Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.2K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 192 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 36 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 646 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
Related Discussions
If a person has to study harder for a good LSAT score will they be at a disadvantage at a T14?
Are people who have to study significantly more to get a good LSAT score at a comparative disadvantage if they go to a top school? For example Bob studies 1000 hours and scores a 174. July is a genius and studies 10 hours and gets a 174. At the same T14 law school would Bob be at a disadvantage and would July have an advantage judging from the time it took to earn the same LSAT score?
This must seem like an odd question and I recognize there are inherent advantages and disadvantages to being a super hard worker vs having natural talent, but I would like to know if there is a trend in who performs better in law school, the "super hard worker" or the person with "natural genius."
Thank you!!!
Comments
I don’t think you can fake the LSAT well enough to be disadvantaged. In theory, the same level of reasoning will be required by the same test to get the same score. While studying for the exam we actually are improving critical reasoning, short-term memory, fluid intelligence, and spacial reasoning skills. The test measures these qualities and, while I’m sure there are a handful of lucky flukes who score above their abilities, I would bet that two people with similar scores will have similar reasoning skills.
So neither one would really have an advantage over the other at law school?
There was a saying in my (Korean) high school that went something like this: The third place will go to a genius. The second place will go to a hard worker. But the first place will always go to a genius who works hard. But hey, I'm okay with being in the second place xD
I think it depends. Just because you're more of a natural at the LSAT won't mean that you'll breeze your way through law school and the other person would struggle. Plus I wouldn't say just because you studied little for the LSAT and did well that automatically means you are a genius.
Great quote and I think very apt.
I don't think that really the LSAT says anything about how smart a person is. Its written in a certain way and I think there are many people who do well later in life or in law school may not do well on the LSAT
There is talent,and then there is talent.
At a disadvantage against July? Yes. Luckily, though, there are few geniuses and Bob will overall do just fine (given he continues in his pattern of studying and doesn’t have a total meltdown).
Not necessarily
My uncle went to an Ivy League school, and struggled immensely with the LSAT. It took him 3 years to get in.
In law school, he was at the top of his class. He was recruited by law firms in Boston & was very successful.
Some people are smart, they are not good test-takers. I’ll give myself as an example: my diagnostic was in the 130’s because I got so hung up on the hardest questions (I started with questions 25... don't ask). I kept reading and reading trying to make sense of the argument and spent all my time trying to get the hardest ones. Why? Because I like a challenge. I like to sit down and think. Think hard, think lots. Its my personality. I also get stressed when I am put under time constraints so there is a 15pt lag between my BR and PT score. But, I have no doubt I will do well in law school.
Also, the LSAT is poorly written. Bad grammar, plain, simple. It doesn’t get to the point. It is full of fluff. I have no trouble working with the income tax act (if you want to see a run-on sentence, go there) at work, but really struggled with some of the reading comp (think art, philosophy, history, peptides). Will my new knowledge on zeolites help me in law school? I really don’t see how. The LSAT is designed to be difficult.
I honestly do not think the LSAT is all its cut out to be. Maybe I’m just salty that I needed to put in a few months of studying. But, some of the schools are already abandoning it. Why is that?
I also believe that people who have to work hard for their grades are generally better prepared to work hard in law school. Those people are full of will, determination, and persistence: these are the ones that will be great lawyers, and thrive at work, and do great things because the will is there. The will triumphs all else; you would be surprised. My will has given me everything I have and enabled me to overcome many obstacles.
I truly believe the LSAT is just a money-making scheme, I wonder how many millions of assets LSAC is sitting on? I mean, think about it. It’s also there as a barrier to entry, and to weed out the ‘lazies’, give law school the “academically prestige” image. Also, some programs are much more difficult than others (think engineering vs economics or philosophy... sorry, engineering is much more difficult than either, at least for most).
I know everyone says otherwise, but I refuse to believe it. I have seen to many successful people perform poorly on the LSAT but thrive in law school.
Anyways, that is my two cents.
Yes, engineering is much more difficult than defending logic itself from people like Derrida and Foucault. Oh, and engineering is much more difficult than laying the groundwork for mathematics and computer science (and engineering). And engineering is much more difficult than formulating a priori deductions of the nature of necessity.
😂 @simple_jack
Hi! Checking in briefly here from 1L at Northwestern, where I am currently avoiding studying for my contracts exam. 😂
I suppose take it with a grain of salt, because this is anecdata and I don't even have grades from first semester yet. But I still feel pretty confident in saying - no, I think measuring how long and hard you have to study for the LSAT has nothing to do with your law school performance. I know people here that are reverse splitters, people that scored in the high 170s, and then there's me, who studied my butt off for 9 months to squeak by with a median score for NU.
And you know what? Those have absolutely nothing to do with how well we are understanding or performing in law school.
That's not to say the LSAT doesn't have value. I'm maybe a minority, but I think it is a decent screening test. At least, as far as other options go (like the GRE), I think it is as relevant as it can be to law school. I mean, a math score is 100% useless. We aren't crunching numbers in law school. I think any test with math in it is just pretty irrelevant.
However, there is a whole lot of close reading, struggling to wrap your mind around incredibly dense passages, paying super close attention to detail, making inferences and connecting nebulous esoteric legal concepts to public policy issues, and basically learning to re-program your brain to work in a different way than it has before.
I think the LSAT has value not just in teaching you to think logically and analyze difficult reading, but in screening for the amount of work you are willing to put in to achieve something. Yes, some people have brains that just process the LSAT material easier and faster than others. But I think those people are extremely few and far between. The vast majority of people who take the LSAT have to put a LOT of work into it to get a high score. It takes patience and discipline, and really effing hard work, which are all qualities that will serve you well in law school. Studying for exams has made me think about studying for the LSAT... there's sort of a similar feeling. A lot of isolation, a lot of reviewing and reviewing and then reviewing some more. Being disciplined and sticking to a schedule. And despite exams being on average around 3 hours long, there is never enough time, so they are a constant race against the clock. You have to learn not only the material, but test taking techniques - how to maximize your efficiency by getting the low hanging fruit, but also working on the techniques that will set you apart to get the higher score.
Those are all similar skills you hone by working on the LSAT. And you know, someone who can sit down and take the LSAT without having to put much effort into it may actually be missing out on some valuable lessons learned.
I know people here who went to Ivy undergrads and I went to a tiny no-name school that no one has ever heard of lol. Splitters, reverse splitters, and naturally high LSAT scorers. And once we got here, the playing field has been relatively level. English majors sometimes struggle with legal writing, because better legal writing is kind of ugly and boring and plain lol. People who are very naturally intelligent can struggle to understand the Erie doctrine. It's just a different thing. I really, deeply believe that having to work harder to get your LSAT score is not a disadvantage - and in some cases, may even be an advantage because you display the hard work and discipline it takes to succeed in law school.
I hope that helps some. And now... I need to stop sticking my head in the sand and go figure out promissory estoppel 😂 Feel free to DM me if you have any questions about law school too, just no guarantee that I'll be able to respond until at least after exams are over haha.
"What do the two authors disagree on?"
A. Whether or not engineering is harder than logic.
Haha I had to. I've been studying LR too much maybe...
@"Leah M B"
Great response!!!!!!! Thorough and informative. Thank you so much ^^ I'd like to take your point of view because I'm one of the "hard worker not genius" types. Knowing how much raw effort goes into law school I assumed those who had to develop intense discipline and work ethic would be better suited. Thanks!!
As someone who the LSAT is not coming to very easily, I would still say that if one 170 scorer takes 1 month to reach it while the other 170 scorer takes years, it seems like the former has a bit more natural talent? Obviously there are so many factors, like maybe a fluke 170 or whatever but idk all other things being equal, it would be really hard to convince me that the 170 in a month person wouldnt have SOMEWHAT of an easier time. Like, it cant be a bad thing to take less time to reach an insane goal. It can only be neutral, or good.
This post is an old debate now, but interests me. As someone to whom the LSAT came easily, and who has always intuitively been skilled at analysis and logical reasoning, I do not think I will be terribly advantaged for success in law school. I might be advantaged for looking like a clever, quick thinking person in class, or even on some tests. However, appearances and the ability to score well on tests is not a guarantee that I actually will. I have also always been disorganized. I process and organize information quickly and intuitively but establishing order and organization in my life is extremely difficult. Classic ADHD kid. However, the difference between the LSAT and Law school is that one is about 3 hours and the other is about 3 years. At the end of the day my analytical abilities will advantage me only in instances, not over the course of 3 years. While I am still obviously betting on my ability to handle that challenge I know that it will be very difficult for me. There are probably a lot of people out there who struggled for a worse score than I will receive that will be the most organized and prepared people in every section they are in. Your innate ability to understand and reason logically, to parse impossible and poorly constructed sentences, and to decide which rules logically apply to X or why will be relevant in law school, but they are not the deciding factor in success or failure. I think that for many people who are naturally good at things like the LSAT, they are unaccustomed to having to struggle to persevere over academic challenges. That will be required in law school because at any moment it is both a marathon and a sprint.
I can't speak for the LSAT, but if we take an analogous case, undergrad performance, and compare it to a person's SAT score, the same issue comes up. Neither test successfully tests for a person's innate level of "intelligence" -- if anything, I'd expect the natural genius to have a harder time because they've been coasting for so long that they probably haven't developed the necessary study habits that a hard worker would have adopted. I also don't know how much having natural talent aids dealing with failure (i.e. the "grit" factor), but I lean harder towards the harder worker having a slight advantage. .
To be devil's advocate (there always has to be one), I'd say yes. Law school would be more difficult for the person who took longer to score the same as the person who didn't take as long. They might have built the same skills in reasoning, reading, etc that are necessary for the LSAT; but what other inefficiencies does the person who took 4 years to score 174 have from the person who scored 174 in 2 months? Probably a lot.
I'd say the person who took 4 years probably has a lot of bad habits to begin with too. These habits can resurface if their skill set acquired isn't kept fresh through practice. While the other person likely has these good habits ingrained and could probably maintain these habits for a longer period of time (marathon).
Personally, I went from 135 to 160 (about 2 years studying) and I would like to think it's all sun shines and rainbows; but I know for a fact I got bad habits lingering in the back of my head in regards to reading, writing, and speaking (all important skills for law school and eventually for being a lawyer). If I am not constantly refreshing these skills, I think I'd fall back into my bad habits. Hell, it's only been about a month out from doing anything LSAT related, if I were to test now; I'd probably get 145 to 150 lol.
sample size = 1 lol. I don't think it's more "inefficient" to take 4 years to get to a 174 vs take 2 months to get to a 174. A 174 is a 174, regardless. And whether or not you take the LSAT again is a moot point once you get into law school. Of course, I'm assuming that hard work leads to built-up grit, which in turn is a better predictor of academic success than natural talent (which by itself is simply the amount of myelin sheath you have accumulated on the neuron pathways that are exercised in studying for the LSAT)
My example is definitely anecdotal. But so is everyone elses statement here. There is no way we can prove this specific example, its all speculation.
How can you argue that taking 4 years is not inefficient compared to taking 2 months to get a 174. That's a big gap in time, and I'm sure most would prefer the latter. Okay, so you built up some grit, dedication, and got some juiced up brain muscles; but according to your LSAT score, you just played catch up to the guy or girl that was able to score a 174 in a very short amount of time.
I think there are merits to the slow, gritty hard worker and merits to the 2 month genius. The 2 month genius may have the mental hardware to be able to parse really complex concepts quickly, to read faster with the same understanding as a slower reader. The slow gritty student has the persistence to work hard when hard work is needed -- maybe on those Friday nights or weekends when everyone is at the bar and they're disciplined, staying home to study. I have to say for SUREEEEEEEE I value my accomplishment as a slow, gritty worker of getting my score WAY more than my genius buddy who studied a couple months and got the same score. Since I value my achievement more you can bet your butt I'm going to be a more serious student (sample size 1
Haha. I know what you mean and I hope that's true.
Haven't had time to parse through the entire thread, but this discussion reminded me of Carol Dweck's work with the growth/fixed mindset. If you don't know what I'm talking about, definitely google it. She has a TED talk on the subject. (I can't remember, does JY talk about that on here early in the CC?) It's inspiring to realize that we're not fixed beings. The concept of "innate talent" is a damaging one that restrains our perceptions of what we're capable of achieving.
Old thread, but if we are believe that a high LSAT scorer (naturally) will automatically do well in law school...
Then it must be true that law school is exactly like the LSAT? I have heard differently. Is it so? I have heard that it is not.
Anyone want to shine light on this?
@equallyyoked
To your first point, the naturally high LSAT scorer WON'T automatically do well in law school. LSAC (https://www.lsac.org/data-research/research/lsat-still-most-accurate-predictor-law-school-success#:~:text=Research reinforces the value and,range of UGPAs.[4]) says the LSAT is the best predictor of 1L grades (even higher than UGPA) (granted, this is info from LSAC, so they do have a certain bias towards the LSAT being the best predictor, but I feel like we can trust their data. If this were a Weaken question tho . . .)
It's the best predictor law schools have, but it's not perfect. I think like other people in the thread have mentioned, the LSAT CAN be indicative of work ethic . . . but only for those of us who aren't natually high scorers.
To your question about how similar law school is to the LSAT, here are a few of my thoughts:
The LSAT tests a lot of skills that are obviously critical to success in law school: critical thinking, reading and comprehending quickly, etc., but it also DOESN'T test a lot of skills that, while partially tested on the LSAT, aren't really the point of the test: (1) writing skills, (2) ability to digest large amounts of writing, (3) oral communication skills, (4) ability to think on your feet, (5) long-term memory, etc.
(1) Yes you have to be able to understand underlying logical structure and grammar and sentence structure and all that to do well on the LSAT, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're a good legal writer (and yes, I know that LSAT Writing exists, but I know of no school for which that plays a significant role in admissions - instead that's one of the main points of personal statements).
(2) RC passages do a good job of testing reading comprehension and picking out arguments and evidence . . . for a passage that's only 400 words. Yes those skills generally translate to longer passages, but they are slightly different skills and they require more long hours of reading, which isn't tested at all by the LSAT. Now, those of us who didn't score 175 on our diagnostic have had to spend those hundreds of hours closely reading and annotating, but to me that's more a measurement of the test prep you've put in rather than what the test itself is trying to evaluate.
(3) The LSAT makes no attempt at gauging oral communication skills. Not the most tested part of law school tbf either, but 100000000000% a critical skill for a practicing attorney.
(4) The LSAT kinda tests this, but once you've studied for it for long enough, it becomes pretty formulaic and it's more a matter of thinking on your feet within a certain line of reasoning, which I think is different than when you're giving an oral argument in moot court and the judge asks some batshit crazy question that totally throws you off.
(5) The LSAT makes no attempt to test this. Like Point #2, this is very correlated with hard-work, but at the same time, some people have better long-term memories than short-term memories, but that doesn't really give them any advantage on the LSAT bc it's so short term.
TLDR; the LSAT tests (and test prep TEACHES) many super super super important skills if you want to do well in law school, but it doesn't (and really can't) test everything that's important to doing well in law school. Will someone who gets a 180 probably do better in law school than someone who gets a 120? Yeah, the data (and common sense) tells us they will. But it's no guarantee.