If it will make you feel any better, the LSAT is a dumb test Forum

[taxguy]

As an attorney, I was curious to see what the latest iteration of the LSAT looked like. I have to tell you that I can't see any correlation with that of law school work. In fact, due to its severely time sensitive nature, it may be the most idiotic test I have seen. If you don't do well, don't let it discourage you. I promise you that I know many recent law school graduates who did much better than what the LSAT would have shown. I also know a number of good performers on the LSAT who didn't do that well in law school. Trust me on this: there really is very little correlation between law school and LSAT performance. It is unfortunate that the LSAT does count so heavily in admission.

[3|ink]

As an attorney, I was curious to see what the latest iteration of the LSAT looked like. I have to tell you that I can't see any correlation with that of law school work. In fact, due to its severely time sensitive nature, it may be the most idiotic test I have seen. If you don't do well, don't let it discourage you. I promise you that I know many recent law school graduates who did much better than what the LSAT would have shown. I also know a number of good performers on the LSAT who didn't do that well in law school. Trust me on this: there really is very little correlation between law school and LSAT performance.

I hear that the purpose of the LSAT is to determine how well you will do in L1.

People who do better in L1 = people who study hard.

People who study hard = people who do fairly well on LSAT.

[General Tso]

As an attorney, I was curious to see what the latest iteration of the LSAT looked like. I have to tell you that I can't see any correlation with that of law school work. In fact, due to its severely time sensitive nature, it may be the most idiotic test I have seen. If you don't do well, don't let it discourage you. I promise you that I know many recent law school graduates who did much better than what the LSAT would have shown. I also know a number of good performers on the LSAT who didn't do that well in law school. Trust me on this: there really is very little correlation between law school and LSAT performance.

I hear that the purpose of the LSAT is to determine how well you will do in L1.

People who do better in L1 = people who study hard.

People who study hard = people who do fairly well on LSAT.

exactly...of course the LSAT is boring, useless dreck. just like a lot of the material you are tested on in law school.

[DeSimone]

I am pretty sure the LSAT is designed to be an equivalent of an IQ test. With constant modifications, looks like the authors make it a point to take away the "learnablity" aspect.

I like the connection of "smart people = better law school performance" much better.

[3|ink]

I am pretty sure the LSAT is designed to be an equivalent of an IQ test. With constant modifications, looks like the authors make it a point to take away the "learnablity" aspect.

I like the connection of "smart people = better law school performance" much better.

I must respectfully disagree. If it were not learnable, people would not make significant improvements in scores. People learn to tackle problems efficiently.

The modifications are more likely in place to:

1.) Through off those receiving test-prep services.
2.) Make the test harder for people who have more material to study with (Difference of taking February 1991 and October 2010).

[09042014]

The LSAT is remarkably consistent over the years. There are a few very minor changes that happen, but it's consistent.

If you can't get a 160 with studying you probably have a learning disability.

[JTX]

The LSAT is remarkably consistent over the years. There are a few very minor changes that happen, but it's consistent.

If you can't get a 160 with studying you probably have a learning disability.

i <3 DF

[Hannibal]

The LSAT is remarkably consistent over the years. There are a few very minor changes that happen, but it's consistent.

If you can't get a 160 with studying you probably have a learning disability.

I think this is the point. I know someone who studied her ass off and still was happy to get a 155. But I also know she didn't think in the rational way those of us on this board seem to (I was incapable of having an argument with her since she'd constantly use emotional appeals). I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

And no I'm pretty sure she does not have a learning disability.

[09042014]

The LSAT is remarkably consistent over the years. There are a few very minor changes that happen, but it's consistent.

If you can't get a 160 with studying you probably have a learning disability.

I think this is the point. I know someone who studied her ass off and still was happy to get a 155. But I also know she didn't think in the rational way those of us on this board seem to (I was incapable of having an argument with her since she'd constantly use emotional appeals). I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

And no I'm pretty sure she does not have a learning disability.

Being stupid is a learning disability.

[JTX]

I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

that actually makes sense.

[3|ink]

The LSAT is remarkably consistent over the years. There are a few very minor changes that happen, but it's consistent.

If you can't get a 160 with studying you probably have a learning disability.

I think this is the point. I know someone who studied her ass off and still was happy to get a 155. But I also know she didn't think in the rational way those of us on this board seem to (I was incapable of having an argument with her since she'd constantly use emotional appeals). I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

And no I'm pretty sure she does not have a learning disability.

Being stupid is a learning disability.

Is anxiety a learning disability?

[09042014]

The LSAT is remarkably consistent over the years. There are a few very minor changes that happen, but it's consistent.

If you can't get a 160 with studying you probably have a learning disability.

I think this is the point. I know someone who studied her ass off and still was happy to get a 155. But I also know she didn't think in the rational way those of us on this board seem to (I was incapable of having an argument with her since she'd constantly use emotional appeals). I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

And no I'm pretty sure she does not have a learning disability.

Being stupid is a learning disability.

Is anxiety a learning disability?

Personality flaw.

[Hannibal]

The LSAT is remarkably consistent over the years. There are a few very minor changes that happen, but it's consistent.

If you can't get a 160 with studying you probably have a learning disability.

I think this is the point. I know someone who studied her ass off and still was happy to get a 155. But I also know she didn't think in the rational way those of us on this board seem to (I was incapable of having an argument with her since she'd constantly use emotional appeals). I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

And no I'm pretty sure she does not have a learning disability.

Being stupid is a learning disability.

Well she had a better UG GPA than I did, so she had some kind of intelligence.

[09042014]

I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

that actually makes sense.

LG does have the worst correlation to 1L performance of the three sections.

[3|ink]

I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

that actually makes sense.

The whole test rewards those who study. The point of the test to is to root out the people who studied less. Those are the same people who will study less in L1.

[09042014]

I think this is the point. I know someone who studied her ass off and still was happy to get a 155. But I also know she didn't think in the rational way those of us on this board seem to (I was incapable of having an argument with her since she'd constantly use emotional appeals). I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

And no I'm pretty sure she does not have a learning disability.

Being stupid is a learning disability.

Well she had a better UG GPA than I did, so she had some kind of intelligence.

Nah, UGPA is mostly about effort.

[JTX]

I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

that actually makes sense.

LG does have the worst correlation to 1L performance of the three sections.

i'm counting on that, DF.

[Hannibal]

I think the games section is to reward those who study, and the LR and RC section is to identify those who think most like a lawyer.

that actually makes sense.

The whole test rewards those who study. The point of the test to is to root out the people who studied less. Those are the same people who will study less in L1.

Some people can study for LR and RC constantly and see barely any improvement. Games are the most learnable, as shown by my jump from -19 to the -0/1/2 range.

[3|ink]

Personality flaw.

So does it denote a lack of intelligence or a debilitating weakness that one shouldn't take with them into law school?

[09042014]

Personality flaw.

So does it denote a lack of intelligence or a debilitating weakness that one shouldn't take with them into law school?

I'd be more scared of 1L exams than the LSAT. The LSAT you can retake.

[GATORTIM]

As an attorney, I was curious to see what the latest iteration of the LSAT looked like. I have to tell you that I can't see any correlation with that of law school work. In fact, due to its severely time sensitive nature, it may be the most idiotic test I have seen. If you don't do well, don't let it discourage you. I promise you that I know many recent law school graduates who did much better than what the LSAT would have shown. I also know a number of good performers on the LSAT who didn't do that well in law school. Trust me on this: there really is very little correlation between law school and LSAT performance.

I hear that the purpose of the LSAT is to determine how well you will do in L1.

People who do better in L1 = people who study hard.

People who study hard = people who do fairly well on LSAT.

there is a variable missing in your equation. While prepping for the LSAT I was working a very stressful FT job and did not have the same free time to allocate toward the test as many LSATers in undergrad. Given enough time to prep, I have no doubt that I would have hit 166+, but I could not afford to quit my job or work less. However, in LS I will be able to dedicate as much time as necessary toward school.

[KibblesAndVick]

As an attorney, I was curious to see what the latest iteration of the LSAT looked like. I have to tell you that I can't see any correlation with that of law school work. In fact, due to its severely time sensitive nature, it may be the most idiotic test I have seen. If you don't do well, don't let it discourage you. I promise you that I know many recent law school graduates who did much better than what the LSAT would have shown. I also know a number of good performers on the LSAT who didn't do that well in law school. Trust me on this: there really is very little correlation between law school and LSAT performance.

The LSAT is one of the largest factors influencing which law schools you will have the opportunity to attend. The law school you attend is one of the largest factors influencing what kind of job (if any at all) you'll get after law school.

But don't worry. Even if you don't score well on the LSAT you can still be a great, successful lawyer because the LSAT doesn't correlate to the work you do in law school.

[09042014]

But don't worry. Even if you don't score well on the LSAT you can still be a great, successful lawyer because the LSAT doesn't correlate to the work you do in law school.

The LSAT does correlate to the work you do in law school. But the work you do in law school apparently doesn't really correlate with what makes a successful lawyer.

[KibblesAndVick]

But don't worry. Even if you don't score well on the LSAT you can still be a great, successful lawyer because the LSAT doesn't correlate to the work you do in law school.

The LSAT does correlate to the work you do in law school. But the work you do in law school apparently doesn't really correlate with what makes a successful lawyer.

Fair enough. Either way it's idiotic to think that the LSAT doesn't matter and that you shouldn't be worried if you can't score highly. You might make the normative argument that it shouldn't matter. But saying that the LSAT doesn't matter is functionally equivalent to saying where you go to law school doesn't matter.

[09042014]

But don't worry. Even if you don't score well on the LSAT you can still be a great, successful lawyer because the LSAT doesn't correlate to the work you do in law school.

The LSAT does correlate to the work you do in law school. But the work you do in law school apparently doesn't really correlate with what makes a successful lawyer.

Fair enough. Either way it's idiotic to think that the LSAT doesn't matter and that you shouldn't be worried if you can't score highly. You might make the normative argument that it shouldn't matter. But saying that the LSAT doesn't matter is functionally equivalent to saying where you go to law school doesn't matter.

Agreed. If anyone thinks that going to Duke is effectively the same as going to Florida International they are fooling themselves.

Hell the FI student might make a better shit law soldier, but the Duke grad will have a much better care trajectory (ITE only if they finish above median).