I completely agree with Kennedy's article and his conception of the hierarchy that is suffered by law students. For example, the LSAT is a test that is based on rankings. It is not even a content based test. It is SUPPOSED to measure the students ability to think logically but I was told by many recruiters that the LSAT doesn't measure how well you'll do in law school or how good of a lawyer that you'll be. Why make the LSAT so important to get into the top law schools? Pre-law students strive to score within the 90th percentile on the test in order to get into the top three. Even my internship this summer, that was for FBI and Department of Justice, told me that I would have to at least get into law school in the top 5 schools and graduate in the top 20% of my class in order to get a job as an attorney there. The admissions process is extremely competitive and it definitely shows hierarchy.
When you do get into that top law school that you worked so hard in, you're ranked within the class. I was told that you do most of the work yourself, as we do in undergrad, and then are ranked in class by a professor who you have to contact using a secretary. I personally like to be able to speak with my professor and check up on my status here in undergrad. How is one supposed to get into the top 20% when you can't even interact with the people that are supposed to be teaching you how to become an attorney? Some schools even kick out the students who aren't in the top of their class and keep the tuition money anyways.
Personally, I believe that professional school is more of a business than it is a place to obtain the education that you need to succeed in the career of your choosing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I take two issues with your post. First, the reason recruiters often say that is because their job is to get you to apply regardless. The LSAT does in fact test logical ability, even if it is in an abstract way. By no means is it perfect, but despite what the recruiters said, studies have shown that there IS a direct correlation with LSAT scores and first year grades. Second, I'd like to emphasize that you're giving the top 3 too little clout when it comes to the LSAT. The median LSAT at Stanford is actually 170, which is actually over the 98th percentile and is accompanied by a 3.87 median GPA, both of which are justified by indicating a candidate's high likelihood of success.
ReplyDeletePart of the point seems to be that logic may not be the sole attribute of a lawyer. Various legal theories discussed throughout the semester would question the singular value of logic in legal scholarship. Likewise, we might ask how symbols like GPA and class rank translate into excellent legal work.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree that if someone scores a high LSAT score that they are going to have great first year grades. Most law schools preach that hard work and effort are what earns someone higher grades in their first year. Answering 25 out of 25 logic game questions in thirty five minutes is not a sure way to earn an A. In law school people must study multitudes of information and many classes in law school have a final exam as the only grade in the class. So getting a better first year law school grades has more to do with preparation and hard work.
ReplyDelete