No more LSAT

[Core Shot]

what say ye?

Lots of fake dentists on the board
We know you’re really lawyers

Reuters) - The arm of the American Bar Association that accredits U.S. law schools on Friday voted to eliminate the longstanding requirement that schools use the Law School Admission Test or other standardized test when admitting students.

But under a last-minute revision, the rule change will not go into effect until the fall of 2025—giving law schools time to plan for new ways to admit students.

[Percy Rideout]

Live look 25 years into the future...

[MontuckyFried]

This is why we can't have nice things! ...like "free" Uni.

[Danno]

Weird. That change would have harmed me because I was a much better LSAT taker than I was a college student.

I recall reading that LSAT scores were actually a very good predictor of law school performance, which makes sense to me (because of how/what the LSAT tests and how law school exams are). Of course, LSAT scores are a shitty predictor of how good a lawyer someone will be, same as law school grades are, because there are so many pathways to go with a law degree and only some of them "test" you in the same way as law school exams. So, to the extent they want to admit people into their school that will do well at their school, dropping the LSAT seems problematic. But if they're interested in overhauling the entire construct of law school, then dropping the LSAT makes sense.

[Dantheman]

Of course, LSAT scores are a shitty predictor of how good a lawyer someone will be, same as law school grades are, because there are so many pathways to go with a law degree and only some of them "test" you in the same way as law school exams.

I seem to recall old goat posting something about the MCAT being a great predictor of who will do well in med school, but a shitty predictor of who will be a good doctor.

[dunfree]

And at one point the SAT was a reasonable predictor of how well people would do in college, but not afterwards.

Sensing a theme.

[toast2266]

Can confirm. Did well on the LSAT. Did well in law school. Not a particularly good lawyer.

[frorider]

It’s your damn ethics getting in the way

[BmillsSkier]

Anything we can do to clear the path for Kim Kardazian to become a member of the bar.

[Garbowski]

I taught LSAT classes for Kalpan for a while. I'm not sure how they quantify how good of a lawyer you turn out to be, but I certainly would choose one of the higher LSAT scorers to be mine any day.

I'm not sure the kids of parents who will write their application essays for them about the expensive service projects they forced them to go on are going to be any better lawyers.

[Danno]

Can confirm. Did well on the LSAT. Did well in law school. Not a particularly good lawyer.

x2

[Peruvian]

Once they threw out Stare Decisis, the legal field blew wide open.

[MontuckyFried]

Can confirm. Did well on the LSAT. Did well in law school. Not a particularly good lawyer.

x2

I'm sure you guys are great. Perhaps just lacking hudge billboards up and down the interstate. That's how people select what law firms to go with, right?

[toast2266]

I'm sure you guys are great. Perhaps just lacking hudge billboards up and down the interstate. That's how people select what law firms to go with, right?

I think billboards lack tact. I prefer a more personal connection. That's why I bought a fast car - so I can keep up with the ambulances.

[smartyiak]

I don't like it. Around here, they're also looking into making the bar exam easier....which I am also opposed to. I am opposed to anything that makes it easier to compete for my job!

[Smoova]

I always felt that a good LSAT served to "cleanse" poor college grades or polish good grades from a less prestigious college. Law school admissions officers will probably look for a metric to replace the LSAT, so this may make undergraduate school quality/prestige even more important in LS admissions, which will probably lead to a lower quality product from law schools (if that's even possible).

[fastfred]

And at one point the SAT was a reasonable predictor of how well people would do in college, but not afterwards.

Sensing a theme.

got like a 12 on the act
and a 600 on the sat think you get that just signing your name
they told me to move to a ski town and don't worry about trying to get any where in life

[Timberridge]

This could be your new window into the legal profession, fred.

I bet Big Steve aced the LSAT. That fucker could lawyer.

[Art Shirk]

My buddy’s dad owned a plastics company and my buddy pilfered a 12 foot, “clear” is the only way to describe it, tube. He was in the Engineering school and handy. Basically Stephen Baldwins character in Half Baked. He rigged a Super Soaker pump system to the bottom of what became known as the Super Toker to basically cherry up the bowl. It was pretty magnificent really. The guy hadn’t put an ounce of effort into his hygiene, appearance, diet, housework or relationship building, but he could make a bong out of anything.

Without yet knowing about the existence of his newest invention, he convinced me to have just one pull with him, the night before the LSAT. What’s the harm I figured.

When he brought me on the roof I almost instantly knew what he had done. The rest is obvious except for the fact that he had used Franzia wine in the base of the Super Toker. We were friends with the Franzia girls in college and always had a balloon or two around. I can’t say it made any appreciable difference in my experience, because I think I would have been tasting colors regardless, but it didn’t make me feel any better after the fact.

The next day, they split the test takers into two rooms (A-N and O-Z or something like that). Of course I was in the wrong room. So I started late, especially so because I forgot a pencil and the shitbiscuits on either side of me “couldn’t spare one.” These were the same type of people I went to law school with.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Tele 'til You're Smelly]

Just to be clear, the ABA saying it's not going to require the law schools that it accredits to require the LSAT doesn't mean that most won't still choose to require it, or that the ones that choose not to won't allow it as an option. That's a long way from "no more LSAT."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legali...ds-2022-11-15/

[Meadow Skipper]

Can confirm. Did well on the LSAT. Did well in law school. Not a particularly good lawyer.

So what makes a good lawyer?

[The Tortoise]

Here's Malcolm Gladwells take on the LSAT.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/49C...urce=copy-link

[fastfred]

So what makes a good lawyer?

Talk in circles
Use big words
Hot secretary
Nice suits
Ski town condo

[Danno]

So what makes a good lawyer?

It really depends on what type of law one does. The skills that would make a personal injury lawyer a "good lawyer" are very different than the skills that would make a public defender a good lawyer are very different than the skills that would make a good mergers and acquisitions lawyer.

[AdironRider]

I have some mixed feelings about it. We all know people who have succeeded in life that weren't the best students or test takers. Some test is not the sole predictor of success. That said, those are typically exceptions to the rule, or at least the minority of cases. I know far more bad students who just weren't motivated and/or smart. That said, I think their best use it is the most fair way to compare students from wildly different backgrounds. Everyone knows a kid who is successful at Phillips Exeter or Bronx HS of Science is probably reasonably smart and probably very motivated. Some kid who is the top of his class in rural Nebraska or international? Harder to judge without the reputation of the school behind them. Tests allow you to compare students across varied backgrounds on a level playing field and are as close to objective as you can get.

My sister is also a college admissions counselor. There is a nationwide consensus of what anticipated SC ruling to eliminate affirmative action will be and this is a largest driver for these changes, at least anecdotally, within her professional circles. I believe there should be more to college acceptance than just test scores but the numbers, notably from Harvard, were basically impossible to ignore, or at least defend against. An asian student with the same scores as a black student had a 70% less chance of getting in all else being equal. Numbers like that are hard to defend against claims of racial discrimination so colleges are just going to get rid of those metrics and go to completely subjective criteria that cannot be challenged. There will be unintended consequences but diversity is not going away, nor should it.