Talk:Law School Admission Test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Education (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

List of LSAT Instruction Providers[edit]

I'm working on a page devoted to listing providers of LSAT classes/tutoring/advice. Please help me out, the page is at User:Patent Lawyer 001/List of LSAT Instruction Providers --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Canadian Content[edit]

The opening line of the article states that the test is for America, and Canada, but the entire article seems to have an american slant.--129.173.96.19 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian LSAT students represent a nearly insignificant minority of total LSAT students. Thus, the amount of specific attention they get in this article is nearly insignificant. That's called "fair proportion".--76.209.50.222 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada, and Mexico, as well as the United States of, are all in the North part of America (see NAFTA, or a map). Stating that the entire article has an 'american slant' is likely correct, although there is no mention of Mexico in either entry above. The LSAT for the US and Canada are invigilated by the Law School Admissions Council, which also doesn't appear to reference Mexico. Canadian representation is 15 of 200 institutions, or roughly 7.5%. One interesting tidbit is that whilst Canadian Universities can belong to US organizations, such as LSAC and vice versa, try watching a Canadian get a US drivers license in any state - the most common answer from the state representative is 'you guys have different laws up there. Don't you drive on the other side of the road or something?' (ref Newport Beach, CA, Tampa, FL and Annapolis MD driver testing facilities).

The following excerpt is taken from http://www.lsat.org/LSAC.asp?url=lsac/about-lsac.asp, retrieved 10 Feb 2007. The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) is a nonprofit corporation whose members are more than 200 law schools in the United States and Canada. All law schools approved by the American Bar Association are LSAC members. Fifteen Canadian law schools recognized by a provincial or territorial law society or government agency are also included in the voting membership of the Council.

Headquartered in Newtown, Pennsylvania, about 30 miles north of Philadelphia, the Council is best known for administering the Law School Admission Test (LSAT®). An average of 140,000 prospective law students take this test each year. With the guidance and support of volunteers representing its member schools, LSAC provides a growing number of important services and programs for law schools and their applicants. 68.146.34.219 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting Admissions Section[edit]

The admissions section was quite prolix, so I trimmed repetitive material. In the process it becomes clear that there's a contradiction: the weighted composite score is supposed to correlate more highly to FY grades than individual scores, yet different schools use different weights; some statistical sleight-of-hand seems likely here. Also it is unfortunate that no-one seems to be considering the end-result of interest: people who practice lawyering well. But that of course is not the fault of wikipedia. rewinn 05:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Although it holds true to a certain degree, this paragraph is simply a rant against LSAC, : However, given the fact that Law School Admissions Council has vested financial interests in ensuring that all ABA approved schools require the LSAT as a part of the law school admissions process, it should come as no surprise that they would release a study showing that the test has a stronger correlation to first-year law school grades than any other factor. The administration of the LSAT is a major source of revenue for the LSAC, and if Law schools no longer required it as a necessary component of the admissions process, the LSAC would face severe financial difficulties.
The section seems to be a rant against the LSAT. The absence of unaffiliated studies of the LSAT is not a valid point of criticism. If unaffiliated studies showed a low correlation between LSAT and law school performance or methodological flaws in LSAC studies were pointed out, these are certainly valid points. To assume that a study is biased just because it is affiliated with LSAC is unsound. 152.3.85.176 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
To assume that a study is not biased just because it is affiliated with LSAC is unsound. rewinn 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Princeton Review Link[edit]

It seems improper to have a link to a commercial test prep company. No doubt Kaplan and Testmasters and whoever else may have "useful" info, too -- are we going to provide a comprehensive commercial list? Lorettagrace

agreed. well done. Goldencrisp87 06:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really agree. I mean, sure, I can see Kaplan and Testmasters as having a link. But as a student myself, I can also see that someone might look here to get information about the LSAT, and providing a few links to leading commercial test-help sites wouldn't be totally out of order. Sighter Goliant 03:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sighter Goliant. I am currently looking to take the LSAT and I immediately came to this site to research the LSAT, as well as to see if there were external links to test-help sites. I think external links to test-prep sites are useful tools for students like myself.Cloud900 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It might be useful to the act of taking the LSAT, but it would not be informative about LSAT itself. This article is already plenty long with adding links better found through google. rewinn 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree in part and agree in part. Knowing that there are test prep companies, who they are and how to get there would be very helpful and save time as far as search engines. Furthermore, going to the google site as suggested, while a reasonable thought, discounts the fact that a google search would be more commercial than informational. That is, on this site you are looking for factually unbiased info and not commercial hype. I would even go as far as saying that a wikipedia page on LSAT test prep should be facilitated, as it is obvious that people are looking for information about that too; Such as, what you can do to prepare, what sample test are available, and even what companies do it and what characteristics are good and bad about those kind of companies. (PS and maybe the links to their sites should go on this new page instead, where it would be more appropriate.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoleo (talkcontribs) 12:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Yoleo, creating a new page on LSAT Preparation which lists various sources of LSAT information. Please assist with the new page: User:Patent Lawyer 001/List of LSAT Instruction Providers--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced advice & trivia[edit]

A lot of this article is just advice "students would be smart to do this or that" and also trivia that is better found elsewhere than wikipedia, e.g. the number of questions per section this year. It's also worth noting (although to do some might be OR) that LSAC states that preparation correlates to LSAT scores and that LSAT scores correlate to 1L grades; the obvious conclusion would be that LSAT preparation correlates to 1L grades. This would suggest that the casual link between LSAT scores and 1L grades is the willingness to prepare, which is facially more plausible than the idea that a multiple-choice puzzle exam is at all related to law school essay exams. But, as I said, that's OR. rewinn 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It might alternatively imply that everybody has an innate score, which is correlated both to their actual score and to their law school performance. This would be especially true if prep tends to cancel out across applicants -- i.e. if many applicants experience a bump of roughly similar magnitude. unsigned comment by 128.252.115.130 on 03:35, 15 March 2007
Non sequitur rewinn 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Preparation[edit]

I think the preparation section is an advertisement for outsidelsat.com. Shouldn't this be changed? I haven't used wikipedia enough to know, but it kind of seems like misuse to put a passage like the one in the article saying: "Many companies currently offer LSAT classroom courses, one-on-one private tutoring, and online tutoring. One such company, Outside LSAT LLC, offers very effective home based tutoring at affordable rates. This company's website is www.outsidelsat.com." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cashuscash (talkcontribs) 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I've removed the very obvious advertising for that company, but you may yet be right that the entire section is unnecessary. 76.29.2.23 02:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this section is not pretty handy for those who are interested in the LSAT, as long as the information remains valid and brief. Lawthinker 08:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you are probably correct but it does start to read like an advertisment, can you cite sources re pass rates etc? Then we can incl it without looking biased... --Nuttycoconut 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unclear[edit]

The following sentence is unclear: "Numerous studies have shown that students who have taken full-length classroom courses at their undergraduate university prior to the exam earned mean scores between two and three points below that of the test mean."

From the preceding context, it seems that the 'full-length classroom courses' refer to a test prep course like Kaplan or Powerscore. But it could mean that currently enrolled undergrads score 2 points lower than those who are not currently enrolled.

In any event, I checked the cited source. In fact, it is only one study, and it is very outdated. It was written in 1990 and is based on the 1988-1989 LSATs. The LSAT has changed greatly since then, and the information is most likely untrue today. I think this sentence should be removed.

Smwheat (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)smwheat

I wouldn't object if that sentence were removed. It seems to have no basis anymore, and it's misleading. =Axlq 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The reference is not only old, there is control group comparison made. So the study only uses absolute scores, not comparative increases, which could easily be misinterpreted by the casual reader. I pulled the reference. Transmissionelement (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Standardized?[edit]

I read somewhere that the LSAT isn't in fact standardized, but rather equated. That is, curves are established before the test based on performance from prior tests rather than after based on the performance of your current test. So if you were to take the 2008 June LSAT this year, you wouldn't be competing against the others taking the 2008 June LSAT, but rather the test takers from several tests from prior years. I'll look up the information now -- but has anyone heard this -- is it worth mentioning in the article?Jheiv (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)



Hey guys, the article states the correlation coefficient of the LSAT is .40 or .41 . Much like being given feet instead of miles, the coefficient in that form is not a very good predictor of performance. Correlation simply means that there's a .40-.41 positive relation, (1 being perfect relation). For prediction of performance, you need to regress the coefficient by squaring it. R^2= .16-.164 This means only 16%-16.4 of 1st year law school GPA can be explained by LSAT score using general regression. (This is being generous too since adjusted R^2 should probably be less than the general R^2 but I can't make that statement without the raw data to support my claim.).

Of course people will say Use the college GPA along with LSAT. But the problem is they overlap. Some attributes that the LSAT tests also constitutes what the college GPA represents. Therefore, people should be careful when adding GPA + LSAT + Letters, etc, making sure to adjust for overlap.

Furthermore, why isn't there anything info on LSAT score and bar pass rate? That's the only thing that really matters anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.43.166 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Analytical reasoning[edit]

Note to wikipedia admins: please change the above section. It's mixed up with the logical reasoning section. the logical reasoning section is where one would find the "logic games," and the analytical reasoning section is the one where you'd try to determine the errors int he statements "arguments." I'm not a user, but you can verify that I'm correct in this by consulting anyone studying the LSAT, like me. Just thought I'd try and help. Thanks - JB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.168.86.206 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but the logical reasoning section is not where you would find the games, see this. jheiv (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In Australia?[edit]

Hi all,
In Australia, law degrees are generally undergraduate degrees, and are offered according to High School marks. Post-graduate programs like JDs do exist but they are selected by the university involved based on previous tertiary marks or other criteria (like ability to pay enormous fees). There simply is no separate "Law School Admission Test".
--Shirt58 (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is required for admission to the University of Melbourne JD degree program. See [2] and [3]. I'll add those references into the main article. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Very good catch indeed. I won't editorialise on the merits of this, as my opinions may be construed as attacks on the basic competence to run an educational institution of those involved in the absurd fantasy that Melbourne University is located in North America. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Integral part in a a growing number of other countries?[edit]

The article says:

The test is an integral part of the law school admission process in ... a growing number of other countries

Just curious to find out which countries? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

India would be the big one, via LSAT-India (http://www.pearsonvueindia.com/lsatindia/) but China had a special administration too, LSAT-STL (http://www.china-us-law.org/institute/the-lsat-stl-admissions-tes-4.html). Transmissionelement (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unclear sentence - writing sample[edit]

'Between the quality of the handwriting and of the digital image, some admissions officers regard the readability and usefulness of the writing sample to be marginal.'

Can anyone help?

Regards, Notreallydavid (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I would presume they mean the poor quality of some handwriting samples as well as the lowered readability due to the digital imaging used. In any event, it needs to be changed. Transmissionelement (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)