<p>first of all, i just don't think "smart" is such a simple construct that is measured equally well by sat's, lsat's, hs grades, and college gpa's. </p>
<p>but even if what you say is true (for argument's sake) -- it does nothing to help answer the question of someone such as the OP who wants to know to what extent undergrad name will effect his/her individual application chances to law school.</p>
<p>To answer the OP I'd say that undergrad name WONT effect your chances at law school unless you are virtually tied w/ someone (and i think this is VERY unlikely) in which the person with the better school would get in. I dont mean tied in gpa/lsat, i mean tied in gpa/lsat/recs/date app was submitted/work experience/major....highly unlikely.</p>
<p>yah laxattack is right. Too equal students from Yale and JohnDoe Community College. The Yale will clearly have an advantage. But only if you are both equal including, gpa,lsat,recs, experience, skin color, gender, etc.</p>
<p>^ yea, I think a person with a slightly lower GPA coming from Yale is going to be admitted over a person with a better GPA from their local community college</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ yea, I think a person with a slightly lower GPA coming from Yale is going to be admitted over a person with a better GPA from their local community college
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For most real schools you need a 4 year degree, so coming from a cc would ***** you over.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're also assuming that you have to be smart to do well on the LSAT, and that everyone who is smart will do well on the LSAT. I don't believe that either of these propositions is necessarily true.
[/quote]
The LSAT correlates with intelligence. Nothing else needs to be said.</p>
<p>I think it's a little more complex/wishy-washy than that. The LSAT can also correlate pretty significantly to how hard you study for it, for example. There are multiple factors at play, and intelligence is not the only one (for some, it's not necessarily even the main one). I think sally's comment was valid.</p>
<p>I think the LSAT does correlate with intelligence and you would realize this if you have ever taken one. Unlike the SAT you can't "study" for the lsat, the only thing you can "study" is the patterns and types of questions. At some point you either get the logic behind it or you don't....</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the LSAT does correlate with intelligence and you would realize this if you have ever taken one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what do you have to say then to those of us who have actually taken the LSAT? That was quite an absolute response you posted.</p>
<p>In fact, many studies have shown that the LSAT is a very accurate predictor of how one will do on timed law school exams and a relatively poor predictor of how one will do on untimed exams and papers. In fact, many law schools look to GPA as a more accurate predictor of how one will do on untimed exams and papers. Therefore, I think that the LSAT is hardly the "IQ Test" that you are making it out to be, as someone with a high IQ (with high innate ability) may do poorly on a LSAT if unprepared for the test, and someone with a lower IQ, but who is well prepared, may do well. However, the LSAT probably does accurately measure your problem-solving abilities and preparation for the test. </p>
<p>Oh, and no, I won't publish the studies I am referring to here (there are many, they are relatively easy to find and the abstracts, at a minimum, show up on google with little effort). You can google them and find them for yourself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Therefore, I think that the LSAT is hardly the "IQ Test" that you are making it out to be, as someone with a high IQ (with high innate ability) may do poorly on a LSAT if unprepared for the test, and someone with a lower IQ, but who is well prepared, may do well.
[/quote]
The LSAT is a timed test that correlates to IQ. There is no need to go into the exceptions to the rule or anything like that. A smarter person will perform better than a dumb person, all else being equal.</p>
<p>And what did you get on the lsat sally?</p>
<p>ok - its one thing for you to presume based on your personal experience of having taken the lsat that you "know" what the lsat measures. it is really quite another for you to now try to imply that the validity of what someone may post here (a post which seemed very clear and substantiated to me) is somehow correlated to what the poster may have gotten on his/her lsat. </p>
<p>regardless of what the lsat may or not legitimately measure, it certainly does not measure the ability to post a thoughtful, intelligent response on this forum. be careful -- further postings may just help to prove what i am saying.</p>
<p>(and by the way -- in case you need my credentials -- i scored very high on the lsat -- but i would never presume that that fact means i am an expert on what the lsat means)</p>
<p>LaxAttack, you really need to chill out. </p>
<p>Why would it possibly matter what I got on the LSATs? You should rest well at night knowing that I have never suffered for a moment in my career or otherwise based upon any rediculous test that I have ever taken. I visit this board to try to assist future law students in their decision making, not to justify my IQ or my test scores to anyone. If you think my responses here unworthy of your attention, then please, pay my posts no mind. Otherwise, please go about your business, making your sweeping generalizations and generally misleading people. I think that most of the folks who read this board regularly can determine for themselves who is speaking based upon facts and experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The LSAT is a timed test that correlates to IQ.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? How strong is the correlation?</p>
<p>sallyawp - As a parent of a prospective law student, I have really appreciated your sage and well-considered advice to future law students over a long period of time. Please keep posting your counsel and try to ignore the peanut gallery.</p>
<p>I think that sally along with the other lawyers who post on this forum have given a lot of sage advice and have really been gracious in sharing their experiences in law schoo, big law and private paractice.</p>
<p>However, since Lax chooses to marginalize sally's advice and can offer better advice, perhaps Lax would like to share his/her own experience in the law school admissions process; where has s/he been accepted and how many years it has been since s/he went through the law school process. Has much changed since then?</p>
<p>Did the undergrad school give him/her a boost in the admissions process?</p>
<p>If s/he thinks that the law school s/he attended opened the door to big law.</p>
<p>This seems to be another topic, but I have a question.
Don't law schools consider grade inflation/deflation of colleges?</p>
<p>sybbie: It's a He. Most of what I spout about the LS admissions process comes from having an aunt as the dean of admission at a LS and two cousins who are currently at top 10 LS's that I talk to frequently. I'd wager a guess that my aunt knows a helluva lot more about the law school admissions process then sally or any other student who has completed it does. </p>
<p>Furthermore one doesn't have to be a genius to know that certain schools open the door to biglaw and certain ones don't, they simply have to look at the facts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So what? How strong is the correlation?
[/quote]
Don't know. I'd assume it has a similar prediction ability as the SAT to IQ. I think those are around r=.8. As you can see, quite strong.</p>
<p>lax -- ok, you have now explained why your aunt or your cousins might have some credibility if they posted here. you have failed to explain why your broad conclusory statements should be afforded any weight. </p>
<p>people who aspire to law school are often intelligent people who are used to having that intelligence recognized without question. and many such students have to learn that simply saying something, no matter how loudly or emphatically, carries very little weight. lawyers and law students learn that they have to clearly articulate both their position and the basis for it -- and making broad statements and then later saying, "well i know someone who knows" isn't a very effective means of presenting one's position. which is probably why many of us who have actually been to law school and have practiced law find your statements so questionable. those kinds of statements may fly on other forums where college kids are used to posting with such careless bravado -- they generally don't here.</p>
<p>i have no idea what the correlation between intelligence and lsat scores may actually be --i still think a lot probably has to do with how one defines intelligence -- but i do know you have done nothing to convince me of your position.</p>