As I was preparing for the LSAT last fall there seemed to be endless debate among people not in law school about how predictive the LSAT really is (not that these people are in any position to offer evidence) The conventional wisdom seemed to be that it tests skills that are irrelevant in law school.
If you're planning to take the LSAT, I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so: even after a week of classes it's clear that the question types on the LSAT are well-chosen to be similar to reasoning patterns you use every day in law school.
Reading comprehension - the cases you read are not long but they contain small, important details. You can't just skim over things and get it.
Logical reasoning - most of the cases come from the appellate courts, so there's often a line of reasoning leading to one decision, then the appeals court finds flaws in the reasoning, and puts forward their own theory.
Logic games - believe it or not, these are relevant too. When you read criminal statutes or rules of procedure, you have these interlocking requirements and conditions that all have to be reasoned out to get to the right result.
31 Aug 04
I've been teaching LSAT prep for the Princeton Review for longer than I'd like to admit and I find your words beyond refreshing. I look forward to directing my students to this post. I'm as sympathetic as the next gal, but I'm fed up with the argument that the logical and analytical skills required by the LSAT will never be used in law school or, heaven forbid, the legal profession.
Posted by: Jenny at November 1, 2004 11:26 PM