Reply to Law School

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Law School"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Exlawdean][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Exlawdean][quote=Anonymous]Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?[/quote]

First, as I emphasized above, these are my opinions. The LSAT score is, in part, an indicator of cleverness. The questions are difficult, and the ability to answer them is indicative of the ability of the prospective student to solve hard questions. LSAT score correlates well with GRE scores, with SAT scores, and, perhaps more importantly, with the ability to pass the bar exam in states with very hard bar examinations (e.g. California and New York). To be clear, I should point out that the correlation data is not just my opinion, but is a set of statistical relationships.

Second, there is no doubt that there is also a cultural component to the LSAT. There is also a cultural component to legal practice. Does this disadvantage those without the "right" cultural background? In my opinion, yes. [/quote]

"right cultural background"

What?!?

[/quote]

Maybe he is referring to how one's culture typically resolves disputes ?[/quote]

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters.   Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle.   I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics.  I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved.  The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class.  It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it.  I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student.  I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges.  It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.  [/quote]

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.  [/quote]

Huh?  If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem.   Don’t blame it on his age or background.  [/quote]

He said people who come straight from undergrad are assumed to be less mature and top schools favor older candidates who’ve worked for awhile.  “A good one” yes, but hearing that a top 10 (a common goal) will take students who struggle with the difference between philosophy and law over an above the median person out of undergrad is disappointing, yes. [/quote]

Why is it disappointing? K-JDs have no life experience.[/quote]
+1.  It isn't just law schools that have a preference for some post-college work experience; employers do, too. K-JD tend to have less of a clue on the practical realities of how their clients' businesses operate. A little post-college experience goes a long way.

-- NU grad from the mid-90s. About half our class had work experience.[/quote]

Both of you glossed over that he said - and I was referring to - that top schools do take people who have shown lower readiness.  I’m not comparing a 21 year old and a 30 year old with otherwise equal applications.  I’m comparing a 21 year old with all markers of higher bar pass rate potential than a 30 with lower markers for a bar pass rate potential. And while I would expect this at a lot of schools, I would not expect it at a top 10 school.  [/quote]

Interesting that there is so much discussion regarding "bar passage potential". While state bars vary in difficulty, few law students who attend the top 100 law schools have difficulty passing state bar exams. "Bar passage potential" is a low standard among the the top 100 law schools. Anyone achieving above a 151 or 152 LSAT score should be able to pass their state bar exam with a bit of preparation.[/quote]

[i]The relation between LSAT and passing the bar is probabilistic, and depends on not only LSAT but which state bar the graduate is taking. Some states have very difficult bar exams (think about California and New York). For such states higher LSAT scores are required to produce the same probability of passage as a lower LSAT has in an easier state (e.g. Pennsylvania).[/i][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics