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-performancehttp://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/09/law-school-gpa-.htmlhttp://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r.html(see the last section on interpreting coefficients)
Comments
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.