Who else thinks the LSAT should include some content area knowledge? Forum
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:00 am
Who else thinks the LSAT should include some content area knowledge?
Folks who have taken at even one Government, Political Science, undergrad Law, Philosophy or Social Sciences class, or read a few books on these: doesn't at bother you that this type of content knowledge is barely tested by (on) the LSAT ?
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documen ... ndards.pdf
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documen ... ndards.pdf
-
- Posts: 4454
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am
Re: Who else thinks the LSAT should include some content area knowledge?
No.
What does that have to do with educational standards for kindergarden through high school?
What does that have to do with educational standards for kindergarden through high school?
-
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:08 am
Re: Who else thinks the LSAT should include some content area knowledge?
The last thing law schools need is more government/poli sci majors who think they’re hot shit because they also at one point in their sophomore political theory class read an excerpt of Aristotle once.
- cavalier1138
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm
Re: Who else thinks the LSAT should include some content area knowledge?
How would knowing those subjects help, for example, a criminal defense attorney? Or corporate in-house counsel?
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:57 am
Re: Who else thinks the LSAT should include some content area knowledge?
No, it doesn't bother me at all. I'd prefer candidates to be evaluated based on aptitude, not knowledge. Seems to me keeping the test aptitude-based levels the playing field in that regard and provides a more accurate basis for comparison.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:05 pm
Re: Who else thinks the LSAT should include some content area knowledge?
I mean, I majored in philosophy and I think I had a leg up on other test takers because I had taken formal logic classes.
Also, law schools like having a variety of different majors and if there was content knowledge STEM folks might be less apt to take the test, when they are actually in demand for patent/IP stuff. So it makes sense to me not to require content-based knowledge. The LSAT is really just supposed to be testing your brain's ability to reason and make arguments.
Also, law schools like having a variety of different majors and if there was content knowledge STEM folks might be less apt to take the test, when they are actually in demand for patent/IP stuff. So it makes sense to me not to require content-based knowledge. The LSAT is really just supposed to be testing your brain's ability to reason and make arguments.
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:25 am
Re: Who else thinks the LSAT should include some content area knowledge?
CS Major here, Discrete Mathematics is generally required in any CS program and covers all the formal logic necessary for the LSAT (Truth tables/xor are especially helpful). The reality is that various majors should have prior exposure to various areas of the test, but nothing (as the test currently stands) disadvantages any particular major. That is precisely how it should stay.apple22 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:28 pmI mean, I majored in philosophy and I think I had a leg up on other test takers because I had taken formal logic classes.
Also, law schools like having a variety of different majors and if there was content knowledge STEM folks might be less apt to take the test, when they are actually in demand for patent/IP stuff. So it makes sense to me not to require content-based knowledge. The LSAT is really just supposed to be testing your brain's ability to reason and make arguments.
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2022 11:27 am
Re: Who else thinks the LSAT should include some content area knowledge?
Law schools are interested in your capacity to learn, not what you know.