URM and the LSAT Observations Forum

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Who is writing the LSAT? What is the race composition of the makers of the test? This needs to be reflective of the racial composition of the broader society to atleast move in a fair environment IMO.
I'm a URM that scored 169 in Dec 2011 and I can say without a doubt that I had to think differently to do well on that test. Perhaps we as minorities were raised to think differently, I know I was. I spent hours sometimes arguing over what really "strengthened" or "weakened" a logical reasoning question because I just couldn't get it. But as they say, "When in Rome do as the Romans do" so when i prepped for my LSAT i had to train my brain to "think white" and i found it to be effective. As a URM taking the LSAT test I had to wear two hats which me and my other successful URM friends like to call the "duality of conscience": the LSAT hat in which you would try to "think white" and the other hat which is your true self.
I hate that test with a passion! So glad it's over!

You could have just "thought asian" to be less of a sell out.

[princeR]

Who is writing the LSAT? What is the race composition of the makers of the test? This needs to be reflective of the racial composition of the broader society to atleast move in a fair environment IMO.
I'm a URM that scored 169 in Dec 2011 and I can say without a doubt that I had to think differently to do well on that test. Perhaps we as minorities were raised to think differently, I know I was. I spent hours sometimes arguing over what really "strengthened" or "weakened" a logical reasoning question because I just couldn't get it. But as they say, "When in Rome do as the Romans do" so when i prepped for my LSAT i had to train my brain to "think white" and i found it to be effective. As a URM taking the LSAT test I had to wear two hats which me and my other successful URM friends like to call the "duality of conscience": the LSAT hat in which you would try to "think white" and the other hat which is your true self.
I hate that test with a passion! So glad it's over!

I'm white and I have to think like the test-makers while taking it... I don't think its necessarily "think white" but actually "think LSAT". Most of us don't actually regularly think the way that the LSAT dictates. Your argument prescribes a position without any evidence. While the test makers might very well be all white, I think it has less to do with race and more to do with the actual language of the test. As a white person, I can't just sit down and instantly understand the convoluted language of the LSAT, it takes me time to get my head in the game and think like the test makers, that is, think like the test.

[kerflux]

ACCESS.

Great story. I've always figured that disadvantage stems solely from socioeconomic status; I've never really considered race to be a contemporary issue where I live, because, to be totally honest, it really has not been. Even growing up in poverty, however, I feel like I was still able to tap into white social capital in reference to making major life decisions - something you weren't able to do. Frankly, I've never really seen the logic of AA programs, or URM status - especially when it applies to people who already have more access than me, lol... this puts it in a better frame of reference. Anyway, way to take the initiative, man. I don't know what it's like to be a minority, but I know what it's like growing up in a shitty neighborhood with no success to emulate.

[Helicio]

--ImageRemoved--

I'm not whining, atleast, not anymore. My LSAT score with my undergrad pedigree and GPA and my URM status can get me into any law school in this country so I couldn't give a rat's a$$

Cool story bro.

[SublimeStyle]

As a URM with English as a third language, I can safely say the LSAT is a joke. I got a 172 studying for 2 weeks, I had tests in freshman year undergrad that were 3x harder than this (think engineering calc or e&m physics). I plan on studying for a month or two before the June LSAT, and if I get anything below a 177 I'll be pretty disappointed. As for socioeconomic status, my parents make between 50-60k/year combined so I'm definitely not at an advantage there. It's all about how badly you want something, and then how hard you're willing to work to get it. Everything else is an excuse.

[JustE]

As a URM with English as a third language, I can safely say the LSAT is a joke. I got a 172 studying for 2 weeks, I had tests in freshman year undergrad that were 3x harder than this (think engineering calc or e&m physics). I plan on studying for a month or two before the June LSAT, and if I get anything below a 177 I'll be pretty disappointed. As for socioeconomic status, my parents make between 50-60k/year combined so I'm definitely not at an advantage there. It's all about how badly you want something, and then how hard you're willing to work to get it. Everything else is an excuse.

Agreed... But it also sounds like you're just really, really smart... That might help

As for the last 9 pages: tl;dr.

[Philosopher King]

JustE, another part of the argument though is that the LSAT is almost meaningless in predicting law school performance. Thus, we might as well roll dice or flip coins to choice who should get in law school and get scholarship money. There are a lot of people in the legal/ law school community, including the ABA, that sees law school obsession with LSAT as ridiculous.

[rinkrat19]

JustE, another part of the argument though is that the LSAT is almost meaningless in predicting law school performance. Thus, we might as well roll dice or flip coins to choice who should get in law school and get scholarship money. There are a lot of people in the legal/ law school community, including the ABA, that sees law school obsession with LSAT as ridiculous.

Statistically, the LSAT is the best single predictor of law school grades there is. (When combined with GPA, the correllation is a big stronger.)

[YourCaptain]

i had to train my brain to "think white"

o dear

[Philosopher King]

JustE, another part of the argument though is that the LSAT is almost meaningless in predicting law school performance. Thus, we might as well roll dice or flip coins to choice who should get in law school and get scholarship money. There are a lot of people in the legal/ law school community, including the ABA, that sees law school obsession with LSAT as ridiculous.

Statistically, the LSAT is the best single predictor of law school grades there is. (When combined with GPA, the correllation is a big stronger.)

By whose statistics? LSACs? That's like the Republican Party giving statistics that Obamacare won't work. Totally unreliable (even though Obamacare probably won't work). LSAC is not divine, they are corrupt in my opinion.

[JustE]

JustE, another part of the argument though is that the LSAT is almost meaningless in predicting law school performance. Thus, we might as well roll dice or flip coins to choice who should get in law school and get scholarship money. There are a lot of people in the legal/ law school community, including the ABA, that sees law school obsession with LSAT as ridiculous.

Statistically, the LSAT is the best single predictor of law school grades there is. (When combined with GPA, the correllation is a big stronger.)

+1

It ain't perfect, but it's the best we got.

[rinkrat19]

JustE, another part of the argument though is that the LSAT is almost meaningless in predicting law school performance. Thus, we might as well roll dice or flip coins to choice who should get in law school and get scholarship money. There are a lot of people in the legal/ law school community, including the ABA, that sees law school obsession with LSAT as ridiculous.

Statistically, the LSAT is the best single predictor of law school grades there is. (When combined with GPA, the correllation is a big stronger.)

By whose statistics? LSACs? That's like the Republican Party giving statistics that Obamacare won't work. Totally unreliable (even though Obamacare probably won't work). LSAC is not divine, they are corrupt in my opinion.

And this is why everyone thinks you're trolling. Broad, sweeping assumptions that make no sense and aren't backed by a single fact.

[moneybagsphd]

As a URM with English as a third language, I can safely say the LSAT is a joke. I got a 172 studying for 2 weeks, I had tests in freshman year undergrad that were 3x harder than this (think engineering calc or e&m physics). I plan on studying for a month or two before the June LSAT, and if I get anything below a 177 I'll be pretty disappointed. As for socioeconomic status, my parents make between 50-60k/year combined so I'm definitely not at an advantage there. It's all about how badly you want something, and then how hard you're willing to work to get it. Everything else is an excuse.

douche chill.

[kerflux]

As a URM with English as a third language, I can safely say the LSAT is a joke. I got a 172 studying for 2 weeks, I had tests in freshman year undergrad that were 3x harder than this (think engineering calc or e&m physics). I plan on studying for a month or two before the June LSAT, and if I get anything below a 177 I'll be pretty disappointed. As for socioeconomic status, my parents make between 50-60k/year combined so I'm definitely not at an advantage there. It's all about how badly you want something, and then how hard you're willing to work to get it. Everything else is an excuse.

douche chill.

What does you scoring a 172, being a URM with English as a third language, or taking harder tests in undergrad have to do with the test being a joke? I don't follow. Clearly, it has reflected that you're an intelligent individual who is, presumably, likely to succeed in law school... if anything, the fact that English is your third language could potentially create an argument FOR the legitimacy of the LSAT as an unbiased predictor of success.

[ben4847]

I think they purposely write it so that URMs will underperform, and the purpose is so that they can then show how liberal and progressive they are by letting the URMs in anyway.

This theory explains why only certain URM's get a bump- it is the same ones that the test is written to impede.

[JustE]

As a URM with English as a third language, I can safely say the LSAT is a joke. I got a 172 studying for 2 weeks, I had tests in freshman year undergrad that were 3x harder than this (think engineering calc or e&m physics). I plan on studying for a month or two before the June LSAT, and if I get anything below a 177 I'll be pretty disappointed. As for socioeconomic status, my parents make between 50-60k/year combined so I'm definitely not at an advantage there. It's all about how badly you want something, and then how hard you're willing to work to get it. Everything else is an excuse.

douche chill.

What does you scoring a 172, being a URM with English as a third language, or taking harder tests in undergrad have to do with the test being a joke? I don't follow. Clearly, it has reflected that you're an intelligent individual who is, presumably, likely to succeed in law school... if anything, the fact that English is your third language could potentially create an argument FOR the legitimacy of the LSAT as an unbiased predictor of success.

I don't think he/she was trying to make an argument. I'm pretty sure they were just showing off...

[Philosopher King]

I think they purposely write it so that URMs will underperform, and the purpose is so that they can then show how liberal and progressive they are by letting the URMs in anyway.

This theory explains why only certain URM's get a bump- it is the same ones that the test is written to impede.

I wouldn't be surprised. Why would LSAC and the law schools just limit themselves to one or two scandals?

[JustE]

--ImageRemoved--

[YourCaptain]

JustE, another part of the argument though is that the LSAT is almost meaningless in predicting law school performance. Thus, we might as well roll dice or flip coins to choice who should get in law school and get scholarship money. There are a lot of people in the legal/ law school community, including the ABA, that sees law school obsession with LSAT as ridiculous.

Statistically, the LSAT is the best single predictor of law school grades there is. (When combined with GPA, the correllation is a big stronger.)

By whose statistics? LSACs? That's like the Republican Party giving statistics that Obamacare won't work. Totally unreliable (even though Obamacare probably won't work). LSAC is not divine, they are corrupt in my opinion.

oh then what on earth do you propose? standardized testing greatly levels the playing field.

[ben4847]

JustE, another part of the argument though is that the LSAT is almost meaningless in predicting law school performance. Thus, we might as well roll dice or flip coins to choice who should get in law school and get scholarship money. There are a lot of people in the legal/ law school community, including the ABA, that sees law school obsession with LSAT as ridiculous.

Almost meaningless? Really? To what do you ascribe the fact that legal employers seem to favor the top schools? Maybe that Harvard education is really so superior, huh?

Fact is: Schools are basing decisions on LSAT, and it is more or less working, and employers recognize that.

Unless you think the employers are also wrong in wanting those students. Maybe, but at some point, maybe you are the one marching out of step.

[charliep]

all of these comments seem to presuppose URM's get a boost because they are expected to do poorly on LSAT. I thought it was clear the reason for the boost is the added diversity to the classroom setting URM's provide. so, in my opinion, whether or not the test is biased towards a specific group, that has nothing to do with the URM boost, which is given for the purposes of enriching classroom discussion and the overall education of the entire class

[moneybagsphd]

all of these comments seem to presuppose URM's get a boost because they are expected to do poorly on LSAT. I thought it was clear the reason for the boost is the added diversity to the classroom setting URM's provide. so, in my opinion, whether or not the test is biased towards a specific group, that has nothing to do with the URM boost, which is given for the purposes of enriching classroom discussion and the overall education of the entire class

Statistically URMs underperform on the LSAT compared to white and asian test takers, which is why they need a "boost." Law schools, of course, have to defend a policy that admits students on the basis of race. One of the weaker arguments that advocates of the URM boost have advanced is that diversity enriches classroom discussion. A stronger argument is that elite law schools represent important political capital; lawyers become politicians, legislators, judges, etc. Law schools have a duty to ensure that people of all backgrounds have access to a legal education, otherwise the system is broken.

[ben4847]

all of these comments seem to presuppose URM's get a boost because they are expected to do poorly on LSAT. I thought it was clear the reason for the boost is the added diversity to the classroom setting URM's provide. so, in my opinion, whether or not the test is biased towards a specific group, that has nothing to do with the URM boost, which is given for the purposes of enriching classroom discussion and the overall education of the entire class

You really thought that?
Or you really thought it was the polite thing to say, and you really thought I would believe it.

[charliep]

all of these comments seem to presuppose URM's get a boost because they are expected to do poorly on LSAT. I thought it was clear the reason for the boost is the added diversity to the classroom setting URM's provide. so, in my opinion, whether or not the test is biased towards a specific group, that has nothing to do with the URM boost, which is given for the purposes of enriching classroom discussion and the overall education of the entire class

You really thought that?
Or you really thought it was the polite thing to say, and you really thought I would believe it.

what incentive would they have otherwise?

[moneybagsphd]

all of these comments seem to presuppose URM's get a boost because they are expected to do poorly on LSAT. I thought it was clear the reason for the boost is the added diversity to the classroom setting URM's provide. so, in my opinion, whether or not the test is biased towards a specific group, that has nothing to do with the URM boost, which is given for the purposes of enriching classroom discussion and the overall education of the entire class

You really thought that?
Or you really thought it was the polite thing to say, and you really thought I would believe it.

what incentive would they have otherwise?

Not having enough URMs can hurt their reputation.