is the lsat a load of crap or what?

[rpplvc13]

My thinking is that law schools would consider a person's gpa a more accurate indicator of a person's chances for success in law school than the lsat.  The GPA is a reflection of four (or more) years of hard work; the lsat score is a reflection of one four-hour test.  Many posters on this site claim that they have lsat scores in the 160s with a gpa of 3.1 or so.  The type of natural intellect required to score in the 160s on the lsat should allow a student to easily manage a gpa of 3.5 or higher.  This tells me that many people with a high lsat were NOT consistently hard workers in college; how can law schools overlook this when deciding who gets in and who doesn't??  Anybody else have an opinion on this?

[ruskiegirl]

While I agree with you that the LSAT may not, in all cases, be an adequate predictor of one's ability to succeed in law school, I think your overall argument operates on quite a few false premises and assumptions.  There need not be ANY correlation or consistency in an individual's performance on the LSAT and his or her GPA.  This is true for several reasons.  First, not all GPA's are created equal.  A 3.1 from an Ivy League in Engineering or Biochemistry is far more impressive than a 3.5 in Speech Communications from State U.  Therefore, I would see no apparent discrepancy if the Ivy grad got a 162 on the LSAT.  Further, you fail to take into account that one's undergraduate experience and his/her taking the LSAT may be separated by many years.  Someone who was a screw-off in college may discover his intellectual capabilities and strengths after several years of significant and challanging work experience.  His newly discovered ambition may cause him to perform quite well on the LSAT.  Such a performance would simply indicate that the candidate did not reach his full potential until later in life.  While you personally may be bitter about your unexpectedly low score on the LSAT (as are many others), there is no need to question others' intellectual capacity based on a set of numbers even you appear to be skeptical about.

[rpplvc13]

I agree that there could be discrepancies based on major, difficulty of college, etc.  Also, I wasn't considering applicants who apply later in life.  My argument is that, in my opinion, the lsat should not be weighted as heavily as it is.  For example, many colleges factor the lsat 3 times as much as the ugpa when calculating their indexes.  And, by the way, I have an lsat score that I am very pleased with.  

[Andrew]

I think you've got a pursuasive argument there rpplvc13 (and a crazy name!).

My opinion:

People's LSAT scores indicate how equiped they were to take the LSAT (okay - maybe a little little bit more - like how good someone is at understanding logic and juggling lots of logic arguments in their head - but it's weak evidence).

I think GPA usually indicates how much people have studied and what the competition was like at their schools / in their majors.

I'm not complaining, because I was able to make up for lots of missed reading assignments in one summer afternoon (I was happy with my LSAT score).

Finally, I really don't think the LSAT has much of anything to do with the stuff you study in law school, and I don't know that people with better scores did any better or worse in law school than anyone else.

[hookem law]

---The GPA is a reflection of four (or more) years of hard work---

For me, GPA was a reflection of four years of not hard work.

[drewpac]

I agree with the OP.  I scored a decent 164 on the LSAT without any preparation but my gpa was only about a B+ average because I was a complete lazy ass.  I do believe that the gpa should be more heavily weighted than it is.  Those who have worked hard for 4 years should be given precedent over those who were lazy but scored well on the LSAT. 
But as far as success in law school goes, I think the LSAT is probably a better indicator of success than gpa because it more accurately reflects the intellectual capability of the applicant.  A hard worker with a 140 LSAT will probably struggle much more than a relative slacker with a 170 at an elite school.  It doesn't seem fair but that's the way it is.  Just my random thoughts.

[Lilacs04]

I agree. I have a 3.88 GPA and am double majoring in English and philosophy (which are not "easy" majors at my undergrad institution). I've registered for the June LSATs and my stomach is in knots already. I'd hate to think that if I screw up or misread something because I'm nervous that it could affect everything I've worked for. 

[amyblue]

that is crap....i graduated with a 3.1 but i went to school full time and worked full time. in addition,  i had a double major (which arent easy). i dont think a certain lsat score can be matched up to a certain gpa. thats crap! not to mention for one of my majors, i wrote a 80 page senior paper!

[Ivy_Hopeful]

But as far as success in law school goes, I think the LSAT is probably a better indicator of success than gpa because it more accurately reflects the intellectual capability of the applicant.  A hard worker with a 140 LSAT will probably struggle much more than a relative slacker with a 170 at an elite school.  It doesn't seem fair but that's the way it is.  Just my random thoughts.

Not to sound like an LSAT answer but:
I think that this logic is flawed based on the fact that someonone whom was a slacker during their undergraduate career may or may not be a slacker in law school (I suggest the former than the latter) The LSAT does not test overall intelectual capacity it tests specified intilectual capacities for that specific exam only. Not law school. True there would be certain attributes that could be gained from understanding concepts for the LSAT but they will not give you a very practical indicator. I believe that it is a better indicator of how well you deal with stressful situations (much like law school).
I mean no disrespect this just my opinion. 
IVY_Hopeful

[CarpeDiem]

I'm not fond of the LSAT but unfortunately its a standard indicator of success in law school. Standard being the operative word.