Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K 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
- 31 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
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
The LSAT fails a necessary condition of being an accurate assessment of skills
If a test is going to accurately predict the capability of one to be a great law student, then a test must accurately assess the ability of one to master skills that enable one to be a great law student. The LSAT fails this necessary condition.
We all know that certain practice tests play to our particular skills, and thus all of our scores fluctuate a little (or a lot). Even with our renowned Sages, some of them were averaging much higher than the 170 score that they were able to scrape by with. If we are able to put so much effort into studying for this test, and yet our scores still fluctuate significantly, then how can this test be an accurate assessment of our skills?
We've all been there. Every once in a while, you encounter a test and your score suddenly drops. You are shocked. How could this happen? Perhaps you just had a bad day. But it is also possible that this particular tests did not align with your particular skills. But wait, shouldn't this test always be assessing the ability of the same skills?
I have sympathy for LSAC, I really do. Designing such a test would be daunting, especially if you add in the fact that some people are able to spend thousands on test prep and take time off work/school to focus solely on the test while others must fit it time before and after work with only minimal resources to spend on prep. But still, the LSAT fails.
As you can probably guess, I am writing this out of frustration. I have put so much time into studying, have been within the 168-172 range for months, and suddenly, I scored a 164 on a test just a week from test day. I guess for confidence's sake, I should just write it off as a fluke or a bad day. But the truth is, law schools have become reliant on a test that really just isn't a great predictor of being a great law student. With law schools beginning to accept the GRE, I think the test needs to be revamped significantly in order to stay relevant.
Comments
I have been messing with the idea of taking the GRE. Georgetown is allowing an optional GRE score to be submitted- if you want to take it great submit your score or you can not submit your score but the LSAT will be reported either way -- i'm wondering what a 99percentile GRE score would do to an application with a lower LSAT.. my opinion is that the LSAT will become non existent eventually and in the near future weighed less heavily. No one wants to take the damn thing it's too hard.
just edited meant GRE^
@kkrystyna I think 7Sage's method of studying for this test is by far the best. And yet, it seems like best scorers are studying for well over a year (I for one am in this camp). That is just ridiculous. And I actually like the test. It's more interesting to study for than the GRE, but you're right, it's just too damn hard.
In the same boat as you @J.Tharp.
Been at this for over a year. Im sitting in december. I will have Almost 16 months invested in this test.
Have been consistently scoring in the low 170s and took pt79 and im not even grading it. Did a thorough BR and realized how many mistakes i made ugh
@nathanieljschwartz It's really no fun. And it has taken over my life. I don't have time for my husband or my friends, and I have nothing interesting to talk about because my entire life is this stupid test. Is it all really worth it? The worst part is, I will probably be able to get into a good school even if I underperform, but I will just be sitting with even more debt than I already have. And then the most well off people who are able to study more/spend more on prep are able to take up all the scholarships, too.
I feel you. I have been putting in 6/7 hours a day and I don't see my son at all. He is 2. It sucks.
As far as is it worth it? I think so. It open up a debt free future at a top school and a better life for my family if I do well. Can't think of time better spent - but it sucks so.much.
So I disagree with your views on the LSAT needing to be revamped or that it isn't a good predictor of law school success. Like any other standardized test, the LSAT isn't perfect, but it really does a great job at funneling students to the schools where they will have the chance to study and compete with their intellectual equals. I didn't quite realize how vast the chasm was until I began networking with lawyers and law students from different schools. It's not just a test that determines your ability to master the concepts, but also one that seems to be a great measure of conscientiousness, resilience, and dedication. These are qualities that a very important to do well in law school.
As far as the test itself, If you're interested, read a bit about the field of psychometrics and test design, a lot of your questions will be answered. I used to feel the same way about the LSAT; that it was arbitrary and/or wasn't a good assessment of our skills. The important thing to note is that in order to keep test takers from potentially gaming the exam, the exam needs to undergo periodic changes, and each test can't follow the same formula. This likely accounts for much of the variation between test scores. Then like you mentioned, sometimes we're just having an off day.
Another thing to take comfort in is that it truly seems that the better one gets at this test, the less likely they are to see extreme score variations. I think many of the people who are consistently scoring in the 170s range and then see a score drop on game day are plagued by some type of test taking anxiety or stress and that is affecting their ability to perform as they normally would.
Anyway, I think you're right to not stress too much over one test. You say you were consistently scoring in the 168-172 range for months, and then it seems like you believe this test isn't an accurate assessment of our skills... Well, for the months you were scoring in the same 4 point range, it definitely was. So you have to remember that you're totally capable of scoring in the range again. Your skills are that of someone in the 168-172 range and one bad test doesn't change that at all.
Best of luck next week on the test! We are all rooting for ya
Yesterday, I literally googled, "Is high LSAT performance a necessary condition for being a successful lawyer?" God help us all
I would just think about whether this exercise and your current mindset are beneficial to your upcoming performance next Saturday.
It is an arbitrary game to some extent, but you've got to play that game if you want to be a lawyer.
Stay positive, stay confident.
@"Alex Divine" @AllezAllez21 you guys are right, of course. And thank you. I am trying to stay positive. I'm trying to bypass the highly logical mind that this test has instilled in me and believe in a kind of karma that necessarily rewards hard work and dedication to this test with a high LSAT score... or at least one within my normal range!
It's really not that unusual to score a 164 once in a while for a person who is averaging 168-172. The score band that LSAC uses represents one standard deviation, which is not really what you want to use; all statistical studies use two standard deviations.
Second, you seem to imply that if there was greater consistency in test results, LSAT would be a good predictor of law school success. That's, unfortunately, false. The correlation that they claim is something that any scientist will tell you is not significant. I have a relative who conducted scientific studies for a study and he laughed when I told him what LSAC's research had come up with. Even the law schools know that the LSAT stinks in its predictive value, but there's no alternative now.
I completely agree. People are taking years of their lives to study for this damn test. what difference does it make if one got 10 questions wrong vs. 15? or 20 vs. 25? is that enough evidence that the one that got 20 will be a better lawyer than the one with the 25 wrong answers? I think there should be a minimum score that you have to pass in order to be "qualified enough" to be a successful law student. Like if you get 165 then that's enough for you to be competitive in any school, other things equal.
And how, pray tell, would you distinguish between those scoring 165+? GPA, which is even worse than LSAT. LSAT is bad, possibly really bad, but is better than all the alternatives currently available.
However, it is sufficient to weed out those who don't have the skills.
You got this man. Don't let one F'ed up test let you think otherwise for a second.
You're going to kill it on Saturday....
Agreed!
While that would be nice, like @uhinberg says, it would be nearly impossible to distinguish between those scoring above the 165 mark. How would the best schools decide who to admit?
It's very hard to realize how big the difference between a 165 and a 170 is until you've made the jump. The skills required for a 170+ are nothing short of mastery whereas I think a 165 is pretty doable once you've mastered all of the fundamentals. Still, getting 5 more questions right when you're only missing 15 can be exponentially more challenging than getting 5 more right when you're missing 30.
The test also isn't designed to determine who will or won't be a successful lawyer. It's basically just to have a standard test to evaluate applicants. It's also nice to have some barriers to entry to law school to ensure that the people applying are the best and brightest.
Also, the science that goes into designing this test is pretty incredible! I look at it as a challenge and now studying is fun!
I work at the local district court as a clerk and have definitely noticed this. Before I started working I had no idea that there would be some T14 grads working as Public Defenders in the district I live in, especially given the region. Once I started working, I'd kind of try to guess which PDs went to what level law school and almost all of the T14 ones stand out from the rest. I've talked to most of them about the application process and they all worked their asses off on the LSAT.
Some of the other PDs/city attorneys are borderline incompetent and I wasn't surprised when I found out they went to some law school that's not even ranked (above 150ish). One of them told me that they applied to law school with a 144 LSAT and insisted that logic games weren't learnable (lol...)
It also weeds out those who don't have the money and/or time to spend a year or more studying for this test. I have been more fortunate than some because my job offers flexibility, but less fortunate than other students who don't have to work because their parents support them during school and during their LSAT studies.
Thats not an LSAT problem. Thats a problem with society. Also for the vast majority of test takers, it doesn't take a year to study, that is just a select few test-takers.