<p>They say that the LSAT is a good predictor of law school performance. I've always doubted that. I've always been skeptical of using standardized tests to measure intelligence or academic ability. I've been reading studies other than the obviously biased ones at LSAC. Most agree that the LSAT is fundamentally flawed. Why? Intelligence and academic ability cannot be standardized. Furthermore, it has been found that using the LSAT in law school admissions disadvantages minorities, the poor, women, and people with disabilities.</p>
<p>The study I am providing as an example found two things:</p>
<p>1) LSAT scores and undergraduate GPA have about the same predictive value of law school success. LSAT scores have a slightly better way of predicting first year performance, while GPA is better at predicting overall importance.</p>
<p>2) "The predictive power of any of these measures is not strong, and only the most general patterns may be discerned." Pretty much, a low LSAT scores does not mean that you will perform poorly in law school, and the predictive value of your success in the legal profession is even less.</p>
<p>There is also a debate going on. Should the focus be predicting law school success or legal career success? Some schools are considering eliminating the LSAT from their admission criteria, making it optional, or not giving it so much weight in comparison to other factors.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the LSAT is an excellent predictor of success in some aspects of law school and law practice. You can do well on the LSAT if you are a very good reader (for example, you can pick up on subtle ambiguities and nuance that others would miss). You can also do well on the LSAT if you are good at logic games. A big part of law school and law practice requires these skills - reading contracts and case law in minute detail, and trying to wrap your brain around very complex scenarios to create solutions. On the other hand, writing skills, people skills, communication skills, etc., are not tested on the LSAT but are vital to both law school success and law practice success. </p>
<p>GPA? Well, if you worked hard enough in school to get a high GPA, you’re probably going to work hard on the job and be successful. This is not always true, however, as I once had two Harvard Law grads working for me at the same time. They were smart enough to get into and graduate from Harvard, but they were unsuccessful in the practice of law because they were not willing to work hard. Both felt the “new associate” level of work was beneath them. High GPA and success in law school was not a predictor of success in law practice in their cases.</p>
<p>In my experience, the people who aced the LSAT and could write well did well in law school. The people who merely worked their tails off also did well in law school. On the job, I’ve never met a successful lawyer who is lazy. FWIW!</p>
<p>Out of all of the LSAT sections, the logic games section is the least useful in predicting law school success.</p>
<p>There are two problems with the LSAT:</p>
<p>1) It is a timed test. Being a timed test, those who have the necessary skills to score well, and otherwise to good in law school and the legal profession, will not receive a good score if they work at a slower pace. This is a fundamental flaw will all timed tests. While standardized tests work of some learning styles, they do not for all.</p>
<p>2) Again, should the focus be doing well in law school, or doing well in the legal profession? What factor is more important to predict?</p>
<p>Now that we realize how “flawed” the test is it can’t be meaningless until it ceases to have weight in the admissions process. That being said, any suggestions for the diagrams? I can’t understand how to set them up and it’s killing me!</p>
<p>i also agree that the lsat should be optional. people don’t all think the same and everyone has their own way of engaging the creative imaginary and appropriate responses. i have over 20 years working in advocacy and wondered about this law thing because i also represent people, write responses for them as part of encouraging people to advocate for their selves. </p>
<p>i also wrote the LSAT and had many concerns about the design of this test because it caters to people who don’t even critically think to question why anything when it comes to education be standardized. that’s not education nor engaging with the individual ability of each person, it’s not even culturally appropriate, nor a fair translation of services through a test. </p>
<p>for example, i translate information through symbols, i draw things then translate this written stuff in english, there’s no room in the administration of the lsat to even accomondate this and process information the way real people convey their problems. however put me up with the highest marks and the judge will ask them what they learned in school. </p>
<p>as well, i have sat in some court arenas and am very apalled at the level of very poor representation, from including those with very high GPA, and LSAT and zero ability to connect with communities. </p>
<p>they should make the LSAT optional and leave it for those that want to assert something, and leave it not required for others to actually demonstrate some quality, and complexity behind their ethics as well. </p>
<p>all law schools should make remove the LSAT. </p>
<p>it’s only a way to get a source of income, but a poor way to assess quality. </p>
<p>there is no creativity and quality when things are standardized, and subsequent interests directed at something other than the client.</p>
<p>You can say the LSAT is “meaningless,” but law schools, particularly mid-tier law schools, have found that LSAT scores are an excellent means of finding which students will or will not flunk out and/or fail the bar. They know exactly what percent will flunk out/drop out/flunk the bar at any given LSAT score and GPA combination.</p>
<p>It’s all a numbers game, and the schools give students with a high GPA entrance with a lower LSAT on the grounds that they must be hard workers.</p>
<p>A fraternity brother of mine spent three years getting into law school with a low LSAT. He went to grad school and got a master’s degree. They finally let him in. He struggled for three years and worked harder than anyone I’ve ever seen. He never could pass the bar. It’s a shame the school didn’t stick by its guns on the LSAT standards for my friend. It would have saved him a lot of heartache.</p>
<p>It may be a rough tool, but it’s not meaningless.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The LSAT is correlated with bar passage rates.</p></li>
<li><p>If everyone were a poli sci major from their mid-level state school, with the same grading scales, we wouldn’t need an LSAT. But when you are trying to quantitatively compare the astrophysicist from MIT with the communications major from Slippery Rock, you need the LSAT. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>My LSAT was what tracked my law school performance, not my GPA, because I went to an engineering school that scaled its tests to a 2.5. Yes, a two-point-five GPA was the median in many of our classes. So cry about the LSAT all you want, but it’s also there to ferret out people who went to easy schools, were in grade-inflated courses, or had a very easy course load. It’s not a perfect tool, but public policy is never about perfection.</p>