No more LSAT? Forum

[sophia.olive]

"They would give way more notice if they were going to do that."
Do you really think that?

It'd be really unprofessional not to. No, any change as big as that they would announce well in advance of a cycle.

Ok i feel comfortable studying again ty

[Patriot1208]

This thread reads as a bunch of people who can't hack it that are convinced they reallly are special, I mean really, and Columbia should notice that.

[manbearwig]

"They would give way more notice if they were going to do that."
Do you really think that?

No.

[StrictlyLiable]

Am i studying for the october test just to get my score thrown out the window?

That would be horrible. As long as it isn't before February I don't care.

[You Gotta Have Faith]

The video is interesting. But I just don't see such a thing happening. Or I would be very surprised if they got rid of the LSAT. The LSAT is the only thing (apart from, arguably, the personal statement) that is standardized and presents the same challenge to all law students in attempting to gain admission to any given law school.

While the personal statement is something that law schools also look at, it could be written by someone else. However the LSAT, at least in theory, is taken only by the applicant and thus the only thing that is standard in the process. Grades, as we all know, can mean different things at different schools. And they can also vary based off of what major you had as an undergrad.

Do I think Adcomms should place as much emphasis as they do on the LSAT at all times? No, not really. I think they should look at other things and weigh other factors as they too are important. But I also don't think that getting rid of the only standardized thing in the admissions process is a good idea. Getting rid of the LSAT could create a school hierarchy where those from the better undergrad schools would stand a greater chance of getting into the better law schools. The LSAT gives the student from Podunk State U. a chance to outscore the guy from Princeton.

But again, I wish we did live in a world where the LSAT wasn't the all important and determining factor. USNWR has certainly not helped this. Though, as I've noted in previous posts, I think that there is a law school hierarchy that is really rigid (as opposed to med schools) precisely because it is not terribly difficult to gain admission into a law school somewhere. This is not the case with Med schools.

And I digress... meh.

[094320]

..

[thecilent]

ie: A 174 is *the same* as a 171 in their eyes

[094320]

..

[d34d9823]

ie: A 174 is *the same* as a 171 in their eyes

Also means a 177 and 174 are about the same as well.

"The same" is overstating it I think. Within the range of normal variability in scores is more how I understood it.

[christmas mouse]

What should happen is they should eliminate those $1,500 LSAT classes (yea impossible in a free market, I know), and should limit to taking it twice period. That puts everyone on an equal scale, for the most part.

[Nestico87]

The real problem with the LSAT is the socioeconomic divide it creates. Even with a fee waiver many intellectually qualified candidates are left in the dust. They're completely unable to afford the ridiculously priced classes. Even the independent study guides are ridiculously priced. Assuming these poor saps scrape together the cheddar for a powerscore bible and a set of tests, they're more prohibited than well-endowed test takers simply because they lack the equivalent study time due to work obligations created by financial hardship.

I don't think there's a complete solution with the current LSAT format, but at the very minimum LSAC needs to increase the time limit per section, or reduce the section size.

If they increased the time limit, nothing would distinguish the good lsat takers from the great lsat takers. For those really prepared for the test (and yes I was able to fully prepare while working full time making $8 an hour and without a class, it's not that hard) five extra minutes would make the test a piece of cake. 3 minutes is the difference between 165 and 175.

I agree. Besides, increasing the time limit would not remedy any type of socioeconomic divide. The LSAT doesn't create a socioeconomic divide. That is already there, and as the UVA professor mentioned (IIRC) can be seen as early as second grade.

The world is not completely fair. Overall, it seems like the LSAT probably evens things out (by allowing people like me, who went to an unknown undergrad, to get into a top law school) more than it perpetuates inequalities.

I agree with dutchstriker. The LSAT doesn't create a socioeconomic divide. Paying for LSAT preparation materials might be difficult, but not difficult enough to create a socioeconomic divide that didn't already exist because of the required bachelors degree. If someone can figure out how to finance a bachelors degree, funding the LSAT isn't asking too much more of them.

[christmas mouse]

The thing is if u take the course your score will go up, so yea that will help u get into better schools, but that makes it fail as an accurate predictor of your law school aptitude. In law school no one is going to make u come in and study every day. The people who raise their score on their own through discipline will be far more prepared for the rigors of law school and their score is a much more accurate representation of how they will do.

[094320]

..

[ajmanyjah]

At the end of this video (last 2 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c of the University of Virginia law professor Alex Johnson, former chair of the Law School Admissions Council and former dean of Minnesota Law School, talking about the LSAT and its use, he strongly implies that the LSAT will be eliminated in the admissions process sometime in the next few years.

Any thoughts?

If you have the time watch the whole video, its really interesting. I am not a minority and I still feel like it was highly informative on the admissions process, the use of the LSAT, and the effects of USNEWS on admissions.

The LSAT is fine. It just shouldn't be the main mover. And a former Dean of Admissions saying stuff like that is like a drug dealer complaining about crackheads.

However, USNews has to have the stupidest system of rankings. Difficulty of entry is orthogonal to quality and can be borne out on things like end results. A good school gives good results, and the frontload of difficulty is a crazy measurement device...though it gives decent predictive ability as to tiers...it is a derivative of quality and indirect

[MiamiUG]

THe blackboard in the background says "Free Chipotle!" on it. I was trying to listen to the friendly man in the video but all I could think about was a barbacoa burrito with pinto beans, rice, guacamole, corn, hot sauce and sour cream. Fuck I'm hungry.

[2014]

As someone who is going to be applying with a sub 3.5 GPA, the LSAT is the only reason that I have a hope of getting into a T14 school. For that reason alone I appreciate how important it is because it makes it extremely clear that it is the most important thing to focus on until October 1.