A Blast from the LSAT Past

I may be in the minority, but my favorite part of the LSAT was the logic games section. Someone recently asked me what kind of questions appear on the test, and it inspired me to share a game with our readers. See if you can figure it out!

Hans is considering purchasing each of six items arranged from left to right on a shelf at the travelers' warehouse—a razor, a stereo, a television, a UV lamp, a video camera, and a watch. Each of these items is powered either by batteries or by an adapter, but not by both. The following conditions apply:

1. The UV lamp is either the leftmost or the rightmost item on the shelf.
2. No item powered by batteries is adjacent to any other item powered by batteries.
3. The watch is powered by batteries.
4. The fourth item on the shelf is not powered by an adapter.
5. The razor, which is powered by batteries, is to the left of the watch, and to the right of the video camera and the stereo.

Which of the following could be true?

(A) The UV lamp is the sixth item on the shelf.

(B) The razor is the third item on the shelf.

(C) The fifth item on the shelf is powered by batteries.

(D) The stereo is powered by batteries.

(E) Both the UV lamp and the video camera are powered by batteries.

The Long Arm of the LSAC...

A week ago, we interviewed LSAT Blog's Steve Schwartz on tips to beat the LSAT. Amongst other things, Steve strongly urged prospective law students to take LSAT prep tests in the course of their preparation. Doing so, it turns out, is increasingly difficult. As LSAT Blog reports, LSAC has "pulled the plug" on a number of prep tests making them more or less unavailable for eager students:

[According to] LSAC's website (click on "The Official LSAT PrepTests") . . . it [is] no longer selling PrepTests 39, 40, 41, and 42. This mean[s] that not only has LSAC failed to publish another book of 10 exams, forcing students to pay $8/exam, and not only is its shipping incredibly slow, but now it[ has] made PrepTests 39-42 difficult to obtain.

The story makes little sense at first blush--why, after all, would LSAC withhold a valuable commodity that prospective law students would willingly line up to pay top dollar for? You don't need a 180 LSAT to guess the answer: test preparation companies (some of whom have already been accused of monopolizing the LSAT market) are willing to pay more via hefty licensing fees. So, in essence, the juggernaut test preparation industry can access all 60 existing LSAT exams while regular students self-studying only have access to 49 past exams.

And, to make matters worse, it turns out the test preparation companies end up getting "more" for "less." They pay only $194.00 for the 60 exam set as compared to the $208.00 a self-study student would need to pay for the 49 exams that are generally accessible. Of course, the test preparation companies only get such a "deal" because they're buying in such large quantities; it's simple economics. But when the practical result is to disadvantage others who (perhaps) cannot afford to fork over $1500 for an LSAT course, maybe that's a problem?

Beating the LSAT: An Interview with Steve Schwartz

For most of our readers, the LSAT is a distant--albeit, lingering--memory. While there are good questions to be asked about its relative value, no one can deny its importance. Simply put, the LSAT makes or breaks a candidate's application.

With the June 2009 LSAT rapidly approaching (sorry for the unwelcome reminder!) we wanted to share some LSAT tips with our readers courtesy of LSAT Blog's Steve Schwartz. Steve is a New York-based LSAT tutor who "started tutoring the LSAT after taking the exam, rocking it, and deciding not to go to law school." He also is the founder of LSAT Blog, a repository of free LSAT tips (cf. Kaplan) which he has maintained for five months. We conducted an e-mail interview with Steve, and found his tips to be very helpful; we're delighted to share them with you.

Our most pressing question was the one many readers have asked: can the LSAT be learned? As Steve explained it:

Without a doubt, the LSAT can be learned. There's no question on that matter. The easiest and fastest way to improve is to become familiar with various LSAT question-types. This doesn't take very long, but the payoff is minimal. The quickest way to see a significant improvement is to learn solid diagramming techniques for the Logic Games. This takes a moderate amount of time. The next step is to understand the LSAT mindset. This is the most difficult task. It's like becoming a Jedi or seeing through the Matrix.

Obtaining this mindset, Steve explained, is innate for some who are "natural LSAT Jedi[s] and score in the 170s on their first LSAT diagnostic." Others, however, are not, but can become "LSAT Jedi[s] after a great deal of review." Given Steve's view of the LSAT as a test that measures skills that could be learned, we asked him to respond to critiques of the test, and chime in on how he thought the LSAT impacted law school performance as a whole. As he noted:

I believe that the LSAT is a good independent predictor of law school performance. People born with the LSAT mindset are likely to do well on the LSAT and in law school. People who intensively prepare for the LSAT and eventually acquire the LSAT mindset are likely to intensively study in law school and eventually get the law school mindset.

This, he explained, was a function of the fact that developing the "LSAT mentality" allows people to:

Learn to be critical and skeptical of arguments, avoid taking things at face value, consider potential alternative causes for any result and potential alternative explanations for any conclusion, devote obsessive attention to detail, understand nuances and apply general principles to specific situations.

Steve also had some pointed tips for pre-law students on how to develop the skills necessary to ace the LSAT. He suggested readers check out his LSAT prep book recommendations, and advised future test takers to "get their hands on several recent PrepTests" as there is "no substitute for reviewing past copies of the LSAT because the exam changes relatively little from year to year."

Moreover, he advised that the biggest impediment to beating the LSAT on test day was the failure of candidates to "adequately prepare." As he noted:

1-2 months is not adequate for the vast majority of students, especially when they have to balance LSAT prep with school or work. Students who shoot for high scores (as well as those shooting for mid-level scores) need time to fully understand the various sections, to develop strategies for attacking them, and to work on pacing and endurance strategies. I recommend that students devote a minimum of 3 months of preparation and that they study on a regular basis during this period of time.

We thank Steve for sharing his thoughts with us, and hope this advice serves those of you taking the LSAT well. Good luck!

Is Kaplan Monopolizing the LSAT Test Prep Market?

According to plaintiffs in a federal antitrust class action, "yes." The Courthouse News Service reports that a class has filed suit against Kaplan, alleging that "[it] met with (nonparty) BAR/BRI in August 1997 and agreed not to buy out BAR/BRI or offer bar review courses if BAR/BRI withdrew its Law School Aptitude Test (LSAT) and other exam prep courses, [conduct which subsequently solidified Kaplan's monopoly in the LSAT test prep market]."

The suit builds upon facts that relate to the subject of a 2005 case which involved both Kaplan and BAR/BRI. In that case, a separate class of plaintiffs alleged essentially the same facts--namely, that the "two companies conspired to give West [Publishing Corp.] a monopoly over its BAR/BRI courses and Kaplan less competition for the classes it sold for the Law School Aptitude Test, or LSAT." However, in that case, the district court ultimately approved a $49 million dollar settlement between the parties.

Using the allegations made in the prior case as indicia of a conspiracy to rid the LSAT test prep market of potential competitors, the plaintiffs in this recent action claim that "Kaplan [has subsequently] remained the 'only company offering full-service LSAT preparation courses at the national level" - more than three times the size of the second-most popular course, The Princeton Review's.'" This, they contend, establishes an antitrust violation separate from that alleged in the prior class action.

Accordingly, the ability of the class to recover assumes that the prior settlement agreement did not "cover the effect of the market allocation agreement upon the LSAT preparation market."

We will keep you updated on any developments in this story.

UC - Irvine is the Most Selective Law School in the Country

Or, so they say. The school reported yesterday that it "accepted 110 of 2,741 applicants to fill its 68 first-year positions, for an acceptance rate of 4%. By comparison, Yale Law School at 7%, and Stanford Law School at 9%, are the only other law schools with single-digit acceptance rates." Wait, what is UC - Irvine Law again? Oh yeah. It is the law school started last year by (now Dean) Erwin Chemerinsky, the same guy who wrote the comprehensive treatise I used for Constitutional Law during 1L.

While still patiently waiting for its ABA accreditation, the school is off to a fantastic start with respect to its numerical student performance data as well: "The incoming class will have a median grade point average of 3.65 and a median LSAT score of 167."

"We are extremely pleased to have fielded such a high-caliber inaugural class," noted Dean Chemerinsky. High-caliber it is indeed. But how did they accomplish such a miraculous feat? Dean Chemerinsky attributes the success:

to the strength and support of the University of California, Irvine, to the high quality of the founding faculty, and to the three-year, full-tuition scholarship offered to each member of the first-year class. (emphasis added)

The scholarships were ostensibly the driving factor for these impressive numbers--particularly given the current economic climate. But the other factors cannot be ignored, and what Dean Chemerinsky and his staff have done is remarkable. This is fantastic news for UC-I Law, its students and its top faculty. Look out UCLA, UC-B (Boalt?), UC-D, and UC-H--there's a new (UC) law school on the block.

Ohhhh LSAT

Times are tough, and going to law school is not as easy a choice as it was in prior years. But there are those who are not phased by the harsh economic conditions and truly do want to be lawyers. These prospective students still must face the obstacle all law students have faced: the LSAT. A 2L at a top 5 law school agreed to speak with me about her encounters with the test and her desire for a change in how law schools evaluate applicants.

The typical argument in favor of the LSAT is that it is the most useful predictive measurement of how well a student will perform in her first year of law school. As I understand, this rationale is not full-proof, but given the stark differences in quality and rigor between undergraduate institutions across the country, there simply must be some means to "level" the applicant playing field so to speak. The interviewee said:

I scored a 156 on the LSAT, and was accepted into a local, state school. I was pretty distraught because I worked hard for roughly 6 months before I took the exam. Unfortunately, I waited until the last possible date to take the test for the first time, so I gambled on the possibility of transferring to a top 14 school after my first year.

Well, it worked. She did extremely well her first year and transferred to a Top 5 school, where she has since excelled. She offered the following suggestion for a change in the format of the LSAT:

I think the LSAT should focus more on writing ability and the ability to rationally apply principles to fact patterns rather than forcing the applicants to merely parse through difficult logical questions under ridiculous time constraints. There should be flexibility, and the test should illustrate an applicant's reasoning ability in "real time."

Her suggestion is fair. After speaking with her, I did some solo research and found that Professors Sheldon Zedeck and Marjorie M. Shultz have instituted a study assessing the effects of a "test that they say is better at predicting success in the field than the widely used [LSAT]." The professors conducted a preliminary survey asking judges, law firm clients, and law professors what traits are vital for future lawyers:

The survey produced a list of 26 characteristics, or “effectiveness factors,” like the ability to write, manage stress, listen, research the law and solve problems. The professors then collected examples from . . . Berkeley alumni of specific behavior by lawyers that were considered more or less effective.

In response to these results, the professors created and administered an exam to a study group of roughly 1,100 lawyers.  The exam had interesting features:

Instead of focusing on analytic ability, the new test includes questions about how to respond to hypothetical situations. For example, it might describe a company with a policy requiring immediate firing of any employee who lied on an application, then ask what a test taker would do upon discovering that a top-performing employee had omitted something on an application.

The proposed exam tests the qualities the interviewee thought would better predict her future success in law school.  It appears that many deans have been receptive to the idea of another factor that would assist them in making admissions decisions when an applicant with an otherwise impressive file has a sub-par LSAT score.  "David E. Van Zandt, dean of the law school at Northwestern, said he would welcome a supplement to the LSAT to evaluate applicants, a sentiment echoed by other law school deans." 

Because it focuses on an applicant's ability to be a successful lawyer rather than his ability to merely do well in law school, this exam seems desirable.  Hopefully, the research sparks some change.

(Image Credit: http://sabegalli.blogspot.com/)