Top Law Schools

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/co ... 68b9dd478e

Apologies if somebody already posted this...

IMO the LSAT itself is not bad. And further, I suppose the weight put on the test in the admissions process could be good or bad depending on how one scores.

JohnnyDarko wrote:IMO the LSAT itself is not bad. And further, I suppose the weight put on the test in the admissions process could be good or bad depending on how one scores.

This.

No memorization / not having to know content = awesome. The crushing pressure of do well or fail before you ever begin is the part that sucks.

It's the perfect combination of three things:

1) Raw ability
- that's fair, right?

2) Preparedness
- if you won't take the time to learn about and prepare for the LSAT, what is the likelihood you will do the same for future endeavors?

3) Performance
- doesn't matter how smart and prepared you are if you biff under pressure.

What more can you ask for?

Vegas_Rebel wrote: No memorization / not having to know content = awesome. The crushing pressure of do well or fail before you ever begin is the part that sucks.

That pretty much describes any standardized test.

Personally, it was an annoying experience, but my score did help cover for my low GPA in my tough college, and in the end I felt like I was thinking laterally like a lawyer.

My problem with the LSAT is not with the test itself. It's pretty good at measuring what it measures, I think.

My problem is the way it is used by admissions offices. Insignificant differences in score are given too much weight in the admissions process. At a lot of schools, the difference between a 165 and 166 might be the difference between admittance or wait-list. In reality, the difference in score may come down to a number of factors, including luck on blind guesses.

LSAC emphasizes this by publishing 'score bands,' but no one pays attention to those.

I don't really see a good solution to the problem, though. You could have a more in depth admissions process, and be more holistic. But there are simply too many applicants and too little time to give every applicant that kind of thorough review.

I wonder if one solution might be to have a different score scale, with more separation between scores, to better differentiate candidates. Having no background in psychometrics, however, I have no idea what doing so would entail.

Fast_Fingers wrote:

Vegas_Rebel wrote: No memorization / not having to know content = awesome. The crushing pressure of do well or fail before you ever begin is the part that sucks.

That pretty much describes any standardized test.

Personally, it was an annoying experience, but my score did help cover for my low GPA in my tough college, and in the end I felt like I was thinking laterally like a lawyer.

Does it? My understanding was that on the GRE, for example, you actually have to know stuff. Ditto with the SAT's. On the LSAT, if you don't know what something means, it doesn't matter, because you're just looking for relations and inferences.