Top Law Schools

To me the answer is obvious, the LSAT was nice and relaxed. However, I have heard others say to the contrary.

What have you?

Are you kidding me? I would take the LSAT a million times in a row before I would do the bar exam over again.

.

whirledpeas86 wrote:Are you kidding me? I would take the LSAT a million times in a row before I would do the bar exam over again.

Even if the lsat were two or three days like the bar exam it still wouldn't come close to comparison. Those who said the lsat was worse are probably some disgruntled 0Ls. I remember as a 0L and even during law school thinking the bar exam can't be that bad considering people actually pass it and because it was pass fail. I want to hurt my younger self.

Is this a joke?

let's see 3 hours vs 3 days

Well, I didn't have 100k in loans when I took the LSAT, soooo...

I don't know how anyone could say the LSAT is worse. Even if the tests were exactly the same length and difficulty, the stakes are completely different, which definitely affects the relative experience/ miserableness of each test.

Eta: I took the CA bar.

Bar is pass/fail. It's skill-based and knowledge-based.

LSAT is a specific number. It's purely skill-based. The number you get on the LSAT means a lot - it determines where you go to law school and the scholarships you will receive. A high LSAT score can mean full rides at some schools.

I'm actually going to say that the LSAT is worse because if you are taking the Bar, then you've jumped through a crazy amount of hurdles to get to sit there and you are more likely than not going to pass it if you put in the proper amount of prep time. If I let my PTSD rule me, then I would say the Bar. However, I've met senior attorneys who seem to treat the Bar as "that old thing [insert snicker]" so in a year or two we'll all probably forget how grueling and awful it was to prepare for it.

Idk, I think I studied about 10% as hard for the LSAT as I did for the bar exam... my study skills/willpower weren't as developed yet because I was still a liberal arts major who could skate through life bullshitting essays the night before they were due. I guess I idly hoped for "wouldn't it be cool if I got a 180 or something?" but wasn't really expecting that. I guess I liked the subject material a lot less, I hate logic games and I'll never be able to sort things in a row from left to right. But if I can figure out where the jury box is, good enough.

With the bar exam, it's more of "wow my loans are due in December, if I don't pass my first time, I won't be a licensed attorney until May, my entire group of friends and family will know if I pass or not because my state publishes a list of who passes or who fails." And I don't exactly have a legal job lined up so passing is pretty important. Your friends and family have no idea what's a good LSAT score, heck, most of them don't even know what a good law school is. But with the bar exam everyone knows. And you have to learn Civ Pro MBE questions if you fail.

LSAT blows more because the hair-splitting is ridiculous. If the guy next to you farts and you get 2 additional problems wrong, that's the difference between Harvard and Chicago, or Chicago and Penn, or Penn and Cornell, or Cornell and some shithole. Your whole destiny teeters on the possibility of a fart, or the need to piss, or whatever.

There's no such hairsplitting on the bar, at least in my state. Also, by the time the bar roles around you went to a good school or you didn't, you were on bar review or you weren't, you had good SAs or you didn't, you were top of your class or you weren't, you have a good job, a shit job, or no job. You pretty much are what you are at that point. If you've kicked ass for the past 5 years you're going to kick ass on the bar and go to your kick ass job. If you're a perpetual failure you're probably going to fail again, but it's not really going to matter because you don't have a job anyway.

LSAT is more trivial and there's more riding on it: a blow-worthy combination. I think people saying the bar blew more just have it fresh in their mind.

This is stupid.

I was far more stressed taking the LSAT on the day itself, because of all that rides on it. I was more stressed leading up to the bar exam, but pretty cool on the day of the exam. And I took the California bar, which is pretty bad.

The bar exam is way more miserable (and I took it 3 years ago).

Bar exam by far. Memorizing 1,000,000 rules, elements, exceptions to the rules, possible defenses, etc. is far more time consuming and tedious in my opinion. The LSAT sucks, but your preparation really focuses how to take the test and tackle certain types of questions and no substantive knowledge is expected. The bar exam requires learning "how" to do the various sections as well as memorizing an unbelievable amount of substantive law. Bar also requires a lot more test taking stamina (3 days vs. 1).

Also, there's absolutely no shame in taking the LSAT more than once. In fact, many people do. In contrast, having to take the bar exam more than once bc you failed the first time definitely has stigma attached.

The 5 people who said LSAT blew more are lying.

dallaseagle wrote:The 5 people who said LSAT blew definitely failed the bar exam.

ftfy

While they are both extremely important, the Bar is unquestionably harder. LSAT determines your school and tuition (which is paramount) but the Bar comes at a time when you have to show your employer that they didn’t screw up by hiring you (is the way I looked at it).

You can retake the LSAT without anyone breathing down your neck, not so with the bar.

I took the CA bar and another; the LSAT was a lot harder for me. I didn't think the CA Bar was that bad. The other bar I took was like a walk in the park.

Then again, I like memorizing the law.

Another reason why the LSAT was a lot harder is that it is highly dependent on what score you get. THe bar exam, it's pass or fail. Fortunate to pass both bars on the first try.

duskfall wrote:I took the CA bar and another; the LSAT was a lot harder for me. I didn't think the CA Bar was that bad. The other bar I took was like a walk in the park.

Then again, I like memorizing the law.

multiple thinly veiled barges in your posts

I studied (if you could even call it that) for the LSAT for 30 days, studied for the bar essentially for seven months. The bar exam itself was not hard, the preparation is what made it tough.

that's a question hard to fathom bc the bar exam was exponentially more painful

if you take the LSAT and don't get an acceptable score, you don't go to law school, and you save time and money. You don't take the bar exam until AFTER you graduate law school, so if you don't get an acceptable score, you still spent time and money AND you have to spend more time and money re-taking the exam.

the bar exam blows.

LAWYER2 wrote:I studied (if you could even call it that) for the LSAT for 30 days, studied for the bar essentially for seven months. The bar exam itself was not hard, the preparation is what made it tough.

I did the reverse, I think the ROI was better on the LSAT. LSAT changed the game for me, bar not so much.

Purely looking at the exam it's hard to compare. I had to become good at something for the LSAT; I had to remember a lot of junk for the bar.