Author: William

The Law Schools With The Highest LSAT Scores (2019)

& the law schools with the lowest LSAT Scores

The LSAT scores are the criteria to measure the prominence of the aspiring lawyers seeking admissions to the top cadre law schools. However, the bunch of about 40 reputed law schools and even the T-14s, are now accepting GRE scores for the admissions, which has eventually lowered the influence of LSAT scores. The difficulty level of the LSAT exam and the toughness of the exam pattern acting as the barrier for the students to score well on this exam to get admissions in the reputed law schools remain unchanged and you’ve to do all Preparation in 1-2 Year Advance with best lsat prep books.

Law school

The U.S. News & World Report have brought various observations that show that the average median score in the LSAT, for the aspiring law students in the year 2018 was 156. The results are based on the records from about 192 top ranking law schools. Among these law schools, eleven have managed to retain or gain the top rankings and here the average LSAT score is found to be about ‘171’.

For an aspiring candidate looking to become a lawyer through the top notch law schools in the US, the scores on the LSAT exam is the most important criteria to evaluate his or her candidature. The attempt to rank the reputed institutions through the U.S. News, is for availing a clear insight for the students and their parents. This research and evaluation can help the aspiring students to plan out their educational motives accordingly.

Eventually, the Law School Admission Council administers and conducts the LSAT. Five sections based on objective type questions, where the students need to select the correct answers out of the provided options and another section where 35 marks of writing assessment is involved; would be included in the exam. The range of the performance of the full time law students varies from LSAT scores of 120 to 180.

Based on the survey of the law schools in the US, the average LSAT score throughout the nation was 156 in the year 2018. The top ranking law schools bear the average LSAT score of 171.

Let us take a glance at the top schools who have made to this list:

Name of the law school & state Median LSAT Score in 2018 Ranking as per U.S. News
Harvard University, Massachusetts 173 3
Yale University (CT) 173 1
Columbia University, New York 172 5
Stanford University (California) 171 2
University of Chicago 171 4
New York University 170 6
University of Pennsylvania 170 7
Duke University 169 10 (tie)
Northwestern University (Pritzker) (IL) 169 10 (tie)
University of Michigan – Ann Arbor 169 9
University of Virginia 169 8

 

With the LSAT score of 173, the Harvard & Yale University have raised to the top position.

The top ranking law schools in the country possess the best LSAT scores as well, which is seems to be quite natural. However, the surprising part is about the lowest ranked law schools in the country.

Appalachian, Southern & Texas Southern are the law schools with the lowest median LSAT score of 144 in 2018. With the lowest LSAT score of 142, the Cooley Law managed to get at least some rank in the survey. With its 25th percentile LSAT score of 139, it would have won the award for the law school with the lowest median LSAT ranking for the full time law students in the country.

How do you evaluate your law schools in comparison with these law schools?

The reliability of the data provided through the reputed magazine U.S. News lies in their efforts to study about 201 law schools in the country in a systematic and well-planned manner. The data were collected through the law schools based on their records regarding the programs and the performance of the students.

So, the data collected to rank the law schools was collected through a widespread territory and a prolonged duration as well. Even if the results are brought down to a smaller scale based on the territories or time frame, the rankings would be accurate in all respects.

As another attempt to provide the data with the great deal of precision, the magazine now plans to provide data to the students and parents regarding the areas where the law schools perform well; so that they can choose the right law school according to their aspirations.…

Announcing the CBA’s 2012 Rule of Law Conference

The Connecticut Bar Association is pleased to announce that its Rule of Law Conference will take place on November 16, 2012. The topic of this year’s Conference is informal rulemaking, and particularly whether such rulemaking creates interference, delays and increased costs to doing business in Connecticut.

Announcement

In the months leading up to this year’s Conference, the Rule of Law Blog will speak with Connecticut leaders in business, academia, and law to preview the discussion. As we gear up, please enjoy the Rule of Law Blog’s interview with Steven Greenspan, Francis Brady, and Wesley Horton – three of the Conference’s chairs – on how they define the Rule of Law.

What is the Rule of Law?

Francis Brady

My point with respect to the Rule of Law is that it has to constitute a structure wherein all citizens are governed equally and fairly. Much emphasis has been placed on the importance of democracy, and certainly democracy is important to society in a number of fundamental respects.

I suggest the controversial point, however, that there does not have to be a democratic institution that sanctions or develops the Rule of Law. It can be an autocratic system. One that comes to mind is the military where there are very strict rules adopted by a top-down administration.

There is no flexibility for most of the members of the military in contributing to that structure of the Rule of Law. But there is a fair and uniform administration of that rule. And that is what’s important to the principle.

Wesley Horton

There are two points I wanted to make. The first is that the Rule of Law has to apply to the government itself. The government must follow the Rule of Law just as everyone else must. The second point is that it is certainly true that nondemocratic societies need a Rule of Law as well as anyone else.

The best example that was given at the Rule of Law Conference was by the business people who said that they would much rather deal with China than Russia today, even though neither is a model of democratic governance.

This is because at least in China, there appears to be less of a problem of corruption and less of a problem of government leaders pressing their thumb on the judges and the judicial system.

Steven Greenspan

It is necessary for any civilized society to have a strict set of rules that can be applied on a consistent basis, and more importantly, that the citizenry can have some predictability in terms of the Rule of Law. In the business context, no one wants to invest in a country where there isn’t a predictable set of laws.

In the social context, it is important that the Rule of Law be understood so that the impact of individual conduct is clear, rather than rules being applied on an ad hoc basis. So I think Francis is right. You could have a very autocratic government.

You could, in fact, have a dictatorship with a very strong set of laws, and those laws might be applied in a harsh way. But if they are evenly applied on a consistent basis, then you have a consistent Rule of Law that people could rely on. It is uncertainty that undermines the Rule of Law.…

Rule of Law Interview With Oz Griebel, Keynote Speaker for the 2012 Rule of Law Conference

Oz Griebel, the morning keynote speaker of this year’s Rule of Law Conference, has an extensive record of service in Connecticut.

Digital Law Conference

Since 2001, he has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the MetroHartford Alliance, and from 1993 to 1999, he served as the CEO of BankBoston Connecticut. Mr. Griebel, who earned a law degree from Suffolk University in 1977, was also a candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor of Connecticut in 2010.

He graciously agreed to an interview with the Rule of Law Blog, to discuss some of the major themes that will be featured at this year’s Rule of Law Conference. Please enjoy the Rule of Law Blog’s interview with Oz Griebel.

Q: What is the Rule of Law?

A: From a business perspective, I would say that the Rule of Law is the structure in which one can conduct business with a high degree of confidence that the transaction or other actions taken will be supported and enforced so that the businesses involved can not only rely on their own interactions, but also be assured that if people or minds change, a contract or some other comparable agreement is going to stay the course of time.

Q: What steps can the government and legal community take to help strengthen the Rule of Law as it relates to business?

A: The lawyers and judges responsible for handling the cases should understand the needs of business, as well as the intent of a particular transaction, business, or party, in order to ensure that their intentions are appropriately reflected.

It is as important, or even more important, that there is, much as there has been for hundreds of years, a building upon prior interactions, prior decisions, and prior transactions. Again, to go back to my first point, there is an even higher degree of confidence that the relevant legislation, regulations, and rules of the court are known and understood, and therefore can be relied upon by the business community.

Q: A major theme at the 2010 Rule of Law Conference was the impact that regulations and administrative agencies have on the business community. In your estimation, are the regulators and administrators helping or hurting business in Connecticut?

A: I wouldn’t paint everybody with the same brush. Like many things in life, it depends on who is in charge; it depends on what their background is, and, in the case of the federal government, it depends on the views of the current administration. For instance, we see the ebbing and flowing of antitrust laws under various administrations over the last twenty or thirty years.

So, to some degree, the regulators are following the lead of those who appointed them, and a lot of that depends on the commissioner or secretary of the particular department. I am not an agency expert, but from the outside looking in, much of it has to do with leadership at the top encouraging the civil service people who have been in place for a long period of time to make the effort to understand the views of the “regulatees.”

Certain aspects of business have become more complex, and this is in some cases helped, and in others exacerbated, by technology. There needs to be a real effort by the regulating bodies to understand what the entity, business, or sector is like, what its goals are, and how it makes money; not only where there is the potential for abuses, but where there are positive opportunities.

I think, conversely, that we in the private sector need to understand the role of the regulator, and to respect that whether we like it or not, over a period of time, legislators at both the State and Federal levels have delegated much to agencies.

In most cases, this is with good intention and probably, in most cases, with the right outcome. But this is a dynamic, not static, situation that really does require the legal community to represent its clients, as well as the state agencies, to understand respective goals.

Q: Do you believe that Connecticut is a business friendly state?

A: This is a debated question. If you take data from all perspectives, I don’t think that there is any question that over the last decade up until 2012, that there was not a strong advocate for the private sector in the Governor’s office.

That being said, whether you agree with everything that Governor Malloy and his administration have done, there is no question that the Governor is fully engaged in this discussion with individual businesses and with the sector at large.

We will always debate the wisdom of specific programs and actions, but the fact is that the Governor and Catherine Smith at DECD, as well as Dan Esty at DEEP and Jim Redeker at DOT, look hard at what is needed to keep and grow our private sector employer base. They have also looked hard at what is needed for the entrepreneurial community, and what the State should be appropriately doing in that arena, and that is a significant difference.

There are, however, specific actions that the Legislature has enacted or considered enacting over the past decade that send negative signals. We’re in an age where the Internet allows any company and their lobbyists and advisors, to look at what bills have made it through committees, even if they are ultimately defeated by one or both chambers. The fact that certain things go forward is definitely troubling.

I have said in many forums that we are, to some degree, viewed very differently than the southwest and the southeast where there is, one might say, a better understanding between legislative bodies and the business community about what is needed to retain and grow jobs in the private sector.

This is a little bit of a joke, but we’ve caught this in our counterparts in the State of Texas: we ask them how many lobbyists they have, and they will say, “Why do we need lobbyists?” We say, “You don’t have lobbyists?” and their answer is: “No – when we need something, we tell the legislature what we need and they get it done.” I’m not saying that this is the model, because it has its own downside.

But I do believe that we have been somewhat of a prisoner over the last decade to a legislature that has been, by and large, more focused about how to spend tax dollars than concerned on the environment needed to sustain a dynamic and growing economy to generate those taxes.

It’s an ongoing issue and I’ll just reiterate that we have a Governor and an administration that is fully engaged. This sends generally positive signals to the private sector that state government is focused on employment retention and growth and attracting the capital needed for the same.…

A media “assault” on the D.C. Circuit?

The Wall Street Journal penned an interesting editorial this week, charging reporters from the Washington Post and New York Times, among others, with launching a “campaign to blame and stigmatize” the judges of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.

courts

The reason for the “assault?” The Circuit Court’s review of cases challenging regulations implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency, by the “Dodd-Frank” legislation, and by other federal agencies. The Journal argues that these media outlets are attempting to intimidate the judges in an effort to shield arbitrary and capricious rule-making. It concludes:

The stakes are nearly as high at the D.C. Circuit, which provides the only check on the burgeoning regulatory state. Congress tends increasingly to write ambiguous laws, precisely to give regulators the discretion to impose far-reaching costs on the economny without the legislators having to take responsibility for the vote.

The judiciary has a legal duty to make sure these rules follow the law, both statutory and constitutional, and don’t trample on other rights. Let’s hope the D.C. Circuit judges ignore the liberal intimidation campaign and stick to the law.…

Report of the Connecticut Bar Association 2012 Rule of Law Conference

The CBA’s first Rule of Law Conference was held in 2010, gathering leaders of the Judiciary, the Bar, academia and the business community together to discuss the role of the Rule of Law in all aspects of society.

Law ConferenceThe conclusions drawn from the 2010 Conference ultimately drove the theme of the 2012 Conference, held this past November to focus on the role of administrative agencies in doing business in Connecticut and the importance of the Rule of Law in enabling success in business through the principles of transparency, predictability, and timeliness of agency action.

The 2012 Conference drew leaders in the business community, including the CEO of the MetroHartford Alliance, Nelson R. (“Oz”) Griebel, and General Electric Senior Vice President and General Counsel Brackett B. Denniston III, along with Connecticut legislators, Connecticut’s Attorney General, George Jepsen, heads of state agencies and members of the Judiciary and the Bar.

The report includes a comprehensive overview of the Conference and the conclusions of its participants, whose insight has helped to develop action items to recommend changes to the administrative and regulatory processes in state agencies in Connecticut.…

© 2019 IF THEN FUND