TLS c/o 2020 - In #Squad We Trust Forum

[TexasENG]

(the thought is that the GRE might be slightly less biased than the LSAT)

I've heard this before, but haven't taken the GRE so I have no ability to compare the tests. What makes it less socioeconomically biased than the LSAT? RC seems like it could be rough, but isn't there also a vocab section in the GRE?

I'm not entirely sure what the reasoning is, but wouldn't be surprised if its the RC that is the hold-up as there have been complaints in the past about the content of the RC causing problems due to students backgrounds.

[haley12]

I spent a lot on LSAT prep (Princeton review). Probably could have done it for cheaper but I didn't want to take any chances, and I don't regret it. Thinking about spending a lot on admissions consulting for next cycle. So I can see how not having those options could put you in a disadvantaged spot.

[us3rnam3]

(the thought is that the GRE might be slightly less biased than the LSAT)

I've heard this before, but haven't taken the GRE so I have no ability to compare the tests. What makes it less socioeconomically biased than the LSAT? RC seems like it could be rough, but isn't there also a vocab section in the GRE?

My guess is that alot of (maybe everything) on the GRE is learned in college. The lsat is a game that people learn how to play by paying copius amounts for tutors and study guides.

[TexasENG]

(the thought is that the GRE might be slightly less biased than the LSAT)

I've heard this before, but haven't taken the GRE so I have no ability to compare the tests. What makes it less socioeconomically biased than the LSAT? RC seems like it could be rough, but isn't there also a vocab section in the GRE?

My guess is that alot of (maybe everything) on the GRE is learned in college. The lsat is a game that people learn how to play by paying copius amounts for tutors and study guides.

This would make sense to me. I've never taken the GRE though so have no personal knowledge of the test.

[JC2017]

Your argument stands up until the top tier schools I would say. Upper class people have tremendous advantages of being able to get into the schools, score well enough to get merit aid, or be able to afford outright. I imagine that the top tier will be significantly less economically diverse than the schools below. (can you tell I'm bitter from the WLs at CLS and Penn? Even if I get in I likely can't afford it)

Am I the only person that spent a grand total of like $10 on LSAT prep? I think I bought one recent prep test to see if anything major was different, but just used old ones / online resources that were free for 99% of my preparation. I don't feel like that $10 test had any impact on my score whatsoever, but maybe I just got lucky if everyone else here spent hundreds of dollars, which is what you seem to be implying.

I think the bigger impact that wealth has on an applicant are the less tangible factors: believing you're capable of succeeding in higher education, being raised around people that went through similar processes, knowing what to expect from the process, and having a childhood that maybe valued more academic pursuits than less privileged children would have the luxury of affording. I was fortunate to grow up in a house that was very conducive to valuing higher education, so I benefited from that, but I don't think I got my merit aid because I paid more up-front for it in the way that some people make it sound. I'll definitely still be in debt that I won't be able to service other than getting a decent job-just like everyone else in my class, I expect.

Solidly middle class background, for the record.

I'm not even talking about simply LSAT prep from a $$$ sense, although it certainly helps. I'm referring more to the lifetime of "wealth prep" - fancy private high school-->SAT tutoring-->Ivy League undergrad-->Better job/internship opportunities-->Ivy league Grad School. And that's not even including the connections that come with said wealth. Everything builds on itself throughout life, well before it is in an individual's control outside of family influence.

I am also solidly middle class and went to middle class public schools. No one in my class went to Ivy League, and only 1 person in the previous class did, whereas a good 25-40% of the kids at a posh private school my friend teaches at go Ivy League.

Our society is built like this for better and for worst. I feel quite fortunate for the life I've had, but it is quite frustrating in this whole law school process.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

I feel like law schools have a greater chance at being more economically diverse since its a merit-based financial aid system rather than need-based. Middle class students won't be as financially shut out.

This assumes an even playing field for merit-based aid, which is not at all the case. Wealthy folks can typically afford more tutoring, private LSAT prep, etc. Even merit-based aid isn't a meritocracy in this country.

I think you're right in that many rich people will probably also be getting merit based aid, but I still think it is a benefit to middle class families who, while maybe not being able to afford as much elite tutoring, do receive some of the income based academic success or could beat the trend.

I think there is more meritocracy in having merit-based aid than there is in not (unless we're talking about a zero-sum game where we allocate one lump sum between need and merit, but that is not reality)

[Blue664]

(the thought is that the GRE might be slightly less biased than the LSAT)

I've heard this before, but haven't taken the GRE so I have no ability to compare the tests. What makes it less socioeconomically biased than the LSAT? RC seems like it could be rough, but isn't there also a vocab section in the GRE?

My guess is that alot of (maybe everything) on the GRE is learned in college. The lsat is a game that people learn how to play by paying copius amounts for tutors and study guides.

I don't think anything I learned in college helped me personally with the GRE. But it does seem like GRE is more content based (and harder to "game" bc it's computer adaptive), whereas LSAT is more skills based and therefore learnable with time and resources. But I feel like it would be pretty hard for people who didn't have exposure to great math teachers or exposure to higher level vocab to catch up with self study...

[Rigo]

If anything, I think the LSAT is a pretty good standardized test and cuts down on just how much of an advantage life circumstances give you in that it tests skills people haven't been exposed to throughout their lifetime (and kids born into a good school district would have an automatic unfair advantage at like the SAT and GRE). The LSAT just plain and simple takes practice (and thus merit is rewarded) for the vast majority of people.

[Monday]

.

[us3rnam3]

(the thought is that the GRE might be slightly less biased than the LSAT)

I've heard this before, but haven't taken the GRE so I have no ability to compare the tests. What makes it less socioeconomically biased than the LSAT? RC seems like it could be rough, but isn't there also a vocab section in the GRE?

My guess is that alot of (maybe everything) on the GRE is learned in college. The lsat is a game that people learn how to play by paying copius amounts for tutors and study guides.

I don't think anything I learned in college helped me personally with the GRE. But it does seem like GRE is more content based (and harder to "game" bc it's computer adaptive), whereas LSAT is more skills based and therefore learnable with time and resources. But I feel like it would be pretty hard for people who didn't have exposure to great math teachers or exposure to higher level vocab to catch up with self study...

I think (believe?) everyone who takes the GRE is in college and therefore has access to great math teachers. I studied social science in college so I couldn't pass the GRE to save my life but I think anyone who took math & english in college should be relatively prepared.

[TexasENG]

But, GRE might help in terms of allowing applicants to consider various options (e.g. MBA, PhD) rather than invest into one path via LSAT and in this way might help socioeconomically disadvantaged students in the grand scheme of things (not just for LS admissions) since if you are first-gen and/or come from a background without family members who are lawyers, doctors, or c-suite executives, then you are more likely to make that decision at a later juncture in life than those who are born into that web.

This argument makes sense. More disadvantaged students might already be taking the GRE for a variety of reasons.

Also the GRE can help reach a larger / more diverse applicant pool of students that might not have initially been considering the law for whatever reason (remembering now this was one of the arguments the Dean put forward for why Harvard might be piloting the GRE.)

[Rigo]

(the thought is that the GRE might be slightly less biased than the LSAT)

I've heard this before, but haven't taken the GRE so I have no ability to compare the tests. What makes it less socioeconomically biased than the LSAT? RC seems like it could be rough, but isn't there also a vocab section in the GRE?

My guess is that alot of (maybe everything) on the GRE is learned in college. The lsat is a game that people learn how to play by paying copius amounts for tutors and study guides.

I agree with you, but think the implications of this are a positive thing since wealth is more determinative of placement into elite undergrads which would therefore set those kids up better to succeed on the GRE because those skills are more automatic tag-along skills that are pretty cumulative and reinforce economic advantages pretty easily.

Sure money can pay for LSAT courses and tutors and such but those resources and skills have to be specifically sought out and worked on (merit!). There is less of a systemic built-in advantage with the LSAT imo.

Idk just thinking out loud.

[Rigo]

But, GRE might help in terms of allowing applicants to consider various options (e.g. MBA, PhD) rather than invest into one path via LSAT and in this way might help socioeconomically disadvantaged students in the grand scheme of things (not just for LS admissions) since if you are first-gen and/or come from a background without family members who are lawyers, doctors, or c-suite executives, then you are more likely to make that decision at a later juncture in life than those who are born into that web.

This argument makes sense. More disadvantaged students might already be taking the GRE for a variety of reasons.

Also the GRE can help reach a larger / more diverse applicant pool of students that might not have initially been considering the law for whatever reason (remembering now this was one of the arguments the Dean put forward for why Harvard might be piloting the GRE.)

This is the last thing we need in an over-saturated marketplace, but whatever Hahvud.

[TexasENG]

(the thought is that the GRE might be slightly less biased than the LSAT)

I've heard this before, but haven't taken the GRE so I have no ability to compare the tests. What makes it less socioeconomically biased than the LSAT? RC seems like it could be rough, but isn't there also a vocab section in the GRE?

My guess is that alot of (maybe everything) on the GRE is learned in college. The lsat is a game that people learn how to play by paying copius amounts for tutors and study guides.

I agree with you, but think the implications of this are a positive thing since wealth is more determinative of placement into elite undergrads which would therefore set those kids up better to succeed on the GRE because those skills are more automatic tag-along skills that are pretty cumulative and reinforce economic advantages pretty easily.

Sure money can pay for LSAT courses and tutors and such but those resources and skills have to be specifically sought out and worked on (merit!). There is less of a systemic built-in advantage with the LSAT imo.

Idk just thinking out loud.

Yeah after thinking about it I remembered one of the main points put forward was that the GRE might reach a more diverse group of applicants who already have the skills (like STEM students) to succeed on the GRE but might not have evaluated law school for whatever reason.

[amta]

But, GRE might help in terms of allowing applicants to consider various options (e.g. MBA, PhD) rather than invest into one path via LSAT and in this way might help socioeconomically disadvantaged students in the grand scheme of things (not just for LS admissions) since if you are first-gen and/or come from a background without family members who are lawyers, doctors, or c-suite executives, then you are more likely to make that decision at a later juncture in life than those who are born into that web.

This argument makes sense. More disadvantaged students might already be taking the GRE for a variety of reasons.

Also the GRE can help reach a larger / more diverse applicant pool of students that might not have initially been considering the law for whatever reason (remembering now this was one of the arguments the Dean put forward for why Harvard might be piloting the GRE.)

This is the last thing we need in an over-saturated marketplace, but whatever Hahvud.

[TexasENG]

But, GRE might help in terms of allowing applicants to consider various options (e.g. MBA, PhD) rather than invest into one path via LSAT and in this way might help socioeconomically disadvantaged students in the grand scheme of things (not just for LS admissions) since if you are first-gen and/or come from a background without family members who are lawyers, doctors, or c-suite executives, then you are more likely to make that decision at a later juncture in life than those who are born into that web.

This argument makes sense. More disadvantaged students might already be taking the GRE for a variety of reasons.

Also the GRE can help reach a larger / more diverse applicant pool of students that might not have initially been considering the law for whatever reason (remembering now this was one of the arguments the Dean put forward for why Harvard might be piloting the GRE.)

This is the last thing we need in an over-saturated marketplace, but whatever Hahvud.

One of the things specifically mentioned was specific programs such as cybersecurity which require a skillset the average law student would not normally have. So by casting a wider net they might be able to lure those students into looking at law school.

[TexasENG]

Why Can't TTT schools stick to their application deadlines and stop emailing me?

[amta]

this board is filled with people who say to only go to law school if THE LAW is what you know for sure you wanna do. casting a wider net is a bad idea imo. it is incumbent on the applicant to decide on law school and take the necessary steps therein. blee dat

[Sarastro]

I'm not even talking about simply LSAT prep from a $$$ sense, although it certainly helps. I'm referring more to the lifetime of "wealth prep" - fancy private high school-->SAT tutoring-->Ivy League undergrad-->Better job/internship opportunities-->Ivy league Grad School. And that's not even including the connections that come with said wealth. Everything builds on itself throughout life, well before it is in an individual's control outside of family influence.

I am also solidly middle class and went to middle class public schools. No one in my class went to Ivy League, and only 1 person in the previous class did, whereas a good 25-40% of the kids at a posh private school my friend teaches at go Ivy League.

Our society is built like this for better and for worst. I feel quite fortunate for the life I've had, but it is quite frustrating in this whole law school process.

I think we're agreeing about your first bit. I think that social divide starts lower on the ladder though. I don't think going to an Ivy League UG really helps you so dramatically getting into a T13 compared to someone like us that went to public schools and went to non-ivy UG. It doesn't hurt, but I really don't think there's that big of difference between middle/upper class as far as law school apps. I imagine it's really people raised in poverty, without any window into academia or advanced degrees, that are greatly disadvantaged in the process.

Going to a state UG might be a tie breaker between you and your numbers-twin from Harvard, but someone raised in inner city Detroit is going to have to put in more effort to just get those basic fundamentals together that even middle class people probably had instilled in middle school. That's not meant to be disparaging to those people, I just mean to say that I don't at all feel disadvantaged in this process and I think complaining about which UG you went to making a big difference is maybe missing the larger picture of who actually is disadvantaged and why.

[us3rnam3]

Your argument stands up until the top tier schools I would say. Upper class people have tremendous advantages of being able to get into the schools, score well enough to get merit aid, or be able to afford outright. I imagine that the top tier will be significantly less economically diverse than the schools below. (can you tell I'm bitter from the WLs at CLS and Penn? Even if I get in I likely can't afford it)

Am I the only person that spent a grand total of like $10 on LSAT prep? I think I bought one recent prep test to see if anything major was different, but just used old ones / online resources that were free for 99% of my preparation. I don't feel like that $10 test had any impact on my score whatsoever, but maybe I just got lucky if everyone else here spent hundreds of dollars, which is what you seem to be implying.

I think the bigger impact that wealth has on an applicant are the less tangible factors: believing you're capable of succeeding in higher education, being raised around people that went through similar processes, knowing what to expect from the process, and having a childhood that maybe valued more academic pursuits than less privileged children would have the luxury of affording. I was fortunate to grow up in a house that was very conducive to valuing higher education, so I benefited from that, but I don't think I got my merit aid because I paid more up-front for it in the way that some people make it sound. I'll definitely still be in debt that I won't be able to service other than getting a decent job-just like everyone else in my class, I expect.

Solidly middle class background, for the record.

I'm not even talking about simply LSAT prep from a $$$ sense, although it certainly helps. I'm referring more to the lifetime of "wealth prep" - fancy private high school-->SAT tutoring-->Ivy League undergrad-->Better job/internship opportunities-->Ivy league Grad School. And that's not even including the connections that come with said wealth. Everything builds on itself throughout life, well before it is in an individual's control outside of family influence.

I am also solidly middle class and went to middle class public schools. No one in my class went to Ivy League, and only 1 person in the previous class did, whereas a good 25-40% of the kids at a posh private school my friend teaches at go Ivy League.

Our society is built like this for better and for worst. I feel quite fortunate for the life I've had, but it is quite frustrating in this whole law school process.

I dont think going to public schools is a serious hinderous to getting into ivy league schools. I also think alot of this is selection bias. Alot of people from your school probably don't aim for Ivy League schools.

[charles117]

what does everyone think of these barbiri law school prep courses that barbiri keeps emailing me about? is it worth it or just a waste of money?

[JC2017]

Your argument stands up until the top tier schools I would say. Upper class people have tremendous advantages of being able to get into the schools, score well enough to get merit aid, or be able to afford outright. I imagine that the top tier will be significantly less economically diverse than the schools below. (can you tell I'm bitter from the WLs at CLS and Penn? Even if I get in I likely can't afford it)

Am I the only person that spent a grand total of like $10 on LSAT prep? I think I bought one recent prep test to see if anything major was different, but just used old ones / online resources that were free for 99% of my preparation. I don't feel like that $10 test had any impact on my score whatsoever, but maybe I just got lucky if everyone else here spent hundreds of dollars, which is what you seem to be implying.

I think the bigger impact that wealth has on an applicant are the less tangible factors: believing you're capable of succeeding in higher education, being raised around people that went through similar processes, knowing what to expect from the process, and having a childhood that maybe valued more academic pursuits than less privileged children would have the luxury of affording. I was fortunate to grow up in a house that was very conducive to valuing higher education, so I benefited from that, but I don't think I got my merit aid because I paid more up-front for it in the way that some people make it sound. I'll definitely still be in debt that I won't be able to service other than getting a decent job-just like everyone else in my class, I expect.

Solidly middle class background, for the record.

I'm not even talking about simply LSAT prep from a $$$ sense, although it certainly helps. I'm referring more to the lifetime of "wealth prep" - fancy private high school-->SAT tutoring-->Ivy League undergrad-->Better job/internship opportunities-->Ivy league Grad School. And that's not even including the connections that come with said wealth. Everything builds on itself throughout life, well before it is in an individual's control outside of family influence.

I am also solidly middle class and went to middle class public schools. No one in my class went to Ivy League, and only 1 person in the previous class did, whereas a good 25-40% of the kids at a posh private school my friend teaches at go Ivy League.

Our society is built like this for better and for worst. I feel quite fortunate for the life I've had, but it is quite frustrating in this whole law school process.

I dont think going to public schools is a serious hinderous to getting into ivy league schools. I also think alot of this is selection bias. Alot of people from your school probably don't aim for Ivy League schools.

Oh I know for a fact it does, as I have a friend that works for Yale UG admissions. The Ivys weight top tier private schools much more heavily in their recruitment. Their thought process is that the best students are going there, so the top 25% at the private are better than the top 5% of the public school (arbitrary numbers, but you get the point). However, the "best" students are generally the wealthiest, not the smartest or most talented. Therein lies the rub.

[tncats]

what does everyone think of these barbiri law school prep courses that barbiri keeps emailing me about? is it worth it or just a waste of money?

Waste of money. Just an opportunistic way to profit from people's law school anxieties.

[brinicolec]

what does everyone think of these barbiri law school prep courses that barbiri keeps emailing me about? is it worth it or just a waste of money?

I'd imagine it's most beneficial for people who have been out of school for awhile.

[charles117]

what does everyone think of these barbiri law school prep courses that barbiri keeps emailing me about? is it worth it or just a waste of money?

Waste of money. Just an opportunistic way to profit from people's law school anxieties.

could you suggest a more affordable/freeware alternative like a khan academy for law school type thing?