Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: LSAC, LSAT, & LSAT Prep Industry Analysis  (Read 7220 times)

maxambit

  • Guest
LSAC, LSAT, & LSAT Prep Industry Analysis
« on: December 04, 2005, 07:58:01 PM »
This post is a lengthy 5 to 10-minute read. (about 1700 words)

PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THIS ENTIRE POST IN YOUR REPLIES.

I scored 153 on my first practice LSAT. I had not seen an LSAT before. I read the questions carefully and contemplatively before I answered them. Of the questions I had the time to look at, I missed few. I was later told that I had “over thought” those questions.

The practice test was part of an LSAT prep course I purchased because I had wanted to go to a great law school. And, I thought grabbing a super LSAT score would help me to set myself apart from others intellectually—show everyone “who's bad,” so to speak, like Michael Jackson used to say. I wanted to gain an edge (fair or unfair, rational or irrational) on the competition. And, the prep course for which I paid was not inexpensive. I chose to pass on the private tutoring available for a lofty (considering the modest qualifications of the instructor) hourly rate.

The instructor started with rudimentary lessons about logic and critical reasoning. While sitting in the classes, I thought to myself that I could have taught these concepts far better. Yet, teaching students to become better philosophical thinkers was not the focus of the course. The focus was cultivating admittedly useful yet very specific skills using tricks, shortcuts, and habituation that would enable someone to take a test, made up of predictable questions that abide predictable patterns, more effectively. Unsurprisingly, my score on the next practice exam went up quite a bit. It soon became clear that my score could be based, in large part, on the amount time and money devoted to prepping for the exam.

I began to wonder, how much of the average 99th percentile LSAT score is based on innate intelligence and how much is based on prep. This ambiguity, in my opinion, makes the LSAT an even more vulgar tool for measuring intellectual aptitude than IQ tests. The LSAT does measure how well a student can take an LSAT and perform a set of intellectual tasks quickly, right now. Law schools and authors about 1L years have informed us that these tasks are the types of tasks law students need to be able to do very efficiently to succeed at law schools.

A 176 LSAT scorer is better than a 156 LSAT scorer. Why is he or she better? Perhaps a 176 scorer can handle more academic work in the same amount of time than a 156 scorer. Perhaps a 176 scorer is markedly more intelligent than a 156 scorer. Perhaps some law schools believe their curriculum to be so rigorous that only a 176 scorer has a good chance to excel, and that a 156 scorer would simply not be able to keep his or her head above water. Perhaps a 156 scorer is intellectually unfit for the dialectics that I observed professors at six of the best law schools lead using a pseudo-Socratic method. There exists evidence that LSAT scores correlate positively with law school grades. Sure, some people would be quick to point out exceptions to this LSAT folk wisdom. Those people, however, might be people who had received low LSAT scores; they might be biased LSAT crybabies. Perhaps I'm an LSAT crybaby.

Yet, I do wonder how many second semester or third quarter 1L law students could take the LSAT, right now, without prepping, and match or surpass their pre-law school scores. I wonder how many lawyers, who are graduates from T14 schools, could take the test right now, without prepping, and match or surpass their pre-law school scores. I’m hopeful that most of them, at least those who didn’t get perfect scores, would be able to surpass their scores.

What might we learn about how much prep courses make law students or lawyers better if were to give surprise LSAT exams to 1Ls or lawyers?

Would we learn than LSAT prep courses should be considered part of a pre-1L curriculum?

And, what would we learn about the qualities of law school educations through which students are assumed to frequently use and strengthen the skills that made them LSAT aces?

I’m very curious about how much being able to afford the finest LSAT prep boosts an applicant's chances of getting into and performing well at law schools. I wish I could get my hands on some accurate data, such as the racial or socioeconomic demographics of prep course students, how much money and time is devoted to LSAT prep by race or socioeconomic station, and how the amount of money and time devoted to LSAT prep correlates with test scores. I wonder what my analysis of these data would lead me to infer?

I hypothesize the data would indicate that while there truly are incredibly bright students out there who ace the LSAT with very little or no prep, there are more who ace the LSAT thanks to very expensive prep programs. Of course, there would be some whose scores would not increase much despite investing thousands of dollars or hundreds of hours.

I predict the data would show us that many who had aced the LSAT after prep courses, had cold scores (that’s scores not sores) on their first practice exams that would've made them far less competitive for invitations from schools to which they applied. I think the data would show us there is less of a disparity between the cold practice scores of URMs and non-URMs than there is between the actual scores of URMs and non-URMs.

I also think it would show us that non-URMs are hit hard by prep course-based LSAT inflation. Many of them have to come up with big bucks for prep courses or block off hundreds of hours of their young lives in order to score high enough to compete with other non-URMs with means. And, I think it would tell us that people without means either have to be far more intelligent than their competitors or devote many more hours to self-study in order to score as well as wealthier competitors who receive the score-boosts via expensive LSAT test prep courses or private tutoring.

After a few classes, I began to feel disappointed in myself for taking the prep course. I felt like I was cheating. So, I stopped attending the prep course for which I had paid. And, even though I had wanted a prize that so many others also sought, I thought I should submit an LSAT score that would reflect what I could do on a somewhat level playing field with the many applicants who couldn’t afford to devote hundreds of hours to self-study or couldn’t afford LSAT prep courses and many hours of private tutoring.

However, I had already tipped the scales in my favor more than I probably should have. I had been a member of, albeit briefly, the ranks of people of means doing everything they could to get a higher score because they were very worried that someone would take the spot they and their (or their parents’) hard-earned money—not necessarily their knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, or character—deserved. And, I stopped worrying that someone would take my spot—I don’t own any spots. While I didn’t quite take the LSAT cold (I studied about 70-80 hours for it), I also didn’t take full advantage of the prep course I purchased or spend hundreds of hours of my time (my hours seem far more valuable to me now than they were when I was 22) to boost my score into the upper-echelons of the LSAT elite either.

I took the test for the record December 3, 2005. I ran into a few unforeseen problems unrelated to the difficulty level of the test that caused me to score a little below the average score I had achieved on self-administered and timed practice exams. Nonetheless, I probably landed somewhere between 161-166. And, I probably deserve the score I’ll get.

Every school to which I applied is a T14 school. I’m NOT implicitly soliciting feedback about my chances of getting in to these schools; I know what my chances are. I'll be invited to more than one and go to one of the schools to which I've applied. I won’t receive invitations because I’m a URM who couldn’t get a higher LSAT score and who needed a “handout.” Some, even those who had paid many thousands for prep courses and private tutors to get their high LSAT scores, will be tempted to make that claim.

I would like to read about your well reasoned conclusions concerning whether equal access to quality LSAT prep training or tutoring is worth thinking about and whether or how much LSAT prep helps to make law students smarter or better than they would be without it.

coselmed

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Prep Courses: Do They Make Applicants Smarter or Better?
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2005, 10:29:15 PM »
I'm new to this board (just discovered it today), but hope my neophyte status won't invalidate my opinion! :)

A little bit about me: I'm African American and both of my parents are working class (neither attended college). I attended a high school in coastal Georgia where more than 70% of the student body received free lunch. The academic experience was not particularly rigorous and the average SAT score was in the 800s (less than 50% of the senior class attended college). I have never had stellar performances on standardized tests, but scored slightly above the 25th percentile for the college I attended (a top 10 university). Despite being admitted with a "low" SAT score, I was one of two African American students who graduated magna cum laude in my class. I consider myself a prime example of why affirmative action policies are necessary (ie, I was a "borderline" candidate and probably would not have been admitted in the general applicant pool if I wasn't an URM) and good.

My personal experience with Kaplan and the PowerScore Weekend Course validates your hypothesis; namely, if I didn't have the financial resources to enroll in the courses, I don't think I would have been able to intuit the strategies that I learned and applied to increase my score (+10-13 point improvements from baseline). In retrospect, I wish my parents had the financial resources for me to have taken a prep course when I was applying to college; a higher score probably would have made me eligible for additional scholarship opportunities and less undergraduate debt! ;)

I'm five years removed from college and currently work full-time. My industry is very fast-paced and requires long hours and frequent travel. I attribute the improvements in my LSAT score to the fact that I was introduced to the principles of the exam in a classroom setting (I have an equally audio/visual learning style, so am able to retain information better if it's reinforced to me by another person rather than reading it alone) and, more importantly, the timed practice tests that simulate the actual test-taking environment in a way I cannot recreate at home. I attended several sessions with other classes solely to take additional practice tests, and it wasn't until the sixth or seventh test that I started seeing incremental improvements in my score.

I think any reasonably intelligent person, given enough time, could perform well on the LSAT. Unfortunately, the test is not designed to measure basic intelligence and unless/until admissions criteria are altered dramatically, we are all required to fulfill this requirement for admission. Although my LSAT score is unlikely to be in the median for the schools I'm applying to, I nonetheless feel confident that I will score well enough to be admitted to some very competitive programs (what you guys call T14 schools?). I regret that the cost of commericial prep courses may be prohibitive to financially disadvantaged students (minority or otherwise), and that the financial aid that is available is extremely restrictive and limited. It's something that we as future African American lawyers who have benefited from these courses should remember and, if we have the means, subsidize in the future.

maxambit

  • Guest
Re: LSAT Prep Courses: Do They Make Applicants Smarter or Better?
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2005, 10:42:30 AM »
coselmed:

Thanks for that great reply.

I read several law school boards for several months before I decided to interact with the people who post to them. I familiarized myself with the ideas expressed by and habits of the most frequent posters. I judged this Board to be the best for interacting with a wide variety of Black applicants and Black law students. I think you picked a good board.

You wrote about future Black lawyers doing something to make the playing field more level for the Black applicants that will come behind us. I think this is a very important idea. I’ve thought of several ways the field could be made more level for Black law school applicants. Indeed, I’d like the law school admissions process to change in such a way that would help law schools to put more focus on an applicant's character; however, a good tool for ranking character would certainly be cruder than the LSAT is for ranking a law student’s aptitude for having an exemplary 1L.

Something terrible happens to many Black law students when they apply to top law schools and seek advice on one of several popular boards. There are non-Blacks (many of whom probably scored very well on LSATs thanks to prep courses) on this Board and others who look for opportunities to argue Blacks who get into top law schools with LSAT scores near or below the 25% percentile cut for the school receive unfair handouts. Yet, I've read no decent exchanges between non-Blacks and Blacks about the impact of LSAT prep disparities between the groups. The snappish rants and irrational verbal jostling (I won’t call them debates) between these groups made me question just how much character or intelligence some of our top law school applicants have. And, these pitiful exchanges take place every year.

There was one exchange on another popular board last year that addressed whether one of the most popular posters to this Board (now a student at YLS) got in because he was Black. This student is a strong thinker (based on what I’ve observed) and scored at the low end of the YLS 25%-75% LSAT range. This student went to a great UG institution and had a very high GPA. A non-Black attacked him after he had happily announced YLS sent him an invite. They went back and forth for a few posts, yet said nothing to one another that demonstrated a deep understanding of the weaknesses of the non-Black’s argument. Then, another poster came to the rescue, so to speak, with some solid evidence that showed conclusively that the premises used by the non-Black were not sound, and, therefore, that the non-Black's argument was not sound. This poster analyzed Yale Law School’s admissions data and demonstrated that the Black applicant (now at YLS) was actually one of the best students who had been admitted to YLS in recent years based on numbers alone.

Many non-Blacks are convinced that less-deserving Blacks take their spots. While there are so many strong philosophical counterarguments that could be used by Black applicants and law students to crush most of the poorly formed arguments submitted by non-Blacks, I rarely read a well-written version of any of them. Most Blacks fall into the trap of matching irrational and fallacious jabs with non-Blacks. All get to hide behind their aliases.

I'm no fan of handouts, but I'm a big fan of fair fights. I would prefer to pay to help a competitor get the same preparation and tools I would receive prior to a contest just to be able to know the winner deserved the prize.

I do wonder if fair and level access to LSAT prep would significantly alter the number of high LSAT achievers or push the 99th percentile cutoff even higher. It seems as though it would be in the best interest of the legal community to make these fights fairer. Surely the numbers of and diversity of highly qualified applicants, based on stratospheric LSAT scores, would go up and more focus could be placed to differentiating applicants on the quality of their “soft factors.” And, it is to the soft factors that I'd want to look first in order to make intuitive judgments about an applicant's character—something I'd consider no less important to my profession than his or her intelligence.

Many, perhaps most, of those who compete against the average above average thinkers without means are less interested in fair fights than they are in winning the prize (a higher LSAT score) by any means necessary. The LSAT prep course industry helps to encourage our future champions of justice to start their careers fighting their first battle a bit ignobly in my opinion. I fell into the trap too. I allowed my lust for a seat with a great law school to override my ethical intuitions (intuitions I realize many don't share with me) for a few weeks.

shaz

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
  • University of Toledo Class of 2009
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Prep Courses: Do They Make Applicants Smarter or Better?
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2005, 01:22:01 PM »
a caveat. my first cold lsat was a 153. with some self study and about 20 tests i was up to low 160s consistentlyt, with a high of 165. feeling like i was almost 'there', i maxed out my cc and signed up for testmasters. my diagnostic was a 154! i was stumped as to why this happened. was it the room? was it the time? maybe nerves.

over the next month my scores climbed up to my pre-class level. with only 3 weeks to go, i looked over my tests and determined that my rc was holding back from that 'promised land'. so for much of the remaining weeks i concentrated on rc. on test day i performed very well on rc, missing only 5. (i contribute this to getting bogged down in the second passage.)

i always figured that my score was going to be determined by my rc, because that was my weakest area. apparently, i was mistaken. my weakest area was my emotions. i had a bout of test anxiety. i didn't even know what that was at the time. it caused me to work too cautiously which hurt me on time. i usually finish games with about a minute to spare. at the five minute mark, i was still on game three. i also did not finish either lr section.

i scored a 153.  :'( 
losin' sleep, gainin' knowledge.

Hybrid Vigor

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1930
  • prestigious
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Prep Courses: Do They Make Applicants Smarter or Better?
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2005, 04:09:41 PM »
I really don't understand what this post is about. Don't we all know that wealthy applicants have an advantage? Of course everyone should take a prep class. I really don't think money should be that much of a concern. And this is coming from someone who is as broke as they come and did not grow up in anything approaching wealth. But we have to make sacrifices today for our future. Period. $1200 is not a lot to spend to raise your score. If you think that's too much money, what are you gonna do about the money you need for LS? Put the class on a credit card. I had to. Make some sacrifices. The End.
Die Luft der Freiheit weht

maxambit

  • Guest
Re: LSAT Prep Courses: Do They Make Applicants Smarter or Better?
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2005, 05:28:39 PM »
I really don't understand what this post is about. Don't we all know that wealthy applicants have an advantage? Of course everyone should take a prep class. I really don't think money should be that much of a concern. And this is coming from someone who is as broke as they come and did not grow up in anything approaching wealth. But we have to make sacrifices today for our future. Period. $1200 is not a lot to spend to raise your score. If you think that's too much money, what are you gonna do about the money you need for LS? Put the class on a credit card. I had to. Make some sacrifices. The End.

Yes, I anticipated someone would post a reply like yours. However, I did not anticipate that anyone would put the argument as loosely as you did and, then, confirm so absolutely there is no need to discuss this further. Maybe you did tell us everything we need to know and it's time to shut this thread down. Maybe you didn't.

I take it your main point is everyone should find the money to take a prep course if his or her raw score does not hit the mark for his or her desired schools. Perhaps the argument supporting your imperative was well reasoned as I had requested. And, I'm sure that you realize that telling someone he or she should do something indicates that you presume he or she can do something.

Perhaps, if the student is unable to buy the course or private tutoring or find it as affordable as those who do buy the course or private tutoring, then that informs the legal community of everything they need to know about him or her. He or she lacks the resourcefulness or resources to buy an LSAT prep course or private tutoring in order to help him or her to compete well for a seat with a top law school; lacking such resourcefulness or resources indicates he or she is probably not talented enough to be awarded a seat at a top law school; only the most talented should get those seats; therefore he or she should not become a top law school student. That argument, with or without the third premise, is certainly valid. Some might question whether your premises are sound.

Perhaps you are arguing from the premise that no one could possibly be incapable of obtaining the resources required to purchase at least an LSAT prep course. You, of course, wrote with authority by informing us that you were or are as "broke as they come." If you wrote that to be taken literally by your readers and we were to believe you, then we would have to admit that everyone could afford a $1200 LSAT prep course. That doesn't address the private tutoring part of my inquiry. And, I would advise you not to make your argument that way because it could be defeated quite easily with a reductio ad adsurdum (reduction to the absurd) counterargument.

“Don't we all know that wealthy applicants have an advantage?”
 
I’m not clear on how you are using ‘advantage’ here. I don’t agree that wealthy applicants have an advantage regarding innate intelligence or ability to become exemplary 1Ls. They may, however, be able to gain an advantage in their numbers for law school applications as a result of their wealth. And, therein lies the reasons for this thread.

1) I want to hear from others whether they think an LSAT prep course or private tutor makes applicants better or smarter or just appear better or smarter to people who use the LSAT to measure things it, perhaps, doesn't measure well.

2) I also want to hear from others whether they think people who lack the resources (not the resourcefulness, lack of resourcefulness is a negative) to obtain the LSAT prep course or to devote hundreds of hours to LSAT prep should be helped to obtain those resources so law schools can get the best possible scores from all applicants and, then, compare all applicants in a near ceteris paribus (other things being equal) environment.

I know a little about the history of the LSAT—when and why it was introduced, etc.—and trends since law schools began to use it. It is not a necessary tool. And, I'm not the only person who has inquired about its impact on our legal community. I’ll incorporate what I've learned of this history into this thread as the discussion moves forward. I may, of course, not get the opportunity, if others agree that you really did make the only valuable point that needs to be made.

Hybrid Vigor

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1930
  • prestigious
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Prep Courses: Do They Make Applicants Smarter or Better?
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2005, 05:51:00 PM »

“Don't we all know that wealthy applicants have an advantage?”
 
I’m not clear on how you are using ‘advantage’ here. I don’t agree that wealthy applicants have an advantage regarding innate intelligence or ability to become exemplary 1Ls. They may, however, be able to gain an advantage in their numbers for law school applications as a result of their wealth. And, therein lies the reasons for this thread.

1) I want to hear from others whether they think an LSAT prep course or private tutor makes applicants better or smarter or just appear better or smarter to people who use the LSAT to measure things it, perhaps, doesn't measure well.

2) I also want to hear from others whether they think people who lack the resources (not the resourcefulness, lack of resourcefulness is a negative) to obtain the LSAT prep course or to devote hundreds of hours to LSAT prep should be helped to obtain those resources so law schools can get the best possible scores from all applicants and, then, compare all applicants in a near ceteris paribus (other things being equal) environment.

I know a little about the history of the LSAT—when and why it was introduced, etc.—and trends since law schools began to use it. It is not a necessary tool. And, I'm not the only person who has inquired about its impact on our legal community. I’ll incorporate what I've learned of this history into this thread as the discussion moves forward. I may, of course, not get the opportunity, if others agree that you really did make the only valuable point that needs to be made.

I don't mean to be flippant, but it seems simple enough to me. I think we can all agree (on this board at least) that the LSAT is not an objective measure of one's ability to do well as a law school student or lawyer. However, given its importance in the admissions process, you're a damn fool not to do everything in your power to do well on it. I think we need to stop whining about how the LSAT is so friggin unfair and concentrate on DOING BETTER ON IT - because it (and every other standardized test) is not going anywhere. We can't beat the system by being victims of the system. There's no reason why we shouldn't be doing better. We all know it's a learnable test and not a measure of intelligence, and even if it were, we are not less intelligent than any other group of people. In my personal experience, alot of Black applicants are NOT fully utilitizing resources to max their score. You don't have to take the $1200 prep class or get private tutoring - you can go to Amazon.com and get some books and sit your behind down and study. So many of us take the test cold or with minimal prep - and I think if you look around LSD outside of BLSD you will see that "they" don't do that. So maybe you have a point re: "cold" scores versus prepped scores. I'd personally like to see a group that will give scholarships to for prep classes - I know some exist for minority students and the GMAT.
Die Luft der Freiheit weht

maxambit

  • Guest
Re: LSAT Prep Courses: Do They Make Applicants Smarter or Better?
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2005, 06:47:53 PM »
koreanblaq:

There are several very strong counterarguments I could submit to debunk some of points you asserted in your most recent reply. However, I’ll focus more on our agreements in this reply. I think the dialogue will move forward if I take this approach.

Scholarships for prep classes was one of the possible solutions I had considered. I think scholarships could help.

More mentorship-based programs that would encourage Black undergrads to begin to prep for the LSAT well in advance, make them aware of the resources at their disposal, promote study groups, or possibly provide hand-me-down test prep resources could also help. Student organizations, maybe BLSAs, could do stuff like this.

Developing a non-profit organization that would provide the highest quality LSAT prep to any student based on his or her FAFSA criteria (some would get the course for free, others would have to pay full price) might work well also.

A non-profit company could also put digital versions of self-study guides online and put videos of LSAT instructors teaching and reviewing test-taking tips that could be watched online. These would have to be developed, of course, as I doubt any of the prep course companies would allow us to distribute their intellectual property over the internet for free. If we could get these materials published and uploaded, then students would only be forced to pay for published LSAT exams. A fellow entrepreneur and I have been discussing the potential benefits of bringing together philanthropists and social entrepreneurs to raise several millions in order to develop these products and put them on the net. Such a move could be a great equalizer for our society and everyone would benefit from it. This move would also decrease test prep company revenues, decrease jobs in the test prep industry, and possibly bump average test scores up even higher.

I would like participate in efforts to help Black undergraduates compete more effectively for some of our countries most precious economic resources (educations at premiere law schools) by removing as many of the economic barriers to them being able to do so as possible. The Black Community would benefit, and our nation would benefit, because more of our best and brightest would get what they deserve. Fewer would get shut out for ignoble reasons.

Many are concerned that the LSAT (as well as some other standardized tests) gives some groups a significant unfair advantage. The consequences of such advantages could be very widespread and damaging. While we all probably agree that the LSAT probably does not do a good job at measuring intelligence, I hope we would also all agree that we want the best and brightest to get first dibs on our countries most coveted and limited educational resources. If the LSAT gives some groups significant unfair advantages over other groups, for reasons other than character or intelligence, then this should alarm us all. The LSAT is the first rite of passage for law school. Law school is, for so many, the first rite of passage for wielding various forms of power in our nation.

Yes, the LSAT is a big deal and promoting equal access to quality prep for the LSAT could help to make our nation’s power battlefields a little nobler.

Additionally, if those of us who are concerned about the ignoble impacts of the LSAT were to fund more extensive research on these impacts, then we might be able to use its results to encourage important reforms.

I’m optimistic that several things could be done to make the LSAT game fairer.

Hybrid Vigor

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1930
  • prestigious
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Prep Courses: Do They Make Applicants Smarter or Better?
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2005, 07:00:46 PM »
koreanblaq:

There are several very strong counterarguments I could submit to debunk some of points you asserted in your most recent reply. However, I’ll focus more on our agreements in this reply. I think the dialogue will move forward if I take this approach.

Scholarships for prep classes was one of the possible solutions I had considered. I think scholarships could help.

More mentorship-based programs that would encourage Black undergrads to begin to prep for the LSAT well in advance, make them aware of the resources at their disposal, promote study groups, or possibly provide hand-me-down test prep resources could also help. Student organizations, maybe BLSAs, could do stuff like this.

Developing a non-profit organization that would provide the highest quality LSAT prep to any student based on his or her FAFSA criteria (some would get the course for free, others would have to pay full price) might work well also.

A non-profit company could also put digital versions of self-study guides online and put videos of LSAT instructors teaching and reviewing test-taking tips that could be watched online. These would have to be developed, of course, as I doubt any of the prep course companies would allow us to distribute their intellectual property over the internet for free. If we could get these materials published and uploaded, then students would only be forced to pay for published LSAT exams. A fellow entrepreneur and I have been discussing the potential benefits of bringing together philanthropists and social entrepreneurs to raise several millions in order to develop these products and put them on the net. Such a move could be a great equalizer for our society and everyone would benefit from it. This move would also decrease test prep company revenues, decrease jobs in the test prep industry, and possibly bump average test scores up even higher.

I would like participate in efforts to help Black undergraduates compete more effectively for some of our countries most precious economic resources (educations at premiere law schools) by removing as many of the economic barriers to them being able to do so as possible. The Black Community would benefit, and our nation would benefit, because more of our best and brightest would get what they deserve. Fewer would get shut out for ignoble reasons.

Many are concerned that the LSAT (as well as some other standardized tests) gives some groups a significant unfair advantage. The consequences of such advantages could be very widespread and damaging. While we all probably agree that the LSAT probably does not do a good job at measuring intelligence, I hope we would also all agree that we want to best and brightest to get first dibs on our countries most coveted and limited educational resources. If the LSAT gives some groups significant unfair advantages over other groups, for reasons other than character or intelligence, then this should alarm us all. The LSAT is the first rite of passage for law school. Law school is, for so many, the first rite of passage for wielding various forms of power in our nation.

Yes, the LSAT is a big deal and promoting equal access to quality prep for the LSAT could help to make our nation’s power battlefields a little nobler.

Additionally, if those of us who are concerned about the ignoble impacts of the LSAT were to fund more extensive research on these impacts, then we might be able to use its results to encourage important reforms.

I’m optimistic that several things could be done to make the LSAT game fairer.

I mean ... I just feel like all this dialogue is on some Jesse Jackson isht. I hope you spent at least this much time prepping for the test.
Die Luft der Freiheit weht

maxambit

  • Guest
Re: LSAT Prep Courses: Do They Make Applicants Smarter or Better?
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2005, 07:20:00 PM »
I mean ... I just feel like all this dialogue is on some Jesse Jackson isht. I hope you spent at least this much time prepping for the test.

Ah yes, an ad hominem attack. I must admit I was a little disappointed when I read it.

I spent approximately 70-80 hours prepping for the test as I stated in my first post for this thread.

Your "just deal with the current system" philosophy has been made clear. I know a few others who share it. However, I've met only one person who could defend the position well based on sound premises regarding social phenomena (their history and their root causes) and logical argumentation.

I (and I'm sure other readers as well) would like to hear from others who might not share the "just deal with the current system" philosophy. Any other views or ideas out there?