The LSAT and Limits of the Law

Senior year of high school, if I remember right (and if I don't then it was junior year), I thought that it would be nice to be Supreme Court Justice when I grew up. And, knowing practically nothing about what that meant, I decided the best way to give myself a shot when the time came was to read Supreme Court decisions, so every day for a month or two I read a Supreme Court case opinion to become Supreme Court-worthy. We'll see if it paid off, I guess, because I signed up to take the LSAT this December.

The LSAT stands for the Law School Admission Test. It's graded from 120 to 180 and is normalized, so a 150 is the 50th percentile. Before I learned that it was a multiple choice logic test, I thought that you had to know legal concepts to do well--hence my reading strategy. I had just read things that talked about studying for the LSAT, and thought to myself that it must involve law, because who can study for a logic test? Either you think logically or you don't. That'll make a delicious story if I become Supreme Court Justice.

Multiple choice is a different story. I downloaded an old LSAT off of the website and took it over the next several nights. I didn't time myself, but that seemed like something you could improve on. Then I scored my practice test and saw that I had gotten a 171. 172 is the 99% percentile. Three quarters of Harvard law students score under a 175. I figure if I get a 180 I'll be safe. I'm willing to accept a 179 and maybe even a 178.

I know, out of the 120,000 people who take the test per year, 8-18 get a perfect 180. But I'm just putting it out there because everyone's expectations for tests are different, and once you know how someone wants to do, then you can encourage him well and be proud of him when he finishes. So be my parents until the end of the year and root me on even if I'm the slow kid who tries his best to win the race.

When I signed up online, I glanced over the fine print for the admission ticket. Right after "I certify that I am the examinee whose name appears on this ticket" there's this curious phrase: "I plan to take the LSAT for the sole purpose of being considered for admission to law school." I'm surprised that the council that tests potential lawyers would write such an ugly clause. Sole purpose? As if we college students knew why we did things. And as if, if we did know, we'd only have one reason. I'm taking the test because I might want to be considered for admission to law school. I'm taking the test because I have $123 to blow. I'm taking the test because I want to see if I'm awesome. I'm taking the test to see if I could have a part-time job teaching a prep-class for Kaplan. I'm taking the test for God, gold, and glory.

I'm taking the test for whatever reason I want to, and their disclaimer encroaches on my motives because they don't know how to specify what they want to prohibit. Restricting my purposes is only to preempt whatever action they don't want me to do. Honestly, I don't know what they're worried about. Taking the test with the intent to memorize questions and sell them to others? That's already covered in another clause. They would really be better off saying, "Don't take the test if you plan on doing something that isn't allowed with it afterward." It's clear and makes sense. The way it's phrased now, though, implies that something about my wanting to score well on a test for test's sake is wrong.

They're just fearful and are trying to protect themselves at my expense. Where's the balance? Ask me after December 5th and I might be qualified to train to give you an answer.