Hey, Morons, Stop Using Our Test for its Implied Intended Purpose

Did you know LSAC had a President?  It, like all important organizations, does.  He sends out important press releases when something super-important happens:

The LSAT is a valid measure of certain cognitive skills that are important for success in law school.  However, proper use of the test does not include using score ranges to label law schools and their students as to their potential for successful bar passage.

Sure:

1.   law school success is correlated to cognitive skills (sentence one);
2.   the LSAT is a valid measure of said cognitive skills (sentence one);
3.   law school success correlates to bar passage success (common sense premise);
4.   therefore, the LSAT correlates to future bar passage success on some level (logical conclusion drawn from 1-3).

But the expert logicians at LSAC are here to knock your reason aside with the Club of Quasitruth:

• False Claim No. 1: LSAT scores can be used to assign bar passage risk.
• False Claim No. 2: LSAT scores can be used to delineate risk categories.
• False Claim No. 3: A 25-year-old study can be used to assess current bar passage risk. 

Notice how these three observations totally smash the conclusion drawn in no. 4 above and fully support the title claim that "LSAT Scores Should Not Be Used to Label Law Schools and Their Students."

For example, it would improper to say something like "Appalachian School of Law is a crumbling pile of dickcheese for admitting half a class with 144 LSATs or less because the odds of those saps passing the bar and having a remunerative legal career seem unacceptably low for the level of debt incurred and the ignominy of living in Taintville."  That sort of labelling based on LSAT scores, even if based on common sense conclusions based on prior observational data and common sense theory, is improper.  LSAC said so.

Likewise, it would be improper to say "Cooley's low bar passage rate might have something to do with the fact that its 25th percentile LSAT has declined from shitty sandwich to shitty shit."  LSAC cautions sternly against using LSAT scores to generically assign bar passage risk.

Finally, it's improper to say something like "Golden Gate's median LSAT has declined from 154 to 149.  Its risk classification has therefore moved from 'fucking don't it' to 'really fucking don't do it.'"  That's right out, you categorical ass.

Can you feel the burn, Kyle McEntee? 

Is your proctologist charging double to pull the boot from your analytical cavity?

Are you going to have to see the school counselor during nap time?

Are your credentials quaking in the supercilious shadow of Daniel O. Bernstine's?

Were you aware that your use of data and rational conclusions is incredibly racist?

Is the profit in publishing scandalous nonsense really worth being told that you're utterly wrong without any citation or serious consideration of your central premise? 

Does the champagne hot tub wash away the shame? 

Doesn't it bother your conscience that law schools categorize your after-school project as an obstructionist nuisance on their road to guiltless profit?