Which is harder: a 1L law school exam or the LSAT? Forum

[adonai]

^Holy crap. I thought I was pretty anti-LSAT (if I am ever in a position to do so in the future, I will fight for its elimination from the LS process) but this dude takes it to another level. Kind of tragically heroic in a sense.

[fundamentallybroken]

(bunches of gobbledygook)

...who are you?

Son of Taxlaw?

[HBK]

I think that the LSAT was 100 times easier.

I spent way more time preparing for my 1L exams and I am 100% less confident than I was after taking the LSAT. It is the damn curve, you can never be sure.

This is true. For my 1L exams, the ones I thought I booked, I got Bs or B+s. The ones I was less confident about ended up being As.

[Philosopher King]

Hi all, I'm new here but I have been reading these posts for a few days now and I'm glad I'm not the only tortured soul out there. I really thought we would have to wait until the 6th! Anyway, I'm glad to be a part of this likeable group of future law students. In case anyone is curious, my score is a 155. I was hoping for a 160 but there were just too many problems including a ridiculously lengthy and involved LR section, A really hard RC section (during which I had to go to the bathroom worse than I ever have in my entire life), and a numbering issue in the other LR section. The AR section was normal but I did horrible just like on the preptests. I got a 164 on the last preptest I took and that was under timed conditions.

If the LSAT isn't unfair then I don't know what is.

I don't know how you did but hopefully you used better logic during the test then what you have presented here. Seriously you have no idea the situation I'm in. The LSAT is unfair for me for several good reasons. Rather than criticize me why not ask what my arguments are?

The LSAT is fundamentally unfair because it matters so much more at most schools than the many thousands of hours of hard work put into four years of undergraduate study. It is a multiple choice test of strange questions that are not always directly linkable to real life (I'm mainly talking about AR here--the other two sections are okay) that is taken under totalitarian and absurd conditions (no scrap paper or mechanical pencils, etc.) where so much can go wrong (my bathroom problem being exhibit A and I have heard horror stories of marching bands playing outside, etc.). It is three hours one morning of filling in bubbles versus four years of writing essays, studying, taking tests, attending classes, etc. And even multiple choice tests! But other great stuff like essays too, of course. It is scandalous that this dumb test counts so much. And those responsible need to be brought to justice.

It is unfair to everyone. There are special circumstances that make it unfair to me personally above and beyond these reasons but this thread is not about me--it's about all of us. Nonetheless, I will say that I am not "neurotypical" because I have mild Autism. My cognitive abilities are all over the place. One cognitive ability, processing speed, is below the 10th percentile if I remember my psychological testing properly. I am strong in many other areas but it is impossible for those to shine with the draconian time limits on the LSAT. It is especially unfair to me for this reason. It may be an OKAY predictor of law school success for "neurotypical" people (but to a MUCH lesser degree than the LSAC pinheads claim) because neurotypical people tend to have fairly consistent cognitive abilities across the board not drastic strengths in some areas and drastic weaknesses in others. And if anyone wants to know why I don't get extra time accommodations it is because LSAC, possibly illegally, tells law schools to interpret such scores "with great sensitivity and flexibility," thinly veiled code for "disregard this score because the candidate got extra time because we just have to pretend to follow the law." Any other questions?!

Well I never took the SAT and I'm doing just fine and so is the world of academia so that's where I'm coming from. I'm sure I would have not done very well on the SAT either.

If you're referring to me, then have you read my earlier posts? Like the one at the top of this page? I have reasons for what I say. The LSAT is just bad news and I know that my less-than-stellar score says nothing about my abilities. Nothing. It is wrong and LSAC ought to be ashamed of themselves and the scam they have running. They ought to be locked up just like all the other scam artists that ruin people's lives unjustly.

So then I'm an idiot? Really, it's blanket statements like this that make me angry.

EDIT: But who are "they," the people that decide it is so important? "They" were "us" a few years ago, no? Same thing with the LSAC pinheads. What happens to "us" once we become lawyers? "We" are just going to become like "them"? NOOO! Say it isn't so!

Actually, I'm trying to help you see clearly and if you paid attention to some of the things I was saying then maybe you would learn something. I have arguments that support my position. If you think I'm wrong then attack my arguments and explain to me where I am wrong.

Most importantly, they can put more emphasis on a candidate's major. I am a senior at a selective and excellent university (in this article it says my university is more selective than Temple and Penn State and I read somewhere that the median high school gpa for freshman is about 3.5. --LinkRemoved-- ... ain-campus).

I have two majors: philosophy and political science. These two majors, especially philosophy, heavily emphasize the very same skills that the LSAT does: the ability to be analytical, think logically, comprehend complex readings, etc. I have demonstrated the skills the LSAT tests for through multiple choice tests plus short answer and essay tests. I have written countless essays and papers that required these skills. I have attended countless hours of class lectures where these skills were emphasized and required.

Someday I may file a lawsuit against LSAC for violating the American with Disabilities Act and I should probably talk to a lawyer now about that. I will in fact do that soon. The arguments I make now are not in vain but my platform to force future changes. I won't let LSAC or anyone else that screws me in my life get away with it. LSAC may think they're a bunch of gods but I will dethrone them should I get the chance. I have drafted a statement making my arguments. Here is an example of what I have written. This just a draft of course:


I feel the need to explain my relatively low LSAT score and why that should not affect my admissions chances. I am not a standard person and, as I see it, there is no standard life, no standard day, no standard court case, etc. thus rendering any standardized test as a measurement of anything important questionable. Besides, there is no reason why filling in bubbles with a pencil for three hours one Saturday morning should count so much more than my performance for over three years and countless thousands of hours of undergraduate work. I'm not anti-LSAT but I think a 4.0 (out of 4.0) cumulative GPA with majors in philosophy and political science from a well-respected and highly selective university serve as better measures of my ability to reason, analyze, think logically, formulate good arguments, comprehend information, and other such skills than any three hour multiple choice standardized test ever could. I have mastered the skills that the LSAT tests for and that law schools rightly want their students to possess. There would be no way to get the grades I did without having done so.

I never took the SAT or the ACT. If I had taken the ACT or SAT I may not have done very well since standardized tests are not my forte. Nonetheless my undergraduate performance was excellent. In other words, the SAT or ACT probably would not not have reflected such an ability to succeed in college. I don't see why this same logic can''t be applied to my LSAT score and my performance in law school.

By all means be argumentative. I love to argue--I'm a philosophy student! I guess my point boils down to this: If I don't have good analytical skills, good logical reasoning skills, good reading comprehension, and other skills the LSAT tests then how did I get an "A" in my Logic class from this past semester? How did I get an A in my History of Ancient Philosophy class, which involved being able to understand very hard readings about abstract concepts by Aristotle, among others? How did I get an "A" in Constitutional Law or Political Theory? How did I get an "A" (I never got any A-minuses even) in every course that I have ever taken in college if I don't have these skills? I'm going to call the LSAC pinheads tomorrow and ask them why any reasonable person should think that their dopey little test is a better indicator of my possession of the aforementioned skills than my GPA. I can't wait to hear what they say.

Of course it's not a coincidence; it's a conspiracy. And no, I'm not "one of those guys..." Have you read my arguments? I presented evidence. A philosophy professor at my college called the weight put on the LSAT "scandalous" and he is absolutely right. He went to law school and was a lawyer then got a Ph.D in philosophy. The guy knows what he's talking about. It isn't just what I'm saying; it's the truth. I speak the truth. If you think otherwise then go ahead and make an argument as to why my GPA should not be considered above my LSAT score. Go ahead. I challenge you.

Actually, my arguments focus on three main areas: moral, practical, and legal issues. The LSAT is legally incorrect because LSAC openly admits that they do things in a manner that violates the ADA. It is morally incorrect and impractical for the reasons I have said so far. I have made extensive arguments on this matter.

Any system except for the whole damn country, which is built to protect minority rights from being trampled by the majority? Anyway, I never admitted that the LSAT was a "good" indication for "normal people," I just conceded that I personally have unique circumstances that further enhance my general arguments, which I think are somewhat compelling. The LSAT is just bad. It's like Osama bin Laden. There isn't anything good about it and only a select few pinheads would miss it if it were gone. Sorry, that's a weak analogy fallacy but I think it's funny. I'm actually not entirely anti-LSAT it should just matter less. It's scandalous.

That's how the Bar exam works and that test is even more important. In my case LSAT came nowhere near properly measuring my potential with the skills you just mentioned. My undergrad record does though but they don't care about that,

Don't worry I plan to send them a belated Christmas present: a lawsuit. But that's real good that you think we should bow down and thank them for giving us a -14 curve. They've conditioned you well.

Well the unjust status quo sure as hell isn't winning anything either. LSAC is breaking the law and I'm going to try to hold them accountable for it.

Yeah well I actually respected the Occupy cretin more than I do the LSAC people. Unfortunately LSAC gets away with what they do because it's such a small percentage of the population that is victimized. We're not the "99%" exactly, if you know what I mean. Within that small group of victims, almost everyone either agrees with LSAC (some on here want to shower them with presents for the -14 curve for example) or has been conditioned to accept unjust circumstances because they beleive change cannot be affected. But I have the better arguments and that's what's important to me. LSAC couldn't win an argument with me in court.

I didn't get accommodations precisely because I was dissuaded by LSAC's illegal practices.

I'm not going to play this absurd game. This whole LSAT is a huge injustice. I'm angry and feeling despondent right about now. My undergrad GPA has done literally nothing for me and I worked hard for it. Heck, I won't even be recognized for any type of honors at graduation at my university. I have just been screwed left and right and I should be done with academia about now. I have been a positive part of academia and wtf have I gotten in return? Rejection. Screw academia. What the hell else more do they want from me? What more must I do to prove myself?

What's tragic is the LSAT's very existence. LSAC people should get life in prison for the lives they have ruined.

...who are you?

I'm me. Why do you ask? Oh and thanks for compiling some of my arguments in one post.

[D'Angelo]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=170599

[jjcheng]

To those who said the LSAT is easier, how long did you prepare?

I spent a good month of prep of nothing but LSAT for the damn thing, I just couldn't imagine spending that much time prepping for any other exam, law school or otherwise.

[I got a 170. Not amazing since I was pretty burnt out and couldn't sleep the night before during test-day, but I wouldn't say it's a completely unrepresentative score.]

[quiver]

I spent a good month of prep of nothing but LSAT for the damn thing, I just couldn't imagine spending that much time prepping for any other exam, law school or otherwise.

Then law school is gonna be a real uphill battle for you.

[JoeFish]

To those who said the LSAT is easier, how long did you prepare?

I spent a good month of prep of nothing but LSAT for the damn thing, I just couldn't imagine spending that much time prepping for any other exam, law school or otherwise.

About 50 hours, and it was too much for me. But my point is that it's just so incomparable depending on what you're good at. For me 1L Exams are to the LSATs, SATs, and any other standardized test as driving across the country is to putting the keys in the car and turning the damn thing on. But a ton of other people on here had the LSATs as their major block, and once they got past it, found 1L exams to be far more manageable. Just like everything else in Law School, it is exceedingly dependent on the individual. I had to change the way I was doing things a whole lot to even have a chance at success, and I worked orders of magnitude harder on 1L exams than on anything else I'd done in my life. For some people, it's the same, except with "the LSATs" instead of "1L exams"

[ilovesf]

To those who said the LSAT is easier, how long did you prepare?

I spent a good month of prep of nothing but LSAT for the damn thing, I just couldn't imagine spending that much time prepping for any other exam, law school or otherwise.

[I got a 170. Not amazing since I was pretty burnt out and couldn't sleep the night before during test-day, but I wouldn't say it's a completely unrepresentative score.]

Welcome to below median then. I took the LSAT twice and took a prepcourse the second time and took many practice tests on my own. I can't really quantify in hours how long I studied because it was a while ago, but I definitely studied for more than a month. I didn't do very well, and I probably did better on these exams I just took, but I still think the exams are more difficult. I just studied a lot harder this time.