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

[zpops]

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 

Actually, you do have to approach the law in this way.  The law has an underlying logical structure, and as an attny you will be arguing about whether or not your client meets the stecendet conditions to satisfy if-then clauses.  Pull up a crim law statute (the easiest kind to read) and you'll see my point.  Now, I'm not saying you literally have to write this out, but if you can't identify and evaluate the logical structure of the law, you won't be able to interpret statutes properly. . .

[dsong02]

someone should just invent a brain probe - insert into a nostril and measure intelligence. 

then we wouldnt have to test for anything...

[cvetok]

2 zpops:
My point was that as a lawyer you don't have to do it within 35 min. (except in special circumstances, but even for that you need to have some legal experience at hand). Law schools must help people to further develop their skills in reasoning, instead of expecting UG students to be perfect (since most schools expect 80% score and up) in their reasoning already.

[Meltdown]

Well, I agree that listening is important in any kind of education, in law school as wel 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 heshe 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)...

I'm sure that will serve you well in open court when arguing before a judge. Are you planning on asking the judge after the case what was really said?

I hope they don't put a listening test on the LSAT because that would just be one more thing to suck at, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so. People who listen well should tend to do better in law school and as lawyers.

I'm sorry, but I miss your reference to "prematurely" drawing conclusions about your ability to do well in law school. Are your LOR any better at indicating your law school potential than the LSAT? No, they just characterize different abilities. The point of an admissions application is that it is supposed to present a complete picture of the applicant. I agree that the LSAT is overemphasized, but that does nto mean the test itself is bad or should be disregarded.

[Meltdown]

2 zpops:
My point was that as a lawyer you don't have to do it within 35 min. (except in special circumstances, but even for that you need to have some legal experience at hand). Law schools must help people to further develop their skills in reasoning, instead of expecting UG students to be perfect (since most schools expect 80% score and up) in their reasoning already.

Right, but shouldn't the better law schools seek to start with the students with the most developed skills? They obviously don't expect you to be perfect since they spend 3 years educating you, and for the opportunity to receive that valuable training you should have to jump through some hoops. The degree would have no value if any person could get one.

[cvetok]

Meltdown, your argument -- Right, but shouldn't the better law schools seek to start with the students with the most developed skills? They obviously don't expect you to be perfect since they spend 3 years educating you, and for the opportunity to receive that valuable training you should have to jump through some hoops. The degree would have no value if any person could get one.--
actually provides more support to my own argument
Law schools certainly can and should expect their applicants to have the most developed skills..but how exactly do you measure them, and "the best developed skills" as compared to whom? LSAT mesures only logical and analythical (yes, and comprehensive too)abilities of the applicant, however, there are many other factors that play a very significant role in determining the future success of a person as a lawyer. Following your logic, people who can do well on the LSAT and are not very bad in law school Will make a good lawyer. Altough it might be necessary condition, it is, however, insufficient.

[Meltdown]

This is where we disagree. The LSAT to me seems to be a reasonable test of a certain type of ability. From your postings, I know you dispute that assertion. Thus, we seem to disagree on pretty much everything after that 

Law schools certainly can and should expect their applicants to have the most developed skills..but how exactly do you measure them,

Uh, one way is the LSAT...

and "the best developed skills" as compared to whom?

The other applicants, of course. Who else?

LSAT mesures only logical and analythical (yes, and comprehensive too)abilities of the applicant, however, there are many other factors that play a very significant role in determining the future success of a person as a lawyer.

Fortunately, it doesn't measure spelling ability. Regardless, you may note that in my postings I stated that the LSAT should be one factor in the application process. So your point here is that we agree on that?

Following your logic, people who can do well on the LSAT and are not very bad in law school Will make a good lawyer. Altough it might be necessary condition, it is, however, insufficient.

Perhaps you will make a good lawyer. You certanly did a fine job of mischaracterizing my argument. Referencing the previous point, I indicated that the LSAT was a useful tool in assessing applicants. I did not say it was the one end-all, be-all tool that proved how a student would perform. So, contrary to your statement, I did not imply it was sufficient condition.

The point is that the LSAT is a hoop you have to jump through. Is it perfect? No. does that mean it should be thrown out? No. If it did, then we'd have to get rid of the whole application process because it involves humans, who are imperfect themselves.

[notabene]

Actually this article did not have to be stolen from "4lawschool" board, was it not this poster who alerted us all where we could find the article,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php?action=profile;u=1266;sa=showPosts

[cvetok]

Fortunately, it doesn't measure spelling ability. Regardless, you may note that in my postings I stated that the LSAT should be one factor in the application process. So your point here is that we agree on that?

My spelling doesn't and won't affect my abilities not as lawyer nor as anyone else for that matter, don't worry (Especially taking to consideration that the mispelling was due to my fast typing) But oh, well..

As for your arguments, I should probably advise that you read my initial argument on this topic, otherwise you missing many key points which will allow you to construct a valid counteargument to my own. 

[Meltdown]

As for your arguments, I should probably advise that you read my initial argument on this topic, otherwise you missing many key points which will allow you to construct a valid counteargument to my own. 

Let's just agree to disagree and save everybody the time.