I just realized something (LSAT-related) Forum

[NorCalLaw]

I can't think of an employer who cares what your LSAT is. And they certainly aren't taking the time to correlate time with your grade on it.

Some judges (hiring clerks) ask about LSAT scores and even undergrad grades.

[ph14]

I can't think of an employer who cares what your LSAT is. And they certainly aren't taking the time to correlate time with your grade on it.

Some judges (hiring clerks) ask about LSAT scores and even undergrad grades.

This is definitely pretty rare though.

[Pokemon]

The point of my post was that a whole lot depends on very little. Organizations that pay well depend heavily on where you go to law school. Where you go to law school depends heavily on what you score on the LSAT. Your LSAT score depends heavily on what you can and can't do within a ten minute increment of time compared to what another person can and can't do within that same time increment. What separates the 166 scorer from the 159 scorer can be as little as 10 minutes.

I know it's a flawed system, but I wanted to make this point for the purpose of sparking discussion. As far as the practice of law is concerned, where you end up and how much money you make depends largely on your ability to comprehend information faster than another person in as little as ten minutes.

FYI I'm a 2L so I'm allowed in this forum. And since my post was related to employment, it's relevant, unlike the posts people made about why my post isn't relevant or doesn't belong.

I am not so sure what is so bizarre about it. We use samples and signals to make decisions. You have a certain infection if a sample of your blood has a certain virus. Corporations assume you are smart if you are a Harvard MBA (this one of course, not having the same certainty as the blood sample). Samples and signals guide a lot of what we do through life. I do not walk through certain neighborhoods if I see people with machetes cause that signals to me that maybe this neighborhood is not too friendly.

Schools use signals to differentiate the great masses of students applying every year. One signal is GPA. Obviously it is not a perfect signal cause people can go to easy schools, take easy majors, or be mentally challenged in college but actually really smart. The other signal is the LSAT. Schools use this two signals cause they cannot accept every applicant, test them for a year, see how smart they are, and then kick the ones not smart enough out. The latter option would be too inefficient.

Obviously the LSAT will have a time limit. The time limit is artificial. Nothing you ever do in the real word would be like the LSAT nor is the LSAT0-like time management necessary for anything in the real world (of course, except taking other timed exams). Obviously, the LSAT skills do not really translate to anything outside of LSAT exam. The point of the LSAT however is to distinguish people though so that it can act as a signal. If you gave everyone an extra ten minutes, then they would have to make the exam harder, because if everyone gets perfect raw scores with extra time, then it simply is not doing its job, the job of acting as a signal to the Law Schools.

So yes, you are puzzled because LSAT does not seem like law practice. Good, it is not supposed to be like law practice. It is merely a signal so that schools can differentiate people since they cannot accept everyone.

[bk1]

I can't think of an employer who cares what your LSAT is. And they certainly aren't taking the time to correlate time with your grade on it.

Some judges (hiring clerks) ask about LSAT scores and even undergrad grades.

This is definitely pretty rare though.

Yeah LSAT is rare, but UG grades is pretty common.

[ph14]

I can't think of an employer who cares what your LSAT is. And they certainly aren't taking the time to correlate time with your grade on it.

Some judges (hiring clerks) ask about LSAT scores and even undergrad grades.

This is definitely pretty rare though.

Yeah LSAT is rare, but UG grades is pretty common.

Hmm, I can't recall any judges requesting either when I applied, and I didn't send it as a normal part of my applications. I did have something indicative of my undergrad grades on my resume though, so that might be why. I also applied entirely on paper too, might be different for OSCAR applications.

[Lady McDuff]

@ Pokemon:

"The point of the LSAT however is to distinguish people though so that it can act as a signal. If you gave everyone an extra ten minutes, then they would have to make the exam harder, because if everyone gets perfect raw scores with extra time, then it simply is not doing its job, the job of acting as a signal to the Law Schools."

(sorry, I don't use TLS a lot and don't know how to do the quotey thing)

I understand this and agree. Giving everyone an extra ten minutes wouldn't do anything because you wouldn't be able to distinguish one from the other, which is the point of the LSAT. I just think it's remarkable that the signal deals in minutes, and what that means for the future.

[20141023]

.

[ggocat]

What separates the 166 scorer from the 159 scorer can be as little as 10 minutes.

This is incorrect. As I explained earlier, if everyone gets 10 more minutes, that does not mean you receiving 10 more minutes would affect your score at all. By comparing a timed and untimed score, you're not comparing anything meaningful.