U.S. News may go under

[EarlCat]

the answer as to "why no?" is that there's no reason to believe that the answer is yes.  no is the default answer.

You're not a very good advocate for your position.  Law schools, or at least the USNews editors, seem to believe the answer is yes.  Your response?

[goaliechica]

Edit:

Be able to in a grade-inflated major or in a very rigorous program?

Doesn't matter.  Admissions counselors tend to adjust based on major and university.  A 3.2 in mechanical engineering at MIT is higher than a 3.8 in business admin at Joeblow Tech.

For law school admissions?? Nuh uh. Come on. Look at LSN. It matters some, but not to the extent that a 3.2 would trump a 3.8, no matter what the respective programs.

I don't find this line of inquiry very interesting, so I'll let it be, but that part is just not true.

Relying on LSN is incredibly dubious.  Regardless, it's an unimportant discussion.  Let's assume for the sake of actually discussing the question that all UG institutions and majors are identical, and that GPAs are objective measures of performance in those programs.

That . . . makes no sense. In terms of the question presented.

[EarlCat]

law schools believe that top talent suggests high gpa/lsat or that high gpa/lsat suggests top talent?  i think it's actually the latter, which does not support your position.

I think they see it both ways, but whatevah.  That's not what this thread is about.  All I asked from you was your reason for saying "no" and all you've given me is an assertion that there's no reason to believe that the answer is yes, which has no more support than your original answer.

[EarlCat]

Let's assume for the sake of actually discussing the question that all UG institutions and majors are identical, and that GPAs are objective measures of performance in those programs.

That . . . makes no sense. In terms of the question presented.

Ugh.  Grade inflation explains why a moron's GPA might be high, but not why a genius's GPA might be low.  A boost in easy schools and unchallenging majors is unimportant if we're asking whether geniuses should be able to do well.

If it'll bed down your nitpicking, ignore GPA altogether.  Should top talent be able to have a high LSAT?

[EarlCat]

you can think whatever you want.  that doesn't mean it's supported.

Back at ya.

in the absence of evidence to indicate that a particular group of people is able to do something, the default assumption should be that they are not necessarily able to do that thing.

agree or disagree?

I have no evidence the world can exist without God.
I have no evidence that God could exist.

The absence of evidence isn't terribly probative either way.  This is why I'm asking you (yet again) to support your side.

[EarlCat]

Should top talent be able to have a high LSAT?

would it be fair to rephrase this question as:

"are all top lawyers capable of getting a good LSAT score?"

No.  "All" makes it too easy because 1 exception kills it.  I'm talking broadly--general assumptions we might use to discuss the merits of lawschool admissions.  "Lawyers" makes it too restrictive.  I already defined "talent" above, and I think the definition is appropriately broad.  

Should top talent generally be capable of getting a good LSAT score?

[EarlCat]

so you disagree with my default assumption against ability?

I'm not commenting on your default assumption.

the evidence that i would try to find, if i were so inclined, would be successful attorneys who did not attend brand name law schools, with the assumption that those who did not attend brand name law schools did not have great gpa/lsat combinations.

I wasn't asking you for evidence.  Just rationale.  You don't need to prove it.  Just show you didn't flip a coin. 

Anyway, your evidence wouldn't help much because it's anecdotal and it relies on the assumption those who did not have great GPA/LSAT combinations were not able to have them.

[EarlCat]

Should top talent generally be capable of getting a good LSAT score?

this is a different question from:

While high LSAT/GPA doesn't necessarily mean top talent, shouldn't the top talent be able to have a high LSAT/GPA?

or

I asked whether they should be able to have a high LSAT/GPA.

or

Should top talent be able to have a high LSAT?

Nothing gets past you, does it.

[EarlCat]

flipping a coin is exactly what an assumption is.  i don't understand the idea of assuming that a particular group of people have a particular ability absent evidence.  i would feel comfortable assuming that this is not the case.

That's fine, and I'm not even saying you're wrong, but I don't think you're going to convince anyone on the other side of the argument to switch sides.

[Julie Fern]

we taking sides?