Hopefully cliche-free AA discussion. White comments invited.

[OptimusPrime]

One professor is far from enough of a representative sample to answer the question.  I don't see why you are hellbent on discrediting everything based on such limited evidence that supports your views.

This particular professor has tenure at Harvard. If you get tenure at Harvard, you basically already have a solid following.

[BIG H2001]

One professor is far from enough of a representative sample to answer the question.  I don't see why you are hellbent on discrediting everything based on such limited evidence that supports your views.

This particular professor has tenure at Harvard. If you get tenure at Harvard, you basically already have a solid following.

That doesn't mean that there aren't equally important people at the very same school who have the opposite view.  Finding published material on their views is going to be a bit harder.   Who is going to be more inclined to speak out?  Probably those who are unhappy with the system.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

listen, do not bother with harvard....first of all if you ask the first law professor you meet what anti-semetic means...she will tell you that it is anti-jewish or anti-hebrew and that is not correct...aye have questioned law profs. at yale...harvard...howard...n.c ....usc...rit....fordham....a nd that was my question...most of the time...they got the answer wrong..


aye bet you don't know what being anti-semetic means?


then look at the campus..and by the way...aye think that this is black type oomments.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

haram is bad, by the way....according to the quo rhan...but aye am sure you both are smart enough people to have known that.

[aram]

The evidence is that despite what the Law Prof. said the admission committees continue to use the LSAT as the MOST significant criteria, followed by GPA. To me this is more than enough evidence to back my view. There is no need to cite any articles.

No one said that the LSAT is the ideal system. It is simple the best system today. None of you gave a alternative.

[OptimusPrime]

According to Brian Leiter's law school ranking web page, this professor had 1130 citations in scholarly publications in 2002. I would think she represents more than an aberration.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

an ideal system is the lsat...it keeps idiots like those who cannot understand joyce, shakespeare, and conrad....out of the liquid stream...so don't be surprised if you are passed over...you future lawyers should understand shakespeare...

[aram]

OK keep believing. Too bad the act of you believing will do little for your chances of admittance, only your LSAT, GPA, and unfortunately race will.


Blue-warrior you made no sense in what you said. How does it relate to what my point was? Stop smoking so much.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

by the way...believe a harvard prof???  now that is funny...just because the person is at harvard or yale or usc or whatever..that is fundamentalist thinking...you are a weirdo...and...you drink too much...aye guess that is an argument you can understand.

the sense is common...you just have to do the work...and, really, stop drinking.

[BIG H2001]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=465381

This is an interesting study by an Indiana prof.  It doesn't completely support the other side, but it does try to separate reasoning speed and accuracy.  He argues that the LSAT score is predictive when law schools utilize exams that have time constraints (because the LSAT has similar time constraints).  In conditions where time constraints are not imposed (take home exams) he believes the LSAT has less preidictive validity.