Will Law Schools Drop the LSAT Requirement? Forum

[serdog]

I don't know how valuable the LSAT. The smartest person I know took it a scored really bad

[SemperLegal]

I don't know how valuable the LSAT. The smartest person I know took it a scored really bad

Even assuming that smartest person you know=A Smart person then:
1. Able to dominate the LSAT=/= able to dominate LSAT w/o longterm prep
2. Smartest person =/= Likely to Succeed at Law School

[megaTTTron]

I would be so depressed if we dropped the LSAT. We need remove every ABA leader and replace them with AMA leaders. Law school needs to be run like medical school. Ugh. Less schools, more highly regulated = less jobless, debt ridden law grads.

[SrLaw]

I would be so depressed if we dropped the LSAT. We need remove every ABA leader and replace them with AMA leaders. Law school needs to be run like medical school. Ugh. Less schools, more highly regulated = less jobless, debt ridden law grads.

You are about 3 pages behind with this statement. Read back a few pages.

[megaTTTron]

I would be so depressed if we dropped the LSAT. We need remove every ABA leader and replace them with AMA leaders. Law school needs to be run like medical school. Ugh. Less schools, more highly regulated = less jobless, debt ridden law grads.

You are about 3 pages behind with this statement. Read back a few pages.

Just did, my bad. hahah. I'm just angry.

[rundoxierun]

I don't know how valuable the LSAT. The smartest person I know took it a scored really bad

The smartest person I know scored very well.. seems we are at an impasse

[d34d9823]

I don't know how valuable the LSAT. The smartest person I know took it a scored really bad

The smartest person I know scored very well.. seems we are at an impasse

Guys, your anecdotes disagree. I can hear the fabric of logical inquiry tearing.

[09042014]

What really needs to happen is most law schools should stop requiring a bachelors, and the degree should be LLB. The entrance requirements should be 60 hours of college credit and the tuition should be the same as the regular undergraduate tuition. The focus should be practical and focused on local law and practice. It would allow people to get a LLB in 2 years (+ 2 from regular college).

Then some of the better schools (T1 or about) should be allowed to have JD programs aimed at big law, federal gov, prestigious PI, etc etc. But the bar would take either a LLB or JD with no discrimination.

The big problem is that lower ranked law schools bring in people looking for jobs that really don't exist for the vast majority of their grads. You may think who cares? But the idea that a law degree is a law degree is a large reason why tuition costs, even at TTT's is very high.

[d34d9823]

What really needs to happen is most law schools should stop requiring a bachelors, and the degree should be LLB. The entrance requirements should be 60 hours of college credit and the tuition should be the same as the regular undergraduate tuition. The focus should be practical and focused on local law and practice. It would allow people to get a LLB in 2 years (+ 2 from regular college).

Then some of the better schools (T1 or about) should be allowed to have JD programs aimed at big law, federal gov, prestigious PI, etc etc. But the bar would take either a LLB or JD with no discrimination.

The big problem is that lower ranked law schools bring in people looking for jobs that really don't exist for the vast majority of their grads. You may think who cares? But the idea that a law degree is a law degree is a large reason why tuition costs, even at TTT's is very high.

The other reason why tuition is so high is that student loans are guaranteed. The traditional assessment of risk vs. reward that you have to go through for a loan is absent.

I'm not sure that this is a bad thing in general, as it would be pretty brutal to tell poor people that they can't go to Harvard, but tax money paying for Touro degrees is pretty ridiculous.

[09042014]

What really needs to happen is most law schools should stop requiring a bachelors, and the degree should be LLB. The entrance requirements should be 60 hours of college credit and the tuition should be the same as the regular undergraduate tuition. The focus should be practical and focused on local law and practice. It would allow people to get a LLB in 2 years (+ 2 from regular college).

Then some of the better schools (T1 or about) should be allowed to have JD programs aimed at big law, federal gov, prestigious PI, etc etc. But the bar would take either a LLB or JD with no discrimination.

The big problem is that lower ranked law schools bring in people looking for jobs that really don't exist for the vast majority of their grads. You may think who cares? But the idea that a law degree is a law degree is a large reason why tuition costs, even at TTT's is very high.

The other reason why tuition is so high is that student loans are guaranteed. The traditional assessment of risk vs. reward that you have to go through for a loan is absent.

I'm not sure that this is a bad thing in general, as it would be pretty brutal to tell poor people that they can't go to Harvard, but tax money paying for Touro degrees is pretty ridiculous.

I didn't think of this before, but if most law schools were a LLB (an undergrad degree), then federal loans wouldn't cover COA like they do now. Further solving the problem.

[rundoxierun]

What really needs to happen is most law schools should stop requiring a bachelors, and the degree should be LLB. The entrance requirements should be 60 hours of college credit and the tuition should be the same as the regular undergraduate tuition. The focus should be practical and focused on local law and practice. It would allow people to get a LLB in 2 years (+ 2 from regular college).

Then some of the better schools (T1 or about) should be allowed to have JD programs aimed at big law, federal gov, prestigious PI, etc etc. But the bar would take either a LLB or JD with no discrimination.

The big problem is that lower ranked law schools bring in people looking for jobs that really don't exist for the vast majority of their grads. You may think who cares? But the idea that a law degree is a law degree is a large reason why tuition costs, even at TTT's is very high.

Anyone who recommended that change would be labeled an elitist and instantly have people rocking NRA and tea party t-shirts all over the front of their house.

[09042014]

What really needs to happen is most law schools should stop requiring a bachelors, and the degree should be LLB. The entrance requirements should be 60 hours of college credit and the tuition should be the same as the regular undergraduate tuition. The focus should be practical and focused on local law and practice. It would allow people to get a LLB in 2 years (+ 2 from regular college).

Then some of the better schools (T1 or about) should be allowed to have JD programs aimed at big law, federal gov, prestigious PI, etc etc. But the bar would take either a LLB or JD with no discrimination.

The big problem is that lower ranked law schools bring in people looking for jobs that really don't exist for the vast majority of their grads. You may think who cares? But the idea that a law degree is a law degree is a large reason why tuition costs, even at TTT's is very high.

Anyone who recommended that change would be labeled an elitist and instantly have people rocking NRA and tea party t-shirts all over the front of their house.

Depends how you framed it. It would cut the cost of the law degree significantly for most people.

[rundoxierun]

What really needs to happen is most law schools should stop requiring a bachelors, and the degree should be LLB. The entrance requirements should be 60 hours of college credit and the tuition should be the same as the regular undergraduate tuition. The focus should be practical and focused on local law and practice. It would allow people to get a LLB in 2 years (+ 2 from regular college).

Then some of the better schools (T1 or about) should be allowed to have JD programs aimed at big law, federal gov, prestigious PI, etc etc. But the bar would take either a LLB or JD with no discrimination.

The big problem is that lower ranked law schools bring in people looking for jobs that really don't exist for the vast majority of their grads. You may think who cares? But the idea that a law degree is a law degree is a large reason why tuition costs, even at TTT's is very high.

The other reason why tuition is so high is that student loans are guaranteed. The traditional assessment of risk vs. reward that you have to go through for a loan is absent.

I'm not sure that this is a bad thing in general, as it would be pretty brutal to tell poor people that they can't go to Harvard, but tax money paying for Touro degrees is pretty ridiculous.

I wouldnt say there should be removal of federal backing for loans b/c part of their governments goal in America is redistributive(rather we want to believe it or not). Instead, their should be greater limitation on institutional access to govt funding via accreditation standards that take into account default rate or legal employment prospects.

[rundoxierun]

What really needs to happen is most law schools should stop requiring a bachelors, and the degree should be LLB. The entrance requirements should be 60 hours of college credit and the tuition should be the same as the regular undergraduate tuition. The focus should be practical and focused on local law and practice. It would allow people to get a LLB in 2 years (+ 2 from regular college).

Then some of the better schools (T1 or about) should be allowed to have JD programs aimed at big law, federal gov, prestigious PI, etc etc. But the bar would take either a LLB or JD with no discrimination.

The big problem is that lower ranked law schools bring in people looking for jobs that really don't exist for the vast majority of their grads. You may think who cares? But the idea that a law degree is a law degree is a large reason why tuition costs, even at TTT's is very high.

Anyone who recommended that change would be labeled an elitist and instantly have people rocking NRA and tea party t-shirts all over the front of their house.

Depends how you framed it. It would cut the cost of the law degree significantly for most people.

No good way to frame it.. it would basically be a government endorsed setup with two different career paths. The vocational path for the "lower" schools and the elite path for the "higher" schools. It would be a political disaster.

[d34d9823]

No good way to frame it.. it would basically be a government endorsed setup with two different career paths. The vocational path for the "lower" schools and the elite path for the "higher" schools. It would be a political disaster.

We already have engineering tech degrees vs. engineering degrees at a ton of schools.

[ExpectLess]

The law school application process will never be like the med school application process because law school is not like medical school. Graduates from pretty much any medical school will get a job because the AMA accredits only quality institutions. This ensures that, for the most part, only quality applicants will be accepted to med school and that the number of doctors doesn't exceed the number of positions available. Hence, the rankings for medical school are not nearly as consequential because no one needs to care about them.

The ABA decides to accredit every building with a roof over its head, allowing virtually anyone to become a lawyer and causing massive glut of lawyers relative to positions. This in turn makes law school rankings absolutely vital when it comes to differentiating between schools and students, and vital when it comes to securing jobs. Now, after being solely responsible for this landscape of rankings-based legal education, the ABA is debating get rid of the only distinguishing factor that puts every prospective student on equal footing and the best predictor of success in law school? They are fascinatingly stupid.

[SemperLegal]

99% of a lawyer's work can be done by people with a LLB undergraduate degree or less (eg Contract review, real estate, construction litigation up to 100k, worker's comp, personal injury, most of criminal law, formation paperwork, etc.) Complex cases could be handled by more experienced attorneys or those who go for advanced legal degrees.

England kind of has that system. Most work is done by solicitors unless it involved complex issues (or in their case, appearances) in which case a specialist is retained. I heard there legal system has much in common with us (pun is both intentional and corny).

[megaTTTron]

The law school application process will never be like the med school application process because law school is not like medical school. Graduates from pretty much any medical school will get a job because the AMA accredits only quality institutions. This ensures that, for the most part, only quality applicants will be accepted to med school and that the number of doctors doesn't exceed the number of positions available. Hence, the rankings for medical school are not nearly as consequential because no one needs to care about them.

The ABA decides to accredit every building with a roof over its head, allowing virtually anyone to become a lawyer and causing massive glut of lawyers relative to positions. This in turn makes law school rankings absolutely vital when it comes to differentiating between schools and students, and vital when it comes to securing jobs. Now, after being solely responsible for this landscape of rankings-based legal education, the ABA is debating get rid of the only distinguishing factor that puts every prospective student on equal footing and the best predictor of success in law school? They are fascinatingly stupid.

This post is full of fabulous. + a million.

[Drake014]

The law school application process will never be like the med school application process because law school is not like medical school. Graduates from pretty much any medical school will get a job because the AMA accredits only quality institutions. This ensures that, for the most part, only quality applicants will be accepted to med school and that the number of doctors doesn't exceed the number of positions available. Hence, the rankings for medical school are not nearly as consequential because no one needs to care about them.

The ABA decides to accredit every building with a roof over its head, allowing virtually anyone to become a lawyer and causing massive glut of lawyers relative to positions. This in turn makes law school rankings absolutely vital when it comes to differentiating between schools and students, and vital when it comes to securing jobs. Now, after being solely responsible for this landscape of rankings-based legal education, the ABA is debating get rid of the only distinguishing factor that puts every prospective student on equal footing and the best predictor of success in law school? They are fascinatingly stupid.

This post is full of fabulous. + a million.

I should just copy and paste the following to a word doc so that I can paste it every time someone makes these arguments:
1. the country has a severe shortage in doctors. The AMA is screwing the rest of the nation for the benefit of its members. This shouldn't be admired, allowed, or mimicked. And btw, you're forgetting about residencies. There aren't enough residency positions for everyone in medical school. Its still somewhat competitive even at that stage.
2. The LSAT has a small correlation with 1L grades. That's it. Just 1L and just a small correlation. It has no correlation to quality of lawyer so getting rid of the LSAT requirement will not likely make any difference in the quality of lawyers out there.

[megaTTTron]

The law school application process will never be like the med school application process because law school is not like medical school. Graduates from pretty much any medical school will get a job because the AMA accredits only quality institutions. This ensures that, for the most part, only quality applicants will be accepted to med school and that the number of doctors doesn't exceed the number of positions available. Hence, the rankings for medical school are not nearly as consequential because no one needs to care about them.

The ABA decides to accredit every building with a roof over its head, allowing virtually anyone to become a lawyer and causing massive glut of lawyers relative to positions. This in turn makes law school rankings absolutely vital when it comes to differentiating between schools and students, and vital when it comes to securing jobs. Now, after being solely responsible for this landscape of rankings-based legal education, the ABA is debating get rid of the only distinguishing factor that puts every prospective student on equal footing and the best predictor of success in law school? They are fascinatingly stupid.

This post is full of fabulous. + a million.

I should just copy and paste the following to a word doc so that I can paste it every time someone makes these arguments:
1. the country has a severe shortage in doctors. The AMA is screwing the rest of the nation for the benefit of its members. This shouldn't be admired, allowed, or mimicked. And btw, you're forgetting about residencies. There aren't enough residency positions for everyone in medical school. Its still somewhat competitive even at that stage.
2. The LSAT has a small correlation with 1L grades. That's it. Just 1L and just a small correlation. It has no correlation to quality of lawyer so getting rid of the LSAT requirement will not likely make any difference in the quality of lawyers out there.

that's just like, your opinion man.

[09042014]

2. The LSAT has a small correlation with 1L grades. That's it. Just 1L and just a small correlation. It has no correlation to quality of lawyer so getting rid of the LSAT requirement will not likely make any difference in the quality of lawyers out there.

It's not small, it's the largest known correlation.

Also every single school already selects for the LSAT, and it's still fairly high. When most law schools have 80%+ of their class within +/- 3 of their median and the LSAT still has a .4 correlation? That's pretty insane.

An individual LSAT doesn't mean a lot, but when used in large numbers schools pick out good classes from it.

If you mixed Michigan 1L's and Michigan State 1L's the Michigan students would mostly end up in the top half.

There are outliers in both directions. But how else are schools going to pick classes. GPA is worse than LSAT.

[megaTTTron]

2. The LSAT has a small correlation with 1L grades. That's it. Just 1L and just a small correlation. It has no correlation to quality of lawyer so getting rid of the LSAT requirement will not likely make any difference in the quality of lawyers out there.

It's not small, it's the largest known correlation.

Also every single school already selects for the LSAT, and it's still fairly high. When most law schools have 80%+ of their class within +/- 3 of their median and the LSAT still has a .4 correlation? That's pretty insane.

An individual LSAT doesn't mean a lot, but when used in large numbers schools pick out good classes from it.

If you mixed Michigan 1L's and Michigan State 1L's the Michigan students would mostly end up in the top half.

There are outliers in both directions. But how else are schools going to pick classes. GPA is worse than LSAT.

In all seriousness, I think the big diff btwn med school and law school is that for law school there isn't a base of knowledge applicants need, like med school. So the LSAT can't test information like the MCAT does.

[09042014]

2. The LSAT has a small correlation with 1L grades. That's it. Just 1L and just a small correlation. It has no correlation to quality of lawyer so getting rid of the LSAT requirement will not likely make any difference in the quality of lawyers out there.

It's not small, it's the largest known correlation.

Also every single school already selects for the LSAT, and it's still fairly high. When most law schools have 80%+ of their class within +/- 3 of their median and the LSAT still has a .4 correlation? That's pretty insane.

An individual LSAT doesn't mean a lot, but when used in large numbers schools pick out good classes from it.

If you mixed Michigan 1L's and Michigan State 1L's the Michigan students would mostly end up in the top half.

There are outliers in both directions. But how else are schools going to pick classes. GPA is worse than LSAT.

In all seriousness, I think the big diff btwn med school and law school is that for law school there isn't a base of knowledge applicants need, like med school. So the LSAT can't test information like the MCAT does.

MCAT is about as predictive as the LSAT is in predicting grades. r ~= .4 for each.

[megaTTTron]

2. The LSAT has a small correlation with 1L grades. That's it. Just 1L and just a small correlation. It has no correlation to quality of lawyer so getting rid of the LSAT requirement will not likely make any difference in the quality of lawyers out there.

It's not small, it's the largest known correlation.

Also every single school already selects for the LSAT, and it's still fairly high. When most law schools have 80%+ of their class within +/- 3 of their median and the LSAT still has a .4 correlation? That's pretty insane.

An individual LSAT doesn't mean a lot, but when used in large numbers schools pick out good classes from it.

If you mixed Michigan 1L's and Michigan State 1L's the Michigan students would mostly end up in the top half.

There are outliers in both directions. But how else are schools going to pick classes. GPA is worse than LSAT.

In all seriousness, I think the big diff btwn med school and law school is that for law school there isn't a base of knowledge applicants need, like med school. So the LSAT can't test information like the MCAT does.

MCAT is about as predictive as the LSAT is in predicting grades. r ~= .4 for each.

I have no idea about its predictive capacity, but doesn't it test actual information learned in undergrad chem/bio classes?

[09042014]

I have no idea about its predictive capacity, but doesn't it test actual information learned in undergrad chem/bio classes?

Yes, plus a section like RC and a writing section.

But medicine is more memorization than law school is. They are both testing the skills need to excel in the programs they are made for.