Why are LSAT scores given so much weight for admissions decisions?

nathan001

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)

Pacifico

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.

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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?

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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?

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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.

@nweymouth said:
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

J.H. Song

I'm sure only a very small number of us at this site, if any at all, actually believe the LSAT is a test worthy of the consideration it gets in the admissions committee. You hear about paralegals who would make great lawyers who simply can't break that 160 lsat mark and so hold off on a legal career.

I agree with most of what you're saying, except for your take on admissions consultants. While I am not necessarily a fan of their profession, it makes no sense that they would go out of their way to justify the lsat. If anything, admissions consultants would benefit from law schools shifting to more holistic admissions processes.

The unfortunate fact is that it is what it is. But honestly, law school in itself is a lot more "numbers based" (grades, class ranking) than most, if not all, graduate level studies. So to a certain extent, it does somewhat make sense that they would lean on numbers to predict academic success in law school.

So like @Pacifico said, the two choices are to fight through it and change within (not likely because we tend to be less passionate about issues that no longer directly affects us), or to say "hell with this process" and go a different route.

nicole.hopkins

@nweymouth said:
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.

Apples and oranges.

nicole.hopkins

@nweymouth said:
As I laughed, I told her that's manure and certainly not worth $250 per hour.

Wow this is pretty presumptuous. I always wonder why folks assume they have expertise outside of their, well, area of expertise.

nicole.hopkins

@nweymouth said:
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?

I'm gonna step in here and shut this down.*

Last July, when I was between jobs as a 28 year old with plenty of undergrad debt and no family support, I spent about $45 on a copy of the LSAT Trainer. Then I spent $25 on one of the 10 Actuals books.

Those were my study materials for 6-8 months. Then, last February, I had a little bit saved up and I wanted to get more analysis of individual questions etc. as well as more in-depth work on conditional logic. I got both of these for $179 with the 7sage Starter pack.

@nweymouth : You're in the wrong house to be slinging this "LSAT + $$ = unequivocal success, absence of $$ = limited LSAT success" rhetoric. I'm a first generation college graduate and I been playin' this game since I was 15 years old. Do not even come right here with that.

*EDIT: In no way am I implying that discrimination doesn't exist. My life story would be very different if it did not exist. My point is that no one should be told that because it exists, it cannot be overcome. We need to encourage one another.

nordeend

This conversation is entertaining.

nicole.hopkins

J.H. Song

@nicole.hopkins I agree with you, but @nweymouth isn't completely wrong with that statement. Sure, you (and a lot of us really) have been able to improve greatly without spending hundreds of dollars monthly. But would I give myself a better chance with a dedicated tutor who I can afford to employ 10+ hours a week? Probably. Of course, I believe we should be focused on what we can do, not what we can't change. In the end, you're right that 7sage is a good example of how you don't have to be rich to get adequate prep for the lsat. I just think that it's naive to think spending more money wouldn't in some way benefit us, and that idea doesn't seem to deserve a "BS" label, although a majority of things said by op does deserve it.

nicole.hopkins

@"J.H. Song" said:
But would I give myself a better chance with a dedicated tutor who I can afford to employ 10+ hours a week? Probably. Of course, I believe we should be focused on what we can do, not what we can't change.

I know this test much better having had to fight my way through than I ever would if I'd paid $2000/week to someone who'd done all the hard work for me.

J.H. Song

@nicole.hopkins I don't doubt that, and I agree with you, if we assume the person who pays the tutor does not put in the due diligence. All things equal,however, I don't see how a tutor wouldn't have some benefits to the test taker. Also, I think the decision to take a year or two off (thus delaying law school) is much easier to make knowing you have some rich parents to lean back on. Once again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think that the fact that the LSAT is "improvable through learning", which by being on 7sage we all agree, makes it favorable to people who have more to spend on prep. The same thing can be said about any test really, but less applicable in a purely knowledge-based test.

Jonathan Wang

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.

nicole.hopkins

@"Jonathan Wang" said:
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.

Agreed. It's not a necessary condition for everyone (you're not necessarily screwed without it, and you may likely be able to learn more if you gotta rough it—assuming you have the time and drive to do so, which are not luxuries everyone has)—but it can be among the ingredients of a successful prep.

@"Jonathan Wang" said:
Any 160-level LSAT scorer should be able to see where I'm going with this.

DumbHollywoodActor

@"Jonathan Wang" said:
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.

Nice callout on the descriptive/prescriptive flaw.

odebs2797

@nicole.hopkins I couldn't disagree with you any more. The LSAT absolutely favors those with money and those not working full-time. That doesn't mean a rich kid will never perform worse than a poor one, as you seem to imply, but it absolutely does mean those with money have more resources available to them. If I had endless money to spend I would have hired tutors, signed up for the most expensive 7sage package, bought every released PT, etc. But, I am not, so I could not. I didn't read the rest of the OP because it seemed like a bitch-fest, but this one point I do agree with OP on. And I am also going to give my response I always give to people who think what they've been through is somehow representative of reality: Your reality is not my reality, nor anyone else's. Sure, you were still able to succeed without much money, that doesn't mean more resources wouldn't or would've helped. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have done better with more resources or anyone else for that matter. After all JY has taught us, you should know a thing or two about small sample sizes.

nicole.hopkins

@odebs2797 said:
Sure, you were still able to succeed without much money, that doesn't mean more resources wouldn't or would've helped.

Never said they wouldn't have helped—just that one need not let their absence hold one back.

I'm just trying to encourage people who don't have these resources that ... Yeah ... You might as well give it your all ... Rather than self-limiting.

We can overcome, even when everything is stacked against us.

nicole.hopkins

@odebs2797 said:
as you seem to imply

I think a re-read of what I've said here will demonstrate that I in no way imply this.

odebs2797

I sense a different tone now, which may be because of what Wang and Song already said. I don't disagree with this current message, but the one you sent above, I still stand by my response.

nicole.hopkins

@odebs2797 said:
That doesn't mean a rich kid will never perform worse than a poor one, as you seem to imply

I certainly never implied that a rich kid won't perform worse than a poor one.

Alejandro

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.

nicole.hopkins

@Alejandro said:
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.

@Alejandro said:
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.

Exactly!

mike

Gotta admit -- I’m enjoying this conversation quite a bit, and it’s totally distracting me from my work -- please keep it going.

Alejandro

regardless @odebs2797 7sage is a fantastic community and we are here to help you and be with you every step of the way. One of the missions 7Sage has if I'm not wrong is to level the playing field and help people with low income and limited time crush it in the LSAT! Definitely recommend @mike Kim's trainer and 7Sage's starter package to get you going.

SA135790

@odebs2797 said:
The LSAT absolutely favors those with money and those not working full-time.

I disagree. The LSAT isn't designed to favor one background over the other. It may be that an individual's current situation, either health, family and/or money issues, has put them at a disadvantage but to say that the exam itself favors one type of background over the other is misleading. If that was the case then the LSAT must only favor the rich and smart. Therefore, what's the point of even trying? (Total BS)

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.

nicole.hopkins

@SA135790 said:
It may be that an individual's current situation, either health, family and/or money issues, has put them at a disadvantage but to say that the exam itself favors one type of background over the other is misleading. If that was the case then the LSAT must only favor the rich and smart. Therefore, what's the point of even trying? (Total BS)

J.H. Song

@SA135790 said:
if that is the mindset you carry going into this test, you have already set yourself up with a bigger disadvantage than the lack of money ever could.

Just wanted to say that I agree with this bottom line. I just thought Nicole's initial response to that one statement was a little harsh that's all. I am not in any way trying to promote a "its the rich people's world, lets give up on success" attitude here. I think @"Jonathan Wang" summed up what I was trying to say pretty well.

The small disadvantage some of us might have over the more resourced prep students can surely be overcome, and 7sage is a great tool, for it is built on that very idea. That doesn't mean that we can't accept that there is such an advantage.

Petrichor

if your family is rich and donates to the school you can probably get in no matter what you score on the lsat lol

J.H. Song

How about the question? OP may not have presented it too well, but the question is actually a good one for discussion. After seeing so much of the LSAT, is it a good indicator of anything? Is the inherent problem in the test or the weight given by admissions?
I know we won't be revolutionizing the American legal system but just wondering everyone's take.

Personally, I actually think the LSAT is given adequate weight. Whether or not it is a true indicator of anything post LSAT, it seems to do a decent job at what it's meant to do. The very nature of law school makes it difficult for admissions to take a more holistic approach. Before that can happen, legal education would first have to make dramatic shifts towards a less competitive, ranking based system (and it somewhat has in some schools).

Also, the GPA is too difficult to put into an objective scale to weight it significantly above the LSAT.

The fact that Law Schools are generally numbers based is in a lot of ways a turn off, which correlates to the negative attitude some have towards law school in general. On the bright side, I think a highly numbers-based admissions system is much easier to predict, and thus, to prepare for. The transparency can also help eliminate questionable decisions on qualified, or clearly unqualified, applicants.

c.janson35

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 @nicole.hopkins's mic drop, @SA135790 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.

Alejandro

This is all the result of the evil works of US News...

Julia L

@"J.H. Song"

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.

SA135790

@nweymouth said:
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?

@"J.H. Song" I think @nicole.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.

SA135790

@c.janson35 said:
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.

I don't disagree. As I stated above these disadvantages may be what better prepares you for this exam. It comes down to an individual's perception of their situation. If you use that mindset as a crutch than you are hindering your capabilities.

ENTJ

@nicole.hopkins Hmm...I wonder where you got that fantastic GIF of the Khaleesi mic drop...

Pacifico

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 @c.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?

odebs2797

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!

odebs2797

And I agree 100% with @Pacifico, simply stating that hard work and perseverance can overcome these issues is nice, but people need to know reality and some of the things that will get in their way. This is why I commented on the tutor thing asking for tutors to include their work/school status. With no disrespect to anyone, but no way in hell would I hire a 7sage tutor who did not work a full-time career like I do. How can you relate to me and prep me for what I will go through? If people get discouraged by that, well, they shouldn't be here in the first place IMO. The workplace is not for the easily discouraged, especially corporate or for the government (I have worked for both). 7sage may very well give you the resolve you need to succeed by presenting you with challenges well before they come.

nathan001

@"Jonathan Wang" said:
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.

Jonathan,

Wow, I didn't expect the responses. This consultant got under my skin because I thought she was taking advantage of the situation and profiting off those students who can less afford it. There is a cottage industry of legal professionals offering all sorts of services to prep students for law school whether it be studying for the LSAT or assisting one with their application. Sadly, this consultant kept saying the process is holistic yet continued to beat me up over my LSAT score of 154. Then she added the LSAT is a good indicator of first year law school grades.

So, I decided to point out the inconsistencies in her advice. The process is not holistic and there is strong data to support this; so why put out this notion that it is unless you are just trying to milk students for consulting fees. If anyone looks at the details of the LSAC report comparing LSAT scores and law school grades, especially someone with a mathematical background, a correlation coefficient at 0.36 means there is a rather insignificant relationship (or no relationship at all). The conclusions of this report are incorrect but apparently taken at face value by this consultant.

Pacifico is right. In the end, it is what is and the best thing any student can do is to ace the test. In order to this, you need the right material and right guidance.


I am thankful to Sage7 and its founders for this excellent resource.

nicole.hopkins

@Pacifico said:
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?

nicole.hopkins

@Pacifico said:
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?

nicole.hopkins

@odebs2797 said:
With no disrespect to anyone, but no way in hell would I hire a 7sage tutor who did not work a full-time career like I do.

I've worked full time (with a couple of side gigs) throughout this process and I think your point is a good one!

nicole.hopkins

@nathan001 said:
In the end, it is what is and the best thing any student can do is ace the test. In order to this, you need the right material and right guidance.

There you go! We all agree on this

nathan001

@odebs2797 said:
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

Well said. Your statement doesn't mean students w/o the financial resources can't get good scores. However, it takes quality prep material and the right guidance. These resources can be quite expensive and there is a lot of expensive crap on the market right now.

After paying for Kaplan, I acquired (rather cheaply from former students) the prep material from most of the leading LSAT prep courses. When I am done, I will donate it to a student or the pre law adviser at the local college.

nicole.hopkins

@nathan001 said:
When I am done, I will donate it to a student or the pre law adviser at the local college.

Such a great way to give back! $45 is a lot for some people. I know, because it's been a lot for me at many points in my life.

nordeend

We should put this whole post on the "effects of the LSAT" discussion topic

nathan001

@nicole.hopkins said:
@nathan001 said:
In the end, it is what is and the best thing any student can do is ace the test. In order to this, you need the right material and right guidance.

There you go! We all agree on this


Nicole, I don't understand why comments about student financial inequities and greater access to quality LSAT preparation should surprise you. I agree with you about this problem and if anything this concern should support the notion to place less emphasis on LSAT scores; taking a more holistic examination of one's qualification for the study of law.

Unfortunately, there are some profiteers taking advantage of the situation and prospective students. I am certainly not going to feed these profiteers; I am wise enough to know when someone is taking me for a ride.

Yesterday, I talked with a law professor who has offered to me when needed.

nicole.hopkins

@nathan001 said:
Nicole, I don't understand why comments about student financial inequities and greater access to quality LSAT preparation should surprise you.

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.

gs556

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.

nicole.hopkins

@gs556 said:
If LSAT performance was a function of money, I should have scored a 120. Grit, determination and 7Sage will get you far

+100. Tutoring can definitely help firm up what's sagging. Group BR/study with others can play a similar role.

shainabarber

LSAT scores are weighted so heavily, in my opinion, because all of the other factors can too easily be manipulated in a way that does not accurately reflect the candidate. Even a high GPA in a rigorous degree program could be skewed based on the professors etc. Letters of Recommendation are biased. Surely we've all known someone (a colleague or otherwise) who was "highly recommended" but did not live up to the hype. Further, a candidate might write well (personal statement etc), but lack the reasoning skills to be successful in law school. In fact, it's possible the PS is written by someone else altogether.

Although it is surely possible that someone would do well on the LSAT and be less than stellar in school, or do poorly on the LSAT and turns out the be an amazing attorney, it is part of the application that is least able to be skewed and manipulated in a way that inaccurately reflects the ability and potential of the candidate.

Additionally, there is already a surplus of attorneys in the US. If we lower the barrier to entry into law school, than the prestige and clout associated with such a career will diminish, and then who will want to do it? We have to have at least one component of the application which eliminates people from the mix, so that schools are considering a manageable number of people, rather than way more than could ever be evaluated effectively.

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.

blah170blah

@nathan001: Like many mentioned (including yourself), treating the LSAT score as a mirror representation of one's skills obfuscates the structural and economic inequities that enable or disable student success on the test. Moreover, it is true that the score only represents how well you apply logical reasoning skills in a timed setting -- a constraint that lawyers have but in a way that differs from a timed standardized test.

However, LSAT sores are given so much weight for admissions decisions because the skills necessary to succeed on the test are crucial to becoming a successful law student and future lawyer. I truly believe that anyone who doesn't see the connection between the LSAT and the legal profession does not have a solid understanding of what the test is assessing. There are multiple studies that show that studying for the LSAT alters your neural connections (http://news.berkeley.edu/2012/08/22/intense-prep-for-law-school-admissions-test-alters-brain-structure/) and those neural connections are relevant for the study and practice of law.

If admissions believed the test was infallible and a perfect exam, then presumably the only thing that an admissions counselor would need to see of an applicant to assess potential success in law school and the legal profession is the test itself. However, admissions recognizes its strength as a data point that correlates well with success in the legal field (hence, its weight in admissions) and simultaneously acknowledges its flaws by taking into account the other aspects of your application, including GPA and letters of recommendation.