Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
providence

LSAT and med school discussion, round #874 (spliced)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Rolivera said:

I'd just like to address one thing. Although getting into medicine is hard, getting into law school is by no means a walk in the park. First off, success in high-school level courses is not an indication of how well you will do in university-level courses. I went into undergrad with a great high-school marks, only to be slapped by reality come exam season. Courses are heavier, and much more independent work is required of you. Don't be surprised if your average drops substantially in your first term. If you find yourself in a situation similar to mine (did not do all that well in my first year), you'll have to work against the current to bump up those upper-year marks, especially if your're applying to schools which focus on your cumulative GPA as opposed to your performance throughout your last 2 years. 

This is only speaking of academics, which in my opinion is the lesser of the two evils when it comes to law school applications. The dreaded LSAT is considered one of the toughest standardized tests you will ever take (although that's not to say it isn't a learned skill). I've got friends in all professional fields, and most (although obviously a gross generalization) say the LSAT is the most feared, if not because it requires a diligence and attention to detail not easily replicated on other standardized tests like the DAT (dental) and the MCAT. Once you've defeated the academic dragon and have obtained a high enough average to be considered competitive by law schools, the LSAT is what typically deters a few aspiring law students from ever applying, so just be wary of this. 

This third portion is something I believe is important, but other law students and applicants may disagree. A well-rounded CV comprised of good work experience and diverse extra-curriculars (sports, volunteerism) is highly valued by admissions committees. Attaining competitive grades in undergrad is required, but doing so while also being actively involved in your community certainly boasts your application, and can at times (depending upon your level of extra-curricular commitment) make up for lower marks and a lower LSAT. But again, the extra-curricular claim is a double-edged sword. Volunteering ONCE at your local soup kitchen isn't going to make admissions committees think you're Mother-F******-Theresa. They look for long-standing commitments to both work and volunteerism.

Medical school is competitive, nobody can deny that. But thinking you'd like to go to law school BECAUSE medical school is too competitive is inherently flawed. Both are equally rigorous ( in terms of the application process and throughout the entirety of the program). 

 

Best of luck.

I was originally going to apply to med school but switched to law school for personal reasons. I would disagree that law school is just as hard to get into. On these boards, I see people regularly getting into Canadian law schools with 3.5 GPAs, or even lower -3.2, 3.3. That isn’t going to happen for Canadian medical school applicants except MAYBE rural or aboriginal access etc. 

I also don’t agree that the LSAT is universally feared or regarded as difficult. For some people, it is. To me, it was an aptitude test that I didn’t need to study for and wasn’t particularly hard. The MCAT is different because it tests scientific concepts that you learn in class. 

I don’t think ECs are a very significant factor in the admission of law school applicants in the regular category.

Edited by Hegdis
I have spliced this to avoid complete derail
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, providence said:

I was originally going to apply to med school but switched to law school for personal reasons. I would disagree that law school is just as hard to get into. On these boards, I see people regularly getting into Canadian law schools with 3.5 GPAs, or even lower -3.2, 3.3. That isn’t going to happen for Canadian medical school applicants except MAYBE rural or aboriginal access etc. 

I also don’t agree that the LSAT is universally feared or regarded as difficult. For some people, it is. To me, it was an aptitude test that I didn’t need to study for and wasn’t particularly hard. The MCAT is different because it tests scientific concepts that you learn in class. 

I don’t think ECs are a very significant factor in the admission of law school applicants in the regular category.

Providence, in this case YOU are the exception, what with your natural aptitude and intelligence. For MOST people, the LSAT is going to be challenging. Difficult may not be the correct word, as pointed out. The LSAT is challenging because, for most people, it is a different way of thinking, or one that isn't explored very often. But it isn't difficult, it can be learned. While a lot of people will find there is a skill ceiling for them with the LSAT, people can rise to its challenge. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bhaywardio said:

Providence, in this case YOU are the exception, what with your natural aptitude and intelligence. For MOST people, the LSAT is going to be challenging. Difficult may not be the correct word, as pointed out. The LSAT is challenging because, for most people, it is a different way of thinking, or one that isn't explored very often. But it isn't difficult, it can be learned. While a lot of people will find there is a skill ceiling for them with the LSAT, people can rise to its challenge. 

I agree that most people find it challenging. I also agree that for many people it is an aptitude test that requires very little effort to score above 160.

If I’m not mistaken, LSAT scores have a 0.3 correlation to 1L grades. I’ve always wondered how much stronger the correlation would be if we could somehow separate out the people who barely studied to get an acceptable score vs those who studied for 9 months, took courses, drilled games etc. for the same score. Anecdotally, those who scored very high with little effort seem to be near the top of the class.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MinesAndMinerals said:

I agree that most people find it challenging. I also agree that for many people it is an aptitude test that requires very little effort to score above 160.

If I’m not mistaken, LSAT scores have a 0.3 correlation to 1L grades. I’ve always wondered how much stronger the correlation would be if we could somehow separate out the people who barely studied to get an acceptable score vs those who studied for 9 months, took courses, drilled games etc. for the same score. Anecdotally, those who scored very high with little effort seem to be near the top of the class.

I know on the back of the LSAT there's a section that asks how you prepared for it. Could be the data for that already exists. It really isn't all that surprising to hear that people who scored high with little effort do well in law school. The LSAT (supposedly) measures the skills required to be successful in law school. It would stand to reason that if those skills come naturally to someone, they would do well in law school. 

I'm not sure I would say that for many people it is an aptitude test that requires little effort to score above 160. Were that the case, 160 wouldn't be 80th+ percentile rank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, providence said:

The dreaded LSAT is considered one of the toughest standardized tests you will ever take (although that's not to say it isn't a learned skill).

[Actually speaking to @Rolivera , but since it's spliced it goes to providence]

Wait, what? By whom? 

Anyone telling you the "dreaded LSAT" (:rolleyes:) is harder than the MCAT and the DAT is insane. It's the "most feared" What? What planet do you live on? 

Also, academic dragon? WTF does that even mean?

10 hours ago, providence said:

Medical school is competitive, nobody can deny that. But thinking you'd like to go to law school BECAUSE medical school is too competitive is inherently flawed. Both are equally rigorous ( in terms of the application process and throughout the entirety of the program). 

 

[Emphasis added]

Ohhh, I get it. 

I can't believe I got so worked up over a piece of satire! Bravo! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, providence said:

I was originally going to apply to med school but switched to law school for personal reasons. I would disagree that law school is just as hard to get into. On these boards, I see people regularly getting into Canadian law schools with 3.5 GPAs, or even lower -3.2, 3.3. That isn’t going to happen for Canadian medical school applicants except MAYBE rural or aboriginal access etc. 

I also don’t agree that the LSAT is universally feared or regarded as difficult. For some people, it is. To me, it was an aptitude test that I didn’t need to study for and wasn’t particularly hard. The MCAT is different because it tests scientific concepts that you learn in class. 

I don’t think ECs are a very significant factor in the admission of law school applicants in the regular category.

Agreed with most of what you said. I dislike the fact that people with sub-par grades can get into law school, I feel like it should be tougher to get in. I didn't find it too difficult getting very high grades, so maybe that's why I get a little disappointed seeing mediocre applicants get in. That's just me, anyway. I think getting into med school is MUCH more difficult than law, and people with exceptional stats sometimes don't make the cut (wouldn't really see this happening for law schools).

Also agree that EC's are not very significant, perhaps not significant at all. If your stats are high, the EC's become almost irrelevant. I think they matter more and more when people with average/lower stats are in competition for a spot.

On the subject of the LSAT, I think for most people it's quite a difficult test. 160 is 80th percentile, so that speaks for itself. Although I also think a lot of people who shouldn't be taking it in the first place end up taking it, and that may skew the data a bit. 

Edited by AllBlackEverything
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the LSAT is the easier of the two, mostly because it does not require any specialized knowledge. So while anyone can do good on the LSAT regardless of their education and any undergraduate major can get you into Law School, that is not the case for Med School.

Furthermore, I think in undergrad there is a lot of false equivelancy given to the LSAT to the MCAT, specifically in its difficulty. It may also come from the fact that, unless you're like providence (never assume that you are), you will fail at the LSAT without prior studying. But with studying, I think the majority of test takers can get good results.

Then again, our opinions may be very skewed on the matter seeing as we've all done at least well enough to get into Law School. Because as hard as it may be to believe, roughly 50% of LSAT takers get less than 60% of its questions correct. So that does say something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ImposterSyndrome said:

I agree that the LSAT is the easier of the two, mostly because it does not require any specialized knowledge. So while anyone can do good on the LSAT regardless of their education and any undergraduate major can get you into Law School, that is not the case for Med School.

Furthermore, I think in undergrad there is a lot of false equivelancy given to the LSAT to the MCAT, specifically in its difficulty. It may also come from the fact that, unless you're like providence (never assume that you are), you will fail at the LSAT without prior studying. But with studying, I think the majority of test takers can get good results.

Then again, our opinions may be very skewed on the matter seeing as we've all done at least well enough to get into Law School. Because as hard as it may be to believe, roughly 50% of LSAT takers get less than 60% of its questions correct. So that does say something.

The bolded has been shown to be statistically false. It just doesn't seem that way because no-one advertises that even with months of studying they can't improve beyond a 145.

 

Law school admissions are in no way, in no god damn universe, comparable to med school admissions. It's frankly laughable, and embarrassing for the profession when law admits claim it is. It's always to boost their own ego. But no, your 3.5 and 3.7L2, 159 lsat and three exec positions on student clubs are in no way comparable to the kids who get into med school. 

 

Hell they're in no way comparable to a whole host of students who don't get into med school, let alone the ones that do. It's just another sign of the fake prestige that law applicants and admits (and unfortunately even some law students and professionals) attribute to the practice of law. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just imagine if almost every law school required GPA/LSAT scores like the 3-4 or so most competitive law schools AND required significant, long-term, and meaningful ECs AND were less likely to use GPA adjustments like L2 or drops AND were less splitter friendly AND required a full course load AND actually cared about the courses you took AND often had difficult science courses as prerequisites AND required you go through a difficult interview process which if failed is sufficient to reject your application.

If you successfully imagine the above, you'll have a pretty good understanding of the difference between the difficulty of getting accepted to medical school and law school.

Note: I'm referring to Canadian law/medical schools. I'm less privy to law/medical schools in other countries.

Edited by Toad
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The situation is more.complex than how people are presenting it here 

I will say this, gpa calculations themselves vary for a given individual greatly.for.law schools.and medical schools BOTH  in terms.of WHICH school we are.talking about and this  greatly.impact your admissions chances. I had a 3.86 I think for queens law and medicine ( had i gone through with the application for med), 3.81 for u of c medicine had I applied, an 85% for.ubc yet a 3.61 for.u of t, among others etc etc etc  this is a huge difference probability wise e.g. HALF of Ubc entry med school class for many years has same gpa as me, for u of t the way it' was calculated for me without a msc and solid scientific publications it is absolutely impossible for me

And in addition the schools themselves vary , schools.like u of t will have almost NO.ONE with a  undergrad cgpa of 3.8 or under admitted unless you have a master'  and publications where then you need a 3.6 or higher even tho the cutoff is 3.0, but schools like.McMaster will.have a much larger percentage of their class with a 3.6 or lower than does u of t, but then again u of t law is ALSO very high on the gpa side( u of t med.will.drop the entire worst year out of the cgpa calc. If you take full course load u of t law will.not keep.that in mind when comparing the entry cgpa averages this has a MASSIVE impact for many people)

This is just one example, many schools do have room.for students with 3.5 or.lower, it depends on various factors like attainment of.a msc with good publication, rural standing, provincial applicant standing ,CASPER performance and the verbal mcat performance is HUGE for a lot.of Canadian schools.with lower gpa cutoffs like McMaster and many other schools, this list goes on and on but point is people.with even 3.0 DO get into medicine now what could be argued is the relative frequency of how much this happens compared to law

The mcats most.difficult section is many times when looking at school statistics for ubc McMaster etc etc when I had checked was the verbal, schools like McMaster and others dont even LOOK at your bio or chem sections etc, they only look at the verbal which is much more.similar.to the lsat than you might think, and this section has the poorest performance when looking at many school entry stats, food.for.thought, but the mcat I would assume would take longer to get ready for if applying to schools that look more than just verbal due to sheer amount of familarization with the different scientific fields, but remeber UNLIKE the lsat places like u of t which place a great degree of emphasis on competition amongst applicants in lsat ranking only have stated minimums which need to be passed , from what I remember a high score will not give you that much more if an advantage so imagine only needing let' say a 150 for the lsat but a person with 175 would not have more.of an advantage for this medical admissions( I think the cutoff is the 50th percentile)...but I think thinks for u of t only, and I would if I had to bet that the lsat would take less TIME to get ready, but the fact that many time  the verbal.mcat portion shows lower averages than the others should say something in terms of DIFFICULTY, this comparison is somewhat like apples and oranges these are two.different types.of assessents of different variables e.g. the mcat is more difficult also because of more sheer time.involved 3 hrs vs 8ish hrs i think,but I'm sure this could be acclimated to if given sufficient time 

Look, these are 2 different processes. I've outlined many considerations above on how the argument of law school.is easier because 3.5 would leave you abandoned of hope( hyperbole Yes i kno) is a very simplified argument leaving out numerous important considerations, and there are many important variables that are not similar e.g. duration of entry tests, mandatory interviewing etc etc

Medicine admissions is one of the hardest things I kno of anecdotally and from my statistical research, but entry into law schools ESPECIALLY our top tier law schools is also extremely competitive( the stats for ubc law and medicine are very similar  fornexample) 

Medicine will give you a more probable chance of a career with a particular salary average, it will give you more secure work statistically speaking, their is arguably.more social capital in terms of respect and prestige with becoming a medical doctor, there are many advantages to medicine  that law cannot Arguably compete with to the same degree, it is an amazingly difficult position to obtain and an amazing one to have in many respects 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Toad said:

Just imagine if almost every law school required GPA/LSAT scores like the 3-4 or so most competitive law schools AND required significant, long-term, and meaningful ECs AND were less likely to use GPA adjustments like L2 or drops AND were less splitter friendly AND required a full course load AND actually cared about the courses you took AND often had difficult science courses as prerequisites AND required you go through a difficult interview process which if failed is sufficient to reject your application.

If you successfully imagine the above, you'll have a pretty good understanding of the difference between the difficulty of getting accepted to medical school and law school.

Note: I'm referring to Canadian law/medical schools. I'm less privy to law/medical schools in other countries.

I did all these things anyways lol (minus the interview obviously)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ImposterSyndrome said:

I agree that the LSAT is the easier of the two, mostly because it does not require any specialized knowledge. So while anyone can do good on the LSAT regardless of their education and any undergraduate major can get you into Law School, that is not the case for Med School.

Furthermore, I think in undergrad there is a lot of false equivelancy given to the LSAT to the MCAT, specifically in its difficulty. It may also come from the fact that, unless you're like providence (never assume that you are), you will fail at the LSAT without prior studying. But with studying, I think the majority of test takers can get good results.

Then again, our opinions may be very skewed on the matter seeing as we've all done at least well enough to get into Law School. Because as hard as it may be to believe, roughly 50% of LSAT takers get less than 60% of its questions correct. So that does say something.

If I recall, at least when I took it, the LSAT had:

-reading comprehension - you read a passage and answer questions about what it says. I don't know how you "study" for that. The best preparation for me was having taken some arts electives in a rigorous undergrad program that taught me how to read closely and critically. Once you know how to do that, doesn't it take care of that section?

-logic puzzles - the question basically gives you the rules and you move people around in your mind to determine who sits where around a table. I'm also not sure how you "study" that. The question tells you what to do. 

-logical argument - this is the only one I can see how a little practice might benefit some people, just because if I remember, the wording of some of the questions could sometimes be a bit tricky, but it was basically just reasoning logically, which you should know how to do from your education.

I'm understanding that not everyone agrees with me and a lot of people do "study" for the LSAT. 

But I totally agree that you have to study for the MCAT. The MCAT tests actual concepts in physics, chemistry etc. so you have to review the laws and principles. If you're in a good science program, it's not onerous studying, it's really just reviewing what you've learned, but some of the stuff on there you won't have done for a year or two so you need to refresh your memory. 

When I switched my focus from taking the MCAT to taking the LSAT, I was specifically told, by professors, that "you don't really have to study for the LSAT because it's an aptitude test."

The other thing with the MCAT is that the below totally applies to trying to get into medicine:

6 hours ago, Toad said:

Just imagine if almost every law school required GPA/LSAT scores like the 3-4 or so most competitive law schools AND required significant, long-term, and meaningful ECs AND were less likely to use GPA adjustments like L2 or drops AND were less splitter friendly AND required a full course load AND actually cared about the courses you took AND often had difficult science courses as prerequisites AND required you go through a difficult interview process which if failed is sufficient to reject your application.

If you successfully imagine the above, you'll have a pretty good understanding of the difference between the difficulty of getting accepted to medical school and law school.

Note: I'm referring to Canadian law/medical schools. I'm less privy to law/medical schools in other countries.

So you know the competition is fierce and just because you have a 4.0 average doesn't mean you're getting in and every point counts - you see your brilliant classmates who all have 4.0 averages also writing the test and you know you can't afford to miss a single question. THAT'S pressure. The LSAT was a breath of fresh air for me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Timmies123 said:

The situation is more.complex than how people are presenting it here 

I will say this, gpa calculations themselves vary for a given individual greatly.for.law schools.and medical schools BOTH  in terms.of WHICH school we are.talking about and this  greatly.impact your admissions chances. I had a 3.86 I think for queens law and medicine ( had i gone through with the application for med), 3.81 for u of c medicine had I applied, an 85% for.ubc yet a 3.61 for.u of t, among others etc etc etc  this is a huge difference probability wise e.g. HALF of Ubc entry med school class for many years has same gpa as me, for u of t the way it' was calculated for me without a msc and solid scientific publications it is absolutely impossible for me

And in addition the schools themselves vary , schools.like u of t will have almost NO.ONE with a  undergrad cgpa of 3.8 or under admitted unless you have a master'  and publications where then you need a 3.6 or higher even tho the cutoff is 3.0, but schools like.McMaster will.have a much larger percentage of their class with a 3.6 or lower than does u of t, but then again u of t law is ALSO very high on the gpa side( u of t med.will.drop the entire worst year out of the cgpa calc. If you take full course load u of t law will.not keep.that in mind when comparing the entry cgpa averages this has a MASSIVE impact for many people)

This is just one example, many schools do have room.for students with 3.5 or.lower, it depends on various factors like attainment of.a msc with good publication, rural standing, provincial applicant standing ,CASPER performance and the verbal mcat performance is HUGE for a lot.of Canadian schools.with lower gpa cutoffs like McMaster and many other schools, this list goes on and on but point is people.with even 3.0 DO get into medicine now what could be argued is the relative frequency of how much this happens compared to law

The mcats most.difficult section is many times when looking at school statistics for ubc McMaster etc etc when I had checked was the verbal, schools like McMaster and others dont even LOOK at your bio or chem sections etc, they only look at the verbal which is much more.similar.to the lsat than you might think, and this section has the poorest performance when looking at many school entry stats, food.for.thought, but the mcat I would assume would take longer to get ready for if applying to schools that look more than just verbal due to sheer amount of familarization with the different scientific fields, but remeber UNLIKE the lsat places like u of t which place a great degree of emphasis on competition amongst applicants in lsat ranking only have stated minimums which need to be passed , from what I remember a high score will not give you that much more if an advantage so imagine only needing let' say a 150 for the lsat but a person with 175 would not have more.of an advantage for this medical admissions( I think the cutoff is the 50th percentile)...but I think thinks for u of t only, and I would if I had to bet that the lsat would take less TIME to get ready, but the fact that many time  the verbal.mcat portion shows lower averages than the others should say something in terms of DIFFICULTY, this comparison is somewhat like apples and oranges these are two.different types.of assessents of different variables e.g. the mcat is more difficult also because of more sheer time.involved 3 hrs vs 8ish hrs i think,but I'm sure this could be acclimated to if given sufficient time 

Look, these are 2 different processes. I've outlined many considerations above on how the argument of law school.is easier because 3.5 would leave you abandoned of hope( hyperbole Yes i kno) is a very simplified argument leaving out numerous important considerations, and there are many important variables that are not similar e.g. duration of entry tests, mandatory interviewing etc etc

Medicine admissions is one of the hardest things I kno of anecdotally and from my statistical research, but entry into law schools ESPECIALLY our top tier law schools is also extremely competitive( the stats for ubc law and medicine are very similar  fornexample) 

Medicine will give you a more probable chance of a career with a particular salary average, it will give you more secure work statistically speaking, their is arguably.more social capital in terms of respect and prestige with becoming a medical doctor, there are many advantages to medicine  that law cannot Arguably compete with to the same degree, it is an amazingly difficult position to obtain and an amazing one to have in many respects 

McMaster is unique for medicine in Canada in that you don't need a science background or a score on the science sections of the MCAT because they have a program to prepare outstanding arts students to study medicine. No other Canadian med school is like that. That program is very competitive with the arts students they admit generally being exceptional.

Re: UBC medicine

http://mdprogram.med.ubc.ca/files/2017/10/FINAL-MED-2021-Admissions-Statistics-website.pdf

28% of the class has an A+ average (above 4.0), 48% has an A average (4.0), 21% has A- (3.7 - 3.9-ish), 9% has B+ (3.5) and NO ONE has below B+. Nothing close to a 3.0. 

http://mdprogram.med.ubc.ca/admissions/admission-requirements/

UBC medicine does not review your file at all unless as a BC resident you have a MINIMUM 75% average, or 85% if from outside BC. Doesn't drop anything. There are required prerequisites.

Mean MCAT on the new scale is 89th percentile. 89th percentile on the LSAT is 164. 

UBC law:

 http://www.allard.ubc.ca/sites/www.allard.ubc.ca/files/ubc-allardlawjdbrochurefinallow.pdf

Drops your 12 worst classes. Median entering GPA is 83%. 

http://www.calendar.ubc.ca/vancouver/index.cfm?tree=12,207,358,326

Median LSAT is 166 (93rd percentile.)

Seems clear to me that medicine is way more competitive at UBC in terms of grades. And the average MCAT is only slightly lower than the median LSAT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, bhaywardio said:

Providence, in this case YOU are the exception, what with your natural aptitude and intelligence. For MOST people, the LSAT is going to be challenging. Difficult may not be the correct word, as pointed out. The LSAT is challenging because, for most people, it is a different way of thinking, or one that isn't explored very often. But it isn't difficult, it can be learned. While a lot of people will find there is a skill ceiling for them with the LSAT, people can rise to its challenge. 

That's the problem then - it shouldn't be a "different way of thinking." It should be a normal way of thinking for a university grad or soon to be grad. The poor quality of undergrad education however probably means that for many people, it is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, providence said:

That's the problem then - it shouldn't be a "different way of thinking." It should be a normal way of thinking for a university grad or soon to be grad. The poor quality of undergrad education however probably means that for many people, it is different.

I don't think that is a fair statement to make.

 

You are the only person I have heard of that got a 90th+ percentile score without studying. Everyone else I know studied for the LSAT and saw improvements, and that includes people with amazing grades in biochem, psychology, philosophy or Masters degrees in English, Chemistry, etc from a ton of different universities. Basically a bunch of smart, highly educated people that had to study for the test. You are the exception. I don't think it is at all reasonable to say we all had a poor quality education because we had to study for the LSAT.

 

I studied and I went from a 151 diagnostic to 167 on my second write. It made a huge difference for me. I was in a small, competitive undergraduate program and I think the quality of my undergraduate education was very high. But the focus of undergraduate degrees is generally forming and analyzing long and complex arguments - that does not always translate into being able to answer logic questions in 1 minute and 18 seconds on the LSAT. 

 

The LSAT is a learnable test, to an extent. Studying for me was about learning what exactly the test writers were asking for and then learning how to work quite quickly. I really think 99% of people will see of improvement if they study even a little bit. I also think the main challenge of the LSAT is the amount of time you get. If there was no time limit, I'm sure pretty much anyone with an undergraduate degree would be able to score exceptionally well.

 

Everyone who is writing the LSAT has at least 3 years of an undergraduate degree. If anyone with a undergraduate degree should be able to get a 90th+ percentile score, then the LSAT would be useless, would it not? I think you are the exception here and I don't think needing to study for the LSAT indicates a lack of ability or a poor education.

 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, providence said:

That's the problem then - it shouldn't be a "different way of thinking." It should be a normal way of thinking for a university grad or soon to be grad. The poor quality of undergrad education however probably means that for many people, it is different.

 

32 minutes ago, Starling said:

I don't think that is a fair statement to make.

 

You are the only person I have heard of that got a 90th+ percentile score without studying. Everyone else I know studied for the LSAT and saw improvements, and that includes people with amazing grades in biochem, psychology, philosophy or Masters degrees in English, Chemistry, etc from a ton of different universities. Basically a bunch of smart, highly educated people that had to study for the test. You are the exception. I don't think it is at all reasonable to say we all had a poor quality education because we had to study for the LSAT.

 

I studied and I went from a 151 diagnostic to 167 on my second write. It made a huge difference for me. I was in a small, competitive undergraduate program and I think the quality of my undergraduate education was very high. But the focus of undergraduate degrees is generally forming and analyzing long and complex arguments - that does not always translate into being able to answer logic questions in 1 minute and 18 seconds on the LSAT. 

 

The LSAT is a learnable test, to an extent. Studying for me was about learning what exactly the test writers were asking for and then learning how to work quite quickly. I really think 99% of people will see of improvement if they study even a little bit. I also think the main challenge of the LSAT is the amount of time you get. If there was no time limit, I'm sure pretty much anyone with an undergraduate degree would be able to score exceptionally well.

 

Everyone who is writing the LSAT has at least 3 years of an undergraduate degree. If anyone with a undergraduate degree should be able to get a 90th+ percentile score, then the LSAT would be useless, would it not? I think you are the exception here and I don't think needing to study for the LSAT indicates a lack of ability or a poor education.

 

 

I echo this ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Starling said:

I don't think that is a fair statement to make.

 

You are the only person I have heard of that got a 90th+ percentile score without studying. Everyone else I know studied for the LSAT and saw improvements, and that includes people with amazing grades in biochem, psychology, philosophy or Masters degrees in English, Chemistry, etc from a ton of different universities. Basically a bunch of smart, highly educated people that had to study for the test. You are the exception. I don't think it is at all reasonable to say we all had a poor quality education because we had to study for the LSAT.

 

I studied and I went from a 151 diagnostic to 167 on my second write. It made a huge difference for me. I was in a small, competitive undergraduate program and I think the quality of my undergraduate education was very high. But the focus of undergraduate degrees is generally forming and analyzing long and complex arguments - that does not always translate into being able to answer logic questions in 1 minute and 18 seconds on the LSAT. 

 

The LSAT is a learnable test, to an extent. Studying for me was about learning what exactly the test writers were asking for and then learning how to work quite quickly. I really think 99% of people will see of improvement if they study even a little bit. I also think the main challenge of the LSAT is the amount of time you get. If there was no time limit, I'm sure pretty much anyone with an undergraduate degree would be able to score exceptionally well.

 

Everyone who is writing the LSAT has at least 3 years of an undergraduate degree. If anyone with a undergraduate degree should be able to get a 90th+ percentile score, then the LSAT would be useless, would it not? I think you are the exception here and I don't think needing to study for the LSAT indicates a lack of ability or a poor education.

 

 

Also completely agree with this (though, plainly, being able to get 90%+ without studying isn’t as uncommon as is being suggested in my experience). The LSAT is an aptitude test, not an IQ test. That’s a major difference that people seem to ignore for whatever reason. An aptitude is something that you have a naturally given level of but that can be or is developed based on past experiences. So, most people improve their LSAT via studying, some people have adequate prep naturally or from other experiences. IQ is largely not something people can develop to anywhere near the same degree.

Edited by ToLawAndLetLaw
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • I feel the same way about anyone who is really into canoe tripping, Neil Degrasse Tyson/astrophysics, or Harry Potter. If someone hits all three guaranteed hire back. I've asked in a couple of interviews, "so, tell us which house you would be sorted into at Hogwarts and why" and the replies have been entertaining. We do ask some serious questions too.
    • Can't speak to your work, and that doesn't really sound like your primary concern anyway, but rather dealing with a lack of organization, concentration, motivation, and an overarching feeling of everything falling apart.  I've seen a few replies and already can guess the rest of the replies follow suit in the fashion of "go easy on yourself" or something along those lines. Not to say these aren't helpful replies, although admittedly I've never really found them to connect or be helpful but thats probably just me seeing as everyone generally participates in sharing such sentiments.  Instead I will offer some simple anecdote to tackle what I consider to be your primary concern as mentioned.  Your day is only as good as your morning: Wake up early, head straight into the shower, get dressed (even if you're not leaving home), have breakfast, coffee, get to doing what needs to be done.    All my good days begin with a strong morning that follow these steps. If you're not doing this, do it.   
    • It was the optional part of the application to Osgoode on OLSAS that allowed you to provide details on the following if they relate to your situation: Select any of the following consid­erations that are relevant to your application.a) Equityb) Work or life experiencec) Performance consid­erationsd) Diversity It then said: Elaborate on the selected consid­erations (maximum 2,500 characters). All information will remain strictly confid­ential.
    • If some one I interviewed mentioned they’re really into Hollow Knight I would probably hire them on the spot so we could be done with the pesky work stuff and then spend the next hour speculating on when SilkSong is coming out. 
    • I worked on a remote basis as a summer student in private practice in 2020. For OP and anyone who might be worried about the uncertainties of how that works out, in my experience the technology set up was the easy part, as in the support staff did their jobs well and I rarely had technical difficulties, but unfortunately there is just no perfect substitute for walking by someone's office and poking your head in for a chat about work/non-work stuff. There were one or two lawyers who went out of their way to reach out and set up calls with me just to chat and get to know each other more casually, and it was super special knowing that they intentionally took time out of their day to make a student feel welcomed. The lawyers who assigned me work were very approachable and encouraged reaching out via texts/calls but I pretty much did not interact with lawyers who were not in the habit of working with students. My group chat with my fellow students was a life line, though, we watched out for one another and helped each other out with lessening the load when some of us were drowning in deadlines or needed an extra hand with specific tasks. That's the other thing with getting work assignments remotely, lawyers wouldn't oversee/overhear what their colleagues are doing in the students' area of the office and they also wouldn't be able to just walk by the students and see how busy/not busy they seem to be. The responsibility is on the student to assess their workload and decide if they need to de-prioritize and re-negotiate certain tasks and deadlines or recommend the lawyer to assign the task to another, less busy student.

×
×
  • Create New...