Top Law Schools

As most of us know, most schools place upwards of 90% of their emphasis on LSAT and GPA. Do these two measures really define a good law school candidate? Obviously there has to be a standard.

I think that the LSAT is worth more than the GPA because of rampant grade inflation, a variation in undergrad institutions, a variety of majors, and other factors. Personally, I like the system how it is.

Where do you think more (or less) consideration should be placed during the admissions process?

IQ

It should be a minimal factor (if any), but Just because one proves to be intelligent (or highly intelligent) does not mean he or she will succeed in law school. There are plenty of bright, lazy people out there.

We should all be required to run the 100m dash in a swimming pool full of pihrana while we have cuts on our legs. Whoever makes it to the end gets in.

Personally, I think LSAT+GPA is a stupid way to admit students.

Replace the LSAT with the Wonderlick then take all the people who meet the minimum score criterion and play russian roulette until you meet the cap of students you can admit. It solves the issue on two fronts, less applications next year because nobody can apply two cycles in a row!

Consideration should go along with acceptance by the offeree.

gbpackerbacker wrote:It should be a minimal factor (if any), but Just because one proves to be intelligent (or highly intelligent) does not mean he or she will succeed in law school. There are plenty of bright, lazy people out there.

Bright lazy people = High LSAT/Low GPA splitters.

whymeohgodno wrote:

gbpackerbacker wrote:It should be a minimal factor (if any), but Just because one proves to be intelligent (or highly intelligent) does not mean he or she will succeed in law school. There are plenty of bright, lazy people out there.

Bright lazy people = High LSAT/Low GPA splitters.

You're making the assumption that there is a correlation between LSAT scores and intelligence, something I don't believe is actually true. Anyways if you think bright people have high LSATs, then I suppose that rules any need for an emphasis on IQ

I agree. Quite honestly, some people are just better standardized test takers. I know some extremely intelligent people from my undergrad university who would kill it once they hit the job market but couldn't do shit against the LSAT no matter how long they study it.

gambelda wrote:I agree. Quite honestly, some people are just better standardized test takers. I know some extremely intelligent people from my undergrad university who would kill it once they hit the job market but couldn't do shit against the LSAT no matter how long they study it.

I can see how some intelligent people might score sub par (below 170) on the LSAT but if you can't score above a 160 while trying then I'm pretty sure you have some kind of learning disability or English isn't your first language.

GPA is harder to measure across different applicants and schools whereas LSAT is standardized. LSAT correlates better with 1L grades, and LSAT is weighted heavier in USNWR. I agree with schools using LSAT more heavily.

whymeohgodno wrote:

gambelda wrote:I agree. Quite honestly, some people are just better standardized test takers. I know some extremely intelligent people from my undergrad university who would kill it once they hit the job market but couldn't do shit against the LSAT no matter how long they study it.

I can see how some intelligent people might score sub par (below 170) on the LSAT but if you can't score above a 160 while trying then I'm pretty sure you have some kind of learning disability or English isn't your first language.

Haha or perhaps you paid for a Princeton Review course, which probably means that you're not intelligent in the first place.

whymeohgodno wrote:

gbpackerbacker wrote:It should be a minimal factor (if any), but Just because one proves to be intelligent (or highly intelligent) does not mean he or she will succeed in law school. There are plenty of bright, lazy people out there.

Bright lazy people = High LSAT/Low GPA splitters.

I disagree. My low GPA is a result of just the opposite. I spent 20 hours per week working during college, and another 20+ volunteering for an organization that I ended up working for full-time after college. I took a wide variety of courses and although my major GPA was 3.8, my overall GPA was far worse simply because I didn't have the time or energy to dedicate to non-major courses.

Definitely not an excuse, but it's certainly a case of low GPA not being due to laziness.

compromises wrote:

whymeohgodno wrote:

gbpackerbacker wrote:It should be a minimal factor (if any), but Just because one proves to be intelligent (or highly intelligent) does not mean he or she will succeed in law school. There are plenty of bright, lazy people out there.

Bright lazy people = High LSAT/Low GPA splitters.

I disagree. My low GPA is a result of just the opposite. I spent 20 hours per week working during college, and another 20+ volunteering for an organization that I ended up working for full-time after college. I took a wide variety of courses and although my major GPA was 3.8, my overall GPA was far worse simply because I didn't have the time or energy to dedicate to non-major courses.

Definitely not an excuse, but it's certainly a case of low GPA not being due to laziness.

Yeah I mean there are the exceptions although I don't think working 20 hours per week and volunteering 20 hours per week is anything exceptionally hard to do while maintaining a solid GPA unless you are majoring in something like engineering.