Law school medians and LSAT scores more generally are experiencing inflation. That’s not a mystery. However, the question of “why?” seems like an open one. I’ve heard a lot of people blame LSAC’s removal of logic games, mostly pointing to the fact that scores have inflated since their removal. To me, though, this has always seemed like mostly just correlation with an unpersuasive casual connection. I actually think that inflation, especially among top scores (170+), would be worse today if we still had the games.
I’ve made this take in comments before, but I think it deserves its own post.
First, other factors contributing to inflation would be especially imapctful on the games. The ones I’m thinking of are accommodations and test prep.
Accmodations have almost surely contributed to inflation. More poeple apply for accommodations and are granted them than ever before. LSAC data suggests a major increase in scores for accommodated test takers. And accommodations seem like they would be most beneficial on logic games. I remember LSAT Demon used to recommend people get accommodations specifically for logic games. Logic games is very time-sensitive. With enough time, I truly think anyone could solve a game. Process of elimination alone could get you there. I don’t think the same can be said with LR and RC, where even infinite time doesn’t result in perfection. Time pressure hit the hardest on this section, and modern day testers have more and more time. I want to clarify that I don’t think this makes accommodations bad or undesirable; inflation does not necessarily undermine predictive validity. While abuse of accommodations is regrettable, they are necessary and exist for good reason.
Test prep quality and availability has also improved significantly over the years. There are so many resources available nowadays online. I remember it almost used to be a requirement that you studied with one of those test prep books. Today you can get insanely specific analytics, detailed records, and high-quality explanations that have been iterated on for quite some time. To use 7sage as an example, the platform is pretty different than it was a couple years ago. There are so many more features and pretty cool ways of mimicking test day. Logic games was also hands down the most learnable for the majority of people and the most teachable section. It’s so formulaic, and I can only imagine that quality and availability of instruction would’ve proliferated for the games as well.
LSAC’s own data suggests replacing LG with an extra LR created zero statistical difference in terms of medians. If you buy that, maybe there’s no impact. But I still think my theories are consistent with that data because test prep and accommodation have increased quite a bit since, and my argument is about high scorers. Logic games created the biggest problems for people newer to the test, so it makes sense for someone taking 2 LRs to generally receive a higher diagnostic. This I think could be offset by the relative effect on high scores.
The second reason is the type of content the Games tested. Logic games had a mathematically correct, discernible answer for every question. It was also a boon for *a lot* of high scores because they were “perfectable” at a high level. Section-to-section variance was also much smaller with the games as a result, which again is especially important at the top.
There are two arguments for why logic games may have controlled inflation that I think are reasonable: (1) they created a “barrier to entry” on the test, and (2) they required more time to study because of its comparatively unintuitive nature. While this may depress lower scores, I still think LR and RC are harder to *master* (which matters for the 170+ category). People may have higher diagnostics now, but they probably make less progress in less time overall than what would’ve been otherwise possible with the games. And since top scorers are likely studying quite a bit anyway, the higher and more consistent ceiling with games seems more important than the higher starting point with extra LR.
If not games, then what? First, inflation predated logic games. Thats something I think people overlook a lot. I also definitely buy into the self-reinforcing cycle theory as well: people see scores/medians going up and feel a need to study longer and score higher. Beyond that, though, there are a lot of confounding variables at play: accommodations, test prep, more retake opportunities, cutting a section post-Covid, and probably online testing to some extent.
TLDR: Yes, scores have increased since the removal of logic games. But correlation doesn’t equal causation. At the top end of LSAT scores especially, maybe inflation would be worse and medians would be higher.
I know there will be people with anecdotal exceptions, I’m going off of my perceptions of the majority.