Episode 87: LSAChyosaurus wsg Ann Levine

Law School Expert Ann Levine joins Episode 87 to discuss Harvard Law School’s recent bombshell—they are now giving students the option of submitting their GRE score instead of their LSAT score.

Ann is optimistic that this policy will create waves in the LSAC’s antiquated testing system and bring about changes that will ultimately benefit all applicants. The guys agree with her, however Ben is unsure about the timeline for these shifts and whether students preparing for the LSAT might be facing stronger competition in the next year or so. Hear advice from all three on what students can do to deal with this news, then check out Ann’s blog on the topic. (1:45)

“JaBron from the car wash” (hopefully the LSAC won’t charge this listener for borrowing that title from their logic game!) asks about the nuances of LSAT wording. Ben and Nathan walk through the definitions of few, almost all, rarely, many, tends to, and other quantifiers, but urge JaBron to focus less on the hard definition of such terms and more on how to interpret them in the context of the question and its five answer choices. In discussing the ambiguity of such things, the guys (somehow) end up waxing poetic on the inevitability of amortality. (25:10)

Matt from D.C. writes in with his own thoughts relating slow and solid economic growth to the Thinking LSAT Podcast’s “slow down” philosophy. (47:37)

Luis, a 27-year-old in Austin, has been considering law school for years but continues to be unsure whether it’s the right career for him. With a low undergrad GPA, he will need an impressive LSAT score, but he is enjoying studying and is confident he can earn a 170 or higher. With very little debt from his undergrad degree, Luis is willing to drain his pension fund to pay for law school, if necessary. Nathan and Ben stop Luis right there and strongly advise him against this unsound financial plan. Instead, they urge him to apply broadly and to look at the margins to see what programs will make sense for his future. (51:52)

Before hearing the Thinking LSAT Podcast, Jay was scoring in the mid-160s on his practice tests. After becoming an avid podcast listener, he took the February LSAT and scored a 174 on his first attempt. He credits two pieces of advice from Ben and Nathan with this life-altering score jump. (1:03:45)

Mike, the Nyquil guy from Episode 66, writes in to update the show on the offers he’s received since scoring a 170 in September. Huge scholarship offers from the likes of George Washington, USC, UCLA, and Cornell prove that the hard work you put into the LSAT will be rewarded. Mike also shares the spreadsheet that he created to determine, using the law schools’ own index formulas (available on LSAC.org), a student’s target schools. (1:17:10)

Got questions you want us to answer in a future podcast? Send us an email at help@thinkinglsat.com or follow us @thinkinglsat and tweet us a question!

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

11 Comments


  1. Come for the LSAT insight, stay for the bio robots .

    Reply

  2. Ugh this felt like a huge pissing contest until Ann mentioned she was the Dean of Admissions at a law school. Then it just felt like Ben should have let it go, if not out of respect for her opinion then as a signal of professional courtesy. This makes me shudder at the thought of going to law school. I really hope I don’t let the need to be right affect my self awareness.

    Reply

      1. Ben’s point was legit and worth pushing. Harvard is essentially the gold standard. Lesser schools don’t need to spend years evaluating metrics. Harvard has done that legwork and likely in a better way. If it’s good enough for Harvard, it’s good enough for them to mimic, quickly.

        Reply

        1. I really don’t think all schools see Harvard as a gold standard, and that argument wasn’t worth pushing the number of times he did. He’s admitted it (publicly at least) too.

          Reply

    1. Two professionals mildly disagree respectfully and you call it a pissing contest. Are peolpe that afraid of confrkntation? Shit, you’re trying to be lawyers.

      Reply

  3. No, just 3 listeners…I post under different names because I like to publicly argue with myself.

    Thanks for the article Ben. I liked it very much.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *