« on: January 09, 2005, 07:30:07 PM »
It's a rough gauge of your intelligence. As a competitive law school applicant, if you had chosen not to practice and improve your score, I would probably say you're an idiot.
The reason it's justifiable as a tool for admissions is that experience/evidence has shown that LSAT score is a more reliable indicator of law school performance than undergraduate GPA.
You state in your post that the LSAT is a "rough gauge of your intelligence." Without trying to be argumentative at all, I wonder....if you had scored lower, say in the 130's or 140's, would you be saying the same thing?
Second, what evidence do you have to support your claim? The LSAT tests three spheres of thinking and reasoning, and is really just a really good gauge of one's ability to take a standardized test in a pressure-cooker evironment.
Basically, I really don't agree with you....one's LSAT score is completely and totally unrelated to one's intelligence or their ability to succed in law school.