Dear JY,
I love your website. The explanations for the logical games are carefully thought out and well presented. I wished I knew about your website before I spent $3000 on testprep material from Kaplan and Powerscore. Sage7 appears to have a far superior lesson plan for the LSAT.
So far, I have completed about 100 games and I plan on doing all 340 games. However, I am struggling with sufficiency/ necessary and formal logical concepts. Does the either the LSAT Ultimate or Premium cover these concepts in greater detail than what I can find in my Power Score books?
As an older research scientist (and patent analyst) with several graduate degrees and significant experience in academia, I find the process of law school admissions quite myopic and certainly not holistic; despite what some adcoms might say publicly. Lawyers I know say the process is flawed: “Just get the best scores possible and get into the most reputable (based on rankings) school possible; UT Austin law top 50% makes it much easier to get a job than a top 5% at Texas A&M.”
In your opinion, how heavily weighted is the LSAT score above anything else in your application?
After applying to several schools in 2010, I got the impression there is a minimal threshold of either an Index or LSAT score before they will review an application. I would predict they triage applications based on LSAT scores (e.g. 170s vs 160s vs 150s vs 140s stacks) until they fill up their class. In 2010, I was accepted at two private schools ranked about 80th and 120th with a 154 and about a 3.20 total GPA. However, I wasn't offered any financial aid. So, I decided not to attend because of the debt and the difficulty in finding a job from those schools.
Since then, I have worked for a patent litigation firm as a scientific adviser and passed the patent bar exam.
My goal is to get my LSAT score between the 25%-75% admissions profile of all my target schools (ranked 20-100) and then just let my applications fly.
Given the expense of law school, how associates are hired (based on class rank and perceived school reputation) and that only a few big firms which do IP work in the life sciences, I am only going to aim for law schools ranked between 20-100 (mostly 20-50). Otherwise, it might not be a prudent investment to attend a lesser ranked school (or at least until I can obtain the right LSAT score to get in the right school with financial aid). I predict I will need about a 160-165 before my application would be considered or even possibly read by these schools. In my opinion, a tier 3 or 4 school is not worth the 100-150 K in debt and the lack of job prospects.
Recently, I contacted a highly regarded admissions consultant and got into a rather contentious discussion about the relevance of the LSAT in the admissions process. Further, we talked how rankings influence a student's ability to get a job after graduation. In my opinion, this over-emphasis on LSAT scores seems rather silly and doctoral programs never place so much weight on one's GRE scores. She kept arguing that the LSAT is a good indicator of first year grades. As I laughed, I told her that's manure and certainly not worth $250 per hour.
I pointed out that the correlation coefficient between LSAT scores and first year grades is roughly 0.36 median with a margin of error between .12 to .56. The correlation coefficient between LSAT scores and the bar passage rate is even lower. Law school grades and bar passage rates seem to be more strongly correlated. As a scientist who has performed correlation analysis on medical data, any statistician will tell you that a correlation less than 0.40 is rather meaningless and that there is no relationship between the two events. Plus, the margin of error is rather large. The distinctions adcoms (and students) try to make about subtle scores differences is just flawed based on the LSAC statistics.
So why do administrative legal professionals make these conclusions about LSAT scores, law schools grades, rankings, and bar passage rates?
Are they just trying to protect their jobs and voice their support for the standardized test industry?
Don't they understand the LSAT is teachable with practice and favors rich students with a lot of money to pay for tutors and LSAT prep classes?
My boss, a partner, remarked to me about this: "the most qualitative profession chooses the most quantitative approach for admissions into the profession."
References:
http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/your-score/law-school-performance
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/09/law-school-gpa-.html
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r.html
(see the last section on interpreting coefficients)
82 comments
Gotta admit -- I’m enjoying this conversation quite a bit, and it’s totally distracting me from my work -- please keep it going.
I don't think it's even remotely in question that having a good tutor is an advantage. The fact that it's possible to learn the test via struggling through it yourself is not mutually exclusive with the fact that having someone there to guide you in your struggles and point you in the right direction is beneficial.
As for the initial post, I think it's a perfect example of why the LSAT is needed - perhaps not to the degree it is currently valued, but necessary nevertheless. From what I understand, you went to this well-known consultant, asked her HOW MUCH weight the LSAT has, and then got into an argument about whether it SHOULD be that way. Any 160-level LSAT scorer should be able to see where I'm going with this.
Peeps, I have already taken the LSAT twice, scoring 6 points higher the second time thanks to 7sage and lessening post-concussion syndrome symptoms. I don't need the whole mindset peptalk. Also, if you took my statement literally that the LSAT makers favor rich people, then you missed the point (go figure). The LSAT, like most things, inherently favors rich people, not because of the content, but because the more money you have the more you can spend on studying in many different ways. Denying this is naive, plain and simple. Further, don't read into my statement any more than is required; the LSAT inherently favors the rich. The end. I am not saying I am comparing myself to a rich person, saying I wish I was rich (although, separate from this, I do wish that), not saying I am discouraged by not being rich, or that you should be discouraged, or anything else. I am stating a simple fact that some of you naively disagree with. 7sage has been great, but some of you need to lay off the psychologist attempts; some of us just enjoy a debate and pointing out clear inaccuracies, and pointing those out doesn't mean I have some deep down feelings and thoughts of self doubt and whatever else you may try and help me with. Thank you!
A little light reading for those of you who still think that the LSAT is not discriminatory.
http://academic.udayton.edu/thewhitestlawschools/2005twls/chapter2/Legaled08.htm
http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/salt/files/2009/08/Misuse-and-Abuse-of-the-LSAT-Making-the-Case-for-Alternative-Evaluative-Efforts-and-a-Redefinition-of-Merit.pdf
Frankly I find this whole conversation to be increasingly ironic since people are denying that institutionalized discrimination exists in the LSAT and its application by law schools, and the conversation itself is taking place on a website that was created in part to help to lower the barriers to entry to the legal profession. Those barriers are the very manifestations of the institutionalized discrimination that both @kennedybj959.janson35 and myself have highlighted, as did the OP. Just because one manages to persevere through hardships and/or discrimination to come out successful on the other side does not suddenly mean that those hardships and discrimination cease to exist. And frankly, it does a disservice to those left on the other side. Rather than tell those people to just work hard and it will all be okay (which is not necessarily true), why not call out the system for what it is and take steps to rectify the issues facing groups that are discriminated against?
Holy balls that was an intense post, you must be super fun at parties. First of all, JY doesn't really post much anymore like he did when he was first getting this site going since he allowed the community to develop organically so that 7Sagers could help one another out. So since you're not likely to get a response from him and I have nothing better to do at the moment I guess I'll take a stab at this.
However, I am struggling with sufficiency/ necessary and formal logical concepts. Does the either the LSAT Ultimate or Premium cover these concepts in greater detail than what I can find in my Power Score books?
Every 7Sage package contains an identical curriculum in terms of the lessons provided so there is no difference in what you learn from the Starter package versus Ultimate+, it's just that the latter has more explanations of PT questions and more problem sets, as well as a few other perks.
I find the process of law school admissions quite myopic and certainly not holistic; despite what some adcoms might say publicly. Lawyers I know say the process is flawed
It is what it is, and if you really want to be a lawyer you've got to play the game for now. If you want to change the paradigm, you've got to do it from the inside. Some schools are more holistic than others and while plenty of schools have GPA floors they will never admit to, it doesn't mean they don't still look at you as the total package if you do meet those minimum requirements.
In your opinion, how heavily weighted is the LSAT score above anything else in your application?
Technically this will vary from school to school as some schools do use strictly numerical indexes to combine LSAT/uGPA while other schools do not or are not allowed to for legal reasons. My favorite analogy that I think perfectly sums it up is that LSAT and uGPA are each weights, like kettle bells for example. So a 180 LSAT score is like a 100lb kettlebell and a 120 is like a 1 gram thimble sized kettle bell and the same is true for a 4.0 versus a 0.0 uGPA. The only other thing you have to tip the scales is a sack that you are allowed to put a finite yet variable amount of feathers in. These represent all your softs. Certain softs might be bigger feathers than others, but they are all still feathers. The only real wild card is URM status which can be like tying an extra weight onto one or both of you kettle bells (this depends on the school). In general, the prevalence of splitter friendly schools versus the dearth of reverse splitter friendly schools tells us that LSAT is almost always the preferred weight to tip the scales. It doesn't really matter how heavily weighted the LSAT is, just know that it is the most important thing in your application at literally every school to which you will apply (this is true even for reverse splitter friendly schools like Berkeley). Get over it, crush the LSAT and move on with your life.
I got the impression there is a minimal threshold of either an Index or LSAT score before they will review an application.
Not true. They will review it and then ding you if there is nothing to compensate for a shitty LSAT score. This gets into the differences in how different schools review applications. Some schools read your numbers up front while others read your application up front, and there are endless variations to such methodologies and even some individual adcoms or readers might do things in their own order once they take a stack of apps home to read. Therefore there can be a big difference in whether your first impression is a shitty LSAT score or an amazing PS/DS/LOR/etc. since they might fall in love with you and hope that your LSAT score is workable when they get to the end. If they see a bad score up front it will color their impression of you as they go through. So just crush the LSAT and don't worry about it.
I would predict they triage applications based on LSAT scores (e.g. 170s vs 160s vs 150s vs 140s stacks) until they fill up their class.
Sort of true but not quite exactly what goes on. Generally speaking, people below both 25ths will get dinged quickly, and people above both 75ths will get accepted quickly. Splitters, reverse splitters, and people in between the 25ths and 75ths will be held until they need to start picking from those groups. So much of the rolling admissions process in law school is about everything trickling down. So once Yale makes all their decisions then Harvard and Stanford know what they can and can't do and what they need to do to maintain medians and yield protect. This cascading effect ripples again after seat deposits and on throughout the summer as people will end up getting into law schools (even in the T14) as late as the week if not the day before classes start.
However, I wasn't offered any financial aid.
Did you negotiate? Just because you weren't offered doesn't mean they wouldn't give you any aid. Remember that for next time.
My goal is to get my LSAT score between the 25%-75% admissions profile of all my target schools (ranked 20-100) and then just let my applications fly.
WIth a 3.2 you need to be shooting for above the median at every school, not above the 25th. The 25th is just an informational guideline to applicants but is not what gets reported to USNWR or what factors into rankings. You need to bring an above median LSAT to every school to have a better shot at acceptance and a better shot at money. If you are a URM then this can shift down slightly but not a ton as far as money goes.
Given the expense of law school, how associates are hired (based on class rank and perceived school reputation) and that only a few big firms which do IP work in the life sciences, I am only going to aim for law schools ranked between 20-100 (mostly 20-50). Otherwise, it might not be a prudent investment to attend a lesser ranked school (or at least until I can obtain the right LSAT score to get in the right school with financial aid). I predict I will need about a 160-165 before my application would be considered or even possibly read by these schools. In my opinion, a tier 3 or 4 school is not worth the 100-150 K in debt and the lack of job prospects.
What I think you're failing to recognize here is that the majority of law school students are K-JD and the vast majority are 1-2 years removed from UG. What does that mean for you? Well first of all that means that the employment statistics of any school are skewed towards how well that particular school helps young kids (that have probably never had a full time job) find full time jobs as lawyers or something close (think JD advantage). You, as a non-trad, obviously have a lot more to offer given your background, especially if you're trying to go IP because they want engineer or people who speak the language of the field or have other related experience rather than a kid fresh out of the T14 who has no idea what he or she is getting into. Think about it, even if you went to a shittier law school, you should still be able to outperform other recent graduates from schools well above your law school's ranking simply by the depth of your experience. You make your job prospects when the school doesn't make them for you. So unless a school has 0% employment numbers, you should count yourself in the percentage of employed graduates because why the fuck would you settle for anything less?
Recently, I contacted a highly regarded admissions consultant and got into a rather contentious discussion about the relevance of the LSAT in the admissions process.
Why? In a list of things that are a complete waste of your time, this is pretty high up there. You should be going through the 7Sage curriculum and prepping rather than debating the merits of the reality of what you're up against.
In my opinion, this over-emphasis on LSAT scores seems rather silly and doctoral programs never place so much weight on one's GRE scores.
Ok great, so either get over it, crush the LSAT and go become a lawyer and then do something about it, or don't and go back to doing your academia thing. The thing here is, nobody really cares in the end because by the time you become a lawyer, the grind of law school will have made you forget all about the LSAT unless you've been tutoring your way through school. And by then you will be a lawyer and get to go and do lawyer stuff so who cares? Furthermore, if you are really in academia then why aren't you spouting off about the bullshit nature of almost everything that goes on in that field, whether it is research/publication requirements or the tenure track system?
She kept arguing that the LSAT is a good indicator of first year grades. As I laughed, I told her that's manure and certainly not worth $250 per hour.
I pointed out that the correlation coefficient between LSAT scores and first year grades is roughly 0.36 median with a margin of error between .12 to .56. The correlation coefficient between LSAT scores and the bar passage rate is even lower. Law school grades and bar passage rates seem to be more strongly correlated. As a scientist who has performed correlation analysis on medical data, any statistician will tell you that a correlation less than 0.40 is rather meaningless and that there is no relationship between the two events. Plus, the margin of error is rather large. The distinctions adcoms (and students) try to make about subtle scores differences is just flawed based on the LSAC statistics.
So why do administrative legal professionals make these conclusions about LSAT scores, law schools grades, rankings, and bar passage rates?
I have never seen anyone correlate LSAT scores positively to anything besides 1L grades. That is usually pretty commonly mentioned in LSAT circles. And even then, it is only mentioned because, as you mention, it is the only thing it can even be remotely correlated with. Why does this all go on? Look at it from a practical standpoint of how it evolved. They needed a metric, LSAC developed one, schools got on board, USNWR got on board, they developed rankings, certain schools (within a year of the first USNWR law school rankings) jostled into position, and then they have all sat in roughly the same spots ever since (in the T14) by simply maintaining the status quo. Is it right? Obviously not, but that doesn't mean they suddenly cease to be the gatekeepers of the top entrances to the legal profession. So we have ATL and other stuff that helps mitigate the effects and shows rankings based on other things and makes for a more informed consumer, but in the end, who cares? The goal is to be a lawyer and almost any law school if you put in the right amount of effort will make you a lawyer. Let law schools do whatever they want, they'll be in your rearview mirror before you know it. Furthermore, the one valuable piece of the LSAT is that it does help rewire your brain if you are doing serious prep for it, and that is what really proves invaluable in the long run.
Are they just trying to protect their jobs and voice their support for the standardized test industry?
Sort of yeah, it's not always a conscious thing, but you just get in an industry and go with the flow because it pays the bills. If you want to go and disrupt some shit then go right ahead, but you're going to ruffle some feathers and make some powerful enemies so you better be pretty prepared for all that.
Don't they understand the LSAT is teachable with practice and favors rich students with a lot of money to pay for tutors and LSAT prep classes?
Yes of course they do, but again, that is not an individual adcom's job to worry about right? They might have a family to support and so they are more concerned with keeping their nice job and helping people become lawyers who might go on to do great things and so they feel like that's how they do their part. There is a lot of blame to go around for the inadequacies in the system, but I feel like targeting adcoms is really kind of missing out on the bigger picture. Again, if you want to disrupt some shit, support endeavors like 7Sage that are working to lower the financial barriers to entry into the legal profession. Otherwise you just really need to get off the high horse and get back to reality. All this griping is not going to change anything. You cannot change the system as a passive aggressive complainer. You've got to get into the arena and fight for something. And if you aren't a lawyer it's going to be really hard to find your way into that arena, let alone not get eaten alive or at least be taken seriously.
References:
http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/your-score/law-school-performance
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/09/law-school-gpa-.html
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r.html
(see the last section on interpreting coefficients)
Dude... seriously? Putting links in line in your text is one thing... but a works cited? Let's be real here. This is a pretty informal forum for people prepping for the LSAT and working to gain admission to law schools, it's not a repository for a half baked thesis about the shortcomings of the legal profession and the problems inherent in gaining admission to it. Quite frankly I don't see anything in here that even leads me to believe you actually want to be a lawyer so I'm not exactly sure what your motivations are. Maybe you do and that's cool, but if you're not sure and you have all these hangups then I would seriously reconsider whether or not to go down this path. You sound much more like an academic researcher than a legal scholar, not just in tone but in a palpable preference for what you actually would be good at and enjoy.
Anyways, that's probably enough for now as it's more than you'll get out of anyone else on here. Hopefully you don't take too much offense to this, and more than likely everyone else will be much nicer to you and support your crusade. But in the end, if you really want to be a lawyer, drop the pretense, buy a 7Sage package, learn the curriculum, crush the LSAT, and go to law school. And stop arguing with consultants since you're wasting your time and theirs... that's not cool dude. Good luck to you and if you ever need anything feel free to hit me up anytime!
Take 'er easy
As for the inherently discriminatory system that the LSAT is rooted in - yes, 100%, no question. But that's already being corrected for with URMs getting a substantial break on their LSAT requirements and an automatic (and usually significant) 'soft' on their oh-so-holistically-reviewed applications that are definitely not subject to racial quotas (thanks, Grutter v Bollinger).
Is that a hamfisted and imprecise solution? Absolutely! It needs to be socioeconomic status, not just race, and that's only scratching the surface of fixing the problem. Do we need to fix it? Yes, absolutely! No quibbles from me there either. But given that all of those advantages talked about stem not from the test itself but rather from the society in which we all live in, it seems to me that a discussion of what has predictive value for a law school application is largely independent of a discussion about those systemic issues, because no factor currently escapes those influences. So even if you were to heavily weight uGPA, well, rich kids have tutors for that too. Internships? Rich kids have connections to secure them and the luxury of taking unpaid internships. Rec letters? Again, connections. And so forth. Absent a realistic way of fixing that system's foundations in the short term, I feel like the task should be to first figure out what provides the predictive value we're seeking, and then second to adjust the levels of those things for the various groups of folks it needs adjusting for.
Gonna play some devil's advocate here (i.e. purposely over-the-top semi-hostile tone incoming):
For those of you who advocate for a heavier weight on uGPA: I can theoretically buy that uGPA can be a measure of how hard you try at school to some extent, but
(1) I know from personal experience that you can have a reasonably high uGPA and be a complete academic deadbeat. I graduated with double majors, including departmental honors in my management science degree (the BS-granting version of econ - like, with forecasting and STATA and stuff). From my academic record, you'd think I was a star. And yet, I think my uGPA ended up being higher than the number of class sessions per class I would usually attend each quarter, and I was far from the only one like this in my friend circle. I was literally the worst student I've ever known, and I'm not proud of that. And yet, my uGPA was perfectly fine.
and
(2) it seems to me like everyone just accepts that since the current LSAT/GPA system isn't perfect, that some sort of more-holistic process that more heavily weights uGPA, work experience, and so forth is therefore guaranteed to be better.
Is it? Don't we need some reference points to compare if we're going to be slagging the LSAT? Does anyone know the correlation coefficient between uGPA and 1st year grades? uGPA and bar pass? Prior work experience and 1st year grades/bar pass? Volunteer experience and 1st year grades/bar pass?
EDIT: Per LSAC: Correlations between LSAT scores and first-year law school grades ranged from .12 to .56 (median is .36). The correlations between UGPA and first-year law grades ranged from .09 to .45 (median is .28). However, correlations between LSAT scores combined with undergraduate grade-point averages and first-year law school grades ranged from .30 to .62 (median is .48).
Sure, the LSAT isn't perfect. I don't think anyone claimed it was. The question I have is - what evidence is there that introducing those other factors makes things better instead of worse (or equivalent)? The LSAT might not achieve a statistically significant predictive value, but do any of those other things? In fact, it appears that uGPA on its own is substantially worse, and combining uGPA with LSAT (as schools currently do) is by far the best, and none of them even hits a median of 0.50. Even at best it's statistically insignificant, but if you think the LSAT alone is bad then uGPA is comical in comparison.
Given that, if we don't want LSAT in there, aren't we all just talking about what we subjectively 'feel' should be valued? And if we're going down that road, as an adcom, why should I care if you have a 4.0 in biochemistry if you can't parse anything but the most basic of English sentences? Why should I care if you are the president of your fraternity and demonstrated leadership skills up the wazoo if you don't know the most common forms of busted logic from a hole in the ground? 10 years of paralegal experience, but you can't summarize the main point of a 60-line passage for me? And if you're so adaptable and quick to learn, then why can't you prove it by adapting real quick and murdering the LSAT? Isn't this why we turn to statistics and other things to begin with? To prevent us from relying on the answers to questions like this with no good way to adequately capture the spectrum of response necessary to adequately answer?
In other words, are you advocating for a heavier weight on uGPA because you actually have stats to prove its superior predictive power versus the LSAT (or in conjunction with it), or are you doing it because it's another accomplishment you can point to in order to 'prove' that you deserve a seat even while the LSAT is busy kicking you in the head?
Having done some cursory thought on this just now, it also seems to me that this correlation coefficient is actually an awful way to measure the LSAT's value, because the way the system works you're sorted by your LSAT score and uGPA into a school that is literally full of your academic clones. Within that narrow band of aptitude, and with different professors/classes and other confounding variables factored in, of course there's going to be tons of variance.
The real question shouldn't be within any particular school, but rather across schools. If a 170 gets you into NYU, and a 160 gets you into Brooklyn Law, would THAT correlate to a performance gap if those students were given equivalent circumstances (taking the same classes with the same profs, same exams, etc), holding all else equal? My bet is yes, and I don't think it would be close in the aggregate. Of course, there's no realistic way to test this.
And this is what you get when I'm grumpy that I can't sleep.
The whole world favors people who have more time, money and resources. The world is discriminatory. Life isn't fair. That doesn't mean you can't saddle up and do what needs to be done to succeed.
I agree with the sentiment but the realist in me says this change, if it ever occurs, won't happen any time soon. If you want to attend a top law school in the near future, it's more important to learn how to operate within the current rules. If you want to dedicate yourself to reforming or modifying the system that's a different matter.
It's a "WILL," not a "MAY," for me and anyone else. A tutor is like a personal trainer. Could someone possibly obtain better, quicker results with one? Yes. Are they necessary for obtaining results? No. Excuses are easy, results are hard.
Acknowledging that structural inequalities do exist is not the same as excuse making; to imply that they are synonymous is a real danger. Part of the reason why 7sage exists is because an effort was made to acknowledge and rectify the barriers to entry inherent to the legal field, so this does not mean that JY and Co were being unnecessarily fatalistic in their endeavor, but instead simply realistic--the result of which is this site and these forums that we are debating on right now.
Climbing over @2543.hopkins's mic drop, @gs556950 argues that the test is "not designed to favor one background over the other...to say that the exam itself favors one type of background over the other is misleading." This may still be true, but the most insidious effects of discrimination are not necessarily those that are explicit in nature. To say that the test was not designed to discriminate does not in and of itself prove that it does not discriminate. But it's easiest to show and point to intent when naming discrimination, rather than its effects, and so this is often where a conversation about discrimination ends. The effects must always be highlighted; doing so takes aim at the glass ceilings that seek to inhibit any of us. To instead argue that a change in mindset is all that is necessary to succeed tells those farthest at the bottom to just look through the glass ceiling way above, their view impeded as it may be, to hope to one day reach it, and when they do, to merely charge through without ever previously considering how. To be sure, this may work for some. But it may also leave many with shards of glass sticking in them as they fall.
We can agree that the test can discriminate against the disadvantaged and also that these disadvantages can be overcome. One can hold these two thoughts simultaneously without conflict. I'm not sure why we're choosing to argue against one of them, or to discount those that are choosing to defend both points of view. A healthy dose of realism is necessary--it is not necessarily self-defeating.
"Furthermore, if that is the mindset you carry going into this test, you have already set yourself up with a greater disadvantage than the lack of money ever could."
This sounds nice, but we don't know if that's true. You can take the mindset that the odds are severely stacked against you and absolutely excel at the test. An awareness of your own as well as others' circumstances is not antagonistic towards hard work. It may, in the end, cultivate a person's work ethic. However, it is the case that some people are starting in a bigger hole than others, in life and with the LSAT; simply expressing this isn't "destructive." It's necessary.
My problem with the people arguing against the social-economic barriers placed against the LSAT are the name problems I have with the classic "pull your self up by the boot straps" conservatives. People, who have never been poor, passed hunger, not had a home, go out and tell poor people, often of color, that it is all up them to make something of themselves. They say that "hard work pays of" and "if you try, you can be whatever you want" but when they do they keep hitting walls they need to climb over by a very thin rope. And these people telling them to work hard are the same ones building the walls so that they can't get over. Many of these people were once poor too or otherwise disadvantaged and come with the attitude of, "If I did it why can't you? Loser."
Look, the inherently discriminatory nature of the Law School does not begin as test material for the LSAT. It begins at birth. It is a standardized test for gods sake. People who have attended good school, more often than not those that are rich (and more often than not those that are white), are taught how to perform better on standardize test since a young age. I didn't know what the SAT was until I was in community college. No teacher ever talked to me about it. Why would they? No body in my class was thinking about college anyway. The skills to succeed on the LSAT begin far before materials need to be bought. But if we are going to talk about materials, the freaking Preptests alone can cost you $300+ and taking the test? It's a f'ing privileged to be able to afford taking the test 3 times at $200 each for people needing to put food on the table. The truth is, most people considering taking the LSAT are already in a privileged position with a BA and homelessness and hunger are not as big of a deal as with the rest of the population but they still exist. And even getting to that place, for many people, is often a struggle met by SO many challenges that it is completely unfair to say that "it does not favor the rich."
It does. Most things with this country do, but the law school process even more. To say it doesn't is to lie. Yes, to say that this can't be overcome is also to lie but lets be real and put things in perspective. I agree with @974, we should use our energy to critique the inherently discriminatory systems in an effort to change them instead of attacking those who do the critiquing. No need to jump on the OP's comments about the process if they are true. They are true. I don't take from his comment on the system favoring the rich that those aren't rich shouldn't try, they should just be damn sure that it is going to be a lot harder. It is a lesson I've had to learn and the advice I give the high school kids I mentor. The American Crony-Capitalist Oligarchy is built on inherently racist, classist, and colonialist believes and the law school process does a lot to support this concentration of power and not just limits the access of many people to a legal education, it leads to the inaccessibility of many to people to have quality legal representation. Those at the bottom must work hard to break this barriers. Admitting to this is the first step in helping to break them down for others. Saying it is all about "hard work" is the opposite.
If LSAT performance was a function of money, I should have scored a 120. Grit, determination and 7Sage will get you far, no tutor needed.
Whether the LSAT is a good predictor of your performance as a lawyer or not is irrelevant. It's the measure schools use to judge you as a candidate, deal with it.
Oh. He went there.
@markariangeorge725 I agree with a lot of what you say. More PTs should be free, and materials surrounding the fundamentals should be cheaply accessible (hence my continued support of 7Sage). People who create supplemental materials or who have expertise should obviously still be paid for their time and effort (meaning the system can never be truly equal for all as long as the test is learnable), but the baseline levels of available materials should definitely be higher than they currently are. The URM thing is also pretty unequivocally true (another example I like to bring up is non-Chinese/Japanese/Korean Asians). All of that is uncontroversial for me and really shouldn't be controversial at all.
My main target is the folks who use all that to suggest that LSAT should be heavily de-emphasized in favor of other soft factors like uGPA, volunteer experience, etc. when nobody ever examines the merit of those other factors. For example, uGPA seems to be the rallying point for everyone who thinks they're smart because they did well in college but can't score well on the LSAT, but if your complaint is that LSAT's predictive value is bad, uGPA's is abysmal. You can't criticize the LSAT for not being a good predictor, and then turn around and use other factors that are even worse predictors just because they make you feel better about yourself.
Dave I'm actually already working on one, carved in butter (because keto). Will that be adequate to honor your eminence?
+1000
It's that the LSAT reinforces the inequities in the system, which makes both entities discriminatory. It is taking part in institutionalized discrimination whether they intended to or not is beside the point.
The only flaw I would caution against here is that a tutor doesn't need to be working full-time currently to be able to relate to your situation. In fact, some might be working full time and yet make recommendations that are not feasible for you because of other dissimilarities in your life. Furthermore, other obligations can take the place of a full-time career that can be just as if not more demanding than a full-time career. Additionally, I would personally be open to a tutor who is unencumbered from full-time work because I don't need tutoring about my study schedule, but rather certain contents and patterns in the exam itself.
Just because one manages to persevere through hardships and/or discrimination to come out successful on the other side does not suddenly mean that those hardships and discrimination cease to exist.
Has anyone said that?
I think the fact that you went back and edited your original post is evidence that you now see how this can be construed implicitly from your original reply to the OP.
Rather than tell those people to just work hard and it will all be okay (which is not necessarily true), why not call out the system for what it is and take steps to rectify the issues facing groups that are discriminated against?
Are these things in any way mutually exclusive?
Never said they were. I think both are important. But since there are people for whom hard work will never be sufficient on its own, we need to work to rectify the institutional barriers in the system so that these people will have a fighting chance. And if we can remove the discriminatory barriers then we will have a more level playing field from which to start.
Nobody ever said this. This is just more of the same nonsense that is not helping this conversation. No one is saying that more money is sufficient to get a better score. It's that the test is designed (not necessarily with ill intentions) and applied (again, not necessarily with ill intentions) in a way that favors people who have more time, money, and resources. This is true of almost all standardized tests and represents a huge challenge across pretty much all education endeavors. If you had five years and plenty of money to take every prep course in existence you could still end up with a 140, and if you didn't you could still end up with a 180. But given an adequate sample, the evidence bears out that the former group will outperform the latter on average. That is discriminatory, plain and simple. Anyone with adequate mental faculties can do well on this exam, some will just need more help than others. Because this help is not equally accessible to everyone means there is discrimination in play.
These things MAY get you far. You're relying on your own confirmation bias to say that they WILL, which given your Sage status you should know is a flawed argument. And yes, no tutor is needed, but the fact that it will help is where the issue is.
Not sure what you're talking about here or where this has been shown to be true. A uGPA is based on around four years of data concerning your performance. LSAC and law schools take this stuff into account so that even though they might want your 4.0 from The University of Phoenix Online, they will take it with a bag full of salt because you might have had all multiple choice final exams on bullshit topics. You're not getting a high GPA in the hardest major at Princeton because some professors liked you or something. There are plenty of problems with judging people based on uGPA as there are institutional issues in play there, but that is what addenda are for. I don't think uGPA should be the biggest factor for non-trads, but I think it should be pretty damn big for K-JD because absent legit reasons for a low GPA (e.g.-serious physical or mental illness) then it should be a pretty good indicator of the type of law student they will be. If you screw off in UG and get a 2.5 and then try to go to HLS immediately afterwards then they should rightfully say that, at best, you are too immature to perform successfully, and at worst you're just a moron.
I currently work as a teacher, where the barriers to entry into the career field are low. Although I work with some amazing teachers, I also work with others that are less than amazing - and do not show the potential to be better. But it's so easy to become a teacher, so they get in, and get hired. It's really a detriment to the career field, and, of course, to students. But with a current teacher shortage, I don't see the requirements changing any time soon.
So much wrong here. There is a surplus of shitty lawyers in the US. There is not a surplus of great lawyers in the US. This has happened within the current system which erects barriers that discriminate based on a plethora of factors. One could reasonably infer that there are too many people with privilege becoming lawyers because they have the financial means to do so, but they totally suck at it and it is not in the public interest for such people to be practicing lawyers. The current system is likely preventing people, who could be amazing lawyers, from even going to law school due to the institutional barriers in place all along the way. Also, prestige and clout? Those are not reasons for becoming a lawyer and if that's what someone is in it for then they likely will be a horrible lawyer at worst and a huge jackass at best. The issue with teachers it that they are criminally underpaid in most markets and so the talent pool that could fill those positions and be awesome teachers end up going to do something else. Lawyers represent the flip side of that where people do it because they think there is a shit ton of money in it (which there is for a small subset of lawyers) and then end up unemployed, underemployed or not making much money and get disillusioned and become even shittier lawyers.
YES.
This to me represents the real long term importance of the LSAT.
Haha ... Well ... I'm not sure where you're detecting surprise in any of my statements. This is, quite frankly, the story of my life. I was one of the token "poor kids" at Princeton and I look forward to representing the first generation college graduate contingent in law school. Those of us whose life stories are marked by socio-economic disadvantage and outlier status in achievement never leave our roots—well, at least I haven't.
I just believe in the ability of the disadvantaged individual to overcome. And I want to encourage those who don't have socio-economic advantages that they, too, can leverage their meager financial resources, in combination with determination (and, as you rightly emphasize, the right materials and guidance!) and a refusal to let where they came from determine where they can go. We are free to exceed anyone's expectations of our potential based on class.
As a white female, I can't speak to racial discrimination. My heart goes out to those who face this, and I accept that I will never have as intimate of an understanding of those burdens as would anyone who has had to bear them. Just in the same way that, no matter what, no one who did not grow up with my burdens (or who did not experience them as adults—different, but certainly grounds for a special empathy) can understand all the ins and outs of my particular kind of struggle.
But we can certainly build one another up.
Don't they understand the LSAT is teachable with practice and favors rich students with a lot of money to pay for tutors and LSAT prep classes?
@jhsong919421 I think @2543.hopkins hit the nail on the head with her response to the statement above. She is not arguing that there is no such thing as being disadvantaged, but that the test itself does not favor the rich over everyone else. She didn't sugar coat the truth. To be honest OP's statement is a dangerous one because it can discourage many who begin their LSAT prep journey. When I first started, I was overwhelmed by the amount of courses, supplemental material and pure fluff around the LSAT available online.
It was even more frustrating once I realized the price tag on what it would cost to gather all of the material necessary. The point I am trying to make here is that if we acknowledge OP's statement regarding the LSAT's favoritism, we're endorsing a claim that is untrue. YES, the LSAT is teachable with practice, but no, you do not need a lot of money or tutors or expensive prep courses to make it. Does that mean you may have to work a little (or a lot harder) it sure does. But here's the thing, we're all working our ass off to get into law school. Which is, in itself, another animal.
Circling back to Nicole's statements above, this IS a place of encouragement. I think her post was one of tough love. It may seem like a "harsh" response but it is warranted. Those of us not in the ideal situation need to understand that in the long run it will get better and prepare you for other S-storms you weren't expecting. The initial struggle to stay afloat, to get up when you're pushed down and to finally be able to hit your stride is a much better investment in your future than any expensive tutor or prep course could ever be. Rather than use that as a crutch, use it as a form of motivation. You owe it to yourself to create the future you want, no matter how long it takes.
The LSAT, despite the mental, emotional & physical anguish it triggers, is one of the greatest teaching lessons we will encounter on our journey to a JD. I say this because the test does not discriminate against any background: smart, stupid, rich, or poor. I graduated college top 1% of my class and on paper it looks likes I am the ideal candidate. I went into this thinking it was just like any other college final. Put in 'x' amount of hours and get a 170+. As you can imagine, I was wrong...so wrong. I can't tell you how many times I have wanted to light my degrees on fire because the LSAT made me question my entire existence. LOL
That's the point though, it pushes you in ways you've never thought of but it is your job to push back.
@jhsong919421
As we all know, it's a good indicator of what law schools you can get into, which affects what kind of jobs you'll get after. But it's definitely not a necessary predictor of how good of a lawyer you will be. I think there are certain skills that you learn studying for the LSAT that are certainly helpful in learning how to reason/argue/read like a lawyer. But you don't absolutely need to get a good LSAT score to be able to do those things well. I also think the skills you learn on the LSAT are more targeted than how you would use them in real world practice.
I have worked in law firms for 4 years now, and I know plenty of amazing lawyers who are extremely successful and great at what they do, and they did not get a stellar LSAT score. So I do think that the LSAT is given more weight than it should, but given that it is what it is, I also think it's not totally unreasonable. I personally think that if you're willing to put in the work for the LSAT, that's an indicator of how willing you are to put in work for law school and being a lawyer.
Also, if you know what region you want to practice in, then getting into the T14 is a lot less important. It's a lot about networking and finding opportunities in that city. Regional schools have a much lower LSAT score threshold, so in that case a great LSAT score is definitely not a necessary predictor of success. I work at a national corporate firm in Seattle, and the majority of our lawyers at our Seattle office are hired from schools in Seattle that have much lower LSAT medians than the T14.
Money always gives one advantage; whether it is with the LSAT or anything in life. This problem is not unique to law school admissions. This doesn't mean that we can use this as an excuse to not succeed. That is the worst mindset one can possibly have. If you really want to be a lawyer, then it is in your benefit to stop having a destructive mindset and work your absolute hardest to achieve your goals/dreams. Everyone has struggles and difficulties. If someone has success and privilege served in a silver plate though then good for them! It is a waste of energy to compare yourself with those people or to complain about it. MANY people have it harder that you after all.
@wraith985-4026 dayumm... you're my hero
Pacifico, your use of the term discrimination in this context is expansive and poorly applied. Technically, Law Schools and the LSAT discriminates on the basis of merit. Discrimination is only negative when irrelevant factors like race, gender, and social status, gets in the way of this evaluation but the fact that multiple circumstances and conditions are tied to these things which may or may not give you a boost is out of the scope of the LSAT exam. There are many circumstances aside from the big 3 mentioned above which can incidentally and unfairly give you an advantage over other people and the LSAT does its best to control for the most prominent but of course it can't be absolutely perfect. Nor is it unrealistic or next to impossible to allay these obstacles tbh because come on, there are far worse and more difficult things in life to deal with than to set some time and money aside to study for the LSAT exam. You're setting this up as if having adequate mental faculties is sufficient to doing well on the exam and the fact that this is not always the case for people is a clear indication of some form of discrimination but the fact of the matter is the LSAT like every standardized exam distributes its scoring system around how well you do relative to others so clearly, even if your threshold of some utopian idealized non-discrimination is met, the bar would only be set even higher so that, for example, a 160 would come to be equivalent to a 150, etc.
Isn't this just the case with everything in life? If you have more time to prepare for something then you're more likely to do better than others but is that plain and simple discrimination?
@mike253 that video tells me there are a lot of aspects of my existence that I take for granted. Thank you for sharing.