<p>Though I am not usually one to defend standardized testing, some of your comments and evidence strike me as flawed.
First of all, you take issue with the strict time limit. In fact, being very efficient and effective with time is vital to success in LS. LS students are given a significant amount of time to brief cases (basically the whole semester) and to complete tests (multiple hours), however, time is always at a premium because of the immense amount of content they need to digest. An average LS student is expected to read hundreds of pages of text per week and process it in a manner that is useful for the (usually) singular test at the end of the semester. Just as an example, Indiana LS claims that "As a general rule, students study about three hours for every hour of class. Thus, part-time students attending class for two hours each evening can count on approximately six hours of study time for each evening's class." (Frequently</a> Asked Questions)</p>
<p>This type of study requirement is representative of LSs around America. A heavy reading load and other study requirements are normal in LS. Being able to work very quickly and use study time effectively is vital to being successful.
Furthermore, working very quickly and efficiently is important for students who, for the most part, are working toward a career that (currently) works off of the billable hour system. Employers utilizing this system would likely prize workers with very good time management skills.</p>
<p>Also, I would like to see your evidence that "The test is designed so that most people don't finish." Even if it were designed so that most people don't finish, this may be a good thing as it weeds out those who can't work quickly and efficiently while leaving those who can to go to the T14.</p>
<p>I would like to see your sources for the "statistics from several law schools that showed over 40% of those given merit scholarships lose them."</p>
<p>"most lawyers know a number of outlyers from the test who either did very well on the LSAT but didn't do well in law school or did relatively badly on the LSAt but did very well in law school."
I doubt that you have evidence to substantiate such a claim about "most lawyers" and, furthermore, you concede that these people are outliers. By definition, these outliers are unrepresentative of the general population of LSAT test takers. In any case, the LSAT is not a perfect predictor of success, rather it is the best indicator we currently have (better than GPA, EC's, letter of recs, or just about anything else on the LS application).</p>
<p>Finally, I don't know where your comment about "This is why the American Bar committee that has reviewed the LSAT feels that it isn't that 'it isn't that reliable a predictor for admission'" came from. In the article in question, the ABA did not cite the validity of the test as the dominant reason for considering eliminating the LSAT requirement. They instead touted the possibility of greater diversity in LS.</p>