Good article. The one piece of advice I would add, as a law student, is to be sure to apply to a school located in an area where you think you want to work after you graduate. If you are going to Yale, Michigan, Austin, Emory, etc., your degree will likely make it easier to go to the coasts, but if you aren’t fortunate enough to gain admission into well-ranked schools, odds are you will practice law within a 100 mile radius of the schcool.

It certainly is possible to apply for and obtain jobs far away from where you attend law school, but it also much more difficult to get them.

If these hard-working and dedicated students were truly capable of thinking logically, they would suck it up and take a Kaplan prep course. Law school is already going to set you back $20,000-$60,000 depending on where you go. What’s an additional $1200 if it guarantees that “your stellar community service, your internship at Foley and Lardner, your great personal statement and letters of recommendation and even your 4.0 GPA” haven’t been in vain?

I realize this article appears in the opinion section and that is exactly what the article contains: “opinion” and not much in terms of facts.

The LSAT is extremely important in the admissions process, schools do not downplay this importance. The LSAC publishes a book that contains the admsissions information and data from all ABA approved law schools. Looking at the data, you can see that the LSAT is important but you will also realize that schools recieve several thousand applications for just around 200 positions. The University of Wisconsin this year recieved over 3,000 applications for 270 spots in the class. Nearly all of those people had a great LSAT score, a great GPA, and tons of involvement in activities. A majority of the 1Ls at UW that I have talked to this year have had work after their undergraduate degree. The reality is that you need a complete package to get accepted to a highly competitive school, and one of those factors is a good LSAT score.

I also think that Robert left out an important piece of information: if you have good grades and a poor LSAT, you will be able to still attend law school. Again, look to the LSAC book with admissions data and there are lots of schools that want smart students without the high LSAT score.

Another problem with Robert’s characterization is how the LSAT is represented. The test is not one in which a “slacker” can just take and do well on. The test is one where the people who do the best on it are well prepared. It tests logic, a crucial skill that law students and lawyers must master. The test has merit and those who do well on it are very smart and will do well in law school.

Please talk to law schools admissions departments and look to the LSAC literature to dispell all of the incorrect information Robert just dumped on UW undergrads that want to go to law school

-UW 1L

The debate has nothing to do with whether or not you actually will get into law school, it’s a question of what’s more important and whether or not it should be.

I am a third year law student here at the UW. After having read Robert Phansalker's article on the unfairness of LSAT scores, I would like to add a few points.

First, in sluggish defense of the LSAT, I would like to point out that it may be a useful tool to distinguish between hardworking, good test-takers hardworking, bad test-takers (just as it may help distinguish between lazy, good test-takers and lazy, bad test-takers). That said, I agree that the test is unfair and is probably a poor determinant of whether one will be a good law student. Some apparently believe the LSAT successfully tests some "innate" lawyering skills (e.g. analysis), but this is questionable. With testing companies like Kaplan teaching students HOW TO TEST, and helping students figure out the tricks, the LSAT becomes an easy way to see which potential students can shell out several thousand dollars for the sake of entry into law school (this indicates that those rewarded are not simply lazy and procrastinating students, but, rich, lazy, and procrastinating students…but this is an oversimplification).

Second, problems with imperfect testing do not stop at the LSAT. Just as the LSAT is a poor determinant of whether a person would be a good law student, so law school exams are often poor determinants of whether a person would be a good lawyer. Law students tell tales of working hard, really knowing a subject, and walking out of an exam confident that they have performed well, only to find out two months later that their time and effort invested in the class have been smashed into a bell-curve. To make matters worse, a surprisingly low grade after hard work raises suspicions that some professors may use arbitrary, subjective, sloppy, or just plain lazy testing standards. At the same time, other law students tell tales of never reading the text, going to few of the classes, walking out of an exam feeling like they have barely gotten by, only to be pleasantly surprised with an inflated grade score.

These are only student's stories, and we can hardly know the difficulties a professor has in putting 20 students, or 150 students, onto a bell curve. Even professors who have detailed, systematic grading protocols based on clear and objective elements (I have met a few here) certainly struggle to distinguish an 84 from an 85, or a B and a B+. But this can make a lot of difference to students, particularly since usually ONE exam determine your ENTIRE GRADE for a class.

Assuming a perfect grading process does not eliminate testing or teaching problems, since many law school classes teach to quick issue-spotting exams, ignoring interpersonal or practical skills crucial to most lawyers. While some classes addressing these issues are available, these skills should not be compartmentalized into optional classes.

I disagree with this article. The LSAT may help you get into a top law school, but are mean nothing to the success of a lawyer. I am a graduate of UW, and an corporate attorney in NYC. I had an average score on my LSAT and attended a tier 2 school. I studied hard, was aggressive in my job search and had just as many job offers at the top firms as my friends at Harvard, NYU and Columbia, Michigan. For those who are do not get 160+ on the LSAT, do not be discouraged. Go to law school, work hard and make it happen.

As a recent graduate of the UW Law School and a practicing attorney, I am amazed at the high level of ignorance and naivete displayed in this editorial. Although, I am in no way surprised. This growing obsession over LSATs, LSAT prep, and the law school application process in general is completely misguided. It is a reflection of anal retentive, type A, overachievers who believe compiling lists of accomplishments/grades/scores is the best and therefore, only way to predict the future. It is such BS. First and foremost, the path to a successful legal career is in no way guaranteed by a top law school. For every top ten law school grad there is graduate of a non-elite school doing just as well, if not better. An applicant’s focus should be placed on finding a law school that meets their geographic and academic interests (theoretical/research driven vs. practical/black letter law isntruction, international v. local orientation, conservative v. liberal approach) as well as career goals (big firm, small firm, public interest, gov’t, etc.) Second, without the LSATs, how would admissions at top law schools weed out applicants? With grade inflation and resume building, all applicants look similar. LSATs provide another distinuguishing characteristic that measures something other than hardwork and preparation (you had 4-5 yrs to prove that part). In most cases, you either have it or you don’t when it comes to the LSATs. So, quit whining, take a deep breath, and get some perspective.

All of these lawyers and law students must have missed the ‘Reading Comprehension’ portion of their LSAT, because they are obviously missing the point.

Now to break this down for you, here's what you missed and why you would have gotten this LSAT question wrong. You missed the assumption, what would seriously weaken the argument, and, most importantly, the main point.

The point is clear, that by Law Schools placing such a strong emphasis on the LSAT over one’s GPA that they are being unfair.

At no point does the column suggest that the traits of ‘hard work’ and ‘dedication’ are sufficient qualities to successfully practice law. Rather the column suggests that they are desirable qualities and that Law Schools are deemphasizing them.

The column clearly does not suggest that a bad LSAT score would preclude you from success as a lawyer. If anything, it’s an argument against that.

Nor does the column suggest that the LSAT is completely without merit. It is claiming that students who do not have a high GPA, but do well on the LSAT should not be viewed more favorably than students with the opposite.

Lastly the column doesn't even touch on the quality of your law institution as being important for your success as a lawyer.

All of these claims are so off base that it's becoming more than apparent that these lawyers/law students couldn't spare 2 minutes to read the full text of the article.

Stop reading headlines and making baseless claims off of them, and then I'll start believing that you deserve(d) your law degree.

That low LSAT score might keep you out of the Ivies but, if you’ve got the goods, it won’t keep you out of law school altogether. Three years later a Harvard grad might have a head start but, if you’ve got the goods, you’ll do just fine. Eventually talent and, as the author of this column suggests, hard work will win out. I am a lawyer and I can tell you I’ve seen some very good and very successful attorneys who graduated from third and fourth tier schools.

The LSAT is the best predictor of law school grades.

Very well put. I’d say you hit the nail firmly and directly on the head.

Leave it to a bunch of law students and lawyers to ramble on and on and on in their comments! — 3L

In a previous comment, a wise individual gave the following advice, “So, quit whining, take a deep breath, and get some perspective.” I couldn’t agree more. If you are passionate about the law, go to a law school that will accept you and work hard. Your lamenting throughout this article about the LSAT would seem to indicate you have not accepted that life is unfair. Furthermore, your critical assessment of those you clasify as “lazy” or “slacker” is quite frankly arrogant and telling of your character. To imply that certain individuals are less deserving of attending law school because they did not work as hard in their undergraduate studies is absurd. The legal profession can do without individuals maintaining such beliefs.

The LSAT has been a tool used for over 50 years to determine aptitude not so much in the legal sphere, but rather in the realms of quick reasoning and logic. There obviously are good reasons that it is still administered, and unlike this article has stated, college grades, extracurriculars and internships are far from the sole determinant of how prepared you are to go to law school. The test certainly does not “cater to slackers”, but instead to those who understand how to use their mind in a variety of ways and situations. Also, Mr. Phansalkar’s derisive comments that you can scrap all your prior achievementss, 4.0 GPA, letters of recommendation, etc., are very true. They can be scrapped. Everyone needs to realize that that fancy internship you have at Foley and Lardner and your endless hours of community service do not make you a better candidate for law school. It’s great if you have those types of things on your resume, but just don’t complain in the end when your test scores couldn’t make the grade. Maybe if people spent more time enjoying college life and learning to be successful in a multitude of situations and less time worrying about internships and grades they might actually be a more qualified law school applicant. The LSAT will always be far more important than grades and should always be that way. Some may disagree, but that good old 4.0 GPA won’t be very useful if the LSAT is too much for you to handle.

If you’re such a hard worker, just prepare properly for the LSAT and get a high score. It is not hard to break 170, if you put any preparation into it at all.

The LSAT is the best indicator of law school success. GPA is a terrible indicator because they vary greatly between schools and majors.

Law firms want smart people, and the LSAT is an excellent, though imperfect, intelligence tests. Most lawyers, especially those in big firms, work hard. Clients prefer more intelligent lawyers. Some people just are not talented enough. I could train all I want, but it does not mean that I could be a D1 athlete.

The law is not for everyone. Let’s not forget that the world needs ditch-diggers too.

Give me a break. It really bothers me when kids from state schools with high GPAs complain about how hard the LSAT is. They seem to be forgetting that every year there are a thousand kids from top undergraduate schools who apply to law schools. Does the author really believe that someone with a 4.0 and a 160 from UW is a better candidate than someone with a 3.5 and a 170 from Columbia? GPAs tell next to nothing about a candidate because grading systems differ across schools. The LSAT is standardized, and therefore a better measure of how capable the candidate truly is.

You know what else is based on three hours of testing? Every grade you will ever get in law school. Like it or not, law students are evaluated and ranked on their ability to perform on high stakes exams, so you better get used to it. If you are expecting law school to be a pure meritocracy, you are in for a rude awakening.

LSAT is more strongly correlated with first year law school grades than undergraduate grades. This may come as a surprise, but law school is totally different from undergrad. Often, law school tests are 3 hour exams which one can do well on by prepping for the test instead of studying hard and participating in class. LSAC is doing high GPA low LSAT students a favor by keeping them out of law schools in which they would get terrible grades, resulting in dismal employment prospects, an inferiority complex, and 180K in debt. Deal.

Sounds like someone who got a 4.0 in Phy Ed and a 149 on the LSAT. Cry more.