Help me connect the dots here... Forum

[washin34]

I'm curious to find out what is learned in law school other than "legal theory". The reason I ask is because many deduce that since I am struggling to gain a grasp on the LSAT, that I will be a bad canidate for law school. Is there a correlation between compentency and the LSAT? What is it about logic games that can predict whether you will be able to comprehend law when it is taught to you? What are your assignments like in law school?

[NewtonLied]

I'm curious to find out what is learned in law school other than "legal theory". The reason I ask is because many deduce that since I am struggling to gain a grasp on the LSAT, that I will be a bad canidate for law school. Is there a correlation between compentency and the LSAT? What is it about logic games that can predict whether you will be able to comprehend law when it is taught to you? What are your assignments like in law school?

.4

[270910]

I'm curious to find out what is learned in law school other than "legal theory". The reason I ask is because many deduce that since I am struggling to gain a grasp on the LSAT, that I will be a bad canidate for law school. Is there a correlation between compentency and the LSAT? What is it about logic games that can predict whether you will be able to comprehend law when it is taught to you? What are your assignments like in law school?

It's a weak correlation but it's there. Big score differences are more meaningful.

Logic games don't ever come up directly, but that kind of thought process is always used in a fairly shallow way in judicial opinions. Logical reasoning same-same. Reading comprehension comes closest to useful, just because you're often reading extremely dense material.

At the end of the day, the LSAT is a decent predictor of bar passage and law school performance, but not a good one. It's still the best metric available and so schools use it.

[holydonkey]

I'm curious to find out what is learned in law school other than "legal theory". The reason I ask is because many deduce that since I am struggling to gain a grasp on the LSAT, that I will be a bad canidate for law school. Is there a correlation between compentency and the LSAT? What is it about logic games that can predict whether you will be able to comprehend law when it is taught to you? What are your assignments like in law school?

Yes, the correlation is 16%. Ability to understand complex logic. Reading, tests, memo writing.

I think a good example of the link between logic games and understanding the law would be in looking at something like causation in tort law. http://www.west.net/~smith/causation.htm

Of course, I'm still a 0L, so maybe someone else can offer a better example.

[Dman]

As a 1L, and someone who did very well on LG section on the LSAT, I do see being able to understand LG and do those type of problems quickly as very helpful in a few classes. One being claim joinder in Civ Pro. There are many rules that operate on "may" and "must" and to effectively diagram and make inferences, allows you to quickly get to the big policy questions faster (if you get there at all). Another example is Notice under recording acts in property. Chain of title problems often have numerous parties over many years, that again with fast and correct diagramming you are able to draw inferences and will be able to answer who could have notice and how.

So in the above sense, there is a relation to what the LSAT tests. However the skills are just pieces to the bigger picture.

[nealric]

helpful in a few classes. One being claim joinder in Civ Pro. There are many rules that operate on "may" and "must" and to effectively diagram and make inferences, allows you to quickly get to the big policy questions faster (if you get there at all). Another example is Notice under recording acts in property. Chain of title problems often have numerous parties over many years, that again with fast and correct diagramming you are able to draw inferences and will be able to answer who could have notice and how.

I agree that civpro is very logic games-like. However, one of my strongest (and favorite) 1L subjects was Civpro, but my weakest (by far) section of the LSAT was the logic games. Part of the discrepancy was time. Given unlimited time, I could solve any logic game no problem. It just usually took me longer to figure out the necessary inferences than the test allowed. But when you are studying civpro, you have all the time you need to crack the "game". After that, it's just getting it memorized and organized in your head.

[washin34]

helpful in a few classes. One being claim joinder in Civ Pro. There are many rules that operate on "may" and "must" and to effectively diagram and make inferences, allows you to quickly get to the big policy questions faster (if you get there at all). Another example is Notice under recording acts in property. Chain of title problems often have numerous parties over many years, that again with fast and correct diagramming you are able to draw inferences and will be able to answer who could have notice and how.

I agree that civpro is very logic games-like. However, one of my strongest (and favorite) 1L subjects was Civpro, but my weakest (by far) section of the LSAT was the logic games. Part of the discrepancy was time. Given unlimited time, I could solve any logic game no problem. It just usually took me longer to figure out the necessary inferences than the test allowed. But when you are studying civpro, you have all the time you need to crack the "game". After that, it's just getting it memorized and organized in your head.

I was hoping that there was someone like you out there.

[firebreathingliberal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation

Correlation does not imply causation, no pun intended with regards to legal causation.

Just because you didn't do well on the LSAT doesn't mean you wont be a good law student/attorney. And the flip side, just because you did do well on the LSAT doesn't mean you WILL be a good law student/attorney.