Someone hiring a lawyer might be looking for different attributes like aggression, movie star looks, someone who has good taste in restaurants. This isn't news that the LSAT isn't designed to pick these attributes. I'd prefer the creation of lawyers that understand the law so that they can apply it ethically and correctly.
The ABA sets the standard for admissio9n test, don't they? If you want to practice law in the US, you need to go to an ABA approved school, unless you go to a state Bar approved school. But, then you can only practice law in the state. Am I wrong on this?
The LSAT is a better predictor of law school success than an applicant's GPA. People who claim that it is an inferior test don't know what they're talking about.
A computer adaptive LSAT that adjusts toward a candidate's areas of least expertise might be a nice replacement. Now, the test experience will be horrible. But the results should be more interesting.
I agree the LSAT is a somewhat dubious predictor of law school success, but then again, that's not its intended admissions purpose. The LSAT is only one of several criteria used to evaluate someone's success or failure in law school and their attributes as a potential lawyer. It is quite possibly discriminatory, but only in the sense of excluding apt working folks who don't have time to study for such an overblown test.
The correlation between the LSAT and first year grades is actually very poor. However, law schools still use this test unchallenged. Berkley is no exception, as they religiously adhere to it each and every admissions cycle. However, the primary ability for a lawyer is intellectual, not some emotional sensitivity nonsense.
I will admit the LSAT is a very competative test but I believe that law schools should not only look at that exam for admission but also at other strong points the individual obtains. Thats just my opinion. I have seen lawyers that are really smart but just have no people skills and are very poor mentors.
Typical Berkeley bullshit. Berkeley has the LOWEST LSAT scores of the top 14 schools, because they want to find ways to admit lower qualified minorities who repeatedly score lower than whites. So, this "study" is just another way for Berkeley to push its BS theories into the law school world.
MENSA has concluded that the LSAT is a reliable predictor of intelligence. The LSAT has horrible flaws, but it IS a very good indication of whether you are SMART.
This new test could prove very discriminatory. A student who cannot pass the emotions test because of autism might not be admitted. The professor also mentions that it asks about past experiences. Low income students may not have had those opportunities. Besides, a new test just means students would take a course on how to pass that test. The test might even restrict the applicant pool, instead of encouraging diversity. Just because employers can do so, doesn't mean a law school should.
Someone hiring a lawyer might be looking for different attributes like aggression, movie star looks, someone who has good taste in restaurants. This isn't news that the LSAT isn't designed to pick these attributes. I'd prefer the creation of lawyers that understand the law so that they can apply it ethically and correctly.
coffeescup 1 year ago
The ABA sets the standard for admissio9n test, don't they? If you want to practice law in the US, you need to go to an ABA approved school, unless you go to a state Bar approved school. But, then you can only practice law in the state. Am I wrong on this?
HVACSoldier 1 year ago
The LSAT is a better predictor of law school success than an applicant's GPA. People who claim that it is an inferior test don't know what they're talking about.
Azer1243 1 year ago
A computer adaptive LSAT that adjusts toward a candidate's areas of least expertise might be a nice replacement. Now, the test experience will be horrible. But the results should be more interesting.
GMATWalkthrough 1 year ago
I agree the LSAT is a somewhat dubious predictor of law school success, but then again, that's not its intended admissions purpose. The LSAT is only one of several criteria used to evaluate someone's success or failure in law school and their attributes as a potential lawyer. It is quite possibly discriminatory, but only in the sense of excluding apt working folks who don't have time to study for such an overblown test.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
The correlation between the LSAT and first year grades is actually very poor. However, law schools still use this test unchallenged. Berkley is no exception, as they religiously adhere to it each and every admissions cycle. However, the primary ability for a lawyer is intellectual, not some emotional sensitivity nonsense.
imperialbaroque 1 year ago
I will admit the LSAT is a very competative test but I believe that law schools should not only look at that exam for admission but also at other strong points the individual obtains. Thats just my opinion. I have seen lawyers that are really smart but just have no people skills and are very poor mentors.
TheJeffhero 1 year ago
Typical Berkeley bullshit. Berkeley has the LOWEST LSAT scores of the top 14 schools, because they want to find ways to admit lower qualified minorities who repeatedly score lower than whites. So, this "study" is just another way for Berkeley to push its BS theories into the law school world.
MENSA has concluded that the LSAT is a reliable predictor of intelligence. The LSAT has horrible flaws, but it IS a very good indication of whether you are SMART.
cr500rebuild 1 year ago
Nonsense... LSAT is the best there is.
Law schools should TEACH students how to be good lawyers, not looking for prospective students who already have those skills.
palsanychnyc 1 year ago 2
@palsanychnyc That makes no sense.
ayethereztherub 1 year ago
This new test could prove very discriminatory. A student who cannot pass the emotions test because of autism might not be admitted. The professor also mentions that it asks about past experiences. Low income students may not have had those opportunities. Besides, a new test just means students would take a course on how to pass that test. The test might even restrict the applicant pool, instead of encouraging diversity. Just because employers can do so, doesn't mean a law school should.
cnikig 2 years ago 2
very interesting
MacPr0xnxx0 2 years ago