LSAT skills fade with time? Importance of LSAT after law school

Nunuboy1994

So just wanted to get some input and see what you guys think about whether LSAT skills fade over time. Now, apparently the LSAT is supposed to a rigorous logic test that provides metric defining a candisate’s aptitude in reading dense passages and complex conditional statements. Also, some argue that it’s supposed to provide training for law school? But the latter idea has really got me thinking...do some of these skills fade over time? And if they do is the fact a student reached a high score in the past at least somewhat indicative of their future success? I guess what I mean to ask is if a student say scored 165 on the June 2018 LSAT but after doing some pt’s 2 years later cannot score that anymore then is that a big deal? Was the point of taking the LSAT truly to retain certain skills or just measure a students ability to perform on a hard test in the peak of their career? How many of you would care if you got the score you wanted but years later lost the ability to do that again?

Ohnoeshalpme

I think that the predictive power of the LSAT resides in the level of dedication that it requires. A score in the 170's usually doesn't happen by accident, and even the smartest among us will fail to reach the 170's without prep. The bulk of students that do manage to score well on the test do so because of a long-term commitment. An implication of that commitment is the devotion to long-term law school success. This has more to do with success than many of the more concrete skills that are being tested on paper.

ebalde1234

Meh the lsat is being phased out by the GRE by Harvard and other us based schools. I’ve looked into multiple studies to see if Lsat score is a predictor of Law school success- most studies say no. I think for most it’s just a hoop that you have to jump through to get into law school.

Nunuboy1994

@Ohnoeshalpme said:
I think that the predictive power of the LSAT resides in the level of dedication that it requires. A score in the 170's usually doesn't happen by accident, and even the smartest among us will fail to reach the 170's without prep. The bulk of students that do manage to score well on the test do so because of a long-term commitment. An implication of that commitment is the devotion to long-term law school success. This has more to do with success than many of the more concrete skills that are being tested on paper.

I agree...makes sense

Nunuboy1994

@ebalde1234 said:
Meh the lsat is being phased out by the GRE by Harvard and other us based schools. I’ve looked into multiple studies to see if Lsat score is a predictor of Law school success- most studies say no. I think for most it’s just a hoop that you have to jump through to get into law school.

True! One things that’s tripping me out is that I spend all of junior year preparing for the LSAT and got up the 160’s in my PT’s. But then I kinda chickened out once I found out schools are now taking the GRE. The thing is I am trying to get into an MBA program and then apply to law school. It just makes more sense to me because I’m pursuing a BBA so I felt I would have a better chance of getting into the law schools I want if I get into their business school first. I ended up getting a good GMAT and GRE score, but in some ways I feel insecure deep down as I did not sit for the LSAT. I mean I know the GRE is a different test so technically you can’t make an absolute comparison and just dismiss it as inherently easier than the LSAT. But like at an MBA conference I went to hosted by Yale SOM, Cornell Johnson, UVA Darden, UMich and Duke Fuqua they were mentioning that a fair number of students are pursuing JD/MBA and now submitting GRE scores and a few students smirked and slightly laughed at that. It’s just like...is this some joke to top students? It just made me feel insecure about my hard work for the GRE as if it’s a joke to the sort of students that generally apply to those schools and like I would probably not get if they didn’t allow the GRE. In some ways it just makes me want to sit for the LSAT and at least get a 160 just to prove I’m not some dummy who got lucky by using the GRE to get in.

tams2018

I would think the ability to parse through dense texts is something that will hopefully never be lost throughout your years in law school and as a lawyer.

Leah M B

I think it's likely not a specific skill you keep over time, but do feel like the LSAT pushes you to think in a way similarly to what you need to do in law school. Logical thinking and parsing dense reading is obviously very important. The ability to do a logic game in under 8 minutes is not necessarily the specific use of that skill that you will need though. I feel like studying for the LSAT has helped me think through things in a different way than I have before, and is a skill that will help me in law school.

I personally think the GRE makes a lot of sense for dual degree folks to take instead of the LSAT. You'll have to take the GRE for your other degree, so it's nice to not have to sit for 2 tests. But as far as GRE for law school only... I think it's generally not going to be as good of a measure for evaluating students. I mean, there's no math in law school. It's testing you on things that are pretty much irrelevant to your study. And the LSAT is considered to be a more rigorous test. That with being more relevant to the skills you need in law school makes it a much better way to evaluate prospective students, in my opinion.

I do think the LSAT is not a perfect predictor of law school success. But I also believe the schools that require high scores (T3 and even T14) do end up with, generally speaking, the best and the brightest. I feel like there's somewhat of a correlation. It's not perfect and doesn't mean everyone who goes to HYS is smarter or better skilled than everyone that goes to a lower ranked school. And obviously GPA and other factors are considered too, so it's not all dependent on LSAT. But I think there is some overall correlation.