The test comes with a $170 fee, often in addition to months-long prep courses and tutoring that can cost thousands of dollars....You still have to have done well on some standardized test, so this seems to be more about upping the number of applications to law schools than about finding a way to admit students who perform worse on standardized tests.
[Buffalo and Iowa] are the first to announce that they've taken advantage of a recent ruling by the American Bar Association, which accredits U.S. law schools. In August, the ABA changed its rules to allow law schools to fill up to 10 percent of their class with students who have not taken the LSAT, as long as they were at the top of their college class and scored highly on the the SAT and ACT, college aptitude tests, or on the GRE or GMAT graduate school exams.
(Here's the Justice Thomas opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger in which he criticized law schools for using the LSAT even though they know it has a disparate impact on black applicants: "[L]aw schools continue to use the test and then attempt to 'correct' for black underperformance by using racial discrimination in admissions so as to obtain their aesthetic student body.... The Law School itself admits that the test is imperfect.... And the Law School’s amici cannot seem to agree on the fundamental question whether the test itself is useful.")
Posts
40 comments:
Why attack the LSAT. That was a fun test.
Law schools should use the number chin-ups and the 40 yard dash time.
What does Hillary Clinton think about Representative Bennie Thompson's declaration that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is an "Uncle Tom"?
Does the LSAT assess something particularly better than the GRE?
The LSAT had those logic sections, but the GRE has math. There's no real legal issues involved in the LSAT so it really just seems an extra test to take for people who are considering multiple paths for graduate school.
I took the LSAT in 1996 (perfect score on reading comprehension!) and the GRE in 2007.
Law schools in general seem to make a lot of effort to make themselves seem extra different and important than other 3 year professional schools.
The LSAT is a difficult test. It's an imperfect measure, but what isn't? But if you do well on the LSAT you clearly possess one of the crucial talents for success in law school and the law.
When I have to make an important decision, I want as much useful information as I can get. Why would law school admissions officers want to eliminate one very useful source of information?
The test comes with a $170 fee, often in addition to months-long prep courses and tutoring that can cost thousands of dollars....
Doesn't this sort of reveal that the LSAT isn't necessarily a valid predictor of being successful at law school, (or more to the point, being a lawyer) but more of a gatekeeping function for those that have the time and materiel resources to bone up for it?
The LSAT is an IQ test.
But we all can't be lawyers.
You need some sort of standardize test, but an additional writing test on school grounds sounds like a better idea to figure out who really wants to be a lawyer or now.
If you really want to go to law school, you visit the place and take a written exam.
A lot of business schools accept the GRE as well as the GMAT. The GMAT also doesn't really test on businessy skills. So, it's another IQ, reading, logic test.
Meanwhile, the MCAT tests actual, you know, science related questions, so it makes sense for it to be separate.
Standardized tests include the element of anxiety.
I have some experience teaching college. I have had students that were absolutely unprepared for the material. They can suck all the air out of the classroom.
This is why you depend upon the LSAT.
I did much better on the GRE than the LSAT.
Standardized tests might not be that useful, but there is more uniformity in them than comparing grades among applicants who went to different schools and studied differerent subjects at different times and have different work histories.
Whatever weight a school gives them should be equal for all applicants. Thomas is right about that.
"in addition to months-long prep courses and tutoring that can cost thousands of dollars....
Well, yes, they can cost that much. Or you can buy a prep book for well under $50. Is there any evidence that prepping from a book doesn't work as well as "months-long prep courses and tutoring that can cost thousands of dollars," or is this just the usual anti-test boilerplate?
The real question should be, what is the value of the LSAT in predicting success in completing law school and a subsequent career in law?
And how does that predictive value compare with the alternatives offered (e.g., other standardized tests)?
Wondering, Ann, if you've received a notice from Google about new policy of theirs starting March 23:
"...we'll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video. We'll still allow nudity presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts, or where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content."
A blog friend of mine on Blogger got an email on it the other day. Is this some sort of advance concern about what FCC might eventually restrict?
If you need to spend thousands of dollars on prep to take an "aptitude" test then, maybe you don't have that aptitude and law school is not for you. Seriously.
Re: Paddy O:
Does the LSAT assess something particularly better than the GRE?
The LSAT had those logic sections, but the GRE has math.
I don't know about "better" but since lots of people go into law school precisely because they can't do math, a test that has no math would tend to be preferable. For them.
I do think we'd be better off if numeracy were required for law school, though, so I would be in favour of replacing the LSAT. Of course, I'd also be in favour of making law school optional and offering the option of a three year apprenticeship to a lawyer in good standing before taking the bar exam.
Re: Althouse:
Standardized tests include the element of anxiety.
I cannot believe that test anxiety could possibly be worse than the anxiety of actually working as a lawyer.
Re: SGT Ted:
Doesn't this sort of reveal that the LSAT isn't necessarily a valid predictor of being successful at law school, (or more to the point, being a lawyer) but more of a gatekeeping function for those that have the time and materiel resources to bone up for it?
I think there's an assumption built in here that all the money spent on test prep is actually money well spent. On a substantive exam where there is actual content that has to be mastered/memorised (like the bar exam), I tend to think it is value for money. On a mostly content-free exam like the LSAT, on the other hand, once you acquire the necessary vocabulary to engage with the test (something which, to be fair, can be a nontrivial obstacle to people not raised in English-speaking households) I think diminishing marginal returns sets in very, very quickly.
If you have an ordinary command of modern English, you can just buy a test prep book for $30 or whatever it costs these days ($100?) and take a couple practice tests to familiarize yourself with the format and the type of questions. I have a vague recollection that when I signed up for the LSAT they gave me a free practice test, so it might not even be an incremental expense.
If it's an IQ test, then how much can test prep really help you?
All you need is to know the type of questions by means of samples.
At this point in life, shouldn't you be able to test under pressure if this is a test about anxiety?
Ann Althouse said...
Standardized tests include the element of anxiety.
So do many other kinds of tests. And so does law school--a rather large element. So in that sense coping with anxiety of the LSAT is an element of testing aptitude for law.
Of course people can learn to cope with anxiety as they progress in school. That is another reason why LSAT is useful only as an element of an admission decision.
Is it really that unclear to admissions people who is and who is not capable of success at law school? I think they have a very good idea. They also have a very good idea of the profiles of persons who have the aptitude to excel. The problem comes only in ranking among the clearly qualified. If this is such a unsolvable dilemma, why not just throw all "qualified" students into one pool, and then randomly select from that pool. Do you suppose the professors would notice the difference?
Maybe the people feeling the most anxiety are the ones running the schools?
Since minorities don't do well on the test, is this supposed to be an alternative to affirmative action?
I would be more excited if they allowed up to ten percent of the class to be filled based on the LSAT, regardless of whether or not the candidates have college degrees.
That might even help enrollment from lower income groups.
The test comes with a $170 fee, often in addition to months-long prep courses and tutoring that can cost thousands of dollars....
There's no need to take a course or pay for tutoring. I prepared myself with practice exam books and started scoring just above average on the first practice tests I did.
I then went over every wrong answer until I understood where and how I made a mistake. I ended up scoring in the top 1% on the LSAT. I'm positive that the process of figuring out the exam myself rather than getting prep help from a course or tutor made the difference for me.
I admire Justice Thomas' perfect word selection in describing racist admissions as "aesthetic" rather than diverse.
Ridicule can be a club, or a rapier.
"in which he criticized law schools for using the LSAT even though they know it has a disparate impact on black applicants
Oh my heavens! Those wacky government lawyers and their false premises.
Disparate Impact Realism
Gov't lawyer: "The Law School itself admits that the test is imperfect"
O my heavens! Those wacky government lawyers and their ignorance.
All tests are imperfect; all decent tests are far more predictive than "winging it", AKA "holistic" admissions.
Blogger SGT Ted said...
"The test comes with a $170 fee, often in addition to months-long prep courses and tutoring that can cost thousands of dollars...."
Doesn't this sort of reveal that the LSAT isn't necessarily a valid predictor of being successful at law school, (or more to the point, being a lawyer) but more of a gatekeeping function for those that have the time and materiel resources to bone up for it?
The Special Minorities are more likely to test-prep than non-special people, but it doesn't help much: Test preparation and SAT scores
Justice Thomas is right.. The LSAT selects the correct WASP thinkers out from the rest of the genetic cultural types.
After all our inherited Common Law legal system was thought up by Saxon English men. And one of them was named Coke.
Logic doesn't seem to be a very highly valued quality in lawyers these days. When a law says "shall" instead of "may" there's not a rational or logical line of argument to say "shall" is the same as "may". That this is not a clear point of understanding is evident in our courts from the lowest to the highest.
Some of you are missing the point. LSAT, GRE and other tests are not the sole criteria for admittance to graduate programs. It's a combination of factors that are used to predict success. In my field (psychology) it's GRE scores, grades, research experience, letters of recommendation and grades in specific classes, such as statistics.
We all know that there are no perfect predictors. We just try try to minimize bad choices (i.e., early grad school failure). In my experience, discipline, persistence and ability to manage stress were very predictive of grad school success, after taking the admittance factors into account.
The LSAT (at least when I took it) was a much more pure IQ test than the ACT or the SAT. It was only a difficult test to take if you did not have a high IQ. Unlike the SAT where you could be a genius and yet not know the answer because your parents never used the word Epistolary around you.
Doesn't this sort of reveal that the LSAT isn't necessarily a valid predictor of being successful at law school, (or more to the point, being a lawyer) but more of a gatekeeping function for those that have the time and materiel resources to bone up for it?
My understanding is that grades+LSATs are good at predicting success in law school, but LSATs alone are better at predicting passing the bar exam. Of course, there is some bias on my part - I scored high on the LSAT and high on the Multistate Bar Exam (high enough at the time to be admitted w/o my essay results). Upper couple of percent in both.
But, I will also admit prepping for the LSAT (and most everyone who passes the bar exam has prepped for it). What does that prepping do? A lot of things. For one, when I took it, you got credit for each correct answer, but a percentage against you for every wrong answer. Which means that it paid to guess, after you had eliminated one or two answers (can't remember the actual level there). This was just the opposite of the business school test, which was number of correct minus number of wrong answers - I took the business school test the week after the LSAT, and scored 100 (out of 800) points lower (and got my MBA before my JD). You also need to practice your timing, so that you don't get stuck in sections where you aren't as fast. Also, you learn to recognize tricks. You also learn short cuts. I should note that I tend to do well on this sort of standardized tests because I can move very quickly through them, allowing me to double check a lot of my work.
I mentioned above that LSAT success correlates fairly well with bar exam success, and esp. with the multistate exam. This make sense - I was thinking as I wrote the previous paragraph that a lot of those reasons to take a LSAT prep course were similar to those to take a bar exam prep course, because the same sort of issues are important.
Finally, it was suggested that the cost of the test was discriminatory. I respectfully disagree. Full boat tuition at a lot of law schools is $50k+ a year now, and if you don't get top LSAT scores (and not an underrepresented minority), you are not that likely to get that much student aid. Plus, the opportunity cost of not working for three years (for those who don't go to night school - which is rare, since Harvard doesn't have a night school, most self-respecting law schools don't either). $170 is a drop in the bucket, and, if you blow the LSAT, then maybe you shouldn't be spending 3 years and > $100k on going to law school. Especially, since you have to pass the bar exam to practice law in most states (Wisconsin apparently being a rare exception for local law school grads), and the LSAT is a fairly good predictor of being able to pass the bar. (One of the politically incorrect realities of affirmative action is that the bar pass rate for AA admits is substantially below that of non-AA admits - which means that there is a lot higher percentage of underrepresented minorities who graduate from law school and never get to practice law).
Bruce Hayden said...
which means that there is a lot higher percentage of underrepresented minorities who graduate from law school and never get to practice law).
The schools get to pat themselves on the back for their racism.
And get the tuition.
Anxiety taking the LSAT? If you freak out taking the LSAT, how're you gonna' try a media first degree murder?
I went out and got drunk the night before the LSAT. It's what I did most Friday nights in 1977. I did well not getting stoned the morning of just for the hell of it.
A good brain and a lifetime of reading, writing and thinking will preclude the need for any prep for the LSAT.
A bar exam ... now that's another matter. You better prep your ass off. I walked out of the first one (Illinois) knowing I had passed. I walked into the second (Florida) knowing I would pass. No brag, just fact.
That's how you allay anxiety, whether it's a bar exam or a big trial. Prepare yourself to the max.
The LSAT and the bar exam are just moneymakers for their invested constituencies (administrating orgs, test prep companies, state bar associations). But the games section of the LSAT is fun.
i think private universities should be able to admit all the unqualified and incapable students they want using any criteria they want. They already do that so why make them require the LSAT? Just keep requiring them to publish the BAR pass rates.
But not public universities because we are paying for them.
"and, if you blow the LSAT, then maybe you shouldn't be spending 3 years and > $100k on going to law school."
THIS TIMES A MILLION
Honestly, not a bad idea. I wouldn't have sat the LSAT but if I would have been able to shop around a bit on my 99th percentile GRE I would have done so.
Peter,
Well, yes, they can cost that much. Or you can buy a prep book for well under $50. Is there any evidence that prepping from a book doesn't work as well as "months-long prep courses and tutoring that can cost thousands of dollars," or is this just the usual anti-test boilerplate?
That's my standard response to the people who say that prep courses make all the difference between winners and losers on the PSAT/SAT/GRE/LSAT/GMAT/whatever. I "prepped" for the SAT by buying a prep book (it was then about $20) and doing a bunch of sample exams. I "prepped" for the GRE by doing ... nothing. 780/800/800 on the general, and something over 700 on the mechanical engineering GRE, for which I hadn't studied at all.
My point is that a "prep course" might make you feel better prepared, but actually all you need is a bunch of sample or past exams, a timer, and the wherewithal to sit them. If that's too much effort for you, too bad.
Is this an education should be free moment? What, exactly, is the complaint?
I've looked at the LSAT, on my way through investigating continuing education. It's hard, and will need some study work to figure it out. So what? Is it expensive? No. Piling on another degree will get you into debt fairly quickly - but the entrance to that clique isn't monetarily pricey. You can consider the debt burden part of the intelligence test.
Is it racist or oppressive to minorities (code word for black people)? No. It simply sorts the wheat from the chaff as far as education and intelligence go. There's plenty of white people who will fail the LSAT.
I read somewhere that the best prep for the LSAT is to do NYT crossword puzzles for years leading up to the test.
The LSAT tests your logic and literacy skills, acquired through a lifetime. I'd be very leery of any claim that a prep course can significantly raise one's score.
Further, by removing or trivializing difficult standardized tests, the only way to evaluate one student from another is through generally extracurricular activities; those people with money will always succeed in that department.
Post a Comment