LOCK ME PLEASE Forum

[taxguy]

If you are going to quote me, at least do me the favor of doing it correctly. I never said that LSAT scores are meaningless. In fact, to the contrary, I have always said and felt that they are crucial for admission. What I also said is that they shouldn't be used as strongly as they are currently being used.

Remember this day. You will see within the next few years that the LSAT will either change or be downplayed a bit in admission at some law schools. In fact, I would bet that US News will adjust their rankings to downplay the importance of the LSAT in the rankings. I don't think it will be eliminated, but I would bet that as a factor, it will be decreased.

You want to believe this because your boy got a shit score. I get that. I'm curious as to what you believe would have better predictive capacity as to eventual success as an attorney. Is it networking skills? How would schools meaningfully determine such things, given the number of apps they have to deal with every year. Go on. I'll wait.

Here is your answer: obviously, the LSAT is the only standardized test available for law schools so it is better than nothing. I get that. Much better ,however, are these summer alternative admission programs that have been shown to be spectacularly successful in weeding out the top students. I would bet, as I noted in the prior post, that an increasing number of schools will be using these summer alternative admission programs for admission.

As for success at being an attorney, this is a totally different subject. First you have to get the job. Obviously, going to a t14 school and getting good grades will be very helpful. However, absent that then network like mad. If you have to work for free, do it and work like a demon on fire in order to hone your skills. Someone will always employ a good lawyer who has garnered a strong reputation.

In fact, Blogger22, please post how well you did in your first year of law school. I would bet and even give some odds that, if you work hard in your first year, you will out perform the majority of kids who had much higher LSAT scores than you. If you got into Maryland or GMU with a 150 LSAT, you will be at the bottom of the class LSAT wise. Thus, seeing your class rank would be very instructive

[Ginj]

I LOVE WHERE THIS THREAD IS GOING.

[bjsesq]

Here is your answer: obviously, the LSAT is the only standardized test available for law schools so it is better than nothing. I get that. Much better ,however, are these summer alternative admission programs that have been shown to be spectacularly successful in weeding out the top students. I would bet, as I noted in the prior post, that an increasing number of schools will be using these summer alternative admission programs for admission.

Are you talking about doing this for everyone? How would this be any different than JUST ONE MORE SEMESTER OF LAW SCHOOL? Any issues you might see with added expenses?

EDIT: and if you aren't talking about this for everyone, you still haven't answered my original question. What would you suggest as an alternative for weighing the LSAT as heavily as it is?

[paratactical]

Here is your answer: obviously, the LSAT is the only standardized test available for law schools so it is better than nothing. I get that. Much better ,however, are these summer alternative admission programs that have been shown to be spectacularly successful in weeding out the top students. I would bet, as I noted in the prior post, that an increasing number of schools will be using these summer alternative admission programs for admission.

While I know it's a sandy situation for people without great LSATs trying to get into better programs, I don't think the summer starts are a terrible idea, but when those programs try to compare to the T14, they just don't cut it.

[taxguy]

Here is your answer: obviously, the LSAT is the only standardized test available for law schools so it is better than nothing. I get that. Much better ,however, are these summer alternative admission programs that have been shown to be spectacularly successful in weeding out the top students. I would bet, as I noted in the prior post, that an increasing number of schools will be using these summer alternative admission programs for admission.

While I know it's a sandy situation for people without great LSATs trying to get into better programs, I don't think the summer starts are a terrible idea, but when those programs try to compare to the T14, they just don't cut it.

It is too bad that I won't have the opportunity to prove my thesis,but I would bet that if you take three kids who participated in the summer , alternative admission program and did well in it, and place them in a school that has much higher LSATs than they had, they will beat out the majority of the other kids that didn't participate in the program. In fact, I would bet that most of these summer kids would be in the top 30% too as long as the undergrad GPA for the summer kids at least equaled or exceeded their peers..
All I can say is that I personally know of two kids who were admitted because of their GPA and/or summer admission program despite having well below average LSATs for their respective schools. All of them were among the top of their class. Yes, before I get flamed, I know that this is NOT a valid statistical study.
Sadly, I won't get a chance to prove my thesis.

Also, I would recommend the summer program be instituted for applicants that have much higher GPAs than the median for the law school but sadly have much lower LSAT scores than the median for the law schools,which is what the summer alternative admission programs are currently used for.

[fatduck]

Also, I would recommend the summer program be instituted for applicants that have much higher GPAs than the median for the law school but sadly have much more LSAT scores than the median for the law schools,which is what the summer alternative admission programs are currently used for.

i'm having trouble making sense of this sentence

[taxguy]

Well , what don't you understand? I would recommend use of the summer admission program for kids with GPAs that substantially exceed the median for the law school that they applied to but didn't do well enough on the LSAT for admission. What part of this is unclear?

[bubbletea]

The LSAT is the best available predictor of law school performance. 'Nuff said. If you can't crack a 160 on the LSAT after intense preparation, you might want to consider a different field.

[fatduck]

Well , what don't you understand? I would recommend use of the summer admission program for kids with GPAs that substantially exceed the median for the law school that they applied to but didn't do well enough on the LSAT for admission. What part of this is unclear?

i guess i'm not all that familiar with the current summer/alternative admission programs. i assumed they were already oriented towards high GPA/low LSAT applicants. also your post said GPA and LSAT over median.

[cinephile]

I LOVE WHERE THIS THREAD IS GOING.

Also, congrats Bloggr22!

[taxguy]

Well , what don't you understand? I would recommend use of the summer admission program for kids with GPAs that substantially exceed the median for the law school that they applied to but didn't do well enough on the LSAT for admission. What part of this is unclear?

i guess i'm not all that familiar with the current summer/alternative admission programs. i assumed they were already oriented towards high GPA/low LSAT applicants. also your post said GPA and LSAT over median.

Yes, they are already oriented in the way that you believe. However, very few law schools are currently using them. I would bet that less than 6 law school use the summer admission program currently, and most that do use it, are lower tier 4 schools. When I mentioned high GPA, this is a relative factor. If a school has a median gpa of 3.2, anything above 3.5 would be significantly above their median and would be considered suitable for the summer program. If a school had a median GPA of 3.5, then the summer program would supposedly require a much higher undergrad GPA such as a 3.75 or higher.

One reason that kids do well in law school after the summer program is that due to its intensity, it does weed out the weaker students. Moreover, law school traditionally has been HORRIBLE at teaching students how to figure out what is important in cases for their outlines, how to outline and how to take exams. Maybe over the years, the schools have improved on this. However, my experience has been that they just throw students into the classes and say brief the cases and that's it! Those that figure out what to do, do well. Those that don't figure it out won't do as well. Taking an intensive summer program consisting of third year law classes does weed out the kids who have figured out what to do.

[Rooney]

Saw a taxguy post. Ran here.

Also, I don't get the naysayer crap. Considering the LSAT scores, this thread was overwhelmingly positive and nice.

Some were positive, BUT there were also some outright discouraging comments. It makes this forum very uninviting.

Yeah, you'll get some real talk here.

[bk1]

I would bet that if you take three kids who participated in the summer , alternative admission program and did well in it, and place them in a school that has much higher LSATs than they had, they will beat out the majority of the other kids that didn't participate in the program. In fact, I would bet that most of these summer kids would be in the top 30% too as long as the undergrad GPA for the summer kids at least equaled or exceeded their peers..

Well this is pretty obvious. These summer programs are basically just like going to law school, right? So they are obviously a better predictor of law school success than the LSAT because it is basically the same thing as going to law school.

But that brings up bjsesq's point that all you are doing is tacking on another semester's worth of law school to the beginning of school and since you have thousands upon thousands of applicants, it's not like every school can do this for all applicants. Which leads back to his earlier point that you have not offered a better solution than the LSAT for weeding out applicants.

[d34d9823]

Here is your answer: obviously, the LSAT is the only standardized test available for law schools so it is better than nothing. I get that. Much better ,however, are these summer alternative admission programs that have been shown to be spectacularly successful in weeding out the top students. I would bet, as I noted in the prior post, that an increasing number of schools will be using these summer alternative admission programs for admission.

While I know it's a sandy situation for people without great LSATs trying to get into better programs, I don't think the summer starts are a terrible idea, but when those programs try to compare to the T14, they just don't cut it.

*cough* Michigan *cough*

/s

[taxguy]

I would bet that if you take three kids who participated in the summer , alternative admission program and did well in it, and place them in a school that has much higher LSATs than they had, they will beat out the majority of the other kids that didn't participate in the program. In fact, I would bet that most of these summer kids would be in the top 30% too as long as the undergrad GPA for the summer kids at least equaled or exceeded their peers..

Well this is pretty obvious. These summer programs are basically just like going to law school, right? So they are obviously a better predictor of law school success than the LSAT because it is basically the same thing as going to law school.

But that brings up bjsesq's point that all you are doing is tacking on another semester's worth of law school to the beginning of school and since you have thousands upon thousands of applicants, it's not like every school can do this for all applicants. Which leads back to his earlier point that you have not offered a better solution than the LSAT for weeding out applicants.

Sure I have. Yes, it won't work for everyone. However, it will work for those with much higher GPAs than normally accepted by the school and who also have at least reasonable LSATs within 10 points of that school's median LSATs.However, you are right. It won't work for everyone and won't replace the need for some standardized test. My thesis has always been that the LSAT should not be used as the golden chalace for admission. Right now it probably represents 60-70% of the admission equation. I just think it is too highly weighted. Note I didn't say it shouldn't be used at all. It just shouldn't be used as strongly as it is currently used.

[geoduck]

I wonder what effect a deemphasis on the lsat would have on prep and overall score trends.

[taxguy]

I would bet that if you take three kids who participated in the summer , alternative admission program and did well in it, and place them in a school that has much higher LSATs than they had, they will beat out the majority of the other kids that didn't participate in the program. In fact, I would bet that most of these summer kids would be in the top 30% too as long as the undergrad GPA for the summer kids at least equaled or exceeded their peers..

Well this is pretty obvious. These summer programs are basically just like going to law school, right? So they are obviously a better predictor of law school success than the LSAT because it is basically the same thing as going to law school.


Actually the summer programs are much harder than law school. You take two third year law courses in 5 weeks. You need to read and digest about 57-87 pages a day. This takes about 10-14 hours of work to underline important stuff, read cases at least twice, prepare briefs and update outlines, not to mention studying the outlines. Normal law school is hard but not this intensive.

As far as not doing this for more students, I think you will see this expanded greatly. It is a HUGE potential money cow for the law schools. Heck, they make thousands in tuition and room and board and book sales and only admit about 30% of the students or even less. Even better, they get to cherry pick the real winners who probably would have done well anywhere. It is a huge win for the law schools and could be a potential win for the student to get admitted into programs where their LSAT wouldn't normally justify admission.

[Bloggr22]

....

[incompetentia]

I must say, as a splitter, it's not that the LSAT is even objectively that much of a big deal. Anecdotal evidence from reverse splitters (in the context of being aware of the numbers game) would suggest that LSAT was the primary reason for underperforming expectations, but I could say the same about my GPA.



(If 60 pages/day is a big deal, taxguy should never try for a graduate degree in the humanities.)

[bk1]

Actually the summer programs are much harder than law school. You take two third year law courses in 5 weeks. You need to read and digest about 57-87 pages a day. This takes about 10-14 hours of work to underline important stuff, read cases at least twice, prepare briefs and update outlines, not to mention studying the outlines. Normal law school is hard but not this intensive.

It may be more difficult, but it is the exact same kind of work. Which was my point. Kind of like how 1L grades are a better predictor of 2L/3L grades than the LSAT is.

[taxguy]

I must say, as a splitter, it's not that the LSAT is even objectively that much of a big deal. Anecdotal evidence from reverse splitters (in the context of being aware of the numbers game) would suggest that LSAT was the primary reason for underperforming expectations, but I could say the same about my GPA.



(If 60 pages/day is a big deal, taxguy should never try for a graduate degree in the humanities.)

LOL., it depends on the humanities. If you are talking about philosophy, this can be very daunting. If you are talking about history or economics or literature, you can read and digest 60 pages without much trouble. The problem is that law cases are like reading philosophy. They can be very dense. In addition, you have to be very prepared for the class participation with briefs and finally you have to constantly updating your outline since you probably won't have enough time to really know your outline for finals without some significant studying of it during the year. This is sort of an inside secret for law school preparation that most law schools will never tell you.

I guess if you were a humanities major, you probably are most accustomed to this huge volume of reading than if you are a science or business major. Maybe this is why law schools recommend English, Philosophy, Political Science and History as the top undergrad preparation for law school.

[incompetentia]

I've had single history classes at the masters' level that were 500 pages/wk alone - I'm sure 2-3 of these simultaneously would be fun

[InLikeFlint]

Well , what don't you understand? I would recommend use of the summer admission program for kids with GPAs that substantially exceed the median for the law school that they applied to but didn't do well enough on the LSAT for admission. What part of this is unclear?

High-ranked law schools make a point of making the schools less competitive. People compete to get into better schools knowing that gaining admission is harder than staying in good standing. Harvard used to let in tons of applicants knowing that many would fail out. For decades the trend has been reversing, and I don't see any reason why any good schools would force any of their students to compete in law school courses just to gain admission.

[Ginj]

I've had single history classes at the masters' level that were 500 pages/wk alone - I'm sure 2-3 of these simultaneously would be fun

I have a Master's in art history. Derrida, Lacan, Heidegger, Foucault. Psh-aw. 60 pages a day ain't SHIT.

[WayBryson]

I must say, as a splitter, it's not that the LSAT is even objectively that much of a big deal. Anecdotal evidence from reverse splitters (in the context of being aware of the numbers game) would suggest that LSAT was the primary reason for underperforming expectations, but I could say the same about my GPA.



(If 60 pages/day is a big deal, taxguy should never try for a graduate degree in the humanities.)

LOL., it depends on the humanities. If you are talking about philosophy, this can be very daunting. If you are talking about history or economics or literature, you can read and digest 60 pages without much trouble. The problem is that law cases are like reading philosophy. They can be very dense. In addition, you have to be very prepared for the class participation with briefs and finally you have to constantly updating your outline since you probably won't have enough time to really know your outline for finals without some significant studying of it during the year. This is sort of an inside secret for law school preparation that most law schools will never tell you.

I guess if you were a humanities major, you probably are most accustomed to this huge volume of reading than if you are a science or business major. Maybe this is why law schools recommend English, Philosophy, Political Science and History as the top undergrad preparation for law school.

I was a philosophy major as an undergraduate. I easily read 60 pages plus of philosophy a day for my courses. I was also working 20 hours a week at a coffee shop and participating in extracurricular activities. Twenty pages an hour of philosophy is very manageable. That’s 3-4 hours of reading a day.