August 23, 2017

The GRE as a possible substitute for the LSAT

4. If either the ABA or the law schools continue to require a “valid and reliable  admission test” what test or tests should  be required? Should  the LSAT be the only game in town?

The general requirement of a “valid and reliable admission test” is not a specific requirement  to  use  the LSAT.  (It is true that the ABA rules require a law school to demonstrate that another test is valid and reliable.) I predict  that there will be  competitors to the LSAT– and it is high time. [Read more…]

Will the law schools continue to use an "optional LSAT"?

3. If  the requirement of a “valid and reliable admission test”  is discontinued, will the law schools  continue to require a “valid and reliable  admission test” in their  own admissions process?

The answer will be determined over  time. Even without an ABA mandated LSAT  requirement, I believe  the law schools will  continue to use it or another admission test. What will not be a requirement for the law schools will still be a requirement for law school applicants.

My reasons include the following: [Read more…]

Is the LSAT a “valid and reliable admission test”?

2. Is the LSAT a “valid and reliable admission test”?

Is the LSAT an accurate measure of what it purports  to  measure? LSAT takes the position that LSAT scores do correlate with law school performance.

“The LSAT, like any admission test, is not a perfect predictor of law school performance. The predictive power of an admission test is limited by many factors, such as the complexity of the skills the test is designed to measure and the unmeasurable factors that can affect students’ performances, such as motivation, physical and mental health, or work and family responsibilities. In spite of these factors, the LSAT compares very favorably with admission tests used in other graduate and professional fields of study. For more details on this subject, go to LSAT Scores as Predictors of Law School Performance (PDF).” [Read more…]

Should law schools be required to use the LSAT?

1. Should  law schools  be required to use a “valid and reliable admissions test”?

In attempting to answer this question, it makes sense to consider:

–       any stated rationale from the ABA for why a test should be required;
–       whether the law schools use the test in a manner  that is consistent
with that stated (or any other relevant) rationale;
–       whether that rationale  is justifiable

The Admission Test Requirement – The Stated Rationale

The ABA requires that a law school  use a “valid  and reliable admission test”.  It does not  require that the law school consider the scores and doesn’t prescribe how  the scores  should be used. S 503 is  evidence that, from the perspective of the ABA, that the purpose  of  requiring a “valid and reliable admissions test” is to: [Read more…]

The LSAT, Law School Admission, and Role The LSAT Plays in Law School Admission

The LSAT, Law School Admission, and Role The LSAT Plays in Law School Admission

John Richardson, Toronto Canada

The LSAT  is required by almost every law school in the United States and Canada. (It is interesting that the law schools in Michigan, Illinois and Alabama have not required the LSAT in certain circumstances. It is unclear how this is consistent with the ABA

Let’s begin with some sentiment  from the mainstream media:

“Yet it’s well-known among law school applicants that many Canadian schools sort their applications into piles by LSAT score and simply axe off those below a certain percentile. How many brilliant future lawyers are lost below that line, who, for one reason or another, simply can’t handle the LSAT?

It seems to me that there’s some room here for a Canadian law school to set itself apart by announcing a new, more holistic approach to admissions by waiving the LSAT requirement and perhaps doing something like having admissions interviews, which no Canadian law school does, instead, on top of using references and personal statements and extra-curriculars and undergraduate performance. If not for a whole
entering class, then perhaps schools could set aside a certain portion of first-year seats for applicants that do not require the LSAT, like the University of Michigan law school did in 2008. [Read more…]

The Secret Language of The LSAT (Not) – LSAT Quantifiers

The Secret Language of The LSAT (Not) – LSAT Quantifiers

It’s important that LSAT courses, LSAT tutors and third party LSAT books justify their existence. Therefore, LSAT courses and books focus on every conceivable aspect of the LSAT.

The bottom line is that the LSAT is a test of reading and reasoning in context.  High LSAT test scores require effective reading and  a heightened awareness of language.  Given that the LSAT is a reading test, difficulty is to be presumed. There are certain instances where language distracts test takers, creates huge anxiety, and provokes endless discussion. One such area is the use of “quantifiers” on the LSAT. Here is an email that I received from a student:

“Hi John:

I have a question regarding the words few and some. In LSAT world are they of equivalent meaning.

I know some indicates, in numerical terms, 1-100.

But what would few be in numerical terms.


(Those interested in my response are invited to see:

Who could have imagined that a Law School Bound student, would be interested in this question?

What is a quantifier?

Even if you have not heard the word (it sounds boring), you can probably figure it out. It seems to be based on the word “quantity” which means “how many”.  A “quantifier” is a word that that describes “how many” or “what proportion”. Quantifiers are common in everyday language. Here are some examples: “all”, “none”, “most”, ”many”, ”few”, “several”, “some”. These words are so common on the LSAT that at least one (that means a minimum of one, but does not preclude all) scholar has written an essay about the use of quantifiers on the LSAT. For your reading pleasure I refer you to: [Read more…]