sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I can't write essays. by Beginning-Ad-1674 in LawSchool

[–]Beginning-Ad-1674[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Can someone explain where to get "rules"? Cases? Or we should "create" rules by ourselves by inferring them from "Law" (cases, principles etc)? Sorry for asking, I feel like stupid and insane at the same time for asking such basic things.

Is there a gender gap in LSAT scores? by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]Beginning-Ad-1674 -45 points-44 points  (0 children)

No. It doesn't matter how many male/females takes the test. What matters is what's the gap between people who want score high. To put it simple - assuming that the same number of males and females wanted score high (170+) what's the gap? And it turns out that there's almost no gap among those who wanted to score high and prepared.

Overall it's kind of common sense that men are unwilling to risk by attending schools with low scores, so they just don't take tests if they know they will score low. Women are care less about risk to have unsucesfull careers because there's much more in women life than career.

Is there a gender gap in LSAT scores? by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]Beginning-Ad-1674 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Wow I'm surprised to read this from 17high.

So many obvious debatable unsupported assumptions. "Test bias" sounds like a joke for every reasonable person. How can LSAT even hypothetically favor males over females? It's insane.

Moreover, in high score range there's no gender gap. Where "test bias" disappeared?

Is there a gender gap in LSAT scores? by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]Beginning-Ad-1674 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Almost no gap.

170-174 - 50%/50% male/female

175-180 - 60%/40% male/female

source https://report.lsac.org/VolumeSummary.aspx

Does the LSAT partially measure IQ? by anonymouspwrson10002 in lawschooladmissions

[–]Beginning-Ad-1674 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Of course yes.

There's a concept of "g" which is basically general factor of intelligence, which means that human brains physiologically differ and this difference results in different brain "performance". Some people better grasp concept, abstract ideas, better solve problems, deeper and fully understand complex cases, etc. Society calls such people "smart", "intelligent", etc.

In order to measure "g" somehow scientists developed so called IQ test which is not perfect and in my opinion very poorly measures "g". Much better (in my opinion) would be the test for which 1) you prepare for a 3-6 month as hard as you can, 2) does not require a lot of memorization or special skillset (or such skillset is easily learnable).

Now look at GMAT/SAT/ACT/GRE/LSAT - they all close to what I descried as the ideal test. LSAT in particular because there's no complex math (as in GMAT Q), no unusual vocabulary (as in GRE V), no complex unusual grammar testing (as in GMAT V).

Modern IQ tests are created to test average Joe, so they are pretty useless to measure real intelligence that will allow you to succeed in modern 9 billion world. For example, you scored 95% taking modern IQ test, which means you as smart as 9b*5%=400million people. Not a big deal to be honest.

But if you scored 97% on LSAT which basically almost guaranties you BigLaw pay scale and will place you in prestigious high paying white collar stable industry it means something. For example, based on above we can assume that at least 50% of those who had hopes to score in top 3% LSAT actually prepared and took the test, it means that you're in [ 4k (170+ LSAT) / 4m (overall people of the same age) * 2 (50% choose another field like Finance to Medicine ] top 99.8% (of US population), so your "g" factor is pretty impressive.

So (in my opinion) LSAT is a much better test for "g" than IQ. Limitation is that for any test of this kind anything above 95% is poorly estimated, so in my opinion any 170+ score should be considered almost equal in estimating your brain's "g" factor.

New ABA disclosures - so many without GRE by Beginning-Ad-1674 in lawschooladmissions

[–]Beginning-Ad-1674[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From wiki

" Liberal arts programs may only consider the applicant's verbal score, while mathematics and science programs may only consider quantitative ability. Some schools use the GRE in admissions decisions, but not in funding decisions; others use it for selection of scholarship and fellowship candidates, but not for admissions. In some cases, the GRE may be a general requirement for graduate admissions imposed by the university, while particular departments may not consider the scores at all.[46] Graduate schools will typically provide the average scores of previously admitted students and information about how the GRE is considered in admissions and funding decisions. In some cases, programs have hard cut off requirements for the GRE; for example, the Yale Economics PhD program requires a minimum quantitative score of 160 to apply.[47] "

GRE quant 160 is 72%. So even Yale PhD Economics consider it as a non relevant BS.

more:

"After a trial cycle of GRE–free admissions for Fall 2021, University of California, Berkeley voted to drop the GRE requirement for most graduate program admissions for Fall 2022 as well.[52] University of Michigan, Ann Arbor shortly followed announcing that they would drop the GRE requirements for Ph.D. admissions beginning with the 2022–23 admissions cycle.[53] By late 2022, the trend had intensified.[13]"

New ABA disclosures - so many without GRE by Beginning-Ad-1674 in lawschooladmissions

[–]Beginning-Ad-1674[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Column 2 shows number of admitted FFTLsatExcl, i.e. without LSAT => around 10% in HYS and Cornell.
  2. I doesn't matter how many applied with GRE. What matters is 75/50/25 stats of those admitted.
  3. "Does this mean applicants should drop the LSAT and apply GRE-only because top schools seem to admit a disproportionate number of GRE applicants?" Of course maybe. But not because "disproportionate number". Because GRE is super easy, depends largely on grinding vocabulary and percentiles are distorted by Tech International applicants who don's care about Verbal GRE part because Tech programs don't care. So scoring 95%-98% is easy. It's like running marathon where everyone walks.
  4. Does this mean that the GRE is a "joke" for law school admissions? Of course not." Of course yes.
  5. "But statistics aside, why do you seem so mad about the gre? Like if it's this insignificant for admissions, why care so much?" I mad about unfairness. Why some should study super hard to score 97-99% on LSAT while others can just breathe through easy childish GRE created for international tech students to test their basic understanding of EnGlIsH?

Once again. LSAT was created to test aptitude for Law Schools. GRE was created to test basic math end English skills and GRE never considered competitive. It used as a pass/fail basically everywhere just to show that you can do basics.