Hopefully cliche-free AA discussion. White comments invited.

[aram]

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...

You should write in that case. You chose the wrong profession buddy. Besides, one should also read and understand Plato, Socrates, Popper, Wittgenstein, Kant, etc, etc, etc.

Ideal system doesn't exist. If you read some of those writers you have mentioned, you should have gotten at least that out of it. By the way what exactly is your position on the issue? You seem to be extremely high at the moment. I hope you disclosed your condition to the admissions committee. It would be immoral if you didn't.
 

[aram]

Thank you for being diligent enough to look something up.  Aram, if you want tips on how to argue better, Big H just showed you how.

However, (and I only read the abstract so far), this study shows that UGPA is a better predictor of success in law school than the LSAT.  Also, it was comparing three types of testing with each other, and not surprisingly, the strongest correlation to success on the LSAT was success on timed tests.  Keep in mind that since the Harvard professor's study did not create these three groups, the number they came up with (9% if I remember correctly) represents the whole student body.  So the Indiana guy is saying that the LSAT is more likely to predict success for students who take timed law tests than it will for students who must write papers or complete a take home test.  Furthermore, the Indiana prof says right in the abstract that these timed tests, including the LSAT, have nothing to do with lawyering.

It's after 2:00 my time, I'm going to bed.  I'll keep up on the thread, especially any links to academic work.  I'm interested in learning more about this topic and I appreciate learning from other applicants who can point me to some meaningful sources.  But for those that can't reason their way out of a paper bag, good luck in law school.  For your 171 sake, I hope the LSAT is a better predictor than two (count 'em, two now) law professors think.  Now if we could just find someone willing to say that scoring a 171 will make you a success in life....

Just look at the index formula for admission to any Univ. The LSAT is given preference in all of them. Please explain that. Give me your opinion please. Do you think the GPA from a community college can be compared to that from Harvard? The LLSAT taken in the community college can be compared to the one taken at Harvard for sure (its the same exam). 

[aram]

Any statistical study can be forced to support one view or the other. It is actually called "beating" the data, when one takes data and makes it fit a model that person has guessed. I know what I am talking about since I am an Applied Math and Stat. major. Keep believing what you want. The problem is, like I said beofore, that every person is egocentric. So are you jbm4. I would no expect you to say that the LSAT is a good predictor because you are probably not happy with your LSAT score but think the world of yourself. This is perfectly fine, it's human nature. Unfortunetly, in society, people are rated according to what others think of them not what they think of themselves. So good luck to you. I hope one day you will succedd in changing the system to your liking.

[aram]

You see, your assertion may be dead on, but unless you provide some sort of evidence it's you're word against (not TTTChick's or mine) a Harvard law professor's

One more time,

My evidence is that all admission committees and all admission indices favor the LSAT over anything else in the admission process. How many times I have to say the same thing.  What evidence you want me to give for that, the list of index equations? It's on the LSAC website go look.