The LSAT, not to put too fine a point on it, is bollocks

180!

It is the best predictor for law school grades, although it is not an exceptionally strong one. My question is how useful are law school grades.

Law school grades are a woefully inadequate (and often inaccurate) means for predicting if someone will be a good lawyer, so it says something that the LSAT is an even worse predictor.

Dump that worthless test.

I suggest a massive ro-sham-bo tournament, which is about as accurate in predicting law school / lawyer success.

I don't even think the LSAT is a good indication of how a student will perform in law school. I did not do great on the LSAT, but I graded-on to my school's law review.

Within a range it seems to be an indicator of performance (I don't know too many kids with 170+ who bombed at law school), but I don't think there is much difference between someone who scored say a 165 and someone who scored a 162, other than test day luck.

The LSAT does not predict anything about anything with as much granularity as people think. A person who gets 175 is clearly better at taking tests than a person who gets 145, but can you tell the difference between someone who gets 160 and 164? no.

The LSAT does roughly correlate to law school grades, so long as you give time pressured exams. See the research of IU Law Professor Henderson at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=465381

I suspect that anyone who is a practicing lawyer will say that being smart helps one be a better lawyer but there are different kinds of smart and the LSAT arguably measures only one or two.

Undgrad Prof. of mine did some research on predictors of success in law school, only LSAT score was statistically significant as a predictor (not grades, etc.).

Jay Matthews is a hack. His rankings of High Schools based almost solely on how many AP exams their students take are preposterous. And now he has the gall to decry standardized tests for law school entrance?

NB: His magazine's parent company (Wash Post Co) probably makes a fortune on test prep (Kaplan is a subsidiary.

The LSAT is a good predictor because if you are smart you do well, if you aren't you don't. It can't account for how hard you work, which will impact how you do in law school, but that's what undergrad grades measure.

#8 scored a 160

First time I took a practice LSAT under "test conditions" I didn't miss any questions (180). On a subsequent practice test I scored as low as 168, and when I took it for real I got in the mid 170s. If there is a 10 point swing at the top for one person depending on how they feel that day, the test is BS. You might as well just hold a lottery for everyone who scores above 165 and randomly assign them to T14 schools. Nothing would change.

thanks 2:00... it only took 12 posts to turn this into a contest about who got what.

It's an imperfect system, but law schools need some kind of rough gauge of an applicant's intelligence-- and the LSAT is just that. IMO, the real problem is not the test itself but rather the fact that so many people take the test that tiny differences in score become unnecessarily amplified on an application.

No, #8 is also #13, but isn't that interesting that you want to measure the credibility of what I said based on my numerical test score.

Here's my question: How often is the palm-vein scan really going to help catch a cheater?

If they had a pre-existing palm scan which they knew belonged to the "real" test-taker, then I could see it being close to 100% effective (I imagine some would go to the cost and trouble of beating it - if that's possible). These records, however, obviously do not exist. Thus, the only way to use this effectively is if you suspect someone of cheating, require them to come in (or you go to them), take a new palm-vein scan, and compare it to that of the person who actually took the test. I imagine that in most cases, enough suspicion is not raised, and the follow-up is never undertaken. Thus, you're just raising the costs of test-taking (I'm sure the costs of implementation will drive up the cost to sit for the test) to give the appearance of integrity with minimal results. Rather than deterring cheaters, you just end up deterring would-be test takers who are priced-out.

Wanna know what is weird? I never study for standardized tests (well, I made a serious exception of the bar). I walked into the LSAT and scored in the top 10%. Coincidentally, I scored top 10% of my law school class, also - exactly the same percentage (great school, top 20, not an Ivy).

I didn't feel at the time that it was terribly predictive, but in my case it was very predictive. I agree with the last guest poster that intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for doing well in law school. Unfortunately, I am not sure that this test will gauge intelligence given the amazing amount of studying that so many people do -- it might just be testing how hard you will work to make up for a lack of intelligence (or more accurately, background education).

I won't even go into whether testing is going to be predictive of brains, because an arbitrary test is used to assess your achievement in law school, too. Might as well get down with the system before filing applications.

13

A lottery for the T14 schools? I bet the Cornell and GULC students would love that idea.

Everybody thinks that the way they got in is the best method. The LSAT is the only uniform method, however, so it'll be awhile before it's replaced. You can probably correlate it to law school success (given that the only metric for success in law school is one's grades), but I really can't see how one could reliably assess success in the legal profession.

The average LSAT score for HYS is something like 174, the average LSAT score for schools 35-40 in the US news ranking is 164. Where do you place the kid who got 170? There are kids with lower scores at Harvard, and there are kids with higher scores at UC Hastings. Like #2 said, bollocks.

Not meant as a flame or an insult #18, but the percentile comparison is interesting. I say this because top ten percent on the lsat is actually not particularly high, but to be top 10% in any law school class is an accomplishment. Even though the percentiles are the same, it almost seems like the lsat might have underestimated how well you would do in law school.

I went to an undergrad school that graded REALLY hard, like lost of classes curved to a B, so for us the LSAT was an essential tool vs the Macrame Studies majors at easier schools.

The LSAT might be unfair but, as the saying goes, it is equally unfair for everybody.

I sympathize with all of the critics of the LSAT. If law schools really want fair admissions, they should come to my house and meet my mom. She can tell the admissions officials how much of a hard worker I am and how I am bound to be a great lawyer because I used to win arguments with my siblings all the time when I was eight. They can come to my college and meet with my professors and my advisor. She can explain that some of my grades were a little lower than they should be because for two semesters, my roommate was coping with an STD.

I can also sympathize with those who decry the fact that grades in law school are a poor proxy for becoming a "good lawyer." I know, I know, it's tough. You didn't do so well grade-wise, but gosh-darnit, you're a great lawyer. And all those gunners from law school are horribly over-rated. They're not half the lawyer that you are.

LSAT sucks - but what are you going to use to determine law school admissions if you take it away? rely completely on undergrad grades when some school have ridiculous grade inflation? and if it does become solely based on grades, get ready for every undergrad school to "race to the bottom" to inflate their students' grades.

13, your swing from 180 to 170 was only one percentile. You obviously don't understand how standardized tests work. There's a normal distribution of scores, so you can bump a few points and get nothing when you're at the ends.

The test is very predictive within ranges.
It forces you to think precisely, like a lawyer, and like you will have to think to succeed on most law school exams.

Finally, it is the only objective component of law school admissions formulae. It's important to have at least one objective component because otherwise schools have no way to measure quality between students from different undergrad schools. So if you get rid of the LSAT then plan on adopting another objective measure, whatever that ends up being.

24 - roommate? yea right

26: Excellent points, but the LSAT is, for most people, the only component considered for application.

Roommate's STD caused lower grades on your transcript. That's some rich satire, 24!

The LSAT is an excellent test. Law schools' evaluation of it is not.

The LSAT tests the right type of analytical skills as best a standardized test can. But law schools give far much too weight to marginal differences in scores. For example a 172 is better than a 170 but not by nearly as much as, for the sake of US News rankings, law schools make it out to be.

Now an example of a lousy and pointless exam would be the bar exam

No insult taken, #22. I knew at the time I took the LSAT that this wasn't a sterling score - but I have always known that my test scores were going to be low for my subsequent performance, because I never take a prep course or any of the rest of that stuff. I just take the test - once - and leave. Because that approach to these tests is somewhat unusual, I figure lots of people will score higher than I will on the test. Once I do sit down to study, however, usually I do pretty well. Actually, my LSAT score probably didn't hurt me in law school admissions because I was a straight-A student in college.

Maybe I'm completely obtuse, but the level, degree, and complexity of test prep for these standardized tests seems to me to turn them into a test of resources and willpower rather than past education or ability.

The question of whether the LSAT is a good predictor of future success is sort of misleading. Is it a crystal ball? No, of course not. Does it offer sociologists a very useful correlation? Yes. The LSAT is a highly g-loaded exam (i.e., something of an IQ test), and correlates substantially with factors sociologists use to measure success, e.g., income, staying out of jail, not getting divorced, etc.

I'm probably about to get flamed by people who are going to say "I got an 155 and now I'm V5." Do what you need to do - just remember that this is about general trends and a field where even a .4 correlation is considered very significant - this is not about outliers.

157 LSAT + 3.95 GPA = barely T40 law school + top 10% = V20 job.

The LSAT is just a tool that permits law schools to deny admission to a bunch of students (who get low scores, e.g. me). In that sense, it's very useful. But an accurate forecast of a law school success? Hardly.

as previously mentioned, i think the lsat is a good reading on ones intelligence. nobody dumb is scoring 165 (which i think is top 10%) and above and of course not in 170's. now that being said i dont think that a great/good lsat scores correlates into being a great lawyer. all of us know those that scored great lsat and did not pan out as great lawyers. e.g. yale law school (just to get the conversation started eh eh).

basically a good lsat score = intelligence which does NOT = great lawyer

Man, I am such a completely naive person. I can't believe so many people cheat! I heard that folks take Adderall or Ritalin before the LSAT to get 'em super focused. Never even would have thought of it--and would have considered it flat-out wrong to do that even if I had. Pure cheating like what's described here just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I will be a total failure as a professional b/c I'm too naive to cut it with the big (cheatin') dogs.

21, you knucklehead, the schools don't just pick students in LSAT rank order.

Anyone over 170 is in contention for any of the top schools. The schools really look at the whole person, and the LSAT is a threshold requirement.

There's still a lot of arbitrary sorting going on, as there would be without the LSAT. The LSAT just separates students into bands so that schools don't have to look at all of them; instead the schools just have to look at students who scored within an acceptable band.

I would have to say the LSAT is not a predecitor of law school grades. I got in the 98th percentile on my LSAT (woot woot) and managed to use that to get into a top ten school despite my less than stellar undergrad grades. Now I'm falling slightly below the middle of the class. Definitely nowhere near that top 2%. But really, does it matter? (Not rhetorical -- will I get a job next summer??)

So, for people like me who slacked off in college and got to study like crazy for a couple months to make up for it, I say, the LSAT is awesome. That said, I would never ever ever ever go near that test again.

"13, your swing from 180 to 170 was only one percentile. You obviously don't understand how standardized tests work. "

Yes I know it was one percentile. It also can be the difference between Harvard and 20 schools down in the ranking, and that is enough to block out top clerkships, professorships, and top 20 firm jobs. That is the irrationality, careers get made or capped based on a one percentile difference all the time in law.

knucklehead is a great word

chucklehead, too

HORRIBLE INDICATOR
150 LSAT--> Top 25% in Law School + 1st Time Bar Passer

LSAT is a good predictor of your capacity to achieve in law school, not whether you will or not. A person who gets a 170 probably has a better chance to finish high in his/her class than does a person who gets a 160. That can be overcome by hard work, but there is no way to tell who is going to put forth more effort in law school

I'd agree with those who sat the LSAT is a bad predictor of law school performance. I did well on the LSAT and was in the average LSAT range for my school, yet ended up solidly in the lower half of my class GPA-wise my first year. I like to think I'm generally pretty intelligent, but it didn't predict my grades at all (don't worry, though, dear commenters, I pulled a respectable GPA and a great job in the end)

#6 doesn't realize that his/her poor LSAT meant they went to a weak law school, which made getting onto law review based on grades borderline meaningless. TTT!

scored a 159 on LSAT- went to bottom tier 2 school---finished #3 oinclass-transferred to CLS and am a Fiske scholar after 2L year. LSAT's mean nothing!

#42 -- I agree, for the most part. But because the capacity to achieve can be overcome by hard work, a law school has to be able to divine an applicant's work ethic in addition to his ability. As you're point implies, the LSAT does not (meaningfully) indicate an applicant's work ethic.

Since capacity to achieve is at least as important as work ethic, the LSAT short-changes a large number of applicants by considering only half the picture. In that regard, it is not a good predictor of law school success (though it may be a predictor of capacity for success).

I think the LSAT is good. It is probably given too much weight, but it measures important skills and abilities. For example, it measures how well the student can focus over time, learn something new (most people improve with practice), pay attention to language details and handle time pressure. It also tests logical reasoning, reading comprehension, and patience. Most of these skills are helpful in all practice areas of law.

I agree

I poored performed poorly on the LSAT, but managed to be successful. Therefore, the LSAT is utterly worthless as a predictor of success. QE f-in' D.

Speaking of business school, it seems that transactional attorneys have more opportunities than litigators to get jobs outside of law firms, so I'm wondering what mid-level BigLaw litigators do after they decide they don't want their boss's life or realize they can't attain it. In other words, where does a mid-level litigation associate go from BigLaw?

I hear you, 13/38, but my point is that the LSAT worked fine. The schools just spaz about the precise number (which isn't correct of them) because of US News. Still, places like Harvard take plenty of kids with 170s.

37, you are also grossly misunderstanding the difference between scoring in the top 2% on a test largely taken by idiots and scoring in the top 2% at a law school where even the bottom 25% of LSAT takers scored in the top 5%. Your 98th percentile would put you in the middle of such a class, and in fact so do your grades. Where did we lose you?

Law schools should look more at an applicant's resume, as business schools do.

I would bet that a high percentage of those who score highly on the LSAT but later flame out in practice never had substantive work experience before entering law school.

So the best defense of the LSAT is, "well we have to have some objective criteria, its better than nothing." I submit that if you believe that, you have already bought into the status quo.

We could have a lottery, or we could go around searching for people who subjectively "deserve" to go to top law schools based on their demonstrated commitment to public service. We could encourage more transfers so that top 1L performers get a US news prestige boost. There are a lot of ways to place people.

Here's a wrench in the discussion. Hispanic and African-American test takers score on AVERAGE 8 or 9 points lower on the LSAT, even if you correct for educational background (looking only at students who went to the same undergrad for instance). No one sane believes in genetic differences anymore, so the test or the conditions under which it is administered must be biased. (i.e. not "objective")

42 - You can tell who will likely put forth more effort in law school based on undergraduate grades, because for the vast majority of students undergrad grades are based almost entirely on effort (with exceptions for those so smart or so dumb that it just doesn't matter). That's why it's all about the graph formed by LSAT and GPA.

41 and 33: please see second para of 32

When I read #33, I could have sworn I wrote it.

156 LSAT + 4.00 GPA = Top-40 state school --> Top 10%.

Awaiting transfer decisions, but even staying at my current school, landing a V20 job is likely based on similarly ranked students in years past.

LSAT may correlate to grades, but the correlation cannot be that strong.

52 is exactly right. You need to compare the LSAT you got with the average LSAT for the law school you attended. Obviously, if your LSAT was in the middle of the range for your school, your grades probably will be too. Simply put, law schools grade on a curve -- competition matters. If your LSAT was many points above the mean for your school, you should perform towards the top of the class. Why this is difficult to understand is beyond me. Btw ... my LSAT was in the middle of my class and I did as predicted.

#41, Top quater at Cooley is not an achievement.

It is useless to complain about the LSAT if no one proposes a better alternative. Sure we can throw out examples of low LSAT scores and employment at big firms. But recanting these tales as though they are a grandiose achievement (which they may be) actually supports the proposition that a low LSAT score is less likely to result in superlative accomplishment. Otherwise these success stories would not be presented as such notable occurrences.

It is obvious that there are some major drawbacks to any standardized test, but I would like to hear a reasonable alternative. It would be great if they could test someone's writing ability and verbal skills, but that would end up being subjective, impossible to uniformly administer, and ultimately even more unfair.

41, your case is weak:

"150 LSAT--> Top 25% in Law School + 1st Time Bar Passer "

150 LSAT... Okay, not a great score

Top 25% in Law School... Which one? A crapola one?

1st Time Bar Passer... Congrats, you join the other 85% who pass on their first try.

Passing the bar =/= success as an attorney. How many moron attorneys do you know? Don't have to think hard to come up with about 20+

Scored a 168 and I have a 9" penis so there.

Having taken it recently, the logic games section certainly frustrated me the most. They were difficult to complete under time, and they bear little apparent relation to any skills required for a legal career. There was a thread on LSAT logic games at Volokh a while ago...Orin Kerr was of the opinion that the section should be dropped, and I basically agree.

The other two sections have more obvious connections to legal reasoning skills, and even if they're not particularly excellent predictors of performance as lawyers, I think there's value in getting some idea of applicants' aptitude in those areas.

What's interesting is that success as a lawyer corresponds at least as much to certain personality traits as it does to pure brainpower. Sure, a minimum level of brainpower is required, but after that, you need things like: perseverance, energy, attention to detail bordering on obsession, and, preferably, an *enjoyment* of detail; good concise writing and speaking, strategic thinking; interpersonal skills to deal with judges, cocounsel, partners and coworkers, business and sales skills to deal with clients; and, above all, the emotional resources, self-knowledge, and stamina to deal with all of this without cracking up. If you can do all of this and still *enjoy* your job, well, then, you're a legal superstar.

LSAT measures none of those things, except maybe stamina. Law school grades in timed exams probably correlate a bit better, since they show how you work under pressure and how hard you studied (or how well you studied).

So maybe law school should identify the Meyer-Briggs type that reflects the psychological characteristics necessary for success, and use that instead of LSAT?

62 - Too bad. With that score, you'll never get to use it.

Assuming LSAT does correlate to law school class rank, the question then is whether an applicant should drop from a T10 school to a T20 in hopes of a higher class rank. Any thoughts on this? Obviously it changes when scholarships are in the picture.

My class rank is somewhere in the middle at a T10 and I assume I still have a better chance of being hired than top 25% student at a lesser school. I could be totally wrong.

In regard to LSAT score I was in the bottom 5% of my entering class-158.

In regard to end of 1L grades, I was in the top 15%-3.5+.

I do not do well when I have to learn how to take a test.

But if you give me material to learn and test me on that material, I will do well.

67: nobody cares how you'll do.

47 - You are correct about most of those things, but an attorney who is able to read and mark up a brief (among other things that pertain to all matters related to the law) in 15 minutes is not necessarily a better attorney that can do the same thing in 20 minutes. Those 5 minutes on the LSAT, however, can cost somebody a significant amount of points. Just saying...

The problem with your post, #58, is that just because your LSAT ranked in the middle of your entering class, that does not mean you were destined to finish in the middle of class gradewise. You represent the problem that law schools create when they focus so much on LSAT scores: someone who has a lot of raw intelligence and therefore performed well on the LSAT but lacks the drive and dedication to excel at what amounts to a semester-long exercise (class + preparation + exam) and thus turns into a very middling attorney who will go to a big, prestigious firm and flame out after a couple of years. In this regard, the top schools may not always turn out the best lawyers.

60 - your misuse of words too big for your LSAT score -- recanting, grandiose -- is embarassing.

Anyone know of a good deodorant (NOT antiperspirant, don't want cancer/alzheimers from the aluminum salts) that won't turn the underarms of my white t-shirts blue-green as Old Spice Classic has?

#11/1:59 is right.

The only mistakes I made on the LSAT (175) were in a long reading comprehension section that started sooner than I thought it would, during a bought of diarrhea. I shat my way to a T10.

I can compare my 'stats' with a close friend's.

LSAT: me < 160, friend = 167
Motivation: me = street-smart slacker, friend = 100% gunner
Final GPA: exactly the same, top 1/2 of 2nd tier school
Employment outlook: me = contemplating clerkships and going solo , friend = non-legal job, LRAP-eligible

I'm sure my career will now crash and burn, thanks to the bad karma of posting this.

The LSAT is kinda like Emergency Broadcast System tests on television:

"This LSAT is a test. [20 seconds' worth of static-ridden beeping] The LSAC is conducting this test as a nominally-fair way to sort people into law schools, so they can then bicker among themselves.

"This is *only* a test. If the LSAT had actual predictive power, your score report would have included a Skadden offer or a certificate naming you #1 Legal Eagle in the Universe."

This concludes this test of the Emergency Broadcast System. Resume petty in-fighting.

Writing ability is by far the most important quality in law and the LSAT (and law school for that matter) doesn't measure it. The purpose of the LSAT is to make a law admission officers job easier. That's it. Otherwise, they would have to read the essays.

Me-164, 3.5 GPA from ivy, top 20 law school, top 10 law firm

My advice - go to the best law school you can get into, and transfer to a better one after your first year. The law schools are in on the scam.

54 - the test is not biased. College admissions is biased. Minority students do worse on the LSAT even after you control for educational background because minority students (on average) are able to obtain that educational background with lesser credentials to begin with.

I think the problem with the LSAT, as is true of all standardized tests, is that to some degree it is a legitimate test of intelligence. BUT to a large degree it can be a test of resources, money and power, which only reinforces the inequities. It is that which makes the test inequitable.

I know that significant swings in standardized tests are possible, as I got a 1240 on the PSAT's not having studied and on 4hrs of sleep, and then got a 1500, w/800 verbal on the SATs after practing and a good nights sleep. But that is life. You sometimes only get one shot to get it right.

I think the LSAT is fair because I went to a top three undergrad (i.e. harvard, princeton, yale) which in my case did grade much more stringently then other schools, i.e. I took science classes with C minuses as the average, and so my grades were articially suppressed, and the schools dont take into account where you went to undergrad. They only care about what will effect their Rankings, and that is not a consideration. Therefore, I think the LSAT does act as some kind of equalier and is perhaps a necessary evil.
BUT, I would recommend that Law Schools interview, like business schools and med schools so that they get a better sense of the person, as much as is possible. As your personality probably will have the greatest impact on your career.

Thanks for all the anecdotes about how your sub 170 scores led to law review and a V25 job. I'll just collect them all, call it a data set and get it published, oh wait...

Law schools need some way of determining who will do well and who will not. The LSAT is not a great or even good predictor but it is far better than GPA - which provides a useless comparison between departments at the same school (eg. Comm. majors) let alone between schools.

So for all of you who want to scrap the LSAT, how should admissions committees try to determine who will succeed at their schools and who will not?

I think the problem with the LSAT, as is true of all standardized tests, is that to some degree it is a legitimate test of intelligence. BUT to a large degree it can be a test of resources, money and power, which only reinforces the inequities. It is that which makes the test inequitable.

I know that significant swings in standardized tests are possible, as I got a 1240 on the PSAT's not having studied and on 4hrs of sleep, and then got a 1500, w/800 verbal on the SATs after practing and a good nights sleep. But that is life. You sometimes only get one shot to get it right.

I think the LSAT is fair because I went to a top three undergrad (i.e. harvard, princeton, yale) which in my case did grade much more stringently then other schools, i.e. I took science classes with C minuses as the average, and so my grades were articially suppressed, and the schools dont take into account where you went to undergrad. They only care about what will effect their Rankings, and that is not a consideration. Therefore, I think the LSAT does act as some kind of equalier and is perhaps a necessary evil.
BUT, I would recommend that Law Schools interview, like business schools and med schools so that they get a better sense of the person, as much as is possible. As your personality probably will have the greatest impact on your career.

Are there any ATL readers out there willing to tell us their LSAT scores and GPAs?

If someone wanted to bet me who would be a better lawyer, someone with a 170, or someone with a 150, I would take the person with a 170, and give significant odds. Those who rip the LSAT thought they were smart, and then did shitty when they realized they only tried harder than others, and found out people have different gears. Of course you can make up for it through hard work, but you will never be as productive as someone who tries equally hard, but is naturally smarter. Welcome to the human race.

70 - In response to your statement that "the top schools may not always turn out the best lawyers" - no shit. No one is claiming that the it does, and in fact I know plenty of attorneys who went to lesser-ranked schools, and probably did not do as well on the LSAT, who are extremely succesfull due to their drive and ambition. More power to them. A high LSAT does not correspond to success in life -- welcome to the real world.

But, if the purpose of the LSAT, as it claims is to, "measure the skills you will need for law school," the LSAT does just fine as an indicator of that field. Of course grades, as a measure of internal motivation, also factor in. However, what you choose to do, or not do, after law school has little to do with the stated purpose and goal of the LSAT.

Is the SAT a good predictor of college grades? No. Is the MCAT a good predictor of who will be the best doctor? No. They are rough proxies. Get over it. It isn't like the people with high grades and LSATs have been proved to be bad lawyers, and some other metric is needed. It is just that lawyers are insecure, and people who end up being good lawyers from bad law schools believe that the LSAT is what screwed them out of their success. No, it was the 3.0 you got in college. Get over it. Be happy that there was a law school that accepted you. If you got a 3.0 and wanted to be a doctor, you would be a nurse.

Oct '02. I had a 169 and it put me in the 98.00 %ile. Did anyone find that, on a different year, 169 was a different percentile or that the 98th percentile was associated with a higher score?

I was pretty consistently getting 175s before that exam.

Anyways, its a long story but I got into HLS and now I'm making a lot of money but I'd rather have gone to YLS and been working for OBAMA in January!!! whoo hoo.

Is the SAT a good predictor of college grades? No. Is the MCAT a good predictor of who will be the best doctor? No. They are rough proxies. Get over it. It isn't like the people with high grades and LSATs have been proved to be bad lawyers, and some other metric is needed. It is just that lawyers are insecure, and people who end up being good lawyers from bad law schools believe that the LSAT is what screwed them out of their success. No, it was the 3.0 you got in college. Get over it. Be happy that there was a law school that accepted you. If you got a 3.0 and wanted to be a doctor, you would be a nurse.

I just want to know if anyone is willing to admit that they cheated on the LSAT...any anonymous takers?

The LSAT in my opinion is not a good predictor of grades. I got a 155 on my LSAT and barely squeaked into a Tier 3 school as a result. I got an A average for my first semester and now have an A- average as a 3rd year. My friend got a 170 on his LSAT and was academically disqualified. I think it is another hoop to jump through, but not good tool to predict achievement.

I agree with others that the LSAT is a necessary evil because it is the only objective indicator of intelligence in an application.

That being said, it is a very weak predictor within narrow ranges. Law schools ascribe way too much weight to statistically insignificant differentials of 3-4 points. They are driven to do so by the U.S. News and other rankings.

What's the solution? Invoke LSAT scores 25% to assess students and 75% to assess their undergraduate schools. In other words, utilize LSAT scores primarily as a lens to view undergraduate academic performance.

After all, a 3.6 undergrad GPA means much more coming from a college where the average law school applicant scores a 165 than a 145.

#70 here. To #83:

You have missed the point of my post. If you reread it, you will notice that it is not a commentary on the efficacy of the LSAT vis-a-vis "measur[ing] the skills you will need for law school." Instead, it criticizes top schools for placing too much emphasis on the LSAT.

In fact, my specific language ("someone who has a lot of raw intelligence and therefore performed well on the LSAT") points to my belief that the LSAT is a decent indicator of raw intelligence, and thus probably a decent assessor of the skills needed to suucceed in law school. But is only ONE predictor. As stated previously, perhaps interviews and personality tests (and other factors) might also help indicate potential for success in law school and in a legal career generally.

My simple point was that schools place too much emphasis on the LSAT; they should consider seriously more factors than just LSAT and GPA.

72:

I'm a Speed Stick man myself, just like my pops.

All these stupid exceptions are completely ridiculous. No one is claiming a person with a lower LSAT is not capable of performing better in law school and being a better lawyer than someone with a higher LSAT. However, all else equal, which it never is, a person with a higher LSAT will probably do better/be a better lawyer than someone with a lower LSAT. I have little doubt that there is a positive correlation between LSAT score and the success in the legal profession. Did bad on your LSAT? Who gives a shit. Last I checked, most people don't put LSAT scores on your resume.

72
limit yourself to three swipes under each arm

I fully agree that interviews should be given at every law school, especially highly ranked ones. I go to a T10, and I cannot tell you how many people cannot communicate their thoughts. It hurts me to listen to them in class, and there is no way they could be more than mediocre lawyers no matter what their grades/LSAT. Grades and LSATS should be necessary, but not enough to get you in to a top law school. Maybe if interviews were given, these people would not have wasted 3 years of their lives and be 250K in the whole at age 25 when they graduate because they cannot convey their thoughts without writing it down on paper.

I have nothing to add to the discussion, but I found it odd that I scored 97%-ile on the GMAT, but 90%-ile on the LSAT with similar preparation.

Does that mean biz-school types are dumber? Does it mean that I was better suited to biz-school for some other reason?

In the end the decision to go to law school was more timing than anything else, but I've always been curious about that.

they should go back to the old 10 to 48 scoring systems, 120-180 is just ttt

they should go back to the old 10 to 48 scoring systems, 120-180 is just ttt

100!

94 -- You, on the other hand, can't write correctly, which is a far graver deficiency in a lawyer. "in the whole"? "convey their thoughts without writing it down"? Really? Try again.

95 -- Of course B-school kids are dumber.

100!!!

I'm surprised no one has pointed out the fact that if you're a 21-year old applicant there probably isn't anything else worth knowing about you than your LSAT, UGPA, and maybe an honor or two for extra-curricular work.

If you want to set yourself apart go out and make something of yourself. My numbers were dismal, but I was mature applicant with a successful career already under my belt. I may have brought down my school's averages, but they know they are getting, and will eventually graduate, a professional.

81: 166 LSAT -> Top 20 school -> 3.6 GPA (top 10%), Law Review -> V10.

In my experience, the LSAT doesn't mean that much-- scored 150, then after transferring from the only Tier 4 school I got into and finishing my 1L year in the top 2%, transferred to a top 70 school, graduated magna, top 7% of class. In fact, I was the #2 transfer student my top 70 school-- the #1 transfer student actually scored in the lower-140's on the LSAT's and then top 5 in the class. But, what other method are law schools going to use to determine law school success? Its crap, but that's why people have the option of transferring after proving themselves after one year...

4:00. Don't use ths terrorist numbering system until Lat figures out that, if he deletes a post and it renumbers the subsequent post, the numbering system is TTT.

87: I went back and spent extra time on a section I didn't complete during a section I completed early. Technical cheating for sure, but it's sort of par for the course with these types of standardized tests.

100 - 95 here. And I guess I've quantified it, too. 3 times dumber.

Where would Romney fit in, pray tell?

4:00. Don't use ths terrorist numbering system until Lat figures out that, if he deletes a post and it renumbers the subsequent post, the numbering system is TTT.

99

There may be a couple issues with 94's writing, but it is a comment on a blog. I doubt s/he re-read it to catch 'agreement' issues. You likely critique because you are/were one of the students 94 is talking about in the comment. Now take your hands out of your pockets, look up from the floor and try talking to someone of the opposite gender.

Sweet 99, you are now qualified to be an English teacher. 94's point is still correct, even if it is poorly written, as most of these posts are because they are posts, not memos.

4:11 - say what you want but romney gets in wherever he wants. when you have a couple of hundred million dollars you go where you want, period end of discussion.

I did horrible on the LSAT (I scored a 152) because I was working full-time when applying to law school. Now, I am currently one of the top 5 students at a top-100 law school and I set the curve in almost all of my classes both first and second year. Thus, I do not think the LSAT is an accurate way to predict how well someone will do in law school or in the profession.

The only thing an LSAT score means is that you had a good day when you took the test. Is it indicative of law school performance? Hardly. Success as a lawyer? Seriously doubtful.

112 doesn't always drink beer, but when he/she does, he/she drinks Dos Equis