Top Law Schools

The LSAT presupposes time, energy, diligence, effort, peace of mind, and money. Lots of individuals from my sector of society are presupposed to the opposite. How can the LSAT be such a predictor, as it is, given the great amount of money/time that is required to do well? Granted, you should be able to display through the test that you're committed and a hard-worker, but some people don't have the means necessarily.

Freyer92 wrote:The LSAT presupposes time, energy, diligence, effort, peace of mind, and money. Lots of individuals from my sector of society are presupposed to the opposite. How can the LSAT be such a predictor, as it is, given the great amount of money/time that is required to do well? Granted, you should be able to display through the test that you're committed and a hard-worker, but some people don't have the means necessarily.

Good thing all of this doesn't hold true for eduction in general.

Edit: and I think it's probably better to categorize these issues stemming from socioeconomic factors, not racial factors, even though there is obvious association between the two

a) LSAT prep cost me like 20 bucks and 30 hours max. The test is not supposed to be something people spend thousands of dollars/hours prepping for, but gunners gunna gun. Not sure how you can prevent that in our society.

b) This is not the affirmative action thread, but I just want to point out that almost every school in the country takes race into account in admissions.

c) Can you think of a way to test mental capacity that doesn't privilege those wealthy enough to buy study materials and spend time studying? I can't. What are law schools supposed to do, adopt a GPA only admissions policy?

TheUnicornHunter wrote:a) LSAT prep cost me like 20 bucks and 30 hours max. The test is not supposed to be something people spend thousands of dollars/hours prepping for, but gunners gunna gun. Not sure how you can prevent that in our society.

b) This is not the affirmative action thread, but I just want to point out that almost every school in the country takes race into account in admissions.

c) Can you think of a way to test mental capacity that doesn't privilege those wealthy enough to buy study materials and spend time studying? I can't. What are law schools supposed to do, adopt a GPA only admissions policy?

This would go well

Freyer92 wrote:The LSAT presupposes time, energy, diligence, effort, peace of mind, and money. Lots of individuals from my sector of society are presupposed to the opposite. How can the LSAT be such a predictor, as it is, given the great amount of money/time that is required to do well? Granted, you should be able to display through the test that you're committed and a hard-worker, but some people don't have the means necessarily.

Why does this have anything to do with race? Do you really feel your friend would be different person had they been a white or asian student of the same financial circumstance, in the same home town, with the same parental units, etc? Your argument is that the LSAT takes effort and many people in your "sector of society"--which I suppose based on your thread title you mean your race--don't have the energy or "peace of mind" to study properly. I think the trend among most young people across all sectors of society is one towards laziness, this isn't just your "sector."

The money argument is a red herring. Studying for the LSAT isn't very expensive, especially compared to undergraduate education. Even supposing one went from community college to an in-state public school they still likely amassed greater than $10,000 in debt. With the incredible free or very affordable online resources available for LSAT one can acquire all the skills necessary to accomplish a very high score for less than one-hundreth of that cost.

If you changed "LSAT" to "Undergraduate education" in your prompt you might have a stronger argument. But as it stands the "necessary means" you suppose your friends lack are essentially internet access; pencils and time. Sure it might be easier for a rich kid to take a year off and hire a bunch of private LSAT tutors to his father's yacht but it is perfectly reasonable for a person to properly study for the LSAT over 6mos-1yr while working full time, or to do so in a public library over a summer.

mornincounselor wrote:

Freyer92 wrote:The LSAT presupposes time, energy, diligence, effort, peace of mind, and money. Lots of individuals from my sector of society are presupposed to the opposite. How can the LSAT be such a predictor, as it is, given the great amount of money/time that is required to do well? Granted, you should be able to display through the test that you're committed and a hard-worker, but some people don't have the means necessarily.

Why does this have anything to do with race? Do you really feel your friend would be different person had they been a white or asian student of the same financial circumstance, in the same home town, with the same parental units, etc? Your argument is that the LSAT takes effort and many people in your "sector of society"--which I suppose based on your thread title you mean your race--don't have the energy or "peace of mind" to study properly. I think the trend among most young people across all sectors of society is one towards laziness, this isn't just your "sector."

The money argument is a red herring. Studying for the LSAT isn't very expensive, especially compared to undergraduate education. Even supposing one went from community college to an in-state public school they still likely amassed greater than $10,000 in debt. With the incredible free or very affordable online resources available for LSAT one can acquire all the skills necessary to accomplish a very high score for less than one-hundreth of that cost.

If you changed "LSAT" to "Undergraduate education" in your prompt you might have a stronger argument. But as it stands the "necessary means" you suppose your friends lack are essentially internet access; pencils and time. Sure it might be easier for a rich kid to take a year off and hire a bunch of private LSAT tutors to his father's yacht but it is perfectly reasonable for a person to properly study for the LSAT over 6mos-1yr while working full time, or to do so in a public library over a summer.

There is a difference between what one can do and what knows how to do/ is able to do. You assume that some people can just magically find cheap/resourceful LSAT preparatory materials. A lot of us didn't grow up around an academic/educational environment, and don't know hardly anything about it. I know people who just signed up and took the test in fact.

Freyer92 wrote:

mornincounselor wrote:

Freyer92 wrote:The LSAT presupposes time, energy, diligence, effort, peace of mind, and money. Lots of individuals from my sector of society are presupposed to the opposite. How can the LSAT be such a predictor, as it is, given the great amount of money/time that is required to do well? Granted, you should be able to display through the test that you're committed and a hard-worker, but some people don't have the means necessarily.

Why does this have anything to do with race? Do you really feel your friend would be different person had they been a white or asian student of the same financial circumstance, in the same home town, with the same parental units, etc? Your argument is that the LSAT takes effort and many people in your "sector of society"--which I suppose based on your thread title you mean your race--don't have the energy or "peace of mind" to study properly. I think the trend among most young people across all sectors of society is one towards laziness, this isn't just your "sector."

The money argument is a red herring. Studying for the LSAT isn't very expensive, especially compared to undergraduate education. Even supposing one went from community college to an in-state public school they still likely amassed greater than $10,000 in debt. With the incredible free or very affordable online resources available for LSAT one can acquire all the skills necessary to accomplish a very high score for less than one-hundreth of that cost.

If you changed "LSAT" to "Undergraduate education" in your prompt you might have a stronger argument. But as it stands the "necessary means" you suppose your friends lack are essentially internet access; pencils and time. Sure it might be easier for a rich kid to take a year off and hire a bunch of private LSAT tutors to his father's yacht but it is perfectly reasonable for a person to properly study for the LSAT over 6mos-1yr while working full time, or to do so in a public library over a summer.

There is a difference between what one can do and what knows how to do/ is able to do. You assume that some people can just magically find cheap/resourceful LSAT preparatory materials. A lot of us didn't grow up around an academic/educational environment, and don't know hardly anything about it. I know people who just signed up and took the test in fact.

I agree with this. I do assume people are capable of finding a forum like this. Without the guidance of the useful people on this forum people are apt to spend way too much money on things which won't help them really get a strong score. But this is a measure of how prepared one is. One who does their research--not only on the LSAT in isolation, but also on the state of the legal market generally which shows why it is critical, to get a good return on one's law school investment, to study properly--shows the level of seriousness successful law students exhibit. Those who jump right into the LSAT and right into lower-tier schools, and I know students who do this too--one of my good friends is ecstatic about attending Suffolk this year at sticker--do not have this dedication and kinda then deserve the result they get.

Being able to find high-quality information on the internet is, and should be, a prerequisite of law school. Law involves a large amount of researching and being able to delve through vast arrays of information to find the needles in the haystack so to speak.

The LSAT doesn't "presuppose" any of those things. If what you mean is "(x) can help get you get a good score" where x is time, money, access to education, etc then I fail to see why you have limited your point to the LSAT rather than making it about education in general.

None of these things are "required" to do well. What is "required" to do well is that you be really good at the skills that are tested, to wit, logical reasoning.

Also, even assuming what you're saying is true (it isn't), please explain what you think success in law school requires other than "time, energy, diligence, effort, peace of mind, and money."

Freyer92 wrote:

mornincounselor wrote:

Freyer92 wrote:The LSAT presupposes time, energy, diligence, effort, peace of mind, and money. Lots of individuals from my sector of society are presupposed to the opposite. How can the LSAT be such a predictor, as it is, given the great amount of money/time that is required to do well? Granted, you should be able to display through the test that you're committed and a hard-worker, but some people don't have the means necessarily.

Why does this have anything to do with race? Do you really feel your friend would be different person had they been a white or asian student of the same financial circumstance, in the same home town, with the same parental units, etc? Your argument is that the LSAT takes effort and many people in your "sector of society"--which I suppose based on your thread title you mean your race--don't have the energy or "peace of mind" to study properly. I think the trend among most young people across all sectors of society is one towards laziness, this isn't just your "sector."

The money argument is a red herring. Studying for the LSAT isn't very expensive, especially compared to undergraduate education. Even supposing one went from community college to an in-state public school they still likely amassed greater than $10,000 in debt. With the incredible free or very affordable online resources available for LSAT one can acquire all the skills necessary to accomplish a very high score for less than one-hundreth of that cost.

If you changed "LSAT" to "Undergraduate education" in your prompt you might have a stronger argument. But as it stands the "necessary means" you suppose your friends lack are essentially internet access; pencils and time. Sure it might be easier for a rich kid to take a year off and hire a bunch of private LSAT tutors to his father's yacht but it is perfectly reasonable for a person to properly study for the LSAT over 6mos-1yr while working full time, or to do so in a public library over a summer.

There is a difference between what one can do and what knows how to do/ is able to do. You assume that some people can just magically find cheap/resourceful LSAT preparatory materials. A lot of us didn't grow up around an academic/educational environment, and don't know hardly anything about it. I know people who just signed up and took the test in fact.

I'm willing to bet a large majority of LSAT takers- from any background- just sign up and take the test.

However, I don't think anyone's going to dispute your main point- there are structural advantages for wealthier students who are raised in an environment that puts a premium on academics. Affirmative action is one way schools look to address that, TLS policy requires that all AA discussions be contained to that thread. Outside of that, what's your point? Any sort of meritocracy is going to favor people who can put time and energy into something. What could LSAC possibly do to even the playing field for people who don't know how to/don't want to/can't study for the LSAT?

..