Why the LSAT is an "Incomplete" Test Forum

[pwyoung]

I say score the writing sample like GMAT does. I think they're considering that already though.

I'm just not big on having subjectivity involved in the test. The only real remedy is some master grading system like SAT or AP have for the people scoring the writing section, which sort of kills it and makes it gameable.

[AspiringAcademic]

now that I'm a 1L, I can honestly say I don't give a fuck what they do. Make them draw unicorns. Ask them to do advanced physics. Could give a fuck.

I'm not even a 1L, but being a few months past my LSAT gives me a similar feeling.

More helpfully:

5 minute breaks between sections. A few minutes to reset would help people give each section their all, which I think would make the test slightly more valid.

No more small desks. Though many of the factors that make one test center better than another can't be predicted - noise, annoying neighbors, and things of that nature - you can tell the size of the desks in a room by just looking. It would certainly be better if this could be standardized, though whether it would be worth it is hard to saw.

Other than that, it's a fairly standard IQ-ish test and I don't see any reason to change it much.

[LawSchoolChampion]

If you study the LSAT long enough, it will make sense. You can isolate your weaknesses and improve upon them.

If you don't do that, you've made a personal decision not to.

If you have tried that for months on end and still have no luck then you're clearly not the brightest bulb...and don't deserve a T14.

Analyzing a performance and improving upon it is a crucial skill for success. Most people (I'd say 99%, if not 100%) of the people who score 168+ have done this.

Taking an LSAT cold and scoring 168+ does not happen often.



So, keep the test. If anything, add a few more breaks between sections.

[bjsesq]

The best argument against the LSAT is that DF did so well on it.

This deserved more love. I see you.

[Kabuo]

Don't change anything, even breaks. It's supposed to be stressful and time intensive. Learning to deal with that is an important part of doing well on it, and if anything from the LSAT transfers to LS exams, I'm expecting it to be this.

[094320]

..

[westinghouse60]

If you study the LSAT long enough, it will make sense. You can isolate your weaknesses and improve upon them.

If you don't do that, you've made a personal decision not to.

If you have tried that for months on end and still have no luck then you're clearly not the brightest bulb...and don't deserve a T14.

Analyzing a performance and improving upon it is a crucial skill for success. Most people (I'd say 99%, if not 100%) of the people who score 168+ have done this.

Taking an LSAT cold and scoring 168+ does not happen often.



So, keep the test. If anything, add a few more breaks between sections.

Meh, I think you're overestimating your percentages by quite a bit. I know a handful of people who start over 168 to begin with, and I'd guess a decent chunk of those who get that final score start there as well. This is part of what makes suggestions like adding more time a bit odd. There already are people who start out in the 170s cold. Not quite sure I see the point of making the test easier since more people would just hit ceiling.

In seriousness, there are some changes that I think are valid...just not really the ones in the poll.

The LSAT limits their testing days because of the amount of time/effort it takes for them to construct the tests. It'd probably increase the cost to increase testing dates, but it really would be nice to add in one more.

I also second the idea that there shouldn't be so much variation in the desks at testing centers.You should at least be able to lay out your test booklet with the bubble sheet off to the side. The timing constraints weren't really meant to include dealing with that sort of inconvenience. I had mine with a good set-up, but I've taken practice tests on small desks and it was certainly annoying having my booklet falling onto the floor every so often.

+1

I remember panicking when they brought us into an auditorium with 1 foot by 1 foot fold out "desks" attached to the chairs. Huge relief when I realized we wouldn't be taking it in that room. But I know some people who have had to test under those conditions.