Top Law Schools

The assumption is that the LSAT, to a meaningful degree, reflects Law School readiness.

Do you guys suppose that improvements in LSAT scores between retests similarily reflect significant improvements in Law School skillsets? Or is it that in LSAT prep, the improvements are so narrowly tailored to LSAT-specific problems, thinking, and test-taking that it'd be a sort of fool's gold?

I am an E.E. major and am just beginning prep with a 154 cold diag. I fear that even if I can a miraculous and hard-earned improvement to the low 160's or high 170's and get myself through the front door of an esteemed institution, I'd still be friggin' ill-equiped to handle Law-school level reading and reasoning. What value would be a law school education if I'm doomed to being a class' bottom feeder? (Or worse, contribute to the flunk-out statistics)

So, are you asking, "If one scores a low LSAT score on their diagnostic, are they doomed to fail in law school, regardless of significant improvement on the LSAT?"

C'mon now, I think you know the answer to that one.

EDIT: On second thought, since the question is so ridiculous, I'll just go ahead and call flame.

traehekat wrote:So, are you asking, "If one scores a low LSAT score on their diagnostic, are they doomed to fail in law school, regardless of significant improvement on the LSAT?"

C'mon now, I think you know the answer to that one.

EDIT: On second thought, since the question is so ridiculous, I'll just go ahead and call flame.

Sorries about the lack of clarity.

I'm asking if a significant improvement in LSAT scores corerspondingly reflects an improvement in Law-School readiness.

In slaying LG, LR, and RC would I, along the way, become meaingfully more competent in handling Law-school level curriculum? I'm reasoning that big-score jumps may more reflect LSAT-specific test-taking tactics and methods that, in reality, is divorced from stuff actually involved in Law School.

Very few people take the LSAT cold and do well. Probably 95%+ of those kids in the 170's most likely took courses or studied or at least had a clear knowledge of the test structure and question types.

I seperately acknowledge that in the meta-sense the person willing to make the time- and monetary- sacrifices to master this difficult test may very well have the work ethic, persistence, and desire to succeed in law school.

Your question leads to the bigger question "Does the LSAT have anything to do with law school?". Your concern is that if you mange to score a 165, an admirable score, does that mean that you'll do great in law school? The answer is very complicated. A high score doesnt always mean youll do well in law school and getting a low score doesnt mean youll automatically do poorly.

Law school appears to be more of just knowing how to write an exam to a professors tastes than it is doing logic games and breaking apart arguments. I would say dont worry so much. Try your best to do well on the LSAT.

Good luck!

I think that the LSAT after maximum preparatory effort reflects your ultimate abilities. Some people will never break 150...even with studying. I think its assumed that the amount of effort you put into the LSAT is reflective of what your effort in school may be like...and your ultimate ability on the LSAT is reflective of your ultimate ability.

TLS causes people to inflate what they believe that are capable of. Should you be so inclined, you can join MENSA with a 167 and be a certified genius. Not everyone can score 170+.

..

acrossthelake wrote:

blowhard wrote:I think that the LSAT after maximum preparatory effort reflects your ultimate abilities. Some people will never break 150...even with studying. I think its assumed that the amount of effort you put into the LSAT is reflective of what your effort in school may be like...and your ultimate ability on the LSAT is reflective of your ultimate ability.

TLS causes people to inflate what they believe that are capable of. Should you be so inclined, you can join MENSA with a 167 and be a certified genius. Not everyone can score 170+.

Well, yeah, they curve the test to make 173+ the 99th percentile, so naturally 99% of people who take it fall below that...

Nope, they do not. 173 just happens to be the 99th. 172 used to be 99.

..

acrossthelake wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

acrossthelake wrote:
Well, yeah, they curve the test to make 173+ the 99th percentile, so naturally 99% of people who take it fall below that...

Nope, they do not. 173 just happens to be the 99th. 172 used to be 99.

Really? Huh, I've misunderstood the curve. Well, at any rate, the population generally doesn't magically suddenly get better over a short period of time, so 170+ will not be achieved by the majority of the population for probably the rest of my lifetime. (Chances are, they'll restructure the test at some point.)

Agreed. The big reason for inflation was the change in retake policy. It used to be they averaged retakes. Now that they don't, people do better, an average of 3 pts better.

What do you guys think about the LSAT being a test that mirrors a law school final exam? The test could be fact patters followed by questions. For instance:

In the state of NY, prostitution is illegal. Prostitution is defined as the purposeful (not sure this a word. Ha!) selling of sexual favors for money. Sam is a girl that lives in NY. Twice a week she has sex with Sam in exchange for an apartment and the use of a car. He also buys her presents and gives her money when she asks.

The questions would then ask if she was selling sexual favors for money, if she was a prostitute and if she was doing anything illegal, etc etc.

This is very vague, but the point is that maybe the LSAT should start asking law related questions. It would be more fun (and possibly more indicative of a persons ability to understand and apply the law) to have these type of questions asked.

gdane5 wrote:What do you guys think about the LSAT being a test that mirrors a law school final exam? The test could be fact patters followed by questions. For instance:

In the state of NY, prostitution is illegal. Prostitution is defined as the purposeful (not sure this a word. Ha!) selling of sexual favors for money. Sam is a girl that lives in NY. Twice a week she has sex with Sam in exchange for an apartment and the use of a car. He also buys her presents and gives her money when she asks.

The questions would then ask if she was selling sexual favors for money, if she was a prostitute and if she was doing anything illegal, etc etc.

This is very vague, but the point is that maybe the LSAT should start asking law related questions. It would be more fun (and possibly more indicative of a persons ability to understand and apply the law) to have these type of questions asked.

That's a terrible idea. People already having law-related experience would have an advantage. And there would be no good way to quantify the test. You'd have to have multiple graders read the essays which would introduce large variability across the world. And what would that really test anyhow?

Law school exams supposedly test your ability to think and analyze like a lawyer. You think that should be bumped up a level to BEFORE you even begin law school?

gdane5 wrote:...It would be more fun (and possibly more indicative of a persons ability to understand and apply the law) to have these type of questions asked.

Hmmm. Interesting question.

The great thing about law school is that there's no background-specific barrier to entry. Larry Tribe (Harvard Con' Law professor) was a math major. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's late husband (Columbia Tax Prof, I think) was a chem major.

Algebra is needed for Calculus, Biochemistry for Pharmacy; but I can't think of any subject-specific pre-req for Law School. Sure, there's the needed baseline reading, writing, and reasoning, but that can be picked up passively outside of school or generally through any number of classes.

blowhard wrote:

gdane5 wrote:What do you guys think about the LSAT being a test that mirrors a law school final exam? The test could be fact patters followed by questions. For instance:

In the state of NY, prostitution is illegal. Prostitution is defined as the purposeful (not sure this a word. Ha!) selling of sexual favors for money. Sam is a girl that lives in NY. Twice a week she has sex with Sam in exchange for an apartment and the use of a car. He also buys her presents and gives her money when she asks.

The questions would then ask if she was selling sexual favors for money, if she was a prostitute and if she was doing anything illegal, etc etc.

This is very vague, but the point is that maybe the LSAT should start asking law related questions. It would be more fun (and possibly more indicative of a persons ability to understand and apply the law) to have these type of questions asked.

That's a terrible idea. People already having law-related experience would have an advantage. And there would be no good way to quantify the test. You'd have to have multiple graders read the essays which would introduce large variability across the world. And what would that really test anyhow?

Law school exams supposedly test your ability to think and analyze like a lawyer. You think that should be bumped up a level to BEFORE you even begin law school?

I didnt go into detail because I wanted to put out a general idea. The questions asked should be multiple choice so it can be scored by a machine, as it is now. The fact patterns on the test need not be factual. That way the law related people dont have an advantage. Also, the might have an advantage now anyway.

The idea was that these fact pattern questions would test ones direct ability to understand a set of facts and then applying them, much like what youre asked to do in law school. I just think the current LSAT format needs to change. Logic games is silly. I understand that its supposed to test your ability to keep track of rules and all that, but its so vague that people get lost. Also, when youre dealing with jays and purple dinosaurs, it gets confusing. Its just a thought.

OP, your outlook on your cold test seems a lil' negative.
Disregard the games section, take the LR section as quasi-representative and the RC as pretty reasonable.
If you took it timed, take a second cold test, untimed (without taking the games section).
Now does your cold score seem less doom & gloomy?

As for the "is it representative of a relevant skill set" question, the answer is yes. The degree to which this is true, and in what ways, has been discussed in great detail. Here's one example: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=120545

Desert Fox wrote:

acrossthelake wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

acrossthelake wrote:
Well, yeah, they curve the test to make 173+ the 99th percentile, so naturally 99% of people who take it fall below that...

Nope, they do not. 173 just happens to be the 99th. 172 used to be 99.

Really? Huh, I've misunderstood the curve. Well, at any rate, the population generally doesn't magically suddenly get better over a short period of time, so 170+ will not be achieved by the majority of the population for probably the rest of my lifetime. (Chances are, they'll restructure the test at some point.)

Agreed. The big reason for inflation was the change in retake policy. It used to be they averaged retakes. Now that they don't, people do better, an average of 3 pts better.

I don't see how this is necessarily true. It's not like LSAC has ever averaged LSAT scores whe they report LSAT data. Retakers in the 170 range typically do not perform 3 points higher anyways. Ulitmately, the most likely reason for the inflation in the percentiles is that people have progressively prepared for this test to a greater extent over the past twenty years. Test prep companies, LSAC releasing LSAT documents, and websites like this one have likely had the greatest impact on percentiles.

Sell Manilla wrote:...As for the "is it representative of a relevant skill set" question, the answer is yes. The degree to which this is true, and in what ways, has been discussed in great detail. Here's one example: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=120545

Thanks for the link!

No meme yet? Really?

--ImageRemoved--

There is a great deal of long-run value of doing well on the LSAT. There is no long-run value of the LSAT. What more in an answer can be wanted?

gdane5 wrote:

blowhard wrote:

gdane5 wrote:What do you guys think about the LSAT being a test that mirrors a law school final exam? The test could be fact patters followed by questions. For instance:

In the state of NY, prostitution is illegal. Prostitution is defined as the purposeful (not sure this a word. Ha!) selling of sexual favors for money. Sam is a girl that lives in NY. Twice a week she has sex with Sam in exchange for an apartment and the use of a car. He also buys her presents and gives her money when she asks.

The questions would then ask if she was selling sexual favors for money, if she was a prostitute and if she was doing anything illegal, etc etc.

This is very vague, but the point is that maybe the LSAT should start asking law related questions. It would be more fun (and possibly more indicative of a persons ability to understand and apply the law) to have these type of questions asked.

That's a terrible idea. People already having law-related experience would have an advantage. And there would be no good way to quantify the test. You'd have to have multiple graders read the essays which would introduce large variability across the world. And what would that really test anyhow?

Law school exams supposedly test your ability to think and analyze like a lawyer. You think that should be bumped up a level to BEFORE you even begin law school?

I didnt go into detail because I wanted to put out a general idea. The questions asked should be multiple choice so it can be scored by a machine, as it is now. The fact patterns on the test need not be factual. That way the law related people dont have an advantage. Also, the might have an advantage now anyway.

The idea was that these fact pattern questions would test ones direct ability to understand a set of facts and then applying them, much like what youre asked to do in law school. I just think the current LSAT format needs to change. Logic games is silly. I understand that its supposed to test your ability to keep track of rules and all that, but its so vague that people get lost. Also, when youre dealing with jays and purple dinosaurs, it gets confusing. Its just a thought.

Yes, logic games are silly. Yet LSAC finds that the LSAT better correlates with 1L grades with the games sections in. And none of the rules are ever vague: instead, they are extremely clear.

.