BrianP wrote:I was actually wondering if the LSAT really determines anything as far as ability to be a law student or a lawyer for that very reason: that it is apparently learnable. If I were to practice and get my score up by even 10 or 15 points would that all of a sudden mean I would succeed in law school or as a lawyer when I previously wouldn't have? How many logic games do you do in law school?
Absent some sort of brain damage/condition or significant learning disability, almost everything is learnable by most people, although mileage may vary on how well certain people learn something compared to others due to many factors.
People go to school, take classes, read books about, train for various things in life (academics, sports, chess matches, hot dog eating contests, etc.) in order to learn how to and get better/improve their skills/performance level doing almost everything and anything in life that is competitive and/or important or even just as a hobby.
The LSAT is not, and is not meant or designed to be a test of innate/static thinking/reading/reasoning skills/abilities people are born with (nobody knows how to read or reason logically when they are born). It's the opposite.
From LSAC:
It provides a standard measure of acquired reading and verbal reasoning skills that law schools can use as one of several factors in assessing applicants.
...
What the Test Measures:
The LSAT is designed to measure skills that are considered essential for success in law school: the reading and comprehension of complex texts with accuracy and insight; the organization and management of information and the ability to draw reasonable inferences from it; the ability to think critically; and the analysis and evaluation of the reasoning and arguments of others.
Note the large bolded words above, especially the word "acquired".
That means the skills and abilities tested are ones that
can be learned and improved, hence they are not innate and static (fixed from birth), but are dynamic and learnable/possible to improve, just like skill sets to do all sorts of things (making pizzas really fast for instance). Preparing for the LSAT is a matter of further developing your current relevant skill levels and specifically adapting/refining them for application to the format of the test.
The LSAT tests and measures peoples current (when they take the test) proficiency level with certain types of critical reading, thinking and reasoning skills that are important prerequisites to be able to learn about the law/legal thinking, perform well while in law school and build more skills important to succeeding later with a law career.
So what if law school exams are not the same format as the LSAT? They are different because in law school you are in a new higher level realm in order to learn more (knowledge about the law plus legal analysis for instance) to progress into learning and developing good legal reasoning skills that will be useful once you graduate.
Legal reasoning and analysis skills are built on the basic logical core of thinking, reading and reasoning skills one has already demonstrated proficiency with via the LSAT. Being able to learn and properly work with legal concepts/all the new stuff you are exposed to in LS classes and tested about is highly dependent on your current ability to apply critical reading, thinking and reasoning skills to legal subjects. It is the next building block step in your education to become a lawyer.
In short, all the skills tested by the LSAT are important to have as a foundation to build upon in law school to progress by learning/acquiring solid legal reasoning/analysis skills/abilities while doing time in law school.
If you lack ability with basic reading comprehension, logical and analytical reasoning skills, you are missing conditions that are necessary to be able to learn and develop solid legal knowledge, reasoning skills and abilities while in law school.
Even more simply, you don't take algebra I before algebra II. Why not? Because one builds on the other and the second in progression assumes you have acquired the core knowledge and skills taught and tested by the former, or, the horse goes before the cart.
