For those who aren’t familiar with it, the LSAT is not a test of substantive legal knowledge — you’re not expected to learn law before you go to law school. It’s a multiple choice test with sections on logical reasoning, analytical reasoning, and reading comprehension. Obviously those things have some relevance to potential legal ability, which is presumably why law schools use it, and I believe it has some correlation with law school GPA and bar passage rates (though not, I think, as much as undergraduate GPA?).
But the idea that you would care about a single test that someone wrote decades ago, when you have a long history of actual professional performance on which to assess them, is silly. Even as a law student interviewing with firms, I don’t recall ever being asked what my LSAT score is, and I believe we were told not to put it on our resumes. It mattered indirectly, of course, because your LSAT influences what law schools admit you, and people certainly care about that at least for new lawyers. Once you’re like a decade out, even the most snobby law firms generally stop caring about that.
We all know what’s going on here, naturally. They’re hoping they can argue that Judge Jackson’s LSAT score wouldn’t have been good enough to get her into Harvard Law School without affirmative action. (She also has a bachelor’s degree from Harvard University, but of course they’ll just dismiss that as affirmative action too and no doubt want to know her SAT scores.)
Oh yes. We all know all right. They’re hoping they can argue that Judge Jackson’s LSAT score wouldn’t have been good enough to get her into Harvard Law School without affirmative action, AND that therefore she is stupid and inferior and being foisted on us by CritiCal RaCe TheOry and dragging down our beautiful great white white white country with its Tucker Carlsons and Donald Trumps and Lauren Beoberts.
I was following discussion about this over at Ken White’s Twitter yesterday. He was pretty angry about it. He made Screechy’s point about it being an entry test designed to see whether you’d cope with first year. Says as the person who does his firm’s hiring, he’s never asked for it and considers it irrelevant. In his view Brown’s work in the Law Review and history as a Judge was what was relevant. Described her as whip smart.
The whole nonsense is deeply racist. The gop was going to oppose any black or female candidate put forward using such bullshit. Hell, they were going to oppose any candidates. It’s just they method of approach to different groups is so predictable.
Maybe Brown should sob about how much she likes beer…
JFC, Tucker Carlson is such an inept ignoramus. She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law and has years of impressive legal experience. Her “LSAT scores” are about as relevant to her suitability as the price of beans in China. Carlson probably can’t even see how absolutely racist this looks from outside his wooden head.
But now I’m wondering if I should phone HR at my firm and tell them what my GRE scores were. I mean, I’ve been a research scientist at this firm for the last 18 years, but maybe they made a mistake in hiring me and would want to reconsider. IIRC, I did pretty well, but who knows? Perhaps standards have risen.
This is Tucker echoing Trump going on and on about being the “highest IQ individual” in the presidential race–when anyone with any actual education knows that IQ tests are crap, and also that Trump probably would do horribly at them. (“Man, woman, TV, camera.”)
(rolls eyes)
For those who aren’t familiar with it, the LSAT is not a test of substantive legal knowledge — you’re not expected to learn law before you go to law school. It’s a multiple choice test with sections on logical reasoning, analytical reasoning, and reading comprehension. Obviously those things have some relevance to potential legal ability, which is presumably why law schools use it, and I believe it has some correlation with law school GPA and bar passage rates (though not, I think, as much as undergraduate GPA?).
But the idea that you would care about a single test that someone wrote decades ago, when you have a long history of actual professional performance on which to assess them, is silly. Even as a law student interviewing with firms, I don’t recall ever being asked what my LSAT score is, and I believe we were told not to put it on our resumes. It mattered indirectly, of course, because your LSAT influences what law schools admit you, and people certainly care about that at least for new lawyers. Once you’re like a decade out, even the most snobby law firms generally stop caring about that.
We all know what’s going on here, naturally. They’re hoping they can argue that Judge Jackson’s LSAT score wouldn’t have been good enough to get her into Harvard Law School without affirmative action. (She also has a bachelor’s degree from Harvard University, but of course they’ll just dismiss that as affirmative action too and no doubt want to know her SAT scores.)
Oh yes. We all know all right. They’re hoping they can argue that Judge Jackson’s LSAT score wouldn’t have been good enough to get her into Harvard Law School without affirmative action, AND that therefore she is stupid and inferior and being foisted on us by CritiCal RaCe TheOry and dragging down our beautiful great white white white country with its Tucker Carlsons and Donald Trumps and Lauren Beoberts.
I remember all through high school the SAT was a BFD, and as soon I got to college no one cared. Just dropped off the radar.
I was following discussion about this over at Ken White’s Twitter yesterday. He was pretty angry about it. He made Screechy’s point about it being an entry test designed to see whether you’d cope with first year. Says as the person who does his firm’s hiring, he’s never asked for it and considers it irrelevant. In his view Brown’s work in the Law Review and history as a Judge was what was relevant. Described her as whip smart.
The whole nonsense is deeply racist. The gop was going to oppose any black or female candidate put forward using such bullshit. Hell, they were going to oppose any candidates. It’s just they method of approach to different groups is so predictable.
Maybe Brown should sob about how much she likes beer…
JFC, Tucker Carlson is such an inept ignoramus. She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law and has years of impressive legal experience. Her “LSAT scores” are about as relevant to her suitability as the price of beans in China. Carlson probably can’t even see how absolutely racist this looks from outside his wooden head.
But now I’m wondering if I should phone HR at my firm and tell them what my GRE scores were. I mean, I’ve been a research scientist at this firm for the last 18 years, but maybe they made a mistake in hiring me and would want to reconsider. IIRC, I did pretty well, but who knows? Perhaps standards have risen.
This is Tucker echoing Trump going on and on about being the “highest IQ individual” in the presidential race–when anyone with any actual education knows that IQ tests are crap, and also that Trump probably would do horribly at them. (“Man, woman, TV, camera.”)
I just wonder how he managed to get into college. Legacy admission, perhaps?