| Topic Name: |
Law School Admission |
| Message Name: |
King LSAT's Reign a Long One |
| Date Posted: |
08/21/2000 |
| In Reply To: |
The LSAT is everything, even if you go to a school with at national reputation. True, if you do go to a top 10 undergrad, you can do less well on the LSAT and still get into a good law school. But if you bomb the LSAT, no matter where you went to undergrad and how well you did, your options will be quite limited.
There are two reasons for this. First, and probably the most important, the LSAT is not a knowledged based test. It tests reading comprehension and analytic skills. There is so much grade inflation nowadays, that you can't rely on GPAs. And you can take the LSAT again and again, so if you just had a bad day, you retake the thing. No matter what anyone says about whether LSAT is an appropriate yardstick for determining law school eligibility, the fact remains that the LSAT is what is used.
Second, the schools report their mean LSAT scores and this is used as one factor to rank the school in terms of quality. It really is irrelevant to you whether that is a fair or accurate way to do things, because it is how it is done. If top law schools started letting in students from top undergrads with low LSATs, their median LSAT scores would drop. They know that number is used to rate them, so they want to keep it high.
If you do well on the LSAT, that will be your key to getting into a top law school no matter where you went to undergrad. |
| Message: |
from Vault's Law Expert. . .
And don't think your LSAT scores become irrelevant after you start law school. I've heard of many law students and even lawyers who have been out practicing for years who have been asked about their LSAT scores during job interviews.
|
|
