Tomorrow, I take the most important test I will ever take in my life.

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
My GF's taking the LSAT soon, doesn't seem that hard to me from what she's been studying...

I didn't think it was that hard. I studied for two weeks and got in the 99th percentile, even after being up all night with the flu. The games section seems easier than what it used to be, and the other sections just test normal reading and thinking skills. I think it's a good first test of fitness for the law, because if you do badly you really shouldn't be in a field requiring good language skills and exquisite judgement.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: bennylong
And here's the funny thing, even after you pass the bar, most likely, you probably won't be practicing law in 10 years.

I know one guy that has $100k in debt from law school and he's not practicing anymore. What a waste. He could have been a weilder and be without the huge debt.

Lord knows you can make a TON of money as a "weilder" instead of getting an education.

It all depends on what you wield. John Holmes made a mint with his tool. Of course, that was before he failed the most important test of his life.

 

[Taughnter]

Good luck, but don't sweat it. Just don't act surprised when the proctors cut you off 2 or 3 minutes early per section. If you're ready for that, the content of the test shouldn't be a problem by now. And to be honest, if you're testing alright on the practice tests and you've been doing it a while, I don't see any reason you should score under a 160, which should be at least good enough for some decent tier 2 schools.

As far as this being the most important test of your life, are you not expecting to do well? I just graduated law school a few weeks ago, and I can assure you, there is a far more important test looming (oh yea, it's a hell of a lot longer AND harder). I'm not talking about law school exams, if you're like any of the law students I know, you've probably never had trouble in school so this isn't really going to be an exception (unless you let it get to your head).

I'm talking about the infamous Bar Exam, unless of course you live in a state like Wisconsin (where the BAR is much easier) you're going to be studying somewhere between 40 and 80 hours a week for two months to take two (or more) straight days of tests to determine if you can actually use the degree you just spent 3 years and $100,000+ earning. Take a look at the stats on that exam, if you don't pass the first time your chances of failing increase.

So rest assured, you have plenty to look forward to: either you do well enough to go to law school (I can assure you that's a mixed blessing, no matter how much you want it you're going to hate certain aspects of it.) or you do horrible and decide law school isn't for you. But seriously, don't worry about it, I've been a complete slacker my entire life and I've done perfectly fine up until now. You sound like you've done a far superior job studying for the LSAT than I ever did, and most people taking it would have been happy with the score I got.

 

[Taughnter]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I think it's a good first test of fitness for the law, because if you do badly you really shouldn't be in a field requiring good language skills and exquisite judgement.

First person who I've ever heard say that they think the LSAT is a good test of ANYTHING related to law. Ok, maybe a bit of an exageration, but let me put it this way. Yes, if you can't pull apart "complicated" passages and get to the important parts or make analogies and distinctions between arguments (legal or otherwise), you're going to have a hard time as a lawyer (and more importantly in law school).

Without trying to be long-winded, I honestly don't think the LSAT is a good measure of anything other than how well you can take the LSAT. The games section, while kind of fun if not taken in the LSAT context, is completely useless when it comes to the real world. You're never going to have problems like these. The reading comp and arguments sections probably do test valuable skills for lawyers, but these are things you learn to do in law school. You don't spend three years reading and analyzing cases for nothing.

Maybe there is a correlation between doing well on the LSAT and doing well in law school, but since the people who do poorly generally end up not going to law school, we have no idea what sort of predictor a bad score is.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: jjones
That's not the most important test. The most important test in life is when your SO asks the question, "Does this dress make me look fat?"

Your entire future happiness hinges on correctly answering this question.

The appropriate reply in such delicate situation should be: "It's not the dress that makes you look fat. It's the fat that makes you look fat."

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Taughnter

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I think it's a good first test of fitness for the law, because if you do badly you really shouldn't be in a field requiring good language skills and exquisite judgement.

First person who I've ever heard say that they think the LSAT is a good test of ANYTHING related to law. Ok, maybe a bit of an exageration, but let me put it this way. Yes, if you can't pull apart "complicated" passages and get to the important parts or make analogies and distinctions between arguments (legal or otherwise), you're going to have a hard time as a lawyer (and more importantly in law school).

Without trying to be long-winded, I honestly don't think the LSAT is a good measure of anything other than how well you can take the LSAT. The games section, while kind of fun if not taken in the LSAT context, is completely useless when it comes to the real world. You're never going to have problems like these. The reading comp and arguments sections probably do test valuable skills for lawyers, but these are things you learn to do in law school. You don't spend three years reading and analyzing cases for nothing.

Maybe there is a correlation between doing well on the LSAT and doing well in law school, but since the people who do poorly generally end up not going to law school, we have no idea what sort of predictor a bad score is.

All I said was that it separates out the real chaff. For that, it's useful. Whether aptitude tests work well at all is debatable. I think there's something to them, although I also believe that hard work, above all, guarantees success.

I once knew a man with a master's in psych who could barely read and write, and I've known many fairly stupid people who went to MIT and Harvard. It's literally true-- I worked in an office of about 20 people where I was one of only two people who hadn't gone to one or the other. Most of them were of below-average capabilities. The MIT grads were no good at software development, and the Harvard alums had poor communication and problem-solving skills. Of course, all of them were blessed with large egos.

I've also known people with 4.0 GPAs that weren't exactly brilliant. Some of them wouldn't do that well on the LSAT, even if they studied.

You said that I'm the first person you've known to say that there's anything valuable in the LSAT, and then admit that maybe I'm not. Then you admit that some simple skills tested by the LSAT are required for doing well in law school and in the practice of law. Then you say that in your opinion, the LSAT tests nothing outside of aptitude for the LSAT. You're inconsistent, and you seem to have misinterpreted badly what I said-- even though you apparently agree with me.

 

[bennylong]

I too have noticed a lot of these MBAers from top notch business school have below average intelligent in the work place and have the work habit of a hobo.