In another thread, about Logical Games, which I didn't want to hijack:
@BinghamtonDave said:
This is a set that doesn't allow an ounce of hesitation or misreading.
Because this is a skill that's absolutely required for success in law school.
Right? ... Right?
And to anyone, including the LSAC, who says, "Maybe not specifically, but LSAT scores correlate well with success in law school," my response is that you do not understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.
And somewhat separately, but still within this discussion's title: it's 2016 and not only are we taking multiple choice exams
on paper, we're
writing essays in pencil?! Is meekly accepting being treated like a child -- or a criminal -- a criterion for success in law school?
Comments
I do see your point of view. But what can we do, unless something changes by the time we take the next test, which by the way it might as LSAT is heading towards being digital, we are kind of stuck : (
There are several fully-accredited, U.S. law schools whom also object to the LSAT score being the be-all and end-all over all else in the admissions package. And one of those schools produced a Supreme Court Justice. Just sayin'
However, since we are FORCED to submit to the LSAT, we're caught by the short and curlies. Go on wit yer bad self, LSAC, because 7Sage has my back.
success in law schoolbar passage rates.I do understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.
Checkmate.
I feel like your rant has a flaw: It assumes that the LSAT was a test designed to see if one has the required skills for law school, lol.
LOL. Yes, indeed it is.