Talk:Law School Admission Test/Archive 1

message: As promised, I have finished a complete re-write of the criticism section which basically includes removing any and all criticism from it.  I left the much-contested "16% predictability" statistic in there.  I would be happy to provide a justification for it if anybody would like to see it, including a point-by-point rebuttal to any points that JKillah has made here that I have not answered to his satisfaction. Bjsiders 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete re-write of criticism section 

message: I have also expanded several of the sections and added more information about the test itself, so that the page is no longer dominated by criticism of the test while weak on actual information about the test itself JKillah 14:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Page Improvement 

message: As no one has been able to provide any sources for this Michigan study, I have removed that information and replaced it with statistics that have sources. I have made clear, however, that the LSAT is not a perfect predictor of law school performance. Unless there is still disagreement, I think the npov tag can be removed JKillah 14:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Michigan study?  None was referenced in the article.  The only Michigan reference is already sourced.  If you want more sources, try  or  or  or .  The source is expert testimony.  The validity of the expert may be questioned if you like but please don't remove the source. Bjsiders 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that your study is demonstrable unbiased and another isn't?  I fixed the links, check them again. Bjsiders
There needs to be a source added for the 'Michigan study' claiming that law school grades do not correlate with LSAT scores, or it needs to be removed. In a packet of "frequently asked questions" I received along with an application from Boston College Law School this study was mentioned and labeled a "rumor," and that LSAT scores correlate highly with law school performance (the number in this information packet is 84%). JKillah 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, what study?  There is no Michigan study referenced in the article.  There's a legal case involving the University of Michigan, and the article already had a source for it from the University of Toledo Law Review.  I'm also suspicious of an informational pamphlet that defends the LSAT coming from a law school that has a vested interested in defending it.  I think I trust the testmaker more, whose interest is in getting people to weigh their test as heavily as possible, but is saying the opposite - that schools are overrelying on it.  The article already explores various possibilities for this, such as ABA requirements, and the article already defends use of the LSAT as the best tool available by which to measure applicants.  The data is all sourced.  Add your correlation information from your pamphlet but don't remove a bunch of sourced data from legal cases and law journals because you read an informational pamphlet from Boston College that disagrees. Bjsiders 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not that I don't like the BC info, I'm sure it's perfectly valid.  So are other sources that offer another perspective.  My objection is that you removed an entire section of sourced and documented material to replace it with something that says the opposite.  What's worse, you complain about me doing this in this talk page. Bjsiders 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's all sourced under "External Resources." Bjsiders 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were when I originally editted it.  If somebody else moved them to the wrong place, you should move them to where they belong rather than just remove all the material you don't like. Bjsiders 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is EXACTLY what the article already said.  LSAT correlation to first year performance is weak but there's no known better predictor. Bjsiders 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So remove the word "weak" rather than yank an entire section of sourced material.  You're trying to correct a POV problem by removing a bunch of sourced content because you don't like one adjective? Bjsiders 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, you are wrong.  A correlation of under .4 is considered no correlation at all, and anything from .4 to just under .9 is considered a "low" correlation.  .9 and above is a strong correlation.  Your own sources verify what the article already says - the correlation is statistically weak.  I am going to replace your characterization of the correlation.  [] Bjsiders 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That begs of question of why you then characterized a .4 as a "strong" correlation when the article here says it's weak and you yourself say it's at the low end of medium.  I'm having trouble assuming good faith from you, sir. Bjsiders 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But ... you just did that.  You removed a bunch of sourced material and replaced it with your own material.  I am putting the other material back in, but I am leaving yours in place to ensure that the article represents a tapestry of analyses of the topic. Bjsiders 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page is in Need of Better Sources 

message: This statement has been removed: "This section is perhaps the most coachable section of the LSAT; as a consequence, its complexity and difficulty has increased steadily since the late 1990s." The opposite is actually true. The analytical reasoning section has been de-emphasized throughout the late 1990s because of its coachability. It is now much easier, and usually shorter than it was in the early 1990s. JKillah 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Far from it.  The section may be shortened, but that's because the individual questions are more difficult on balance.  Any prep documentation can tell you this.  If you'd like a source, one, another.  Any LSAT prep literature will say the same thing.  Try anything from Kaplan or the Princeton Review.  I'm putting the statement back in unless you can source your information. Bjsiders 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made several edits to this page and somebody keeps adding back in factually incorrect material and re-organizing a bunch of PoV stuff (some of which I contributed).  I've removed all of this content and instead quoted generously from a respected law review regarding the issue, including as many cites from LSAC itself as I could.  The concensus seems to be that the LSAT is the best known predictor of law school performance, but it's correlation is pretty low.  It's almost always cited as being under 50%, and sometimes as low as under 20%.  Based on this, I feel that the criticism section is merited, and I've sourced these materials.  I'd like for somebody to dig up other studies and citations that provide higher correlations, if you can find any.  The one I dug up was from the recent lawsuit against the University of Michigan, and an "expert" testimony quoted 16-20%.  I think most other studies place it higher.  In any case, I feel that the section is more honest and comprehensive now, and more useful to somebody doing research.  I hope nobody takes offense at the great swath of material that I removed, but upon reading it, it was clear to me that two users were going back and forth with PoV edits, re-arranging content to make one side or the other appear to be the "right" conclusion.  Bjsiders 18:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analytical Reasoning 

message: LSAC stands for "Law School Admission Council" and LSAT stands for "Law School Admission Test", so the 's' in 'Admissions' needs to be removed throughout this entry. See www.lsac.org for confirmation.
: Done.  I also moved the LSAC article appropriately. Bjsiders 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSAT is spelled wrong 

message: Hi, in the "Use of the LSAT in Law School Admissions" section some of the statistical language is wrong, sometimes subtly, and sometimes egregiously. I fixed the most egregious error myself, but it still says things that imply that a certain magnitude correlation coeffecient is statistically significant, while a lower magnitude is not (untrue, the two are not related, and you could have low significance, high correlation coeffecient, etc). I haven't gone through it more thoroughly because I mostly don't think I have enough expertise or knowledge to do so and be sure I'm not just mucking it up more. Is there anyone that could perhaps please fix that section? Or for the meantime, advise as to an appropriate template to place there? Thanks. D. G. 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor removing all of the coefficient and math completely.  I think the original criticm section was sufficient to convey WHY people criticize the LSAT.  We had one guy show up here a few months back and, after reading a pamphlet from some law school that talked up how good the LSAT is, wanted to argue against the criticism section.  In the end, it turns out his pamphlet quoted the same study that the article did, it just spun the study differently.  After a long back and forth he vanished for a few weeks, I re-wrote the whole section to address his concerns , and he never came back to get involved.  I favor yanking all the tedious exposition about corellation coefficients and everything else. Bjsiders 04:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand your point.  You think the correlation statisticss don't belong because their parents buy them high scores with expensive undergraduate programs? Bjsiders 12:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics on correlation between 1L grades and LSAT scores, etc 

message: The last comment in there strikes me as pretty POV... "The experimental section also amounts to unpaid research being done on LSAC's behalf by examinees who are already paying for the testing." Upon reading it for the first time it sounds like editorializing, regardless of whether it's factual. I don't think that, without a source cited, it's appropriate. If that's a legitimate criticism some have of the LSAT, that's fine, but Wikipedia (I understand) is not a place for original research. Mkilly 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that line in.  It was mentioned in both my copy of the Princeton Review and the Kaplan class I took on the LSAT, so it seemed to me to be a fairly common criticism of the experimental section.  I thought LSAC had an excellent rebuttal for it - how else do they test questions fairly?  If they pay people to take the test or test the questions in any situation other than a real testing situation, how do they know that the question is clear, fair, and at the appropriate level of difficulty? Bjsiders 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I just really don't like the phrasing, because it sounds tacked-on out of spite from some guy that was rejected by Ann Arbor or whatever. That is a good rebuttal; why isn't it in the page? Mkilly 00:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it amounts to original research.  The stuff about "unpaid research" is what other sources say about the section.  I think LSAT could mount an excellent defense of the practice but I've not found a quote or source to that affect. Bjsiders 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimental section 

message: this article was very good (IMO), but it didn't answer a crucial question of mine.  What grade is necessary to be admitted into most schools.  I know law schools take into account a number of factors (GPA, References, previous work), but what's the minimum someone should shoot for on the LSAT?
Scott Free 07:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowest Grade for admission to law school