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
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 35 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
- 641 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
Comments
Has anyone said that?
I think the fact that you went back and edited your original post is evidence that you now see how this can be construed implicitly from your original reply to the OP.
Are these things in any way mutually exclusive?
Never said they were. I think both are important. But since there are people for whom hard work will never be sufficient on its own, we need to work to rectify the institutional barriers in the system so that these people will have a fighting chance. And if we can remove the discriminatory barriers then we will have a more level playing field from which to start.
Nobody ever said this. This is just more of the same nonsense that is not helping this conversation. No one is saying that more money is sufficient to get a better score. It's that the test is designed (not necessarily with ill intentions) and applied (again, not necessarily with ill intentions) in a way that favors people who have more time, money, and resources. This is true of almost all standardized tests and represents a huge challenge across pretty much all education endeavors. If you had five years and plenty of money to take every prep course in existence you could still end up with a 140, and if you didn't you could still end up with a 180. But given an adequate sample, the evidence bears out that the former group will outperform the latter on average. That is discriminatory, plain and simple. Anyone with adequate mental faculties can do well on this exam, some will just need more help than others. Because this help is not equally accessible to everyone means there is discrimination in play. These things MAY get you far. You're relying on your own confirmation bias to say that they WILL, which given your Sage status you should know is a flawed argument. And yes, no tutor is needed, but the fact that it will help is where the issue is.
Not sure what you're talking about here or where this has been shown to be true. A uGPA is based on around four years of data concerning your performance. LSAC and law schools take this stuff into account so that even though they might want your 4.0 from The University of Phoenix Online, they will take it with a bag full of salt because you might have had all multiple choice final exams on bullshit topics. You're not getting a high GPA in the hardest major at Princeton because some professors liked you or something. There are plenty of problems with judging people based on uGPA as there are institutional issues in play there, but that is what addenda are for. I don't think uGPA should be the biggest factor for non-trads, but I think it should be pretty damn big for K-JD because absent legit reasons for a low GPA (e.g.-serious physical or mental illness) then it should be a pretty good indicator of the type of law student they will be. If you screw off in UG and get a 2.5 and then try to go to HLS immediately afterwards then they should rightfully say that, at best, you are too immature to perform successfully, and at worst you're just a moron.
So much wrong here. There is a surplus of shitty lawyers in the US. There is not a surplus of great lawyers in the US. This has happened within the current system which erects barriers that discriminate based on a plethora of factors. One could reasonably infer that there are too many people with privilege becoming lawyers because they have the financial means to do so, but they totally suck at it and it is not in the public interest for such people to be practicing lawyers. The current system is likely preventing people, who could be amazing lawyers, from even going to law school due to the institutional barriers in place all along the way. Also, prestige and clout? Those are not reasons for becoming a lawyer and if that's what someone is in it for then they likely will be a horrible lawyer at worst and a huge jackass at best. The issue with teachers it that they are criminally underpaid in most markets and so the talent pool that could fill those positions and be awesome teachers end up going to do something else. Lawyers represent the flip side of that where people do it because they think there is a shit ton of money in it (which there is for a small subset of lawyers) and then end up unemployed, underemployed or not making much money and get disillusioned and become even shittier lawyers.
YES.
This to me represents the real long term importance of the LSAT.
I agree with the sentiment but the realist in me says this change, if it ever occurs, won't happen any time soon. If you want to attend a top law school in the near future, it's more important to learn how to operate within the current rules. If you want to dedicate yourself to reforming or modifying the system that's a different matter.
It's a "WILL," not a "MAY," for me and anyone else. A tutor is like a personal trainer. Could someone possibly obtain better, quicker results with one? Yes. Are they necessary for obtaining results? No. Excuses are easy, results are hard.
For example, the school I intend to apply to uses a specific mathematical formula evaluating the LSAT and undergraduate GPA, with 92% on this formula being considered as minimum for admissions. No letters of recommendation are required, and personal statements have more to do with scholarships than being admitted. Does this 92% consider my life experiences and other, as the LSAC would describe, "unmeasurable factors" that might still make me an excellent JD candidate if I got 91%? No. All I can do is to roll with it and played the hand I was dealt. I will work to achieve the prerequisite 92% my school wants.
I'm not outright dismissing the LSAT as having some use in evaluating the skills used in law school, but I think we also need to recognize that admissions into law school is an unavoidably impersonal process, which is why the LSAT is a major factor in our admissions. What makes it worst, as many have already pointed out in this discussion, is that certain things (i.e. having money) can make the process easier for some people. So yes, it's good many of us recognized financial inequities do matter - it's not insurmountable, but it does matter. Preparing for the LSAT will demand more sacrifices from some people over others.
The financial barrier is certainly made worst by the fact that standardized test prep is a major business charging serious money. Because, again, let's face it, how many of us would do well on the LSAT without spending some money in order to be a competitive candidate?
7Sage is an oddity in this business that I am thankful for due to its affordability, and I do believe them when they say that part of their business model is to "liberate legal education" (free YouTube videos, partnership with Pre Pro Bono).
Anyway, I ended up rambling on longer than I would like. Back to my studying.
"If you dream big enough, anything can come true. Just kidding. Get back to work."
At this point, I’m a bit lost as to what exactly the arguments and counterarguments are -- it seems like friends are arguing with one another, but also sharing the same opinion -- some of it is funny, some of it seems angry -- I don’t know what to think!
A couple of the themes are admittedly getting a bit old, but I’m still looking forward to what happens next.
BTW -- here’s a random video I thought you all might enjoy -- melodramatic for sure, but interesting (in relation to this discussion) nonetheless --
Maybe the real reason behind this false narrative is that they don't want to say: "We weight LSAT scores significantly because we are overly concerned about our rankings in the US News and World Report (USNWR)." If the process was truly holistic w/o consideration of rankings, I would contend LSAT scores would carry considerably less weight. This fascination with rankings is beyond me; It actually says something about the quality of education one receives and the quality of the law graduate from that school? It seems to me that how well a student does in their classes and the background of their instructors has a lot more to say about the qualifications of a law school graduate, not what the USNWR has to say. We all know who is going to be ranked in the top 50 or that Yale is a better school than Arizona Summit Law School. Do we really need a poll to tell us this? Also, some schools might have a great area of expertise, like IP, that is less regarded in the overall rankings but does this indicate that a graduate from the lesser school is going to be less qualified as a patent attorney than a graduate from a higher ranked school. For example, a top 15% candidate from the University of Houston (a highly regarded IP program) vs a top 50% candidate from UT Austin? Who is more qualified? There are many partners who would only interview the UT Austin graduate for an associate position. Does anyone see the silliness of the rankings?
Of note, before the rankings in the 70s and 80s, many schools didn't require LSAT scores. My boss graduated from Case Western Law School at the top of his class and he wasn't required to take the LSAT. Another partner I know graduated from UT Austin in the 70s and he wasn't required to submit LSAT scores. The significance weight of LSAT scores coincidences with the evolution of the USNWR rankings. Hmm; sounds more holistic then?
Look, the inherently discriminatory nature of the Law School does not begin as test material for the LSAT. It begins at birth. It is a standardized test for gods sake. People who have attended good school, more often than not those that are rich (and more often than not those that are white), are taught how to perform better on standardize test since a young age. I didn't know what the SAT was until I was in community college. No teacher ever talked to me about it. Why would they? No body in my class was thinking about college anyway. The skills to succeed on the LSAT begin far before materials need to be bought. But if we are going to talk about materials, the freaking Preptests alone can cost you $300+ and taking the test? It's a f'ing privileged to be able to afford taking the test 3 times at $200 each for people needing to put food on the table. The truth is, most people considering taking the LSAT are already in a privileged position with a BA and homelessness and hunger are not as big of a deal as with the rest of the population but they still exist. And even getting to that place, for many people, is often a struggle met by SO many challenges that it is completely unfair to say that "it does not favor the rich."
It does. Most things with this country do, but the law school process even more. To say it doesn't is to lie. Yes, to say that this can't be overcome is also to lie but lets be real and put things in perspective. I agree with @Pacifico, we should use our energy to critique the inherently discriminatory systems in an effort to change them instead of attacking those who do the critiquing. No need to jump on the OP's comments about the process if they are true. They are true. I don't take from his comment on the system favoring the rich that those aren't rich shouldn't try, they should just be damn sure that it is going to be a lot harder. It is a lesson I've had to learn and the advice I give the high school kids I mentor. The American Crony-Capitalist Oligarchy is built on inherently racist, classist, and colonialist believes and the law school process does a lot to support this concentration of power and not just limits the access of many people to a legal education, it leads to the inaccessibility of many to people to have quality legal representation. Those at the bottom must work hard to break this barriers. Admitting to this is the first step in helping to break them down for others. Saying it is all about "hard work" is the opposite.
For those of you who advocate for a heavier weight on uGPA: I can theoretically buy that uGPA can be a measure of how hard you try at school to some extent, but
(1) I know from personal experience that you can have a reasonably high uGPA and be a complete academic deadbeat. I graduated with double majors, including departmental honors in my management science degree (the BS-granting version of econ - like, with forecasting and STATA and stuff). From my academic record, you'd think I was a star. And yet, I think my uGPA ended up being higher than the number of class sessions per class I would usually attend each quarter, and I was far from the only one like this in my friend circle. I was literally the worst student I've ever known, and I'm not proud of that. And yet, my uGPA was perfectly fine.
and
(2) it seems to me like everyone just accepts that since the current LSAT/GPA system isn't perfect, that some sort of more-holistic process that more heavily weights uGPA, work experience, and so forth is therefore guaranteed to be better.
Is it? Don't we need some reference points to compare if we're going to be slagging the LSAT? Does anyone know the correlation coefficient between uGPA and 1st year grades? uGPA and bar pass? Prior work experience and 1st year grades/bar pass? Volunteer experience and 1st year grades/bar pass?
EDIT: Per LSAC: Correlations between LSAT scores and first-year law school grades ranged from .12 to .56 (median is .36). The correlations between UGPA and first-year law grades ranged from .09 to .45 (median is .28). However, correlations between LSAT scores combined with undergraduate grade-point averages and first-year law school grades ranged from .30 to .62 (median is .48).
Sure, the LSAT isn't perfect. I don't think anyone claimed it was. The question I have is - what evidence is there that introducing those other factors makes things better instead of worse (or equivalent)? The LSAT might not achieve a statistically significant predictive value, but do any of those other things? In fact, it appears that uGPA on its own is substantially worse, and combining uGPA with LSAT (as schools currently do) is by far the best, and none of them even hits a median of 0.50. Even at best it's statistically insignificant, but if you think the LSAT alone is bad then uGPA is comical in comparison.
Given that, if we don't want LSAT in there, aren't we all just talking about what we subjectively 'feel' should be valued? And if we're going down that road, as an adcom, why should I care if you have a 4.0 in biochemistry if you can't parse anything but the most basic of English sentences? Why should I care if you are the president of your fraternity and demonstrated leadership skills up the wazoo if you don't know the most common forms of busted logic from a hole in the ground? 10 years of paralegal experience, but you can't summarize the main point of a 60-line passage for me? And if you're so adaptable and quick to learn, then why can't you prove it by adapting real quick and murdering the LSAT? Isn't this why we turn to statistics and other things to begin with? To prevent us from relying on the answers to questions like this with no good way to adequately capture the spectrum of response necessary to adequately answer?
In other words, are you advocating for a heavier weight on uGPA because you actually have stats to prove its superior predictive power versus the LSAT (or in conjunction with it), or are you doing it because it's another accomplishment you can point to in order to 'prove' that you deserve a seat even while the LSAT is busy kicking you in the head?
Having done some cursory thought on this just now, it also seems to me that this correlation coefficient is actually an awful way to measure the LSAT's value, because the way the system works you're sorted by your LSAT score and uGPA into a school that is literally full of your academic clones. Within that narrow band of aptitude, and with different professors/classes and other confounding variables factored in, of course there's going to be tons of variance.
The real question shouldn't be within any particular school, but rather across schools. If a 170 gets you into NYU, and a 160 gets you into Brooklyn Law, would THAT correlate to a performance gap if those students were given equivalent circumstances (taking the same classes with the same profs, same exams, etc), holding all else equal? My bet is yes, and I don't think it would be close in the aggregate. Of course, there's no realistic way to test this.
And this is what you get when I'm grumpy that I can't sleep.
Is that a hamfisted and imprecise solution? Absolutely! It needs to be socioeconomic status, not just race, and that's only scratching the surface of fixing the problem. Do we need to fix it? Yes, absolutely! No quibbles from me there either. But given that all of those advantages talked about stem not from the test itself but rather from the society in which we all live in, it seems to me that a discussion of what has predictive value for a law school application is largely independent of a discussion about those systemic issues, because no factor currently escapes those influences. So even if you were to heavily weight uGPA, well, rich kids have tutors for that too. Internships? Rich kids have connections to secure them and the luxury of taking unpaid internships. Rec letters? Again, connections. And so forth. Absent a realistic way of fixing that system's foundations in the short term, I feel like the task should be to first figure out what provides the predictive value we're seeking, and then second to adjust the levels of those things for the various groups of folks it needs adjusting for.
But, I think if I get a 170+, I will make a statue bust of my likeness as well and send it along with my applications.
Furthermore, URM status is truly out of touch with reality. How do Central Americans not receive URM status when they are also very oppressed? But you touched on some of the other ways it also is a blunt tool for a delicate task.
My main target is the folks who use all that to suggest that LSAT should be heavily de-emphasized in favor of other soft factors like uGPA, volunteer experience, etc. when nobody ever examines the merit of those other factors. For example, uGPA seems to be the rallying point for everyone who thinks they're smart because they did well in college but can't score well on the LSAT, but if your complaint is that LSAT's predictive value is bad, uGPA's is abysmal. You can't criticize the LSAT for not being a good predictor, and then turn around and use other factors that are even worse predictors just because they make you feel better about yourself.
Oh. He went there.