Subscription pricing
In another thread, about Logical Games, which I didn't want to hijack:
@BinghamtonDave This is a set that doesn't allow an ounce of hesitation or misreading.
Because this is a skill that's absolutely required for success in law school.
Right? ... Right?
And to anyone, including the LSAC, who says, "Maybe not specifically, but LSAT scores correlate well with success in law school," my response is that you do not understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.
And somewhat separately, but still within this discussion's title: it's 2016 and not only are we taking multiple choice exams on paper, we're writing essays in pencil?! Is meekly accepting being treated like a child -- or a criminal -- a criterion for success in law school?
1
9 comments
HAHA! Yeah, the jury must be in by now, right?
Because this is a skill that's absolutely required for success in law school.
Right? ... Right?
And to anyone, including the LSAC, who says, "Maybe not specifically, but LSAT scores correlate well with success in law school," my response is that you do not understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.
And somewhat separately, but still within this discussion's title: it's 2016 and not only are we taking multiple choice exams on paper, we're writing essays in pencil?! Is meekly accepting being treated like a child -- or a criminal -- a criterion for success in law school?
The LSAC more correlates with success in law school bar passage rates.
I do understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.
Checkmate.
;)
I feel like your rant has a flaw: It assumes that the LSAT was a test designed to see if one has the required skills for law school, lol.
And somewhat separately, but still within this discussion's title: it's 2016 and not only are we taking multiple choice exams on paper, we're writing essays in pencil?! Is meekly accepting being treated like a child -- or a criminal -- a criterion for success in law school?
LOL. Yes, indeed it is.
Agreed, @steve898. I'm sitting for the test with a row of 'My First Ticonderoga's in silent protest. (It just so happens these particular pencils are fabulous for quick bubble-filling, with giant erasers for emergencies, but let's not tell LSAC.)
There are several fully-accredited, U.S. law schools whom also object to the LSAT score being the be-all and end-all over all else in the admissions package. And one of those schools produced a Supreme Court Justice. Just sayin'
However, since we are FORCED to submit to the LSAT, we're caught by the short and curlies. Go on wit yer bad self, LSAC, because 7Sage has my back.
It's not as ridiculous as it would be if they were testing our math skills :)
lol That's sooo funny
@rahelaalam514, your reply reminded me of this note by LSAC that I'd seen before:
research involving LSAT
delivery options for the
future. We are studying
the feasibility of a tablet-
based LSAT administration
system, which will likely be
field-tested sometime in
2015. No decision has
been made regarding
future implementation of
such a system. In the 1990s,
LSAC began researching
the potential for electronic
delivery of the test, and
this is a continuation of
those efforts.
They began researching this more than 16 years ago!
But @jhaldy10325, overcoming the LSAT qua obstacle costs each applicant at least dozens if not hundreds of hours, does it not? That's a tremendous drain on the legal education economy.
ut LSAT scores correlate well with success in law school
lol I think the choice of the word "correlation" says everything.
I do see your point of view. But what can we do, unless something changes by the time we take the next test, which by the way it might as LSAT is heading towards being digital, we are kind of stuck : (
Haha, yeah it's frustrating sometimes. I came to view LSAT as a more general obstacle. Yes, law schools are interested in how capable you are with basic logic and language skills, but the much more important aspect of this test is simply the fact that it stands in our way. I think that just by throwing us a hurdle and seeing how well we can overcome it, law schools learn a lot about us in ways that are far more important than the actual content of the test. It probably doesn't even matter that it's the LSAT. It could be pub trivia and it would still reveal to law schools how we respond to running into obstacles. They'll take the occasional genius of course, but I think what they're really probably after are the people who refuse to give up and who fight tooth and nail to destroy anything and everything that stands between them and their goals. I see the LSAT itself as rather arbitrary, although I do think it's a much better test than the GRE or SAT or whatever else.