Early (Very early) LSAT Preparation

Graduate School Law School
21

<p>You're welcome, Cardozo. Will you permit me to nitpick - but I'm actually really backing up your point, I swear.</p>

<p>LSAT is a good predictor of law school success - but l.s. success is a lot of first year grades (as law review is determined from there, and, with good grades then, it's hard to really tank afterwards). I do think that the LSAT is supposed to be a first-year grades predictor - but I digress.</p>

<p>Once you sign up for LSDAS (not sure if you can get the info otherwise), you'll see little reports that each school is sent. There is also a correlation chart, which is the main point of this post. Some schools have LSDAS send them this "number" directly. Basic theory is that some combination of your undergrad GPA and your LSAT will be a really good predictor of your law school GPA. Every year, law schools send the GPAs of their students back to LSDAS, who uses the undergrad grades and LSAT scores to develop these correlations. </p>

<p>The thing is just a huge chart with four columns: law school, then a factor to multiply GPA by, a factor to multiply LSAT by, and perhaps some other factor which is added on afterwards. So it's GPA x column 2 + LSAT x column 3 + column 4 = expected law school GPA.</p>

<p>So - not to nitpick - but the LSAT's ability to predict first-year grades is not some vague correlation, but is quite important. Some schools have it down to a science. I'll try to dig up the charts to give y'all an idea of what I'm talking about... basic premise is to multiply GPA by about 10, add LSAT score, divide the whole thing by some factor - and you wind up with a number that looks suspiciously like the GPAs that people are expected to end up with. :)</p>

22

<p>Well, 'Dozo, we are the product of our environments. Based on your posts (and mine) I would conclude..that:</p>

<p>(a) you went to a far less selective college than I--or my oldest child--did.</p>

<p>(b) You weren't Phi Beta Kappa.</p>

<p>(c) You spent a lot of time studying for the LSAT--at least 100 hours more than I or my kid did. ( Heck, my kid and I together didn't spend a total of 10 hours. )</p>

<p>(d) You got a higher LSAT score than I did..and one much lower than that of my older kid.</p>

<p>(e) You went to a LS which is rated higher than the college you attended, but definitely did NOT attend Harvard or Yale Law. </p>

<p>(f) You did not excel in any ECs in college.</p>

<p>Truthfully, 'Dozo, I'm not trying to knock you.. just making the point that we are all products of our environment...and so is the advice we give.</p>

<p>So, it's understandable that the advice you give to someone starting college and hoping to become an attorney would be very, very different than my own. We are those proverbial blind men reporting on what an elephant IS by touching different parts of it.</p>

23

<p>Hey, Aries. </p>

<p>I'm not even sure where we disagree on this one. I never meant to say the correlation was vague, but just wanted to acknowledge that it was less than perfect. As I noted, it's the single best predictor of law school success available. </p>

<p>There's also no question that it becomes a better predictor when combined with GPA. </p>

<p>I certainly believe you in terms of what schools do, and what they expect from a given LSAT score. And I wouldn't be surprised if they make admissions decisions accordingly. </p>

<p>On the other hand, from what I've read, there is still a large degree of randomness even when these factors are combined, which can presumably be attributed to other factors like difficulty of major, work ethic, personal issues during law school, motivation, interest in the subject matter, etc. </p>

<p>The real question is how often the index created by the schools accurately reflects the eventual GPA/Class rank. I assume it's somewhat close, just not sure how close, since students at most schools have relatively comparable GPA's/LSAT's.</p>

24

<p>Rereading my message, I realize that it may seem snide in a way I didn't intend....but can no longer edit. I am just trying to say that the advice we give is based on our own personal experiences, and, because those are different, the advice we give is different.</p>

<p>For example, I wouldn't advise that anyone spend a year studying for the LSAT. It is, after all, only a standarized test, and I just think that there are a lot of better ways to spend one time....especially during college. That's my own bias. </p>

<p>We've meandered a long way from the original topic..by I'd still give the same advice to the OP. Spend your time in college on your engineering courses, not LSAT prep.</p>

25

<p>Hey, Jonri. </p>

<p>Maybe I'm misreading your post, but it really seems unnecessarily negative and personal, especially for someone who really knows absolutely nothing about me. </p>

<p>More importantly, perhaps, it seems completely irrelevant to the discussion. (I actually thought we had in fact arrived at some degree of consensus on the issue at hand.) </p>

<p>And generally speaking, as you should know, points are usually better made by pointing to specific facts and issues than by making up negative things about people who simply disagree with you. (I could certainly do this, but I would never even think to do so.) </p>

<p>So if you still disagree with anything I'm saying, please feel free to state what, and why. Otherwise, you should probably refrain from personal attacks, especially since I don't believe I've ever been anything but polite to you. (I honestly wouldn't expect this from someone old enough to have a kid in college.) </p>

<p>Anyway, for what it's worth:</p>

<p>"Well, 'Dozo, we are the product of our environments. Based on your posts (and mine) I would conclude..that:</p>

<p>(a) you went to a far less selective college than I--or my oldest child--did."</p>

<p>Based on? </p>

<p>"(b) You weren't Phi Beta Kappa."</p>

<p>Based on? </p>

<p>"(c) You spent a lot of time studying for the LSAT--at least 100 hours more than I or my kid did. ( Heck, my kid and I together didn't spend a total of 10 hours. )"</p>

<p>I actually only spent a few weeks studying for the LSAT. However, having worked in the test-prep industry, I know for a fact most students can't achieve their full potential this quickly. That's why I advise otherwise. </p>

<p>"(d) You got a higher LSAT score than I did..and one much lower than that of my older kid."</p>

<p>I have no idea if I did better than you. On the other hand, it's extremely unlikely that your kid did better than me. However, I'm honestly not sure how this is relevant. </p>

<p>"(e) You went to a LS which is rated higher than the college you attended, but definitely did NOT attend Harvard or Yale Law."</p>

<p>Without saying where I studied, suffice to say I was accepted into all schools in the top 5 but one. Again, however, I'm not sure how this is relevant. </p>

<p>"(f) You did not excel in any ECs in college."</p>

<p>Based on? </p>

<p>"Truthfully, 'Dozo, I'm not trying to knock you.. just making the point that we are all products of our environment...and so is the advice we give."</p>

<p>Really? Not trying to knock me? Could've fooled me! :^) And given that you apparently know nothing about my "environment", I'm not really sure how you could attempt to draw anything from it. </p>

<p>However, let me try to dissect what you're really trying to say:</p>

<ol>
<li> Since I recognize that contacts, advantages, etc., play a larger role in undergrad admissions than in law school admissions, I must think everyone at top undergrads, including your son, is undeserving of admission.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>However, having attended a top undergrad, I know this isn't true. There are many students who get into top undergrads on merit alone, and I'm sure your son is one of them. My point is simply that there are even more at top law schools. So please don't take this personally. (I'm really not sure why you would.) </p>

<ol>
<li> Since I realize that LSAT is more important than GPA in terms of law school admissions, and feel it is therefore a high priority (for those who really want to go to law school), I must think academics are completely irrelevant, and must have neglected my own coursework.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>However, as I've already made manifestly clear, both grades and LSAT are important for law school admissions (and in general), so it would be silly to neglect either. (You obviously won't get into a top law school without both.)</p>

<ol>
<li> Because I recognize that the LSAT is by far the most important aspect of law school admissions, I must think that EC's are irrelevant, and therefore didn't do anything extracurricular in college.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>However, I actually spent at least 20 hours a week in college doing extracurricular activities, certainly more than most. </p>

<p>"So, it's understandable that the advice you give to someone starting college and hoping to become an attorney would be very, very different than my own. We are those proverbial blind men reporting on what an elephant IS by touching different parts of it."</p>

<p>Given that you're incorrect in your assumptions, that apparently isn't the basis for our disagreement (although our disagreements again aren't really that great, as far as I can see.) </p>

<p>Rather, I would presume that our disagreements are based on the fact that I've actually worked in jobs where I had to actually advise students about law school admissions. (If I'm incorrect in assuming you haven't done so, I apologize -- I try to avoid unwarranted negative assumptions. ;^)</p>

<p>However, for what it's worth, if you and/or your child also went to a top undergrad, did well in college, had good EC's, did well on the LSAT, etc., then that's very impressive, and you should be proud. Just keep in mind that there are many other people who also did so, and they may still have different views than yours, despite having similar values and experiences.</p>

26

<p>Hey, Jonri:</p>

<p>"Rereading my message, I realize that it may seem snide in a way I didn't intend....but can no longer edit. I am just trying to say that the advice we give is based on our own personal experiences, and, because those are different, the advice we give is different."</p>

<p>To the extent this is an apology, I accept it. But again, you can't simply assume someone's experiences are different from yours just because they disagree with you. (No matter how impressive your own accomplishments may be.) </p>

<p>"For example, I wouldn't advise that anyone spend a year studying for the LSAT. It is, after all, only a standarized test, and I just think that there are a lot of better ways to spend one time....especially during college. That's my own bias."</p>

<p>That's fine, everyone has their own opinion. And, as repeatedly noted, I don't think most people will really need to spend a year studying for the LSAT. </p>

<p>However, the truth is that the LSAT is more than just a standardized test -- it essentially determines where you go to law school, which can affect your future career. For someone who really wants to go to a top school, and is willing to do anything necessary to get there, studying for a longer period of time may help them get there. That's all I'm saying, and if someone doesn't want to put in that much extra time, they certainly don't have to. I'm certainly happy I didn't have to work that hard, and could do other things instead. </p>

<p>"We've meandered a long way from the original topic..by I'd still give the same advice to the OP. Spend your time in college on your engineering courses, not LSAT prep."</p>

<p>As noted, she could do both, or, even better, postpone the prep until after college, and follow both sets of advice. (I've already agreed this would be a preferable option in several respects.) </p>

<p>The one thing she shouldn't do is start doing serious prep now (which I think we can both agree on) or avoid serious prep altogether (which I also assume we can both agree on). </p>

<p>Aside from that, she probably has enough advice from both of us to gag her for months! :^)</p>