<p>I don't think someone who scores in the 90% percentile (1900 on SAT) is stupid. </p>
<p>Before anyone can really makes claims about how studying for and mastering a test can screw you over because it masks your "actual score" and therefore your ability, one has to make the case that a) the "actual scores" rather than the "fake scores" are better indicators of one's level of intelligence and b) that tests like the SAT or LSAT actually predict one's performance for college or law school</p>
<p>The entire scenario about the kid going to Cal instead of Irvine has many, many questionable things about it. I mean, it's just a possible scenario and there is no reason to believe it's common, and it really does not tell us much.</p>
<p>The LSAT determines whether or not one will be granted admission at a particular law school. That is for certain, and this fact in itself provides me, at least at a personal level, an incentive to score the very best I possibly can. It is in the interest of all others to do the same through whatever means possible.</p>
<p>I thought 1900 sounded a little too high for the scenario. We could say a 1500, which if I remember correctly is about the national average. Or whatever score. And we could pick Irvine or any other school, but I'm from CA and the UC system was familiar to me.</p>
<p>If someone got a 2400, I doubt that he'll choose Berkeley. Also, I know a lot of lawyers that are anti-social, but still, damn good lawyers.</p>
<p>I guess in my mind the question isn't really whether or not studying for 4 years for the LSAT is bad or not....the question is,</p>
<p>does earning a 180 on the LSAT after 4 years of studying imply you are a lesser problem solver/analytical thinker than someone who studies only a year or semester and earns the same score?</p>
<p>Case 1: No, Equal Problem Solver</p>
<p>If we can agree that both truly have equal intellectual ability at that time, although 1 had to invest more heavily to get there, then there is really no problem with the long term strategy. </p>
<p>Case 2: Yes, Long Time Studier is Lesser Problem Solver</p>
<p>If the case is that the long term studier is actually a lesser problem solver, and has simply trained himself to work problems specific and limited to the LSAT, then the long time studiers are basically doing the entire community a disservice because they are signing themselves up for a legal education in a top school where they are positioned to get creamed by their peers who legitimately have the aptitude to score those high marks and sit at those T14 schools. They are also hurting the school and the applicant community in general because the seat would be better filled by the better problem solvers that law schools are attempting to use the LSAT to find....</p>
<p>This is a dog eat dog world, and the legal field is definitely not an exception, so there will still be a few who can't do better otherwise and will use golden's strategy to get ahead....but if we can agree that Case 2 is the answer to our question, then at least for the purposes of this argument we can say that studying for 4 years is unnecessary and definitely in contrast to the spirit of the purpose of the LSAT and why the schools use it to select candidates.</p>