Top Law Schools

This can only end in ___________.

Wow, that would be crazy.

.,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

I totally ripped this from Xo bro.

That seems a stupid thing to do.

{EDIT: Can you guys remove the XO references? That place reeks.}

I think the extreme focus on LSAT median is crazy. But removing the best indicator for 1L performance is silly.

I bet Boalt drops it first.

Desert Fox wrote:I think the extreme focus on LSAT median is crazy. But removing the best indicator for future performance is silly.

I bet Boalt drops it first.

LSAT is barely the best indicator for future performance ahead of GPA. That said, I wouldn't remove it simply for that reason alone.

Alternatively, when someone says they "ripped" something from another site, please remember that the other site ripped it from somewhere else. If anyone deserves credit for this article, it is Law.com for keeping us informed of their nefarious plans to ruin the profession.

SuperFreak wrote:That seems a stupid thing to do.

{EDIT: Can you guys remove the XO references? That place reeks.}

Wait, you're afraid of a thread that even mentions XO?

paratactical wrote:

SuperFreak wrote:That seems a stupid thing to do.

{EDIT: Can you guys remove the XO references? That place reeks.}

Wait, you're afraid of a thread that even mentions XO?

I'm not afraid. I just don't think we should give undue credit to that hellhole.

SuperFreak wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:I think the extreme focus on LSAT median is crazy. But removing the best indicator for future performance is silly.

I bet Boalt drops it first.

LSAT is barely the best indicator for future performance ahead of GPA. That said, I wouldn't remove it simply for that reason alone.

Alternatively, when someone says they "ripped" something from another site, please remember that the other site ripped it from somewhere else. If anyone deserves credit for this article, it is Law.com for keeping us informed of their nefarious plans to ruin the profession.

LSAT is significantly better than GPA, even when Law classes are basically sorted by LSAT score ( the LSAT range for most schools is statistically tiny).

Desert Fox wrote:

SuperFreak wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:I think the extreme focus on LSAT median is crazy. But removing the best indicator for future performance is silly.

I bet Boalt drops it first.

LSAT is barely the best indicator for future performance ahead of GPA. That said, I wouldn't remove it simply for that reason alone.

Alternatively, when someone says they "ripped" something from another site, please remember that the other site ripped it from somewhere else. If anyone deserves credit for this article, it is Law.com for keeping us informed of their nefarious plans to ruin the profession.

LSAT is significantly better than GPA, even when Law classes are basically sorted by LSAT score ( the LSAT range for most schools is statistically tiny).

I don't remember this being the case in research. I think the LSAT has a better correlation, but not that much better. The values are like .34 versus .29 which aren't really worth mentioning in the long run. GPA + other factors determine the majority of law school performance, so losing the LSAT wouldn't be the end-all-be-all, especially if it were replaced with a similar examination. All things being equal, I would prefer the LSAT remain.

I also think that in spite of the ABA pressure the status quo will remain the same in the forseeable future.

SuperFreak wrote:
I don't remember this being the case in research. I think the LSAT has a better correlation, but not that much better. The values are like .34 versus .29 which aren't really worth mentioning in the long run. GPA + other factors determine the majority of law school performance, so losing the LSAT wouldn't be the end-all-be-all, especially if it were replaced with a similar examination.

But those other factors aren't known.

I'll try to find the study, but someone wrote a paper claiming that the correlation for the LSAT would be much higher if schools didn't have such small LSAT ranges.

Imagine if everyone at UVA had a 170. The correlation would have to be zero.

SuperFreak wrote: I don't remember this being the case in research. I think the LSAT has a better correlation, but not that much better. The values are like .34 versus .29 which aren't really worth mentioning in the long run. GPA + other factors determine the majority of law school performance, so losing the LSAT wouldn't be the end-all-be-all, especially if it were replaced with a similar examination. All things being equal, I would prefer the LSAT remain.

I also think that in spite of the ABA pressure the status quo will remain the same in the forseeable future.

Because classes are preselected by LSAT bro. Come on. GTFO. Half the class at GULC is between the 95th and 98th percentile.

What would poor splitters do then?

Desert Fox wrote: But those other factors aren't known.

True.

I'll try to find the study, but someone wrote a paper claiming that the correlation for the LSAT would be much higher if schools didn't have such small LSAT ranges.

Imagine if everyone at UVA had a 170. The correlation would have to be zero.

On the other hand, a null hypothesis doesn't really prove anything.

D. H2Oman wrote: Because classes are preselected by LSAT bro. Come on. GTFO. Half the class at GULC is between the 95th and 98th percentile.

I'm sure the correlation goes up but I'd suspect GPA correlation would probably go up as well. I can't comment on the relationship because I don't know.

I'm sure GPA correlation would go up if the range is increased, but for the vast majority of law schools the GPA range is very high already. Most schools below the top 50 have GPA 25/75 splits of .5 or more.

Desert Fox wrote:I'll try to find the study, but someone wrote a paper claiming that the correlation for the LSAT would be much higher if schools didn't have such small LSAT ranges.

Imagine if everyone at UVA had a 170. The correlation would have to be zero.

There were studies done that validate what you're saying. In some other countries, (I forget the specific ones) schools admit a whole range of scores, and those with the highest LSATs excelled.

I heard this in a lecture on the LSAT given by a UVa professor.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't work for the ABA. And poof. Here we are.

What would poor splitters do then?

I'm sure GPA correlation would go up if the range is increased, but for the vast majority of law schools the GPA range is very high already. Most schools below the top 50 have GPA 25/75 splits of .5 or more.

There were studies done that validate what you're saying. In some other countries, (I forget the specific ones) schools admit a whole range of scores, and those with the highest LSATs excelled.

Besides the LSAT, what other factors would law schools consider that wouldn't privilege rich kids whose parents can send them to expensive private undergrads and unpaid internships? I'm all for revamping the LSAT to include more RC and replacing LG with a Quant section (for example), but doing away with it altogether without a replacement seems like an inane idea.

1) GPA (ineffective but no bias)
2) EC's. Possibility for bias. If EC's are a huge part of your admissions criteria, would you rather take the kid who had to tend bar over the summer to pay for college at the state school or the Dartmouth kid who took an unpaid internship in Nigeria to work on women's rights issues?
3) Quality of UG institution (huge socio-economic bias)
4) Personality, biased, but maybe in a good way.

doesn't matter, USNWR already stated that even if ABA dropped the req., they'd still factor LSAT in the rankings.

niederbomb wrote: 1) GPA (ineffective but no bias)
2) EC's. Possibility for bias. If EC's are a huge part of your admissions criteria, would you rather take the kid who had to tend bar over the summer to pay for college at the state school or the Dartmouth kid who took an unpaid internship in Nigeria to work on women's rights issues?
3) Quality of UG institution (huge socio-economic bias)
4) Personality, biased, but maybe in a good way.

1) There would be bias because private schools generally have much higher grade inflation than state schools.

2-3) You are 100% right

4) I think personality should factor in somewhat. Not sure it really biases toward upper class as much as it biases against really lower class.

edgarfigaro wrote:doesn't matter, USNWR already stated that even if ABA dropped the req., they'd still factor LSAT in the rankings.

Where did they say this?

vanwinkle wrote:

edgarfigaro wrote:doesn't matter, USNWR already stated that even if ABA dropped the req., they'd still factor LSAT in the rankings.

Where did they say this?

Even if they did what is stop Michigan from making the LSAT optional and taking 50% students with 4.0's with no LSAT.

vanwinkle wrote:

edgarfigaro wrote:doesn't matter, USNWR already stated that even if ABA dropped the req., they'd still factor LSAT in the rankings.

Where did they say this?

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-ran ... kings.html