Comparative Difficulties Between the LSAT and GPA. Forum

[cron1834]

I always felt like LG was somehow disconnected from the type of work done in law school, while reading comp and logical reasoning were far more relevant.

Considering that LG is the most "gameable" and most susceptible to huge score increases with practice, I am inclined to agree with you. Would love to see these numbers, if they exist.

[Pneumonia]

Would just like to once again point out that this is a silly thread.

OP: I've taught the LSAT to people with 3.8+ that spent 4-5 months and still could not break 155. Also had a guy with a 2.75 PT a 178 within his first four tests. If you are looking for a specific anecdote then I'm sure someone ITT can provide it. If you are looking for generalities then the ones given are accurate: UG is about work ethic, LSAT is about natural talent (talent for taking the test that is, not necessarily raw logic/intelligence, although the two go hand in hand more often than not).

It is entirely dependent on your UG/major/background/ability/work ethic etc. There is no comparison.

[Tiago Splitter]

The nice thing about the LSAT is that it more closely resembles a law school exam than anything I took in undergrad.

[Moonlight]

Content Deleted

[RobertGolddust]

If you can pull that gpa from a real college you can pass the lsat.

[Pneumonia]

If you can pull that gpa from a real college you can pass the lsat.

In general I agree but the dude I mentioned had that gpa from a top 20 public school (state flagship, research university). He was in his mid 30's and had only recently graduated, which I think goes to show that work ethic can get you places in UG that it cannot always get you with the LSAT.

[KD35]

If you can pull that gpa from a real college you can pass the lsat.

What do you consider a "pass"?

[Kevinlomax]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c

[Straw_Mandible]

Would just like to once again point out that this is a silly thread.

OP: I've taught the LSAT to people with 3.8+ that spent 4-5 months and still could not break 155. Also had a guy with a 2.75 PT a 178 within his first four tests. If you are looking for a specific anecdote then I'm sure someone ITT can provide it. If you are looking for generalities then the ones given are accurate: UG is about work ethic, LSAT is about natural talent (talent for taking the test that is, not necessarily raw logic/intelligence, although the two go hand in hand more often than not).

It is entirely dependent on your UG/major/background/ability/work ethic etc. There is no comparison.

The bolded statement is disastrously misleading. Success on the LSAT is dependent on a concrete set of skills, which can be isolated, trained, and developed. Anyone who is capable of success in UG has the raw material necessary to succeed on the LSAT. "Natural talent" in only relevant insofar as it determines the amount of time and effort a person needs to invest in order to master those skills.

[Pneumonia]

The bolded statement is disastrously misleading. Success on the LSAT is dependent on a concrete set of skills, which can be isolated, trained, and developed. Anyone who is capable of success in UG has the raw material necessary to succeed on the LSAT. "Natural talent" in only relevant insofar as it determines the amount of time and effort a person needs to invest in order to master those skills.

What I am saying is that I have seen this fail to be the case. In my post I was explicit about the fact that I was referring to generalities about the test. I don't care to argue about whether the LSAT actually tests "natural talent," but that is something it purports to do.

[drawstring]

Natural ability sets different ranges for people, and where someone falls within their range depends heavily on their studying. Natural talent is still highly relevant to where someone ends up though.

Anyone who is capable of success in UG has the raw material necessary to succeed on the LSAT.

What do you mean by succeed? A 160? 170+?

[indo]

Simple answer:
LSAT tests innate ability,or talent
GPA tests work ethic, or drive

You get a high GPA by working hard, while you get a high LSAT by having good logic/reasoning/etc.

Of course, this isn't actually true. Some people get a really high GPA while doing minimal work, others struggle to get Cs. Likewise, the LSAT is a learnable test and you can get a higher score by drilling down

But that's the concept. They both test different things, and people with low GPAs can get high LSATs and vice versa

African American , Hispanic American and native American usually have lower LSAT and GPA.

you said GPA tests work ethic and drive. Are you saying AA , HA and NA DO NOT have work ethic and drive ?

you said LSAT innate ability or talent are you implying that AA, HA and NA do NOT have those ?

Corrected the typo. sorry for earlier typo

[Pneumonia]

Simple answer:
LSAT tests innate ability,or talent
GPA tests work ethic, or drive

You get a high GPA by working hard, while you get a high LSAT by having good logic/reasoning/etc.

Of course, this isn't actually true. Some people get a really high GPA while doing minimal work, others struggle to get Cs. Likewise, the LSAT is a learnable test and you can get a higher score by drilling down

But that's the concept. They both test different things, and people with low GPAs can get high LSATs and vice versa

African American , Hispanic American and native American usually have lower LSAT and GPA.

you said GPA tests work ethic and drive. Are you saying AA , HA and NA DO NOT have work ethic and drive ?

you said LSAT inmate ability or talent are you implying that AA, HA and NA do NOT have those ?

In that post you quoted the author says "of course this isn't actually true." Also, your post is bad and you should feel bad for posting it.

[DrStudMuffin]

Simple answer:
LSAT tests innate ability,or talent
GPA tests work ethic, or drive

You get a high GPA by working hard, while you get a high LSAT by having good logic/reasoning/etc.

Of course, this isn't actually true. Some people get a really high GPA while doing minimal work, others struggle to get Cs. Likewise, the LSAT is a learnable test and you can get a higher score by drilling down

But that's the concept. They both test different things, and people with low GPAs can get high LSATs and vice versa

African American , Hispanic American and native American usually have lower LSAT and GPA.

you said GPA tests work ethic and drive. Are you saying AA , HA and NA DO NOT have work ethic and drive ?

you said LSAT inmate ability or talent are you implying that AA, HA and NA do NOT have those ?

I can't tell if you're joking or if you're just dumb.

[ScottRiqui]

African American , Hispanic American and native American usually have lower LSAT and GPA.

you said GPA tests work ethic and drive. Are you saying AA , HA and NA DO NOT have work ethic and drive ?

you said LSAT inmate ability or talent are you implying that AA, HA and NA do NOT have those ?

inmate ability

inmate

Freudian slip?

[indo]

African American , Hispanic American and native American usually have lower LSAT and GPA.

you said GPA tests work ethic and drive. Are you saying AA , HA and NA DO NOT have work ethic and drive ?

you said LSAT inmate ability or talent are you implying that AA, HA and NA do NOT have those ?

inmate ability

inmate

Freudian slip?

+ 1 good one lol sorry for the typo.

[indo]

Simple answer:
LSAT tests innate ability,or talent
GPA tests work ethic, or drive

You get a high GPA by working hard, while you get a high LSAT by having good logic/reasoning/etc.

Of course, this isn't actually true. Some people get a really high GPA while doing minimal work, others struggle to get Cs. Likewise, the LSAT is a learnable test and you can get a higher score by drilling down

But that's the concept. They both test different things, and people with low GPAs can get high LSATs and vice versa

African American , Hispanic American and native American usually have lower LSAT and GPA.

you said GPA tests work ethic and drive. Are you saying AA , HA and NA DO NOT have work ethic and drive ?

you said LSAT inmate ability or talent are you implying that AA, HA and NA do NOT have those ?

I can't tell if you're joking or if you're just dumb.

what right do you have to call someone dumb ?
I think you are so dumb that you can not face the fact.

[Nova]

If you can pull that gpa from a real college you can pass the lsat.

What do you consider a "pass"?

Lol

Based on a typical grading scale maybe

So a 70 is "passing"

& a 170 is typically acing it!

[indo]

Simple answer:
LSAT tests innate ability,or talent
GPA tests work ethic, or drive

You get a high GPA by working hard, while you get a high LSAT by having good logic/reasoning/etc.

Of course, this isn't actually true. Some people get a really high GPA while doing minimal work, others struggle to get Cs. Likewise, the LSAT is a learnable test and you can get a higher score by drilling down

But that's the concept. They both test different things, and people with low GPAs can get high LSATs and vice versa

African American , Hispanic American and native American usually have lower LSAT and GPA.

you said GPA tests work ethic and drive. Are you saying AA , HA and NA DO NOT have work ethic and drive ?

you said LSAT inmate ability or talent are you implying that AA, HA and NA do NOT have those ?

In that post you quoted the author says "of course this isn't actually true." Also, your post is bad and you should feel bad for posting it.

You said LSAT is learnable so you are saying AA ,HA and NA CAN NOT learn LSAT ?
you making the statement and I am challenging your statement .

[Nova]

Minorities score lower on average because, on average, they have had access to less and lower quality resources growing up

[Pneumonia]

You said LSAT is learnable so you are saying AA ,HA and NA CAN NOT learn LSAT ?
you making the statement and I am challenging your statement .

In one post you're challenging the assumption that the LSAT is learnable, and in another you're challenging the assumption that it is innate. Please make up your mind about which assumption you want to challenge.

After that you should point to where exactly that hypothesis was posited by someone in this thread, and provide your reasons for thinking that it is wrong. In doing so you should remember that there is a difference between relative and absolute performance on a test. Lower score does not = HAVE BAD SCORE.

[indo]

Minorities score lower on average because, on average, they have had access to less and lower quality resources growing up

+ 1 agree

[indo]

You said LSAT is learnable so you are saying AA ,HA and NA CAN NOT learn LSAT ?
you making the statement and I am challenging your statement .

In one post you're challenging the assumption that the LSAT is learnable, and in another you're challenging the assumption that it is innate. Please make up your mind about which assumption you want to challenge.

After that you should point to where exactly that hypothesis was posited by someone in this thread, and provide your reasons for thinking that it is wrong. In doing so you should remember that there is a difference between relative and absolute performance on a test. Lower score does not = HAVE BAD SCORE.

Did you said LSAT is learnable for everyone ?

[Pneumonia]

Did you said LSAT is learnable ?

Yes it is learnable. If you want to draw racial/ethnic conclusions from this fact then that is your prerogative.

[indo]

Did you said LSAT is learnable ?

Yes it is learnable. If you want to draw racial/ethnic conclusions from this fact then that is your prerogative.

So you are saying that learnable only for the rich ? For white ? for Asian ? for African American ? for Hispanic American Native American ?