So what does the LSAT measure?

Most people think that the LSAT tests intelligence, reasoning ability, formal logic skills, etc.

Well there isn't an easier way to say that NONE of the above are valid. Now it's true that some level of intelligence is needed, as well as logic, etc. But can it be said that someone that scores a 170 is more intelligent than someone that scored a 150?

I would feel like fool to make that assertion, because even the most reliable tests for intelligence, such as IQ tests, are deeply flawed and subject to many biases...

The LSAT does certainly test several aptitudes that one would think a lawyer should possess:
- Reading comprehension: Understanding what you are reading and being able to think about it
- Attention to detail: Can one word really make a world of difference?
- Ability to put your own biases aside and relate to information valid in the LSAT world only
- SPEED
- SPEED
- SPEED

I have always been a shitty test taker. Mostly, it's is because I have mild ADD and my mind wanders off on tangents, I day dream a lot and I don't read carefully enough.

However, the LSAT doesn't test any knowledge!! It doesn't matter if you're coming to the test with a PhD in neurobiology or a degree in textile technologies (I think that's what John Edwards has).

The point of the whole exam is to standardize the results to reflect applicant's abilities, irrespective of their backgrounds.

Now, if I were on the admissions committee and had to look at an applicant that had a 3.9 in with a degree in women's studies or a 3.7 in biochemistry, how would I go about deciding? Many people have their own set of judgements as to the level of difficulty of both subjects as well as the work it took to obtain those degrees.

It is my own opinion that the biochemistry degree is the harder one and therefore I would choose the applicant that completed that degree, despite the other applicant having a better GPA. But who am I?? That is a very subjective and arbitrary decision.

As such, the LSAT is there to provide some form of STANDARDIZATION. This means that the LSAT is a measure of RELATIVITY allowing to classify test takers in a position relative to each other.

This means that it is not a pure and applied measure like weight, height, volume, etc. You can say that a 300 lbs person is twice as heavy as a 150 lbs person. However, you cannot say that a person with an IQ of 200 is twice as smart as a person with an IQ of 100, or in the same breath, that a person with a 180 LSAT is 1.5 times as smart as someone with a 120 LSAT score...

So whenever you have a relative measurement, you want to know what the standard is? The LSAT is based a bell-curve, where a score of about 150-151 should be both the mean, mode, and median score.

The MEAN is pretty straight forward, it is sum of all scores, divided by the number of test takers.

The MODE, is the score that appears most often

The MEDIAN is a measure whereby 50% of all score fall bellow it and the other 50% fall above it.

When measuring IQ, the MEAN = MODE = MEDIAN = 100.

The difference between IQ and the LSAT, is that the LSAT has defined parameters, whereas IQ does not since you cannot score above 180 on the LSAT.

More on this post in a bit :)

So you wanna take the LSAT?? ... really?!

If you're on this page, it's because you have probably thought of taking the Law School Admission Test, otherwise known as the LSAT.

The LSAT is a requirement for admission for all US and most Canadian Law Schools, but you probably knew that already...

Kaplan? Oxford Seminars? Prep101? Knewton? Powerscore?

If any of these company names sound familiar, it's because you have sought help. These companies and many other will be glad to help you, for a very handsome fee. But are they necessary? There is no doubt that they can help, but how much fuss is the LSAT and all the stress associated with it worth?

Well I've decided to see for myself and take the December 5th, 2009 LSAT. I have little more than 30 days, no money for any of the prep courses listed above, very little test taking skills and even less attention to detail.

Am I out of my mind? Maybe... make that probably... but I am convinved that perceptions about the LSAT are completely wrong and I want to prove it!!

I took the LSAT two years ago with little to no preparation = about 5 practice LSATs that I printed out and did in my own time without timing myself and always getting a score in the 160s... I thought that I was golden!!

Not being a morning person, I made my way up those dreaded stairs to the testing site at 8:30am, with nothing but coffee and a bowl of cereal is my stomach and all the hopes and dreams associated with admission to law school... Alas, lack of preparation, insomnia and a million other factors left me a month later, confronting my fate with a 143 score.

My hopes and dreams were dashed and I sank into oblivion... Disillusioned, I suppressed all dreams of becoming a lawyer until now.

So what did I learn from my previous experience:

1. The LSAT measures reading comprehension (period). You don't need math skills, you don't need to take a course in logic... all you need is to understand what's being asked of you and more importantly how it is being asked.

2. The LSAT is a race - against the clock. If you, like myself, are a slow test taker (I don't remember finishing a single test on time in college.), than the clock is your worst enemy!!

3. The LSAT is a test of mental and physical endurance - You're present in the testing room at 8:30am, at best the test will begin at 9:00am... hope to be done by 13:30 with only a 10-15min break to eat, use the restrooms, etc. You need to know how to pace yourself.

But wait a minutes, the test is all about reading comprehension, speed and endurance, what is it really about? Aren't lawyers supposed to be uber-smart?



Read the next post :)