First the radical leftists came for the house parties. Then they got mad about inviting members of recognized hate groups to campus. Now the pinko commies have launched their most diabolical assault upon America… eliminating the LSAT’s Games section.
I mean… what’s next? It might be X, but only after Y and before Z. But the cucks must always implement W before Y. How will right-wing bloggers even know where to direct their faux outrage if they don’t understand how to answer a children’s riddle?
Because that’s all the Games section asks… a series of questions based on abstract “is Polly is taller than Dean and shorter than the top student in class” fact patterns.
And Tim Rosenberger, legal fellow at the Manhattan Institute, claims the recent decision to remove this section from the test means that “The New LSAT Is Bad for America” without an ounce of irony. The Manhattan Institute? They’re reasonable people, right?
So that’s a hard no.
In any event, Rosenberger is worried about another Great Replacement, the one that finally ends the LSAT’s Games section:
These games, far from posing an arcane roadblock for aspiring lawyers, served as the essential attribute of a test that predicted, with surprising accuracy, student success in law school. It tested not just raw aptitude, but also tenacity, as logic games are eminently learnable.
There is no citation for this claim. While the LSAT as a whole has a demonstrated correlation with student success in law school, it’s a weak indicator and that impact mostly evaporates beyond 1L year. So, “surprising accuracy” implies a much more powerful relationship than the record backs up and borders upon deliberately misleading. More importantly, Rosenberger cites no support for the claim that the Games section is even responsible for this correlation as opposed to anything else in the test. The only nod toward a warrant for his claim is his casually noting that Games are unique to the LSAT vis a vis other standardized tests.
But you know what else was — and remains — unique to the LSAT? The logical reasoning questions where applicants read a flimsy argument and correctly identify the precise lapses in logic riddled throughout the passage.
Sort of like what I just had to do with the blockquote above.
This weak sauce LSAT poses a disservice to the academy, to the profession, and to our very nation. Great legal education requires students to learn not only from their professors, but from their peers. The old LSAT correctly predicted which students had the aptitude to contribute meaningfully to classroom discussions, but also revealed which students would commit the time and effort to be successful in a program that requires countless hours of independent study. A logic games-free LSAT seems poised to create the illusion of false parity between less talented, and less hardworking, applicants and their peers.
Which section do you think better “predicted which students had the aptitude to contribute meaningfully to classroom discussions” — the one about critically dissecting a written argument or a puzzle off a Bazooka Joe wrapper?
The only aspect of this diatribe that rings even a little true is the idea that the Games section could serve as a proxy for study skills. Games posed questions completely foreign to an applicant’s prior academic experience, but also employed a format that one could easily hack with a few weeks of effort. Maybe the Games score offered insight into work ethic — though it’s hard to imagine how it would be any better than undergraduate grades as an indicator on that score.
In fact, Games are so notoriously hackable that some tutors advised applicants to rush to take the test before the section disappeared because it’s an easier path to juicing the overall score than mastering the more complex logical reasoning section. To that end, eliminating the Games section may well provide law schools a better sense of which applicants are ready to “contribute meaningfully to classroom discussions.” How does Rosenberger contend with this possibility?
Just kidding, he doesn’t. Indeed, he never mentions logical reasoning at all, choosing instead to describe the LSAT without Games as “an undifferentiated general graduate test” leaving the reader with the blatantly false perception that the new test will be an ACT/SAT redux of bog standard reading comprehension and high school math problems. This seems like an oversight for someone making a serious argument about LSAT reform.
He is not, in fact, making a serious argument about LSAT reform. It will not shock you that he also transforms the new LSAT into a pretextual end-run around the Supreme Court’s affirmative action crackdown because no cultural war is complete without raising the pot with a little white grievance.
A less qualified, and less prepared, cohort of law students will doubtless contribute to a diminished legal profession. A recent reform of the MCAT led to a more holistic test, but not an easier one. Apparently, we prioritize competence above all else in our physicians. We should demand the same of our lawyers. An LSAT that fails to highlight the most talented and committed aspirants to the profession will lead to a new generation of lawyers who are less well-equipped for the pressures of representing clients.
We’re almost 500 words (494) into his 636-word article and he’s yet to offer WORD ONE to support the claim that the Games section — and uniquely the Games section — does a single solitary thing to demonstrate whether anyone is “well-equipped for the pressures of representing clients.” Spoiler alert: this will not change over the concluding 142.
Law has always been central to the American experiment – its importance even remarked upon by de Tocqueville.
He has literally offered more support for the idea that “law is good” than he has for the actual thesis of his article. But, look, we now know he’s at least aware of the concept of citing a source. On the other hand, this makes the failure to do so at every other juncture of this hot mess a lot more damning.
While it must find a way to fairly accommodate those with disabilities, it should not abandon logic games, but instead should celebrate the important role that they have played in maintaining quality across generations of America’s legal profession.
You guys, I’m starting to think Tim’s just worried about making sure he can apples-to-apples compare his score with future generations of losers who still talk about their LSAT scores after they’ve gotten into law school. It’s all right, we’ll slap an asterisk on everyone else’s score for you.
One third of our branches of government, the judiciary, is composed entirely of attorneys, and attorneys are strongly represented among our elected officials. The good order of our society depends on the proper functioning of our legal institutions and the rule of law. An LSAT that is complicit in a broader trend of credentialing less and less qualified attorneys is corrosive for our nation’s future.
See, here I thought the “good order of our society” and “proper functioning of our legal institutions and the rule of law” might depend more on a judicial system that doesn’t entertain the notion that presidents should be allowed to assassinate political rivals. Apparently we just need more puzzles!
Let’s try one:
From a group of government employees, several will be selected to attend an all-expense paid trip provided by wealthy donors presenting clear conflicts of interest. Selection conforms to the following conditions:
- Either Sam or Sonia must be selected, but Sam and Sonia cannot both be selected.
- Clarence cannot be selected unless Ginni is selected.
- Brett can only be selected if there’s beer.
- Neil and Amy must be selected.
- Sam cannot be selected unless there’s a private jet.
Q: How fast can they all fly to Alaska?
Boom! The Republic is saved!
The New LSAT Is Bad for America [RealClear Education]
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
