Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.2K All Categories
- 27.2K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 11 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 2 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 581 Technical Problems
- 276 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Should law schools do away with the LSAT?
Harrison_Pav
Alum Member
http://worklife.columbia.edu/files_worklife/public/Pros_and_Cons_of_Standardized_Testing_1.pdf
I thought these were two interesting links about standardized testing. They may not specifically be about the LSAT, but they do offer some insight about the pitfalls of this type of testing. I think the LSAT (and as a matter of fact all standardized admissions test) should be done away with. I recognize the need for an equal scoring system, but I would imagine every year students are denied from schools because they didn't perform well enough on a test, when in reality could be the best and brightest students in a field and their class. I don't know what the solution should be, maybe less weight for the LSAT in the admissions process, maybe admissions officer do more research about an applicants school/major, perhaps more schools conduct rounds of interviews with applicants? All of these of course take more resources that may not be available to all schools, but I think a new system is needed. What do the might fine minds of 7 sage thing?
- Should law schools do away with the LSAT?86 votes
- Stop using it all together18.60%
- Do nothing about the lsat31.40%
- Reconsider its value in the admissions process50.00%
Comments
I'm also aware this thread won't change anything about the application process, but I'm curious what everyone thinks
My take is this: we have to judge candidates on something, and the LSAT is the least bad option we have.
"The LSAT is the worst form of evaluation, except for all the others"
@"Rigid Designator" I totally agree we need something to evaluate students, I just wish the least bad option wasn't bad at all
I don't think that LSAC is committed enough to testing different formats. My strong hunch is that you would get a much higher correlation between LSAT scores and law school performance if you dropped the Games section altogether, and had an extra RC section. The idea that success on something that most people can almost perfect by foolproofing indicates anything of importance should be subjected to scientific testing. And who said that 35 minutes is the ideal time to measure what they are trying to measure. Why such a premium on speed? Is someone who can score a 175 with 40 minutes a section really that much worse than someone who can do so in 35 minutes a section? We just don't know. Maybe the ability to thoroughly analyze something over time is more important for law school and the practice of law than the quick inference ability that is at a premium in the LSAT.
And then there's the perverse way that law schools (mis)use the LSAT in the admissions process. A strong argument could probably be made that someone who scored 169 twice is a better candidate than someone who scored a 156 and a 172, but guess who is going to have a better chance of getting into top schools? And why is that? Because law schools care about LSAT scores primarily b/c of the US News rankings, which require them to report only the highest score. Second, there's really not much reason to believe that someone who scored a 173 is any better than someone who scored a 170, which LSAC itself acknowledges by giving their score band, but does anyone really think that schools give a hoot about the score band? And in truth, if LSAC was being honest, they'd provide an even larger score band (2 standard deviations) so you could have a 95% confidence in the score, but since that would look ridiculous (imagine having a score band between 162 and 170), they settle for the scientifically unacceptable confidence interval produced by one standard deviation.
@uhinberg We're on the same wave length. I don't think the LSAT will ever be done away with. There's a whole industry for lsat prep (and standardized test in general)! 7 sage is great for offering the classes they do at the prices they have, but some one like kaplan who charges $2000 dollars plus for a six week course where you meet 6 hours a week????? That's a similar price to an undergrad class! Honestly writing about this is getting me a little antsy! DOWN WITH THE LSAT!!!!
steps of soap box
This is more or less where my opinion on the matter lies. If the only thing the lsat tests is someone's conscientiousness about studying for tests, then it's better than nothing at all.
And I didn't even go into the issue of the problem of comparing people who have the financial wherewithal and the time to put months and months of full-time prep with professional help to those who aren't as fortunate. Who is a better candidate for law school? Someone who scored 160 on their diagnostic, and after a couple of months of self-studying scored a 168, or someone who studied for a year, took the test 3 times, hired an expensive tutor, and finally got a 174? Yale has been a bit forward-thinking about this and requires applicants to disclose how they prepped for the LSAT and takes that into account, but they have the luxury to be forward-thinking, b/c they can basically choose whichever students they want. The bottom T-14 schools don't have that luxury, if they want to keep their US News ranking.
@"Alex Divine" The question is whether LSAC could come up with something even better if they so wished. I'll bet they could. But as long as the law schools are happy with the status quo, there will be little motivation to do so.
I'm an advocate of doing interviews. These law schools could easily afford to hire more people to interview applicants (maybe they take some money away from their sports programs and put towards all forms of education at the schools...) but money talks so oh well!
Well, I'm sure they could conceptually come up with something better, but as you referenced the motivation, at least economically to do so, is not exactly there. Which is why I'm shocked this test wasn't digitalized 3-5 years ago for the exact reason of making it cheaper. Maybe they were waiting for the iPads or whatever they use to get cheaper, who knows exactly.
I think ultimately the LSAT will evolve with time as it's been doing since the 1940s. It's gone through so many changes over the years the the sections they used to have on the test sound so foreign to me now.
But, yeah, I think you're right that as long as law schools are happy and everyone is making money the status quo will remain.
To my knowledge, the LSAT and Law School admissions in general are more rigid than most other programs, especially undergraduate admissions.
I like that the LSAT is something you can work hard at and do well on no matter where you're starting. I like that Law School admissions are more straightforward and predictable, compared to undergrad where admission is often a crapshoot at the top institutions.
I won't say the LSAT is perfect, but the practices it enables facilitate a healthy admissions environment, in my opinion,
@AJordanMD But just because the admissions process is better than other forms of graduate school doesn't mean it's good. I'll concede that what the LSAT test is more relevant to law school than the GRE is most masters programs.
@AJordanMD Who says that it's a good thing that you can work hard at it and do well (and then get in to the best schools) no matter where you're starting. Recent research has shown that correlation between LSAT scores and success in law school is particularly lousy for splitters.
I'm going to be the black sheep and be the only one to say I like the LSAT. There is a video floating around YouTube (that I can't seem to find at the moment) of a former LSAC Board Member who breaks down how phenomenal the test is at proving whether or not someone will do well in law school. Law School deans are even sent a correlation graph at the end of each year that compares how well each student has done that year with how high their LSAT score was. There is indeed a positive correlation between LSAT score and class ranking.
So my thoughts are if I can score a 170+ and get into a T4 school, stats show I am absolutely able to compete with my classmates simply due to my score.
It's unfortunate we have to take the test but numbers don't lie. The test is a true indicator of success.
My opinion is that people are worried too much about reliability. It only needs to be slightly reliable for the people who actually apply. What the LSAT does need to do, however, is stop schools from having 2,438,000 applicants every year. Basic economic theory says that when you put something rigorous and selective in the way of applications (thus raising the price of applying), then only those apply willing to "pay" (i.e. sacrifice) more. Also, I have learned a TON studying for the LSAT about how to think clearly. The things I've learned will impact me forever. The rigor of preparing for this big test has been worthwhile for me personally. I actually wish there was more to lower entry into the profession up front, so that states didn't have to do it through ridiculous bar exams which effectually tell people that there 200 grand of debt is worthless.
You won't be the only black sheep, as I actually like the LSAT, too. I think it does what it is supposed to and I think law school would be way too easy an option without it. If it was taken away tomorrow there would be a giant influx of applicants and no way to evaluate them. Being that all colleges grade differently and have different core requirements/majors, that it would end up a mess without some standardized test to play the role of a great equalizer.
It does have a slight correlation with 1L grades & bar passage rates, but there are people who score low on the LSAT that do ultimately go on to do well in law school. As noted by yourself, usually surrounded by their intellectual peers.
The stress schools put on the LSAT is due to the rankings system. Fix that (if it even needs to be; that's a different argument), and the problems of the LSAT are largely fixed. Personally, I wish law school admissions were more like MBA admissions; sure, GPA and LSAT would matter, but there would be a stronger emphasis on work experience. Until law schools have an incentive to do that, we are stuck with a pretty iffy admissions game.
Be that as it may, I do wish the test was more like the GMAT. Substitute the games section for a math section similar in style/difficulty of the GMAT. Also, replace the useless writing section entirely. Either have nothing or replace it with an integrated reasoning section like the GMAT.
@"Accounts Playable" I agree with everything you said.
@tringo335 Yes, there is some correlation, but if you look at the numbers and ask a statistician if it's strong, he'll tell you that it is decidedly not. LSAC banks on the fact that most people don't have any understanding of correlation studies, so once they say there's a correlation, we all just give them a pat on the back. The correlation really breaks down when you get to splitters; see here http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1651&context=articles.
I too enjoy the LSAT. I also enjoy watching baseball. But neither are particularly good at predicting law school success.
@"Alex Divine" I think we all agree that a standardized test should play some role in the admissions process. The question, though, is whether the present form is the best it could possibly be. I don't see anyone doing any research to compare the present format with alternatives, e.g. two LR sections and two RC sections, instead of 2LR, 1RC, and 1 LG.
I would like to see the test value to the admissions process be reevaluated. Like the Columbia articles states, standardized testing only show how a students performs on that specific testing day. So a student who can constantly score a 175 and clearly demonstrate that they know how formal logic works, then takes the test and freaks out, or gets the flu or a number of other variables and scores a 165 is now told, "because of your single poor performance you aren't good enough for our school any more". That doesn't seem right.
And what about the students who apply to schools with poor a GPA, but just spends hours and hours and even years studying for this test and score a 175? Their school performance would tell an admissions committee that they have a pattern of poor performance but just because they can recognize that when "A to B and B to C means A to C," that means they're fit to be at a good law school?
And this chart here shows that there is some sort of correlation to what major a student choose and how they will perform on this test. So now I have reason to suspect that this test is biased towards certain majors.
http://www.phil.ufl.edu/ugrad/whatis/LSATtable.html
I think the way the test is used currently lets a lot of poor performing students into law school and a lot of great performing students out. Lastly, what about the students who can't afford great LSAT prep material? A kid who comes from east LA who has penny to their name but is sharp as a tak can't afford great prep materials, but a kid who's parents makes seven figures, and may not be the brightest can now afford private tutors and spend thousands of dollars for prep. The kid from LA maybe an extreme, but a middle class family that can't afford tons or prep material for their student may be more common.
Great points, @Harrison_Pav. I know of stories that support virtually all of them. The effects of premium test prep cannot be understated. Likewise, for the different ways that the pressure on test day and testing conditions -- unique to each testing center -- effect each test taker differently.
I especially like the new point you are making about the silliness of using one data point (i.e. a single test) to make a determination. The score band is allegedly supposed to account for that, but the score band is (1) ignored by all law schools; and (2) uses 1 standard deviation, instead of the scientifically accepted 2 standard deviations.
Also in 20 years, Google and Amazon will run the country and replace the United States government with a new shadow government that will rule by an authoritarian regime which will render any and all legal training useless. Stay woke everybody, Skynet is real, Biggie and Tupac are still alive, and Illuminati is at work.
I want to turn part of your argument on its head though. Poor performance in school and high LSAT has benefits to some people. If someone in school had a poor performance, and has since changed, the LSAT is a great way to make up for that.
As someone who got mostly F's when I first started college, then joined the military, and finished my degree, older, with a 4.0 I am now stuck with a cumulative GPA of 2.7. Was I ready for law school right after high school? No. Am I far more prepared now? Yes. If GPA was the only factor people like me would be screwed. I am stuck with my past mistakes and the only real chance I have at overcoming this issue is with the LSAT.
@LSATcantwin I totally agree with that. My grades from my freshman year of college bring my gpa down really hard, but still, to over come this issue, I think there's better way than a standardized test.
It's actually interesting to think about - Just talking about this one test can reveal a lot of other difficulties.
In Defense of the LSAT
Sorry this is long, but I attempt to refute the notion that the LSAT's presence helps rich students and hurts poor students which I think is a bad, but common misconception.
If you don't have time to read my long rambling post, I recommend skipping to the summary at the end and only read the begining support if you disagree with my conclusion.
I have a couple of things to note in response to this as a middle class student who definitely could afford prep materials, but definitely could not afford a private tutor or a formal class. My prep materials in total are the Power Score Logic Games Bible, the 7 Sage starter course, almost all of the practice tests, and the purchase of two LSAT official test administrations. I had only the Bible and a few of the older test books when I took the test the first time and got a 172. I am retaking in the hopes of winning a scholarship.
I don't think the course has done me anywhere near as much good as the free logic games videos, but wanted to support 7 Sage and was curious because of the great free games explanations. This expense could be foregone if someone had fewer resources. The bibles were definitely unnessary given the free logic games explanations. So the only materials that I really needed to maximize my score on the test were time, the practice tests, and the test administrations themselves. The tests are (albeit illegally) available on the internet through piracy. If I needed to because of financial strain I would have pirated them and had to pay only the cost of printing for them. I had the luxury of working only part time this summer so I have had time to study. That said, simply waiting a year or two would give anyone working full time sufficient time to study. And this time was only really needed for me to break higher into the 170's.
So from my perspective, we need lsat fee waivers (which already exist, but may be doled out too stringently), need legally freely available practice tests, and need continued access to free online resources available via the internet at almost any public library (the logic games explantion videos on 7 Sage and for those who start out weaker on LR and RC, lists categorizing the question types). The only thing that is out of reach for LSAC to fix itself is the issue of time, which can be fixed by the prospective law student working for a few years out of college. Obviously, expensive prep courses and tutoring are an advantage in speeding progress, but time spent studying and natural aptitude are the best predictors of performance.
So having examined the resources needed for a smart (low or middle income) student to meet his or her potential on the LSAT let's examine the alternatives and see how they would work out for these hypothetical students.
First let's consider what would happen if the LSAT were removed and not replaced by another standardized test. GPA would obviously be more important. But there are tons of students with high GPA's so work experience and the institution which your GPA came from would be valued more by the schools.
As a middle class student planning to pursue further education, I took a full tuition scholarship to Michigan State University over several more prestigious colleges. I knew that I couldn't afford to go deeply into debt in undergrad. This means that I sacraficed some of that undergraduate prestige which in the absense of the LSAT would have been required to get me into a great law school. Because of that scholarship, I was able to afford working only ten to twenty hours a week during school. I used the time to pursue my academic interests by obtaining a dual degree. But, my GPA is not perfect (between a 3.75 and a 3.8, probably because I chose challenging and interesting classes rather than seeking to maximize it, but also possibly because I made plenty of mistakes). There are a host of reasons people could have GPA's as low or lower than mine even if they were plenty talented enough for a prestigious law school. Finally, although Michigan State has offered up lots of potential career avenues to me, most of the starting opportunities are probably inferior(as far as prestige) to those opportunities available at undergads which substantially higher ranked. So purely on my GPA, instituition, and the work experience (which I am not applying with, but might have pursued for the next couple years if the LSAT did not exist) it would have been hard to break into the very best schools. That set up is at least partially the result of the fact that I am not from an incredibly wealthy family, am debt adverse, and want to eventually pursue a job in the public interest.
Let's consider the fate of the "smart as a tack" low income student. However, smart this student is (but for the sake of argument lets say he is just a little bit smarter than me) he likely had a worse outcome than me out of highschool. He probably needed to work during high school, probably had to worry about the financial state of his family, probably didn't know from the start of high school that he would apply to college, and probably went to an inferior school. I went to a fairly good public school since my parents choose our house partially based on the school district. His wouldn't have had that luxury. Nonetheless, with his natural aptitude he scored as well as me on the SAT/ACT. He could afford to apply to far fewer schools than me, but through his natural charm and inspiring yet cliched and common story of overcoming poverty he landed a similar scholarship for full tuition at a local state school.
However, knowing his family needed him to help support them and that he couldn't afford the housing costs of his local state university he instead goes to a community college for free. While working nearly full time, he gets through his two years at community college with a perfect 4.0 before his transfer to the local college which gives him a nearly free final two years of education through a combination of merit, financial aid, and a work study. Nonetheless, he has to work additional hours on the side to send money to his family and also has trouble adjusting to the slightly higher standards.
He ends up with a similar GPA to me, but has not applied to law school by the time he graduates college though he is interested. After a few years of working a job which does not truly satisfy him, but helps pay his family's bills, lets him move in with a friend and out of his families apartment, and lets him start saving a little money, he reexamines his law school opportunities. If the LSAT still existed, he could take that and make use of his natural talents to get a full tuition scholarship to a place like WUSTL at the very least or a place in the Top 14. He might even be able to get into and afford Harvard with its LRAP.
However, the LSAT was elliminated and he has a 3.8, a non-prestigious academic pedigree, and ordinary work experience. The numbers of applicants to law schools have swelled in the absence of the LSAT. Therefore, on the back of his reasonably good GPA and inspiring life story, he has a choice between a first tier ranked law school with a questionable job outlook at full price or an inferior law school with a scholarship, but limited prospects.
Similar effects would be observed if we elliminated the logic games from the LSAT. It would become a test like the SAT, ACT, GRE and others where there was no separation at the top of the score range and it was impossible to have a truly exceptional score. Therefore, at top schools, GPA, work experience, undergraduate institution, and other softs would become more important.
SUMMARY
The LSAT is biased by a number of factors to favor the wealthy. Some of these factors could be fixed by LSAC like availability of prep tests and accessibility of the test to low income people. Others such as access to formal prep classes and time to study can only be overcome by effort and the devotion of a longer period of time to study.
However, the LSAT's bias in favor of the wealthy is far easier to overcome than the bias in favor of the wealthy inherent in other factors in law school admissions, like quality of work experience, college GPA, and prestige of undergraduate institution.
Therefore, the LSAT offers a nearly unique opportunity for low and middle income students to advance themselves on the basis of ability and/or work ethic. It's an opportunity which does not exist to the same degree when applying to undergrad or when applying to most graduate programs because the LSAT provides more separation at the top of the curve than almost all other standardized tests. I am grateful for the test doing this.
P.S. I am not saying the test is perfect, inherently desirable, or even fair. For example, it certainly disadvantages people who are slow readers or bad at high stakes standardized testing.
@"Seeking Perfection" You put a lot thought into your response, and I must say it's well written, and thank you for taking the time to respond.
So I'll give in on the low income/middle class premise, because I think you addressed that well and made some great points, but what about the whole idea of measuring a student on one particular day for taking this test? There have to have been days where you've taken the test and didn't feel great and consequently didn't do as well as you could do. I don't think this test should be completely done away with, but I do believe that it should not be weighted as heavily as it is in the admissions process. I think our low income student in this situation brings a lot more background and experience to his application than his wealthy counterpart. But on the flip side of that, I don't think a student should be discounted if they come from money. Quite frankly there probably isn't a perfect solution in this scenario, but I think LSAC and the law schools could make a better situation.
I think the one day doing worse aspect is pretty well taken care of by letting us retake and looking mostly at the higher score. Though that may reduce the predictive validity of the test.
When I studied for it the first time my prep tests were remarkably consistent. I got 6 173's, 2 174's, and 1 172 in the last 9 tests I took. The first two before studying logic games for a while were a 168 and a 170.
Now I have scored a larger range from 172 to 180 studying for it the second time, but that's really mostly attributable to the fact that I am sometimes finishing the games perfectly and not other times. I miss a maximum of about 5 and minimum of 2 over the other three sections. That said, I would imagine lower scorers who guess more will see more variation in their score based simply on how lucky they are with guesses that day.
If you actually just have a bad day or get unlucky, retaking is an option. But if that happens more than two times in a row it is probably not an unlucky bad day, it is inadequate preparation, or the pressure of the test getting to you. Now if it is the pressure of the test, the question is does the pressure mimic the pressure on law school exams, the bar, facing a deadline, or in court. If it does that is not a problem with the test. If it is a different and disimilar type of pressure, then that is unfair to bad standardized test takers.
I think the LSAT is actually a fairly remarkably consistent test in that people who retake end up pretty close to their initial score barring sufficient studying to change their score.
Now should the test normatively speaking be weighted as heavilly as it is?
I would say no if I thought there was a better place to distribute the weight to. But I think GPA, work experience, and prestige of undergrad all may be worse measures.
Maybe, the test could be made more predictive of law school performance. It's hard for me to say whether it tests the right skills before attending law school. The torts class I sat in on seemed to make use of some conditional logic though. But, changing it would cost us the advantage of having 80 prep tests to practice on.
It is certainly a relief to be as confident of what LSAT score we need to get into a Law School as we are though. It seems better to me than relying more heavilly on soft factors where classist, sexist, and racist attitudes can slip in.
They initially created the LSAT because law schools were only accepting students from Ivy League schools and the ABA decided to require the schools to have an objective measurement of ability. I don't want to go back to a system where rich people are more likely to attend prestigious undergrads end up having a lock on prestigious law schools whatever their ability.
The problem with a single day argument is that everyone has a bad day. Bad days lead to people losing money, failing finals, etc. Just because something is weighted on a single event doesn't mean it's wrong if some people make huge errors on that event. That's why the LSAC lets you retake the exam. A test like the LSAT does its job by standardizing how schools judge applicants. Everything else is based on a million different variables. GPA is based on what program and school you choose, Work experience depends on opportunities in your location, etc. How do you compare an engineering major from like Indiana, Ohio to a pre-law in New York?
The LSAT is a single determinant with little ambiguity in which they determine what skills students need to know and how they rank compared to others in terms of those skills. The correlation to actual performance is pretty weak at best even using LSAC numbers but it's a better and alot less costly alternative than most others. Prep programs do blur that line if people only know how to beat an exam but there still needs to be some universal grading system that judges applicant equally in that same manner.
I feel as though after having this discussion several times with peers, it would be nice to add a human aspect to the applications. For example, when applying for med school, applicants are required to do an interview and while I understand some people crack and fold under the pressure of an interview, it is really beneficial for law school in the sense that you can use that experience time and time again in real life going forward whereas the LSAT just teaches you traits that are developed in law school. I don't think the LSAT is a bad example because what you get is exactly what you deserve most of the time so it's pretty accurate but having more than a personal statement for the school to get to know you as a human would benefit a lot of people.
We should just live in a fucking cast system, when we have exams like these that are going to herd us into lower tier schools, where the graduate is going to make the same as the garbage man!
FUCK THE LSAT!!! IT'S NO INDICATOR OF YOUR SUCCESS NOR POTENTIAL IN LAW SCHOOL! LSAC EVEN ADMITS THIS! What this test really does is keep people from getting into a school or a school that they can excel in and reach their full potential! Lets me honest, these tests are just for suckers like us! Because if you were Donald Trump's son-in-law, you wouldn't need to get a top score to get into Harvard or NYU!!! FUCK LSAC; BURN BITCHES!!!