<p>USNews obtains their data from the ABA.</p>
<br>
<p>why is it that we assume quick-thinking people who do well on the LSAT are also capable of sustained detail work? </p>
<br>
<p>We don't. That's what the undergrad GPA is for.</p>
<p>Agreed, Hanna, but many law schools put added emphasis on the LSAT due to the US News rankings. </p>
<p>In my law school days, GPA was equally important and maybe even more important than the LSAT. If there had been a CC then, I'm sure the focus of discussion would have been the methods law schools used to compare applicants' undergraduate GPAs. It was widely assumed that law schools mathematically adjusted GPAs based on where you went to college. I think we see remnants of this policy at some law schools today. Hopwood and Grutter both mention that undergraduate college strength is considered, and I wonder if it's a subjective consideration or if there is an objective mathematical adjustment.</p>
<p>DRJ,</p>
<p>Now, law schools don't adjust GPA as much, because USNews reports only straight-up GPA. Some law schools will use quality of undergrad in "indexing" their applicants (one method is to use a combination of class rank and average LSAT scores from undergrad, which, in theory, cancels out a lot of the effects of difference in grading schemes and school quality); however, many of them use only GPA. I suspect that this trend will continue.</p>
<p>If law schools take the higher of the LSAT scores, even people who scored well have a strong incentive to re-take the exam. I suspect that, in a few years, it will be common to take the LSAT twice. Even if, in a school's judgment, the best candidates are those who did well on the LSAT the first time, there is an incentive (i.e. rankings) to take the student with the higher scores, however obtained. </p>
<p>Sad, because the "one-shot" LSAT system actually has some merit (as mentioned above, it does, in many ways, simulate law school grading). More emphasis may be placed on GPA, which is far more variable than LSAT scores. Eh.</p>
<p>A second chance can go too far as has been true with the SAT. </p>
<p>A friend of mine went from a 1400 to 1600 over 2 years of testing and extra preparation. Its good for him, but insofar as the SAT should be a natural reflection of your abilities, allowing him to take it so many times degrades the value of the test in measuring innate aptitude.</p>
<p>If something happened, you can always cancel the score. I think that's good enough.</p>
<p>How will this change the index for schools? Will 1 point on the LSAT not equal .1 GPA anymore?</p>
<p>Ariesathena,</p>
<p>Interesting. Thanks for your input, and thank you Hanna and Sallyawp as well.</p>