For those who care at all -
the LSAT (Law School Admission Test) is an extremely efficient test. It does what it is suppose to do very well, very quick and very accurately.
What is the LSAT suppose to measure? Well, it's suppose to measure how well you will do during the first year of law school. So is a low LSAT score (120) a definite prophecy of your imminent failure in law school? No.
However, if you did get a low LSAT score (120), there is a good chance you will fail. Although imperfect, the LSAT is as perfect as it can get in measuring an individual's success in law school.
My experience has been that the skills required to do well on the LSAT (reading vast and diverse amounts of information, and critically thinking assessing the validity of these arguments/sets-of-facts; reading through dense and boring literature, and pin-pointing the flaws and main-points; quickly thinking of all the different angles and possibilities to a complex problem/situation) are also the skills required to do well in law school.
The only major flaw on the LSAT is the fact that it measures all of this in one sitting. I do believe that some people are not so good standardized test-takers. For these people the pressure of having to sit through a timed test literally chokes them. This is the only drawback to the LSAT's otherwise perfect (my opinion) testing.
Anyone who moans and groans about the LSAT's logic games and how it's irrelevant are simply in denial...trying to make themselves feel better about their failure.
I'm not an elitest; simply a realist.
the LSAT (Law School Admission Test) is an extremely efficient test. It does what it is suppose to do very well, very quick and very accurately.
What is the LSAT suppose to measure? Well, it's suppose to measure how well you will do during the first year of law school. So is a low LSAT score (120) a definite prophecy of your imminent failure in law school? No.
However, if you did get a low LSAT score (120), there is a good chance you will fail. Although imperfect, the LSAT is as perfect as it can get in measuring an individual's success in law school.
My experience has been that the skills required to do well on the LSAT (reading vast and diverse amounts of information, and critically thinking assessing the validity of these arguments/sets-of-facts; reading through dense and boring literature, and pin-pointing the flaws and main-points; quickly thinking of all the different angles and possibilities to a complex problem/situation) are also the skills required to do well in law school.
The only major flaw on the LSAT is the fact that it measures all of this in one sitting. I do believe that some people are not so good standardized test-takers. For these people the pressure of having to sit through a timed test literally chokes them. This is the only drawback to the LSAT's otherwise perfect (my opinion) testing.
Anyone who moans and groans about the LSAT's logic games and how it's irrelevant are simply in denial...trying to make themselves feel better about their failure.
I'm not an elitest; simply a realist.
RSS Feed
