I really enjoyed the LSAT, and believe it's a much better of evaluation of the raw technical aptitude necessary to succeed in law school and as a lawyer.

Schools should require 3 LSAT scores from their applicants. This would remove any element of luck from the equation. Discuss.

I wouldn't mind taking it 3 times, if you only pay the fee once. I got a bad score due to a family circumstance and I didn't have time to retake during this cycle, so I'm applying as-is this cycle.

[2011Law]

I wish I could go to an impressive school like the University of Texas.

UT bashing? I really didn't think you could be a bigger douche, but you proved me wrong. Your distaste for me says nothing about the quality of a rising law school. Moron.

not that I agree with UT bashing, mainly cause I am unlikely to get in (texas ain't for me) but I must say I approve of the pic. I also approve of your major and minor, but your UG institution is somewhat overrated IMO.

edit: meant to say 'though texas ain't for me anyway'

[2011Law]

I'll post on topic. I really enjoyed the LSAT, and believe it's a much better of evaluation of the raw technical aptitude necessary to succeed in law school and as a lawyer.

Schools should require 3 LSAT scores from their applicants. This would remove any element of luck from the equation. Discuss.

I wouldn't mind taking it 3 times, if you only pay the fee once.

I'll +1 this, seems like it'd give the best indicator of one's true ability on the test.

[ahduth]

I'll post on topic. I really enjoyed the LSAT, and believe it's a much better of evaluation of the raw technical aptitude necessary to succeed in law school and as a lawyer.

Schools should require 3 LSAT scores from their applicants. This would remove any element of luck from the equation. Discuss.

would that mean you could take it more than 3 times or if you had an absence or cancel you're just sol

No, you'd be able to take it up to, I dunno... five times? The endless retaking would be largely over under my regime, however.

Edit: the fees would probably have to be higher - 3 administrations cost 3 times as much for the LSAC.

[2011Law]

Meh, few people prove significantly past their diagnostic anyway. Plenty of people do well without taking 50 practice tests.

Is that really true? If so, is it because most people don't take more than 10 PTs?

I increased about 20 points over 30 PTs (still pissed that I didn't do 40 PTs).

[JazzOne]

I wish I could go to an impressive school like the University of Texas.

UT bashing? I really didn't think you could be a bigger douche, but you proved me wrong. Your distaste for me says nothing about the quality of a rising law school. Moron.

I really don't know why you're being such a dick. The four posts you criticized weren't even pointless. I read through the thread, commented to the OP, and quoted the ideas I agreed with. Everything was on topic. And you respond by starting a flame war?

[2011Law]

I wish I could go to an impressive school like the University of Texas.

UT bashing? I really didn't think you could be a bigger douche, but you proved me wrong. Your distaste for me says nothing about the quality of a rising law school. Moron.

I really don't know why you're being such a dick. The four posts you criticized weren't even pointless. I read through the thread, commented to the OP, and quoted the ideas I agreed with. Everything was on topic. And you respond by starting a flame war?

Protect yourself people, the flame war has begun!

[094320]

..

[ahduth]

Get back on topic or I'm locking this thread.

My posts were wicked on topic, talking about how the LSAT is awesome and we should have more of it.

[mr_toad]

Jazz is on a full ride to UT. I'm guessing he goes there by choice. This is getting ridiculous.

[niederbomb]

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.

[Sandro]

I can't stand LSAT bashers and their weak "but its just a 4 hour test!!! And gpa is four years!" Arguments. Then everyone comes in and tells them what's up and they cling to their weak position fueled by their failure to score well on the lsat.


Retake. I did, and it put me in at schools I wouldn't even gotten in to with a 3.7 and a couple points lower lsat. I have a sub 3.0.

There's a reason why gpa isn't as heavily weighted as lsat. Embrace it.

[northwood]

You can always re take the LSAT. Its the one area in the applications where a bad day, an illness, or a tramatic family event can be overcome. If you went through that during ug- chances are it negatiely affected your gpa. The LSAT is a way to compensate for that. Its also a way to balance out different gpas due to different majors. A lot of people dont really know what they want to do as a 20 year old sophomore. They may have really liked science or something in high school, and continuted on with it in college, and had to deal with difficult classes ( and now a lower gpa). Its not perfect, but it is one way to kind of even the majors out.

There are also other factors that play into your application as well. Your essays, lors, and work experience ( all of which are softs) are read, and may help you. Now if you are below their medians, not so much, but if you are tied with someone else, and you have better softs, chances are you will get the nod.

By the way law school exams are timed. You only have so much time to complete teh test. You have to know and be able to test under pressure.

[StillHerexxx]

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.

[bk1]

ITT: Reverse splitter expresses bitterness over having worse chances than regular splitters. Nobody gives a shit.

[d34d9823]

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.

[bk1]

Sure, but English is harder than Engineering for nobody.

Some foreigners would disagree with you.

[albusdumbledore]

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.

[swfangirl]

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.

[StillHerexxx]

I have seen plenty of math or science oriented students struggle in 100 level english classes in college. I am in no way saying anything is harder than anything else. I just think it is hard to say that one major is harder than another because it is all relative.

Even though I dislike the LSAT and wish I spent more time preparing for it, there is no way it should be scraped. It indicates a lot of skills that GPA itself cannot show.

[bk1]

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.

1. Poor people tend not to have the grades/SAT scores to get in.

2. The lower upper middle class? Seriously?

[swfangirl]

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.

1. Poor people tend not to have the grades/SAT scores to get in.

2. The lower upper middle class? Seriously?

1. Sure, it's a valid argument to say that they are disadvantaged in getting the credentials to get in. That's a separate argument that is plenty valid. But, it is not because they can't afford it once they do get in--I know several people who get full ride everything and even make money because they're given more than they need.
2. Fairly good financial aid exists up until family income hits $180K. Not quite sure what middle is, but if the family is making $90K, Financial Aid will probably make up enough for it to still be affordable. I believe Harvard UG is mostly free, if not entirely free, if family income is $60K or lower.