LSATs are a rip-off
The LSAC is a nonprofit corporation that oversees the LSAT, the test you need to take to get into law school. They charge $194 for every copy of the exam that's distributed, including the ones that are distributed as PDFs and printed by prep companies. As Lessig sez, "It would seem a nonprofit would be keen to find a better way to make access easier. As Schwartz suggests, the exams should be free, or at least, following iTunes, $.99."
Suggestions for LSAC on Restructuring LSAT PrepTest Sales (via Lessig)
the latest
latest episodes
I think part of the pricing structure has to do with, oddly, restraining the circulation of the LSAT. If I could go to the book store and and get an actual copy of the current LSAT for $5.99, I'd take it home, run through it repeatedly, and craft perfect answers to each questions using every research tool at my disposal. Then, after cramming these canned answers to the known questions into my brain, I'd be able to get a higher score, and hopefully gain entrance to a better law school than I otherwise would have.
That is, of course, unless everyone else thinks of doing the same thing, then the LSAT becomes meaningless, since everyone gets high scores.
The goal of the LSAC is to provide a meaningful tool to measure student aptitude for the type of work involved in attending law school, not getting the test out to the widest pool of candidates.
If ETS were to make actual SAT tests available for a nominal copying fee, it would cease to be a meaningful indicator of a student's academic aptitude for college admissions, same here with the LSAT.
Having an earlier test is not likely an indicator of getting a good score on the next test if the test is properly run. I took the LSAT and found it harder than I thought it was going to be.
Since it is a somewhat complicated logic and comprehension test the questions and answers would only have to be changed slightly to make having the earlier tests a significant advantage.
1) LSAT is an odd test, but releasing prior questions at a more reasonable price, or for free, would not skew test results. First, they're already accessible, so if their release does impact the results of those who can access them, it only benefits those wealthy enough to get them. Second, the test prep companies do get their copies of the released questions, analyze them, and create parallel questions while altering the variable factors (this is most clearly seen in the "games" section, but it applies to each category).
2) The Bar examiners release prior exams on a regular basis ... with examples of good responses (not exactly model answers, but real answers that scored fairly well, 80 or over IIRC). This is free, simply downloaded from the Calbar website.
The fact that the prior tests are available to be studied so students can determine what the test makers want from them makes them study those subjects and skills. It provides a specific guideline for what they find to be important. THIS SKILL, learning what the test maker wants you to study then studying those materials and approaches, is part of being successful at law school ... well, at least for the first year ... there's less evidence that a high LSAT score also predicts performance in 2L's or 3L's, and its predictive value drops off quickly after 1L year and doesn't meaningfully predict the likelihood of employment upon graduation or employment in the student's preferred/desired practice area.
Regardless, the problem is not access to the test creating a bias in favor of those who study from prior tests ... it is in only allowing access to the LSAC materials to those who can afford it (which only adds to our (yes, I took a prep course) advantage from being able to afford prep courses like Princeton Review or Kaplan, or even private tutors).
Making the materials free (or much cheaper) from LSAC would guarantee equal minimal or basic access--which should be a goal for LSAC--though private prep courses could still provide additional derivative material for a relatively high fee, but at least those who have less money would have access to the original material to study from.
More importantly, there are deeper financial barriers to law school and legal practice; hopefully Loan Repayment Assistance Programs will continue to improve and give access to talented counsel in government positions and non-profits, as well as make these positions available to those who want to practice but otherwise could not afford to attend law school. LSAT prior test access is only one of many changes that are necessary to tear down the financial restrictions on access to a JD.
Disclaimer: I teach LSAT Prep for a living, I love my job, and I honestly think it helps students get a higher score more than studying on their own would.
I still cannot understand how the LSAC can get away with charging so much per test... and I think it would behoove the law schools to ensure that people had the maximum exposure to old LSATs before taking the "real" exam. That way students who are otherwise extremely bright and would be an asset to the school would not be barred entry because of their (financial) inability to prep. The LSAT is still a very difficult exam, even with a lot of exposure to it, so making cheap old LSATs widely available wouldn't suddenly make everyone get a perfect score.. I think it would make the admissions process a little more fair. I am also of the opinion that there should be merit-based scholarships available for prep courses themselves, since they do give you a leg-up beyond providing you with old LSAT material, but that is extremely unlikely. Making the admissions process "fair" is like trying to make life in general fair, I fear.
Um, the LSAT continually changes. That means that ETS has to continuously test its tests, renorm them (so that scores from tests taken at different times can be compared), etc. And, as noted, it costs some money to keep them secure. About 140,000 people/year take the LSAT, so they gross $2.8 million from the exam. That pays for for, what, 30 or 40 people with advanced degrees to make sure the tests are reasonable fair. Seems like a reasonable pricing structure to me.
Being a non-profit doesn't mean that you don't try to make money. I'm guessing they price their product at a level that maximises their income.
For what it's worth, I scored very, very well on the LSAT (long, long ago) and did very, very poorly as a law student. Whether that's an indictment of me or of the predictive qualities of the LSAT, well, probably more of me. (So I'll just leave this anonymous.)
#1 - The LSAT is a multiple choice logic test. Researching it doesn't really help. The only real way to prepare for it is to do a ton of different practice exams to get used to the style of questions and writing the exam itself. It would be easy for LSAC to release thousands of sample exams without corrupting the value of the results.
The Project Management Institute CPM (Certified Project Manager) test is even worse: the exam questions are copyrighted and not ever, ever, distributed, upon disbarment from the institute, lawsuits, invasion by zombies, etc.
The result of this is that the sample exam questions in training manuals (including the ones in the most famous and popular training books) are frighteningly poor: questions that can not be answered well, questions that have no relevance, questions that are just plain stupid.
Opening the exam questions would require a larger set of questions to be changed or created for each round of testing, and since, unlike the LSAT, the test is given on any day at a certified test center, that does greatly increase the cost of preparing the test.
But boy, to those sample questions suck. The "real" test was so much easier than the test prep, just because you could understand the questions.
Yes, the LSAT is a rip off, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the monumental rip offs facing would-be attorneys in law school and beyond. Once you factor in application fees, moving expenses, tuition (often paid with student loans), books, room, board, bar exam fees, bar exam study prep course, MPRE, interest on student loans, and expenses incurred while unemployed during the worst job market for attorneys in generations, it is not uncommon for new attorneys to have debt payments roughly equivalent to a small mortgage.
I'm not bitter though, I am making (somewhat) more than I would be if I was not an attorney. But, sweet Jesus, you have to pay to play.
Uhmm...only taking the actual test costs this price. So a large part of the fee will be going for grading, administration, etc... The old tests are actually pretty reasonably priced. 10 tests for $20.
The LSAT process is a few years back for me, but I am pretty amazed to learn LSAC is a non-profit. IIRC, the cost for distributing my SCORE was like $40 per school. That's a hell of an e-mail, it's almost like...they are billing $350 an hour?
@Phart-I rent a house in town (small town, small house, but still), and my student loan is more than the mortgage would be on this house. /Scholarship+Worked through school.
Oh dear, this one's gonna get all of us test prep workers to come out of the woodwork.
I imagine part of the exorbitant cost attached to the LSAT is that it is a paper-based exam and not a computer exam. There are certain costs common to both - such as the cost to create fair questions - which explain their generally high prices. But in the case of the latter, much of the test infrastructure is established, with testing centers running daily, computers purchased, and proctors hired full-time.
Paper-based exams, on the other hand, require a LOT of preparation to run, including renting out the required space, hiring (and training) the required number of proctors, bringing the required number of exams, etc. Though insufficient to justify this cost in larger testing sites, which can often have hundreds of students on-site during test day, smaller test sites are unfortunately hurt cost-wise by absent test-takers. High prices help to keep the percentage of drops low.
Perhaps a better justification for the high prices is the fact that the LSAC doesn't really make a lot of money on anything else while running an ambitious admissions system. True, they charge for the LSDAS (Law School Data Assembly Service), but there's little chance in my mind that they are undercharging for such a service. As someone who has gone through both the graduate and law school admissions process, I can tell you that the latter saves both time and money overall because every app goes through the same system. Furthermore, the fact that the LSAC is involved in both the testing side AND the admissions side means they have higher costs associated with actually caring what the law schools want out of the test. Many a prep test teacher has complained about how out of touch the GRE is with actual grad school demands, a problem most prevalent in their subject-based tests. But the LSAC has responded to many of the requests by the law schools, including the revision (and subsequent reversion) of the essay portion and the increase in difficulty of the reading comprehension section of the test. The LSAT and its corresponding materials probably go towards these costs.
That being said, I am all for standardized test companies releasing their test information for free in order to level the playing field for all applicants. It doesn't exactly disadvantage the prep companies because so much of this test is strategy and method which cannot be gleaned solely form a study of questions, and it doesn't quite disadvantage the LSAC because of how few individuals actually buy the test material instead of just going to a test prep company or buying test prep books which contain actual LSAT material.
But I also believe this isn't a field that can be leveled specifically because the LSAT tests a way of thinking, the development of a specific set of skills that will always be bettered through experienced - and therefore expensive - guidance. Despite the growing number of merit-based scholarships for test prep, the fact that the test is so uniquely "fair" in lacking significant math or verbal requirements ironically eventuates a bifurcation between the haves and the have-nots.
Pretty much all standardized tests are ripoffs: SAT, SAT II, ACT, GRE, LSAT, etc. The correlation between scores and real performance is weak at best. The only legitimate purpose I can imagine is to weed out people who aren't motivated enough to take the test. Unfortunately, due unusual times and locations, they often weed out people with disabilities and learning disorders. Note that I say this not as a bitter test taker, but someone whose ACT scores got them into MIT.
The LSAC people have to make some revenue for all of the services they do. They print and administer the test, and then distribute your scores along with the rest of your applications to the schools you are applying for. Of course it is expensive, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $50,000 a year law school commitment being made by students. Those who are in actual financial need can receive a fee waiver, and from my own experience they are given out quite easily.
Speaking as someone who just finished their first year of law school, the LSAT is really not an indicator of success. I am in the top 20% of my class, and I did horribly on my LSAT.
IMHO I don't think it's all that expensive. Consider all the work involved in drafting new tests. There has to be considerable overhead- very smart people are needed to write these logic problems as a means of splitting hairs amongst very smart people answering them.
Aspiring law students can pay for the prep courses if they want, I don't know that it really makes that much difference. I did little more than buy a used copy of an older edition prep book published by LSAC - paid less than $20.
I scored well on the real test. Preparation, confidence and ability are all that is needed to perform. It is after all an APTITUDE test - so there's nothing to cram for. One either has the logic and retention skills to parse information at the necessary level or they do not.
Of course any of this cost discussion is moot when compared to attending classes at $1000+ a credit hour.
Anyone outraged about the cost of this exam should go back and read post #6 again.
Law school is extremely expensive. The real barrier to access here is that most families in America cannot afford to incur large amounts of debt for three years in a row.
IF YOU ARE A CURRENT UNDERGRAD: Please do not take the LSAT and enter law school simply because you are afraid of the job market. You need to review demographics on the legal profession. *Many* attorneys take jobs paying $60k or even $40k after graduation. If you are enrolled at a tier 2 or tier 3 law school (which are just as expensive, by the way), THIS WILL PROBABLY BE YOU. Big firm jobs constitute a minority of employment at all but a handful of schools in this country.
For more info, check out: http://www.abanet.org/yld/tyl/july08/july08.pdf
and http://www.elsblog.org/
-Rising 3L
(has a great summer job, thank goodness)
Why does Mr. Lessig comment on the outrageous cost of the LSAT, but stay silent on the outrageous cost of the university for which he teaches? I guess he believes that paying professors is fine, but paying the folks who generate test questions, administer tests including handling each test taker's paperwork is not?
If you think $140 for the test, plus $40/school is too expensive, you should seriously reconsider going to law school. Stanford, where Lessig teaches, tuition in 2009-10 is $42,420 and will rise in 2010-11. Tell me how that is reasonable, but $140 isn't.
If you think the LSATs are a rip-off, you'll looooooove the value that is law school.
-- MrJM
THALIA - Stanford is a bargain compared to the LSAT - your $140 LSAT dee only buys you a few hours of fun, a year in Stanford covers you for what, 9 months?
On an hourly basis, Stanford is a bargain!
The California Real Estate exam has 150 questions. The questions are always drawn from a pool of ~ 1,500 pre-existing questions, with about ten new ones added every year. They don't ever remove any of the old questions with their concomitant answers. And yet, laws change. On my exam, I was asked two nearly identical questions about capital gains taxes on one's primary residence. In one case the correct answer was the current law and in the other case the correct answer was for the law that changed over ten years ago.
Study guide services take it every time, memorize the questions as best they can and add them to the study guide. Since the exam solicits incorrect answers as well as correct ones, the only way to study for the exam is to memorize all 1,500 questions and answers. That, my friends, is what you get for $25.
And, by the way, Realtors are to some extent practicing contract law. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
desire for justice stems from desire for a predictable universe. Details don't matter, so long as there is system, or apparent system. The best we have so far is justice by purchase, ie: whoever can buy the most justice, gets justice. Unreasonable prices for LSATs are appropriate preparation for would-be law-trade workers.
All these standardized tests are scams. Not only do they overcharge for taking the test they also charge you insane fees to get your scores again if you have lost them, to send them to more than a certain number of schools and pretty much anything else they can think of.
yeah an earlier commenter pointed out that old LSATs are available for fairly cheap. The LSAC sells old tests on its website for like 4 bucks a piece (and typically has one or two relatively recent tests available for free), and plenty of test prep books that use old LSATs are available at most bookstores for comparable prices.
The real rip-off is the cost of applying through the LSAC website that most law schools prefer or require that you use. You have to pay to register and pay for each school you send your application to, in addition to the cost of taking the LSAT and the fees that law schools themselves charge you to apply in the first place. It cost me a thousand dollars just to apply to law school before I even stepped inside a law school. And that was without using one of the laughably overpriced prep classes, which would have easily doubled or tripled that cost.
The real rip-off is after the course and after school, what you end up with is a lawyer.
Think about it.
I'd support this article if law school, at least all of them below the top twenty or so, wasn't an even bigger rip off...