I read a lot of posts about LL.M. students who are trying to get into a JD program without taking the LSAT. I'm trying to understand the fear of the LSAT. I can understand that foreign students might be concerned about the reading comprehension, but that is only one part of the test. If you do really well on the games section and the logical reasoning section, you can still score fairly well. As for reading comprehension, you need to be able to understand English well enough to do well in a JD program so why are students more afraid of a 2 1/2 hour exam than of struggling through a difficult JD program? Is it really just the reading comprehension? Or is it that in the US there are classes to prepare you for the LSAT and those are missing in foreign countries. Just curious.

There is just no requirement at all for foreigners to take the LSAT test, so why would one invest in it?

I was referring to those posters who seem to want to use the LL.M as a way to transfer into a JD program at the same law school. Of course, if all you want is an LL.M., then there is no need to take the LSAT. But I got the feeling from some posts, that at least some students want to use an LL.M. as a way of getting into a JD program without taking the LSAT. I had just read a post from someone admitted to Duke for an LL.M.

If you want to enroll in a J.D. program, you are required to take the LSAT, domestic or international, except for extremely rare cases of transferring from LLM to JD.
Also Kaplan and Princetonreview have their branches in many foreign countries, where you can take LSAT prep courses.
It's just that it seems to be much easier to get into a good LL.M program than into a good J.D. program, so they are talking about this, I guess.

Thanks KimchiTax. That was informative.

The fear of the LSAT is mainly the language barrier for sure. At least for those that English is not their first language, LSAT is really difficult. It is not a matter of English level, it just the time! I am struggling with that right now. I realized my score was not bad if I had just more time to do it. I take much more time to read and comprehend the questions than English native speakers do. I just decided to enroll the LLM program because of that... I didn't want to wast more time just because I am not prepared to manage time in a test! Some vocabulary or the way the sentences are written plus the logical skills are just too much to handle in 35 minutes for someone who is non-native English speaker. The English proficiency test for foreigners is the TOELF ( which is required for LLM as well) and most good Law schools requires a high score in this test too.

Fair point. Though the LSAT is not the only requirement. Isn't the GPA problematic as well? I wonder how JD admission committees assess the GPA of foreign degrees. It varies so much from one country to another (and inside the same country too).

For example, at most French universities, a 4 year degree obtained with 17/20 (=3.4/4) is the equivalent of a perfect 4.0 US GPA. Would US law schools acknowledge this?
ie. would a 170 LSAT 3.4 GPA French applicant be rightfully chosen over a 170 LSAT 3.6 GPA US grad?

And which GPA will this law school report to the ABA (and to US News)? 3.4 or 4.0?

Depending on your LSAT score, the difference between 3.4 and 4 can be huge: it's basically Yale/Stanford... or Vanderbilt/UCLA.

Can ABA-accredited law schools ignore the GPA and not report any?
When a US law school admits an LL.M grad, which GPA do they report? His LL.M GPA or his foreign degree?

Whereas for LL.M programs they're basically comparing applicants from the same country against each others, and then taking the best from each country, so the issue of scoring discrepencies is more or less minimized/circumvented.

You can always put an addendum for explaining why 3.4 in a french system is actually 4.0 in american system.

Your country's department of education should have some sort of conversion guide. Every country should have such a conversion guide for U.S. If you don't then there is something wrong is the system.

My JD school is one of the schools that have huge LLM class. And I am not at all impressed by foreign students and completely understand why bar passage rate hovers around 30% (NY) for foreign students.

The LSAT should be understood as a preparatory test for Law School education. It builds on fundamental logic concepts and detail-oriented reading skills required for any lawyer. Foreign students who by-pass this requirement for LLM will never appreciate american legal education.

I think anyone dedicated enough should get 160~165 easily. If they can't, I would suggest another career option, even for foreign students not fluent in english. Getting 170+ is very tough even for native-english speakers. So...I would say the LSAT requires more than good english reading abilities.

Also, foreign inferiority complex driven arrogance will be detrimental to not only LSAT score, but law school performance and legal career. I would recommend every foreign student to develop a humble attitude when dealing with American legal system.

It doesn't matter if you are a Spanish lawyer. It is harder to become a lawyer in Spain than in US. But, US is also the dominant country. We Europeans have to learn their system. Many of my foreign student colleagues never went far in the US legal education (most of them went back to their countries after getting an LL.M) because they thought they knew everything and Americans were just being racists. Don't think like this and you will do yourself a huge favor.