Affirmative Action is getting out of hand

[compact5]

If so, then why do individuals have divergent scores on different tests? Standardized tests each test a different set of skills. If people are so concerned about intelligence then take a legitimate IQ test (perhaps one given by MENSA), and I think most will find they are simply average. No need to let your ego rest on the fact that you can get an analogy question correct, or do some logic game. If you can score in the 99th percentile on a MENSA or some other legitimate IQ test, only then will I grant that that person possesses some special mental acuity.

[superiorlobe]

If so, then why do individuals have divergent scores on different tests? Standardized tests each test a different set of skills. If people are so concerned about intelligence then take a legitimate IQ test (perhaps one given by MENSA), and I think most will find they are simply average. No need to let your ego rest on the fact that you can get an analogy question correct, or do some logic game. If you can score in the 99th percentile on a MENSA or some other legitimate IQ test, only then will I grant that that person possesses some special mental acuity.

Mensa accepts the LSAT for admission to their club.

[Leviathan]

compact makes a good point that is at the heart of the affirmative action debate...namely, although today's whites may not have participated in jim crow or overt discrimination, they benefit today from the effects of that system.

[compact5]

I agree that studies have shown if you do well on the LSAT your are more likely to succeed in your first year of law school. But would expect anything else? I would hope it at least does, but I have a better solution. If people are so confident that LSAT predicts success, then people should take the LSAT blind w/o any practice. Certainly your innate intelligence would be sufficient, and you should perform adequately well. This would really separate individuals. I really find it funny how individuals, when they first take a practice LSAT and get a 144, then take a prep course and get a 168, suddenly believe they've achieved something remarkable, and are intelligent. I CHALLENGE Law Schools during the next admissions cycle to re-orient the LSAT so that it is prepartion proof, then I think people would have a change of heart.

[AMB22]

what I am saying is that law schools are finding the LSAT to be an excellent approximation of how well one can succeed in law school.   Whether you equate success in law school to intelligence is a different matter, but if someone score much higher than me on the LSAT AND does much better than me in law school I'll view them as more intelligent than me, at least in their ability to understand the law.

[superiorlobe]

I really find it funny how individuals, when they first take a practice LSAT and get a 144, then take a prep course and get a 168, suddenly believe they've achieved something remarkable, and are intelligent.

Jumping from 144 to 168 basically never happens unless you misbubbled or something.  Also, it is perfectly reasonable to familiarize yourself with the test -- it is a fairer measure if everyone is familiar with it than if some are and some aren't.

I started at 166 and hit 172 after about 5 practice tests, and I ended up scoring a 172 on the real thing. I definitely think people with scores in the 177-180 range are smarter than I am, and I have no problem with that.

[AMB22]

How would you make it preparation proof? You need standardized tests because GPA alone won't allow you to evaluate the qualifications of candidates very well. As long as tests are important in admissions there will always be the incentive to study for them and there will always be the potential for prep courses, prepbook published, etc to profit by aiding others in studying.

I agree that studies have shown if you do well on the LSAT your are more likely to succeed in your first year of law school. But would expect anything else? I would hope it at least does, but I have a better solution. If people are so confident that LSAT predicts success, then people should take the LSAT blind w/o any practice. Certainly your innate intelligence would be sufficient, and you should perform adequately well. This would really separate individuals. I really find it funny how individuals, when they first take a practice LSAT and get a 144, then take a prep course and get a 168, suddenly believe they've achieved something remarkable, and are intelligent. I CHALLENGE Law Schools during the next admissions cycle to re-orient the LSAT so that it is prepartion proof, then I think people would have a change of heart.

[compact5]

I believe the score to get in to MENSA for the LSAT is some ridiculous 163. Now, Mensa can have their policies but I just disagree. Scoring a 163 and then claiming membership to MENSA in my opinion is illegitimate. Consider the following conversation between mensa members:
1: Hey buddy, good to see your in MENSA. how did you qualify.
2: I got a 166 on my LSAT
1. Oh. I scored a legitimate 200 the MENSA IQ and have a photograhic memory
2. Well, I can do logic games and read.
1. That's nice.

 

[A_guy]

its not that hard to get into mensa.  

[compact5]

By making the LSAT preparation proof, I just mean, make the test impossible to study for. Don't release previous test administrations. Everyone just sits down at the testing site, with a pencil in hand. I think then, only will individuals really use their innate intelligence. Additionally, if the test is a valid predictor of law school success, u should still see the same people who do well on the LSAT, do well in law school. Do people not think this is fair?