Interesting and Informative LSAT article (stolen from 4lawschool board)

[ruskiegirl]

http://www.saltlaw.org/StatementLSATBrochure.pdf

[Meltdown]

Great article, but I fear they won't abandon the LSAT by June 14th! Too bad for me.

[nathanielmark]

Just be thankful they havent started scoring the written section or added on a listening section.  if you read up on PowerScore these are a couple of things they are considering adding to the test.

[cvetok]

Wow... I actually really liked the article. Thanks for posting it! I totally agree with the author of this article, and many people are debating the abiltiy of the LSAT to measure the applicant's future success in law school.
If you know, in the past, IQ test in the U.S. has been administered in the same fashion as the LSAT now. Children in the schools were given IQ tests (where the questions were mostly concentrated around the U.S history) to measure their academic abilities and overall development. Interestingly enough, the fact that 75% of those children had completely different backgrounds was grossly ignored!
All tests were administered in English. After some experiments, the researchers discovered one interesting fact. When a child was given IQ test in his\her native language, and contained a variety of questions about world events as opposed to U.S., those children who were failing the U.S test actually showed a drastic difference in their performance on the new test.
I understand problems associated with a heavy reliance on the LSAT scores because, having a different background myself, I feel that the LSAt cannot adequately measure my future abilities as lawyer. And I do agree that if the scores were reported as Average- Below Average- Above average, it will make a slight improvement. There is no real need to score exactly 80% and higher on the LSAt to prove that you can be a good lawyer in the future.
In addition, law schools are supposed to teach people how to succeed as a lawyer, and not measure people's abilities to think like a lawyer before a person has even started to study in their school.
I have so many arguments to support my opinion..don't even get me started  

[jgruber]

I'm as skeptical of tests as the next person, but that article seemed to be short on solid suggestions for change.

[cvetok]

What this article suggests is that law schools should be taking into consideration a variety of factors about the applicant's experiences, background and so on. Not at all I am trying to say that law schools should accept people only because they are from different background or are underrepresented minorities..The applicant must still show some proof that she\he makes a good candidate to be accepted. In my case, I have been speaking English only for 3 years, and I am currently in my 3rd year of UG, my GPA is fluctating between 3.4 up to 4 in different semesters, with the overall GPA being 3.5.  I also have a HUGE desire, and I believe a natural predisposition too (maybe it sounds funny, but I really believe so), to become a lawyer. So, I believe it is extremely unfair if I won't be able to pursue a career which I have a passion for, only because I will get less than 161-.. on the LSAT. Honestly, to get even 154 on the LSAt is in itself a good achievement. So, my argument is that the LSAt need not be necessarily abandoned, but, instead, the scores should be interpreted differently, as well as current time limits should be reduced. Why do you have to do the section exactly in 35 min.? not 45? how does it relate to a lawyer's future performance? We are not talking about the difference between 35min. and 2 hours..

[jgruber]

I agree for the most part with the article and its arguments, and your points, too.

Where I find the article lacking is in solid reform suggestions.  It is rather vague.  Frankly, I think an objective measure of ability is desirable.  If we feel the LSAT is inadequate, let's develop some other. 

That said, I don't think the 'objective measure' should be the only factor considered.  Many things should be considered as you've suggested.

But no matter what happens, I should be allowed to go to whatever law school I want.

What this article suggests is that law schools should be taking into consideration a variety of factors about the applicant's experiences, background and so on. Not at all I am trying to say that law schools should accept people only because they are from different background or are underrepresented minorities..The applicant must still show some proof that she\he makes a good candidate to be accepted. In my case, I have been speaking English only for 3 years, and I am currently in my 3rd year of UG, my GPA is fluctating between 3.4 up to 4 in different semesters, with the overall GPA being 3.5.  I also have a HUGE desire, and I believe a natural predisposition too (maybe it sounds funny, but I really believe so), to become a lawyer. So, I believe it is extremely unfair if I won't be able to pursue a career which I have a passion for, only because I will get less than 161-.. on the LSAT. Honestly, to get even 154 on the LSAt is in itself a good achievement. So, my argument is that the LSAt need not be neccessarily abandoned, but instead the scores should be interpreted differently, as well as time limits should be reduced. Why do you have to do the section exactly in 35 min.? not 45? how does it relate to a lawyer's future performance? We not talking about the difference between 35min. or 2 hours..

[cvetok]

Some people have suggested that the LSAT should add a listening section to the test.. That's just proves my point... that some people totally miss the point why the LSAt was created in the first place. It was not to measure your abilities as a lawyer, you are not one yet! Law schools must teach people, and not be examining them right from the start. I can only imagine a degree of drop offs in the LSAT scores if a listening section wil be added... Would it mean that if someone didn't properly hear or understood the question from the listening section, then she\he will make a bad lawyer? Come on, in real life people ask each other to repeat their question all the time..so what? And as for the AR section (games), I think that it doesn't measure one's analythical abilities at all, because people employ analythical reasoning all the time in their lives, and there is no need to draw a diagram to put your thoughts together and come up with a conclusion. I am sure that no lawyer ever uses that system, can you imagine? ...ok, let's see my client violated the rule A, which never goes with the rule CDEF.. If A then B, then he also must violated rule C, but if no C then no A. Let's quickly draw a diagram.. 

[Longhaul]

Some people have suggested that the LSAT should add a listening section to the test.. That's just proves my point... that some people totally miss the point why the LSAt was created in the first place. It was not to measure your abilities as a lawyer, you are not one yet!

I disagree. Law school is there to make you a lawyer. The LSAT is to see if you can be good in law school. Even if you separate the ability to do well in law school from the ability to be a good lawyer, a Listening section would not be inappropriate because your ability to listen to lectures in law school is a big part of the experience.

I wish I had time to debate this more forcefully, but alas, work calls.

[cvetok]

a Listening section would not be inappropriate because your ability to listen to lectures in law school is a big part of the experience.

Well, I agree that listening is important in any kind of education, in law school as well as in UG. But, it is very different when one has to listen carefully under the pressure of time and anxiety, and in the circumstances of a lecture environment.Lectures are usually intercative, and if one doesn't get something he\she can approach the prof. after the class,or do some extra readings. Also, there is no need to make  premature conclusions regarding person's abilities to perform well in school based on the scores on the test exclusively (and especially on the listening section)...