We’ve had a lot of evidence that prospective law students have hatched a diabolical plan to flood the legal market with fresh talent. But this graph from Most Strongly Supported tells it all:

My Lord.

Right now, I’m like Oliver Platt at the end of 2012. Shut the damn door or we’re all gonna die.

Some other observations after the jump.

In an interview with C-SPAN, Justice Antonin Scalia once again graced us with his worldview. As usual, it is as beautiful and terrible as the dawn.

The WSJ Law Blog sloughed through the interview transcripts and pulled out this gleaming diamond of truth:

I mean there’d be a, you know, a defense or public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?

I mean lawyers, after all, don’t produce anything. They enable other people to produce and to go on with their lives efficiently and in an atmosphere of freedom. That’s important, but it doesn’t put food on the table and there have to be other people who are doing that. And I worry that we are devoting too many of our very best minds to this enterprise.

I have never agreed with Justice Scalia more than I do at this very moment. I … I’ve … got something in my eye.

I move that LSAC must send this quote to anybody that applies to sit for the LSAT. I further move that anybody scoring an IQ above 139 who does not receive a federal circuit clerkship or better must forthwith abandon legal practice and be forced into labor on renewable energy, cancer treatments, or summer blockbuster screenplay editing. Do I have a second?

Scalia: ‘We Are Devoting Too Many of Our Best Minds to’ Lawyering [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Hates Acronyms, Loves Marisa Tomei

We have some interesting statistics that suggest legal sounding majors — like Prelaw or Criminal Justice — have a negative relationship with LSAT performance.

Courtesy of Tax Prof Blog, Professor Michael Nieswiadomy of North Texas, has given us average LSAT scores broken down by 29 differed undergraduate majors.

The bottom of the list is very interesting:

25. Education: LSAT = 149.4
26. Business Administration: LSAT = 149.1
27. Health Professions: LSAT = 148.4
28. Prelaw: LSAT = 148.3
29. Criminal Justice: LSAT = 146

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. But is there something going on in criminal justice classes that makes people unable to complete a logic game?

After the jump, let’s look at what you should major in if you want to do well on the LSAT.

We all know gunners who spit hot fire at professors. But we rarely see gunners who spit at the police. According to the Charlottesville police, one UVA law student can roll both ways.

From Newsplex:

A Charlottesville woman is facing felony assault charges after an altercation with a police officer on Thursday.

Elisabeth Epps, 29, is accused of spitting on a police officer early Thursday morning in the Market Street parking garage.

It appears that initially she was trying to keep her saliva safe within the confines of her car, but the police were having none of it:

Charlottesville Police say friends of Epps were trying to get her out of a locked, parked car after a night of drinking. When Epps would not respond to continued police instructions, officers broke the back window to get her.

After police removed Epps from the car, she continued kicking and screaming and then spit in an officer’s face.

Epps is actually a little bit famous in UVA circles. More details after the jump.

This past Saturday, many lawyers-to-be took the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination. Congratulations on being done.

We don’t have a lot to say about the MPRE, but maybe you do. Per the requests of a few Above The Law readers, here is an open thread for rejoicing, frustration, and general comment.

So that this post is not completely devoid of news value, we shall include a little meditation on test preparation materials for standardized tests.

Once the tests that lead to law school admission and esquire-dom are done with, many people celebrate by sending their test prep materials to Craigslist heaven. But those with TestMasters LSAT prep books should exercise caution before doing this. One ATL reader writes:

My friend (who decided not to take the LSAT) posted an online ad on Craigslist to give away her TestMasters books. Below is the email she got in response. DMCA? Copyright infringement for giving away a book? How do you “violate the LSAC?” I get the idea of protecting their trade secrets and breach of the enrollment agreement but can there be any merit to some of these other allegations? Also, does she really have to return the books? The shipping on these textbooks is substantial and these are still her books for which she paid.

Obviously, it’s not worth the hassle to contest this but there’s no way TestMasters can get away with these claims. Seems like the LSAC would want to know that TestMasters intimidates their clients with trumped up criminal charges.

Check out the threat-laced e-mail from TestMasters, after the jump.

Last month, we told you about the Wolverine scholars program. The program allows students with a 3.8 GPA at Michigan to bypass the LSAT when applying to Michigan Law School.

Apparently those exacting standards were too draconian for Illinois College of Law. They are now offering an Early Admission Program for Illinois college students that also allows them to bypass the LSAT:

The biggest differences between the two programs involve GPA and additional requirements. Applicants to the University of Michigan will require a 3.8 GPA, while applicants to the University of Illinois will need at least a 3.0 GPA.

However, the University of Michigan will not have separate additional requirements, while the University of Illinois will require additional essays and interviews.

Instant analysis after the jump.

For aspiring law students, tomorrow marks a crucial step on the prestige whore journey. The LSAT will go a long way towards defining which school you are supposedly “insecure” about not getting into.

It’s all too easy to say that the LSAT is a terrible way to judge success in law school and beyond. All standardized tests are silly at some level. Some claim that the LSAT is racially biased, and most people agree that people that can afford expensive test-prep courses do better than those that can’t afford those classes.

But, in a blatant attempt to get up in Brian Leiter’s grill, let’s put together an argument that the LSAT is the best measure of law school success that has yet been invented.

The LSAT does capture a couple of key law school skills, the most important of which is the logical reasoning sections. A lot of time is spent in law school playing a game of, “one of these kids is doing his own thing, one of these kids just doesn’t belong.” Spotting weak or incorrect arguments guarantees you a law school B, before you go to class or crack a case book.

And for practicing attorneys, making weak, faulty, or altogether nonsensical arguments is half the ball game. “My client’s gross misstatements about oil are much more like Justice Holmes’s correct statements about water, therefore my client’s statements were actually correct.” Good lawyers know a fallacy when they see it and when they use it.

The reading comprehension section is a bit, meh. But reading is fundamental to everything a lawyer does so at least the section is fair.

The games are a very accurate indicator of issue spotting and fact development. All the games are is a three step process that you’ll see on every law school exam: here are some rules, here are some facts, tell me what happened. And what is fact development other than putting various concerns in their appropriate boxes (or binders as it were)?

Love it or hate it, the LSAT tests some very basic thought processes that law students and lawyers will use everyday. Maybe it’s not an indicator of future success because people can be trained, but it’s a great indicator of whether you “think like a lawyer” or not.

Some tips for LSAT success after the jump.