FINAL REPORT

Identification, Development, and Validation of Predictors for

Successful Lawyering
Marjorie M. Shultz and Sheldon Zedeck, Principal Investigators
September 2008

2008 Marjorie M. Shultz and Sheldon Zedeck

NOT TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED, COPIED, OR QUOTED WITHOUT PERMISSION
OF AUTHORS

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1353554

Executive Summary
IMPETUS FOR THE STUDY
Ten years ago, Dean Herma Hill Kay appointed a committee to consider the definition of merit
as it was operationalized in Boalt Halls admission decision-making. The committee, chaired by
Professor Malcolm Feeley, quickly became dismayed by the narrow focus of admission criteria
and the degree of emphasis on standardized test scores. The committee was aware that other
graduate and professional schools relied less on test scores than law schools do, and that some
graduate as well as undergraduate schools were trying to develop or experiment with different
types of admissions indicators. To admit primarily on the basis of LSAT test scores and grades
to a professional field that has great importance to our society, seemed short-sighted.
Lawyering requires a variety of talents and skills beyond those represented in these important,
but limited, measures. Over subsequent years, the emphasis on the LSAT plus grades has
actually grown with the advent of such highly publicized rankings as the U.S. News and World
Report for whom entering class median LSAT scores are a key factor. These trends were
playing out against a desire on the part of law schools to train a diverse population of legal
practitioners, a goal that overemphasis on purely cognitive measures suppressed. The
committee was aware from the Wightman research (1997) that reliance on the LSAT alone
would result in near-exclusion of minorities from many law schools. This project, then, began as
a search for some answers to this dilemma which was getting more worrisome each year.
The thought was always to retain the important information in the LSAT scores and
undergraduate GPA, because they are very strong predictors of law school grades, particularly
first year grades, and this is not inconsequential. Law schools will always seek academically
talented students. But, might law schools additionally seek to predict professional effectiveness
and to assess those qualities among their applicants as well? This project sought methods that,
combined with the LSAT and Index Score, would enable law schools to select better prospective
lawyers based on both academic and professional capacities, thus improving the professions
performance in society and the justice system. Research suggested that, while doing so, it
could legitimately offer admission to classes that included larger numbers of under-represented
racial and ethnic groups. At this point, the committee gave major responsibility for research on
these questions to the two of us who became the Principal Investigators: Marjorie Shultz,
Professor of Law and Sheldon Zedeck, Professor of Psychology at Berkeley.
After securing research funding from the Law School Admission Council, the first task faced by
us as PIs was to determine what lawyers considered to be the factors important to effective
lawyering. Next, we had to figure out how to measure performance based on these added
dimensions of professional merit, and then develop instruments that could be used to evaluate
an attorneys performance on these separate effectiveness factors. Finally, the research team
needed to select or create test instruments that might measure characteristics that are
demonstrated to predict the effectiveness factors prior to law school admission, to be used
along with the LSAT and Index Score.
To complete this ambitious undertaking responsibly, we sought the assistance of a National
Advisory Board made up of lawyers, experts in social science research, and members of the
legal education community. We also invited an advisory group of professionals in the field of
employment testing and research to help identify methods of testing and predicting job
performance. This group also affirmed that the methods which they used or knew about yield
few differences in performance based on race, gender, and ethnicity.

3
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1353554

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Phase I. To predict effective lawyering, we first had to determine what it is. We did this
empirically, conducting hundreds of individual and group interviews with lawyer-alumni, law
faculty, law students, judges, and some clients. Through defining, redefining and consensusbuilding discussions, we identified 26 factors of lawyer effectiveness. Next, working with
multiple focus groups of alumni and researchers, we developed specific behavioral examples
(more than 700 examples) to represent different levels of effectiveness, of more and less
effective behaviors for each of the 26 factors. More than 2000 Berkeley alumni then evaluated
the examples on a 1 - 5 scale for their level of effectiveness. Statistics that were based on the
average level of effectiveness and the variability in the responses for the given behavioral
example were used to develop a rating scale of performance effectiveness for each of the 26
factors; behavioral examples for which ratings showed high agreement were placed onto scales
for each of the 26 factors to compile a job performance appraisal instrument. A list of these
factors is found on pages 26-27 of the full report.
Phase II. Next, we sought to locate tests that we thought could predict actual performance on
our lawyering factors. After reviewing many off-the-shelf tests and with the advice of test and
performance experts, we selected five existing tests and wrote or adapted three other tailor
made tests. The off-the-shelf tests were 1)The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) that
measures seven constructs of normal personality, 2) the Hogan Development Survey (HDS)
that assesses 11 traits that can disrupt adjustment and relationships in a work environment, 3)
the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) that reflects a persons likely fit with an
organization, 4) Optimism (OPT) that assesses personal expectations, and 5) the Self
Monitoring Scale (SMS) that measures monitoring of self-expression.
Of the tailor-made tests, one assessed ability to recognize briefly-expressed facial emotions.
Another asked subjects to judge what they would do in particular challenging situations related
to the 26 factors (Situational Judgment Test; SJT). The third structured and solicited
biographical information we believed would relate to performance factors (Biographical
Information Inventory; BIO).
Phase III. We invited 15,750 people via email and regular mail to participate in the research:
657 then-enrolled Berkeley students and all Hastings and Berkeley alumni who graduated
between 1973 and 2006 (for whom the schools had contact information). We administered the
new predictor tests online, using passwords sent with invitations. Although we wanted to
assess a number of new tests, we were also conscious of limits on time participants could
provide. To balance these competing needs, we created various forms so each participant took
only some portions of the test battery; the estimated time to take the test was two hours.
Those consenting to participate provided their gender, age, ethnicity, law school and information
about their work. With the permission of participants, we obtained LSAT and law school
performance data either from the LSAC or from the law schools for additional analysis. Our
sample was composed of 1148 participants, mainly Berkeley graduates (64.3%), female
(56.8%), and Caucasian (68.5%). The largest number practiced in large firms (16.6%) or
government (13.7%). All areas of specialization were represented with the largest being
litigation/advocacy (39.1%).

In scoring the tests participants took, we used established scores for off-the-shelf tests, and
constructed empirical scales for the tailor-made tests. We also sought online appraisals of each
participants actual job performance, asking participants supervisors and peers as well as the
individual participant to rate the study participants performance on the 26 factors. These
evaluations were collected online using the 26 appraisal scales created earlier in the research.
An example of one of these rating scales is provided on page 41 of the full report.

RESULTS
The goal of the research project was to see if new types of admission tests (or batteries of these
tests) have the potential to predict actual lawyering performance. The results show considerable
potential to do so. The Report supplies fuller explanations as do the Tables displaying the data and
results.

Major Research Conclusions:

Results for our sample essentially replicated the validity of the LSAT, UGPA, and Index Score
for predicting FYGPA.

The LSAT, UGPA, and Index Score were not particularly useful for predicting lawyer
performance on the large majority of the 26 Effectiveness Factors identified in our research.
In contrast, the new tests, in particular the SJT, BIO, and several of the personality constructs
predicted almost all of the effectiveness factors.

In general, race and gender subgroup performance did not substantially differ on the new
predictors.

Results showed that the new predictor tests were, for the most part, measuring characteristics
that were independent of one another.

The new predictor tests showed some degree of independence between the traits and abilities
that they, as compared to LSAT. UGPA, and Index, measured.

New predictors developed for this project correlated at a higher level with Effectiveness
Factors not predicted by the LSAT, UGPA or Index.

In multiple regression analysis, SJT, BIO, and several HPI scales predicted many dimensions
of Lawyering Effectiveness, whereas the LSAT and Index score did not.

BIO scores showed correlations in the .2s and .3s with 24 of 26 Effectiveness Factors.

SJT scores showed correlations in the .10s and low .20s with 24 of 26 Effectiveness Factors.

The OPT test correlated with 13 of the Effectiveness Factors in the .10s and .20s.

The impressive aspect of these results was not only the large number of Effectiveness Factors
predicted by the BIO and SJT tests, but also the fact that the correlations were generally
higher, though moderately so, than those between the LSAT and the small subset of the most

cognitively oriented Effectiveness Factors (ones that we would expect to overlap with the
LSAT (Analysis and Reasoning, Researching the Law, Writing).

RECOMMENDATION
This exploratory project undertook in a preliminary way to identify, develop, and validate new tests for
potential use in law school admissions. We believe the exploratory data reported here make a
compelling case for undertaking large-scale, more definitive research on the pre-admission prediction
of lawyer performance. Additional large-scale research should be undertaken/sponsored by LSAC to
further refine and validate tests of lawyer effectiveness. If the new tests prove valid on a larger scale,
admissions decisions could then include a broader array of performance factors and could introduce
appropriate, merit-based, race-neutral elements into determinations of qualification for admission to
professional education. Based on the pattern of findings across different participant subgroups and
from different rater subgroups, we recommend that future research focus especially on BIO SJT, HPI
and OPT tests
Rising numbers of law school applicants, concern over litigation and pre-occupation with school
rankings have pushed over-emphasis on the LSAT to the breaking point. Definitions of merit
and qualification have become too narrow and static; they hamper legal educations goal of
producing diverse, talented, and balanced generations of law graduates who will serve the
many mandates and constituencies of the legal profession. New predictors combined with
existing LSAT measures could extend from prediction of law school success to prediction of
professional effectiveness in law school admissions.

FINAL REPORT
Identification, Development, and Validation of Predictors for
Successful Lawyering
Marjorie M. Shultz and Sheldon Zedeck, Principal Investigators
September 2008

2008 Marjorie M. Shultz and Sheldon Zedeck

NOT TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED, COPIED, OR QUOTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF AUTHORS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of donors without whose
generosity we could not have carried out this research: first and foremost, the Law
School Admission Council research grants program; Berkeley Law School and Dean
Chris Edley; the Gerbode Foundation; Hanson, Bridgett; Martha Faye Africa, and
Drucilla Ramey-Stender.
We also thank our loyal and long serving National Advisory Board members
(David Chambers, Phoebe Haddon, Thelton Henderson, Garner Weng, Kelly Brown,
Pilar Ossorio, Robert Nelson, Beth ONeil, Paul Sackett, and Leaetta Hough). We were
also guided by our Social Science Research Advisors including Paul Sackett, Leaetta
Hough, James Outtz, Paul Ekman, and Joyce Hogan and Hogan Assessment Systems.
We very much appreciate the cooperation of Shauna Marshall, Gina Barnett and
others at Hastings College of the Law that enabled us to include Hastings alumni in the
final phase of the study. Many Berkeley faculty and staff including in particular, Herma
Hill Kay, who as Dean initiated the committee that conceived this project, as well as
Louise Epstein, Ed Tom, Mary Kelleher-Jones, and Patricia Donnelly and their staffs all
contributed many hours to bring this project to fruition.
Our outstanding Psychology Graduate Student Researchers Eunice Chang and
Jamie Clark were central throughout the years, especially in managing the computer and
data aspects of the study. Joseph Plaster, our Administrative Assistant, played a large
and critical role in administration of multiple aspects of the research, as did Philip Ryan.
Law Research Assistants Sarah London, Chhunny Chhean, Nicole Thomas, and Bill
Kidder played important roles.
We are also grateful to the literally thousands of Berkeley students and Berkeley
and Hastings College of the Law alumni who volunteered time and energy to participate
in this project as well as the 4000 practitioners who rated their professional performance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

Introduction ................................................................................................................11

II.

Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................15

III. LSAT and UGPA as Predictors of Law School Effectiveness ......................................15

IV. Non-Cognitive Predictors of Job Performance ............................................................18
A. Personality and Related Constructs (Big Five or FFM) ......................................19
B. Self-Monitoring .................................................................................................21
C. Dispositional Optimism.....................................................................................21
D. Situational Judgment........................................................................................22
E. Biographical Information Data ..........................................................................23
F. Emotion Recognition.........................................................................................23
V. Method.........................................................................................................................24
Overview of Research Chronology ........................................................................24
A. Phase I ..............................................................................................................24
B. Phase II .............................................................................................................27
1. Off-the-Shelf Tests....................................................................................27
a. Hogan Personality Inventory ..................................................................27
b. Hogan Development Survey...................................................................29
c. Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory..................................................31
d. Optimism................................................................................................32
e. Self-Monitoring .......................................................................................32
2. Tailor-Made Tests.....................................................................................33
a. Emotion Recognition Test .....................................................................33
b. Situational Judgment Test .....................................................................33
c. Biographical Information Data, or Biographical Inventory (BIO) .............35
C. Phase III: Validation Research .........................................................................36

1. Participants .................................................................................................36
2. Data Collection............................................................................................37
3. Predictors....................................................................................................38
a. Academic performance data..................................................................38
b. HPI, HDS, and MVPI .............................................................................38
c. OPT.......................................................................................................38
d. SMS ......................................................................................................38
e. ER.........................................................................................................38
f. SJT and BIO ..........................................................................................38
4. Performance Measures...............................................................................40
VI. Results and Discussion...............................................................................................42
A. Alumni Sample .................................................................................................43
1. Description of Sample .................................................................................43
2. Basic LSAC Predictors and Law School Measures .....................................43
3. New Test Measures Identified/Developed for the Current Research ...........44
a. BIO and SJT..........................................................................................44
b. Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) ........................................................45
c. Hogan Development Survey (HDS) .......................................................45
d. Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) ....................................45
e. Other Potential Predictors Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS), Optimism
(OPT), and Emotion Recognition (ER) .......................................................45
4. Intercorrelations among New Predictors......................................................46
5. Correlation among the LSAC Measures and the New Predictors ................47
6. Ratings of Lawyer Effectiveness .................................................................47
7. Intercorrelations among the Performance Rating Sources ..........................51
8. Prediction of Lawyering Effectiveness .........................................................52

a. LSAT, UGPA and Index Score as Predictors of Lawyering

Performance ..............................................................................................53
b. New Tests as Predictors of Lawyering Performance .............................55
c. Moderator Variables ..............................................................................59
d. Incremental Variance ............................................................................60
9. Prediction of Lawyering Effectiveness in Law School ..................................61
a. LSAC Components as Predictors of FYGPA in Law School ..................61
b. Tests Identified/Developed for this Project as Predictors of Law School
Performance ..............................................................................................63
c. Incremental Variance.............................................................................64
d. Summary of Results: Predicting Law School Performance Measured
by Grades ..................................................................................................64
B. Student Sample................................................................................................66
1. Description of Sample .................................................................................66
2. Basic LSAC Predictors and Law School Measures .....................................66
3. New Test Measures Identified/Developed for the Current Research ...........66
a. BIO and SJT..........................................................................................67
b. Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) ........................................................67
c. Hogan Development Survey (HDS) .......................................................67
d. Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) ....................................67
e. Other Potential Predictors Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS), Optimism
(OPT), and Emotion Recognition (ER.........................................................68
4. Intercorrelations among New Predictors......................................................68
5. Correlation among the LSAC Measures and the New Predictors ................69
6. Ratings of Student Effectiveness.................................................................69
7. Intercorrelations among the Performance Rating Sources ..........................71

8. Prediction of Lawyering Effectiveness as Measured in Law School.............72

a. LSAT, UGPA and Index Score as Predictors of Lawyering
Performance ..............................................................................................73
b. New Tests as Predictors of Lawyering Performance .............................74
c. Moderator Variables ..............................................................................77
d. Incremental Variance ............................................................................77
9. Prediction of Effectiveness in Law School as Measured by Grades ............77
a. LSAC Components as Predictors of FYGPA in Law School ..................77
b. Tests Identified/Developed for this Project as Predictors of Law School
Performance ..............................................................................................78
c. Incremental Variance.............................................................................78
d. Summary of Results: Predicting Law School Performance Measured
by Grades ..................................................................................................79
VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................................79
A. Basic Data, Further Research and Options for Use ..........................................79
B. Potential Uses and Benefits..............................................................................81
C. Limitations........................................................................................................82
D. The Context Reviewed: Reasons to Add Professional Predictors....................82
1. Recent Developments in Legal Education...................................................83
a. Increased Applicant Pool.......................................................................83
b. Inclusion of Women and Minorities........................................................83
c. Controversy and Litigation .....................................................................83
d. Rankings ...............................................................................................84
e. The Place of Law Schools in Major Universities ....................................84
2. These Changes Affect Admission Policies ..................................................85
3. Problems Associated with Over Emphasis on LSAT Scores .......................86

a. Misplaced precision...............................................................................86
b. Selection bias........................................................................................87
c. Professional and Academic Emphasis...................................................87
VIII. References .......................................................................................................................................... 91

LIST OF TABLES
ALUMNI SAMPLE
Table 1: Descriptives for Alumni Sample
Table 2: Breakdown of Background Info by School
Table 3: Means for School-Based Performance Measures
Table 4: Means for SJT and BIO
Table 5: Means for Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)
Table 6: Means for Hogan Development Survey (HDS)
Table 7: Means for Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI)
Table 8: Means for SMS, OPT, and ER
Table 9: Intercorrelations of Predictors
Table 10: Correlations of UGPA, LSAT, and Index
Table 11: Correlations of Predictors with UGPA, LSAT, and Index
Table 12: Means for Self Appraisals
Table 13: Means for Peer Appraisals
Table 14: Means for Supervisor Appraisals
Table 15: Means for Other (Peer + Supervisor) Appraisals
Table 16: Means for Average of All Appraisals
Table 17: Intercorrelations of Raters
Table 18: LSAT and GPA Correlations with Performance
Table 19: Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) Correlations with Performance
Table 20: Hogan Development Survey (HDS) Correlations with Performance
Table 21: Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) Correlations with
Performance
Table 22: Other Test Correlations with Performance
Table 23: Self Stepwise Regressions

Table 24: Peer Stepwise Regressions

Table 25: Supervisor Stepwise Regressions
Table 26: Other Stepwise Regressions
Table 27: Tally of Variables from Stepwise Regressions
Table 28: Correlation of UGPA, LSAT, and Index with 1lGPA
Table 29: Correlations of UGPA, LSAT, and Index with 1LGPA Berkeley
Alumni
Table 30: Correlations of UGPA, LSAT, and Index with 1LGPA Hastings
Alumni
Table 31: Correlations of All Tests with 1lGPA All Alumni
Table 32: Correlations of All Tests with 1LGPA Boalt Alumni
Table 33: Correlations of All Tests with 1LGPA Hasting Alumni
STUDENT SAMPLE
Table 34: Descriptives for Alumni Sample
Table 35: Means for School-Based Performance Measures
Table 36: Means for SJT and BIO
Table 37: Means for Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)
Table 38: Means for Hogan Development Survey (HDS)
Table 39: Means for Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI)
Table 40: Means for SMS, OPT, and ER
Table 41: Intercorrelations of All Predictors, UGPA, LSAT, and Index
Table 42: Means for Self Appraisals
Table 43: Means for Peer Appraisals
Table 44: Means for Supervisor Appraisals
Table 45: Means for Other (Peer + Supervisor) Appraisals
Table 46: Means for Average of All Appraisals

Table 47: Intercorrelations of Raters

Table 48: LSAT and GPA Correlations with Performance
Table 49: Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) Correlations with Performance
Table 50: Hogan Development Survey (HDS) Correlations with Performance
Table 51: Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) Correlations with
Performance
Table 52: Other Test Correlations with Performance
Table 53: Self Stepwise Regressions
Table 54: Peer Stepwise Regressions
Table 55: Supervisor Stepwise Regressions
Table 56: Other Stepwise Regressions
Table 57: Tally of Variables from Stepwise Regressions
Table 58: Correlations of All Predictors with 1LGPA
Table 59: Modeling Demographic Breakdown by Top Percentages

10

I. INTRODUCTION
The role of standardized testing in all levels of education has been increasingly
controversial over recent years.1 Debate about how Americas institutions of higher and
graduate education should make admission decisions has been especially acute. How
should they define merit and qualification? What is fair allocation of scarce educational
resources? How important is achieving racially and ethnically diverse classes, and how
do we define diversity? Should deprivation of economic and educational opportunity
be considered? The Supreme Courts decision in Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003)
provided some answers, offering a temporary Constitutional reprieve for limited
consideration of race in admissions. Three states (California, Michigan, and
Washington) have since adopted constitutional strictures on affirmative action and others
will vote soon (Morain & Ricardi, 2008). Institutions of higher education continue to
struggle to find ways to achieve equity and excellence.
In law schools, this challenge is particularly intense. Educational institutions
naturally seek to admit those with the strongest academic skills. Several Ivy League
schools collaborated in the late 1940s to create an entry test to aid in choosing among
law school applicants (LaPiana, 2001). Design and administration of that test, the Law
School Admission Test (LSAT), was soon turned over to the Law School Admission
Council (LSAC) a member organization of the American Bar Association of accredited
law schools, currently numbering 195 U.S. law schools plus 16 in Canada. Today, the
goal of the LSAT is to predict first year law school grades and, combined with the
undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), it explains about 25% of the variance in
those initial grades. Law school admission decisions are heavily influenced by scores

The No Child Left Behind Act and litigation over teacher licensing tests are well known examples;
Association of Mexican-American Educators v. California, 2000.

11

on the LSAT, and undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), combined into an Index
Score. Law schools do employ other criteria, but on a largely ad hoc basis, with little
other than intuitive confidence that these other factors are related to success in law
school or professional practice. The lack of empirical evidence to support use of these
added factors leads many to dismiss them as too subjective to be fair.
The advent of institutional rankings like those published by US News & World
Report has further amplified an already strong emphasis on test scores. One factor in
determining rank is each entering class median LSAT score. Because rankings
translate into better applicants, easier fundraising, and improved faculty recruiting,
schools are tempted to prioritize high test scores in admission decisions.
Other factors accelerate the trend. Applications to law schools have risen
substantially. Greater stratification among schools, and equivalent tiering in the jobs
and salaries their students can command, means that applicant pools are particularly
large at highly ranked schools. (LSAC Volume Summary, 2008). As the ratio of
applicants to admits rises, smaller differences in test scores and grades become
decisive despite the decrease in meaningful differentiation. Large numbers of highly
qualified applicants create pressure for streamlined and defensible decision-making.
With admission to law school ever more prized, litigation always in the wings, and
controversy among faculty, boards, alumni, and various publics about criteria, the
apparent precision of numeric indicators of (apparently objective)2 merit exert an
understandable pull, especially if no alternative measures are available.
The LSAT has been the most effective method yet developed to predict first year
law school grades, but it is narrow in method and in goal. By the LSACs own
description, the test evaluates mainly reading, analytic and logic-based skills that are

Although the LSAT is empirical and objective in design and scoring, how to define merit remains in
dispute.

12

important for success in law school (Law School Admission Council, 1999). Linda
Wightman (1997), former Vice President for Operations, Testing and Research at LSAC
from 1988-1996, noted the LSATs clearly defined, narrow focus, and acknowledged that
using it to predict anything other than first year law grade point average (FYGPA) is less
valid and less appropriate. The LSAC repeatedly advises schools that over-reliance on
the test, particularly on fine distinctions in scores, is inappropriate both statistically and
as a matter of policy.
Although the LSAT and UGPA have value as predictors of first year grades, they
do not account for all the factors that influence grades or other performance in law
school. Additionally, they make no effort to predict success in the profession. Nor do
most schools attempt to assess the needs of the profession and the citizenry when
choosing among applicants.
Commentators have criticized legal education generally and the admission
practices that reflect it, for over-emphasis on academic and cognitive competencies. The
perceived failure of legal education to prepare students for professional practice has
been a focus of many complaints (ABA MacCrate Report, 1992; Edwards, 1992;
Sullivan, Colby, Wegner, Bond, & Shulman, 2007). Clinical education, including both
services and clinical policy research and intervention, ameliorates this problem, but
typically lacks the resources, depth, continuity and integration to make up for
inadequacies. The academic tilt of law school and its reflection in admissions criteria
has consequences also for career paths. In higher-ranked schools, even students who
have other career objectives feel they must accept jobs with corporate law firms when
those are offered, in order to gain adequate training that only comparatively wealthy
employers can afford to provide. Students who receive no such offer or who refuse to
postpone any alternate career preferences they may have, face a difficult path to
professional competency. Once a career path is begun, it is economically and

13

psychologically hard to abandon it. The chain of incentives does not encourage wider or
more equal distribution of legal services.
Other critics object to admissions practices they see as reinforcing racial and
class privilege (Society of American Law Teachers, 2003; Sturm & Guinier, 1996).
Research consistently shows that affluent white students perform better on standardized
tests, including the LSAT, than their less advantaged or minority peers (Schmidt &
Hunter, 1981, 1998; Wightman, 1997). Heavy emphasis on LSAT scores in admission
decisions substantially reduces the presence of African-American and Latino students in
law school and the profession, as well as diminishing the prospects of inclusion for those
from most non-elite families (Kidder, 2000; 2003).
Law schools select and educate students in academic programs, but as the
LSAC recognized 20 plus years ago, law school admissions decisions also choose who
will be the nations lawyers (Raushenbush, 1986). In most states and for most lawyers,
law school graduation is essential to licensure (National Conference of Bar Examiners,
2008). Law school also serves as advanced education for people entering a wide
variety of other careers in which the problem-solving, communication, advocacy, and
social/interpersonal skills are central to legal training matter. In law and related roles,
law graduates reap significant rewards and wield significant influence in business,
government, and education, as well as in the legal and justice systems; admissions
decisions have deep and far-flung implications for almost every aspect of American
society. To base admission to law school so heavily on LSAT scores is to choose
academic skills (and only a subset of those) as the prime determinant of who gets into
law and law-related careers that demand many competencies in addition to test taking,
reading and reasoning skills. Moreover, it allocates the scarce resource of legal
education, along with its ensuing influence and privilege, on the narrow basis of skills
that are heavily linked to wealth and class.

14

II. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

The limits and downsides of current admission practices, as well as the logic of
law schools role as professional schools, urge that research move beyond attempts to
predict grades in law school. Legal education needs tools that can reliably identify,
assess and predict proto-competencies for professional effectiveness. This project
sought to demonstrate methods to do that. Combined with LSAT and Index scores,
such instruments would enable law schools to select better prospective lawyers based
on both academic and professional competencies, thereby improving the professions
performance of its many tasks in society and the justice system.
Our task, then, was to produce a richer set of instruments and measurements for
use by law school admission officers. We sought to: (1) empirically determine what
lawyers view as factors important to effective lawyering; (2) broaden the criteria for
measuring merit based on those factors; (3) use what lawyers see as more and less
effective lawyer behavior to form measures of professional effectiveness; (4) develop
test instruments to predict at the time of law school admission, the new array of
lawyering competencies; (5) increase incrementally the amount of explainable variance
in law school success; and (6) identify measures that on their own or in combination with
LSAC measures (LSAT, UGPA, and Index) can predict lawyering effectiveness.

III. LSAT AND UGPA AS PREDICTORS OF LAW SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS

As previously indicated, research on tests for admission to law school has
focused on the LSAT and UGPA as predictors of first-year grades. Though individual
schools also use various other factors, these two predictors are available for every
school, are standardized, and are relatively non-subjective. The LSAC has conducted
much of the research on the validity of these predictors by cumulating data across a
number of law schools.

15

The validity of the LSAT and UGPA as predictors of the FYGPA criterion has
consistent statistical support (Anthony, Harris, & Pashley, 1999; Dalessandro, Stilwell &
Reese, 2005; Evans, 1984; Linn & Hastings, 1983; Schrader, 1977; Wightman, 1993). A
relatively recent analysis (2001-2003 data) shows that the combination of LSAT and
UGPA correlates approximately .47 with FYGPA in law school (Dalessandro et al.,
2005), which explains approximately 22% of the variance, leaving 78% unexplained. By
itself, the LSAT correlates .35 with FYGPA, while UGPA alone correlates approximately
.28. These results are based on data from LSACs annual validity studies provided by
165 law schools over two periods in 2003 and 2004. Because the data derive from a
restricted sample (i.e., those who are actually selected for law school), they
underestimate the validity of the combination. Dalessandro et al. (2005) demonstrate
that correlation coefficients are higher when the data are based on an unselected
sample. They also show that results vary by law school (in a range from .00 to .60 for
the year 2003), and that, in general, the LSAT is a better predictor of FYGPA than is
UGPA. Finally, results cross-validate, indicating that the regression equation for the
combination of predictors is a useful model for predicting FYGPA for law school
applicants. The Dalessandro et al. (2005) study replicates earlier findings (c.f., Anthony
et al., 1999; Linn & Hastings, 1983; Powers, 1982; Wightman, 1993). Stilwell,
Dalessandro, and Reese (2003) reported similar analyses for the LSAT/UGPA
combination for the 2001-2002 period. These results show a multiple correlation of .49
for LSAT and UGPA as predictors of FYGPA as well as patterns similar to those
reported by Dalessandro et al. (2005) with regard to type of sample and variability
among law schools.
Much earlier reviews have also supported the use of the LSAT as a predictor of
FYGPA (Evans, 1984; Schrader, 1977), demonstrating the consistency over time. A
comprehensive meta-analysis was reported in 1983 by Linn and Hastings (1983). Their

16

analysis of data from 154 law schools showed a multiple correlation of .46. An important
finding from this research was that the variability in correlation coefficients among the
different law schools could be explained by the statistical artifacts of sampling error
(differences in study sample sizes) and range restriction, and that correcting for these
artifacts yielded estimates of validity in the .5 to .6 range.
Norton, Suto and Reese (2006) examined the differential validity of the LSAT and
UGPA combination for different ethnic groups (African-American, Asian American,
Latino, and white law students) in 2002, 2003, and 2004 entering law school classes.
Using data from 183 law schools, with FYGPA as the criterion, they showed that the
LSAT is not differentially valid for the groups studied. Furthermore, the differential
validity results found similar patterns to those reported for other cognitive ability tests
used in employment settings (c.f., Schmidt & Hunter, 1981). That is, when the
regression equation for a combined group (minority and non-minority) is used to make
predictions of academic success, the equation tends to over-predict minority students
performance. These findings replicate those of earlier studies (Anthony & Liu, 2000;
Stilwell & Pashley, 2003; Wightman & Muller, 1990). Norton et al. (2006) also conclude
that although the combination of LSAT and UGPA results in the most accurate prediction
of FYGPA, none of the regression equations would systematically exclude AfricanAmericans, Latinos, or Asian Americans.
Wightman (1997) contrasted projected outcomes of admission policies
incorporating affirmative action with use of the weighted combination as the main
determinant of admission. Based on data from 1990-1991, she concluded that sole
reliance on LSAT and UGPA would result in systematic exclusion of minorities from law
school classes. She does not suggest abandonment of the weighted LSAT/UGPA
combination, but recommends that other, additional predictors be sought. We agree.
In sum, research data consistently show that the combination of the LSAT and

17

UGPA, and each separately, are valid predictors of the FYGPA criterion. But, these
predictors are limited by use of the FYGPA as the only criterion. The strength of the
obtained correlation between LSAT and FYGPA reflects, in part, that both measure the
same abilities; that is precisely its aim.
As demonstrated by the literature and discussion above, the LSAT and UGPA
have value as predictors, but they do not attempt to account for all the factors that
contribute to law school grades or to broader performance in law school, and even less
for success in lawyering. Wightman (1997) notes the LSATs clearly defined, narrow
focus, and states that using it to predict criteria other than FYGPA is both less valid and
less appropriate. Wightman (2000) also argues that new assessments are needed to
focus on other constructs that are not represented by the LSAT, that these new
assessments should focus on the diverse abilities and skills needed to perform in school.
One attempt to use criteria other than FYGPA is found in Diaz, Glass, Ankkoff,
and Tanofsky-Kraff (2001). The key aspect for their research proposal, however, was
the identification and use of predictors such as state-anxiety, reactions to tests,
measures of anxiety, and other non-cognitive predictors. These researchers used
performance in examination milestones (grade for a contracts course and an oral
argument rating) as criteria, but found that LSAT was not predictive of either. Results
were not promising in that these indicators were not predictive of the criteria used in the
study.
IV. NON-COGNITIVE PREDICTORS OF JOB PERFORMANCE
Effective lawyering, like effectiveness in any professional career, draws upon
many dimensions of human intelligence -- in the wider sense of that term. As
traditionally used, the category cognitive mainly encompasses academic and testtaking capability, especially verbal and numeric knowledge and reasoning.
Overwhelming evidence shows that cognitive ability in this sense is a predictor of job

18

performance (Schmidt, 2002; Sackett, Schmitt, Ellingson, & Kabin, 2001). However,
other traditionally non-cognitive predictors like personality, interpersonal skills, and
practical judgment have been identified and found to be valid predictors of
performance.
As noted above, a major concern with standardized cognitive tests such as the
LSAT is the mean difference in performance between ethnic groups, particularly AfricanAmericans. Generally, African-Americans score about one standard deviation below
whites on measures of general cognitive ability, though this standardized mean score
difference is reduced in high complexity jobs (Hough, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2001).
Latinos also tend to score lower than whites on these types of measures, while Asians
tend to score slightly higher than whites (Hough et al., 2001). Employment personnel
research attempts to minimize disadvantage to members of racial, gender, or ethnic
groups by combining valid non-cognitive measures of performance with traditional
cognitive ability tests in the selection process (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Ones,
Viswesvaran & Schmidt, 1993; Schmitt, Rogers, Chan, Sheppard, & Jennings, 1997).
Generally, subgroup differences are smaller, or non-existent, on non-cognitive measures
such as biodata and personality inventories. Moreover, some evidence suggests that
validity can be increased in some jobs if appropriate additional predictors, such as
measures of social skills or personality traits, are used in combination with cognitive
ability measures (Guion, 1987; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmitt et al., 1997).
A. Personality and Related Constructs (Big 5 or FFM)
Strong evidence suggests that certain dimensions of personality are useful in
predicting job performance. Generally, personality can be described as those traits,
states, and moods that are stable and enduring over time, and distinguish one person
from another (Allport, 1937). A broader conceptualization can encompass a persons
strengths, weaknesses, values, and motivations (Hogan, Hogan, & Warrenfeltz, 2007).

19

Personality is important to performance because the degree to which an individuals

personality fits with the requirements of a job or the values of an organization will have a
significant impact on both success and satisfaction (e.g., Chatman, 1981; Kristof, 1996).
Much of the research on personality has embraced the Five-Factor Model (FFM;
Big 5) of personality, which categorizes personality into five broad factors: Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism (Emotional Stability), and Openness to
Experience (Saucier & Goldberg, 1998; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997). Early meta-analytic
work (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991) found
that personality holds some utility for predicting job performance. Barrick and Mount
(1991) reviewed 117 studies and found personality-performance correlations ranging
from .03 to .13 among the five facets of the FFM, with Conscientiousness being the
strongest and most consistent predictor of job performance across professions. More
recently, Hurtz and Donovan (2000) re-examined the relationship between personality
and job performance. Hurtz and Donovan found that the mean sample-size weighted
correlations ranged from .04 to .14 across dimensions, again with Conscientiousness
having the highest validity. Conscientiousness is a general predictor of job performance,
and other Big 5 traits predict job performance in specific types of jobs. In other words,
different jobs call for different personality profiles and strengths (Hogan, Hogan, &
Roberts, 1996). Importantly, at the Big 5 level, there are few ethnic differences.
Reported correlations (between Big 5 factors and job performance) of .13 and .14
are relatively small, but these findings mainly reflect bivariate relationships with criteria.
Multiple regressions for the Big 5 as a set show correlations ranging from .1 to .45
(predicting individual teamwork having a .37 validity correlation, for example).
Furthermore, individual Big 5 personality traits have specific facet-level characteristics
that may have different relationships with job performance, obscuring the relationship of
the higher-order personality dimensions to job performance. For example, the facet of

20

Conscientiousness has more specific facets such as Order, Impulsivity, Cognitive

Structure, Play, Endurance and Achievement. If some facets correlate negatively and
others positively, aggregate overall correlation of Conscientiousness to job performance
may appear deceptively small (Tett, Steele, & Beauregard, 2003).
In addition to stable personality characteristics that predict an individuals ability
to get along with others and achieve occupational goals, other behavioral tendencies
can derail a persons career success (Bentz, 1985; Hogan & Hogan, 1997). These
counterproductive behaviors are relatively stable over time and can predict various
performance risks (Hogan & Hogan, 1997). Also central to a persons identity are
interests, motives, and goals which can be important in predicting a persons success
and satisfaction in a job. Generally, people prefer to work with others who share similar
values and within compatible organizational cultures (Chatman, 1991; Kristof, 1996).
B. Self-Monitoring
Aspects of another trait, Self-Monitoring, seemed potentially salient to effective
lawyering because of lawyers distinctive professional responsibilities for representing
clients (role morality). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior and self-presentation
differ from the Big 5 traits. Individuals who are high self-monitors are good at learning
what is socially appropriate in new situations, have good self-control of their emotional
expression (facial and verbal), and can effectively use this ability to create the
impressions they seek to create (Snyder, 1974; Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). Some
evidence suggests that high self-monitors have more career mobility and success
(Kilduff & Day, 1994), as well as higher ratings of job performance (Caldwell & OReilly,
1982; Caligiuri & Day, 2000).
C. Dispositional Optimism
Dispositional Optimism refers to a generalized tendency to expect positive and
favorable outcomes in the future; conversely, pessimism refers to a tendency to expect

21

that bad things will happen in the future (Carver & Scheier, 1981). Optimism has been
recognized as a fundamental component of individual adaptability because of its
relationship with stress resilience and coping (Hobfoll 2002; Scheier & Carver, 1992).
Optimists are more confident and persistent when confronting any challenge,
while pessimists are more doubtful and hesitant (Carver & Scheier, 2002). Some
research indicates that optimism predicts lower levels of stress and depression for
students making their transitions to the first year of college (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992;
Brissette, Scheier, & Carver, 2002). In terms of job performance, evidence suggests
that Dispositional Optimism has a unique impact on both self-reported job performance
and organizational performance appraisals (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Optimism may
be a valuable resource for law students and lawyers who face great time demands, high
job insecurity, and poor organizational climate (Heinz, Hull, & Harter, 1999; Goldhaber,
1999; Makikangas & Kinnunen, 2003; Scheier & Carver, 1985; Schiltz, 1999;
Xanathopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007;).
D. Situational Judgment
Understanding how potential students and employees would react in critical
situations is important to predicting performance in the complex, conflict-ridden, and
pressured roles of lawyers. Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) present descriptions of
hypothetical job-related scenarios, asking them to pick how they would handle the
situation from a list of possible responses. The hypothetical situations are often
developed by asking professionals in the field what critical situations they encounter in
their jobs (Weekly & Ployhart, 2005).
SJTs are often paired with traditional cognitive ability tests in applicant selection
settings because they have significant criterion-related validity and possess incremental
validity beyond cognitive ability and personality measures (Chan & Schmitt, 2002;
McDaniel, Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion, & Braverman, 2001). For example, Chan and

22

Schmitt (2002) found that the SJT had a significant .30 correlation with overall job
performance and had an incremental validity of .21 for overall performance. Weekly and
Ployhart (2005) found that the SJT was correlated .21 with overall job performance, and
had a significant incremental validity of .18, above and beyond a cognitive ability test
and a FFM personality inventory. Another important reason for the popularity of SJTs is
that there are fewer ethnic differences than traditional cognitive ability tests (Clevenger,
Pereira, Wiechtmann, Schmitt, & Harvey-Schmidt, 2001)
SJTs are also drawing interest to predict student performance (judged by mission
statement and educational objectives) in undergraduate schools (Oswald, Schmitt, Kim,
Ramsay, & Gillespie, 2004). Oswald et al. (2004) showed that the SJT has validity above
and beyond cognitive ability and personality for predicting college performance. Here,
too, scores on the SJT show no significant score differences between different
ethnicities.
E. Biographical Information Data
Past performance is often the best predictor of future performance. Biographical
Information Data measures (BIO) offer structured and systematic methods for collecting
and scoring information on an individuals background and experience (Mumford, 1994).
Items vary both in the nature of the constructs measured (e.g., past attitudes;
experiences) and in the type of response scale (e.g., frequency of behavior, amount,
degree of agreement). Research has shown that BIO scales can predict both college
GPA and job performance, and reflect fewer ethnic differences than standardized tests
such as the S.A.T. (Oswald et al., 2004).
F. Emotion Recognition
Emotional intelligence, a currently popular organizational topic, targets the ability
to regulate ones own emotions and perceive/understand others emotions (Goleman,
1995). Some studies suggest that emotional intelligence predicts the performance of

23

students (Lam & Kirby, 2002) as well as job performance (Law, Wong, & Song, 2004;
Slaski & Cartwright, 2002). Emotional intelligence could be important to lawyers who
must manage interactions with clients, juries, judges and colleagues as well as read
and interpret whether the communications between lawyers and others are being
understood.
Questionnaires have typically been used to measure emotional intelligence
through presentation of situations followed by choice of a response from among multiple
choices (c.f., the measures used by Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey & Palfai, 1995).
Ekman uses a different, less verbal approach (c.f., Ekman, 2004). Based on extensive
research, Ekman developed a visual test to assess individuals speed and accuracy in
recognizing various emotions on slides of faces.
V. METHOD
Overview of Research Chronology
Phase I identified a list of factors that practicing lawyers (including lawyers doing
law-related jobs) as well as law faculty, law students, judges and clients viewed as
important to effective lawyering performance. Our research also developed specific
examples of more and less effective lawyering behavior into scales that could be used to
evaluate the performance of a particular lawyer.
Phase II involved a survey for relevance, quality and range of tests available to
predict job performance. We selected five off the shelf tests. We also wrote or
substantially adapted three additional tailor-made tests to suit our purposes.
Phase III conducted validation strategies of the battery of tests to assess whether
and which tests would validly predict lawyer effectiveness.
A. Phase I
.

To predict who will be an effective lawyer, we first needed to determine what

comprises effective lawyering (Shultz & Zedeck, 2003). We did this empirically,

24

conducting hundreds of individual and then group interviews with lawyers, law faculty,
law students, judges and some clients, asking questions like If you were looking for a
lawyer for an important matter for yourself, what qualities would you most look for?
What kind of lawyer do you want to teach or be? In a rolling process we gradually
selected, added to, subtracted from, defined and redefined identified factors, seeking
rough consensus through successive discussions with lawyers in many fields, settings
and career stages. We distilled a list of 26 Effectiveness Factors important in the eyes
of these varied constituencies, to being an effective lawyer.
Next, again using rolling interviews and focus groups, we asked for specific
examples of more and less effective behaviors (What behavior would tell you that a
particular lawyer had or lacked effectiveness?) on each of the 26 Factors. When we
had gathered hundreds of examples, we asked Berkeley alumni (by email) to rate the
examples on a 1-5 scale, according to how effective they thought the stated behavior
was as an illustration of a given Effectiveness Factor. After receiving more than 2000
responses, and based on the mean and standard deviations of the responses, we
developed scales of less effective to more effective behavior for each of the 26
Effectiveness Factors.
The products of Phase I were: (1) a comprehensive list of 26 Effectiveness
Factors that are important to effective lawyering; (2) a set of 715 behavioral examples of
performance that illustrate poor to excellent performance on each of the 26 factors; and
(3) 26 flexible Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS; Smith & Kendall, 1963)
based on the 715 examples, with which an evaluator could assess the effectiveness of
any given practicing lawyer.
The research team grouped the 26 Effectiveness Factors into eight categories
thought to represent meaningful clusters, but the clusters were not statistically derived.
For the purposes of this project; we are interested in maintaining the 26 factors as

25

distinct areas of measurement and not in the underlying construct of performance.

(Note: The groupings and labels are purely for convenience to facilitate subsequent
discussion; other researchers are likely to derive different groupings and labels. The key
point for this report is that we present the actual statistical results for each of the 26
Effectiveness Factors, so that a researcher can recombine the individual factors into any
meaningful subset for that researchers purpose.)

List of 26 Effectiveness Factors with 8 Umbrella Categories

1 : Intellectual & Cognitive

Analysis and Reasoning

Creativity/Innovation

Problem Solving

Practical Judgment

2: Research & Information Gathering

Researching the Law

Fact Finding

Questioning and Interviewing

3: Communications

Influencing and Advocating

Writing

Speaking

Listening

4: Planning and Organizing

Strategic Planning

Organizing and Managing Ones Own Work

Organizing and Managing Others (Staff/Colleagues)

5: Conflict Resolution

Negotiation Skills

Able to See the World Through the Eyes of Others

26

6: Client & Business Relations - Entrepreneurship

Networking and Business Development

Providing Advice & Counsel & Building Relationships

with Clients

7: Working with Others

Developing Relationships within the Legal Profession

Evaluation, Development, and Mentoring

8: Character

Passion and Engagement

Diligence

Integrity/Honesty

Stress Management

Community Involvement and Service

Self-Development

B. Phase II
Having identified job performance effectiveness factors and measurement scales
for effective lawyering in Phase I, we sought in Phase II to identify tests that would
predict actual lawyering performance.

After reviewing a wide range of available tests,

and after convening test development experts to advise us, we chose five off the shelf
tests and wrote or substantially adapted three tailor-made tests.
1. Off the Shelf Tests
a. Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 2007) is a measure of
normal personality based on the Five-Factor Model and is designed specifically for use
with working adults. The HPI is composed of 206 true-false self-report items. Seven
primary personality scales are scored on the HPI on the basis of Hogan and Hogans
(1991) reinterpretation of the five-factor model: Adjustment, Ambition, Sociability,
Interpersonal Sensitivity, Prudence, Inquisitive, and Learning Approach. The main

27

difference between the HPI and the five-factor model is that it divides Extraversion into
Adjustment and Ambition and divides Openness into Intellectance and Learning
Approach. Items with similar themes are organized into a total of 40 subscales, and
each subscale is scored on one of the seven primary scales. For example, the
Adjustment scale contains eight themes including anxiety, guilt, complaints, moodiness,
and irritability. Because the items in these sub-themes cluster together, they are
referred to as Homogenous Item Composites (HICs).
Interpretation of HPI results is job-specific, with no formula for a good
personality. High and low scores on scales are not necessarily better, and scores that
lead to success in one job may hinder performance in another.
Hogan Personality Inventory

Adjustment

Ambition

Sociability
Interpersonal
Sensitivity
Prudence

Intellectance

Learning Approach

Reflects the degree to which a person is steady in the

face of pressure, or conversely, moody and self-critical
(FFM: Emotional Stability).
Evaluates the degree to which a person seems leaderlike, status-seeking, and achievement-oriented (FFM:
Extraversion).
Assesses the degree to which a person needs and/ or
enjoys social interaction (FFM: Extraversion).
Reflects social sensitivity, tact, and perceptiveness
(FFM: Agreeableness).
Concerns self-control and conscientiousness (FFM:
Conscientiousness).
Reflects the degree to which a person seems
imaginative, adventurous, and analytical (FFM:
Openness).
Reflects the degree to which a person enjoys academic
activities and values education as an end in itself (FFM:
Openness).

28

b. Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan & Hogan, 1997) assesses 11

performance risks that can interfere with a persons ability to build relationships and
collaborate with others in a work atmosphere. The primary purpose of the HDS is to
identify behavioral tendencies that could interrupt or derail a persons career success.
The HDS has 168 items that comprise 11 primary scales: Excitable, Skeptical,
Cautious, Reserved, Leisurely, Bold, Mischievous, Colorful, Imaginative, Diligent, and
Dutiful. Because the scores on the HDS scales measure negative personality
characteristics, higher scores on an HDS scale increase the chances that
counterproductive work behaviors will be problematic for that specific performance risk.
Across all types of jobs then, particularly in leadership positions, HDS scores and job
performance are negatively correlated.

29

Hogan Development Survey

Excitable

Skeptical

Cautious

Reserved

Leisurely

Bold

Mischievous

Colorful

Imaginative

Diligent

Dutiful

Reflects being initially enthusiastic about people or

projects and then becoming disappointed with them.
Result: seems to lack persistence.
Reflects being socially insightful, but cynical, mistrustful,
and overly sensitive to criticism. Result: seems to lack
trust.
Reflects being overly worried about making mistakes and
criticism. Result: seems resistant to change and risk
adverse.
Reflects being tough, remote, detached, and hard to
reach. Result: seems to be a poor communicator.
Reflects being independent, ignoring others requests,
and becoming irritable if they persist. Result: seems
stubborn, procrastinating, and uncooperative.
Reflects being entitled and having inflated views of ones
worth. Result: seems unable to admit mistakes or share
credit.
Reflects being charming, but manipulative and
ingratiating. Result: seems to have trouble maintaining
relationships and learning from experience.
Reflects being dramatic, engaging, and attentionseeking. Result: seems preoccupied with being noticed,
and may lack sustained focus.
Reflects thinking and acting in interesting, unusual, and
even eccentric ways. Result: seems creative but often
lacking good judgment.
Reflects being conscientious, perfectionistic, and hard to
please. Result: tends to disempower staff and
subordinates.
Reflects being eager to please and reluctant to act
independently. Result: tends to be pleasant and
agreeable, but reluctant to support subordinates and coworkers.

30

c. Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI; Hogan & Hogan, 1996)

evaluates the fit between an individual and the organizational culture, and directly
assesses a persons motives. The MVPI has 200 items that comprise 10 primary scales:
Aesthetic, Affiliation, Altruistic, Commerce, Hedonism, Power, Recognition, Science,
Security, and Tradition. High scores (65th percentile and above) indicate those values
and drivers that are most important to people. The relative degree of person-job fit can
then be determined by comparing a persons higher scores on the MVPI with the values
of the organization and profession. Unlike the HDS, high and low scores are not direct
indicators of bad behaviors or bad work. Rather, they show the relative importance to
employees of various values.
Motives Values Preferences Inventory
Aesthetic

Affiliation

Altruistic

Commerce

Hedonism

Power

Recognition

Concerns valuing creative and artistic self-expression.

Interests are in quality, product look and feel, and
attractive surroundings.
Concerns valuing frequent and varied social interaction.
Interests are in social networking and feeling a sense of
belonging to a group or organization.
Concerns valuing actively helping others, and improving
society. Interests are in helping others, providing good
customer service, and building a better workplace.
Concerns valuing business activities, money, and
financial gain. Interests are in earning money, realizing
profits, finding business opportunities, and making
investments.
Concerns valuing fun, good company, and good times.
Interests are in pleasure, excitement, and variety.
Concerns valuing competition, achievement, and being
perceived as influential. Interests are in challenge,
competition, and a lifestyle organized around worldly
success.
Concerns valuing fame, visibility, and publicity. Interests
are in being known, recognized, visible, and famous.

31

Science

Security

Tradition

Concerns valuing ideas, technology, and rational

problem solving. Interests are in new ideas, technology,
and analytical approach to solving problems, and
understanding how they work.
Concerns valuing certainty, predictability, and risk free
environments. Interests are in structure, order,
predictability, and planning for the future.
Concerns valuing similarity between the organizations
and the employees perspectives on tradition, history,
and old-fashioned virtues.

d. Optimism (OPT) as measured by the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R;

Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994), assesses generalized outcome expectancies, with
higher scores indicating a more optimistic overall outlook on life (Scheier & Carver,
1985). The LOT-R consists of six items, three of which assess optimism and three
reverse-scored items that measure pessimism, plus four filler items on 5-point Likert
scales.
e. Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS; Snyder, 1974) is a 25-item true-false scale
used to assess an individuals tendency to monitor and adapt self expression. We
reworded five (of the 25) items to increase their relevance to lawyers; and included them
as additional questions. These five items are:
1) It has always been easier for me to argue for things that I believe.
2) It has always been easy for me to speak convincingly about topics, even
when I don't know much about them.
3) It has never been easy for me to fit in with different people and different
situations.
4) As a child, I found it easy to convince others I was telling the truth, even
when I wasn't.
5) I think I could convince someone I was telling the truth, even when I
wasnt.

32

2. Tailor-Made Tests
We developed three new tests based on prototypes used in employment
selection. These tests sought to predict which law applicants have and/or could develop
the 26 competencies of effective lawyering. Because the tests would eventually be
administered as part of law admissions processes,3 they could not rest on legal
knowledge or lawyering experience but only on the more general factors. The tailormade tests we developed for our study are:
a. Emotion Recognition Test (ER) was modeled after the Facial Action Coding
System (FACS) developed by Paul Ekman (2004). We used stimuli (stock color photos
of neutral and emotional facial expressions) generated in the laboratories of emotion
research (e.g., Ekman, 2004, and Dacher Keltner, personal communication, 2006) to
develop a 20 minute, computer test presenting faces of different people expressing one
of ten emotions: Anger, Compassion, Contempt, Disgust, Embarrassment, Fear,
Happiness, Sadness, Shame, and Surprise. Our ER instrument included two practice
items and 76 test items. In each item, participants saw 1) a neutral facial expression,
followed by 2) a very brief (1/6 second) change in expression reflecting one particular
emotion, and 3) a return to the initial expression. Participants had five seconds to
choose which of the 10 emotions appeared during the changed facial expression.
Participants were instructed to respond based on their first impression even if they did
not think they observed a change, or were unsure of the emotion expressed. Groups of
19 faces appeared, with a 30-second pause between each group. Faces included
individuals of various ethnic backgrounds and genders.
b. Situational Judgment Test (SJT) required multiple steps to construct. First,

Because this exploratory research was not longitudinal, we administered material to law students and
graduates, but the ultimate goal is to develop a test battery for use with law school applicants in the
admissions process.

33

the researchers individually and then collaboratively wrote approximately 200

hypothetical situations to reflect each of the 26 Effectiveness Factors. Sometimes, items
from existing SJT measures (e.g., from Camara, personal communication, January 9,
2006; Motowidlo, personal communication, January 9, 2006) stimulated ideas for
situations we could customize for lawyer effectiveness factors; however, we wrote many
items as originals. For each item scenario, we developed 4-5 answer options
representing a range of viable responses.
Second, we refined each item multiple times to ensure clear phrasing, elimination
of ethnic/racial/gender biases, and balance among the Effectiveness Factors. We then
pilot-tested the items with practicing lawyers to get feedback. Next, we again reviewed,
revised and rebalanced the inventory of items, working first individually and then
collectively. We also chose 2-5 Effectiveness Factors that we hypothesized would
correlate with each item. In this way, we generated 72 SJT items. A single item
example appears below. We determined that this particular example reflected
competency in three areas: Influencing and Advocating, Developing Relationships, and
Integrity:
You learn that a co-worker, Angela, who you helped train for the job, copied
some confidential and proprietary information from the companys files. What
would you do?
a. Tell Angela what I learned and that she should destroy the information
before she gets caught.
b. Anonymously report Angela to management.
c. Report Angela to management and after disciplinary action has been
taken, tell Angela that Im the one that did so.
d. Threaten to report Angela unless she destroys the information.
e. Do nothing

34

Because our research participants were busy professionals, the time they could
expend on our test battery was limited. We therefore created eight SJT test forms with
18 items each Nine items on each test form overlapped with another test form (e.g.,
form #1 had items 1-18, form #2 included items 10-27, etc.).
c. Biographical Information Data, or Biographical Inventory (BIO) also
required multiple steps to create. First, the researchers independently and
collaboratively wrote approximately 200 BIO items designed to cover each of the 26
Effectiveness Factors. Again, although some items from existing BIO measures (e.g.,
from Camara, personal communication, January 9, 2006; Motowidlo, personal
communication January 9, 2006) stimulated items we designed for lawyering
performance, we wrote many items as originals. We developed 4-5 answer options to
represent a range of viable responses to the given item.
Second, we refined each item multiple times to ensure clear phrasing, elimination
of race or gender bias, and balanced representation of Effectiveness Factors. Once
more, we pilot-tested the items with practicing lawyers. After the pilot work, we had an
inventory of 80 BIO items. In order to verify that all Effectiveness Factors were tapped in
the BIO items, the three researchers independently reviewed each item-factor link again,
then together decided on the 2-5 Effectiveness Factors we hypothesized would be linked
to each item.
An example of one BIO item is shown below. We determined that this particular
example reflected competency in both Creativity and Problem Solving:
How many times in the past year were you able to think of a way of doing
something that most others would not have thought of?
a. Almost never.
b. Seldom.
c. Sometimes.

35

d. Often.
e. Very frequently.
Again, in light of participant time constraints, we created eight BIO test forms with 20
items in each. To increase sub-sample sizes, each BIO test form had 10 items that
overlapped with another test form.
C. Phase III: Validation Research
In Phase III, we collected data to assess whether performance on our chosen
predictor tests correlated with actual lawyering effectiveness (as assessed by ratings
provided by the participant him or herself, as well as by the participants supervisors and
peers), and with law school performance. The BARS performance rating scales
developed in Phase I (Shultz & Zedeck, 2003) enabled us to assess participants current
workplace performance. We also examined relationships between the LSAC measures
(LSAT, UGPA, and Index), appraised lawyering performance, and law school grades.
Alumni and students comprised the participant samples.
1. Participants4
15,750 people were invited via email and regular mail to participate in the
research: 657 Berkeley then-enrolled second and third year students and all alumni from
Berkeley or Hastings who graduated between 1973 and 2006 for whom the schools had
contact information. Approximately 10,000 Berkeley, and 5,000 alumni from the
Hastings College of the Law received emails. Additionally, to reach those with outdated
email addresses, or to honor individuals requests to receive communication by regular
mail only, 7000 Berkeley and 4000 Hastings alumni were sent invitations through the
U.S. postal service.

For reasons of practicality (funding, access, and available staff), we worked with only two law schools:
Berkeley Law (Boalt) as our initial exemplar, participated in all phases of the research, and Hastings
College of the Law alumni joined in the final validation stage.

36

2. Data collection
Test data were collected via a two-hour test battery online. Participants logged in
to the test system with individual user name and password (included with their original
invitation). After login, an informed consent form outlined the study and asked whether
the individual agreed to participate. In compliance with the regulations of the University
of California at Berkeley Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects, the consent
form outlined the study procedure, as well as the risks and benefits associated with the
study. Participants were informed that participation was voluntary, and responses would
be kept confidential. If they agreed to participate after reading the consent form, they
were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire covering their gender, age, ethnic
background, law school, and category of law work (e.g., solo practice,
small/medium/large firm, business, government, etc.).
We decided that no participant should be asked to spend more than two hours on
the test battery. Accordingly, the computer randomly and evenly directed each
participant to one of 40 different combinations of tests from the battery we created.
Every participants combination included the HPI and two to three of the other tests.
One participant might take the HPI, HDS, BIO, and OPT. Another might do the HPI,
MVPI, and SJT. And yet another participant might take the HPI, BIO, and ER. As a
result, of course, the HPI had the largest sample size.
We administered the HPI to all participants as an inducement to participate. As a
benefit of taking the research tests, participants could opt to receive a confidential
interpretive report of their occupationally relevant strengths and shortcomings based on
their responses to the HPI. As a further incentive, participants and performance raters
(see below) could register for continuing education credit (MCLE) of from 1-3 units, two
for lawyering skills and one for elimination of bias credit. The bias unit required that a
participant read additional materials written by the researchers, to explain how

37

definitions of qualification can intensify or minimize racial adverse impact in selection

processes. Those participants were also required to take a short true/false quiz after
reading the materials about bias.
3. Predictors
a. Academic performance data: Based on participant and law school
permission, we obtained LSAT scores, undergraduate GPA, and law school GPA from
either the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) or files at the two law schools.
b. HPI, HDS, and MVPI: Hogan Assessment Systems provided scores for each
scale measured on each of these three Inventories.
c. OPT: The LOT-R test has six items, three to assess optimism and three
reverse-scored items to measure pessimism, plus four filler items, and uses a 5-point
Likert scale. The overall OPT score was calculated by reverse-scoring the three
pessimism scores, and summing responses to all 6 questions.
d. SMS: Our adapted version of the SMS consisted of 30 true-false questions.
We scored responses by giving a 1 to answers keyed in the high self monitoring
direction, and a 0 to those keyed in the low monitoring direction. Scores on all 30
items were summed to create a total SMS score, with higher scores indicating a greater
tendency to self-monitoring.
e. ER: Our ER consisted of 72 items. We assigned a 1 to item responses
choosing the correct emotion; and a 0 to other choices and to non-responses. ER
scores were the sum of responses to all 72 items.
f. SJT and BIO: The critical issue for these tailor-made instruments is how to
score these tests. One strategy is to develop a rational key, whereby subject matter
experts identify the response items that are best for each situation. An alternative
option is to use an empirical key (a version of cross-validation) by relying on responses
from participants to determine the algorithm and scoring keys. We used the latter

38

method for both the SJT and BIO.

Because we created 8 SJT test forms, participants responded to only a small
subset of the 72 SJT items. For example, 500 participants may have responded to Item
#1 but only 400 to Item #2. To score each SJT item, we randomly selected 2/3 of the
participants with a score on that particular item. We then used our hypotheses about
which items would link to which Effectiveness Factor; suppose a given item was
designed to represent the Effectiveness Factors of Analysis and Reasoning and
Negotiating. We took the individuals average effectiveness scores (based on self,
peer, and supervisory ratings) for these two factors to create a gross performance
score for that participant (see next section on Performance Measures). We repeated
the process for each item and each participant. Then, for all of those within the 2/3s
sample who had answered Item #1, we determined the relationship between their
performance scores and their choice of answer option. We conducted analysis of
variance, with the performance score as the dependent variable, and the response
options of a, b, c, etc., as the independent variables and determined which items
showed significant differences in responses. Those items that had significant
relationships were retained for further consideration. For these retained items, we used
responses chosen by better performers, then generated an algorithm to score all
responses to each item from 0 to 4 points. On some items, two answer options received
the same score. Each participant, therefore, received a score ranging from 0 to 4 on
each SJT or BIO item.
When a key is developed and assessed on the same sample, a concern about
scoring bias is raised. In this study, however, using the same sample for key
development and subsequent validity assessment likely had minimal impact. Not all
items were answered by all participants, so the 2/3 of the sample who responded to one
item were not likely to be the same 2/3 who responded to another item. The result of

39

this process was that we retained 36 of the 72 items for the SJT and 62 of the 80 items
for the BIO instrument. Participants received scores on SJT and BIO only for those
items they answered and their scores on those items were averaged to create a mean
SJT score and a mean BIO score.
4. Performance Measures
To determine whether scores on the predictor tests related to on-the-job
effectiveness, we needed ratings of each participants work performance. We asked
each participant to do a self-evaluation of his/her own lawyering effectiveness and to
identify four other evaluators two supervisors and two peers (with contact information)
-- who could assess that participants recent lawyering performance. These appraisals
were collected online, after a participant completed his/her test items.
Participants, along with the supervisors and peers they named, were asked, via
computer, to rate the performance of participants on the 26 Effectiveness Factors.
BARS for each of the 26 Effectiveness Factors provided examples of different levels of
performance on that Factor. Raters were asked to select the score (ranging from 1 to 5
in .5 increments) that best represented the participants level of performance on that
Factor. All raters were instructed to rate as many Factors as possible, and to skip
Factors that were not relevant to the job or about which their knowledge was insufficient.
Raters were provided with detailed instructions about how to use the BARS.
They were told that the particular examples on any scale might not literally apply to the
participant-ratees work or setting, but that the examples should be used by analogy to
illustrate levels of performance from 1 (poor) through 5 (excellent). Below is an
example:

40

As shown in the example above, the first factor scale was "Analysis and
Reasoning." The lowest level example for this factor reads, "Analyzes large amounts of
material in a mechanical way" To rate the individual, appraisers were asked to read
scales from the bottom up, asking themselves, Based on my observation and
knowledge of this individuals performance, do I believe he or she would perform at the
level of effectiveness reflected in this particular example? When the raters came to a
level of effectiveness that they believed the individual would not achieve, they were to

41

mark a value (in half-point increments) that represented the highest level that the rater
believed the participant would achieve. Raters were asked to apply the standard based
on the individual ratees actual level of experience. For instance, the rater might rate
someone with 10 years of experience a 2 on a given BARS scale, but evaluate that
same behavior as a 3 for someone with less experience.
Note that the above BARS example is appropriate for the alumni sample, of
practicing lawyers and law grads doing law-related work. For the student sample, the
scales were adapted to be more consistent with student experiences, content, and
context.
In sum, participants rated their own performance on a relevant subset of the 26
BARS, and also named two peers and two supervisors to rate the participants
performance on whichever of these same 26 BARS the rater could apply. We averaged
the two peer ratings to create one Peer Appraisal score, and treated the two supervisor
ratings similarly to create one Supervisor score. The Peer and Supervisor ratings on the
26 Effectiveness Factors were also averaged to create a unitary performance appraisal
for each test participant which we labeled the combined Other rating. Additionally, all
three rater perspectives were also averaged to create an All performance appraisal.
Thus we had 5 different performance evaluation results: Self, Averaged Peer, Averaged
Supervisor, Other (average of peers and supervisors), and All (average of all peers and
supervisors and self).
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION5
The overarching goal of the research project was to conduct an exploratory study
on specific samples to determine whether new types of law school admission tests,
and/or batteries of these tests, have the potential to predict actual lawyering
performance. If the results yielded positive outcomes and trends, then we would urge
5

Cells shown in yellow in any table represent a statistically significant result.

42

additional research on a larger, more representative sample. This section of the Report
presents and summarizes results from multiple rater perspectives (e.g., Self, Peer, and
Supervisor evaluations) and for multiple subgroups (e.g., Berkeley vs. Hastings, males
vs. females, etc.) to provide different views of the data. Similar patterns of results
independent of group breakdowns would support conducting further research in a larger,
broader sample.
A. ALUMNI SAMPLE
1. Description of Sample
Table 1 presents the background characteristics of the sample of 1148
participants. Overall, the sample was composed of mainly Berkeley (64.3%), female
(56.8%), Caucasian (68.5%) practicing attorneys, with the largest number in large firm
(16.6%) or government (13.7%) practice. All areas of expertise were represented with
the most frequent specialization being litigation/advocacy (29.1%).
Table 2 presents the background characteristics by law school attended
Berkeley or Hastings. Divided by school, the pattern of findings was similar to the
overall profile except that whereas Berkeley alumni worked in large firms or government
positions, Hastings alumni worked in solo or small firm practice or government positions.
2. Basic LSAC Predictors and Law School Measures
Two statistical issues affect the data presented below:
(1) The sample included graduates from a 33 year period, which meant that the
raw LSAT scores were derived from different versions of the test and different scoring
templates (score ranges from 10-48, 120-180, and 200-800). Accordingly, we
standardized scores (z-scores) within the templates to determine a common
standardized score across the sample.
(2) Over the course of time covered in the study the two schools varied their
weighting of the components of the Index Score. We weighted LSAT and UGPA

43

information 50-50 throughout.

Table 3 presents averages and standard deviations for the components used by
LSAC -- LSAT, UGPA, and the Index Score (a school-specific composite of the previous
two) -- by total sample, law school, gender, and race/ethnicity. Berkeley participants had
higher UGPA and LSAT scores, males showed no pattern of practical differences
compared to females, but Caucasians and Asians had a pattern of higher test scores
compared to African-Americans and Hispanic participants. These results are consistent
with findings reported in other research (Norton et al., 2006).
3. New Test Measures Identified/Developed for the Current Research
This section presents results for the different types of predictors identified or
developed specifically for this research project. We selected those tests to broaden the
types of abilities measured, with the goal of predicting success in law school and
professional performance. Of particular interest was whether any patterns of differences
among the subgroups emerged, which might suggest a particular measure might yield
statistically and practically different results for some subgroups (e.g., males vs. females).
We examined the latter, practical differences by determining effect size measures [e.g.,
d (difference between subgroup means/standard deviation) statistics, or r2 that reflects
amount of variance explained by subgroup membership].
a. BIO and SJT
Table 4 presents results for the BIO and SJT tests, which were tailor-made
based on our Phase I research that derived Effectiveness Factors important for
lawyering (Shultz & Zedeck, 2003). Average scores on the BIO test yielded similar
findings for both Hastings and Berkeley alumni, for females and males, and for
Caucasians and Asian/Pacific Islanders. African-Americans scored highest on the BIO,
and Hispanics scored lowest, although the differences among the four groups are not
statistically significant. Table 4 also shows no real differences among the subgroups for

44

the SJT, except that Hispanics scored higher than other ethnic groups (r2 = .01). In
general, the results show no practical differences for SJT and BIO based on gender and
ethnicity, a finding consistent with the literature (Clevenger et al., 2001) for these types
of tests.
b. Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)
Table 5 shows the HPI results for the various subgroups. Across the seven scale
scores, the only modest patterns to emerge were that females generally scored more
positively on three dimensions (Adjustment, Sociability, and Intellectance) than males
(r2s of .03 or less) and that Caucasians scored somewhat higher on Learning Approach
than did Hispanics and African-Americans (r2s of .01 and .04, respectively).
c. Hogan Development Survey (HDS)
Table 6 presents the means and standard deviations for the 11 scale scores on
the HDS. In general, no clear pattern of differences emerged except that AfricanAmericans were significantly lower than Caucasians on the Cautious scale (r2 = .03) and
higher than Caucasians on the Mischievous, Imaginative, and Diligent scales (r2s of .02
or less). Males scored higher than females on Reserved (r2 = .04) and Mischievous (r2 =
.01) while females scored higher on Diligence (r2 = .03).
d. Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI)
Table 7 presents the means and standard deviations for the 10 scales of the
MVPI. Again, patterns of differences existed in only a few instances. Males scored
somewhat higher than females on the scales of Commercial (r2 = .06), Power (r2 = .03),
Recognition (r2 = .02), and Scientific (r2 = .02). African-Americans scored lower than
Caucasians on Scientific (r2 = .02).
e. Other Potential Predictors Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS), Optimism
(OPT), and Emotion Recognition (ER)
Table 8 presents the means and standard deviations for three tests chosen

45

because of their potential to measure specific components of performance: SMS, OPT,

and ER. As with the other tests developed/identified for this project, in general, there
were no clear or practical patterns of differences. Two noteworthy differences were that
females scored better than males on the ER (r2 = .03), and African-Americans scored
higher than Caucasians on OPT (r2 = .01).
CONCLUSION #1: In general, race and gender subgroup performance did
not substantially differ on the new predictors. There were some exceptions that
might be re-assessed in a larger study.
4. Intercorrelations among New Predictors
Given that there were no consistent patterns in mean differences based on
race/ethnicity or gender among the tests, examination and presentation of
intercorrelation results are provided for the total sample only.
Table 9 presents the intercorrelations among all of the new predictors studied in
the research project. For HPI, the strength of the intercorrelations among the seven
scales ranged from .00 to .44; for the HDS, the intercorrelations among the 11 scales
ranged from .00 to .49; for MVPI, the strength of the intercorrelations among the 10
scales ranged from .03 to .55. For each test, the range of correlations includes negative
correlations. In general, these correlations suggested that, overall, the three measures
HPI, HDS, and MVPI were measuring relatively different characteristics.
Some tests yielded a single score. For BIO, the correlations between it and the
other predictors ranged from .00 to .39; for SJT, the correlations between it and other
predictors ranged from .01 to .21; for SMS the correlations ranged from .00 to .50; for
OPT, the correlations ranged from .02 to .54; and for ER, the correlations ranged from
.00 to .13. Each of the correlational patterns contained some negative correlations.
The above pattern of results suggests that the different, potentially new
predictors were measuring abilities and characteristics that are relatively independent of

46

each other. This further suggests that one or more of the subscores or tests might
correlate with aspects of performance that were not being tapped by the components
used by LSAC (LSAT, UGPA, and Index Score). Support for this view is found, in part,
by examining the relationships between these LSAC component measures and the new
predictors (presented and discussed in the next section).
CONCLUSION #2: Results showed that new predictor tests were, for the
most part, measuring characteristics that were independent of one another.
5. Correlation among the LSAC Measures and the New Predictors
Table 10 shows the correlations among the three components used by the
LSAC LSAT, UGPA, and Index Score. The intercorrelations among these three
measures ranged from .20 (between LSAT and UGPA) to .78 (for the relations between
the components and the Index) for the total sample. Table 11 shows that these same
predictors had correlations that ranged from .00 to .37 with the new predictors studied in
this research. However, approximately 74% of the correlations were below .10; also, a
number of the correlations were negative.
The pattern of correlations among the three traditional and the new predictors
suggests some degree of independence. The lack of overlap in the existing and new
measures suggests that different traits and abilities were being measured, and that the
tests predicted different aspects of performance. Ultimately, a test battery using different
test measures could explain significant incremental variance above and beyond that
which is explained by any single test.
CONCLUSION #3: The new predictor tests showed some degree of
independence between the traits and abilities that they, as compared to LSAT,
UGPA and Index Score, measure.
6. Ratings of Lawyer Effectiveness
Tables 12 - 16 present the means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for the

47

performance effectiveness measures as gathered from different sources Self, Peer,

and Supervisor --, displayed by total sample, school, gender, and race/ethnicity. Table
12 focuses on Self-Appraisals, Table 13 on Peer Appraisals, and Table 14 on Supervisor
Appraisals. Given the three independent sources of evaluations, it is feasible to
combine some of the sources into meaningful groups for further analysis. Consequently,
an Other group was formed by averaging the ratings for a participant based on the
Peer and Supervisor evaluations (see Table 15). Another combination averaged all the
performance ratings from all sources for a participant, forming an evaluation score we
named All (see Table 16). [Note that for the Peer and Supervisor ratings, the measure
used in analysis could represent the appraisal of a single evaluator (if only one was
named by the participant or if only one of two named responded) or the average of two
evaluators (if both named members of a rater subgroup responded)].
Table 12, the research participants Self-Appraisals, shows relatively few
practical differences and no consistent patterns such that, for example, one subgroup is
always higher than another subgroup. Where there were significant differences,
Berkeley participants tended to evaluate themselves more highly than Hastings
participants on three Effectiveness Factors (Analysis and Reasoning; Writing; and
Passion and Engagement) , males more highly on seven dimensions
(Creativity/Innovation; Problem Solving; Influencing and Advocating; Speaking; Strategic
Planning; Negotiation Skills; and Integrity), females more highly on five dimensions
(Listening; Organizing and Managing Ones Own Work; Organizing and Managing
Others; Advising Clients; and Evaluation, Development, and Mentoring) all r2s .01 or
less), and Hispanics more highly on 11 dimensions when compared to Caucasians (r2s
.02 or less).
Table 13 presents the appraisal results provided by Peers named by participants.
Peers rated Berkeley participants more highly on 13 of the 26 Effectiveness Factors.

48

Peers rated males more highly on six dimensions (Analysis and Reasoning; Problem
Solving; Researching the Law; Fact Finding; Writing; Speaking; and Negotiation Skills)
while peers rated females more highly on four dimensions (Evaluation, Development,
and Mentoring; Passion and Engagement; Diligence; and Community Involvement and
Service). Compared to Caucasians, African-Americans rated higher on Able to See the
World Through the Eyes of Others and Developing Relationships; Hispanics rated lower
on Diligence and Asian Americans rated lower on Creativity, Strategic Planning, and
Passion and Engagement. Nearly all the r2s are .01 or less.
Table 14 presents the appraisal evaluation results from the perspective of
Supervisors named by the participants. When rated by Supervisors, Berkeley
participants as well as males received higher evaluations on 14 dimensions (Berkeley
higher on Analysis and Reasoning; Creativity/Innovation; Problem Solving; Researching
the Law; Fact Finding; Influencing and Advocating; Writing; Listening; Strategic
Planning; Negotiation Skills; Passion and Engagement; Diligence; Integrity; and
Community Service; Males higher on Analysis and Reasoning; Creativity/Innovation;
Problem Solving; Researching the Law; Influencing and Advocating; Negotiation Skills;
and Integrity). Supervisors rated Caucasians more highly on six dimensions than Asian
Americans (Analysis and Reasoning; Creativity/Innovation; Problem Solving;
Researching the Law; Influencing and Advocating; and Integrity). The r2s are generally
at .01 or less.
Table 15 presents results of appraisals by the Other category (combined
averaged ratings by Peers and Supervisors). The pattern is similar to others: Berkeley
alumni and males were evaluated more highly, and race/ethnic differences appeared
between Caucasians and Asian Americans.
Table 16 presents evaluation results from the All category (combined averaged
ratings from all three sources -- Self, Peer, and Supervisor). The patterns are the same

49

as above.
The first row in each table (12 -16) shows the average rating for participants
across the 26 dimensions. This can be viewed as a Global Effectiveness rating. On
this measure, Hispanics rated themselves higher than Caucasians. Peers and
Supervisors rated Berkeley participants higher than Hastings participants. Examining
both Other and All ratings, Berkeley participants were rated higher than Hastings
alumni and Caucasians were rated higher than Asian Americans.
Examination of these five tables (12 - 16) reveals the following: (1) within a
rating subgroup, no evidence suggests that one particular participant subgroup was
consistently higher or lower on any of the Effectiveness Factors; (2) across rating
subgroups, Berkeley alumni and males tended to have higher performance ratings;
males are generally evaluated as higher on Negotiations Skills and Passion and
Engagement regardless of who provided the rating; and (3) differences among
race/ethnicity subgroups show no consistent pattern across the 26 Effectiveness
Factors. The tables also show that, in general, (1) the averages were rather high, at the
4-point mark on a 5-point scale, and (2) the Self Appraisals were lower (on 24 of the 26
Effectiveness Factors) than the Peer or Supervisor ratings.
The patterns presented in this section are somewhat equivocal in providing
guidance about breakdowns of data for subsequent future analyses. However, because
the study was exploratory, and the patterns do not overwhelmingly suggest that
subgroups can be ignored or that analysis on the total sample would be adequate by
itself, we will present our subsequent analyses and results based on various
demographic (e.g. men vs. women), background and experience (Berkeley vs. Hastings)
subgroups, and rater perspectives (e.g., Self vs. Other). If the same predictors prove
useful across the entire set of analyses, the convergence in results would provide very
strong support for future research.

50

CONCLUSION #4: Performance ratings from all sources showed some

differences in participant-subgroups (school, race, gender, etc.) performance.
RECOMMENDATION #1: Larger follow-up research should retain
subgroups analysis at least through the next stage of study.
7. Intercorrelations among the Performance Rating Sources
Table 17 summarizes the agreement among the various rater groups. The table
shows that the correlations between Peers and Self across the 26 dimensions ranged
from .08 to .38; for Self and Supervisor the correlations ranged from .09 to .41; for Peer
and Supervisor, the correlations ranged from .12 to .34; for Self and Other, the
correlations ranged from .12 to .43; for Self and All, the correlations ranged from .62 to
.84; for Peer and Other, the correlations ranged from .80 to .91; for Peer and All, the
correlations ranged from .72 to .83; for Supervisor and Other, the correlations ranged
from .81 to .90; for Supervisor and All, the correlations ranged from .72 to .81; and, for
All and Other, the correlations ranged from .88 to .92.
The results shown in Table 17 indicate that when each of the rater groups is
compared to a different rater group (e.g., Peers to Supervisors), agreement among the
different rater perspectives is low to modest. This pattern of results may imply that
analysis of the validity of the tests should be studied separately for each rater group. An
alternative would be to consider the reliability of the ratings and to determine whether
combinations (e.g., the Other or All) present a more reliable estimate of performance
than appraisal from any single rater source.
Barrett (2008) undertook an analysis of the projects ratings within rater groups.
He concludes that averaging the two Peer ratings for each performance dimension was
reasonable; likewise, it was reasonable to average the two Supervisor ratings for each
performance dimension. Additional analyses indicated that sufficient similarity existed
between averaged Supervisor and averaged Peer ratings to average the two averages

51

to yield an Other rating viewpoint.

The results imply that Self ratings were somewhat different than the Other
evaluations, again suggesting that perhaps subsequent validity analyses should be
conducted separately for these two rating perspectives. An alternative would be to focus
on an All rater group which could provide the most information on the participants
performance.
CONCLUSION #5: Agreement between different rater groups was low to
modest. Peer and Supervisor ratings were similar to one another although Self
Appraisals differed.
RECOMMENDATION #2: Subsequent research should conduct validity
analysis separately for appraisals by Self and Other (Peers and Supervisors).
8. Prediction of Lawyering Effectiveness
The key goal for this research project was to determine whether particular test
types could predict on-the-job lawyering effectiveness (simple correlations) as well as
how well a battery of tests (multiple correlations) could predict lawyering effectiveness.
This section focuses on these questions.
This study generated a considerable amount of data on predictors and
Effectiveness Factors. A legitimate presentation question is whether all possible
analyses should be reported in this document.6 One option would be to present validity
results for each predictor, for each participant subgroup, and for each performance
rating subgroup. This would produce an enormous report overloaded with tables and
output. After examining all of the analyses and results, however, it is our view that the
conclusions regardless of, for example, the participant subgroup studied or the rater
group used to evaluate performance, would lead us to the same recommendation, which
is that no different recommendations would be made when all results are considered.
6

All statistical output and tables are available from the researchers.

52

This interpretation might suggest another option, that of presenting subsequent results
from, for example, from only one rater perspective. Our research purpose, however,
was to study whether one or more of our new tests and methods could be useful for
predicting lawyering performance. The current research was exploratory. Therefore,
any consistently positive result within or between participant or rater subgroups (e.g.,
Berkeley vs. Hastings) makes the picture clearer and provides stronger support for the
need for more research.
Given the above assessment, we have opted to present results from different
frameworks. We do this in the hope that we will persuade the reader, as we ourselves
are persuaded, that the convergences in results from different rater and/or participant
subgroups, enhance support for the overall conclusion that further validation research
should definitely be conducted.
Given the analyses above, this section of the report on the validity of the
predictors for lawyering performance will sometimes present results for the total sample,
and in other instances, only for Berkeley or only for Hastings. The demonstrations will
also differ according to rater groups presenting each of the rater subgroups for some
analyses, only the All combination for some, and only the Other rating combination for
still different instances.
a. LSAT, UGPA and Index Score as Predictors of Lawyering Performance
Table 18 shows the zero-order correlations between the LSAT, UGPA, and Index
score and each of the 26 Effectiveness Factors, as well as the average Global
Effectiveness score (average of the 26 dimensions). The table shows data for each of
the five rater subgroup perspectives Self, Peer, Supervisor, Other, and All. Table 18
shows that the LSAT scores, taking into account more than one performance rating
group, correlated with six Effectiveness Factors -- Analysis and Reasoning; Researching
the Law; Writing; Networking; Integrity; and Community Service). For the first three of

53

these six performance factors, the correlations ranged from .08 to .16. This was to be
expected, given that the LSAT specifically seeks to measure Analysis and Reasoning
and has likely relationships or overlap with Writing and Researching. For the
performance factors of Networking and Community Service, the correlations are
negative and range from -.10 to -.14. This suggests that high scorers on the LSAT did
not do well on two lawyer Effectiveness Factors, Networking and Community Service.
Networking and Community Service both require interaction with others. It may be that
those who scored highly on the LSAT were not viewed by the raters as devoting
attention to Networking and Community Service or lacked the necessary skills. For
Integrity, the correlation with the LSAT score was negative when performance was rated
by Self appraisal (r = -.09), but positive when evaluated by other rater subgroups
(ranging from .06 to .12). This discrepancy between rater subgroups may reflect
distinctive characteristics of Integrity. Integrity, or especially its lack, concerns matters
usually kept private, secret from others or the public. People may more likely try to
manipulate others perceptions of Integrity. A Self rating reflected inner knowledge of
ones own secrets, but others likely appraised Integrity on the basis of outward
manifestations. Characteristics peculiar to Integrity may, then, explain the discrepancies
between Self and Peer or Supervisor ratings.
UGPA results showed fewer correlations than LSAT scores. In general, UGPA
correlated most with Writing (rs ranged from .09 to .12), with Managing Ones Own
Work (rs range from .09 to .10), and with Diligence (rs ranged from .09 to .11).
Differences in correlations of UGPA and LSAT may reflect that the LSAT is a one day
test, but UGPA depends on persistence and the ability to manage and apply oneself
over four or more years. Diligence, time spent, and management of work could more
readily substitute for smartness in the UGPA measure than in obtaining higher LSAT
scores.

54

In sum, the LSAT, UGPA and Index were predictive of only a few of the
Effectiveness Factors, mainly ones that overlapped with the LSATs measurement
targets. For example, the LSAT aims to evaluate analysis and reasoning and it
correlated with performance appraisals of participants Analysis and Reasoning. When
LSAT score was mixed with the UGPA in the Index score, correlations emerged with
Managing Own Work, as might be expected. The LSAT and UGPA were not intended to
predict lawyering effectiveness, but given our hypothesis that broader lawyering skills
should be added to academic criteria when selecting the best qualified law school
applicants, the important finding for us was that, for the most part, they did not.
CONCLUSION #6: The LSAT, UGPA and Index Scores were not particularly
useful for predicting lawyer performance on the large majority of the 26
Effectiveness Factors identified in our research.
RECOMMENDATION #3: Because traditional indicators (LSAT, UGPA, and
the Index Score) did not predict performance as a lawyer, other predictors
focusing on prediction of post-graduate performance should be explored.
b. New Tests as Predictors of Lawyering Performance
Table 19 shows the correlations between the HPI scales and the 26
Effectiveness Factors as well as with the average Global performance across all 26
dimensions. In summarizing the results of this and subsequent tables that present
correlations between particular predictors and performance measures, we will focus on
correlations that were significant within at least three rater subgroups. Examination of
the correlations in Table 19 shows that three of the HPI scales Adjustment (rs ranged
from .10s to .30s), Ambition (rs ranged from.10s to high .30s), and Interpersonal
Sensitivity (rs ranged from .10s to high .20s) correlated with 20, 20, and 14
Effectiveness Factors, respectively. The strongest correlations for Adjustment were with
Stress Management (r = .37), Developing Relationships (r = .19), Seeing the World

55

Through the Eyes of Others (r = .18), Negotiations (r = .17) and Listening (r = .15).
Ambition correlated relatively strongly with almost all of the set of 26 Effectiveness
Factors noted above (e.g., with Creativity; Problem Solving; Practical Judgment; Fact
Finding; Questioning and Interviewing; Influence and Advocating; Speaking; Strategic
Planning; Negotiation; Networking; Passion; etc.). The strongest correlations for
Interpersonal Sensitivity were with Questioning and Interviewing (r = .22), Listening (r =
.20), Seeing the World through the Eyes of Others (r = .24), Developing Relationships (r
= .33), and Evaluation, Developing, and Mentoring (r = .22). The most highly correlated
HPI scales (Adjustment, Ambition, and Interpersonal Sensitivity) do NOT show a pattern
of significant correlations with four of our lawyer Effectiveness Factors -- Analysis and
Reasoning, Researching the Law, Writing, and Diligence. The first three of these were,
however, correlated with the HPI scale of Learning Approach (rs about .10), while the
fourth is tapped by the HPI Prudence scale. Thus, five HPI scales would have potential
to contribute to the prediction of many of the Effectiveness Factors.
Table 20 shows the correlations between the HDS scales and the 26
Effectiveness Factors. Only one HDS scale showed a consistent pattern and some
promise, Excitable, which concerns being overly enthusiastic about people/projects
and then becoming disappointed with them. This scale correlated with 19 of the 26
Effectiveness Factors (rs ranged from -.10 to high -.30s). However, it also correlated .72 with Adjustment on the HPI, suggesting that Adjustment and Excitable were
measuring similar, albeit reversed, characteristics. The other scale that showed some
promise is Reserved. This scale correlated with seven Effectiveness Factors (rs
ranged from -.10s to mid -.20s). Reserved reflects being remote, detached and
lacking awareness of feelings of others. Its correlation with our lawyer Effectiveness
Factors such as Managing Others, Negotiation, Networking, Building Relationships, and
Community Service are ones that we would expect it to predict awareness of others

56

feelings was critical for efficacy in these performance areas. Reserved, however, was
correlated (-.56) with Interpersonal Sensitivity, again suggesting overlap in what is being
measured by the two scales. An issue for the future, then, is whether to concentrate on
the two HDS scales of Reserved and Excitable or rely mainly on the HPI scales,
which covered more of the Effectiveness Factors than did the two HDS scales.
Table 21 shows the correlations between the MVPI scales and the 26
Effectiveness Factors. Overall, this pattern of correlations was not as impressive as was
the HPI, or even the HDS. The Altruistic scale correlated with five Effectiveness
Factors (Creativity; Able to See the World Through the Eyes of Others; Passion;
Integrity; and Community Service). Most of the correlations were in the .10s, but the
MVPI scales of Affiliation and Altruistic correlated best with Community Service (rs
ranging from .16 to .42). The other MVPI scales that correlated with a small number of
Effectiveness Factors (4) were Affiliation and Hedonistic (rs ranged from .15s to mid.
20s). As with the HDS, the issue for the future would be whether to continue further
research on the MVPI given its limited number of correlations with the lawyer
Effectiveness Factors and its weak showing compared to the HPI. Though individual
scales, such as Altruistic, correlate with some Effectiveness Factors (five), the one
noteworthy pattern is with Community Service, where the correlations ranged from .16 to
.42, depending on which rater subgroup was used.
Table 22 shows the correlations of the new tests (BIO, SJT, SMS, OPT, and ER)
with the Effectiveness Factors. BIO scores showed correlations (in the .2s and .3s)
with all Effectiveness Factors except Integrity and Stress Management. SJT scores
showed correlations with all Effectiveness Factors other than Managing Others and
Evaluation, Development, and Mentoring. The correlations were generally in the .10s
and low .20s. The impressive aspect of these results was (1) the large number of
Effectiveness Factors that were predicted by both BIO and SJT tests, and (2) the fact

57

that the correlations were generally higher, though moderately, than the ones found for
the instances in which the LSAT did have some relationship with a small subset of
Effectiveness Factors.
Table 22 also shows correlations of the SMS, OPT, and ER with the
Effectiveness Factors. The one predictor of these three that showed the most potential
in this study was OPT which correlated positively with 13 of the Effectiveness Factors
(rs ranged from .10s to .20). Most notable are the correlations with Stress
Management, Speaking, Networking, and Questioning and Interviewing. Because OPT
correlated in the high .4s with the HPI Adjustment and Ambition scales, use of OPT and
HPI might be duplicative. The other two measures, SMS and ER, did not show results
that would suggest continuing pursuit.7
Overall, some of the new predictors identified or developed for this specific
research project display results that argue for additional research. They do so because
(1) they correlated with areas that were not predicted by the LSAT or UGPA alone, or as
combined in the Index score, (2) their correlations were generally higher than ones
obtained for the LSAT, UGPA and Index predictors, and (3) based on the literature and
current research, these predictors tended to yield few if any mean differences by
race/ethnicity and gender (Clevenger et al., 2001).
CONCLUSION #7: New predictors developed for this project correlated at a
higher level with factors not well predicted by the LSAT, UGPA, or Index Score
and showed little race or gender subgroup difference in results.
RECOMMENDATION #4: Based on the pattern of findings across different
participant subgroups and from different rater subgroups, we recommend that
future research focus on new predictors, especially HPI, BIO, SJT, and OPT.
7

It is possible that an SMS type test re-written specifically for law performance would show better results
and that an ER test allowing longer time intervals, fewer emotions to choose from and more consistent face
photographs would have improved results on those two tests.

58

c. Moderator Variables
Given Recommendation #4 (focus on four new tests), we examined through
moderated regression, the relationship between the separate predictors of HPI (7
scales), BIO, SJT, and OPT and each of the 26 Effectiveness Factors of lawyer
performance in order to determine whether there was differential validity for any
participant subgroup. We conducted step-wise moderated regression by entering the
predictor in the first step, the potential moderator (e.g., gender) in the second step, and
the interaction of the two in the third step. Significant incremental variance on the third
step provides evidence of differential validity. This process required over 1,000 analyses
(26 dimensions x 5 rater groups x 10 predictor measures) for each potential moderator
for the subset of HPI, BIO, SJT, and OPT. Results indicated few instances of significant
incremental variance on the third step of the analysis. Where significant increments
existed, the amount of variance was negligible (approximately 1% incremental variance).
With regard to the strength of these results, we note that reliance on graduates of
only two schools limits the generalizability of the findings. In addition, small sample
sizes for the ethnic groups limit the opportunity (low statistical power) to identify
significant race/ethnic differences. Nevertheless, the results were consistent with the
literature which has found few if any differences between genders and race/ethnic
groups on the types of predictors studied in this project, however future research with
larger more representative samples should examine moderated variable effects.
CONCLUSION #8: Consistent with the literature, results from analysis of
this sample showed that the new predictors studied here showed no practical
differences among race or gender subgroups.
RECOMMENDATION #5: Because predictors of professional effectiveness
are important, further research on these new types of tests should be vigorously
pursued.

59

d. Incremental Variance
In this research, we sought to determine whether a battery of tests could be
formed that would explain variance in ratings of actual lawyer performance. Initially, we
intended to examine whether the tests identified/developed for this project would yield
incremental variance (hierarchical moderated regression) above what the LSAT, UGPA
and Index score explain. However, given that the LSAT, UGPA and Index scores did not
demonstrate many correlations with the lawyering Effectiveness Factors, we undertook
step-wise regression analysis in which the order of entry into the analysis was
determined by statistical relationships among the predictors and their correlations with
the performance evaluations.
Table 23 presents the results of an analysis in which the LSAT, Index, HPI
scales, BIO, SJT, and OPT were allowed to enter in a step-wise multiple regression to
determine which combination, if any, of the predictors could explain Self-Appraisals of
performance on each of the 26 Effectiveness Factors as well as on the Global average
of all 26 dimensions. This table shows only those results that yielded significant
incremental variance. An overview of this table indicates that a combination of two tests,
and in some instances three tests, can produce multiple correlations with the
Effectiveness Factors (and Global average for performance) in the range of the mid .20s
to the high .30s. Tables 24 through 26 repeat the analytic strategy for Peer, Supervisor,
and Other rater subgroups respectively. The multiple correlations when Peers provided
the ratings (Table 24) ranged from about .15 to the mid .20s; for Supervisor ratings
(Table 25) the multiple correlations ranged from the high .10s to the low .20s; while the
multiple correlations for the Other ratings (Table 26) ranged from the mid .20s to the low
.30s.
Table 27 summarizes the results of these step-wise multiple regression analyses.
The main conclusion to be drawn from this summary is that SJT and BIO plus one or

60

more of the HPI scales (e.g., Ambition, or Interpersonal Sensitivity) yielded composites
that predicted lawyering performance on a relatively large number of Effectiveness
Factors. On the other hand, the LSAT and the Index did not demonstrate much value
along with or in addition to the other potential tests in predicting lawyering performance.
Taken as whole, the data suggest that SJT, BIO, HPI, and OPT have the best potential
to predict lawyer performance effectiveness..
CONCLUSION #9: In multiple regression analysis, SJT, BIO and several
HPI scales predicted many dimensions of Lawyering Effectiveness, whereas the
LSAT and Index Score did not.
RECOMMENDATION #6: Further research should focus strongly on OPT,
SJT, BIO and HPI predictors of professional performance.
9. Prediction of Lawyering Effectiveness in Law School
We obtained UGPA, LSAT, and Index scores on alumni participants as well as
their FYGPA in law school. These data provided us with the opportunity to replicate, in
part, the relationship between UGPA, LSAT, and Index with FYGPA. We could assess
whether the current limited samples (Berkeley and Hastings alumni) generated findings
consistent with the larger studies conducted under the auspices of the LSAC.
a. LSAC Components as Predictors of FYGPA in Law School
Traditionally, the LSAT, UGPA, and Index scores have been used to predict
FYGPA in law schools (c.f., Dalessandro et al., 2005; Stilwell et al., 2003; Wightman,
1993). Results show that the correlations between LSAT, UGPA, and Index Score with
FYGPA in law schools are .35, .28, and .25, respectively. The weighted composite of
LSAT and UGPA (the Index score) yields a correlation of .49 with FYGPA.
In determining the validity of the LSAT, UGPA, and Index Score for predicting
FYGPA for the current sample, we first examined the relationship between the law
school components and FYGPA as moderated by gender, ethnicity, and school. These

61

analyses were similar to those performed to assess the relationship between the LSAT,
UGPA, and Index Score and our Effectiveness Factors, particularly for whether there
were gender or race/ethnicity differences. As above, these analyses were undertaken
by conducting step-wise moderated regressions where the predictor (e.g., LSAT score)
was entered in the first step, the potential moderator (e.g., gender) was entered on the
second step, and the interaction of the two was entered on the third step. Evidence of
differential validity is determined when there is significant incremental variance on the
third step. Results of these analyses indicated no consistent practical differences.
Accordingly, subsequent analyses and results are reported mainly for the total sample,
with the exception that school differences are maintained to provide information for the
participants in this project
Table 28 shows the correlations between the traditional admissions predictors
and FYGPA for the total sample. These results showed reasonable consistency with
other research findings: the LSAT correlated .42 with FYGPA, UGPA correlated .21 with
FYGPA, and the Index correlated .42. The results for Berkeley grads (see Table 29)
were: LSAT correlated .49 with FYGPA, UGPA correlated .24 with FYGPA, and the
Index correlated .48 with FYGPA. For the Hastings sample (see Table 30), the results
were: LSAT correlated .43 with FYGPA, UGPA correlated .31 with FYGPA, and the
Index correlated .52 with FYGPA. The differences between the schools were not
practically significant.
The composite of LSAT and UGPA yielded a multiple correlation of .44 for the
total sample, .50 for Berkeley, and .53 for Hastings. In interpreting the data presented in
this section, note that this projects results are based on only two schools (Hastings and
Berkeley), whose percentages of ethnic minority participants is relatively small compared
to white participants, while the LSACs research findings are based on 165 schools. In
addition, the Index Score for this project was formed on the basis of a 50-50 weighting

62

while the LSAC-reported research used indices as specified by the individual schools.
Regardless of these caveats, it is reasonable to conclude that the current research
replicates the finding that the LSAT, UGPA, and Index scores are useful predictors of
FYGPA in law schools.
CONCLUSION #10: Results essentially replicated the validity of the LSAT,
UGPA, and Index Score for predicting FYGPA in our sample.
b. Tests Identified/Developed for this Project as Predictors of Law School
Performance
Tables 31-33 show the correlations between each of the predictors identified or
developed for this research and the FYGPA in law school, for the total sample, for
Berkeley and for Hastings, respectively. Addressing the scale scores on the HPI, the
results for the total sample (Table 31) showed that five (Adjustment, Ambition,
Sociability, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Learning Approach) of the seven scales
correlated significantly with FYGPA, with the correlations ranging from 07 to .21. Of
particular interest, however, was the finding that all but Learning Approach had negative
correlations with FYGPA. The patterns of relationships were somewhat similar when
Berkeley (see Table 32) and Hastings (see Table 33) samples were differentiated. For
Berkeley, the pattern was the same as the total sample except that Adjustment was not
correlated with FYGPA; for Hastings, Ambition and Sociability were not related to
FYGPA.
For the 11 HDS scales, only Excitable correlated (.16) with FYGPA for the total
sample, Imaginative correlated (-.15) for the Berkeley sample and Excitable correlated
(.24) for the Hastings sample. For the 10 MVPI scales, only Hedonistic correlated (-.15)
with FYGPA for the total sample, while Altruistic (-.20) and Hedonistic (-.19) correlated
for Berkeley and Altruistic (.21) correlated for Hastings.
Of the remaining new scales, BIO correlated -.09, OPT correlated -.08, and ER

63

correlated .08 with FYGPA for the total sample. The SJT and SMS did not significantly
correlate with FYGPA; the ER did correlate (.12) only for the Berkeley sample. None of
these correlated for the Hastings sample.
CONCLUSION #11: Our new predictors showed few significant correlations
with FYGPA, and of those that did exist, many (especially HPI scales, OPT and
BIO) were negative.
c. Incremental Variance
In an attempt to determine whether any of the new predictors would yield
incremental validity beyond that which is obtained by the LSAT alone or by the Index
Score alone, hierarchical multiple regression was undertaken where tests were entered
on a second step after first entering LSAT (separate analyses for Index Score).
Significant increases in R2 would suggest the potential for formation of a predictive
battery of tests. Results indicated that five of the HPI scales (Adjustment, Ambition,
Sociability, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Learning Approach) and the OPT scales
yielded significant increments above the LSAT, but each amounted to less than 1%.
For the Index, the results showed the same pattern, with the exception that
Adjustment did not add incremental variance. For those results in which there were
significant increments, the amounts were 1% or less.
CONCLUSION #12: New predictors added only slight (1%) incremental
validity to LSAT and Index Score prediction of law school performance.
d. Summary of Results: Predicting Law School Performance Measured by
Grades
In sum, the results for the LSAT, UGPA, and Index appeared to be good
predictors of the traditional FYGPA measure of performance for the current samples.
The new tests did not show consistently strong relationships on their own, or in
conjunction with the LSAT, UGPA, and Index measures.

64

Questions can, however, be raised about the way performance is measured in

the LSAC correlational research studies. The LSAT is a paper-and-pencil test that
basically measures analytic and logical reasoning, along with reading. Law
examinations dominate grades, especially in first year. Typically, exams require
students to read fact patterns, identify and analyze legal issues, assemble evidence and
arguments and sometimes to assess implications -- essentially the same abilities
measured by the LSAT. The correlations between LSAT and FYGPA are, therefore,
both unsurprising and somewhat circular, especially given that the LSAT was designed
by asking teachers of first year law courses to identify which skills would yield high
grades. The same narrow band of cognitive test-taking skills dominates in part because
professors find it difficult for a number of reasons (e.g., limited to no opportunity to
observe) to assess other types of abilities such as those identified in the lawyer
Effectiveness Factors (e.g., Negotiations, Interviewing, Integrity, Problem Solving,
Creativity, etc.) and those capabilities are not typically reflected in law school exams or
grades (FYGPA). Given the criterion used, it would also be surprising if new noncognitive measures could improve on the LSAT/UGPA Index correlation with first year
grades.
CONCLUSION #13: For our sample, LSAT, UGPA and Index Score were
good predictors of FYGPA. Our new predictors did not show strong correlation
on their own nor did they add incremental validity to the LSAT, UGPA and Index
Score.
RECOMMENDATION #7: Further research on new tests prediction of
FYGPA is less important than research on predictors of professional
effectiveness.

65

B. STUDENT SAMPLE
1. Description of Sample
Table 34 presents the background characteristics of the student sample, which
included only Berkeley students; female (66%) and Caucasians (62.1%) who were in
their second year of law school (2L; 59.1%). The most desired future employment
setting for these students was a large firm (32.5%) with the intended types of practice
being varied: civil rights (10.3%), corporate and business transactions (9.9%),
intellectual property (8.9%), or criminal and criminal procedure (7.9%).
Note that the sample sizes of the minority student subgroups African-American
(7), Hispanic (19), Asian/Pacific Islander (32), and Native American (16) were quite
small compared to the number of Caucasians (126), making statistical comparisons of
each ethnic group to Caucasians statistically problematic.8 Accordingly, subsequent
race/ethnicity comparisons should be treated with extreme caution.
2. Basic LSAC Predictors and Law School Measures
Table 35 presents average and standard deviation results for the LSAT, UGPA,
and Index Score by total sample, gender, and race/ethnicity. Table 35 shows no real
difference in UGPA by gender or race; slightly higher LSAT scores for males and for
Caucasians compared to African-Americans and Hispanics. The Index, which is a
standardized score, and composed of the LSAT and UGPA scores, shows obviously
similar patterns to the UGPA and LSAT. Differences in FYGPA are almost nonexistent.9
3. New Test Measures Identified/Developed for the Current Research
This section presents the results for the different types of predictors identified or
8

The number of minority matriculants decreased substantially in the wake of Californias 1996 passage of
Proposition 209 banning affirmative action in state education and contracting. Recently, minority admit
numbers at Berkeley have risen but not to pre-Proposition 209 levels.
9
Berkeleys law grading system contributes to obscuring LGPA differences. 60% of each class must
receive a grade of Pass under the mandatory grading curve.

66

developed for this research project in order to broaden the types of abilities measured.
a. BIO and SJT
Table 36 presents the results for two of the tests that were tailor-made for this
research (BIO and SJT). Consistent with the literature on SJT and BIO formats (c.f.,
Clevenger et al., 2001), results shows no real differences as a function of gender or
race/ethnicity.
b. Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)
Table 37 shows the HPI results for the various subgroups. Across the seven
scale scores provided by the HPI, the only modest patterns to emerge were that females
generally scored more positively on two dimensions (Interpersonal Sensitivity and
Prudence) while males scored more highly on Intellectance (r2s = .07) and also,
Caucasians scored somewhat higher on Adjustment than did African-Americans, though
lower on Sociability (differences were not significant). Overall, there were no consistent
patterns that suggested that one gender or race/ethnic group dominated on the set of
characteristics measured by the HPI.
c. Hogan Development Survey (HDS)
Table 38 presents the means and standard deviations for the 11 scale scores on
the HDS (because not all students took this test, the sample size for analysis was small
relative to those who took the HPI; N = 63 total). In general, no clear pattern of
differences between genders emerged; the sample sizes for race/ethnic comparisons
were too small to provide meaningful interpretation.
d. Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI)
Table 39 presents the means and standard deviations for the 10 scales of the
MVPI (total sample of N = 60). Again, no patterns of consistent gender differences were
seen in the results; Hispanics had lower scores on four of the scales (Affiliation,
Altruistic, Power, and Tradition).

67

e. Other Potential Predictors Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS), Optimism

(OPT), and Emotion Recognition (ER)
Table 40 presents the means and standard deviations for three tests chosen
because of their potential to measure specific components of performance: SMS, OPT,
and ER. As with the other tests developed/identified for this project, no clear or practical
patterns of differences appeared.
CONCLUSION #14: None of the new predictors showed consistent patterns
of difference by race or gender.
4. Intercorrelations among New Predictors
Table 41 presents the intercorrelations among the LSAT, UGPA, Index and all of
the new predictors studied in the research project. The correlation between UGPA and
LSAT is effectively .00, due in large part to the minimal variance among the students in
their UGPA. For HPI, the intercorrelations among the seven scales ranged from .00 to
.55; for the HDS, the intercorrelations among the 11 scales ranged from .01 to .58; for
MVPI, the intercorrelations among the 10 scales ranged from .00 to .52. For each test,
the range of correlations included negative correlations.
Some tests yielded a single score. For BIO, the correlations between it and the
other predictors ranged from .00 to .51; for SJT, the correlations between it and other
predictors ranged from .00 to .48; for SMS the correlations ranged from .03 to .61; for
OPT, the correlations ranged from .03 to .58; and for ER, the correlations ranged from
.00 to .24. Each of the correlational patterns contained some negative correlations.
The results suggest that, as for the alumni sample, the new potential predictors
measure abilities and characteristics that were relatively independent of each other.
This further suggests that one or more of the subscores or tests might correlate with
aspects of performance that are not being tapped by the LSAT, UGPA, and Index
Scores. Support for this view is found, in part, by examining the relationships between

68

the LSAT, UGPA, Index measures and the new predictors (presented and discussed in
the next section).
CONCLUSION #15: Intercorrelations among the new predictors showed
that they measured traits that were relatively independent of one another.
5. Correlation among the LSAC Measures and the New Predictors
Table 41 also shows that the LSAT, UGPA, Index scores had correlations that
ranged from .00 to .36 with the new predictors studied in the project although
approximately 50% were below .10; also, a number of the correlations were negative.
The pattern of correlations found among the predictors suggests some degree of
independence. Non-overlap in the measures demonstrates that different traits and
abilities were being measured, creating the potential for the tests to predict different
aspects of performance. This means that a varied test battery might be constructed that
could explain significant incremental variance and measure a diverse set of abilities.
CONCLUSION #16: Traditional LSAT, UGPA, and Index Score on the one
hand, and new predictors on the other, measured abilities independent of one
another.
6. Ratings of Student Effectiveness
Tables 42 46 present the means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for
the measures of performance effectiveness as gathered from different sources Self
Appraisals, Peer, and Supervisor Appraisals as well as Other and All composites --,
displayed by total sample, gender, and race/ethnicity. Again, the total sample for the
performance effectiveness measures was approximately 150; small samples of minority
students suggest that race/ethnic group comparisons should be interpreted with caution.
Table 42, the Self Appraisals, shows females to be higher on 15 Effectiveness Factors
while males were higher on 11 Effectiveness Factors, but only three were significantly
different -- males were higher on Analysis and Reasoning, and Problem Solving;

69

females higher on Community Service. However, the differences were not very large;
the biggest difference was on the Community Service dimension where females were
.38 points higher than males (r2 = .06).
Table 43 presents the evaluation results provided by the Peers. These results
show that females were rated more highly on 16 of the dimensions, but only one is a
significant difference; the largest difference is on the Evaluation, Development, and
Mentoring performance dimension (.22 of a point; r2 = .04).
Table 44 presents the evaluation results provided by the Supervisors. Here we
see a change in pattern. Males received higher evaluations on 15 dimensions, with four
of the differences being significant; the largest difference was on the Evaluation,
Development, and Mentoring performance dimension (males scored .52 of a point
higher; r2 = .12).
Table 45 presents the evaluation results generated by averaging the ratings
provided by the Peers and Supervisors, the composite Other. These results show that
males were rated more highly on 16 of the dimensions, but only two were significantly
different. Males were rated higher on Analysis and Reasoning, while lower on
Community Service (r2 = .02 and .03, respectively).
Table 46 presents the evaluation results generated by averaging across all three
rater subgroups to form the All rating. These results show females achieving higher
ratings on 16 Effectiveness Factors, but only three were significantly different; the largest
difference was on the Community Service dimension where females were .26 points
higher than males; (r2 = .04).
The first row in each table (42 - 46) shows the average Global rating across the
26 Effectiveness Factors by which rater subgroup is summarized; these results showed
no statistically significant gender differences. This conclusion, however, illustrates the
potential loss of important information when data are averaged across a number of

70

factors. Although the Global averages show no statistically significant gender difference,
examining the five rater subgroups separately for each factor (tables 42 - 46), reveals
consistent pattern of differences between males and females. Males scored consistently
higher on 10 dimensions (Analysis and Reasoning; Creativity/Innovation; Problem
Solving; Researching the Law; Fact Finding; Influencing and Advocating; Writing;
Strategic Planning; Networking and Business Development; and Stress Management
while females were consistently higher on 11 dimensions (Practical Judgment;
Questioning and Interviewing; Listening; Organizing and Planning Ones Own Work;
Organizing and Managing Others Work; Able to see the World Through the Eyes of
Others; Providing Advice & Counsel & Building Client Relationships; Developing
Relationships within the Legal Profession; Passion and Engagement; Integrity/Honesty;
and Community Involvement and Service).
The tables also showed that, in general, (1) the averages were rather high, at the
4 point mark on a 5 point scale, and that (2) the Self Appraisals were lower on many of
the Effectiveness Factors than the Peer or Supervisor ratings.
CONCLUSION #17: Appraisals by various rater subgroups showed patterns
of gender difference with males or females higher on various Effectiveness
Factors, but only a few were statistically significant. The Global average over 26
Effectiveness Factors, regardless of rater subgroup, showed no significant
differences by gender.
RECOMMENDATION #8: In future research, preservation rather than
aggregation of subcategories should be the analytical strategy.
7. Intercorrelations among the Performance Rating Sources
Table 47 summarizes the agreement among the various rater subgroups. The
table shows that the correlations between Peers and Self across the 26 Effectiveness
Factors ranged from .02 to .37; for Self and Supervisor, the correlations ranged from .00

71

to .40; for Peers and Supervisor, the correlations ranged from -.04 to .40; for Self and
Other, the correlations ranged from .03 to .40; for Self and All the correlations ranged
from .51 to .78; for Peers and Other, the correlations ranged from .81 to .96; for Peers
and All, the correlations ranged from .71 to .90; for Supervisor and Other, the
correlations ranged from .72 to .89; for Supervisor and All, the correlations ranged from
.60 to .81; and, for All and Other, the correlations ranged from .86 to .94.
The results shown in Table 47 indicate low to moderate agreement when the
rater subgroups are treated separately (Self, Supervisor, and Peer). These results
provide further support for treating the rater groups separately for additional analyses.
Given the reliability results reported by Barrett (2008), Other and All are reasonable
combinations to study.
CONCLUSION #18: Analysis of separate rater subgroups showed low to
moderate agreement among them.
RECOMMENDATION #9: Doing separate analyses of various rater groups
should be continued in future research.
8. Prediction of Lawyering Effectiveness as Measured in Law School
Analysis of the student sample, like the alumni analysis, raises the same
question: how well do the LSAT, UGPA, and Index Score predict performance in law
school? But, more importantly, how well do they predict performance in law school other
than through grades? For the student sample, we adapted and/or asked raters to
analogize the 26 Effectiveness Factors developed for practicing attorneys to fit the
context and content of experiences that law students encounter. Thus, appraisals of
performance on the 26 Effectiveness Factors were not based on full-time job
performance, but on work in clinics, part-time law jobs, research assistance work for
faculty, student activities and groups, as well as on coursework.

72

a. LSAT, UGPA and Index Score as Predictors of Lawyering Performance

Table 48 shows the zero-order correlations between the LSAT, UGPA, and
Index and each of the 26 performance measures, as well as the global average
performance score; the table shows data for each of the five rater subgroups Self,
Peer, Supervisor, Other, and All. Correlations between several of the LSAC measures
and performance appraisals from several rater sub-groups suggest that further research
could be useful. Table 48 shows that, taking into account more than one performance
rating group, the LSAT correlated with Analysis and Reasoning, Creativity, Problem
Solving, Influence and Advocating, Writing, and Networking. The Effectiveness Factors
that are most similar to what is measured by LSAT, such as Analysis and Reasoning,
showed correlations with LSAT that ranged from .15 to .30.10 For the Networking Factor,
the correlations were negative ranging from -.20 to -.30. This finding suggests that
higher scorers on the LSAT did not do well in Networking. This result was similar to that
found for the alumni sample, where we noted that Networking requires interaction with
others. It may be that those who score highly on the LSAT are the type of students who
do not devote attention to networking or lack the necessary skills to do so.
For UGPA, the results show somewhat fewer patterns of correlations than did the
LSAT. In general, UGPA correlated with Practical Judgment (rs ranging from -.16 to .20), Questioning and Interviewing (rs ranging from -.18 to -.19), Developing
Relationships (rs ranging from -.17 to -.20), Integrity (rs ranging from -.17 to -.19), and
Community Service (-.15 to -.26). All of these correlations were negative, which
suggests that higher UGPA was related to poorer performance on the dimensions noted.
Higher grades may reflect individuals who are more oriented to books and less toward
real world practical skills. Questioning, Relationships, and Service all require

10

This result may reflect inclusion of faculty appraisers, who likely put emphasis on cognitive skills within
factors like Creativity and Problem Solving i.e. intellectual creativity or intellectual problem solving.

73

interpersonal skills and time away from studying.

The Index Score correlates with Analysis and Reasoning (rs ranging from .17 to
.19), Writing (rs ranging from .16 to.22), Networking (rs ranging from -.20 to -.23), and
Community Service (rs ranging from -.17 to -.28). Explanations for these patterns might
be similar to those already mentioned
CONCLUSION #19: The LSAT, UGPA and Index Score predicted a few of
the Effectiveness Factors, mainly ones where constructs overlapped between the
LSAT, UGPA and Index and performance indices. However, the LSAT, UGPA,
Index were not useful for prediction of the large majority of Effectiveness Factors.
b. New Tests as Predictors of Lawyering Performance
Tables 49 52 show correlations between the predictors identified/developed for
this project and the 26 Effectiveness Factors as well as with the average Global rating.
In summarizing the results of these tables (presenting correlations between particular
predictors and performance on Effectiveness Factors), we focus on correlations that are
significant with at least three rater sub-groups.
Examination of the correlations in Table 49 showed that three of the HPI scales
Ambition, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Prudence correlated with 6, 5, and 5
Effectiveness Factors, respectively. The strongest correlations for Ambition were with
Networking and Passion (in the 30s). Interpersonal Sensitivity correlated relatively
strongly with Developing Relationships and Community Service (.30s). For Prudence,
the strongest correlations were with Managing Ones Work and Diligence (.20s). The
Sociability scale correlated with four Effectiveness Factors: Speaking, Managing Others,
Networking, and Integrity. The first three of these factors showed correlations in the
.20s while the correlations with Integrity were in the high .10s but negative. Among the
HPI scales, Learning Approach was not a good predictor of any of the Effectiveness
Factors. This was surprising because it was a good predictor for the alumni sample of

74

the Effectiveness Factors such as Analysis and Reasoning and Researching the Law.
Overall, three to four HPI scales may offer benefit given that the correlations for
these scales with lawyer effectiveness are slightly higher than those found for the LSAT,
UGPA, and Index score predictors.
Table 50 shows the correlations between the HDS scales and the 26
Effectiveness Factors. The one scale that showed promise is Reserved which reflects
being remote and detached, and a lack of concern or awareness about others feelings.
This scale correlated with 10 of the 26 Effectiveness Factors, with a number of the
correlations being in the .30s to .50s, and in the expected negative direction. The
pattern suggested that those who lack concern for others are evaluated lower on
Effectiveness Factors such as Managing Others, Developing Relationships, Networking,
Community Service and Passion all dimensions that the scale would be expected to
predict.
Table 51 shows the correlations between the MVPI scales and the lawyer
Effectiveness Factors. Overall, the pattern of correlations did not suggest much value
for predicting student performance on lawyer Effectiveness Factors. Although an
individual scale such as Altruistic correlated with Community Service ranging from .29 to
.62, correlation patterns were insufficient to suggest the MVPI has value for predicting
student performance as measured by the 26 Effectiveness Factors.
Table 52 presents, in part, the correlations between the non-cognitive, nonpersonality predictors (SJT and BIO) and the Effectiveness Factors. The BIO score
correlated with Networking, Passion, and Community Service (range of .20s to .30s).
SJT patterns provided insufficient basis to value it for predicting success in law school as
measured by the Effectiveness Factors.
Table 52 also shows correlations between the SMS, OPT, and ER with the
Effectiveness Factors. The SMS had few substantial correlations, but it did correlate

75

positively with Speaking (where one likely wants to manage impressions; rs ranging
from .29 to .41) as well as with Networking (where one also wants to manage
impressions; rs ranging from .21 to .32), but negatively with Integrity (managing
impressions may negatively impact observers views of student integrity).
The OPT had positive patterns with four of the Effectiveness Factors -Networking; Evaluating, Developing, and Mentoring; Passion; and Stress Management
(rs basically in .20s, but reaching .48). OPT did correlate, however, with the HPI
Adjustment (r = .58) and Interpersonal Sensitivity (r = .49) scales thereby suggesting it
might be duplicative of the HPI. However, the OPT correlations with the four named
Effectiveness Factors are higher than the HPI correlations with those same factors and
would therefore be preferable to predict them.
The final measure, ER, did not show results that would suggest additional
research.
Overall, some of the new predictors identified or developed for this specific
research project displayed results that argue for additional research. They do so
because (1) they correlated with areas that were not predicted by the LSAT, UGPA, and
Index score, (2) their correlations were generally higher than the LSAT, UGPA, and
Index score showed for the Effectiveness Factors with which they correlated, and (3) as
noted earlier in the report, these predictors tend to not yield racial/ethnicity and gender
mean differences.
CONCLUSION #20: Certain new predictors showed significant correlations
with some Effectiveness Factors (3-4 of HPI scales; 1 of HDS scales; BIO, SMS,
and OPT); others did not.
RECOMMENDATION #10: Further research on the tests that are predictive
is especially warranted by the fact that they have higher correlations than LSAT,
UGPA and Index Scores, and race/gender results are neutral.

76

c. Moderator Variables
Given the small sample sizes, moderated regression was not undertaken for the
student sample.
d. Incremental Variance
Table 53 presents the results of an analysis in which the LSAT, Index, HPI
scales, BIO, SJT, and OPT were allowed to enter in a step-wise multiple regression.
The regression analysis sought to determine which combination (if any), of the predictors
could explain Self ratings of performance on the 26 dimensions. Table 53 shows only
the results that yielded significant incremental variance. An overview of the results for
this table indicated that a combination of two tests, and in one instance of four tests,
could produce multiple correlations with the 26 Effectiveness Factors and with the Global
average performance, ranging from the mid .30s to the low .60s. Tables 54 through 56
repeated the analytic strategy for Peer, Supervisor, and Other, respectively. These
tables showed similar patterns, though the multiple correlations approach the high .50s
and not the .60s.
Table 57 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analyses. The main
conclusion was that LSAT is a good predictor of performance for students in law school,
particularly when Supervisors, Other, and All are the criteria, but that other predictors,
such as some of the HPI scales and OPT might contribute to explained variance.
CONCLUSION #21: In multiple regression analysis, the LSAT is a relatively
good predictor of Effectiveness Factors for students: some of the HPI scales and
OPT might contribute to explanation of additional variance.
9. Prediction of Effectiveness in Law School As Measured by Grades
a. LSAC Components as Predictors of FYGPA in Law School
Table 58 shows the correlations between the LSAT, UGPA, and Index predictors
and FYGPA for the current total sample. The results for the total sample showed

77

reasonable consistency with the research findings: LSAT correlated .36 with FYGPA,
UGPA correlated .14 with FYGPA, and the Index correlated .40 with FYGPA.
As with our Alumni sample, the current research findings, which were based on
uncorrected correlations and with a restricted sample on all measures, replicated the
usefulness of the LSAT and Index as predictors of FYGPA in law schools.
b. Tests Identified/Developed for this Project as Predictors of Law School
Performance
Table 58 also shows the correlations between each of the predictors identified or
developed for this research project and the FYGPA in law school. Addressing the
subtests, the results showed that two (Prudence and Learning Approach) of the seven
subtests on the HPI correlate with FYGPA, with the correlations approximating .21. For
the 11 HDS scales, only Mischievous correlated (-.31) with FYGPA. For the 10 MVPI
scales, only Tradition correlated (.32) with FYGPA.
Of the remaining scales, SMS correlated .06, OPT correlated -.03, and ER
correlated .02 with FYGPA, respectively. The correlations of FYGPA with BIO and SJT
were -.05 and .11, respectively. None of these correlations was statistically significant.
c. Incremental Variance
Again, as with the Alumni sample, we undertook hierarchical multiple regression
to determine whether any of the new predictors yielded incremental validity beyond that
which was obtained by the LSAT alone or by the Index alone. Tests were entered on a
second step after first entering LSAT (separate analyses for Index). Significant
increases in R2 would suggest the potential for the formation of a battery. Results
indicated that only two scales, both HPI scales (Prudence and Intellectance), yielded
incremental explanatory variance. Prudence yielded a 7% increase and Intellectance
yielded a 2% increase. The Index results showed the same pattern.

78

d. Summary of Results: Predicting Law School Performance Measured by

Grades
In summary, the results for the LSAC predictors were good predictors of FYGPA
for the student sample studied. On the other hand, the new, potential tests did not show
consistently strong relationships on their own, or in conjunction with the LSAT, UGPA, or
Index measures.
CONCLUSION #22: As earlier research shows, the LSAT, UGPA, and Index
Score are good predictors of FYGPA. Only a few scales or measures of the new
predictor tests showed correlations and those were not substantial.

VII. CONCLUSION
A. Basic Data, Further Research and Options for Use
For this research study, data were collected:
on multiple types of tests;
from a large sample of practicing lawyers and law-related workers;
with varied experience in terms of years, settings and practice areas;
including a modest number of minority practitioners and students;
and from peers, supervisors, and self asked to appraise these
practitioners current job performance on numerous dimensions. .
Our research results demonstrate that new tests have considerable potential to
predict lawyer effectiveness which could, in turn, make important contributions to law
school admissions decisions. Some of the new professional-performance-predicting
tests produced very significant correlations indeed. For example, BIO scores showed
correlations (in the .2s and .3s) with all Effectiveness Factors except Integrity and
Stress Management. SJT scores showed correlations with all Effectiveness Factors

79

other than Managing Others and Evaluation, Development, and Mentoring. The
correlations were generally in the .10s and low .20s. The impressive aspect of these
results was (1) the large number of Effectiveness Factors that were predicted by the BIO
and the SJT tests, and (2) that the correlations were generally higher, though moderately
so, than those between the LSAT and the small subset of Effectiveness Factors that
overlap with the LSAT and with which it had an expected relationship (e.g. Analysis and
Reasoning, Researching the Law, Writing).
We believe the exploratory data reported here make a compelling case for
undertaking large-scale, more definitive research. If the LSAC itself, or through
contractors, more broadly researched and refined the new test battery and then offered it
along with the LSAT, the Council could assure the new tests validity and perhaps also
recommend appropriate uses for the new scores. It could create a clearninghouse for
different schools to share their experiences with combining these new predictors with the
old.
The new tests used in conjunction with the LSAT and Index Score, could extend
prediction beyond law school grades to project success in the practice of law. The new
methods could predict professional performance using merit-based, theoretically justified
selection factors that are also more racially neutral than current tests in their admissions
processes. New measurements would also provide applicants, career placement
officials and employers with more information about applicants gifts and strengths.
If further research confirmed the validity of performance-predictive tests, then the
new measures would open up an array of valuable options in admission practices. Tests
have typically been used in top-down fashion, where the highest scores are selected
first. Other alternatives could be explored perhaps with a pilot segment of an
admissions class, or several: Member schools might, for example, use the LSAT and/or
Index score to set an academic floor and then use the new scores and other file

80

materials to rank applicants who surpass that floor. Or, a school might use the LSAT to
identify the top 20% (in terms of academic potential) and then combine the LSAT score
with one or several of the new test scores into a new type of Index, using the combined
information to admit applicants. Or, a school might wish to combine the Index Score and
new test scores from the beginning in order to assure that its has selected its student
body on the basis of relevant academic and performance-predictive factors, and has
increased diversity compared to admission policies that predominately emphasize LSAT
scores. Or, a school might establish minimum scores for each of multiple test
instruments and require that an applicant achieve that minimum score on each to gain
admission. In sum, the additional information supplied by the new scores could be used
in a variety of ways, only some of which are suggested here.
B. Potential Uses and Benefits
Table 59 draws upon the alumni sample studied in this research project to
illustrate the potential value of including new tests in admissions strategy. The table
shows the number of admits by gender and race that would result from use of
different instruments for admission decisions. To illustrate, if the LSAT were the only
admissions test, and if it were used in a top-down fashion where the scores are
presented in rank order, selection of the top 10% of the sample studied in this research
project would yield 116 admits, 54.3% of whom would be female and 85.3% of whom
would be white, .9% African-American, 4.3% Hispanic, and 6.9% Asian/Pacific Islander.
In another example, if the Index Score were the only determinant of admissions, and
were used in a top-down fashion to select 10% of this sample for admission, the chosen
applicants would be 52.7% female and 87.5% white, 0% African-American, 4.5%
Hispanic, and 6.3% Asian/Pacific Islander. By contrast, if the SJT were the only
determinant of selection (N = 80 rather than 116 because not all in the sample took the
SJT), 50% of the top 10% would be female and 68.8% white, with 7.5% being African-

81

American, 7.5% being Hispanic and 11.3% being Asian/Pacific Islander.

The remaining rows of Table 59 show results for different selection percentages
and for different test combinations. For example, combining the tests of BIO and SJT,
and using supervisor assessments of participants lawyering effectiveness yields a group
of 64 admits in the top 20% of scores, where 53.1% are female, 65.6% are white, 9.4%
are African-American, 10.9% are Hispanic and 10.9% are Asian/Pacific Islander.
Inclusion of a battery of these new performance-predictive tests is in our view justified by
the actual role and mandate of law schools as professional schools; it also has the
salutary effect of significantly increasing diversity that is achieved by use of current tests
alone.
C. Limitations
The reported research has several limitations:
(1) Results are based on two law schools only;
(2) Results reflect a restricted sample in that (a) all participants in the alumni
sample were admitted to and graduated from law school; (b) all were law graduates
practicing law or performing law-related jobs, which assumes they were reasonably
successful unsuccessful lawyers were not likely to participate; and (c) all were
volunteer participants. Limitations such as these tend to underestimate correlations
among the measures. However, the obtained correlations are sufficiently strong to
strongly suggest the need for additional research.
D. The Context Reviewed: Reasons to Add Professional Predictors
Scholars and commentators on legal education have urged that the current
criteria of merit for admission to law school, especially the LSAT, are too narrow in aim.
Many would agree that assessing professional potential before admission would be a
good idea, but no one has had a method to propose. Indeed, the prevailing view has
been that the task is so difficult as to be flatly impossible. The research we report here

82

explored ways to assess and predict many dimensions of professional effectiveness and
has yielded a rich harvest. We now briefly review developments in legal education that
have particular salience for admission policies:
(1) Recent Developments in Legal Education
a. Increased Applicant Pool
In 1950, two years after the first use of the LSAT, 6,750 tests were administered,
in 1955, 11,750. Shirley Abrahamson, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
described admission in the fifties:
When I went to law school, it was said that there were two requirements for
admission to most law schools: first, you had to have a college degree; and,
second, you had to be breathing. And either requirement might be waived
(Raushenbush, 1986).
In 2007-08, 142,331 LSAT tests were administered; 55,500 of 84,000 applicants were
admitted to some ABA accredited law school. (LSAC Volume Summary Applicants:
1997-2007, 2008). Today it is harder to get into law school than to pass the bar; thus
admissions decisions choose the nations lawyers.
b. Inclusion of Women and Minorities
After many decades of official or de facto near-exclusion of women and
minorities from legal education (Kidder, 2003), entry of these groups has enlarged the
pool of applicants, making competition more intense especially for white males. Schools
adopted various types of affirmative action to help offset past discrimination, cultural
stereotypes, and lack of educational preparation that had hampered these groups entry
into law in larger numbers. Additionally, larger numbers of international students are
coming to U.S. law schools.
c. Controversy and Litigation
A widening wealth gap, the erosion of the middle class, the fear of families that

83

their children may not keep up with parental hopes and expectations all contribute to
growing stress about gaining stable and remunerative work for the future. Many covet a
legal education as a pipeline to high salaries, status and important jobs. Public scrutiny
of admission policies is intense. Combat over affirmative action and other aspects of the
culture wars creates a constant threat of litigation over the fairness of admission
policies.
d. Rankings
When US News and World Report hit on the idea of ranking educational
institutions to sell magazines, few would have predicted the stunning impact those
rankings would have. Although disclosure of more information about schools is a good
thing, the competitive concerns of everyone involved have turned rankings fever into
an obsession. Higher rankings increase prestige, draw students, loosen alumni and
donor wallets, give faculty ego points, and raise leverage within the university.
Consequently, no matter where they place on the scale (except for a few iconoclasts like
CUNY, New College, or Northeastern), schools want to move up the charts. Each,
therefore, emulates those above them, from the bottom to the top of the scales.
e. The Place of Law Schools in Major Universities
Major research universities have increasingly decided that applied fields of study
belong in non-University settings. Training for professional practice in such fields as the
parish ministry, school teaching, architecture, and others have shifted to free-standing or
less prestigious educational institutions. Business, medical and law schools, however,
have been largely exempt from this trend. Increasingly, law faculties strive to be viewed
as intellectual peers of academic colleagues. Faculty hiring, promotion and salary
policies; student admission practices, and curricular policies reflect a significantly more
theoretical and quantitative intellectual agenda than in the past. Other than in clinical
programs, attention to training professionals for practice, examination of problems within

84

the profession and in societys provision of legal services garner less attention today
than might once have been thought possible.
2. These Changes Affect Admission Policies
Each of the above changes has affected admissions policy and practice -- mostly
in the direction of increasing the impact of the LSAT score on a candidates chances.
When a handful of Ivy League law schools created what became the LSAT, they sought
a tool to screen for legal aptitude and a method to evaluate degrees from a widening
and unfamiliar array of colleges (LaPiana, 2001). Never designed as the sole basis for
admission decisions, the test was, instead, a way to judge an individuals ability to
complete law study successfully. From that beginning, the LSAT score has become the
most important criterion in gaining admission to law school, especially at the more
prestigious schools. These schools graduate the lawyers who have the most opportunity
for money, prestige, and influence in many dimensions of American and increasingly,
global society. Lawyers protect and extend Americans wealth; occupy judicial positions;
constitute large percentages of legislators, governors, and presidents; advise and lead
corporations and non-profits; and represent the government in civil and criminal justice
systems. Today, although the LSAC continues formally to urge that the LSAT not be
overused in selecting among law school applicants, the tests actual influence on
admissions decisions is hard to overestimate. Examination of the factors described
above helps to explain why.
The increased number of law applicants, including relatively new minority,
women, and international contenders, makes selection more costly, time consuming and
difficult. The desire for efficiency, especially in expending faculty time, presses for
quicker methods of comparison. Nothing is quicker or easier than comparison of
standardized numeric indicators. Conflict about admissions criteria and appropriate
definitions of qualification and fairness have become more frequent and heated.

85

Facing scrutiny and debate, and fearing litigation, faculties find an objective method of
distinguishing among outstanding applicants appealing, especially at the top 30-50
schools. (Of course, the LSAT imports judgments about what constitutes merit in
selecting law students and legal professionals; specifically, the LSAT prefers cognitive
skills -- analysis, logic and reading -- over most anything else). Some evidence
suggests that even when schools make policies that aspire to assure that LSAT scores
should not drown out other indicators, test scores retain a greater weight than those
policies intend (Kidder, 2000).11
Rankings also create pressure to weigh LSAT scores more heavily. US News
and World Report considers a number of dimensions in its rankings of law schools, but
median LSAT scores of entering classes are the one that a school can most quickly and
directly affect. With law professors caring a great deal about how university peers
perceive them, and with law faculties more focused on and incented to emphasize
academic agendas over professional agendas, emphasis on narrow cognitive predictors
is very appealing (Rubin, 2008).
3. Problems Associated with Over Emphasis on LSAT Scores
At points in the last half of the twentieth century, tests like the LSAT have helped
to reduce subjective biases and improve access (e.g. religion, race, gender, attendance
at a lesser known colleges) to law school but, at present, strong questions must be
raised about the tests impact on law school admissions.
a. Misplaced Precision
The Law School Admission Council regularly admonishes schools not to overrely on the LSAT score, and to use other factors in addition to the test. But LSAT scores

11
In a study of UC law school admission statistics, Kidder (2000) found that in 1998, holding
undergraduate institution and major constant, for applicants who had GPAs of 3.75 or more, a 5 point
difference in LSAT score cut the chance of admission from 89% to 44% at Berkeley Law School; for the
same year at UCLA, the chance of admission dropped from 66% to 10%.

86

dominate todays admissions decisions. More applicants means more scores at most
points along the score scale. As scores cluster, decisions that depend heavily on test
outcomes will risk being less valid. Choices between individual scores tend to rest on
smaller actual differences, sometimes even leading decision-makers to distinguish
between scores that fall within the statistical error of measurement for the test. This
creates a potential fallacy of misplaced precision (the illusion of decisive precision),
especially when LSAT scores explain only about 25% of variance in first year grades.
b. Selection Bias
Over-reliance on the LSAT score may create what Christopher Jencks of Harvard
described as selection system bias (Jencks, 1998). Although items on the LSAT have
been carefully vetted several times for any bias embedded in the content of the
questions, the way schools use the LSAT has the potential to create race bias. Jencks
defines selection system bias as selection based disproportionately on some factor (call
it A) instead of or out of proportion to another factor (call it B), where A and B are (for
sake of easy illustration) equally important to the output sought, and A and B have
differing profiles of racial group performance. Disproportionate influence on A or B may
then unfairly skew selection outcomes. Law school admission offers a persuasive
example. Let A stand for cognitive, test-taking abilities and B for an array of factors
important to effective professional performance. Research shows that white students
outperform African-American, Hispanic, and other under-represented minority groups in
cognitive, school-skill type tests. Scores on such academic tests, including the LSAT,
are heavily correlated with socio-economic status and educational opportunity. By
contrast, research (including our own) suggests that racial groups perform similarly in
their jobs.
Using Jencks category to analyze admission practices, law schools that
overemphasize the LSAT score (A) and do not try to predict professional performance

87

may be described as engaging in selection system bias. Emphasizing academic tests

on which whites excel without including tests that might predict lawyering performance
on which race and gender do not significantly affect performance suggests that whitefavoring admissions criteria greatly outweigh race-neutral professional performance
admissions criteria. If valid prediction of professional performance is possible, in order
to be race neutral, schools should factor professional lawyering skills into admission
decisions along with academic predictors.
c. Professional and Academic Emphasis
As law schools gravitate away from emphasis on professional competencies
toward more theoretical and principally academic emphases characteristic of other
departments in the university, other policy questions arise. Rubin recently named the
phenomenon by which a substantial portion of student tuition pays for faculty research a
cross subsidy from students interests in professional training to faculty preferences for
research and suggests curriculum should align more closely with faculty research
interests (Rubin, 2008). The interests in academic research and professional training
are not mutually exclusive, nor need all schools balance the two in the same way. But,
arguably, the pendulum may have swung too far toward research interests.
Of course, a heavy proportion of theoretical and empirical research might
arguably be fitting for a small number of research university law schools, but more
closely examined, even that premise can be questioned. First, even at elite schools, the
vast majority of graduates enter (and indeed, monopolize) elite jobs in law practice. Law
schools and law jobs alike are extremely stratified, and therefore, often matched;
consequently, top schools draw many students desiring to practice law or take a law
related job. For example, Yale Law School has the highest percentage of graduates
entering academia of any law school, and its percentage is 13%; at other top academic
feeder schools, the percentages are substantially lower. Given that each tranche of

88

schools emulates the ones above it to increase prestige, recruitment, and financial
support, the heavily academic orientation is not at all restricted to elite schools.
In the context of admissions, the faculty academic and research focus translates
into strong support for high reliance in admissions on academic criteria (LSAT and
grades). The result is that law schools weigh a standardized test score more heavily
than either a) other professional schools (like business and medicine) or b) graduate
academic departments (like philosophy, psychology, or economics) whose primary role
is to educate the next generation of academics in the field.
Second, as a consequence of more research focus and more dominant
academic criteria for admission, that new graduates will not be prepared to practice law
is a truism. Graduates know they must get a job with a well-resourced employer in order
to learn how to actually practice law. Students who want careers in public interest
organizations, with service or advocacy groups, in solo practice or with small law firms
face an ironic headwind. The employers they seek cannot afford, as a large corporate
firm can, to spend several years training recent graduates before they actually become
market-useful. Recent grads main utility for large firms is the prestige they confer by
dint of their graduation from good schools; their productivity need not be as high as their
salaries in the early years. This suggests that students job choices may potentially be
distorted by more than the magnet of high salaries offered by elite firms. If they do get
jobs they desire with less well-financed employers, or hang out their own shingle, they
face a difficult path to professional competency as a result of law schools emphasis on
research rather than professional competence. Their clients will also get less effective
services. Even if this distorting factor is small in percentage terms, large corporate firms
should not be subsidized by professional schools choices. Clinical programs now exist
at most law schools and go some ways to ameliorate the problem. But clinical programs
that receive equal time, pay and status, either for clinic professors or enrolled students,

89

are rare.
The discussion of academic research versus professional education need not
and should not be either/or. Both are essential to fulfillment of law school responsibilities
and opportunities. What is salient here is that both academic and professional indicators
should be included in admission decisions. Because effective academic indicators like
the LSAT are now the dominant force in admissions, exploration of professional
predictors should become the next major agenda for law school admissions.

90

VIII. REFERENCES
A.B.A. Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. (1992). Legal Education
and Professional Development: An Educational Continuum [MacCrate Report].
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Anthony, L. C., Harris, V. F., & Pashley, P. J. (1999). Predictive validity of the LSAT: A
national summary of the 1995-96 correlation studies (Law School Admission
Council LSAT Technical Research Report TR-97-01). Newtown, PA: Law School
Admission Services, Inc.
Anthony, L.C., & Liu, M. (2000). Analysis of differential prediction of law school
performance by racial/ethnic subgroups based on the 1996-1998 entering law
school classes (Law School Admission Council Technical Research Report TR00-02). Newton, PA: Law School Admission Services, Inc.
Aspinwall, L.G. ,& Taylor, S.E. (1992). Individual differences, coping, and psychological
adjustment: A longitudinal study of college adjustment and performance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 63, 989-1003.
Association of Mexican-American Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 581-83 (9th Cir.
2000) (en banc).
Barrett, P. (2008). Some analyses of personality, academic, and performance rating
data from alumni and students with the faculty of law, University of California,
Berkeley. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991) The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, 4, I-26.
Bentz, V.J. (1985, August). A view from the top: A thirty year perspective of research
devoted to discovery, description, and prediction of executive behavior: Paper
presented at the 93rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, Los Angeles.

91

Brissette, I., Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (2002). The role of optimism in social network
development, coping, and psychological adjustment during a life transition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 102-111.
Caldwell, D. F, & O'Reilly, C. A. (1982). Boundary spanning and individual performance:
The impact of self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 124-127.
Caligiuri, P. M., & Day, D. V. (2000) Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual,
and assignment-specific performance. Group & Organization Management, 25,
154174.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory
approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. L. Snyder & S. J. Lopez
(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231-243). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2002). Situational judgment and job performance. Human
Performance, 15(3), 233-254.
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.
Clevenger, J., Pereira, G. M., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., & Harvey-Schmidt, V. (2001).
Incremental validity of situational judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 410417.
Dalessandro, S.P., Stilwell, L.A., & Reese, L.M. (2005). LSAT performance with regional,
gender, and racial/ethnic breakdowns: 1993-1994 through 1999-2000 testing
years (Law School Admission Council Research Report TR-00-01). Newton, PA:
Law School Admission Services, Inc.
Diaz, R. J., Glass, C. R., Ankoff, D. B., & Tanofsky-Kraff, M. (2001). Cognition, anxiety,
and prediction of performance in 1st-year law students. Journal of Educational

92

Psychology, 93, 420-49.

Edwards, H.T. (1992). The Growing Disjunction Between Legal Education and the Legal
Profession, Michigan Law Review, 91, 34-78.
Evans, F. R. (1984). Recent trends in law school validity studies (Law School Admission
Council Report 82-1). Reports of LSAC Sponsored Research: Volume IV, 19781983, pp. 347-361, Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Services, Inc.
Ekman, P. (2004). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve
communication and emotional life. NY: Macmillan.
Goldhaber, M.D (1999, July 5). Is the Promised Land Heavn or Hell? National Law
Journal, pp. A17.
Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
Guion, R. (1987). Changing views for personnel selection research. Personnel
Psychology, 40, 199-213.
Heinz, J.P, Hull, K, E., & Harter, A (1999). Lawyers and Their Discontents: Findings from
a Survey of the Chicago Bar, Indiana Law Journal, 74, 735- 758
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of
General Psychology, 6, 307-324.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Levels of analysis in big five theory: The structure of selfdescription. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology. St. Louis, MO.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1996). Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory manual. Tulsa,
OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Development Survey manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan Personality Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa,

93

OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B.W. (1996). Personality measurement and
employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469477.
Hogan, R., Hogan J., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2007). The Hogan Guide: interpretation and use
of Hogan inventories. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hough, L.M., Oswald, F.L., & Ployhart, R.E. (2001). Determinants, detection, and
amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: issues,
evidence and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9, 152-194.
Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 1, 72-98.
Hurtz, G.M., & Donovan, J.J. (2000). Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five
Revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.
Jencks, C. (1988). Racial Bias in Testing. In Jencks, C. and Phillips, M. (Eds.). The
Black-White Test Score Gap, pp. 55-85. Brookings Institution Press.
Kidder, W.C. (2000). The Rise of the Testocracy: An Essay on the LSAT: Conventional
Wisdom, and the Dismantling of Diversity, Texas Journal of Women and the Law,
9, 167 - 217.
Kidder, W.C. (2003). Law and Education: Affirmative Action Under Attack: The Struggle
for Access from Sweatt to Grutter: A History of African American, Latino and
American Indian Law School Admissions, 1950-2000. Harvard Blackletter
Journal, 19, 1-35.
Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of selfmonitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 10471060.

94

Kristof, A.L. (1996) Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its

conceptualizations, measurement, and implications, Personnel Psychology, 49,
1-49.
Lam, L. T., & Kirby, S. L. (2002). Is emotional intelligence an advantage? An exploration
of the impact of emotional and general intelligence on individual performance.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(1), 133143.
LaPiana, W.P. (2001). A History of the Law School Admission Council and the LSAT.
Retrieved September 8, 2008 from http://www.lsacnet.org/publications/historylsac-lsat.pdf.
Law School Admission Council. (1999). LSAT/LSDAS registration & information book.
Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Services, Inc.
Law School Admission Council Volume Summary Applicants: 1997-2007. Retrieved
September 3, 2008, from
http://members.lsac.org/Public/MainPage.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fPrivate%2fMainPa
ge2.aspx.
Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of
emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 483-496.
Linn, R. L., & Hastings, C. N. (1983). A meta analysis of the validity of predictors of
performance in law school.

Reports of LSAC Sponsored Research: Volume IV,

1978-1983, pp. 507-544, Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Services, Inc.
Makikangas, A., & Kinnunen, U. (2003). Psychosocial work stressors and well-being:
self-esteem and optimism as moderators in a one-year longitudinal sample.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35(3), 537-557.
McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P.
(2001). Predicting job performance using situational judgment tests: A

95

clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 730740.

Morain, D. & Riccardi, N. (2008, July 29). Campaign 08: Race for the White House: A
Lack of (Ballot) Initiative: GOPs Strategy of Using State Measures to Draw
Conservatives to the Polls has Faltered, Los Angeles Times.
Mumford, M. (1994). Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of biographical
information in selection and performance prediction. Palo Alto, CA, US: CPP
Books.
National Conference of Bar Examiners & A.B.A. Section on Legal Education &
Admissions to the Bar (2008). Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission
Requirements. Chart III (Erica Moeser & Margaret Fuller Corneille, Eds.)
Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://www.ncbex.org/comprehensive-guideto-bar-admissions.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002).
Norton, L.L., Suto, D.A., & Reese, L.M. (2006). Analysis of differential prediction of law
school performance by racial/ethnic subgroups based on 2002-2004 entering law
school classes. (Law School Admission Council Technical Research Report TR06-01). Newton, PA: Law School Admission Services, Inc.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of
integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and
theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679703.
Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A. (2004).
Developing a biodata measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors
of college student performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 187-207.
Powers, D. E. (1982). Long-term predictive and construct validity of two traditional
predictors of law school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
568-576.

96

Raushenbush, W. (Ed.). (1986). Law School Admissions 1984-2001: Selecting Lawyers

for the Twenty-First Century. Law School Admission Services, Inc.
Rubin, E. (Ed.), (2008). Should Law Schools Support Faculty Research? Legal Studies
Research Paper Series, Paper No. 08-038. Retrieved September 8, 2008 from
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1161273.
Sackett, P.R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J.E., & Kabin, M.B. (2001) High-stakes testing in
employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a post affirmativeaction world. American Psychologist 56, 302-378.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the
European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 3043.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., Goldman, S.L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional
attention, clarity and repair: exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait MetaMood Scale. In J.W. Pennebaker (ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health.
American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Saucier G., & Goldberg, L.R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of
Personality, 66, 495-524.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219247
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C.S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical
well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 16, 201-228.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of
the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 10631078.

97

Schiltz, P.J. (1999). On Being a Happy, Healthy and Ethical Member of an Unhappy,
Unhealthy and Unethical Profession, Vanderbilt Law Review, 52, 871- 951.
Schmidt, F.L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why
there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187-210.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1981). Employment testing: Old theories and new
research findings. American Psychologist, 36, 1128-1137.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of
research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
Schmitt, N., Rogers, W., Chan, D., Sheppard, L.,& Jennings, D. (1997). Adverse impact
and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 719730.
Schrader, W. B. (1977). Summary of law school validity studies, 1948-1975 (Report No.
LSAC-76-8). Law School Admission Council. Reports of LSAC Sponsored
Research: Volume III, 1975-1977, pp. 519-550, Princeton, NJ: Law School
Admission Council.
Shultz, M., & Zedeck, S. (2003). Phase I Final Report: Identification and Development
of Predictors for Successful Lawyering.
Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2002). Health, performance and emotional intelligence: An
exploratory study of retail managers. Stress and Health, 18, 63-68
Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to
the construction of unambiguous anchors for ratings scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 47, 149-155.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: matters of

98

assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51, 125-139.
Society of American Law Teachers, (2003). SALT on the LSAT, Retrieved September 3,
2008 from http://www.saltlaw.org/StatementLSATBrochure.pdf .
Stilwell, L.A., Dalessandro, S.P., & Reese, L.M. (2003). Predictive Validity of the LSAT: A
National Summary of the 20012002 Correlation Studies. (Law School Admission
Council LSAT Technical Research Report TR-03-01). (TR-03-01). Newtown, PA:
Law School Admission Services, Inc.
Stilwell, L.A., & Pashley, P.J. (2003). Analysis of differential prediction of law school
performance by racial/ethnic subgroups based on 1999-2001 entering law school
classes. (Law School Admission Council LSAT Technical Research Report TR03-03). Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Services, Inc.
Sturm, S., & Guinier, L. (1996). The Future of Affirmative Action: Reclaiming the
Innovative Ideal, California Law Review, 84, 953-1036.
Sullivan, W.M., Colby, A., Wegner, J., Bond, L., Shulman, L. (2007). Educating Lawyers:
Preparation for the Profession of Law. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tett, R.P, Jackson, D.N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of
job performance: a meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Tett, R.P., Steele, J.R., & Beauregard, R.S. (2003). Broad and narrow measures on
both sides of the personality-job performance relationship. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 335-356.
Weekley, J.A., & Ployhart, R.E. (2005). Situational Judgment: Antecedents and
Relationships with Performance. Human Performance, 18, 81-104.
Wiggins, J.S., & Trapnell, P.D. (1997). Personality structure: the return of the Big Five. In
R. Hogan, J. Johnson, and S. Briggs (eds.), Handbook of Personality
Psychology. San Diego: Academic.

99

Wightman, L. F. (1993). Predictive validity of the LSAT: A national summary of the

1990-1992 correlation studies (Law School Admission Council Research Report
93-05). Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Services, Inc.
Wightman, L. F. (1997). The threat to diversity in legal education: An empirical analysis
of the consequences of abandoning race as a factor in law school admission
decisions. New York University Law Review, 72 (1), 1-53.
Wightman, L. F. (2000). The role of standardized admission tests in the debate about
merit, academic standards, and affirmative action. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 6, 90-100.
Wightman, L. F., & Muller, D. G. (1990). An analysis of differential validity and differential
prediction for Black, Mexican American, Hispanic, and White law school students
(Law School Admission Council Research Report 90-03). Newtown, PA: Law
School Admission Services, Inc.
Youssef, C.M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal
of Management, 33(3), 321-349.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2007). The role of
personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of
Stress Management, 14 (2), 121-141.

100

APPENDICES

Identification, Development, and Validation of Predictors for Successful Lawyering

Marjorie M. Shultz and Sheldon Zedeck, Principal Investigators
September 2008

2008 Marjorie M. Shultz and Sheldon Zedeck

NOT TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES

NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED, COPIED, OR QUOTED WITHOUT

Table 1:
Descriptives for Alumni Sample: n = 1148

School

Sex

Ethnicity

Frequency

Percent

Hastings

410

35.7

Berkeley

738

64.3

Female

652

56.8

Male

496

43.2

Caucasian

786

68.5

African American

87

7.6

Hispanic

88

7.7

128

11.1

.4

Mixed Race/Ethnicity

39

3.4

Missing

15

1.3

1048

91.3

34

3.0

60

5.2

.5

-- Solo practice

125

10.9

-- Small firm (2-10 attorneys total)

131

11.4

102

8.9

55

4.8

-- Large firm (151+ attorneys total)

191

16.6

-- Business

101

8.8

-- Non-profit

15

1.3

157

13.7

Asian/Pacific Islander
Native American

Currently
practice law?

Yes
Not currently, but have held a law or law-related job within the last 2
years
Not currently, and have NOT held a law or law-related job within the
last 2 years
Missing

Private Practice

In-house Counsel:

-- Small-medium firm
(11-50 attorneys total)
-- Medium firm
(51-150 attorneys total)

Government Practice

50

4.4

-- Judge (including Magistrate, ALJ,

or Judicial Staff/Clerks)

42

3.7

-- Private Arbitrator, Mediator

10

.9

-- Law School Faculty

35

3.0

-- Law School Administration,

Library, or Services

.6

-- Non-Law Academic Faculty

.8

-- Non-Law Academic
Administration, Library, or Services

.4

Research or Policy Analysis

.3

Politician/ Staff or Lobbying

.8

Organizational/Administrative,
Managerial or Policy Work

37

3.2

Missing

63

5.5

Under $50,000

107

9.3

$50,000 to $99,999

236

20.6

$100,000 to $149,999

303

26.4

$150,000 to $199,999

146

12.7

$200,000 to $249,999

87

7.6

$250,000 to $299,999

38

3.3

$300,000 to $349,999

38

3.3

$350,000 to $399,999

14

1.2

$400,000 to $499,999

30

2.6

$500,000 and above

87

7.6

Missing

62

5.4

Public Interest Practice

Work Setting

Dispute Resolution

Academic/Education

Income

Frequency

Area of
Expertise/
Specialization

Percent

Wills, Trusts & Estates

22

1.9

Taxation

16

1.4

Securities Transactions

12

1.0

Securities - Litigation

12

1.0

Real Estate Development

11

1.0

Real Estate (transactions)

40

3.5

Professional Malpractice

.3

Privacy

.1

Poverty & Govt Benefits

12

1.0

Personal Injury (not malpractice)

18

1.6

Municipal

17

1.5

Military

.2

Labor

32

2.8

International (Public)

.7

International (Private)

.6

Intellectual Property

72

6.3

Insurance

17

1.5

Immigration

14

1.2

Human Rights

.5

Housing (landlord-tenant)

.8

Health & FDA

23

2.0

Family

47

4.1

ERISA, Pensions & Benefits

.8

Environmental

40

3.5

Entertainment/ Sports

10

.9

Employment

75

6.5

Elder & Social Security

.2

Disability

12

1.0

Criminal & Criminal Procedure

90

7.8

Corporate & Business Transactions

68

5.9

Corporate & Business Litigation

19

1.7

Contracts and Commercial

22

1.9

Consumer Protection

.6

Consumer

.5

Construction

.3

Constitutional

.6

Community Economic Development

.4

Communications

.3

Civil Rights

25

2.2

Civil Litigation (general)

116

10.1

Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor

11

1.0

Banking & Financial Transactions

19

1.7

Appellate

27

2.4

Antitrust

16

1.4

Alternative Dispute Resolution (as a neutral)

.8

Administrative

20

1.7

Missing

124

10.8

Total

1148

100

Table 2:
Breakdown of Background Info by School (Alumni Only)
Sex

Ethnicity

Currently
practice law?

Hastings

Berkeley

Total

Males

242

410

652

Females

168

328

496

Total

410

738

1148

Caucasian

303

483

786

African American

19

68

87

Hispanic

19

69

88

Asian/Pacific Islander

49

79

128

Native American

Mixed Race/Ethnicity

12

27

39

Total

403

730

1133

Yes

368

680

1048

19

15

34

21

39

60

408

734

1142

61

64

125

61

70

131

36

66

102

21

34

55

40

151

191

-- Business

32

69

101

-- Non-profit

15

15

69

88

157

Not currently, but have held a law or law-related job within

the last 2 years
Not currently, and have NOT held a law or law-related job
within the last 2 years
Total
-- Solo practice

Private Practice

In-house Counsel:

-- Small firm (2-10 attorneys

total)
-- Small-medium firm
(11-50 attorneys total)
-- Medium firm
(51-150 attorneys total)
-- Large firm (151+ attorneys
total)

Government Practice
Public Interest Practice
Work Setting

11

39

50

-- Judge (including Magistrate,

ALJ, or Judicial Staff/Clerks)

18

24

42

-- Private Arbitrator, Mediator

10

-- Law School Faculty

31

35

-- Law School Administration,

Library, or Services

-- Non-Law Academic Faculty

-- Non-Law Academic
Administration, Library, or
Services

Research or Policy Analysis

Politician/ Staff or Lobbying

Organizational/Administrative,
Managerial or Policy Work

12

25

37

Total

381

704

1085

Under $50,000

38

69

107

$50,000 to $99,999

111

125

236

$100,000 to $149,999

121

182

303

$150,000 to $199,999

54

92

146

$200,000 to $249,999

24

63

87

$250,000 to $299,999

30

38

$300,000 to $349,999

32

38

$350,000 to $399,999

12

14

$400,000 to $499,999

27

30

$500,000 and above

21

66

87

Total

388

698

1086

Dispute Resolution

Academic/Education

Income

Area of
Expertise/
Specialization

Hastings

Berkeley

Total

Wills, Trusts & Estates

11

11

22

Taxation

16

Securities Transactions

12

Securities - Litigation

12

Real Estate Development

11

Real Estate (transactions)

11

29

40

Professional Malpractice

Privacy

Poverty & Govt Benefits

10

12

Personal Injury (not malpractice)

11

18

Municipal

17

Military

Labor

12

20

32

International (Public)

International (Private)

Intellectual Property

15

57

72

Insurance

17

Immigration

14

Human Rights

Housing (landlord-tenant)

Health & FDA

18

23

Family

28

19

47

ERISA, Pensions & Benefits

Environmental

12

28

40

Entertainment/ Sports

10

Employment

20

55

75

Elder & Social Security

Disability

12

Criminal & Criminal Procedure

36

54

90

Corporate & Business Transactions

19

49

68

Corporate & Business Litigation

10

19

Contracts and Commercial

15

22

Consumer Protection

Consumer

Construction

Constitutional

Community Economic Development

Communications

Civil Rights

22

25

Civil Litigation (general)

41

75

116

Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor

11

Banking & Financial Transactions

14

19

Appellate

13

14

27

Antitrust

12

16

Alternative Dispute Resolution (as a neutral)

Administrative

12

20

366

658

1024

Total

Table 3:
Means for School-Based Performance Measures (Alumni only)
Total

School
Hastings

UGPA

Mean
N
SD

Gender

Berkeley

Female

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

3.46

3.34

3.50

3.48

3.42

3.51

3.10

3.27

3.51

1141

409

732

648

493

783

87

87

128

0.36

0.36

0.34

0.35

0.37

0.33

0.40

0.39

0.33

0.00

-0.31

0.17

-0.06

0.08

0.29

-1.27

-0.97

-0.12

1126

401

725

636

490

775

86

85

123

1.00

0.86

1.03

1.02

0.97

0.81

0.90

1.07

0.97

LSAT
score
(Zscore)

Mean
N
SD

LSAT
10-48

Mean
N
SD

41.23

39.93

41.80

40.68

41.99

42.54

34.96

35.90

41.52

274

83

191

158

116

196

23

20

21

4.62

3.86

4.81

4.81

4.25

3.47

4.05

6.16

4.13

Mean
N
SD

163.59

161.51

164.85

163.17

164.48

165.39

156.73

158.33

163.20

412

156

256

282

130

257

30

30

70

6.93

5.75

7.28

6.99

6.74

6.32

6.21

6.97

6.22

Mean
N
SD

660.36

629.90

678.12

659.43

661.11

687.84

530.70

567.11

627.97

440

162

278

196

244

322

33

35

32

88.77

80.61

88.62

90.88

87.23

66.16

77.42

84.05

99.31

Mean
N
SD

-0.12

-0.76

0.23

-0.11

-0.13

0.32

-2.41

-1.57

-0.09

1121

400

721

633

488

772

86

85

123

1.55

1.34

1.55

1.56

1.55

1.24

1.48

1.56

1.40

Mean
N
SD

2.78

2.88

2.72

2.75

2.81

2.93

2.23

2.28

2.63

1072

391

681

605

467

727

81

88

122

0.62

0.50

0.68

0.61

0.63

0.61

0.35

0.43

0.56

Mean
N
SD

2.87

2.94

2.84

2.86

2.89

3.02

2.35

2.38

2.71

1148

410

738

652

496

786

87

88

128

0.55

0.41

0.61

0.54

0.56

0.52

0.31

0.40

0.51

LSAT
120-180

LSAT
200-800

50/50
Index
(Zscore)
st

1 year
LGPA

Cumul
LGPA

Table 4:
Means for SJT and BIO
Total

School
Hastings

BIO mean
score

SJT mean
score

2.73

Gender

Berkeley

2.75

Female

2.76

Ethnicity

Male

White

2.72

AfricanAmerican

2.74

2.84

Hispanic

2.69

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

Mean
N
SD

2.74

2.76

711

260

451

397

314

497

47

52

73

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.42

0.44

0.43

0.40

0.45

0.40

Mean
N
SD

2.68

2.66

2.70

2.66

2.71

2.68

2.67

2.83

2.64

691
0.45

238
0.41

453
0.47

395
0.46

296
0.44

479
0.46

53
0.49

50
0.34

78
0.42

Table 5:
Means for Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) (Alumni only)
Total

School
Hastings

HPI 1:
Adjustment

HPI 2
Ambition

HPI 3
Sociability

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

HPI 4
Interpers.
Sensitivity

Mean
N
SD

HPI 5
Prudence

Mean
N
SD

HPI 6
Intellectance

HPI 7
Learning
Approach

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Gender

Berkeley

Female

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

22.91

22.83

22.95

22.45

23.51

23.02

24.45

23.23

21.56

915

324

591

519

396

644

65

62

99

6.61

6.94

6.43

6.61

6.58

6.64

6.42

5.96

6.32

21.82

21.91

21.77

21.63

22.08

21.74

22.72

22.48

21.26

915

324

591

519

396

644

65

62

99

5.02

4.98

5.05

5.13

4.87

5.05

4.91

5.36

4.62

13.19

13.38

13.08

12.88

13.59

13.03

13.72

13.23

13.25

915

324

591

519

396

644

65

62

99

4.79

4.74

4.82

4.84

4.69

4.70

4.83

4.79

5.11

17.78

17.95

17.68

18.18

17.26

17.75

18.40

18.21

17.52

915

324

591

519

396

644

65

62

99

3.23

3.05

3.32

3.13

3.29

3.20

2.94

3.09

3.18

18.20

18.01

18.31

18.64

17.63

18.23

18.37

18.52

18.03

915

324

591

519

396

644

65

62

99

4.06

4.06

4.06

3.93

4.17

4.04

4.49

4.26

3.83

14.74

15.25

14.47

14.08

15.61

14.71

13.52

15.24

14.90

915

324

591

519

396

644

65

62

99

4.30

4.49

4.17

4.33

4.11

4.23

4.61

4.33

4.43

10.45

10.20

10.59

10.52

10.36

10.71

9.06

9.90

10.07

915

324

591

519

396

644

65

62

99

2.44

2.54

2.37

2.39

2.50

2.32

2.62

2.28

2.61

Table 6:
Means for Hogan Development Survey (HDS) (Alumni only)
Total

School
Hastings

HDS 1
Excitable

HDS 2
Skeptical

HDS 3
Cautious

HDS 4
Reserved

HDS 5
Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 7
Mischievous

HDS 8
Colorful

HDS 9
Imaginative

HDS 10
Diligent

HDS 11
Dutiful

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Gender

Berkeley

Female

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

4.98

4.92

5.02

4.92

5.06

5.11

4.17

4.13

5.34

298

101

197

164

134

209

29

15

29

3.110

3.193

3.075

3.182

3.031

3.126

2.647

3.067

3.578

5.15

5.24

5.10

4.96

5.37

4.96

5.55

5.27

6.48

298

101

197

164

134

209

29

15

29

2.368

2.522

2.290

2.270

2.473

2.325

2.487

2.915

2.081

5.16

4.85

5.32

5.34

4.96

5.32

3.83

4.80

5.72

298

101

197

164

134

209

29

15

29

3.048

3.041

3.047

3.090

2.993

3.050

2.620

3.342

2.840

5.21

5.12

5.26

4.79

5.74

5.23

5.24

3.80

5.59

298

101

197

164

134

209

29

15

29

2.337

2.321

2.350

2.212

2.387

2.403

2.099

2.305

2.079

5.94

5.96

5.93

6.04

5.82

5.84

6.24

5.27

7.00

298

101

197

164

134

209

29

15

29

2.402

2.383

2.418

2.478

2.310

2.353

2.430

2.404

2.449

7.32

7.34

7.31

7.47

7.13

7.19

7.55

7.50

8.10

297

100

197

163

134

209

29

14

29

2.699

2.629

2.741

2.776

2.601

2.647

2.384

3.322

3.040

5.45

5.72

5.30

5.18

5.77

5.24

6.31

6.20

5.76

298

101

197

164

134

209

29

15

29

2.463

2.354

2.511

2.410

2.498

2.424

2.451

3.005

2.545

7.12

7.17

7.10

6.91

7.38

6.97

7.69

7.53

7.00

298

101

197

164

134

209

29

15

29

2.851

2.510

3.017

2.877

2.809

2.847

2.727

3.563

2.619

6.45

6.71

6.31

6.26

6.68

6.32

7.38

6.13

6.38

298

101

197

164

134

209

29

15

29

2.610

2.882

2.456

2.540

2.686

2.654

2.397

2.416

2.411

9.11

8.77

9.28

9.45

8.69

9.00

9.97

9.13

9.66

298

101

197

164

134

209

29

15

29

2.335

2.315

2.332

2.287

2.334

2.299

2.442

2.134

2.023

6.99

6.97

6.99

7.03

6.93

7.00

6.83

7.07

7.31

298

101

197

164

134

209

29

15

29

2.111

2.170

2.086

2.194

2.012

2.077

2.172

1.944

2.451

Table 7:
Means for Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) (Alumni only)
Total

School
Hastings

MVPI 1
Aesthetic

MVPI 2
Affiliation

MVPI 3
Altruistic

MVPI 4
Commercial

MVPI 5
Hedonistic

MVPI 6
Power

MVPI 7
Recognition

MVPI 8
Scientific

MVPI 9
Security

MVPI 10
Tradition

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Gender

Berkeley

Female

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

40.42

40.76

40.22

40.73

40.01

40.38

41.21

41.00

39.86

266

100

166

153

113

189

19

23

28

8.073

8.137

8.052

7.929

8.281

8.039

6.965

8.965

8.847

47.35

47.70

47.14

47.71

46.88

47.29

46.47

48.04

46.57

266

100

166

153

113

189

19

23

28

6.118

5.473

6.483

5.493

6.871

5.953

5.368

6.568

7.295

51.36

50.92

51.62

52.61

49.66

51.05

52.21

52.35

51.39

266

100

166

153

113

189

19

23

28

7.115

7.147

7.104

6.541

7.529

7.586

6.771

6.005

5.336

38.29

39.38

37.63

36.86

40.21

37.84

39.47

38.17

40.57

266

100

166

153

113

189

19

23

28

6.990

6.913

6.974

6.494

7.202

6.858

6.222

8.217

7.515

38.12

39.23

37.45

37.76

38.60

37.57

39.00

38.91

40.43

266

100

166

153

113

189

19

23

28

7.448

7.610

7.291

7.684

7.122

7.457

7.165

6.417

8.421

44.00

44.31

43.81

42.92

45.47

43.46

44.63

44.83

45.64

266

100

166

153

113

189

19

23

28

7.418

7.664

7.284

7.313

7.338

7.654

4.991

8.467

6.561

40.98

41.51

40.66

40.16

42.10

40.93

40.68

38.48

41.79

266

100

166

153

113

189

19

23

28

7.459

6.764

7.851

7.511

7.274

7.475

7.212

6.734

7.671

41.81

41.31

42.11

40.84

43.12

42.04

38.05

41.30

42.86

266

100

166

153

113

189

19

23

28

8.091

7.973

8.171

7.911

8.184

7.866

7.877

10.227

7.966

40.59

39.70

41.13

41.41

39.50

40.55

39.53

40.74

42.46

266

100

166

153

113

189

19

23

28

7.549

7.287

7.674

7.030

8.102

7.179

9.985

7.898

7.724

46.02

46.17

45.93

46.43

45.46

45.79

47.42

46.17

46.21

266

100

166

153

113

189

19

23

28

5.777

5.885

5.727

5.686

5.877

5.767

6.301

5.024

6.652

Table 8:
Means for SMS, OPT, and ER
Total

School
Hastings

SMS total
score

OPT total
score

ER Sum
total score

Gender

Berkeley

Female

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

15.28

15.13

15.37

14.99

15.65

15.12

15.45

15.63

15.44

702

255

447

394

308

490

47

51

73

4.60

4.72

4.53

4.52

4.68

4.67

4.30

4.40

4.39

Mean
N
SD

24.29

24.04

24.44

24.11

24.52

24.26

25.98

24.62

23.75

706

257

449

395

311

492

47

52

73

4.77

4.91

4.68

4.99

4.47

4.83

3.74

4.33

4.55

Mean
N
SD

36.69

36.70

36.69

38.07

34.98

36.81

35.78

37.43

36.30

878

314

564

486

392

620

65

61

90

9.19

9.27

9.16

9.16

8.96

8.78

10.97

8.42

10.95

Mean
N
SD

Table 9: Intercorrelations of Predictors

Correlations
HPI 1
Adjustment
HPI 1 Adjustment

HPI 2 Ambition

HPI 3 Sociability

HPI 4 Interpersonal
Sensitivity
HPI 5 Prudence

HPI 6 Intellectance

HPI 7 Learning Approach

HDS 1 Excitable

HDS 2 Skeptical

HDS 3 Cautious

HDS 4 Reserved

HDS 5 Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 7 Mischievous

HDS 8 Colorful

HDS 9 Imaginative

HDS 10 Diligent

HDS 11 Dutiful

MVPI 1 Aesthetic

MVPI 2 Affiliation

MVPI 3 Altruistic

MVPI 4 Commercial

MVPI 5 Hedonistic

MVPI 6 Power

MVPI 7 Recognition

MVPI 8 Scientific

MVPI 9 Security

MVPI 10 Tradition

BIO mean score

SJT mean score

SMS total score

OPT total score

ER Sum total score

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

HPI 2
Ambition

.380**
.000
915
-.005
.883
915
.435**
.000
915
.420**
.000
915
.073*
.028
915
.045
.177
915
-.720**
.000
291
-.388**
.000
291
-.476**
.000
291
-.170**
.004
291
-.202**
.001
291
-.024
.682
290
-.012
.844
291
.027
.648
291
-.093
.114
291
-.158**
.007
291
-.052
.381
291
-.051
.408
266
.115
.060
266
.096
.119
266
-.160**
.009
266
-.144*
.019
266
-.145*
.018
266
-.226**
.000
266
.001
.990
266
-.197**
.001
266
.055
.376
266
.206**
.000
607
.098*
.017
594
-.137**
.001
607
.457**
.000
604
-.082*
.016
852

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
a. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.

.378**
.000
915
.291**
.000
915
.068*
.040
915
.179**
.000
915
.092**
.005
915
-.484**
.000
291
-.029
.626
291
-.718**
.000
291
-.306**
.000
291
-.188**
.001
291
.321**
.000
290
.303**
.000
291
.414**
.000
291
.166**
.005
291
-.049
.408
291
-.242**
.000
291
.004
.947
266
.327**
.000
266
.020
.741
266
.203**
.001
266
-.018
.767
266
.357**
.000
266
.217**
.000
266
.066
.286
266
-.128*
.038
266
.070
.257
266
.375**
.000
607
.069
.093
594
.159**
.000
607
.471**
.000
604
-.050
.146
852

HPI 3
Sociability

.348**
.000
915
-.260**
.000
915
.323**
.000
915
.066*
.045
915
-.135*
.021
291
.016
.783
291
-.372**
.000
291
-.354**
.000
291
-.025
.671
291
.340**
.000
290
.455**
.000
291
.620**
.000
291
.367**
.000
291
-.071
.230
291
.075
.203
291
.206**
.001
266
.615**
.000
266
.148*
.016
266
.165**
.007
266
.433**
.000
266
.323**
.000
266
.505**
.000
266
-.018
.771
266
-.271**
.000
266
.019
.753
266
.195**
.000
607
-.065
.116
594
.500**
.000
607
.220**
.000
604
.009
.786
852

HPI 4
Interpersonal
Sensitivity

.304**
.000
915
.137**
.000
915
-.005
.874
915
-.446**
.000
291
-.359**
.000
291
-.285**
.000
291
-.563**
.000
291
-.101
.085
291
.154**
.008
290
.090
.125
291
.236**
.000
291
.102
.084
291
-.060
.307
291
.199**
.001
291
.172**
.005
266
.624**
.000
266
.368**
.000
266
-.082
.182
266
.112
.067
266
-.062
.310
266
.031
.619
266
-.129*
.035
266
-.153*
.013
266
.128*
.036
266
.225**
.000
607
.011
.788
594
.170**
.000
607
.289**
.000
604
.002
.953
852

HPI 5
Prudence

-.178**
.000
915
-.010
.766
915
-.314**
.000
291
-.322**
.000
291
-.017
.771
291
-.178**
.002
291
-.078
.186
291
-.007
.902
290
-.327**
.000
291
-.198**
.001
291
-.361**
.000
291
.235**
.000
291
.183**
.002
291
-.111
.070
266
.002
.979
266
.086
.163
266
-.064
.302
266
-.288**
.000
266
-.127*
.039
266
-.176**
.004
266
-.049
.430
266
.342**
.000
266
.112
.067
266
.100*
.014
607
.080*
.050
594
-.192**
.000
607
.101*
.013
604
-.042
.226
852

HPI 6
Intellectance

.193**
.000
915
-.072
.219
291
-.035
.553
291
-.119*
.042
291
-.047
.429
291
.046
.431
291
.117*
.046
290
.307**
.000
291
.170**
.004
291
.276**
.000
291
-.016
.783
291
-.003
.962
291
.351**
.000
266
.219**
.000
266
.209**
.001
266
.115
.062
266
.139*
.023
266
.143*
.020
266
.139*
.024
266
.493**
.000
266
-.261**
.000
266
.049
.430
266
.178**
.000
607
.049
.235
594
.210**
.000
607
.047
.252
604
.052
.126
852

HPI 7
Learning
Approach

-.002
.972
291
-.017
.779
291
.001
.983
291
.047
.424
291
.018
.755
291
.141*
.016
290
.021
.717
291
-.095
.104
291
.069
.241
291
.129*
.028
291
-.110
.062
291
.009
.887
266
.015
.809
266
.003
.956
266
.064
.297
266
-.004
.945
266
.127*
.038
266
.062
.311
266
.294**
.000
266
.093
.129
266
-.005
.939
266
.121**
.003
607
.032
.442
594
.071
.080
607
.038
.348
604
.026
.453
852

HDS 1
Excitable

.303**
.000
298
.490**
.000
298
.240**
.000
298
.172**
.003
298
-.020
.728
297
-.104
.073
298
-.122*
.036
298
.034
.558
298
.103
.077
298
.045
.443
298
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.264**
.001
147
.022
.787
151
.002
.981
147
-.539**
.000
147
.133*
.022
298

HDS 2
Skeptical

.072
.217
298
.162**
.005
298
.224**
.000
298
.183**
.002
297
.317**
.000
298
.039
.501
298
.110
.059
298
.186**
.001
298
-.050
.389
298
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.024
.777
147
.139
.088
151
.166*
.044
147
-.230**
.005
147
.071
.222
298

HDS 3
Cautious

.310**
.000
298
.284**
.000
298
-.242**
.000
297
-.341**
.000
298
-.400**
.000
298
-.152**
.008
298
.109
.061
298
.294**
.000
298
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.387**
.000
147
-.074
.369
151
-.031
.713
147
-.409**
.000
147
.127*
.028
298

HDS 4
Reserved

.201**
.000
298
-.098
.092
297
-.100
.084
298
-.303**
.000
298
-.056
.334
298
.005
.933
298
-.144*
.013
298
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.120
.147
147
-.198*
.015
151
-.232**
.005
147
-.152
.067
147
-.071
.222
298

HDS 5
Leisurely

.217**
.000
297
.121*
.037
298
.050
.388
298
.068
.242
298
.124*
.032
298
.025
.666
298
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.005
.952
147
.058
.476
151
.108
.193
147
-.061
.467
147
-.031
.599
298

HDS 6 Bold

.444**
.000
297
.439**
.000
297
.265**
.000
297
.176**
.002
297
-.014
.807
297
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.283**
.001
147
.193*
.018
150
.269**
.001
147
.256**
.002
147
.011
.852
297

HDS 7
Mischievous

.396**
.000
298
.347**
.000
298
.013
.823
298
-.033
.569
298
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.252**
.002
147
.179*
.028
151
.283**
.001
147
.200*
.015
147
-.006
.915
298

HDS 8
Colorful

.296**
.000
298
-.159**
.006
298
-.023
.690
298
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.251**
.002
147
.208*
.010
151
.482**
.000
147
.209*
.011
147
-.024
.682
298

HDS 9
Imaginative

.001
.984
298
-.064
.269
298
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.110
.185
147
.039
.631
151
.116
.161
147
.273**
.001
147
-.002
.970
298

HDS 10
Diligent

.109
.060
298
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.014
.869
147
.029
.723
151
-.063
.446
147
-.026
.750
147
.098
.092
298

HDS 11
Dutiful

.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.184*
.026
147
.028
.736
151
.211*
.010
147
-.111
.182
147
.050
.393
298

MVPI 1
Aesthetic

.189**
.002
266
.351**
.000
266
-.069
.262
266
.184**
.003
266
.048
.433
266
.147*
.017
266
.146*
.017
266
-.080
.192
266
.127*
.039
266
.035
.691
135
.028
.749
131
.081
.348
135
.054
.531
135
.083
.177
266

MVPI 2
Affiliation

.319**
.000
266
.109
.076
266
.418**
.000
266
.177**
.004
266
.290**
.000
266
-.027
.660
266
-.137*
.025
266
.032
.600
266
.201*
.020
135
-.155
.077
131
.321**
.000
135
.250**
.003
135
.027
.662
266

MVPI 3
Altruistic

-.267**
.000
266
.031
.612
266
-.063
.306
266
-.067
.276
266
.065
.289
266
.021
.728
266
.413**
.000
266
.143
.098
135
-.029
.739
131
-.004
.961
135
-.001
.992
135
.042
.496
266

MVPI 4
Commercial

.244**
.000
266
.542**
.000
266
.356**
.000
266
.229**
.000
266
.209**
.001
266
-.082
.180
266
.011
.902
135
-.070
.428
131
.232**
.007
135
.015
.867
135
-.130*
.034
266

MVPI 5
Hedonistic

.282**
.000
266
.339**
.000
266
.055
.373
266
-.060
.329
266
-.175**
.004
266
-.035
.688
135
-.023
.793
131
.311**
.000
135
.044
.611
135
.047
.445
266

MVPI 6 Power

.550**
.000
266
.259**
.000
266
.090
.144
266
-.008
.901
266
.171*
.048
135
-.133
.130
131
.296**
.000
135
.100
.251
135
-.063
.307
266

MVPI 7
Recognition

.134*
.029
266
-.020
.741
266
-.070
.255
266
.110
.203
135
-.047
.598
131
.440**
.000
135
.114
.187
135
.027
.666
266

MVPI 8
Scientific

.135*
.028
266
.009
.878
266
.022
.800
135
-.019
.828
131
.126
.144
135
-.256**
.003
135
.121*
.048
266

MVPI 9
Security

.212**
.001
266
.024
.780
135
.090
.309
131
-.197*
.022
135
-.351**
.000
135
-.036
.558
266

MVPI 10
Tradition

.088
.311
135
-.080
.362
131
-.124
.153
135
.020
.821
135
-.098
.111
266

BIO mean
score

.103
.067
317
.112**
.003
702
.250**
.000
706
-.047
.260
584

SJT mean
score

-.129*
.022
315
.106
.062
312
-.063
.131
583

SMS total
score

.106**
.005
697
.081
.051
584

OPT total
score

-.061
.140
581

ER Sum
total score

Table 10: Correlations of UGPA, LSAT, and Index

Correlations
Zscore:
Undergrad
GPA
Zscore: Undergrad GPA

Zscore: Adjusted LSAT

score
Index 50/50

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

.204**
.000
1121
.776**
.000
1121

Zscore:
Adjusted
LSAT score

.776**
.000
1121

Index 50/50

Table 11: Correlations of predictors with UGPA, LSAT, and Index

Correlations

HPI 1 Adjustment

HPI 2 Ambition

HPI 3 Sociability

HPI 4 Interpersonal
Sensitivity
HPI 5 Prudence

HPI 6 Intellectance

HPI 7 Learning Approach

HDS 1 Excitable

HDS 2 Skeptical

HDS 3 Cautious

HDS 4 Reserved

HDS 5 Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 7 Mischievous

HDS 8 Colorful

HDS 9 Imaginative

HDS 10 Diligent

HDS 11 Dutiful

MVPI 1 Aesthetic

MVPI 2 Affiliation

MVPI 3 Altruistic

MVPI 4 Commercial

MVPI 5 Hedonistic

MVPI 6 Power

MVPI 7 Recognition

MVPI 8 Scientific

MVPI 9 Security

MVPI 10 Tradition

BIO mean score

SJT mean score

SMS total score

OPT total score

ER Sum total score

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Zscore:
Undergrad
GPA
-.070*
.035
911
-.011
.731
911
-.001
.973
911
.029
.390
911
.055
.095
911
-.099**
.003
911
.079*
.018
911
.121*
.038
297
-.040
.489
297
.188**
.001
297
-.087
.133
297
.005
.933
297
.010
.859
296
-.173**
.003
297
-.064
.275
297
-.046
.431
297
.121*
.037
297
.064
.269
297
-.016
.800
265
.071
.251
265
.053
.395
265
-.042
.494
265
-.059
.339
265
-.032
.607
265
-.094
.126
265
-.008
.895
265
.128*
.037
265
.001
.993
265
.037
.330
706
-.020
.595
688
.069
.068
698
-.029
.446
701
.067*
.046
874

Zscore:
Adjusted
LSAT score
-.013
.693
896
-.133**
.000
896
-.040
.228
896
-.131**
.000
896
-.028
.410
896
.064
.055
896
.367**
.000
896
.143*
.015
289
-.133*
.024
289
.263**
.000
289
.174**
.003
289
-.018
.767
289
-.058
.326
288
-.250**
.000
289
-.153**
.009
289
-.074
.212
289
-.028
.635
289
-.007
.900
289
-.056
.369
261
-.030
.634
261
.016
.794
261
-.139*
.025
261
-.077
.212
261
-.086
.166
261
.034
.584
261
.185**
.003
261
.013
.834
261
-.005
.940
261
-.087*
.021
699
-.066
.088
677
.008
.835
691
.007
.858
694
.112**
.001
859

Index 50/50
-.052
.123
893
-.093**
.006
893
-.026
.441
893
-.070*
.038
893
.019
.572
893
-.019
.573
893
.285**
.000
893
.174**
.003
288
-.109
.065
288
.300**
.000
288
.074
.209
288
-.015
.805
288
-.031
.602
287
-.271**
.000
288
-.149*
.011
288
-.078
.185
288
.063
.283
288
.030
.613
288
-.054
.386
260
.023
.717
260
.039
.535
260
-.125*
.045
260
-.091
.142
260
-.083
.181
260
-.036
.567
260
.122*
.050
260
.082
.185
260
.006
.923
260
-.040
.296
696
-.053
.170
675
.048
.205
688
-.005
.887
691
.120**
.000
856

Table 12:
Means for Self Appraisals (Alumni only)
Total

School
Hastings

Mean
N
SD

(2)
Creativity/
Innovation
(26)
Problem Solving

Mean
N
SD

(3)
Practical Judgment

Mean
N
SD

(6)
Researching the Law

Mean
N
SD

Communications

Mean
N
SD

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing
(10)
Influencing and
Advocating
(8)
Writing

Mean
N
SD

(7)
Speaking

Mean
N
SD

(9)
Listening

Mean
N
SD

(13)
Strategic Planning

Mean
N
SD

(14)
Organizing and Managing
Ones Own Work
(15)
Organizing and Managing
Others

Mean
N
SD

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Mean
N
SD

(25)
Able to See the World
Through the Eyes of
Others
(18) Networking and
Business Development

Mean
N
SD

Client &
Business
Relations

Conflict
Resolutio
n

Planning and
Organizing

Mean
N
SD

(5)
Fact Finding

(4) Advising Clients

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Mean
N
SD

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

(17) Developing
Relationships within the
Legal Profession
(16) Evaluation,
Development, and
Mentoring

Mean
N
SD

(22)
Passion and Engagement

Mean
N
SD

(23)
Diligence

Mean
N
SD

(20)
Integrity/Honesty

Mean
N
SD

(21)
Stress Management

Mean
N
SD

(19)
Community Involvement
and Service

Mean
N
SD

(24)
Self-Development

Mean
N
SD

Working
with
Others
Character

Mean
N
SD

(1)
Analysis and Reasoning

Research &
Information
Gathering

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All Self

Appraisals

Mean
N
SD

4.135
874
0.362
4.307
856
0.490
4.208
785
0.612
4.223
858
0.503
4.317
834
0.509
4.164
822
0.532
4.201
833
0.538
4.074
793
0.563
4.196
836
0.516
4.325
868
0.563
4.175
853
0.648
4.215
852
0.508
4.098
789
0.591
4.098
866
0.668
4.141
778
0.623
4.028
783
0.584
4.211
859
0.482
3.680
726
0.811
4.336
813
0.471
4.241
840
0.528
4.093
699
0.550
4.034
861
0.757
4.040
844
0.597
4.521
855
0.397
3.985
864
0.637
3.749
812
0.861
3.929
857
0.605

4.120
303
0.376
4.260
296
0.527
4.215
263
0.614
4.185
298
0.541
4.301
289
0.515
4.120
283
0.519
4.212
295
0.528
4.056
276
0.564
4.202
290
0.502
4.250
302
0.586
4.163
298
0.661
4.202
292
0.513
4.096
276
0.598
4.118
302
0.665
4.169
267
0.635
4.016
275
0.567
4.195
298
0.512
3.677
254
0.835
4.358
288
0.498
4.238
290
0.549
4.093
237
0.546
3.963
300
0.776
4.029
292
0.601
4.515
297
0.430
3.983
299
0.669
3.684
278
0.901
3.938
297
0.625

Gender

Berkeley
4.143
571
0.354
4.331
560
0.468
4.205
522
0.611
4.243
560
0.481
4.325
545
0.506
4.187
539
0.538
4.195
538
0.544
4.084
517
0.563
4.193
546
0.524
4.365
566
0.547
4.181
555
0.642
4.221
560
0.505
4.099
513
0.588
4.088
564
0.670
4.126
511
0.616
4.034
508
0.593
4.219
561
0.466
3.681
472
0.798
4.324
525
0.456
4.242
550
0.517
4.093
462
0.553
4.072
561
0.744
4.045
552
0.596
4.524
558
0.379
3.986
565
0.619
3.783
534
0.839
3.924
560
0.594

Female
4.123
501
0.367
4.295
489
0.506
4.160
443
0.651
4.174
490
0.511
4.307
473
0.516
4.133
468
0.517
4.196
476
0.525
4.079
445
0.574
4.137
476
0.541
4.298
500
0.590
4.103
486
0.673
4.244
487
0.500
4.065
438
0.582
4.147
498
0.651
4.207
446
0.597
3.979
432
0.607
4.187
489
0.484
3.669
403
0.802
4.368
463
0.467
4.236
478
0.536
4.155
394
0.517
4.015
494
0.759
4.070
482
0.576
4.498
488
0.405
3.966
496
0.647
3.786
470
0.837
3.919
491
0.598

Ethnicity

Male
4.151
373
0.354
4.323
367
0.467
4.271
342
0.552
4.288
368
0.485
4.330
361
0.499
4.205
354
0.549
4.207
357
0.556
4.069
348
0.550
4.275
360
0.470
4.361
368
0.523
4.270
367
0.601
4.175
365
0.516
4.140
351
0.600
4.033
368
0.685
4.051
332
0.646
4.088
351
0.548
4.242
370
0.479
3.694
323
0.823
4.293
350
0.473
4.246
362
0.519
4.013
305
0.582
4.060
367
0.754
4.000
362
0.624
4.552
367
0.384
4.011
368
0.623
3.697
342
0.892
3.943
366
0.614

White
4.126
619
0.350
4.309
607
0.485
4.216
553
0.582
4.223
607
0.503
4.310
591
0.489
4.161
579
0.546
4.191
591
0.520
4.070
563
0.538
4.183
592
0.495
4.356
615
0.541
4.154
604
0.639
4.202
602
0.484
4.075
566
0.595
4.078
613
0.672
4.121
546
0.621
4.019
548
0.564
4.189
608
0.489
3.655
511
0.814
4.334
575
0.457
4.245
597
0.503
4.071
492
0.526
4.031
609
0.752
4.046
598
0.596
4.515
604
0.395
3.979
610
0.638
3.682
570
0.857
3.919
605
0.594

African
American

4.149
63
0.503
4.262
61
0.582
4.173
55
0.715
4.246
61
0.505
4.325
57
0.671
4.170
59
0.562
4.197
61
0.720
4.079
57
0.743
4.230
61
0.662
4.159
63
0.787
4.210
62
0.807
4.221
61
0.602
4.196
56
0.561
4.186
62
0.622
4.202
57
0.719
4.155
58
0.670
4.287
61
0.470
3.726
53
0.918
4.373
59
0.562
4.258
60
0.621
4.161
56
0.626
4.016
61
0.846
4.033
61
0.651
4.615
61
0.358
4.137
62
0.588
3.853
61
0.896
3.754
63
0.745

Hisp.
4.264
60
0.322
4.408
60
0.406
4.316
57
0.638
4.280
59
0.502
4.424
59
0.622
4.198
58
0.397
4.371
58
0.492
4.267
58
0.421
4.300
60
0.514
4.314
59
0.463
4.319
58
0.575
4.415
59
0.510
4.259
56
0.531
4.192
60
0.553
4.355
55
0.515
4.193
57
0.557
4.433
60
0.446
3.816
49
0.719
4.420
56
0.367
4.325
57
0.609
4.188
48
0.580
4.175
60
0.706
4.052
58
0.510
4.683
60
0.331
4.033
60
0.559
4.102
54
0.892
4.093
59
0.568

Asian
4.100
86
0.347
4.306
85
0.470
4.104
77
0.635
4.163
86
0.511
4.301
83
0.475
4.161
84
0.550
4.154
81
0.510
4.013
77
0.573
4.146
79
0.532
4.244
86
0.583
4.071
84
0.673
4.206
85
0.574
4.089
73
0.631
4.180
86
0.673
4.070
79
0.649
3.851
77
0.703
4.157
86
0.415
3.778
72
0.707
4.300
80
0.513
4.161
84
0.555
4.036
70
0.622
3.954
86
0.746
4.018
84
0.588
4.424
85
0.433
3.959
86
0.665
3.827
84
0.808
4.018
84
0.578

Table 13:
Means for Peer Appraisals (Alumni only)
Total

Communications
Planning and
Organizing
Conflict
Resolution

White

Ethnicity
Afr.
Hisp.
Amer.

Asian

4.325
869
0.394

4.264
296
0.445

4.357
573
0.362

4.312
496
0.385

4.343
373
0.407

4.335
609
0.364

4.346
65
0.383

4.323
58
0.487

4.262
94
0.476

(1)
Analysis and
Reasoning

Mean
N
SD

4.417
856

4.327
291

4.464
565

4.381
489

4.466
367

4.439
604

4.379
62

4.345
58

4.382
91

(2)
Creativity/
Innovation

Mean
N
SD

(26)
Problem Solving

Mean
N
SD

(3)
Practical Judgment

Mean
N
SD

0.481
4.332
786
0.613
4.404
850
0.494
4.327
838
0.608

0.537
4.246
262
0.634
4.324
289
0.552
4.297
283
0.613

0.444
4.375
524
0.598
4.446
561
0.457
4.342
555
0.605

0.483
4.310
443
0.605
4.366
484
0.499
4.318
476
0.574

0.476
4.361
343
0.622
4.456
366
0.485
4.338
362
0.650

0.450
4.360
555
0.569
4.417
598
0.462
4.327
594
0.600

0.561
4.287
54
0.672
4.418
61
0.538
4.386
59
0.536

0.621
4.338
57
0.764
4.408
57
0.506
4.298
57
0.713

0.534
4.173
81
0.710
4.341
91
0.600
4.270
88
0.663

(6)
Researching the
Law

Mean
N
SD

(5)
Fact Finding

Mean
N
SD

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing

Mean
N
SD

4.355
816
0.545
4.402
824
0.497
4.255
752
0.546

4.258
275
0.596
4.327
280
0.540
4.216
260
0.526

4.403
541
0.511
4.441
544
0.469
4.276
492
0.556

4.338
460
0.528
4.368
474
0.507
4.247
426
0.533

4.376
356
0.566
4.449
350
0.480
4.267
326
0.563

4.382
574
0.513
4.424
578
0.484
4.255
528
0.513

4.285
58
0.417
4.358
58
0.500
4.319
58
0.583

4.304
56
0.657
4.335
56
0.590
4.297
53
0.566

4.267
91
0.722
4.369
90
0.518
4.156
77
0.684

(10)
Influencing and
Advocating

Mean
N
SD

(8)
Writing

Mean
N
SD

(7)
Speaking

Mean
N
SD

(9)
Listening

Mean
N
SD

4.333
835
0.531
4.329
827
0.605
4.312
844
0.582
4.335
836
0.530

4.260
286
0.571
4.205
280
0.698
4.259
284
0.612
4.322
283
0.528

4.371
549
0.505
4.392
547
0.541
4.339
560
0.566
4.341
553
0.532

4.312
474
0.533
4.292
470
0.601
4.259
482
0.592
4.330
474
0.510

4.359
361
0.527
4.378
357
0.607
4.383
362
0.562
4.341
362
0.557

4.353
588
0.497
4.364
583
0.570
4.320
592
0.538
4.328
588
0.528

4.288
59
0.570
4.291
61
0.436
4.316
64
0.646
4.429
60
0.485

4.325
57
0.620
4.269
54
0.766
4.351
57
0.736
4.295
56
0.580

4.239
89
0.623
4.214
91
0.724
4.259
88
0.619
4.341
91
0.578

(13)
Strategic Planning

Mean
N
SD

(14) Organizing
and Managing
Ones Own Work

Mean
N
SD

(15)
Organizing and
Managing Others

Mean
N
SD

4.338
792
0.522
4.306
834
0.619
4.331
730
0.610

4.263
262
0.573
4.267
288
0.644
4.246
242
0.656

4.375
530
0.491
4.327
546
0.604
4.374
488
0.582

4.310
450
0.507
4.319
480
0.602
4.356
417
0.575

4.375
342
0.540
4.289
354
0.641
4.298
313
0.653

4.356
557
0.482
4.317
587
0.593
4.322
515
0.593

4.349
58
0.473
4.275
60
0.528
4.380
54
0.557

4.389
54
0.590
4.232
55
0.787
4.255
51
0.812

4.193
87
0.710
4.315
92
0.714
4.362
78
0.619

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Mean
N
SD

(25) Able to See

the World Through
the Eyes of Others

Mean
N
SD

4.303
718
0.514
4.315
835
0.529

4.267
240
0.539
4.304
284
0.532

4.321
478
0.500
4.321
551
0.529

4.246
401
0.508
4.337
478
0.499

4.375
317
0.512
4.286
357
0.567

4.289
502
0.521
4.299
586
0.527

4.338
57
0.437
4.480
61
0.426

4.298
52
0.608
4.321
56
0.515

4.373
71
0.485
4.313
91
0.599

(18) Networking
and Business
Development

Mean
N
SD

(4) Advising Clients

Mean
N
SD

4.217
721
0.690
4.435
787
0.483

4.204
245
0.687
4.407
270
0.506

4.224
476
0.693
4.449
517
0.469

4.199
403
0.700
4.439
442
0.456

4.241
318
0.678
4.429
345
0.515

4.222
499
0.684
4.427
550
0.475

4.274
53
0.706
4.483
57
0.438

4.283
45
0.745
4.486
55
0.452

4.118
85
0.680
4.401
86
0.599

4.418
848

4.371
286

4.442
562

4.433
482

4.398
366

4.394
594

4.585
62

4.388
56

4.460
93

0.567
4.294
666
0.607

0.596
4.221
214
0.672

0.550
4.329
452
0.571

0.527
4.317
382
0.601

0.615
4.263
284
0.615

0.574
4.276
471
0.599

0.415
4.430
50
0.490

0.674
4.261
45
0.719

0.556
4.308
69
0.673

4.329
847
0.636
4.332
834
0.555
4.673
849
0.438
4.159
830
0.609
4.294
705

4.256
285
0.678
4.265
280
0.597
4.636
286
0.497
4.159
283
0.651
4.237
228

4.365
562
0.611
4.366
554
0.529
4.692
563
0.404
4.159
547
0.587
4.322
477

4.308
483
0.644
4.337
471
0.534
4.665
484
0.416
4.128
477
0.590
4.348
414

4.357
364
0.625
4.325
363
0.581
4.684
365
0.465
4.201
353
0.632
4.217
291

4.343
591
0.602
4.367
585
0.511
4.704
597
0.396
4.148
582
0.609
4.266
478

4.381
63
0.700
4.354
60
0.418
4.684
61
0.461
4.225
61
0.532
4.313
56

4.444
58
0.576
4.210
56
0.774
4.605
57
0.524
4.156
56
0.642
4.467
53

4.172
93
0.738
4.231
92
0.661
4.519
92
0.589
4.135
89
0.671
4.284
82

0.709
4.181
788
0.590

0.772
4.126
271
0.625

0.676
4.209
517
0.569

0.663
4.171
454
0.583

0.764
4.195
334
0.600

0.729
4.171
548
0.579

0.607
4.217
61
0.575

0.607
4.259
53
0.620

0.750
4.187
87
0.640

Client &
Business
Relations
Working
with Others
Character

Gender
Female
Male

Mean
N
SD

Research &
Information
Gathering

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All

Peer Appraisals

School
Hastings
Berkeley

(17) Developing
Relationships
within the Legal
Profession
(16) Evaluation,
Development, and
Mentoring

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Passion and
Engagement (22)

Mean
N
SD

(23)
Diligence

Mean
N
SD

(20)
Integrity/Honesty

Mean
N
SD

(21)
Stress
Management
(19)
Community
Involvement and
Service

Mean
N
SD

(24)
Self-Development

Mean
N
SD

Mean
N
SD

Table 14:
Means for Supervisor Appraisals (Alumni only)
Total

Communications
Planning and
Organizing
Conflict
Resolution

White

Ethnicity
Afr.
Hisp.
Amer.

Asian

4.259
780

4.196
263

4.291
517

4.244
459

4.279
321

4.268
552

4.248
50

4.346
56

4.181
87

0.452

0.453

0.448

0.449

0.456

0.432

0.521

0.381

0.545

(1)
Analysis and
Reasoning

Mean
N
SD

(2)
Creativity/
Innovation

Mean
N
SD

(26)
Problem Solving

Mean
N
SD

(3)
Practical Judgment

Mean
N
SD

4.300
771
0.600
4.230
688
0.648
4.295
757
0.561
4.230
756
0.666

4.204
262
0.598
4.131
220
0.654
4.204
252
0.572
4.186
255
0.693

4.349
509
0.595
4.276
468
0.640
4.340
505
0.550
4.253
501
0.651

4.254
452
0.589
4.169
405
0.666
4.251
445
0.570
4.208
446
0.658

4.364
319
0.609
4.317
283
0.611
4.357
312
0.543
4.262
310
0.677

4.336
547
0.567
4.265
489
0.606
4.318
535
0.540
4.239
539
0.657

4.225
49
0.658
4.261
44
0.675
4.255
48
0.540
4.314
47
0.642

4.299
56
0.628
4.153
49
0.819
4.327
55
0.531
4.282
54
0.639

4.152
84
0.673
4.103
75
0.702
4.176
84
0.695
4.133
81
0.741

(6)
Researching the
Law

Mean
N
SD

(5)
Fact Finding

Mean
N
SD

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing

Mean
N
SD

4.286
731
0.593
4.335
740
0.544
4.198
649
0.548

4.184
245
0.572
4.269
246
0.562
4.151
222
0.544

4.337
486
0.598
4.367
494
0.533
4.222
427
0.550

4.247
430
0.586
4.329
436
0.536
4.191
384
0.552

4.341
301
0.600
4.343
304
0.557
4.208
265
0.543

4.321
518
0.562
4.336
523
0.521
4.209
458
0.518

4.114
46
0.734
4.319
47
0.616
4.263
40
0.503

4.340
50
0.416
4.462
53
0.556
4.293
47
0.458

4.148
83
0.759
4.280
83
0.608
4.090
72
0.736

(10) Influencing
and Advocating

Mean
N
SD

(8)
Writing

Mean
N
SD

(7)
Speaking

Mean
N
SD

(9)
Listening

Mean
N
SD

4.247
749
0.578
4.243
750
0.668
4.218
749
0.645
4.283
754
0.578

4.188
251
0.585
4.114
252
0.677
4.162
250
0.671
4.221
254
0.589

4.277
498
0.573
4.308
498
0.654
4.246
499
0.630
4.315
500
0.570

4.209
437
0.582
4.206
441
0.676
4.186
441
0.654
4.266
447
0.594

4.301
312
0.569
4.296
309
0.653
4.263
308
0.630
4.309
307
0.553

4.257
536
0.586
4.284
534
0.641
4.217
534
0.639
4.281
533
0.564

4.322
45
0.418
4.037
47
0.901
4.378
49
0.492
4.393
49
0.612

4.370
54
0.447
4.175
53
0.525
4.326
53
0.596
4.436
55
0.549

4.084
80
0.661
4.154
81
0.762
4.139
79
0.753
4.223
82
0.631

(13)
Strategic Planning

Mean
N
SD

(14) Organizing
and Managing
Ones Own Work

Mean
N
SD

(15)
Organizing and
Managing Others

Mean
N
SD

4.233
703
0.565
4.236
763
0.696
4.255
649
0.689

4.165
236
0.592
4.173
254
0.694
4.229
216
0.641

4.267
467
0.548
4.267
509
0.696
4.269
433
0.712

4.225
409
0.539
4.240
453
0.711
4.262
380
0.701

4.244
294
0.600
4.229
310
0.675
4.246
269
0.673

4.240
503
0.567
4.254
539
0.692
4.281
470
0.666

4.216
44
0.597
4.097
49
0.575
4.149
37
0.843

4.388
49
0.482
4.232
55
0.694
4.200
45
0.762

4.135
76
0.554
4.238
85
0.731
4.246
68
0.630

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Mean
N
SD

(25) Able to See

the World Through
the Eyes of Others

Mean
N
SD

4.194
659
0.565
4.244
743
0.583

4.132
223
0.588
4.198
252
0.618

4.226
436
0.551
4.268
491
0.563

4.154
381
0.565
4.222
439
0.614

4.249
278
0.561
4.276
304
0.534

4.185
477
0.572
4.229
527
0.588

4.311
41
0.457
4.346
47
0.459

4.292
48
0.544
4.288
53
0.585

4.176
64
0.604
4.272
81
0.606

(18) Networking
and Business
Development

Mean
N
SD

(4) Advising Clients

Mean
N
SD

4.139
635
0.707
4.390
686
0.520

4.101
221
0.700
4.352
228
0.552

4.159
414
0.711
4.408
458
0.504

4.122
364
0.710
4.389
403
0.507

4.162
271
0.703
4.391
283
0.540

4.099
459
0.724
4.389
491
0.529

4.211
38
0.708
4.454
43
0.391

4.354
41
0.657
4.422
48
0.400

4.254
68
0.609
4.365
72
0.587

4.350
758

4.304
257

4.373
501

4.344
448

4.358
310

4.325
540

4.458
48

4.457
52

4.431
83

0.616
4.228
572
0.588

0.576
4.219
192
0.555

0.634
4.233
380
0.604

0.607
4.227
332
0.593

0.628
4.229
240
0.581

0.627
4.241
405
0.578

0.570
4.283
38
0.731

0.624
4.225
40
0.588

0.546
4.206
62
0.509

4.367
760
0.604
4.315
758
0.572
4.668
758
0.434
4.128
736
0.605
4.297
623
0.695
4.172
731
0.587

4.307
256
0.633
4.196
254
0.575
4.613
257
0.448
4.100
247
0.602
4.204
207
0.737
4.155
243
0.547

4.398
504
0.587
4.375
504
0.561
4.696
501
0.424
4.142
489
0.607
4.344
416
0.669
4.180
488
0.606

4.388
451
0.597
4.315
447
0.580
4.638
445
0.467
4.095
436
0.599
4.341
370
0.670
4.166
431
0.570

4.338
309
0.614
4.314
311
0.561
4.710
313
0.378
4.176
300
0.611
4.233
253
0.727
4.180
300
0.611

4.369
537
0.606
4.313
535
0.554
4.685
539
0.440
4.116
524
0.610
4.238
443
0.736
4.173
517
0.588

4.311
49
0.624
4.260
49
0.593
4.698
48
0.428
4.244
45
0.496
4.535
43
0.571
4.138
49
0.660

4.565
54
0.459
4.420
56
0.520
4.667
54
0.429
4.168
52
0.630
4.604
41
0.524
4.250
50
0.539

4.274
85
0.642
4.289
83
0.655
4.583
84
0.420
4.103
80
0.657
4.351
69
0.506
4.173
81
0.568

Client &
Business
Relations
Working
with Others
Character

Gender
Female
Male

Mean
N
SD

Research &
Information
Gathering

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All

Supervisor
Appraisals

School
Hastings
Berkeley

(17) Developing
Relationships
within the Legal
Profession
(16) Evaluation,
Development, and
Mentoring

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Passion and
Engagement (22)

Mean
N
SD

(23)
Diligence

Mean
N
SD

(20)
Integrity/Honesty

Mean
N
SD

(21)
Stress
Management

Mean
N
SD

(19) Community
Involvement and
Service

Mean
N
SD

(24)
Self-Development

Mean
N
SD

Table 15:
Means for Other (Peer + Supervisor) Appraisals (Alumni only)
Total

Mean
N
SD

(1) Analysis and

Reasoning

Mean
N
SD

(2)
Creativity/
Innovation
(26)
Problem Solving

Mean
N
SD

(3)
Practical Judgment

Mean
N
SD

(6) Researching the

Law

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

(11) Questioning
and Interviewing

Mean
N
SD

(10) Influencing
and Advocating

Mean
N
SD

(8)
Writing

Mean
N
SD

(7)
Speaking

Mean
N
SD

(9)
Listening

Mean
N
SD

(13)
Strategic Planning

Mean
N
SD

(14) Organizing
and Managing
Ones Own Work
(15)
Organizing and
Managing Others

Mean
N
SD

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Mean
N
SD

(25) Able to See

the World Through
the Eyes of Others
(18) Networking
and Business
Development

Mean
N
SD

Client &
Business
Relations

(4) Advising Clients

Mean
N
SD

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

(17) Developing
Relationships
within the Legal
Profession
(16)Evaluation,
Development, and
Mentoring

Mean
N
SD

Passion and
Engagement (22)

Mean
N
SD

(23)
Diligence

Mean
N
SD

(20)
Integrity/Honesty

Mean
N
SD

(21)
Stress
Management
(19) Community
Involvement and
Service

Mean
N
SD

(24)
Self-Development

Mean
N
SD

Working
with
Others
Character

Mean
N
SD

(5)
Fact Finding

Conflict
Resolutio
n

Planning and
Organizing

Communications

Research &
Information
Gathering

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All

Other Appraisals

Mean
N
SD

Mean
N
SD

4.285
981
0.377
4.349
973
0.488
4.273
923
0.574
4.345
967
0.460
4.274
963
0.541
4.310
958
0.502
4.363
956
0.457
4.223
903
0.490
4.284
964
0.491
4.282
952
0.551
4.261
963
0.532
4.311
957
0.465
4.273
932
0.482
4.263
961
0.591
4.288
875
0.583
4.243
879
0.487
4.279
958
0.463
4.157
878
0.653
4.406
921
0.439
4.374
969
0.516
4.244
817
0.560
4.337
971
0.563
4.305
958
0.510
4.659
963
0.384
4.150
954
0.534
4.253
872
0.678
4.157
947
0.533

School
Hastings
Berkeley
4.226
339
0.400
4.262
336
0.497
4.196
311
0.582
4.268
334
0.500
4.246
330
0.540
4.219
331
0.506
4.298
327
0.455
4.192
312
0.469
4.226
332
0.504
4.177
330
0.571
4.212
331
0.557
4.272
329
0.464
4.210
319
0.509
4.218
332
0.574
4.243
301
0.592
4.206
298
0.497
4.263
330
0.478
4.145
307
0.635
4.379
317
0.445
4.331
334
0.506
4.205
272
0.597
4.264
334
0.603
4.218
328
0.542
4.610
330
0.424
4.140
328
0.566
4.170
294
0.748
4.120
323
0.536

4.316
642
0.361
4.395
637
0.477
4.312
612
0.567
4.385
633
0.432
4.289
633
0.541
4.358
627
0.493
4.397
629
0.455
4.239
591
0.500
4.314
632
0.481
4.337
622
0.533
4.287
632
0.518
4.331
628
0.464
4.305
613
0.464
4.286
629
0.598
4.311
574
0.577
4.262
581
0.481
4.287
628
0.455
4.164
571
0.663
4.420
604
0.435
4.397
635
0.521
4.263
545
0.540
4.376
637
0.537
4.351
630
0.487
4.685
633
0.359
4.156
626
0.517
4.296
578
0.637
4.176
624
0.531

Gender
Female
Male
4.268
567
0.367
4.308
560
0.470
4.230
528
0.571
4.301
557
0.466
4.257
555
0.519
4.280
551
0.489
4.340
551
0.461
4.212
518
0.480
4.256
553
0.492
4.243
550
0.557
4.209
558
0.534
4.299
550
0.452
4.258
533
0.445
4.274
558
0.586
4.301
504
0.581
4.201
496
0.457
4.278
554
0.456
4.124
506
0.670
4.408
523
0.414
4.381
557
0.485
4.254
469
0.540
4.333
562
0.574
4.313
551
0.500
4.641
556
0.387
4.114
553
0.534
4.303
509
0.652
4.149
548
0.512

4.307
414
0.390
4.406
413
0.506
4.330
395
0.575
4.403
410
0.446
4.297
408
0.569
4.351
407
0.515
4.395
405
0.451
4.238
385
0.504
4.320
411
0.487
4.335
402
0.540
4.333
405
0.522
4.326
407
0.481
4.292
399
0.526
4.247
403
0.597
4.270
371
0.585
4.298
383
0.519
4.281
404
0.473
4.203
372
0.627
4.403
398
0.471
4.365
412
0.556
4.231
348
0.586
4.343
409
0.547
4.295
407
0.524
4.684
407
0.379
4.200
401
0.531
4.184
363
0.709
4.168
399
0.562

White
4.296
681
0.348
4.381
677
0.442
4.311
647
0.511
4.363
672
0.422
4.276
675
0.519
4.334
672
0.477
4.379
666
0.432
4.227
629
0.454
4.301
671
0.457
4.319
667
0.514
4.268
671
0.497
4.305
668
0.451
4.289
653
0.453
4.284
669
0.549
4.293
613
0.561
4.229
615
0.481
4.263
670
0.459
4.142
614
0.660
4.395
644
0.442
4.348
677
0.527
4.238
565
0.548
4.341
673
0.540
4.329
665
0.472
4.687
671
0.355
4.143
664
0.530
4.201
600
0.712
4.149
657
0.531

Ethnicity
Afr.
Hisp.
Amer.
4.292
72
0.392
4.269
71
0.620
4.236
64
0.660
4.344
69
0.537
4.335
68
0.501
4.220
67
0.461
4.336
67
0.485
4.261
66
0.545
4.283
69
0.511
4.194
67
0.560
4.302
72
0.595
4.411
69
0.449
4.246
68
0.526
4.202
70
0.503
4.258
63
0.623
4.323
67
0.415
4.412
67
0.368
4.207
64
0.649
4.475
65
0.365
4.522
69
0.366
4.342
64
0.610
4.375
71
0.616
4.297
69
0.448
4.664
70
0.435
4.211
68
0.482
4.392
65
0.535
4.183
69
0.523

4.326
72
0.431
4.309
72
0.599
4.241
69
0.765
4.366
71
0.466
4.299
69
0.629
4.326
69
0.555
4.391
70
0.553
4.307
64
0.494
4.359
71
0.527
4.219
69
0.635
4.347
68
0.617
4.371
69
0.534
4.405
66
0.504
4.198
69
0.756
4.206
62
0.817
4.286
63
0.592
4.306
69
0.508
4.305
57
0.666
4.452
67
0.419
4.404
69
0.625
4.231
59
0.625
4.505
72
0.463
4.282
71
0.649
4.621
70
0.425
4.181
69
0.545
4.494
63
0.556
4.248
69
0.546

Asian
4.204
107
0.469
4.252
106
0.576
4.089
96
0.685
4.241
106
0.571
4.182
103
0.647
4.208
105
0.650
4.291
105
0.511
4.130
100
0.655
4.130
104
0.596
4.185
103
0.648
4.189
103
0.590
4.277
103
0.527
4.134
100
0.571
4.248
105
0.700
4.328
93
0.478
4.268
89
0.527
4.294
103
0.493
4.158
98
0.589
4.378
100
0.491
4.429
105
0.487
4.262
87
0.534
4.205
106
0.634
4.221
105
0.618
4.525
104
0.494
4.106
105
0.620
4.308
101
0.598
4.155
104
0.528

Table 16:
Means for Average of All Appraisals (Alumni only)
Total

Communications
Planning and
Organizing

Ethnicity
Afr.
Hisp.
Amer.

Asian

4.196
381
0.344

4.254
685
0.326

4.217
609
0.325

4.254
457
0.344

4.235
738
0.314

4.269
79
0.306

4.303
78
0.340

4.169
119
0.432

(1)
Analysis and Reasoning

Mean
N
SD

(2)
Creativity/
Innovation

Mean
N
SD

(26)
Problem Solving

Mean
N
SD

(3)
Practical Judgment

Mean
N
SD

4.333
1060
0.436
4.244
1029
0.518
4.311
1056
0.410
4.278
1050
0.466

4.259
377
0.451
4.196
362
0.512
4.249
377
0.447
4.255
375
0.460

4.373
683
0.421
4.269
667
0.520
4.345
679
0.384
4.291
675
0.469

4.303
605
0.423
4.197
590
0.520
4.263
602
0.407
4.261
601
0.457

4.371
455
0.449
4.306
439
0.509
4.374
454
0.406
4.301
449
0.477

4.351
735
0.408
4.270
713
0.476
4.324
730
0.382
4.280
731
0.441

4.277
78
0.494
4.233
74
0.573
4.314
79
0.426
4.347
77
0.407

4.359
78
0.489
4.297
77
0.592
4.359
77
0.378
4.298
77
0.591

4.260
118
0.519
4.065
115
0.641
4.215
118
0.511
4.201
115
0.588

(6)
Researching the Law

Mean
N
SD

(5)
Fact Finding

Mean
N
SD

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing

Mean
N
SD

4.260
1047
0.455
4.314
1049
0.411
4.164
1026
0.462

4.195
373
0.438
4.268
376
0.406
4.151
365
0.431

4.295
674
0.461
4.339
673
0.411
4.171
661
0.479

4.234
598
0.427
4.291
600
0.414
4.158
582
0.447

4.294
449
0.488
4.345
449
0.404
4.171
444
0.481

4.280
727
0.440
4.321
728
0.394
4.161
710
0.439

4.189
76
0.411
4.294
77
0.463
4.207
79
0.466

4.267
76
0.456
4.397
77
0.431
4.308
74
0.343

4.174
117
0.589
4.237
117
0.463
4.087
114
0.599

(10)
Influencing and Advocating

Mean
N
SD

(8)
Writing

Mean
N
SD

(7)
Speaking

Mean
N
SD

(9)
Listening

Mean
N
SD

4.247
1053
0.446
4.293
1058
0.494
4.231
1057
0.494
4.273
1054
0.418

4.217
373
0.429
4.209
377
0.515
4.194
378
0.519
4.244
375
0.428

4.263
680
0.454
4.340
681
0.477
4.252
679
0.479
4.290
679
0.411

4.209
602
0.455
4.255
605
0.506
4.176
602
0.493
4.274
603
0.387

4.297
451
0.430
4.345
453
0.475
4.304
455
0.487
4.273
451
0.456

4.257
728
0.409
4.327
735
0.467
4.228
734
0.472
4.264
733
0.405

4.282
78
0.438
4.201
78
0.525
4.276
78
0.547
4.363
78
0.371

4.304
78
0.526
4.269
77
0.473
4.335
77
0.509
4.356
77
0.492

4.119
118
0.568
4.195
116
0.601
4.162
116
0.549
4.248
116
0.497

(13)
Strategic Planning

Mean
N
SD

(14) Organizing and

Managing Ones Own Work

Mean
N
SD

(15)
Organizing and Managing
Others

Mean
N
SD

4.213
1032
0.462
4.200
1058
0.542
4.229
994
0.515

4.176
367
0.468
4.172
379
0.527
4.215
353
0.511

4.233
665
0.457
4.215
679
0.550
4.236
641
0.517

4.195
587
0.431
4.217
605
0.532
4.255
571
0.492

4.235
445
0.499
4.177
453
0.554
4.193
423
0.542

4.210
716
0.442
4.206
733
0.514
4.223
692
0.508

4.225
77
0.492
4.192
79
0.448
4.248
73
0.531

4.348
77
0.498
4.182
77
0.579
4.273
72
0.582

4.137
113
0.534
4.220
118
0.680
4.225
109
0.498

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Mean
N
SD

(25)
Able to See the World
Through the Eyes of Others

Mean
N
SD

4.157
1005
0.466
4.256
1055
0.403

4.132
358
0.459
4.236
378
0.440

4.170
647
0.470
4.267
677
0.380

4.112
568
0.465
4.249
605
0.394

4.215
437
0.461
4.265
450
0.414

4.149
700
0.442
4.233
734
0.406

4.272
76
0.367
4.370
78
0.335

4.232
73
0.552
4.348
76
0.410

4.078
107
0.632
4.266
116
0.412

(18) Networking and

Business Development

Mean
N
SD

(4) Advising Clients

Mean
N
SD

3.989
1003
0.669
4.383
1030
0.378

3.971
358
0.677
4.371
371
0.394

3.998
645
0.665
4.390
659
0.369

3.964
574
0.662
4.391
590
0.361

4.022
429
0.678
4.371
440
0.400

3.969
696
0.682
4.377
715
0.376

4.070
76
0.661
4.449
77
0.304

4.118
70
0.624
4.426
75
0.372

4.013
112
0.592
4.347
113
0.452

(17) Developing
Relationships within the
Legal Profession

Mean
N
SD

(16) Evaluation,
Development, and
Mentoring

Mean
N
SD

4.337
1057
0.451
4.184
948
0.505

4.308
378
0.469
4.148
333
0.543

4.353
679
0.440
4.204
615
0.483

4.338
604
0.422
4.208
544
0.480

4.336
453
0.486
4.151
404
0.537

4.319
733
0.460
4.170
653
0.497

4.453
78
0.348
4.275
75
0.521

4.384
78
0.503
4.218
69
0.545

4.345
117
0.449
4.175
103
0.528

Passion and Engagement

(22)

Mean
N
SD

(23)
Diligence

Mean
N
SD

(20)
Integrity/Honesty

Mean
N
SD

(21)
Stress Management

Mean
N
SD

(19) Community
Involvement and Service

Mean
N
SD

(24)
Self-Development

Mean
N
SD

4.241
1060
0.566
4.225
1054
0.456
4.620
1054
0.325
4.093
1055
0.489
4.043
1023
0.725
4.086
1050
0.484

4.183
377
0.582
4.166
377
0.480
4.588
375
0.366
4.082
375
0.541
3.952
362
0.813
4.070
373
0.485

4.273
683
0.554
4.258
677
0.439
4.638
679
0.298
4.099
680
0.458
4.092
661
0.667
4.095
677
0.484

4.226
608
0.578
4.242
603
0.440
4.604
604
0.314
4.059
603
0.482
4.085
588
0.706
4.074
600
0.456

4.260
452
0.548
4.203
451
0.476
4.641
450
0.338
4.139
452
0.495
3.986
435
0.746
4.102
450
0.519

4.242
734
0.549
4.243
731
0.437
4.641
731
0.301
4.081
730
0.496
3.975
706
0.747
4.077
728
0.475

4.270
79
0.646
4.197
79
0.456
4.641
79
0.308
4.214
79
0.410
4.212
77
0.577
4.020
79
0.556

4.379
78
0.499
4.236
77
0.440
4.643
78
0.297
4.113
77
0.463
4.327
74
0.643
4.218
76
0.410

4.138
118
0.623
4.160
117
0.562
4.483
116
0.463
4.073
118
0.552
4.118
117
0.697
4.107
116
0.522

Client &
Business
Relations

Conflict
Resolution

White

4.233
1066
0.334

Working
with
Others
Character

Gender
Female
Male

Mean
N
SD

Research &
Information
Gathering

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All

Appraisals

School
Hastings
Berkeley

Table 17:
Inter-correlations of Raters (Alumni only)
Self
and
peer

Self
and
Sup

Peer
and
Sup

Self
and
Other

Self
and
Global

Peer
and
Other

Peer
and
Global

Sup
and
Other

Sup
and
Global

Other
and
Global

1 Analysis & Reasoning

0.169

0.210

0.222

.209

.677

.814

.737

.871

.807
(high)

.913

2 Creativity

0.140

0.130

.154

.697

.859

.780

.856

.769

.894

3 Practical Judgment

0.136

0.174

0.123

.178

.633

.809

.753

.826

.753

.915

4 Advising Clients

0.168

0.132

.171

.669

.828

.747

.831

.742

.894

0.114

0.142

.131

.652

.817

.717
(low)

.831

.740

.882
(low)

5 Fact Finding

0.081
(low)

0.094
(low)

0.121
(high)

6 Researching Law

0.248

0.246

0.144

.267

.708

.845

.787

.856

.780

.915

7 Speaking

0.219

0.202

0.147

.235

.726

.828

.753

.844

.749

.882

8 Writing

0.332

0.248

0.158

.343

.731

.824

.776

.843

.770

.922
(high)

9 Listening

0.104

0.176

0.164

.154

.657

.807

.723

.821

.752

.898

10 Influence & Advocate

0.137

0.208

0.166

.180

.687

.833

.750

.845

.778

.900

11 Question & Interview

0.137

0.192

0.169

.183

.744

.861

.760

.838

.752

.883

12 Negotiation

0.164

0.227

0.184

.229

.747

.847

.742

.864

.781

.885

13 Strategic Planning

0.215

0.223

0.190

.246

.740

.835

.738

.842

.776

.896

14 Managing Self

0.247

0.290

0.199

.277

.721

.839

.762

.863

.795

.907

15 Managing Others

0.086

0.139

0.203

.118
(low)

.679

.831

.733

.853

.768

.887

16 Eval, Develop & Mentor

0.168

0.118

0.208

.166

.705

.884

.819
(high)

.853

.769

.912

17 Developing Relationships

0.161

0.178

0.219

.203

.653

.822

.768

.832

.745

.909

18 Networking

0.378

0.363

0.232

.405

.799

.889

.819

.879

.799

.908

0.380

0.407

(high)

(high)

0.233

.425
(high)

.909
(high)

.815

20 Integrity

0.100

0.157

0.244

.134

.836
(high)
.621
(low)

.837

.761

21 Stress management

0.173

0.199

0.265

.214

.702

.857

22 Passion

0.304

0.364

0.266

.375

.777

23 Diligence

0.199

0.138

0.267

.209

24 Self Development

0.190

0.192

0.308

25 Eyes of others

0.097

0.150

0.322

26 Problem Solving

0.178

0.179

Average correlation

.187

.204

19 Community Service

0.344
(low)

.205

.892
(high)
.813
(low)

.807

.891

.722
(low)

.892

.777

.835

.735

.884

.875

.787

.843

.771

.899

.682

.836

.752

.830

.729

.888

.235

.712

.851

.743

.836

.761

.887

.151

.638

.801
(low)

.721

.817

.748

.900

.204

.681

.820

.755

.846

.758

.899

.281

.701

.829

.755

.858

.769

.896

Table 18: LSAT and GPA Correlations with Performance - Alumni Sample
Intellectual and Cognitive

Undergrad
GPA

LSAT score

Index 50/50

1L GPA

Research and Information Gathering

26

Analysis &
Reasoning

Creativity

Problem
Solving

Practical
Judgment

Self

-0.016

-0.008

-0.040

Peer

0.051

0.017

Supervisor

0.038

Other

Communications

11

10

Researching
Law

Fact Finding

Question &
Interview

Influence &
Advocate

Writing

-0.059

-0.008

-.077(*)

-0.023

-.075(*)

0.028

-0.003

0.006

0.028

-0.018

0.036

0.049

0.018

0.043

0.045

0.048

0.023

0.039

0.012

0.014

Global

0.027

0.010

0.019

0.008

0.015

Self

0.046

-0.052

-0.043

-.071(*)

0.015

Peer

.082(*)

0.068

0.053

0.023

Supervisor

.095(**)

0.075

0.064

Other

.116(**)

.092(**)

Global

.112(**)

Self

Planning and Organizing

13

Speaking

0.020

0.009

0.002

0.034
0.021

Conflict Resolution

14

15

12

Listening

Strategic
Planning

Managing Self

Managing
Others

Negotiation

-.069(*)

-0.040

-0.042

0.041

-0.024

0.064

-0.005

0.024

0.056

0.048

0.021

.107(**)

0.023

-0.002

0.009

-0.005

0.014

.119(**)

0.013

0.017

-0.014

-0.013

.093(**)

-0.004

-0.007

25

Client & Business

Relations

Working with Others

Character

18

17

16

22

23

20

Eyes of others

Networking

Advising
Clients

Developing
Relationships

Eval, Develop
& Mentor

21

19

24

Total

Integrity

Stress
management

Community
Service

Self
Development

Passion

Diligence

Avg Across

-0.068

-0.035

0.027

-0.022

0.015

-0.062

0.009

0.023

0.009

0.045

-0.037

0.028

0.021

-0.002

-0.017

0.000

-0.014

0.025

-0.007

0.062

0.027

-0.016

-0.034

0.000

0.029

.098(**)

0.068

0.016

0.028

-0.007

0.016

-0.009

0.021

0.018

.093(*)

0.031

0.017

-0.017

0.024

0.028

0.029

.086(**)

0.059

0.026

0.027

-0.014

0.006

-0.003

0.038

0.007

.093(**)

.067(*)

0.015

-0.015

0.007

0.043

0.018

.098(**)

0.034

-0.027

0.011

0.009

-0.004

0.013

-0.001

0.023

.108(**)

0.011

-0.031

0.002

0.030

0.026

-.082(*) -.090(**) -.071(*) -.144(**)

-0.066

-.129(**)

-.067(*) -.090(**)

-.084(*) -.103(**) -.077(*)

.099(**) -.092(**) -.114(**) -.102(**) -.108(**) -.096(**) -.143(**) -.120(**) -.129(**) -.108(**) -.128(**) -.114(**)

-0.064

.110(**)

.072(*)

-0.036

0.033

.132(**)

-0.009

-0.046

0.020

0.018

-0.008

-0.014

-0.068

-.102(**)

-0.045

-0.019

-0.022

-0.041

0.048

.124(**)

-0.030

-0.039

-0.047

0.030

0.017

.076(*)

-0.014

-0.051

0.015

.148(**)

-0.023

-0.043

0.018

0.045

0.012

-0.016

-0.009

-.117(**)

-0.034

-0.044

-0.007

-0.041

0.058

0.003

-0.003

-.123(**)

-0.047

0.023

.069(*)

0.028

.097(**)

0.036

-0.045

0.029

.150(**)

0.002

-0.045

0.024

0.040

0.008

-0.030

-0.048

-.122(**)

-0.054

-0.029

-0.024

-0.046

0.063

.089(**)

-0.022

-.096(**)

-0.054

0.038

0.045

0.057

0.025

.088(**)

-0.003

-.079(*)

0.008

.157(**)

-0.026

-.066(*)

-0.027

0.005

-0.041

-.079(*)

-.079(*) -.142(**) -.068(*)

-0.057

-0.049

-0.059

0.027

.063(*)

-0.045

-.133(**) -.070(*)

-0.023

0.016

-0.040

-0.057

-.083(*)

0.003

-0.050

-.083(*) -.140(**) -.103(**)

Peer

.081(*)

0.050

0.045

0.005

0.068

0.062

-0.038

0.029

.124(**)

-0.014

-0.017

0.047

0.043

0.005

0.003

Supervisor

.090(*)

.076(*)

.080(*)

0.025

.083(*)

0.024

-0.032

0.025

.167(**)

0.000

-0.021

0.021

.091(*)

0.051

Other

.105(**)

.074(*)

.068(*)

0.022

.072(*)

0.046

-0.035

0.031

.173(**)

0.008

-0.016

0.036

.080(*)

Global

.088(**)

0.033

0.046

0.021

.065(*)

0.010

-.067(*)

-0.002

.161(**)

-0.018

-0.043

-0.005

.063(*)

Self

0.024

-0.043

-.084(*)

-0.064

.077(*)

-.073(*) -.126(**) -.099(**)

0.048

-0.039

-0.048

Peer

.094(**)

.096(**)

.079(*)

0.049

.110(**)

.086(*)

0.018

0.048

.088(*)

0.023

0.014

0.049

0.037

-0.006

-0.021

-0.015

-0.039

0.005

-0.041

-0.042

Supervisor

.111(**)

.096(*)

.092(*)

0.013

.109(**)

0.032

0.013

0.029

.140(**)

0.006

0.003

.097(*)

0.052

0.024

-0.006

-0.032

-.089(*)

-0.009

-0.038

Other

.123(**)

.100(**) .099(**)

0.048

.119(**)

0.060

0.015

0.053

.127(**)

0.026

0.006

.086(*)

0.052

0.017

-0.019

-0.024

-.069(*)

-0.005

Global

.096(**)

0.014

.131(**)

-0.003

-.067(*)

-0.020

.105(**)

-0.042

-0.047

0.030

0.032

-0.048

-.084(*)

-.081(*) -.104(**)

-0.049

0.044

0.034

-.107(**) -.090(*) -.099(**)

.075(*)

-.104(**) -.103(**) -.094(**)

-.125(**) -.127(**)

-0.073

-.088(*)

-.076(*) -.120(**)

-0.039

-0.042

-.102(**) -.105(**) -.088(*)

-0.015

-.111(**)

-0.052

-.083(*)

-0.038

-0.029

0.002

-0.038

0.059

.101(**)

-0.032

-0.055

-0.040

0.031

0.006

0.017

-.085(*)

-0.010

-0.029

0.014

-0.011

.101(**)

0.029

0.013

-.095(*)

-0.016

0.037

0.039

-0.002

-0.016

-.094(**)

-0.037

-0.024

0.011

-0.028

.096(**) .105(**)

-0.005

-.079(*)

-0.036

0.050

-0.007

-.069(*)

-0.046

-.095(**)

-0.050

-0.034

-0.033

-0.026

.082(**)

0.054

-0.049

-.087(**)

-0.030

-0.001

-0.042

-.090(*)

-.081(*) -.197(**)

-0.019

-.122(**)

-0.035

.094(**)

0.041

-0.008

-.085(*)

-0.015

0.044

0.009

-0.011

0.043

-0.019

-0.053

-.191(**)

0.047

0.037

-0.051

0.000

-0.032

.067(*)

0.036

-0.037

-.149(**)

0.012

0.051

-.080(*)

-.071(*)

-.070(*)

0.030

0.003

-.074(*) -.194(**)

-0.014

-0.019

-.135(**) -.089(*) -.129(**) -.093(*) -.094(**) -.094(**) -.138(**) -.092(**)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

18

Table 19: Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) Correlations with Performance - Alumni Sample
Intellectual and Cognitive

1
Analysis &
Reasoning

HPI 1
Adjustment

26

Creativity

Problem
Solving

Practical
Judgment

.104(**) .140(**) .117(**)

11

10

Researching
Law

Fact Finding

Question &
Interview

Influence &
Advocate

.088(*)

0.062

Writing

Speaking

Planning and Organizing

13

Listening

Strategic
Planning

14

15

Managing Self

Managing
Others

.081(*)

Peer

0.011

0.043

0.029

0.065

0.018

0.062

0.075

0.034

0.043

.079(*)

0.060

0.065

0.064

0.045

.102(**) .135(**) .114(**) .098(**) .145(**) .121(**) .108(**)

0.061

Supervisor

0.050

.085(*)

.116(**)

.090(*)

0.060

0.064

0.084

.136(**)

0.046

0.049

.134(**)

.101(*)

0.064

Other

0.051

.087(*)

.094(**)

.083(*)

0.059

.088(*)

.108(**) .098(**)

0.047

.094(**) .119(**) .114(**)

.072(*)

Global

0.050

.093(**) .112(**) .113(**)

.069(*)

.090(**) .108(**) .132(**)

.071(*)

Conflict Resolution

12
Negotiation

25
Eyes of others

Client & Business

Relations

Character

17

16

Networking

Advising
Clients

Developing
Relationships

Eval, Develop
& Mentor

Passion

.193(**)

.106(**)

.149(**) .181(**) .122(**) .103(**)

22

23

20

21

19

24

Total

Diligence

Integrity

Stress
management

Community
Service

Self
Development

Avg Across

.106(**)

0.068

.134(**)

.366(**)

.126(**)

0.062

.210(**)

0.048

.140(**)

.126(**)

0.064

0.070

-0.018

0.061

.160(**)

0.020

0.057

.091(*)

.098(*)

.132(**) .164(**)

.097(*)

0.072

.146(**)

0.070

.088(*)

.103(**)

.111(**)

.212(**)

.135(**)

.103(*)

.130(**)

.082(*)

.116(**) .107(**) .099(**) .133(**)

.146(**)

.090(*)

.105(**)

0.049

.112(**)

.220(**)

.085(*)

.090(*)

.136(**)

.102(**) .152(**) .097(**) .099(**) .095(**) .170(**) .148(**) .129(**) .118(**)

.189(**)

.111(**)

.113(**)

0.062

.138(**)

.322(**)

.136(**)

.090(**)

.177(**)

.224(**) .289(**) .309(**) .293(**) .122(**) .262(**) .326(**) .317(**) .171(**) .384(**) .225(**) .326(**) .268(**) .268(**) .307(**) .239(**) .367(**) .239(**)

.206(**)

.263(**)

.346(**)

.263(**)

.238(**)

.296(**)

.224(**)

.295(**)

.454(**)

-0.019

.087(*)

0.040

0.026

0.008

Supervisor

0.050

.137(**)

.095(*)

.083(*)

0.068

Other

0.013

.112(**)

.076(*)

0.044

0.025

Global

.088(**) .191(**) .193(**) .153(**)

0.018

.088(*)

0.059

0.028

.140(**)

-0.026

.213(**)

.086(*)

-0.016

0.033

.157(**)

-0.009

-0.006

0.052

.090(*)

0.063

.082(*)

-0.013

.149(**) .136(**) .130(**) .112(**) .119(**) .232(**)

0.015

.238(**) .133(**)

0.032

.101(*)

.214(**)

0.046

0.009

.114(**)

.121(**)

.171(**)

.141(**)

.112(**) .093(**)

0.010

.162(**)

-0.015

.239(**) .111(**)

0.002

0.059

.207(**)

0.008

0.002

.094(**)

.107(**)

.112(**)

.120(**)

0.062

.177(**) .245(**) .212(**)

.072(*)

.309(**) .133(**) .202(**) .186(**) .203(**) .241(**) .093(**) .302(**) .163(**)

.096(**)

.146(**)

.303(**)

.137(**)

.096(**)

.229(**)

.189(**)

.222(**)

.281(**)

.080(*)

.133(**)

.105(**)

.180(**)

0.041

-0.003

0.055

.200(**)

.157(**)

.186(**)

.105(**) .144(**) .118(**)

0.063

-0.048

0.038

0.075

.107(**)

0.045

0.065

0.035

0.056

Working with Others

18

-0.007

HPI 2 Ambition Peer

.082(*)

0.039

.136(**)

Self

0.032

.163(**)

.090(*)

.115(**)

-0.011

.145(**) .183(**) .149(**)

0.028

.245(**)

0.042

.101(**)

-0.036

.076(*)

Peer

-.081(*)

-0.001

-0.041

0.002

-0.051

-0.067

0.003

-0.016

-0.060

0.060

-0.030

-0.020

-0.067

-0.004

0.032

0.027

.088(*)

0.003

0.006

-.084(*)

0.071

-.096(*)

-0.058

0.018

.129(**)

0.010

-0.023

-0.069

-0.029

-0.020

-0.006

-0.039

-0.029

-0.056

-0.044

-.089(*)

0.019

-0.063

-0.050

-.091(*)

-0.051

0.042

-0.054

.088(*)

-0.008

-0.026

-0.003

0.050

-.117(**)

-0.046

0.001

0.051

0.020

-0.038

Other

-.099(**)

-0.044

-0.060

-0.016

-0.062

-0.065

-0.042

-0.049

-.091(*)

0.035

-0.062

-0.056

-.116(**)

-0.039

0.043

-0.025

0.071

-0.022

-0.028

-0.074

0.059

-.136(**)

-0.070

-0.005

.111(**)

-0.013

-0.051

Global

-.068(*)

0.020

-0.017

0.023

-0.044

0.013

.073(*)

0.024

-.068(*)

.132(**)

-0.037

-0.013

-.096(**)

-0.002

.083(*)

0.010

.120(**)

0.007

0.037

-0.008

.132(**)

-.085(*)

-.078(*)

0.017

.166(**)

0.060

0.029

0.043

0.051

0.051

.164(**)

0.012

.085(*)

.217(**) .151(**)

0.036

.123(**) .203(**)

.082(*)

.076(*)

.153(**) .115(**) .239(**) .183(**) .162(**)

.332(**)

.221(**)

.115(**)

0.067

0.056

.184(**)

.190(**)

.084(*)

.235(**)

-0.027

0.032

0.008

.076(*)

0.027

-0.004

.122(**)

0.042

0.001

0.068

0.060

0.006

0.047

.108(**)

0.057

.098(**) .109(**) .140(**)

.151(**)

.118(**)

.143(**)

-0.004

0.042

0.038

.149(**)

.086(*)

.085(*)

-0.031

0.001

0.028

0.048

-0.035

0.041

.106(*)

0.058

-0.005

0.012

.131(**)

0.046

0.004

.122(**)

.096(*)

.111(**) .143(**)

.091(*)

.160(**)

.151(**)

.111(**)

0.042

0.054

.093(*)

.170(**)

0.071

.089(*)

Other

-0.019

0.025

0.032

0.054

-0.001

0.023

.139(**)

0.058

0.015

0.048

.115(**)

0.040

0.018

.124(**)

.082(*)

.132(**) .133(**) .134(**)

.177(**)

.171(**)

.152(**)

0.029

0.062

0.068

.179(**)

.085(*)

.107(**)

Global

-0.015

0.035

0.021

.102(**)

-0.016

0.036

.216(**) .097(**)

-0.003

.087(*)

.177(**)

0.043

0.037

.166(**) .119(**) .199(**) .171(**) .143(**)

.278(**)

.215(**)

.166(**)

0.050

0.060

.112(**)

.215(**)

.095(**)

.179(**)

Self

0.038

-0.064

-0.004

0.001

0.010

-0.005

0.032

0.012

0.064

-0.044

.084(*)

0.056

.161(**) .131(**)

0.035

0.064

0.024

.096(**)

.144(**)

.082(*)

-0.009

.126(**)

.107(**)

.116(**)

-0.021

0.012

.079(*)

Peer

0.026

-0.035

0.029

.083(*)

0.059

0.025

0.057

0.036

0.063

0.033

.077(*)

0.053

.134(**) .118(**)

0.007

0.018

0.004

.079(*)

.123(**)

.127(**)

0.000

.121(**)

0.039

0.004

-0.012

0.048

.074(*)

Supervisor

0.057

0.033

.087(*)

0.042

0.005

.111(**)

0.083

.097(*)

.086(*)

-0.012

.138(**) .111(**) .180(**) .166(**)

0.052

.099(*)

0.022

0.019

.139(**)

0.085

0.021

.167(**)

0.041

.141(**)

.106(*)

.081(*)

.111(**)

Other

.071(*)

0.017

.089(*)

.087(*)

0.049

.096(**) .100(**)

.083(*)

.094(**)

0.031

.135(**) .108(**) .199(**) .167(**)

0.042

.094(**)

0.019

.079(*)

.166(**)

.159(**)

0.030

.189(**)

0.063

.084(*)

0.055

.096(**)

.126(**)

Global

0.062

-0.008

0.035

0.062

0.025

.075(*)

0.046

.087(*)

0.003

.146(**)

.085(*)

.206(**) .193(**)

0.060

.102(**)

0.041

.099(**)

.187(**)

.140(**)

0.007

.190(**)

.089(**)

.106(**)

0.021

0.064

.121(**)

.119(**) .162(**) .135(**) .106(**) .095(**) .163(**)

.084(*)

.139(**)

0.040

.135(**)

0.020

.092(*)

-.108(**)

0.032

.076(*)

.117(**)

.087(*)

0.039

0.023

.088(*)

.086(*)

.074(*)

0.055

0.037

.097(**)

.173(**)

.137(**)

-0.013

0.009

-0.037

-0.008

-0.018

0.023

-0.015

-0.034

0.034

-0.015

-0.011

-0.019

-.086(*)

-0.031

-0.018

0.003

0.021

-0.017

-0.035

0.019

.090(*)

-0.065

-0.037

0.003

.105(*)

0.031

0.000

Supervisor

0.018

-0.009

-0.012

-0.063

0.018

-0.021

-.093(*)

0.008

-0.002

-0.041

-0.064

-0.068

-0.075

-0.039

-0.013

-0.022

-0.025

-0.038

-0.027

0.005

-0.007

-0.043

-0.031

-0.010

-0.062

0.020

-0.039

Other

0.018

0.002

-0.017

-0.042

0.000

0.016

-0.029

-0.009

0.032

-0.018

-0.033

-0.035

-.093(**)

-0.041

-0.030

0.014

0.001

-0.021

-0.029

0.018

0.049

-.074(*)

-0.046

0.000

0.030

0.026

-0.010

Global

.068(*)

0.067

0.048

0.013

0.032

.086(*)

0.026

.072(*)

0.035

0.056

-0.010

-0.003

-.128(**)

-0.015

0.017

0.039

0.026

-0.005

-0.019

0.055

.081(*)

-0.029

-0.015

0.011

0.062

.085(*)

0.047

Self

.129(**)

0.023

0.064

.082(*)

.105(**)

.091(*)

0.035

0.040

.114(**)

0.038

0.028

.119(**)

.073(*)

0.023

0.052

0.051

0.034

0.010

0.003

0.055

0.039

.113(**)

0.053

.094(**)

-0.029

0.053

.085(*)

0.056

0.046

0.029

0.044

0.009

0.048

0.004

0.056

0.067

-0.001

-0.068

0.054

0.059

0.018

0.010

-0.005

0.030

-0.039

-0.065

0.018

-0.005

0.042

-0.030

0.000

0.041

0.014

0.032

0.067

0.039

.105(**)

0.065

.093(*)

0.069

-0.028

0.071

.099(*)

0.039

0.009

0.038

0.043

-0.017

.103(*)

0.047

-0.029

0.043

-0.026

-0.002

-0.034

0.031

-0.010

0.043

-0.042

0.040

0.046

Other

.075(*)

0.041

.091(*)

0.066

0.048

0.064

0.013

.093(**) .097(**)

0.034

-0.026

.077(*)

.070(*)

0.022

0.047

0.037

-0.002

-0.014

-0.052

0.020

-0.010

0.040

-0.025

0.002

0.007

0.032

0.052

Global

.113(**)

0.053

.099(**)

.087(*)

.077(*)

.106(**)

0.014

.090(**) .131(**)

0.062

-0.016

.103(**)

.087(*)

0.021

0.066

0.030

0.028

0.015

-0.032

0.023

0.020

.095(**)

0.025

0.057

-0.007

0.055

.072(*)

Supervisor

Self
HPI 4
Interpersonal Peer
Sensitivity
Supervisor

HPI 5
Prudence

Communications

Self

Self

HPI 3
Sociability

Research and Information Gathering

Self
HPI 6
Peer
Intellectance

HPI 7 Learning
Peer
Approach
Supervisor

0.048

.135(**) .114(**) .255(**)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

19

Table 20: Hogan Development Survey (HDS) Correlations with Performance - Alumni Sample
Intellectual and Cognitive

HDS 1
Excitable

HDS 2
Skeptical

HDS 3
Cautious

HDS 4
Reserved

HDS 5
Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 9
Imaginative

HDS 10
Diligent

HDS 11
Dutiful

Communications

11

10

Creativity

Researching
Law

Fact Finding

Question &
Interview

Influence &
Advocate

Self

-0.070

-.165(*)

-0.037

-0.107

Peer

-0.007

-0.041

-0.018

-0.080

0.002

-0.057

-0.030

-0.042

Supervisor

-0.081

-.207(**)

-.165(*)

-0.123

0.030

-.144(*)

-0.118

-.154(*)

-0.037

Other

-0.072

-.169(**)

-0.117

-.127(*)

-0.013

-.133(*)

-0.099

-.124(*)

-0.057

-.164(**) -.175(**)

Global

-0.046

-.174(**) -.156(**) -.184(**)

-0.004

-.143(*)

-.204(**) -.197(**)

-0.026

-.198(**) -.245(**)

Self

0.062

0.063

0.100

0.062

0.045

.161(*)

0.125

0.000

0.088

-0.004

0.110

0.097

0.116

0.057

0.044

0.067

0.044

0.028

-0.041

0.056

-0.009

0.055

0.052

-0.068

-0.115

0.052

0.074

Peer

0.035

-0.092

0.018

-0.024

0.030

-0.008

-0.020

-0.012

-0.014

-0.020

0.040

0.005

0.023

-0.007

-0.015

0.034

0.123

-0.054

-0.029

-0.045

0.011

0.081

0.014

-0.045

-0.131

0.056

-0.009

Supervisor

-0.011

0.075

-0.034

-0.003

0.093

0.040

-0.009

0.000

-0.033

0.033

-0.104

-0.034

0.077

-0.050

-0.041

-0.070

0.046

0.049

-0.050

-0.089

0.018

-0.012

0.073

-0.077

0.059

-0.001

-0.004

Other

0.010

-0.046

-0.016

-0.013

0.082

0.029

-0.008

-0.013

0.002

-0.017

-0.026

-0.011

0.054

-0.015

-0.009

-0.004

.138(*)

0.025

-0.031

-0.094

0.030

0.080

0.059

-0.055

-0.046

0.015

0.005

Global

0.071

0.001

0.025

0.016

0.093

0.090

0.064

0.005

0.059

-0.015

0.006

0.083

.134(*)

0.016

0.007

0.013

.129(*)

0.032

-0.036

-0.036

0.007

0.081

0.083

-0.038

-0.056

0.048

0.051

Self

-0.050

-.174(*)

-.153(*)

Peer

0.087

0.049

0.066

-0.008

0.076

0.068

0.021

0.043

0.098

-0.098

0.096

-0.010

-0.071

-0.009

0.039

0.083

-.182(*)

-0.037

0.002

0.063

-0.046

0.043

0.055

-0.091

-0.023

0.013

0.019

Supervisor

0.054

-0.011

-0.076

-0.069

0.094

0.011

-0.073

-0.025

.143(*)

-0.081

-0.096

0.010

-0.071

-0.071

-.201(**)

-0.046

-.214(**)

-0.109

-0.048

0.012

-.194(**)

0.029

0.014

-.144(*)

-0.145

-0.105

-0.087

Other

0.045

0.007

0.003

-0.051

0.092

0.050

-0.022

0.004

.130(*)

-.128(*)

0.004

-0.011

-0.050

-0.038

-.138(*)

0.014

-.204(**)

-0.066

-0.013

0.031

-.136(*)

0.031

0.059

-.134(*)

-0.101

-0.081

-0.033

Global

0.013

-0.039

-0.067

-.138(*)

0.071

-0.064

-.182(**)

-0.114

0.068

-.233(**)

-0.087

-0.097

-.143(*)

-.144(*)

-.223(**)

-0.064

-.221(**)

-.125(*)

-0.071

-0.030

-.155(**)

-0.097

-0.035

-.259(**)

-0.112

-.126(*)

-.157(**)

Self

-0.045

-0.061

0.061

-0.071

0.092

-0.014

-.172(**)

-0.049

0.017

-.136(*)

-.127(*)

-0.071

-0.114

-.231(**)

-0.082

-0.095

-.202(**)

-.143(*)

-.152(*)

-.220(**)

-0.117

-0.035

0.027

-0.083

-.198(**)

-.133(*)

-.174(**)

Peer

0.033

-0.033

0.017

-0.078

0.019

-0.005

-0.102

-0.016

0.043

-0.077

-0.032

0.063

0.012

-0.135

-0.030

-.150(*)

-.234(**)

-.161(*)

-0.107

-0.067

-.209(**)

-0.108

0.021

-0.038

-.223(**)

-0.049

-0.073

Supervisor

0.134

0.015

0.070

-0.094

0.067

-0.003

-.167(*)

-0.027

0.098

-0.067

-0.076

-0.031

-0.003

-0.092

-.178(*)

-0.006

-.191(*)

-0.053

-0.082

-0.045

-.198(**)

0.021

0.119

-0.044

-.155(*)

-0.088

-0.042

Other

0.059

-0.005

0.020

-0.090

0.024

-0.027

-.185(**)

-0.049

0.037

-0.114

-0.104

-0.011

-0.011

-.131(*)

-.144(*)

-0.094

-.231(**)

-.159(*)

-.127(*)

-0.080

-.242(**)

-0.094

0.073

-0.076

-.247(**)

-0.106

-0.106

-.208(**) -.160(**) -.182(**) -.185(**) -.226(**)

-.177(**)

-.215(**) -.237(**) -.236(**)

Listening

14

15

Managing Self

Managing
Others

Writing

Speaking

-0.022

-.148(*)

-0.051

-0.111

-0.034

-0.005

-.136(*)

-.145(*)

-.256(**)

-0.057

-0.079

12
Negotiation

25

Character

3
Practical
Judgment

-0.041

13
Strategic
Planning

Working with Others

26

-.182(**) -.206(**) -.244(**)

Client & Business

Relations

Problem
Solving

-.200(**) -.206(**)

Conflict Resolution

-.178(**) -.188(**)

Planning and Organizing

Analysis &
Reasoning

Eyes of others

18

17

16

22

23

20

21

19

24

Total

Networking

Advising
Clients

Developing
Relationships

Eval, Develop
& Mentor

Passion

Diligence

Integrity

Stress
management

Community
Service

Self
Development

Avg Across

-.204(**) -.222(**) -.213(**) -.274(**) -.256(**) -.274(**) -.268(**) -.216(**) -.329(**) -.187(**) -.185(**) -.213(**)
-0.113

-0.028

-0.059

-0.055

-.140(*)

-.372(**) -.261(**) -.180(**) -.331(**)

-0.131

-0.095

-0.011

-0.081

-0.069

-0.067

-.276(**)

-.185(**) -.204(**) -.197(**) -.251(**) -.220(**)

-.171(*)

-.290(**)

-0.158

-.157(*)

-.193(**)

-0.038

-.307(**) -.241(**)

-0.034

-.187(**) -.204(**) -.171(**) -.202(**)

-.181(**) -.225(**)

-0.090

-.133(*)

-.197(**)

-0.060

-.315(**) -.224(**) -.185(**) -.211(**)

-0.072

-.224(**) -.305(**) -.266(**) -.266(**) -.210(**) -.234(**) -.283(**) -.161(**) -.173(**) -.247(**)

-0.114

-.387(**) -.284(**) -.200(**) -.286(**)

-.138(*)

-.318(**) -.216(**) -.258(**) -.214(**) -.231(**) -.260(**) -.219(**) -.251(**) -.202(**) -.168(**)

-.193(**) -.248(**) -.341(**)

-.151(*)

-0.106

-0.103

-0.111

-.179(*)

-.231(**)

-.180(**) -.329(**)

Global

0.007

-0.050

0.051

-0.091

0.086

-0.011

-.240(**)

-0.057

0.055

-.129(*)

-.140(*)

-0.043

-0.093

-.267(**)

-.147(*)

-.121(*)

-0.110

0.045

-0.058

-.212(**)

-.143(*)

Self

-0.027

-0.011

0.037

0.056

0.003

-0.007

-0.021

0.020

0.059

0.014

0.049

0.040

-0.072

0.054

0.012

-0.037

0.095

0.023

0.054

0.080

0.046

-0.095

-0.025

-0.065

0.022

-0.116

0.004

Peer

0.032

0.010

0.003

0.024

0.119

0.051

-0.067

-0.015

0.054

-0.022

0.029

-0.036

0.018

0.006

-0.032

0.035

-0.072

-0.043

-0.018

0.019

-0.074

-0.017

0.011

0.021

-0.091

-0.025

-0.008

Supervisor

0.076

0.124

0.084

0.009

-0.004

0.102

0.085

0.095

0.123

0.113

0.012

0.035

0.043

0.130

-0.045

0.076

0.067

0.072

0.104

0.141

-0.016

0.046

-0.095

0.038

0.052

0.045

0.077

Other

0.046

0.064

0.021

0.015

0.084

0.107

-0.004

0.032

0.108

0.003

0.021

-0.025

0.034

0.053

-0.053

0.065

0.007

-0.019

0.044

0.085

-0.046

0.036

-0.040

0.015

-0.029

0.011

0.024

Global

0.028

0.070

0.042

0.035

0.069

0.051

0.001

0.038

0.098

0.021

0.039

0.004

-0.038

0.043

-0.057

0.024

0.034

0.009

0.024

0.101

-0.023

-0.041

-0.027

-0.014

-0.008

-0.059

0.020

Self

0.111

.179(**)

.193(**)

.140(*)

0.045

.167(**)

.274(**)

.216(**)

0.115

.293(**)

.296(**)

.251(**)

.206(**)

.194(**)

.215(**)

.252(**)

.216(**)

.137(*)

.160(*)

.220(**)

.221(**)

.202(**)

.182(**)

.133(*)

0.078

.186(**)

.307(**)

Peer

-0.060

-0.011

-0.004

-0.014

0.038

-0.037

0.017

0.062

-0.036

0.047

-0.019

-0.008

0.097

0.044

-0.042

-0.042

0.114

-0.018

-0.016

0.004

0.072

0.028

-0.030

0.025

-0.055

-0.004

0.013

Supervisor

0.016

0.007

0.058

0.040

0.065

0.068

0.118

0.045

-0.066

0.123

0.108

0.019

.147(*)

0.090

0.127

0.000

0.144

0.103

0.013

0.027

0.116

0.029

-0.057

0.115

-0.002

0.118

0.080

Other

-0.027

-0.034

0.008

0.005

0.039

0.006

0.061

0.065

-0.046

0.089

0.061

0.010

0.113

0.070

0.095

-0.010

.162(*)

0.013

-0.011

0.021

0.107

0.016

-0.075

0.066

-0.025

0.053

0.031

Global

0.045

0.069

0.100

0.065

0.009

0.105

.226(**)

.133(*)

-0.017

.199(**)

.186(**)

.134(*)

.161(**)

.185(**)

.159(**)

0.099

.177(**)

0.109

0.037

0.116

.177(**)

.142(*)

0.036

0.113

0.060

.145(*)

.166(**)
.258(**)

Self

.182(**)

0.112

.215(**)

.204(**)

0.052

.257(**)

.322(**)

.127(*)

.127(*)

.218(**)

.214(**)

.257(**)

0.061

0.106

.198(**)

.241(**)

.146(*)

0.125

0.086

.142(*)

0.081

.125(*)

0.108

.177(**)

0.040

.126(*)

Peer

-0.024

-0.003

0.008

0.020

0.007

-0.078

0.045

0.076

-0.002

0.104

0.042

0.048

0.044

0.059

0.082

0.005

0.108

0.030

0.006

-0.102

0.074

-0.002

0.028

0.064

-0.118

0.016

0.017

0.037

0.123

0.087

0.008

-0.040

0.035

0.127

0.071

-0.072

.233(**)

0.019

0.004

0.048

0.011

0.068

0.082

0.063

0.059

0.013

0.050

0.082

0.025

0.003

0.099

-0.003

0.068

0.067

Other

0.007

0.032

0.024

0.010

0.002

-0.016

0.083

0.085

-0.003

.168(**)

0.045

0.030

0.041

0.035

0.119

0.041

0.098

0.042

0.012

-0.048

0.092

0.038

0.009

0.084

-0.071

0.027

0.041

Global

0.095

0.050

0.100

0.070

0.029

0.099

.253(**)

0.110

0.037

.238(**)

.146(*)

.126(*)

0.049

0.114

.188(**)

.117(*)

.146(*)

0.080

0.042

0.037

.126(*)

0.097

0.064

.175(**)

0.036

0.108

.171(**)

Self

-0.034

.182(**)

0.040

0.112

0.085

0.032

.201(**)

0.107

0.055

.351(**)

0.099

.143(*)

-0.068

.139(*)

.190(**)

0.102

.244(**)

0.101

.129(*)

.162(*)

.177(**)

-0.036

-0.022

0.002

0.126

.142(*)

.191(**)

Peer

-0.067

-0.021

-0.030

-0.055

-0.032

-0.049

-0.033

0.002

-0.070

0.105

-0.085

-0.106

-0.111

-0.054

-0.028

-0.035

.190(**)

0.002

-0.032

-.157(*)

0.096

-0.041

-0.057

-0.028

0.016

-0.038

-0.038

Supervisor

-0.067

-0.024

0.034

0.023

0.001

0.011

-0.007

0.028

-0.092

.153(*)

0.060

0.005

-0.014

-0.037

0.091

-0.046

.167(*)

0.070

0.013

-0.080

.171(*)

-0.104

-0.116

-0.029

0.046

0.059

0.030

Other

-0.043

-0.021

-0.007

-0.001

-0.026

-0.009

-0.015

0.037

-0.056

.168(**)

0.009

-0.034

-0.090

-0.063

0.097

-0.040

.198(**)

0.024

0.000

-.133(*)

.160(**)

-0.086

-0.115

-0.013

0.060

0.014

-0.005

Global

-0.012

0.079

0.006

0.053

0.017

0.028

.140(*)

0.095

-0.022

.307(**)

0.060

0.045

-0.082

0.091

.164(**)

-0.002

.193(**)

0.063

0.078

-0.028

.228(**)

-0.027

-0.059

0.006

.130(*)

.119(*)

.127(*)

Self

0.036

.147(*)

0.048

0.097

0.117

.152(*)

.175(**)

0.058

0.101

.185(**)

.138(*)

.144(*)

0.009

0.123

0.056

.204(**)

0.123

0.077

0.121

.156(*)

.123(*)

0.049

0.049

0.036

.205(**)

0.123

.167(**)

Peer

-0.089

-0.060

-0.107

-0.099

-0.059

-0.045

-0.032

-0.033

-0.050

-0.010

-0.028

-0.083

-.136(*)

-0.127

-0.004

-0.025

0.039

-0.073

-0.064

-.175(*)

0.025

-0.099

-0.002

-0.087

-0.057

-0.045

-0.100

Supervisor

0.011

-0.021

-0.022

0.037

-0.018

-0.028

0.092

-0.001

0.030

0.039

0.073

-0.060

-0.018

0.054

0.048

0.030

0.106

0.036

-0.012

0.014

0.088

-0.102

0.016

-0.074

0.129

-0.005

0.011

Other

-0.095

-0.114

-.130(*)

-0.083

-0.084

-0.073

-0.008

-0.048

-0.049

0.008

0.000

-0.117

-.133(*)

-0.073

0.027

-0.024

0.048

-0.071

-0.082

-.134(*)

0.019

-.149(*)

-0.039

-.135(*)

0.003

-0.078

-.124(*)

Global

-0.035

-0.035

-0.045

-0.043

-0.021

0.011

0.100

0.005

0.008

0.098

0.067

-0.023

-0.096

-0.003

0.060

0.075

0.048

-0.024

-0.011

-0.044

0.081

-0.061

0.021

-0.048

.150(*)

0.040

0.000

Self

-0.003

-0.119

0.011

-0.057

-0.055

0.103

-0.028

-0.039

0.032

-0.121

0.031

0.010

.219(**)

0.129

0.019

-0.079

-0.001

0.031

-0.036

0.057

-0.006

.245(**)

0.020

-0.043

-0.016

0.011

0.014

Peer

-0.019

-0.101

0.002

-0.004

0.048

0.011

-0.010

-0.079

0.123

-0.082

-0.001

0.048

.139(*)

0.037

-0.034

-0.075

-0.006

0.004

0.005

0.008

-0.049

.199(**)

-0.012

-0.068

-0.061

0.045

0.004

Supervisor

-0.082

-0.068

-0.075

0.038

-0.029

0.079

-0.061

-0.106

-0.084

-0.101

-0.004

-0.034

0.056

0.051

-0.017

-0.036

-0.112

-0.006

-0.035

-0.092

-0.088

0.053

0.057

-0.076

0.008

-0.004

-0.042

Other

-0.072

-0.123

-0.033

-0.024

0.033

0.060

-0.031

-0.099

0.062

-.126(*)

0.002

0.008

0.121

0.059

-0.019

-0.048

-0.044

-0.009

0.000

-0.028

-0.054

.185(**)

0.049

-0.079

-0.002

0.055

-0.005

Global

-0.015

-.123(*)

-0.014

-0.031

0.009

0.058

-0.046

-0.082

0.051

-.145(*)

0.001

0.016

.170(**)

0.103

-0.021

-0.078

-0.010

0.026

-0.031

-0.021

-0.050

.229(**)

0.045

-0.066

-0.036

0.037

-0.019

Self

-0.109

-.138(*)

-.156(*)

-0.121

-0.091

-0.040

0.010

-0.024

-0.108

-0.078

0.012

-0.081

0.021

0.059

-0.073

0.025

0.037

-0.093

0.050

0.040

-0.033

-0.015

-.193(**)

-0.011

0.094

0.057

-0.033

Peer

-0.091

-0.062

-0.079

-0.103

-0.122

-0.042

-0.008

0.002

-0.111

-.210(**)

0.023

-0.093

-0.089

0.087

-0.017

0.009

-0.045

0.017

0.050

0.044

-0.014

-0.082

-0.105

-0.047

0.056

-0.020

-0.081

Supervisor

-0.001

-0.061

-0.039

0.017

-0.008

-0.089

0.011

0.020

-0.018

-0.037

-0.043

0.024

-0.008

-0.062

-0.106

-0.027

-0.063

-0.085

0.047

0.026

-0.056

0.000

-0.017

0.058

0.074

-0.013

-0.034

Other

-0.060

-0.065

-0.063

-0.063

-0.043

-0.043

0.045

0.033

-0.060

-.148(*)

0.009

-0.044

-0.022

0.054

-0.043

0.017

-0.044

0.023

0.079

0.049

-0.027

-0.014

-0.048

0.026

0.122

-0.003

-0.039

Global

-0.077

-0.085

-0.086

-0.107

-0.042

-0.047

0.029

0.004

-0.115

-.152(*)

0.051

-0.050

-0.010

0.085

-0.033

0.040

-0.023

-0.023

0.108

0.093

-0.001

-0.018

-0.079

-0.003

0.110

0.025

0.000

HDS 7
Supervisor
Mischievous

HDS 8
Colorful

Research and Information Gathering

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

20

Table 21: Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) Correlations with Performance- Alumni Sample
Intellectual and Cognitive

MVPI 1
Aesthetic

MVPI 2
Affiliation

MVPI 3
Altruistic

MVPI 4
Commercial

MVPI 5
Hedonistic

MVPI 8
Scientific

MVPI 9
Security

Planning and Organizing

Conflict Resolution

Client & Business

Relations

Working with Others

Character

26

11

10

13

14

15

12

25

18

17

16

22

23

20

21

19

24

Total

Analysis &
Reasoning

Creativity

Problem
Solving

Practical
Judgment

Researching
Law

Fact Finding

Question &
Interview

Influence &
Advocate

Writing

Speaking

Listening

Strategic
Planning

Managing Self

Managing
Others

Negotiation

Eyes of others

Networking

Advising
Clients

Developing
Relationships

Eval, Develop
& Mentor

Passion

Diligence

Integrity

Stress
management

Community
Service

Self
Development

Avg Across

-0.023

0.040

-0.014

-0.023

0.012

0.024

0.034

-0.089

-0.089

0.019

0.082

-0.001

-0.068

0.004

-0.018

.144(*)

-0.022

0.076

0.079

0.028

0.098

0.004

-0.027

0.023

.249(**)

.144(*)

0.054

Peer

-0.061

-0.025

-0.107

0.040

-0.049

-0.036

-0.014

-0.043

0.026

0.039

0.045

-0.036

-0.060

0.095

-0.101

0.024

0.021

0.007

0.067

0.077

0.095

-0.039

-0.002

-0.028

-0.005

-0.120

-0.012

Supervisor

0.011

-0.003

-0.028

0.103

0.033

-0.049

-0.120

0.011

-0.017

0.078

0.008

-0.094

-0.042

0.071

-0.030

0.137

0.050

0.100

0.014

0.040

0.036

-0.083

0.069

0.018

0.073

-0.004

0.016

Other

-0.060

-0.028

-0.075

0.065

-0.046

-0.059

-0.066

-0.028

0.001

0.058

0.022

-0.036

-0.074

0.079

-0.073

0.090

0.028

0.048

0.041

0.098

0.044

-0.118

0.028

0.015

0.062

-0.075

-0.015

Global

-0.039

-0.032

-0.083

-0.014

-0.052

-0.050

0.007

-0.102

-0.040

0.032

0.033

-0.049

-.128(*)

0.009

-0.070

0.121

-0.049

0.053

0.062

-0.001

0.074

-0.097

-0.029

-0.005

0.120

-0.025

-0.016

Self

0.067

0.035

.145(*)

.219(**)

-0.105

.156(*)

.302(**)

.152(*)

-0.042

.146(*)

0.101

0.091

0.008

0.120

0.068

0.085

.214(**)

.185(**)

.168(*)

.147(*)

.205(**)

0.016

0.016

0.001

.275(**)

0.057

.192(**)

Peer

-0.071

-0.007

-0.125

.161(*)

-0.064

-0.048

0.076

0.004

-0.068

.149(*)

-0.017

-0.042

-0.034

0.043

-0.002

0.053

0.040

0.035

0.072

0.033

0.028

-.165(*)

0.027

-0.053

0.058

0.001

0.010

Supervisor

0.023

0.108

0.011

0.104

0.009

0.009

0.117

0.038

0.018

0.022

0.028

0.027

-0.042

.158(*)

0.063

0.088

.185(*)

0.093

0.019

.217(*)

0.143

-0.057

0.071

0.002

.240(**)

0.059

0.092

Other

-0.038

0.045

-0.066

0.132

-0.003

-0.020

0.105

0.004

-0.025

0.079

-0.034

0.010

-0.069

0.120

0.063

0.087

0.093

0.030

0.049

.146(*)

0.081

-.141(*)

0.071

-0.034

.160(*)

0.040

0.043

Global

0.003

0.015

0.001

.216(**)

-0.071

0.035

.253(**)

0.081

-0.033

.150(*)

0.008

0.010

-0.026

0.105

0.060

0.083

.150(*)

.129(*)

0.101

0.121

.133(*)

-0.100

0.013

-0.042

.220(**)

0.041

0.109

Self

0.088

0.023

0.033

-0.043

0.000

0.061

0.090

0.006

-0.038

-0.065

0.074

-0.056

-0.076

-0.003

-0.024

0.111

-0.053

0.038

.136(*)

0.033

.143(*)

-0.020

0.068

-0.058

.418(**)

0.027

0.080

Peer

0.053

0.132

-0.014

0.061

0.102

0.026

0.052

0.104

0.110

0.138

.158(*)

0.095

0.085

0.046

0.045

.172(*)

-0.037

0.116

0.089

0.142

.180(*)

0.099

.174(*)

-0.025

.163(*)

0.093

.146(*)

Supervisor

0.119

.181(*)

0.048

0.143

0.139

0.076

0.158

0.060

0.065

-0.021

0.060

0.021

-0.071

0.021

-0.009

.196(**)

0.050

0.141

0.063

0.011

.189(*)

0.113

.188(*)

-0.013

.276(**)

0.046

0.124

Other

0.082

.164(*)

0.026

0.094

.160(*)

0.040

0.061

0.061

0.120

0.052

0.092

0.101

-0.006

0.045

0.042

.223(**)

-0.020

.160(*)

0.076

0.092

.203(**)

0.099

.211(**)

-0.016

.251(**)

0.073

.133(*)

Global

.140(*)

.131(*)

.149(*)

0.018

0.035

0.125

0.077

.140(*)

0.032

0.093

0.011

0.076

0.023

-0.062

0.027

0.011

.215(**)

-0.038

.150(*)

0.107

0.075

.198(**)

0.076

.187(**)

-0.040

.383(**)

0.085

Self

0.074

0.118

.152(*)

0.087

0.084

0.109

.150(*)

0.103

-0.054

0.110

0.074

.176(*)

0.112

.155(*)

0.095

-0.048

.189(*)

0.053

0.011

0.073

0.003

.183(**)

0.076

0.022

-0.054

0.128

0.122

Peer

-0.079

-.242(**)

0.032

-0.040

-.181(*)

-.159(*)

-0.057

-0.101

-0.113

-0.011

-0.125

-0.064

-0.088

-0.089

-0.091

-0.122

-0.108

-.192(**)

-0.071

-0.064

-.185(*)

-.176(*)

-.171(*)

0.026

-0.109

0.021

-.151(*)

Supervisor

0.107

0.117

0.144

0.088

0.040

0.078

.186(*)

.160(*)

0.005

.190(*)

0.129

0.148

0.051

-0.009

.195(*)

.155(*)

0.110

0.035

0.018

0.095

0.082

0.019

0.043

0.044

-0.042

0.117

0.120

Other

0.027

-0.072

0.104

0.041

-0.076

-0.039

0.081

0.034

-0.058

0.097

0.007

0.047

-0.028

-0.029

0.072

0.015

0.015

-0.083

-0.014

0.039

-0.041

-0.087

-0.104

0.037

-0.079

0.078

-0.004

Global

0.036

-0.016

.136(*)

0.077

-0.035

0.019

0.098

0.101

-0.048

0.121

0.068

0.119

0.046

0.060

0.051

0.030

0.062

-0.027

-0.007

0.064

-0.042

0.000

-0.064

0.020

-0.117

0.087

0.042

Self

-0.077

-0.042

-0.040

0.006

-0.018

0.033

0.046

-0.013

-0.123

0.006

0.029

0.001

0.041

0.052

-0.003

0.128

0.050

0.056

-0.050

0.093

0.035

0.030

-0.013

-0.028

0.098

0.003

0.016

Peer

-0.123

-0.119

-0.056

-0.108

-.266(**)

-0.111

-0.148

-.146(*)

-.151(*)

-0.002

-.177(*)

-0.122

-.192(**)

-0.085

-0.110

-0.111

-0.089

-.167(*)

-0.052

-0.089

-.167(*)

-.227(**)

-0.036

-0.057

-0.092

-0.112

-.174(*)

Supervisor

-0.065

-0.040

-0.072

-0.051

-0.140

-.158(*)

-0.074

-0.059

-0.070

0.047

-0.119

-0.036

-0.125

-0.002

-0.055

0.066

0.060

0.041

0.024

0.125

-0.025

-.166(*)

-0.022

-0.057

0.011

-0.045

-0.072

Other

-0.129

-0.082

-0.081

-0.073

-.239(**)

-.170(*)

-0.129

-0.115

-0.117

0.022

-.193(**)

-0.094

-.214(**)

-0.031

-0.068

-0.012

-0.013

-0.092

-0.019

0.020

-0.101

-.257(**)

-0.052

-0.059

-0.048

-0.082

-.145(*)

Global

-.154(*)

-0.117

-0.113

-0.074

-.208(**)

-0.112

-0.049

-0.081

-.148(*)

0.008

-.153(*)

-0.107

-.136(*)

-0.069

-0.082

0.043

-0.007

-0.028

-0.037

0.052

-0.056

-.163(*)

-0.110

-0.100

-0.014

-0.081

-0.122

Self

0.105

.161(*)

.262(**)

0.118

0.023

.205(**)

.190(**)

.233(**)

0.006

.281(**)

.161(*)

.289(**)

.198(**)

.221(**)

.217(**)

0.076

.256(**)

0.113

0.102

0.106

.183(**)

.283(**)

0.069

0.128

0.084

.257(**)

.257(**)

Peer

-0.037

-0.054

0.075

0.067

-0.095

-0.058

0.086

0.049

-0.059

-0.004

-0.064

0.068

-0.030

-0.035

0.055

-0.008

0.036

0.012

-0.058

-0.004

-0.016

0.057

-0.097

0.039

-0.007

0.145

-0.005

0.065

0.131

0.110

0.045

0.005

0.120

.206(*)

.164(*)

-0.030

0.131

0.061

0.073

-0.025

0.038

.225(**)

.159(*)

.162(*)

0.083

0.038

.177(*)

.163(*)

0.054

-0.046

0.013

-0.007

0.123

0.101

Other

-0.002

0.026

0.096

0.034

-0.075

0.012

.154(*)

0.082

-0.070

0.049

-0.035

0.050

-0.058

0.027

.147(*)

0.048

0.110

0.032

-0.025

0.100

0.064

0.023

-0.107

0.038

-0.008

0.126

0.028

Global

0.012

0.058

.167(**)

0.077

-0.080

0.071

.171(**)

.138(*)

-0.041

.148(*)

0.048

.130(*)

0.035

0.114

.160(*)

0.075

0.094

0.084

0.016

0.072

0.112

0.103

-0.094

0.060

-0.018

.170(**)

0.103

Self

0.082

.240(**)

.194(**)

.247(**)

0.039

.182(**)

.181(*)

.180(**)

0.026

.289(**)

0.109

.195(**)

0.082

.160(*)

.191(**)

.140(*)

.270(**)

0.119

.136(*)

0.098

.211(**)

.162(*)

-0.002

0.080

0.075

0.120

.234(**)

Peer

-0.007

-0.028

0.019

-0.002

-0.011

-0.027

0.097

-0.040

-0.042

0.044

-.149(*)

-0.004

0.038

-0.050

-0.058

-0.073

0.130

-0.065

-0.065

0.029

0.054

-0.059

-0.047

0.006

0.079

0.087

-0.001

Supervisor

-0.038

0.019

0.005

0.003

0.017

0.048

0.035

0.056

-0.019

0.134

-0.053

0.003

-0.052

0.080

0.066

0.022

0.112

-0.020

-0.046

0.101

0.102

-0.052

-0.101

0.024

0.072

0.057

0.013

Other

-0.036

-0.018

0.016

-0.005

-0.012

0.011

0.085

0.009

-0.038

0.090

-.134(*)

-0.031

-0.027

0.043

0.014

-0.048

0.129

-0.060

-0.071

0.080

0.080

-0.082

-0.109

0.009

0.112

0.080

-0.003

Global

-0.003

0.071

0.061

0.093

0.001

0.063

.131(*)

0.075

0.008

.192(**)

-0.062

0.034

-0.010

0.034

0.106

0.002

.144(*)

0.010

-0.005

0.056

.132(*)

-0.023

-.127(*)

0.006

0.035

0.078

0.067

Self

0.076

0.042

.218(**)

0.057

0.122

0.012

-0.036

.156(*)

0.006

0.017

0.088

.175(*)

0.008

0.004

-0.008

-0.004

0.027

-0.025

-0.086

0.046

0.034

0.113

0.127

0.043

-0.059

0.123

0.066

Peer

-.149(*)

-0.101

-0.062

-0.134

0.046

-0.094

-0.118

-0.065

0.001

-.176(*)

-0.034

-0.060

-0.096

0.048

-.174(*)

-0.076

-.155(*)

-0.001

-0.061

0.021

0.008

0.037

-0.067

-0.070

-0.100

0.006

-0.099
-0.009

Supervisor

0.077

0.009

0.058

-0.031

0.069

-0.105

-0.082

-0.020

0.009

-0.055

0.028

-0.041

-0.041

-0.064

0.003

0.019

-0.139

0.051

-0.044

-0.013

0.067

0.008

0.011

-0.003

-.166(*)

0.040

Other

-0.031

-0.036

0.014

-0.117

0.078

-0.104

-0.072

-0.069

0.011

-.140(*)

-0.018

-0.024

-0.060

-0.025

-0.087

-0.052

-0.137

0.037

-0.063

0.056

0.050

0.029

-0.030

-0.048

-0.122

0.037

-0.058

Global

0.006

-0.001

0.092

-0.052

0.090

-0.097

-0.091

0.045

0.012

-0.093

0.031

0.038

-0.057

-0.002

-0.079

-0.045

-0.106

0.023

-0.080

0.086

0.018

0.049

0.051

-0.030

-.160(*)

0.064

-0.033

Self

0.068

-0.131

-0.084

-.161(*)

0.062

-0.133

-0.123

-0.133

0.015

-.209(**)

-0.021

0.043

-0.013

0.114

-0.064

-0.004

0.003

-0.073

0.058

-0.007

-0.111

0.106

0.028

-0.103

-0.101

-0.130

-0.075

Peer

0.037

-.163(*)

0.057

-0.109

0.020

-0.070

-0.049

-0.030

0.022

-0.033

-0.021

0.010

0.097

0.101

-0.020

-0.099

-0.147

-0.107

-0.075

0.048

-.191(**)

0.058

0.050

-0.076

-0.129

0.000

-0.051

Supervisor

0.077

0.072

0.111

0.018

.192(*)

0.139

0.091

0.076

0.046

0.032

0.145

0.089

0.102

.197(*)

0.023

0.071

-0.092

0.003

0.025

0.060

-0.015

.178(*)

0.003

0.104

-0.026

0.089

0.093

Other

0.069

-0.047

0.103

-0.023

0.114

0.017

0.014

0.021

0.036

-0.014

0.041

0.051

.140(*)

.177(*)

0.024

-0.009

-0.124

-0.041

-0.025

0.056

-0.113

.138(*)

0.045

0.017

-.138(*)

0.031

0.031

Global

0.071

-0.100

0.051

-0.107

.142(*)

-0.051

-0.074

-0.049

0.045

-0.124

0.031

0.075

0.087

.169(**)

-0.048

0.033

-0.084

-0.082

-0.007

0.041

-.138(*)

.164(*)

0.055

-0.026

-.155(*)

-0.042

-0.018

Self

0.118

0.021

0.039

-0.045

-0.027

-0.014

0.007

-0.052

0.070

0.053

0.013

-0.044

-0.133

0.051

-0.013

0.005

-0.063

-0.040

0.065

0.028

0.087

-0.029

.154(*)

0.046

.226(**)

0.036

0.048

0.002

0.059

-0.027

-0.066

0.113

-0.073

-0.037

0.027

0.017

0.023

-0.113

0.131

0.094

0.048

-0.002

-0.012

-0.059

0.032

-0.065

0.102

0.105

0.024

0.136

-0.055

0.114

0.052

0.044

.155(*)

.174(*)

0.085

0.103

0.094

0.030

0.048

0.043

-0.027

0.107

0.142

0.044

-0.019

0.082

0.041

0.100

-0.006

0.046

0.046

-0.024

0.027

0.134

0.135

-0.045

0.057

0.062

0.108

Other

0.099

0.126

0.040

0.013

0.132

-0.044

-0.028

0.031

0.011

0.087

-0.019

0.099

0.030

0.065

0.038

0.058

-0.038

0.067

-0.019

0.060

0.058

0.062

0.132

-0.073

0.083

0.062

0.087

Global

.158(*)

0.105

0.066

-0.016

0.092

-0.019

0.048

0.007

0.040

0.085

0.018

0.076

-0.035

0.110

0.026

0.062

-0.046

0.039

0.024

0.014

0.097

0.021

.170(**)

-0.030

.191(**)

0.063

0.081

Peer
MVPI 10
Tradition

Communications

Self

MVPI 6 Power Supervisor

MVPI 7
Recognition

Research and Information Gathering

Supervisor

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

21

Table 22: Other Test Correlations with Performance - Alumni Sample

Intellectual and Cognitive

Planning and Organizing

Conflict Resolution

Client & Business

Relations

Working with Others

Character

26

11

10

13

14

15

12

25

18

17

16

22

23

20

21

19

24

Total

Creativity

Problem
Solving

Practical
Judgment

Researching
Law

Fact Finding

Question &
Interview

Influence &
Advocate

Writing

Speaking

Listening

Strategic
Planning

Managing Self

Managing
Others

Negotiation

Eyes of others

Networking

Advising
Clients

Developing
Relationships

Eval, Develop
& Mentor

Passion

Diligence

Integrity

Stress
management

Community
Service

Self
Development

Avg Across

Self

.189(**)

.326(**)

.288(**)

.277(**)

.098(*)

.180(**)

.296(**)

.257(**)

.191(**)

.302(**)

.283(**)

.296(**)

.269(**)

.241(**)

.234(**)

.262(**)

.274(**)

.226(**)

.267(**)

.185(**)

.326(**)

.325(**)

.225(**)

.181(**)

.331(**)

.281(**)

.419(**)

Peer

.114(**)

.181(**)

.150(**)

.086(*)

0.073

.113(*)

.142(**)

.139(**)

0.085

.136(**)

0.057

.111(*)

.111(*)

.098(*)

.114(*)

0.083

.194(**)

.162(**)

0.079

.134(**)

.203(**)

.140(**)

0.046

0.063

.190(**)

0.088

.173(**)

.186(**)

.223(**)

.195(**)

.188(**)

.128(**)

.154(**)

.212(**)

.183(**)

.134(**)

.195(**)

.197(**)

.150(**)

.127(**)

.133(**)

.183(**)

.110(*)

.206(**)

.199(**)

0.024

.133(*)

.137(**)

0.086

0.075

0.078

.261(**)

.160(**)

.200(**)

Other

.193(**)

.247(**)

.218(**)

.138(**)

.129(**)

.182(**)

.204(**)

.199(**)

.165(**)

.189(**)

.151(**)

.161(**)

.144(**)

.148(**)

.177(**)

.130(**)

.244(**)

.198(**)

.086(*)

.172(**)

.216(**)

.147(**)

0.077

0.080

.240(**)

.143(**)

.234(**)

Global

.209(**)

.310(**)

.293(**)

.228(**)

.158(**)

.233(**)

.282(**)

.285(**)

.205(**)

.286(**)

.255(**)

.246(**)

.234(**)

.200(**)

.243(**)

.189(**)

.302(**)

.262(**)

.174(**)

.173(**)

.301(**)

.268(**)

.155(**)

.161(**)

.318(**)

.234(**)

.369(**)

0.052

0.072

.098(*)

0.062

.115(**)

0.042

.125(**)

.098(*)

.092(*)

.102(*)

.135(**)

.161(**)

0.082

0.029

0.086

.115(**)

.130(**)

0.052

.118(**)

0.029

.185(**)

.097(*)

0.079

.115(**)

.101(*)

.091(*)

.165(**)

.109(*)

.147(**)

.159(**)

.115(**)

.097(*)

.136(**)

.137(**)

.164(**)

.153(**)

.089(*)

.149(**)

.114(*)

.095(*)

0.027

.097(*)

.126(**)

.157(**)

.111(*)

.090(*)

0.066

.156(**)

.112(*)

0.058

.143(**)

0.052

.130(**)

.183(**)

.120(**)

.139(**)

.165(**)

.170(**)

.144(**)

.192(**)

0.071

.145(**)

.182(**)

0.061

.136(**)

.138(**)

.093(*)

0.091

0.095

.103(*)

.136(**)

.142(**)

.104(*)

0.080

.173(**)

.115(*)

.116(*)

.121(*)

0.097

.149(**)

.174(**)

.169(**)

.173(**)

.202(**)

.182(**)

.132(**)

.207(**)

.128(**)

.212(**)

.219(**)

.109(**)

.186(**)

.176(**)

.125(**)

0.081

.133(**)

.162(**)

.170(**)

.166(**)

.133(**)

0.068

.189(**)

.135(**)

.119(**)

.175(**)

0.058

.155(**)

.222(**)

.154(**)

.185(**)

.202(**)

.176(**)

.157(**)

.173(**)

.128(**)

.206(**)

.198(**)

.116(**)

.197(**)

.196(**)

.139(**)

0.073

.144(**)

.159(**)

.164(**)

.136(**)

.147(**)

0.080

.201(**)

.147(**)

.138(**)

.176(**)

.093(*)

.138(**)

.238(**)

Self

0.035

.096(*)

.091(*)

.148(**)

0.009

0.022

.126(**)

.089(*)

0.036

.258(**)

0.063

0.043

0.010

0.038

.091(*)

.094(*)

.233(**)

0.067

.191(**)

.095(*)

.096(*)

0.036

-0.055

-0.026

.113(*)

.120(**)

.139(**)

Peer

-0.045

0.041

-0.010

0.032

0.010

0.020

0.020

-0.017

-0.002

0.038

-0.035

-0.031

-0.021

-0.028

-0.001

0.086

0.068

0.000

0.023

-0.022

0.053

-0.023

-0.038

0.014

.132(**)

0.034

0.016

Supervisor

0.022

0.018

-0.013

0.000

-0.018

-0.032

-0.052

0.008

0.004

0.058

-0.050

-0.035

-0.020

-0.033

0.034

-0.084

0.063

-0.006

0.033

-0.061

-0.008

-0.025

-0.084

-0.002

0.008

-0.038

-0.004

Other

-0.006

0.035

-0.017

0.025

-0.010

-0.018

-0.030

-0.009

-0.011

0.051

-0.042

-0.054

-0.044

-0.032

0.010

0.007

0.070

0.000

0.031

-0.055

0.029

-0.035

-0.061

-0.016

.116(**)

-0.004

0.009

Global

0.004

0.077

0.026

0.073

0.009

0.009

0.039

0.041

-0.004

.155(**)

-0.008

-0.015

-0.015

-0.013

0.051

0.034

.164(**)

0.019

.103(**)

0.007

.091(*)

-0.011

-0.067

-0.019

.118(**)

0.060

0.059

Self

0.017

.166(**)

.183(**)

.127(**)

0.058

.109(*)

.217(**)

.127(**)

.089(*)

.164(**)

.122(**)

.163(**)

.097(*)

.135(**)

.199(**)

.132(**)

.221(**)

.111(*)

.158(**)

.163(**)

.164(**)

.093(*)

.166(**)

.214(**)

.126(**)

.130(**)

.211(**)

Peer

-0.002

0.037

0.064

0.031

-0.011

0.035

.113(*)

0.039

0.011

.097(*)

0.035

0.070

0.023

0.063

0.038

0.033

.134(**)

0.076

0.080

0.068

0.076

-0.008

0.022

.104(*)

.133(**)

0.026

0.080

Supervisor

0.054

0.049

.111(*)

.108(*)

0.030

0.055

0.087

.127(**)

-0.014

.154(**)

.100(*)

0.052

0.045

0.020

0.094

0.083

0.059

.123(*)

.091(*)

0.030

.133(**)

.117(*)

0.056

.119(*)

.105(*)

.096(*)

.123(**)

Other

0.021

0.041

.085(*)

0.064

-0.003

0.042

.094(*)

.095(*)

-0.027

.151(**)

0.069

0.071

0.013

0.058

0.065

0.049

.112(**)

.096(*)

.092(*)

0.057

.117(**)

0.045

0.027

.130(**)

.123(**)

0.067

.104(*)

Global

-0.007

.088(*)

.130(**)

.083(*)

-0.006

0.070

.170(**)

.110(**)

0.013

.185(**)

.117(**)

.091(*)

0.035

.108(**)

.158(**)

.090(*)

.141(**)

.116(**)

.134(**)

.088(*)

.163(**)

0.069

0.075

.182(**)

.134(**)

.109(**)

.147(**)

-0.071

-.121(**)

0.022

-.114(**)

-0.067

-0.059

-0.012

-.083(*)

-0.033

-.131(**)

-0.067

-.078(*)

-.083(*)

-0.042

-0.003

-0.047

-.103(**)

-0.047

-.127(**) -.098(**) -.106(**) -.091(*)

-.078(*)

-0.056

-.123(**)

Self
Peer
Situational
Judgment Test Supervisor
(SJT)
Other
Global

Optimism
(OPT)

Communications

Analysis &
Reasoning

Biographical
Supervisor
Inventory (BIO)

Self
Monitoring
Scale (SMS)

Research and Information Gathering

Self
Peer
Emotion
Recognition Supervisor
(ER)
Other
Global

-.084(*) -.112(**)
0.016

0.037

0.018

0.001

.103(**)

0.005

-0.007

0.041

.079(*)

-0.038

-0.066

0.005

-0.027

0.020

-0.025

0.011

-0.017

0.001

0.022

0.012

-0.019

0.029

0.049

-0.019

0.013

-0.003

0.007

0.024

-0.062

-0.038

0.020

0.055

0.029

-0.048

0.003

0.068

0.055

-0.059

0.020

0.031

-0.032

-0.028

-0.010

-0.026

-0.033

-0.067

-0.034

-0.052

0.054

-0.031

-.086(*)

0.002

0.004

0.001

0.045

-0.009

-0.002

0.039

.092(*)

0.023

0.008

0.031

.089(*)

0.018

-0.049

0.030

0.019

0.019

-0.030

0.016

-0.023

0.028

0.017

0.010

-0.021

0.063

0.026

-0.045

0.024

0.011

0.027

0.038

-0.040

-0.011

0.004

.075(*)

-0.015

-0.030

0.001

0.068

-0.020

-0.049

-0.017

-0.007

-0.035

-0.041

0.006

-0.001

0.004

-0.024

0.010

-0.063

0.019

-0.015

-.074(*)

-0.013

-0.001

-0.015

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

22

Table 23:
Self Stepwise Regressions TOTAL ALUMNI SAMPLE
(Entered LSAT, Index, HPI, BIO, SJT, OPT)

Intellectual and
Cognitive
Research &
Information
Gathering
Communications

Change Statistics

.454(a)
.528(b)
.539(c)

.206
.279
.291

.204
.274
.284

.32276
.30826
.30608

H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
OPT
BIO
H 2 (Ambition)
H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
H 2 (Ambition)
BIO

.224(a)
.251(b)
.274(c)
.326(a)
.373(b)
.309(a)
.360(b)
.293(a)
.344(b)

.050
.063
.075
.106
.139
.095
.130
.086
.118

.047
.057
.066
.103
.133
.092
.124
.083
.113

.47828
.47583
.47348
.57907
.56935
.47939
.47095
.48699
.47906

.050
.013
.012
.106
.033
.095
.034
.086
.032

16.371
4.200
4.083
36.849
11.678
32.630
12.207
29.142
11.350

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

310
309
308
310
309
310
309
310
309

.000
.041
.044
.000
.001
.000
.001
.000
.001

H 2 (Ambition)

.122(a)

.015

.012

.52871

.015

4.722

310

.031

H 2 (Ambition)

.262(a)

.069

.066

.52028

.069

22.897

310

.000

H6 (Intellec)

.288(b)

.083

.077

.51718

.014

4.720

309

.031

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing

H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
H 4 (Interper. Sensitivity)

.326(a)
.376(b)
.390(c)

.106
.141
.152

.103
.136
.144

.53326
.52347
.52098

.106
.035
.011

36.757
12.697
3.964

1
1
1

310
309
308

.000
.000
.047

(10) Influencing and

Advocating

H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
BIO
LSAT
H 2 (Ambition)
H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
BIO
H 4 (Interper. Sensitivity)
SJT

.317(a)
.350(b)
.191(a)
.223(b)
.253(c)
.384(a)
.420(b)
.283(a)
.317(b)
.335(c)

.101
.123
.036
.050
.064
.148
.177
.080
.100
.112

.098
.117
.033
.044
.055
.145
.171
.077
.094
.103

.49011
.48484
.55365
.55068
.54736
.59936
.59005
.48763
.48294
.48058

.101
.022
.036
.013
.014
.148
.029
.080
.021
.012

34.725
7.775
11.677
4.352
4.759
53.749
10.857
26.886
7.045
4.044

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

310
309
310
309
308
310
309
310
309
308

.000
.006
.001
.038
.030
.000
.001
.000
.008
.045

H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
SJT
BIO
H 2 (Ambition)
H 6 (Intellec)
H 3 (Sociability)
H 2 (Ambition)

.326(a)
.376(b)
.395(c)
.269(a)
.324(b)
.372(c)
.389(d)
.268(a)

.106
.141
.156
.072
.105
.138
.151
.072

.103
.136
.148
.069
.099
.130
.140
.069

.55959
.54940
.54537
.64414
.63373
.62285
.61911
.60098

.106
.035
.015
.072
.033
.033
.013
.072

36.767
12.612
5.586
24.188
11.259
11.896
4.727
23.948

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

310
309
308
310
309
308
307
310

.000
.000
.019
.000
.001
.001
.030
.000

BIO

.308(b)

.095

.089

.59441

.023

7.885

309

.005

H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
Index
BIO
H 4 (Interper. Sensitivity)
H 2 (Ambition)

.307(a)
.333(b)
.351(c)
.262(a)
.321(b)
.340(c)

.094
.111
.123
.069
.103
.116

.091
.105
.115
.066
.097
.107

.55630
.55217
.54918
.46590
.45804
.45552

.094
.016
.012
.069
.034
.013

32.321
5.661
4.373
22.905
11.742
4.426

1
1
1
1
1
1

310
309
308
310
309
308

.000
.018
.037
.000
.001
.036

H 2 (Ambition)

.367(a)

.135

.132

.75564

.135

48.195

310

.000

BIO

.395(b)

.156

.151

.74738

.022

7.891

309

.005

H 3 (Sociability)
SJT
H 2 (Ambition)
BIO

.412(c)
.425(d)
.239(a)
.281(b)

.170
.181
.057
.079

.162
.170
.054
.073

.74252
.73868
.45832
.45378

.014
.011
.057
.022

5.059
4.210
18.799
7.235

1
1
1
1

308
307
310
309

.025
.041
.000
.008

H 4 (Interper. Sensitivity)

.332(a)

.110

.107

.49894

.110

38.319

310

.000

BIO

.386(b)

.149

.143

.48872

.039

14.102

309

.000

H 2 (Ambition)

.263(a)

.069

.066

.53190

.069

23.019

310

.000

H 4 (Interper. Sensitivity)

.303(b)

.092

.086

.52620

.023

7.750

309

.006

H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
SJT
BIO
H 2 (Ambition)
H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
H 3 (Sociability)
H 1 (Adjustment)
H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
H 3 (Sociability)
LSAT
H 2 (Ambition)
BIO

.346(a)
.406(b)
.430(c)
.325(a)
.359(b)
.238(a)
.279(b)
.300(c)
.366(a)
.403(b)
.331(a)
.359(b)
.376(c)
.295(a)
.348(b)

.120
.164
.185
.106
.129
.057
.078
.090
.134
.163
.109
.129
.141
.087
.121

.117
.159
.177
.103
.123
.054
.072
.081
.131
.157
.106
.123
.133
.084
.115

.71093
.69379
.68620
.56597
.55944
.38623
.38246
.38055
.59344
.58442
.81390
.80637
.80186
.57878
.56887

.120
.045
.021
.106
.023
.057
.021
.012
.134
.029
.109
.019
.013
.087
.034

42.191
16.513
7.872
36.575
8.279
18.650
7.135
4.104
47.948
10.645
38.054
6.819
4.490
29.647
11.893

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

310
309
308
310
309
310
309
308
310
309
310
309
308
310
309

.000
.000
.005
.000
.004
.000
.008
.044
.000
.001
.000
.009
.035
.000
.001

(1)
Analysis and
Reasoning
(2)
Creativity/ Innovation
(26)
Problem Solving
(3)
Practical Judgment
(6)
Researching the Law
(5)
Fact Finding

(8)
Writing
(7)
Speaking
(9)
Listening

Planning and
Organizing

(14)
Organizing and
Managing Ones Own
Work

Conflict
Resolution

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Client &
Business
Relations

Std.
Error of
the Est.

H 2 (Ambition)
BIO
SJT

(13)
Strategic Planning

Working
with
Others

Adjust
R
Square

R
Square
Change
.206
.072
.012

Average Across All

Appraisals

(15)
Organizing & Managing
Others

(25)
Able to See the World
Thru Eyes of Others
(18)
Networking and
Business Development
(4)
Advising Clients
(17) Developing
Relationships in the
Legal Profession
(16)
Evaluation, Develop. &
Mentoring
Passion and
Engagement (22)
(23)
Diligence

Character

R
Square

(20)
Integrity/ Honesty
(21)
Stress Management
(19)
Community Service
(24)
Self-Development

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

F
Change
80.649
30.859
5.410

df1
1
1
1

df2
310
309
308

Sig. F
Change
.000
.000
.021

23

Table 24:
Peer Stepwise Regressions TOTAL ALUMNI SAMPLE
(Entered LSAT, Index, HPI, BIO, SJT, OPT)

Intellectual and
Cognitive
Research &
Information
Gathering
Communications
Planning and
Organizing
Conflict
Resolut
ion
Client &
Business
Relations

Std.
Error of
the Est.

Change Statistics
R
Square
Change

F
Change

df1

df2

Sig. F
Change

.183(a)

.033

.030

.38831

.033

10.732

310

.001

BIO

.240(b)

.057

.051

.38407

.024

7.872

309

.005

BIO

.114(a)

.013

.010

.47915

.013

4.046

310

.045

(2)
Creativity/ Innovation

BIO

.181(a)

.033

.030

.60344

.033

10.501

310

.001

SJT

.222(b)

.049

.043

.59921

.017

5.387

309

.021

(26)
Problem Solving

SJT

.159(a)

.025

.022

.48889

.025

8.091

310

.005

BIO

.209(b)

.043

.037

.48512

.018

5.829

309

.016

SJT

.115(a)

.013

.010

.60455

.013

4.177

310

.042

SJT

.136(a)

.019

.015

.49343

.019

5.858

310

.016

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing
(10)
Influencing and
Advocating

BIO

.142(a)

.020

.017

.54128

.020

6.409

310

.012

SJT

.188(b)

.035

.029

.53795

.015

4.845

309

.028

SJT

.164(a)

.027

.024

.52429

.027

8.533

310

.004

BIO

.204(b)

.042

.036

.52106

.015

4.844

309

.028

(8)
Writing

SJT

.153(a)

.023

.020

.59855

.023

7.401

310

.007

LSAT

.209(b)

.044

.037

.59327

.020

6.546

309

.011

HPI 2 (Ambition)

.140(a)

.020

.017

.57758

.020

6.231

310

.013

SJT

.149(a)

.022

.019

.52541

.022

7.021

310

.008

SJT

.114(a)

.013

.010

.51946

.013

4.066

310

.045

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.134(a)

.018

.015

.61395

.018

5.664

310

.018

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.118(a)

.014

.011

.60681

.014

4.411

310

.037

BIO

.114(a)

.013

.010

.51105

.013

4.082

310

.044

SJT

.126(a)

.016

.013

.52614

.016

4.972

310

.026

HPI 2 (Ambition)

.213(a)

.045

.042

.67547

.045

14.703

310

.000

SJT

.256(b)

.066

.060

.66932

.020

6.729

309

.010

BIO

.279(c)

.078

.069

.66592

.012

4.163

308

.042

BIO

.162(a)

.026

.023

.47695

.026

8.313

310

.004

HPI 4
(Interpers.
Sensitivity)

.151(a)

.023

.020

.56131

.023

7.200

310

.008

BIO

.134(a)

.018

.015

.60235

.018

5.672

310

.018

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.176(b)

.031

.025

.59933

.013

4.129

309

.043

Passion and
Engagement (22)

BIO

.203(a)

.041

.038

.62361

.041

13.314

310

.000

SJT

.244(b)

.060

.054

.61856

.019

6.088

309

.014

(23)
Diligence

BIO

.140(a)

.020

.016

.55003

.020

6.203

310

.013

HPI 3 (Sociability)

.188(b)

.036

.029

.54644

.016

5.091

309

.025

LSAT

.124(a)

.015

.012

.43498

.015

4.870

310

.028

HPI 1 (Adjustment)

.160(a)

.026

.022

.60217

.026

8.142

310

.005

SJT

.205(b)

.042

.036

.59809

.016

5.244

309

.023

BIO

.190(a)

.036

.033

.69692

.036

11.567

310

.001

HPI 4
(Interpers.
Sensitivity)

.219(b)

.048

.042

.69371

.012

3.877

309

.050

SJT

.130(a)

.017

.014

.58586

.017

5.299

310

.022

Analysis and
Reasoning

(3)
Practical Judgment
(6)
Researching the Law

Working
with Others

Adjust
R
Square

SJT

Average Across All

Appraisals
(1)

Character

R
Square

(5)
Fact Finding

(7)
Speaking
(9)
Listening
(13)
Strategic Planning
(14)
Organizing and
Managing Ones Own
Work
(15)
Organizing and
Managing Others
(12)
Negotiation Skills
(25)
Able to See the World
Thru Eyes of Others
(18)
Networking and
Business Development
(4)
Advising Clients
(17)
Developing
Relationships within the
Legal Profession
(16)
Evaluation, Develop. &
Mentoring

(20)
Integrity/ Honesty
(21)
Stress Management
(19)
Community Service
(24)
Self-Development

NONE

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

24

Table 25:
Supervisor Stepwise Regressions TOTAL ALUMNI SAMPLE
(Entered LSAT, Index, HPI, BIO, SJT, OPT)

Intellectual and
Cognitive
Research &
Information
Gathering
Communications
Planning and
Organizing
Conflict
Resolut
ion
Client &
Business
Relations
Working
with
Others

Adjust
R
Square

Std.
Error of
the Est.

Change Statistics
R
Square
Change

F
Change

df1

df2

Sig. F
Change

BIO

.200(a)

.040

.037

.44330

.040

12.898

310

.000

SJT

.253(b)

.064

.058

.43847

.024

7.863

309

.005

BIO

.186(a)

.035

.032

.59004

.035

11.115

310

.001

LSAT

.217(b)

.047

.041

.58716

.012

4.047

309

.045

(2)
Creativity/ Innovation

BIO

.223(a)

.050

.047

.63262

.050

16.294

310

.000

SJT

.252(b)

.064

.058

.62908

.014

4.501

309

.035

(26)
Problem Solving

BIO

.195(a)

.038

.035

.55117

.038

12.251

310

.001

SJT

.243(b)

.059

.053

.54596

.021

6.946

309

.009

(3)
Practical Judgment

BIO

.188(a)

.035

.032

.65542

.035

11.306

310

.001

SJT

.241(b)

.058

.052

.64863

.023

7.521

309

.006

(6)
Researching the Law

SJT

.144(a)

.021

.018

.58824

.021

6.566

310

.011

BIO

.184(b)

.034

.027

.58528

.013

4.143

309

.043

(5)
Fact Finding

SJT

.192(a)

.037

.034

.53508

.037

11.893

310

.001

BIO

.235(b)

.055

.049

.53089

.018

5.910

309

.016

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing
(10)
Influencing and
Advocating

BIO

.212(a)

.045

.042

.53679

.045

14.531

310

.000

HPI 6 (Intellect.)

.250(b)

.062

.056

.53267

.018

5.822

309

.016

BIO

.183(a)

.034

.030

.56931

.034

10.773

310

.001

SJT

.223(b)

.050

.044

.56544

.016

5.261

309

.022

(8)
Writing

SJT

.182(a)

.033

.030

.65768

.033

10.648

310

.001

Index

.254(b)

.065

.059

.64795

.031

10.376

309

.001

BIO

.282(c)

.080

.071

.64379

.015

5.011

308

.026

BIO

.195(a)

.038

.035

.63379

.038

12.195

310

.001

(9)
Listening

BIO

.197(a)

.039

.036

.56746

.039

12.471

310

.000

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.230(b)

.053

.047

.56422

.014

4.577

309

.033

(13)
Strategic Planning

BIO

.150(a)

.023

.019

.55957

.023

7.166

310

.008

SJT

.194(b)

.038

.032

.55611

.015

4.873

309

.028

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.180(a)

.032

.029

.68558

.032

10.387

310

.001

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.166(a)

.027

.024

.68057

.027

8.739

310

.003

BIO

.202(b)

.041

.035

.67689

.014

4.377

309

.037

HPI 2 (Ambition)

.232(a)

.054

.051

.55045

.054

17.601

310

.000

HPI 1 (Adjustment)

.164(a)

.027

.024

.57600

.027

8.565

310

.004

(18)
Networking and
Business Development

HPI 2 (Ambition)

.238(a)

.057

.054

.68763

.057

18.659

310

.000

BIO

.270(b)

.073

.067

.68290

.016

5.311

309

.022

SJT

.291(c)

.085

.076

.67957

.012

4.033

308

.046

(4)
Advising Clients

BIO

.199(a)

.040

.037

.51070

.040

12.818

310

.000

SJT

.233(b)

.055

.048

.50757

.015

4.840

309

.029

(17) Developing
Relationships within the
Legal Profession

HPI 4
(Interpers.
Sensitivity)
HPI 4
(Interpers.
Sensitivity)

.160(a)

.026

.022

.60863

.026

8.140

310

.005

.151(a)

.023

.020

.58191

.023

7.233

310

.008

HPI 2 (Ambition)

.214(a)

.046

.043

.59120

.046

14.834

310

.000

SJT

.266(b)

.071

.065

.58429

.025

8.376

309

.004

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.167(a)

.028

.025

.56444

.028

8.945

310

.003

SJT

.116(a)

.014

.010

.43177

.014

4.252

310

.040

HPI 1 (Adjustment)

.212(a)

.045

.042

.59221

.045

14.539

310

.000

BIO
HPI 4
(Interpers.
Sensitivity)
HPI 6 (Intellect.)

.261(a)

.068

.065

.67203

.068

22.665

310

.000

.285(b)

.081

.075

.66842

.013

4.357

309

.038

.310(c)

.096

.087

.66400

.015

5.125

308

.024

HPI 2 (Ambition)

.171(a)

.029

.026

.57906

.029

9.319

310

.002

SJT

.219(b)

.048

.042

.57433

.019

6.128

309

.014

Average Across All

Appraisals
(1)
Analysis and
Reasoning

(7)
Speaking

(14) Organizing and

Managing Ones Own
Work
(15)
Organizing and
Managing Others
(12)
Negotiation Skills
(25)
Able to See the World
Thru Eyes of Others

(16) Evaluation,
Develop. & Mentoring
Passion and
Engagement (22)

Character

R
Square

(23)
Diligence
(20)
Integrity/ Honesty
(21)
Stress Management
(19)
Community Service

(24)
Self-Development

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

25

Table 26:
Other Stepwise Regressions TOTAL ALUMNI SAMPLE
(Entered LSAT, Index, HPI, BIO, SJT, OPT)

Intellectual and Cognitive

Research &
Information
Gathering
Communications
Planning and
Organizing
Conflict
Resoluti
on
Client &
Business
Relations
Working
with Others

Adjust
R
Square

Std.
Error of
the Est.

Change Statistics
R
Square
Change

F
Change

df1

df2

Sig. F
Change

BIO

.234(a)

.055

.052

.36738

.055

18.030

310

.000

SJT

.307(b)

.095

.089

.36019

.040

13.510

309

.000

BIO

.193(a)

.037

.034

.47947

.037

11.940

310

.001

SJT

.244(b)

.059

.053

.47464

.022

7.342

309

.007

LSAT

.282(c)

.080

.071

.47029

.020

6.741

308

.010

HPI 3 (Sociability)

.307(d)

.095

.083

.46722

.015

5.066

307

.025

BIO

.247(a)

.061

.058

.55760

.061

20.103

310

.000

SJT

.288(b)

.083

.077

.55193

.022

7.394

309

.007

LSAT

.313(c)

.098

.089

.54824

.015

5.172

308

.024

(26)
Problem Solving

BIO

.218(a)

.047

.044

.44969

.047

15.421

310

.000

SJT

.283(b)

.080

.074

.44265

.033

10.937

309

.001

(3)
Practical Judgment

SJT

.182(a)

.033

.030

.53240

.033

10.594

310

.001

BIO

.218(b)

.047

.041

.52928

.014

4.667

309

.032

(6)
Researching the Law

SJT

.132(a)

.017

.014

.49800

.017

5.495

310

.020

BIO

.176(b)

.031

.025

.49535

.014

4.328

309

.038

LSAT

.211(c)

.044

.035

.49272

.013

4.297

308

.039

SJT

.207(a)

.043

.040

.44781

.043

13.887

310

.000

BIO

.262(b)

.069

.063

.44241

.026

8.604

309

.004

BIO

.204(a)

.041

.038

.48043

.041

13.401

310

.000

SJT

.212(a)

.045

.042

.48026

.045

14.647

310

.000

BIO

.277(b)

.077

.071

.47297

.032

10.623

309

.001

SJT

.219(a)

.048

.045

.53884

.048

15.683

310

.000

Index

.287(b)

.082

.076

.52995

.034

11.485

309

.001

BIO

.324(c)

.105

.096

.52427

.022

7.727

308

.006

BIO

.189(a)

.036

.033

.52365

.036

11.494

310

.001

SJT

.186(a)

.034

.031

.45723

.034

11.063

310

.001

BIO

.228(b)

.052

.046

.45378

.018

5.739

309

.017

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.253(c)

.064

.055

.45167

.012

3.886

308

.050

(13)
Strategic Planning

SJT

.176(a)

.031

.028

.47496

.031

9.928

310

.002

BIO

.227(b)

.052

.045

.47066

.021

6.690

309

.010

(14) Organizing and

Managing Ones Own
Work
(15)
Organizing and
Managing Others

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.199(a)

.040

.037

.57966

.040

12.829

310

.000

BIO

.235(b)

.055

.049

.57589

.016

5.071

309

.025

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.167(a)

.028

.025

.57551

.028

8.874

310

.003

BIO

.213(b)

.045

.039

.57128

.017

5.609

309

.018

(12)
Negotiation Skills

BIO

.177(a)

.031

.028

.48024

.031

9.985

310

.002

SJT

.211(b)

.045

.038

.47771

.013

4.305

309

.039

(25)
Able to See the World
Thru Eyes of Others

SJT
HPI 4
(Interpers.Sensitivity)

.162(a)

.026

.023

.45776

.026

8.330

310

.004

.208(b)

.043

.037

.45450

.017

5.462

309

.020

(18)
Networking and
Business Development

BIO

.244(a)

.060

.057

.63410

.060

19.673

310

.000

HPI 2 (Ambition)

.291(b)

.085

.079

.62658

.025

8.491

309

.004

SJT

.323(c)

.105

.096

.62076

.020

6.813

308

.009

(4)
Advising Clients

BIO

.198(a)

.039

.036

.43101

.039

12.653

310

.000

SJT

.246(b)

.061

.055

.42684

.022

7.083

309

.008

.177(a)

.031

.028

.50913

.031

10.054

310

.002

.221(b)

.049

.043

.50538

.017

5.606

309

.019

BIO

.172(a)

.030

.027

.55236

.030

9.499

310

.002

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.224(b)

.050

.044

.54742

.020

6.616

309

.011

BIO

.216(a)

.047

.044

.55027

.047

15.181

310

.000

SJT

.274(b)

.075

.069

.54296

.028

9.404

309

.002

HPI 2 (Ambition)

.303(c)

.092

.083

.53884

.017

5.741

308

.017

Average Across All

Appraisals

(1)
Analysis and
Reasoning

(2)
Creativity/ Innovation

(5)
Fact Finding
(11) Questioning and
Interviewing
(10)
Influencing and
Advocating
(8)
Writing
(7) Speaking
(9)
Listening

(17) Developing
Relationships within the
Legal Profession
(16)
Evaluation, Develop. &
Mentoring
Passion and
Engagement (22)

HPI 4
(Interpers.
Sensitivity)
SJT

HPI 5 (Prudence)

.189(a)

.036

.033

.50176

.036

11.541

310

.001

BIO

.229(b)

.052

.046

.49826

.016

5.365

309

.021

HPI 3 (Sociability)

.260(c)

.067

.058

.49508

.015

4.982

308

.026

(20)
Integrity/ Honesty

SJT

.119(a)

.014

.011

.38226

.014

4.468

310

.035

Index

.163(b)

.027

.020

.38047

.012

3.918

309

.049

(21)
Stress Management

HPI 1 (Adjustment)

.220(a)

.048

.045

.52217

.048

15.749

310

.000

SJT

.269(b)

.072

.066

.51644

.024

7.913

309

.005

(19)
Community Service

BIO
HPI 4 (Interpers.
Sensitivity)
SJT

.240(a)

.058

.055

.65965

.058

18.953

310

.000

.272(b)

.074

.068

.65489

.017

5.520

309

.019

.155(a)

.024

.021

.52759

.024

7.587

310

.006

BIO

.201(b)

.040

.034

.52400

.016

5.272

309

.022

(23)
Diligence

Character

R
Square

(24)
Self-Development

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

26

Table 27:
Tally of variables from stepwise regressions:

Self appraisals:
HPI and BIO are most frequent

HPI 2 Ambition = 23
BIO = 22
SJT = 4
HPI 4 Interpersonal Sensitivity = 4
HPI 3 Sociability = 4
HPI 6 Intellectance = 2
LSAT = 2
OPT = 1
Index = 1
HPI 1 Adjustment = 1

Peer appraisals:
SJT and BIO are most frequent

SJT = 14
BIO = 12
HPI 5 Prudence = 3
HPI 2 Ambition = 2
HPI 4 Interpersonal Sensitivity = 2
LSAT = 2
HPI 3 Sociability = 1
HPI 1 Adjustment = 1

Supervisor Appraisals:
BIO and SJT are most frequent

BIO = 16
SJT = 13
HPI 5 Prudence = 4
HPI 2 Ambition = 4
HPI 4 Interpersonal Sensitivity = 3
HPI 1 Adjustment = 2
HPI 6 Intellectance = 2
LSAT = 1
Index = 1

Other Appraisals (Average of Peer and Supervisor):

BIO and SJT are most frequent

BIO = 22
SJT = 19
HPI 5 Prudence = 4
LSAT = 3
HPI 4 Interpersonal Sensitivity = 3
HPI 3 Sociability = 2
Index = 2
HPI 2 Ambition = 2
HPI 1 Adjustment = 1

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

27

Table 28: Correlation of UGPA, LSAT, and Index with 1LGPA

Correlations
Zscore: Undergrad GPA

Zscore: Adjusted LSAT

score
Index 50/50

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1L GPA
.214**
.000
1065
.424**
.000
1055
.419**
.000
1050

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 29: Correlations of UGPA, LSAT, and Index with 1LGPA BERKELEY ALUMNI SAMPLE ONLY
Correlations
Zscore: Undergrad GPA

Zscore: Adjusted LSAT

score
Index 50/50

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1L GPA
.237**
.000
675
.492**
.000
671
.483**
.000
667

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 30: Correlations of UGPA, LSAT, and Index with 1LGPA HASTINGS ALUMNI SAMPLE ONLY
Correlations
Zscore: Undergrad GPA

Zscore: Adjusted LSAT

score
Index 50/50

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1L GPA
.237**
.000
675
.492**
.000
671
.483**
.000
667

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

28

Table 31: Correlations of all tests with 1LGPA ALL ALUMNI

Correlations
HPI 1 Adjustment

HPI 2 Ambition

HPI 3 Sociability

HPI 4 Interpersonal
Sensitivity
HPI 5 Prudence

HPI 6 Intellectance

HPI 7 Learning Approach

HDS 1 Excitable

HDS 2 Skeptical

HDS 3 Cautious

HDS 4 Reserved

HDS 5 Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 7 Mischievous

HDS 8 Colorful

HDS 9 Imaginative

HDS 10 Diligent

HDS 11 Dutiful

MVPI 1 Aesthetic

MVPI 2 Affiliation

MVPI 3 Altruistic

MVPI 4 Commercial

MVPI 5 Hedonistic

MVPI 6 Power

MVPI 7 Recognition

MVPI 8 Scientific

MVPI 9 Security

MVPI 10 Tradition

BIO mean score

SJT mean score

SMS total score

OPT total score

ER Sum total score

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1L GPA
-.074*
.030
853
-.118**
.001
853
-.085*
.013
853
-.122**
.000
853
.003
.932
853
.000
.995
853
.214**
.000
853
.158**
.009
276
-.050
.410
276
.116
.053
276
.106
.078
276
.000
.995
276
-.033
.585
275
-.056
.350
276
-.061
.316
276
-.109
.070
276
-.070
.249
276
.014
.823
276
-.055
.379
254
-.055
.384
254
-.088
.163
254
-.093
.141
254
-.146*
.020
254
-.033
.597
254
-.041
.510
254
.052
.408
254
.059
.348
254
-.096
.127
254
-.092*
.018
665
.008
.848
633
.044
.257
656
-.077*
.047
660
.080*
.022
816

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

29

Table 32: Correlations of all tests with 1LGPA BERKELEY ALUMNI SAMPLE ONLY
Correlations
HPI 1 Adjustment

HPI 2 Ambition

HPI 3 Sociability

HPI 4 Interpersonal
Sensitivity
HPI 5 Prudence

HPI 6 Intellectance

HPI 7 Learning Approach

HDS 1 Excitable

HDS 2 Skeptical

HDS 3 Cautious

HDS 4 Reserved

HDS 5 Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 7 Mischievous

HDS 8 Colorful

HDS 9 Imaginative

HDS 10 Diligent

HDS 11 Dutiful

MVPI 1 Aesthetic

MVPI 2 Affiliation

MVPI 3 Altruistic

MVPI 4 Commercial

MVPI 5 Hedonistic

MVPI 6 Power

MVPI 7 Recognition

MVPI 8 Scientific

MVPI 9 Security

MVPI 10 Tradition

BIO mean score

SJT mean score

SMS total score

OPT total score

ER Sum total score

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1L GPA
-.042
.324
547
-.111**
.009
547
-.100*
.020
547
-.125**
.003
547
.020
.642
547
-.005
.904
547
.216**
.000
547
.130
.081
182
-.077
.302
182
.124
.095
182
.112
.134
182
-.028
.711
182
-.072
.334
182
-.052
.489
182
-.058
.434
182
-.147*
.048
182
-.106
.155
182
.091
.220
182
-.075
.350
158
-.119
.137
158
-.201*
.011
158
-.081
.313
158
-.191*
.016
158
-.028
.730
158
-.032
.685
158
.052
.519
158
.092
.251
158
-.130
.103
158
-.092
.061
416
.002
.969
410
.074
.132
412
-.074
.132
414
.123**
.005
520

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

30

Table 33: Correlations of all tests with 1LGPA HASTINGS ALUMNI SAMPLE ONLY
Correlations
HPI 1 Adjustment

HPI 2 Ambition

HPI 3 Sociability

HPI 4 Interpersonal
Sensitivity
HPI 5 Prudence

HPI 6 Intellectance

HPI 7 Learning Approach

HDS 1 Excitable

HDS 2 Skeptical

HDS 3 Cautious

HDS 4 Reserved

HDS 5 Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 7 Mischievous

HDS 8 Colorful

HDS 9 Imaginative

HDS 10 Diligent

HDS 11 Dutiful

MVPI 1 Aesthetic

MVPI 2 Affiliation

MVPI 3 Altruistic

MVPI 4 Commercial

MVPI 5 Hedonistic

MVPI 6 Power

MVPI 7 Recognition

MVPI 8 Scientific

MVPI 9 Security

MVPI 10 Tradition

BIO mean score

SJT mean score

SMS total score

OPT total score

ER Sum total score

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1L GPA
-.150**
.008
306
-.146*
.011
306
-.062
.278
306
-.134*
.019
306
-.029
.613
306
-.016
.777
306
.247**
.000
306
.237*
.021
94
.008
.938
94
.116
.264
94
.099
.343
94
.063
.546
94
.066
.527
93
-.097
.351
94
-.073
.483
94
-.052
.615
94
.045
.667
94
-.192
.063
94
-.013
.904
96
.136
.188
96
.206*
.044
96
-.144
.163
96
-.057
.578
96
-.054
.604
96
-.077
.459
96
.060
.564
96
-.018
.860
96
-.017
.867
96
-.081
.204
249
.042
.532
223
-.006
.930
244
-.069
.278
246
-.008
.892
296

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

31

Table 34:
Background Info for Student Sample: n = 203

School

Sex

Ethnicity

Current year
in Law School

Plan to
practice law?

Frequency

Percent

Hastings

Berkeley

203

100

Female

134

66.0

Male

69

34.0

Caucasian

126

62.1

African American

3.4

Hispanic

19

9.4

Asian/Pacific Islander

32

15.8

Native American

16

7.9

Mixed Race/Ethnicity

126

62.1

Missing

1.5

First year (1L)

Second year (2L)

120

59.1

Third year (3L)

82

40.4

Missing

.5

No

10

4.9

Yes

192

94.6

.5

-- Solo practice

-- Small firm (2-10 attorneys total)

-- Small-medium firm
(11-50 attorneys total)
-- Medium firm
(51-150 attorneys total)
-- Large firm (151+ attorneys
total)
-- Business

1.5

10

4.9

20

9.9

66

32.5

1.0

Government Practice

27

13.3

Public Interest Practice

31

15.3

2.0

1.0

2.5

.5

.5

Research or Policy Analysis

2.5

Politician/ Staff or Lobbying

Organizational/Administrative,
Managerial or Policy Work
Missing

11

5.4

2.0

11

5.4

Missing

Private Practice

In-house Counsel:

Desired
Future
Work Setting?

Dispute Resolution

Academic/Education

-- Non-profit

-- Judge (including Magistrate,

ALJ,
or Judicial Staff/Clerks)
-- Private Arbitrator, Mediator
-- Law School Faculty
-- Law School Administration,
Library, or Services
-- Non-Law Academic Faculty
-- Non-Law Academic
Administration, Library, or
Services

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

32

Intended
practice area

Frequency

Percent

Wills, Trusts & Estates

3.0

Voting Rights & Election

.5

Taxation

3.4

Securities - Litigation

.5

Real Estate Development

.5

Real Estate (transactions)

1.0

Privacy

1.5

Poverty & Govt Benefits

1.0

Labor

1.5

International (Public)

3.0

International (Private)

2.5

Intellectual Property

18

8.9

Immigration

3.0

Human Rights

3.4

Health & FDA

2.0

Environmental

3.9

Entertainment/ Sports

2.0

Employment

3.0

Disability

.5

Criminal & Criminal Procedure

16

7.9

Corporate & Business Transactions

20

9.9

Corporate & Business Litigation

3.9

Contracts and Commercial

.5

Constitutional

1.5

Community Economic Development

1.0

Civil Rights

21

10.3

Civil Litigation (general)

16

7.9

Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor

1.0

Appellate

3.0

Antitrust

1.0

Administrative

2.0

Missing

11

5.4

Table 35:
Means for School-Based Performance Measures (Students only)
Total

Gender
Female

UGPA

LSAT
120-180

50/50
Index
(Zscore)
st

1 year
LGPA

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

3.716

3.722

3.704

3.728

3.670

3.701

3.695

203.000

134.000

69.000

126.000

7.000

19.000

32.000

0.233

0.223

0.253

0.228

0.215

0.231

0.266

165.193

164.582

166.397

166.556

158.714

159.684

165.032

202.000

134.000

68.000

126.000

7.000

19.000

31.000

5.523

5.292

5.806

4.793

3.302

7.454

3.799

Mean
N
SD

0.620

0.528

0.803

0.902

-0.682

-0.421

0.525

202.000

134.000

68.000

126.000

7.000

19.000

31.000

1.190

1.144

1.266

1.088

1.033

1.328

0.991

Mean
N
SD

2.743

2.714

2.798

2.859

2.617

2.438

2.705

175.000

114.000

61.000

108.000

6.000

16.000

28.000

0.592

0.600

0.576

0.577

0.861

0.497

0.587

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

33

Table 36:
Means for BIO and SJT (Students only)
Total

Gender
Female

BIO mean
score

SJT mean
score

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

2.6588

2.6959

2.5893

2.6467

2.5418

2.6581

2.7012

132

86

46

89

11

16

.39116

.37784

.41012

.37695

.47691

.39856

.46291

2.6416

2.6720

2.5815

2.6966

2.6625

2.5895

2.4895

131

87

44

78

10

25

.43216

.42935

.43632

.44369

.44977

.50490

.40546

Table 37:
Means for Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) (Students only)
Total

Gender
Female

HPI 1:
Adjustment

HPI 2
Ambition

HPI 3
Sociability

HPI 4 Interpers.
Sensitivity

HPI 5 Prudence

HPI 6
Intellectance

HPI 7 Learning
Approach

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

20.94

21.16

20.51

21.55

17.57

20.38

19.81

191

128

63

118

16

31

6.423

6.190

6.902

6.009

9.289

8.139

5.636

19.81

19.62

20.19

19.81

19.14

20.19

18.97

191

128

63

118

16

31

5.571

5.576

5.588

5.478

7.625

4.916

5.244

14.65

14.18

15.60

14.62

16.86

15.13

13.45

191

128

63

118

16

31

4.786

4.728

4.798

4.759

5.956

4.048

5.176

18.12

18.55

17.24

18.27

18.86

17.38

17.84

191

128

63

118

16

31

2.971

2.656

3.383

2.863

1.773

3.998

2.945

17.68

18.39

16.22

17.96

15.57

17.50

17.52

191

128

63

118

16

31

4.270

4.193

4.082

4.031

3.599

5.967

4.065

14.74

14.00

16.25

14.78

16.00

13.50

14.26

191

128

63

118

16

31

4.158

4.107

3.869

4.085

2.944

5.621

4.066

9.90

9.99

9.71

10.06

10.14

8.94

9.81

191

128

63

118

16

31

2.394

2.464

2.254

2.447

2.035

1.982

2.496

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

34

Table 38:
Means for Hogan Development Survey (HDS) (Students only)
Total

Gender
Female

HDS 1
Excitable

HDS 2
Skeptical

HDS 3
Cautious

HDS 4
Reserved

HDS 5
Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 7
Mischievous
HDS 8
Colorful

HDS 9
Imaginative

HDS 10
Diligent

HDS 11
Dutiful

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

5.98

5.80

6.42

5.43

6.50

6.57

6.25

63

44

19

35

16

3.265

3.181

3.501

2.993

2.121

4.237

3.416

5.75

5.45

6.42

5.26

7.00

7.29

5.94

63

44

19

35

16

2.396

2.357

2.411

2.280

1.414

2.430

2.407

5.79

5.77

5.84

5.49

5.50

6.14

6.31

63

44

19

35

16

2.846

2.900

2.794

2.737

2.121

3.848

2.915

4.94

4.70

5.47

5.14

5.50

4.43

4.50

63

44

19

35

16

2.086

2.141

1.896

2.390

.707

1.618

1.673

5.49

5.41

5.68

5.17

7.00

5.43

5.69

63

44

19

35

16

2.063

2.061

2.110

1.465

1.414

3.823

2.056

7.06

6.80

7.68

6.60

10.50

7.00

7.63

63

44

19

35

16

2.956

3.100

2.562

2.943

3.536

1.915

3.074

5.43

5.45

5.37

5.03

7.50

6.43

5.31

63

44

19

35

16

2.360

2.454

2.191

2.269

.707

2.637

2.330

6.94

6.48

8.00

6.86

9.00

6.00

7.19

63

44

19

35

16

3.146

3.031

3.232

3.336

1.414

1.826

3.468

6.75

6.64

7.00

6.49

7.50

6.43

7.13

63

44

19

35

16

2.658

2.633

2.769

2.254

.707

2.820

3.686

9.89

10.05

9.53

9.74

11.50

10.29

9.56

63

44

19

35

16

2.489

2.650

2.091

2.559

2.121

2.984

2.421

8.17

8.39

7.68

8.03

9.50

8.00

8.69

63

44

19

35

16

2.106

1.956

2.405

2.229

2.121

1.414

1.621

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

35

Table 39:
Means for Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) (Students only)
Total

Gender
Female

MVPI 1
Aesthetic

MVPI 2
Affiliation

MVPI 3
Altruistic

MVPI 4
Commercial

MVPI 5
Hedonistic

MVPI 6
Power

MVPI 7
Recognition

MVPI 8
Scientific

MVPI 9
Security

MVPI 10
Tradition

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

40.43

39.35

42.60

40.94

40.00

44.00

36.67

60

40

20

35

8.058

7.319

9.179

7.585

9.539

12.000

6.683

48.70

48.90

48.30

49.51

51.67

42.83

47.50

60

40

20

35

6.424

6.054

7.255

5.958

5.132

8.085

6.473

52.90

53.70

51.30

53.37

56.67

46.50

54.00

60

40

20

35

6.462

5.689

7.692

5.699

3.512

9.813

4.382

35.62

36.10

34.65

34.29

37.00

30.83

40.17

60

40

20

35

7.014

6.504

8.028

7.028

4.000

6.524

5.811

43.25

42.03

45.70

41.66

44.00

45.33

45.17

60

40

20

35

7.780

8.198

6.367

8.306

8.000

5.785

8.256

44.43

44.28

44.75

44.97

45.67

36.67

45.17

60

40

20

35

7.329

7.211

7.738

7.027

7.371

8.524

7.574

43.38

42.70

44.75

41.60

48.00

46.00

44.00

60

40

20

35

7.585

6.517

9.408

8.008

5.000

7.071

8.124

Mean
N
SD

40.33

39.13

42.75

39.80

41.33

37.17

40.33

60

40

20

35

8.663

8.340

9.002

8.295

2.082

9.432

12.628

Mean
N
SD

38.42

39.98

35.30

38.09

37.33

36.17

41.83

60

40

20

35

7.397

7.141

7.064

7.812

10.017

8.886

7.679

Mean
N
SD

43.82

44.33

42.80

44.26

47.67

38.33

44.00

60

40

20

35

6.088

5.963

6.363

5.957

2.887

3.983

9.940

Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD
Mean
N
SD

Table 40:
Means for SMS, OPT, and ER (Students only)
Total

Gender
Female

SMS total
score

OPT total
score

ER Sum
total score

Mean
N
SD

Mean
N
SD

Mean
N
SD

16.515
2
132
5.0501
1
22.969
5
131
4.9922
1
39.494
8
192
7.9652
4

Ethnicity

Male

White

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Asian/
Pacific
Islander

16.0698

17.3478

16.4831

20.0000

15.3636

15.7500

86

46

89

11

16

4.81857

5.41281

5.18983

5.87367

4.27253

4.72582

23.3882

22.1957

22.9773

20.8000

22.5455

22.5000

85

46

88

11

16

4.91377

5.09736

5.20605

5.26308

4.32120

4.51664

40.1406

38.2031

39.1695

35.0000

39.5000

38.5625

128

64

118

16

32

7.36317

8.97294

7.04358

8.98146

5.63323

11.12955

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

36

Table 41: Intercorrelations of all predictors, UGPA, LSAT, and Index STUDENT SAMPLE
Correlations
Zscore:
Undergrad
GPA
Zscore: Undergrad GPA

Zscore: Adjusted LSAT

score
Index 50/50

HPI 1 Adjustment

HPI 2 Ambition

HPI 3 Sociability

HPI 4 Interpersonal
Sensitivity
HPI 5 Prudence

HPI 6 Intellectance

HPI 7 Learning Approach

HDS 1 Excitable

HDS 2 Skeptical

HDS 3 Cautious

HDS 4 Reserved

HDS 5 Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 7 Mischievous

HDS 8 Colorful

HDS 9 Imaginative

HDS 10 Diligent

HDS 11 Dutiful

MVPI 1 Aesthetic

MVPI 2 Affiliation

MVPI 3 Altruistic

MVPI 4 Commercial

MVPI 5 Hedonistic

MVPI 6 Power

MVPI 7 Recognition

MVPI 8 Scientific

MVPI 9 Security

MVPI 10 Tradition

BIO mean score

SJT mean score

SMS total score

OPT total score

ER Sum total score

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

-.012
.862
202
.541**
.000
202
.006
.931
191
.109
.134
191
.004
.958
191
-.005
.942
191
.125
.086
191
-.106
.144
191
.033
.654
191
-.096
.453
63
-.086
.503
63
-.123
.338
63
.253*
.046
63
-.097
.450
63
-.118
.358
63
.009
.946
63
-.066
.609
63
-.142
.269
63
.009
.942
63
.037
.775
63
-.142
.278
60
.139
.288
60
-.183
.162
60
-.283*
.028
60
-.038
.774
60
-.146
.267
60
-.102
.439
60
-.520**
.000
60
.235
.071
60
.222
.088
60
-.006
.942
132
-.025
.773
131
.089
.312
132
.012
.893
131
.009
.899
192

Zscore:
Adjusted
LSAT score

.834**
.000
202
.100
.167
191
-.052
.474
191
-.067
.360
191
-.074
.307
191
-.142
.050
191
.152*
.036
191
.211**
.003
191
-.151
.238
63
-.359**
.004
63
.033
.796
63
-.059
.645
63
-.134
.297
63
-.164
.198
63
-.222
.081
63
-.060
.640
63
-.117
.363
63
-.271*
.032
63
-.179
.160
63
-.013
.923
60
-.136
.300
60
.058
.658
60
-.169
.196
60
-.151
.249
60
-.161
.220
60
-.296*
.022
60
.082
.535
60
-.014
.916
60
.223
.086
60
-.002
.979
132
.070
.427
130
-.055
.528
132
.050
.568
131
.057
.432
191

Index 50/50

.088
.229
191
.016
.830
191
-.054
.460
191
-.065
.371
191
-.051
.484
191
.069
.340
191
.195**
.007
191
-.188
.139
63
-.370**
.003
63
-.038
.767
63
.087
.498
63
-.173
.174
63
-.213
.094
63
-.194
.128
63
-.090
.482
63
-.183
.151
63
-.238
.060
63
-.140
.272
63
-.099
.451
60
-.028
.829
60
-.064
.626
60
-.319*
.013
60
-.151
.248
60
-.226
.082
60
-.313*
.015
60
-.253
.051
60
.134
.307
60
.327*
.011
60
-.005
.952
132
.049
.577
130
.001
.990
132
.048
.584
131
.058
.422
191

HPI 1
Adjustment

.448**
.000
191
-.006
.933
191
.545**
.000
191
.462**
.000
191
.105
.149
191
.167*
.021
191
-.775**
.000
63
-.541**
.000
63
-.484**
.000
63
-.220
.083
63
-.355**
.004
63
-.104
.417
63
-.183
.151
63
-.128
.318
63
-.388**
.002
63
.083
.520
63
-.138
.280
63
-.159
.226
60
.087
.508
60
.063
.634
60
-.136
.300
60
-.142
.278
60
-.251
.053
60
-.407**
.001
60
-.010
.940
60
-.058
.662
60
.088
.506
60
.251**
.004
130
.058
.518
126
-.062
.480
130
.583**
.000
129
.123
.089
191

HPI 2
Ambition

.460**
.000
191
.425**
.000
191
.134
.064
191
.168*
.020
191
.169*
.019
191
-.525**
.000
63
.083
.516
63
-.762**
.000
63
-.322*
.010
63
-.397**
.001
63
.549**
.000
63
.211
.097
63
.554**
.000
63
.170
.183
63
-.065
.610
63
-.208
.102
63
.002
.988
60
.361**
.005
60
-.052
.696
60
-.055
.678
60
.277*
.032
60
.203
.120
60
.297*
.021
60
.099
.454
60
-.071
.588
60
-.044
.740
60
.415**
.000
130
-.011
.899
126
.179*
.042
130
.497**
.000
129
.113
.120
191

HPI 3
Sociability

.341**
.000
191
-.295**
.000
191
.386**
.000
191
-.026
.716
191
-.088
.494
63
.224
.078
63
-.475**
.000
63
-.334**
.007
63
-.108
.401
63
.426**
.000
63
.579**
.000
63
.724**
.000
63
.411**
.001
63
-.275*
.029
63
-.042
.743
63
.195
.136
60
.531**
.000
60
.021
.875
60
.006
.966
60
.413**
.001
60
.287*
.026
60
.523**
.000
60
.086
.513
60
-.371**
.004
60
-.085
.516
60
.201*
.022
130
-.151
.091
126
.608**
.000
130
.121
.170
129
-.011
.879
191

HPI 4
Interpersonal
Sensitivity

.320**
.000
191
.148*
.041
191
.115
.114
191
-.453**
.000
63
-.210
.098
63
-.369**
.003
63
-.694**
.000
63
-.336**
.007
63
.168
.188
63
.111
.386
63
.278*
.027
63
-.083
.519
63
.117
.359
63
.140
.273
63
-.255*
.049
60
.577**
.000
60
.261*
.044
60
-.112
.392
60
.006
.966
60
.093
.478
60
-.107
.416
60
-.114
.385
60
-.077
.556
60
.127
.335
60
.320**
.000
130
-.064
.474
126
.203*
.020
130
.485**
.000
129
.046
.529
191

HPI 5
Prudence

-.237**
.001
191
.038
.602
191
-.359**
.004
63
-.375**
.002
63
.047
.713
63
-.167
.190
63
-.040
.753
63
-.122
.340
63
-.476**
.000
63
-.358**
.004
63
-.557**
.000
63
.557**
.000
63
.237
.061
63
-.390**
.002
60
.100
.449
60
.113
.392
60
-.057
.668
60
-.356**
.005
60
-.110
.403
60
-.268*
.039
60
-.230
.077
60
.442**
.000
60
.274*
.034
60
.030
.735
130
.097
.281
126
-.219*
.012
130
.269**
.002
129
.088
.226
191

HPI 6
Intellectance

.199**
.006
191
.060
.639
63
.064
.619
63
-.158
.217
63
.037
.772
63
-.006
.962
63
.098
.446
63
.371**
.003
63
.396**
.001
63
.403**
.001
63
-.190
.136
63
-.279*
.027
63
.404**
.001
60
-.175
.181
60
-.070
.596
60
.057
.666
60
-.044
.741
60
-.076
.565
60
.044
.738
60
.461**
.000
60
-.330**
.010
60
-.197
.131
60
.032
.718
130
-.094
.297
126
.360**
.000
130
.046
.605
129
.095
.193
191

HPI 7
Learning
Approach

-.270*
.033
63
-.129
.313
63
-.257*
.042
63
-.154
.228
63
-.251*
.047
63
.174
.172
63
-.136
.288
63
.011
.931
63
.039
.762
63
.061
.637
63
-.160
.212
63
.250
.054
60
-.185
.156
60
.061
.642
60
.223
.086
60
.095
.472
60
.221
.090
60
.057
.666
60
.396**
.002
60
.039
.768
60
-.003
.983
60
.005
.954
130
.131
.145
126
-.086
.329
130
.148
.095
129
.127
.079
191

HDS 1
Excitable

.480**
.000
63
.583**
.000
63
.222
.080
63
.430**
.000
63
-.112
.383
63
.145
.256
63
-.041
.750
63
.258*
.041
63
-.090
.485
63
.080
.532
63
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.368*
.042
31
-.113
.536
32
.128
.494
31
-.610**
.000
31
-.192
.132
63

HDS 2
Skeptical

.042
.745
63
.126
.326
63
.218
.086
63
.426**
.001
63
.356**
.004
63
.278*
.027
63
.511**
.000
63
-.016
.903
63
-.100
.437
63
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.004
.982
31
.017
.927
32
.075
.687
31
-.123
.510
31
-.202
.111
63

HDS 3
Cautious

.272*
.031
63
.507**
.000
63
-.338**
.007
63
-.164
.198
63
-.446**
.000
63
-.052
.687
63
.167
.190
63
.259*
.040
63
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.513**
.003
31
.044
.811
32
-.219
.236
31
-.656**
.000
31
-.062
.632
63

HDS 4
Reserved

.296*
.018
63
-.065
.614
63
.025
.844
63
-.382**
.002
63
.047
.717
63
.005
.970
63
-.291*
.021
63
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.209
.260
31
-.001
.996
32
-.350
.053
31
-.291
.112
31
-.001
.995
63

HDS 5
Leisurely

.090
.483
63
.095
.458
63
-.070
.587
63
.188
.140
63
.199
.117
63
.091
.477
63
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.126
.499
31
.092
.617
32
.156
.401
31
-.355
.050
31
.074
.566
63

HDS 6 Bold

.350**
.005
63
.424**
.001
63
.296*
.019
63
.165
.195
63
-.118
.355
63
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.339
.062
31
-.094
.609
32
.099
.598
31
.395*
.028
31
.005
.968
63

HDS 7
Mischievous

.462**
.000
63
.488**
.000
63
-.244
.054
63
-.132
.302
63
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.185
.319
31
-.261
.149
32
.458**
.010
31
-.041
.827
31
-.014
.914
63

HDS 8
Colorful

.332**
.008
63
-.365**
.003
63
-.057
.659
63
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.222
.229
31
-.091
.621
32
.516**
.003
31
.306
.094
31
-.015
.908
63

HDS 9
Imaginative

-.143
.263
63
-.280*
.026
63
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.104
.578
31
-.139
.447
32
.117
.530
31
-.039
.835
31
.004
.978
63

HDS 10
Diligent

.247
.051
63
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.140
.454
31
.481**
.005
32
.031
.870
31
.072
.699
31
.115
.369
63

HDS 11
Dutiful

.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
.a
.
0
-.501**
.004
31
.268
.137
32
.353
.051
31
-.166
.372
31
-.020
.879
63

MVPI 1
Aesthetic

-.087
.508
60
.147
.263
60
.082
.536
60
.298*
.021
60
.139
.289
60
.213
.102
60
.222
.089
60
-.263*
.042
60
.068
.608
60
-.043
.816
32
-.102
.606
28
.111
.544
32
-.105
.567
32
-.022
.869
60

MVPI 2
Affiliation

.248
.056
60
.018
.889
60
.407**
.001
60
.336**
.009
60
.299*
.020
60
-.009
.943
60
-.013
.924
60
.161
.220
60
.103
.576
32
.246
.206
28
.425*
.015
32
.352*
.048
32
-.005
.969
60

MVPI 3
Altruistic

-.024
.853
60
-.030
.819
60
.145
.268
60
.034
.797
60
.095
.468
60
.035
.789
60
.364**
.004
60
.409*
.020
32
.207
.290
28
-.062
.738
32
.051
.782
32
.177
.175
60

MVPI 4
Commercial

.357**
.005
60
.515**
.000
60
.215
.099
60
.470**
.000
60
.116
.379
60
-.035
.788
60
-.146
.425
32
.072
.717
28
-.070
.704
32
-.191
.295
32
.238
.067
60

MVPI 5
Hedonistic

.458**
.000
60
.452**
.000
60
.153
.242
60
-.129
.326
60
-.038
.775
60
-.107
.560
32
.149
.450
28
.365*
.040
32
-.030
.872
32
.099
.452
60

MVPI 6 Power

.500**
.000
60
.311*
.016
60
.014
.913
60
.121
.358
60
.175
.338
32
.403*
.033
28
.237
.191
32
-.096
.603
32
.157
.230
60

MVPI 7
Recognition

.222
.089
60
-.089
.499
60
.004
.977
60
-.233
.198
32
.237
.224
28
.477**
.006
32
-.171
.349
32
.049
.712
60

MVPI 8
Scientific

-.128
.328
60
-.025
.849
60
-.024
.897
32
.128
.515
28
.047
.799
32
.151
.409
32
.038
.772
60

MVPI 9
Security

.419**
.001
60
-.155
.396
32
-.213
.277
28
-.103
.574
32
-.078
.671
32
-.108
.412
60

MVPI 10
Tradition

.156
.394
32
.089
.651
28
-.206
.257
32
-.105
.567
32
.028
.831
60

BIO mean
score

-.093
.461
65
.096
.275
132
.263**
.002
131
.196*
.025
130

SJT mean
score

-.276*
.026
65
.001
.994
64
.013
.885
127

SMS total
score

.106
.230
131
.062
.481
130

OPT total
score

ER Sum
total score

-.012
.893
129

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
a. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

37

Table 42:
Means for Self Appraisals (Student only)
Total

Communications
Planning and
Organizing

Asian

4.0438
102
.31132

4.0278
54
.32839

3.9960
99
.32533

4.2505
6
.20602

4.1148
12
.33319

4.1002
23
.27984

(1)
Analysis and Reasoning

Mean
N
SD

(2)
Creativity/
Innovation

Mean
N
SD

(26)
Problem Solving

Mean
N
SD

(3)
Practical Judgment

Mean
N
SD

3.9739
153
.59269
4.0294
153
.46324
4.0596
151
.50638
4.1742
155
.55711

3.9050
100
.59329
3.9899
99
.47905
3.9800
100
.50212
4.2108
102
.56039

4.1038
53
.57478
4.1019
54
.42758
4.2157
51
.48223
4.1038
53
.54911

3.9592
98
.58624
3.9897
97
.48401
4.0365
96
.51424
4.1263
99
.52656

4.6000
5
.41833
4.3333
6
.40825
4.2500
6
.41833
4.5000
6
.63246

3.8750
12
.77239
3.9091
11
.58387
4.0909
11
.53936
4.2917
12
.58225

4.0455
22
.37509
4.2174
23
.39388
4.0909
22
.45346
4.2273
22
.42893

(6)
Researching the Law

Mean
N
SD

(5)
Fact Finding

Mean
N
SD

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing

Mean
N
SD

3.8799
154
.61052
4.0600
150
.43319
4.0261
134
.49553

3.8650
100
.63108
4.0561
98
.36526
4.0543
92
.49976

3.9074
54
.57523
4.0673
52
.54259
3.9643
42
.48631

3.8776
98
.59231
4.0206
97
.45022
4.0058
86
.49997

3.8333
6
.68313
4.2500
6
.41833
4.2000
5
.27386

3.6364
11
.89696
4.1000
10
.31623
4.0500
10
.83166

4.1087
23
.42524
4.2045
22
.36707
4.1053
19
.31530

(10)
Influencing and Advocating

Mean
N
SD

(8)
Writing

Mean
N
SD

(7)
Speaking

Mean
N
SD

(9)
Listening

Mean
N
SD

4.1376
149
.57791
4.1194
155
.69806
3.9837
153
.68205
4.1136
154
.50333

4.0938
96
.55872
4.0882
102
.66902
3.9653
101
.65672
4.1422
102
.47916

4.2170
53
.60851
4.1792
53
.75380
4.0192
52
.73406
4.0577
52
.54820

4.0957
94
.58326
4.1162
99
.74856
3.9010
96
.67520
4.0459
98
.49787

4.2500
6
.27386
4.1667
6
.51640
4.5000
6
.44721
4.0833
6
.37639

4.3636
11
.71031
3.9583
12
.96433
4.0417
12
.78214
4.5000
12
.47673

4.3182
22
.47673
4.2727
22
.48125
4.1087
23
.81124
4.1818
22
.39477

(13)
Strategic Planning

Mean
N
SD

(14)
Organizing and Managing
Ones Own Work

Mean
N
SD

(15)
Organizing and Managing
Others

Mean
N
SD

3.9610
141
.55443
3.8806
155
.75611
4.1130
146
.62359

3.9415
94
.52801
3.9216
102
.74709
4.1615
96
.54529

4.0000
47
.60792
3.8019
53
.77422
4.0200
50
.74888

3.9261
88
.57506
3.8182
99
.72652
4.0532
94
.63274

4.0833
6
.37639
3.9167
6
.86120
4.6667
6
.40825

3.8500
10
.74722
4.2917
12
.86493
4.2500
10
.54006

3.9773
22
.44927
3.7500
22
.90960
4.0952
21
.64457

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Mean
N
SD

(25) Able to See the World

Through the Eyes of Others

Mean
N
SD

4.0313
112
.48528
4.1250
152
.57615

4.0592
76
.45436
4.1465
99
.54047

3.9722
36
.54700
4.0849
53
.64103

3.9485
68
.48206
4.0781
96
.59528

4.3000
5
.44721
4.3333
6
.40825

4.1667
6
.51640
4.2083
12
.83824

4.0526
19
.49707
4.1591
22
.38994

(18)
Networking and Business
Development

Mean
N
SD

(4)
Advising Clients

Mean
N
SD

3.7028
143
.81844
4.0903
144
.53432

3.6354
96
.85986
4.1223
94
.52715

3.8404
47
.71556
4.0300
50
.54782

3.5899
89
.82765
4.0543
92
.51064

3.9167
6
1.11430
4.4000
5
.65192

4.1364
11
.71031
4.1818
11
.68091

3.7955
22
.76624
4.0952
21
.51524

(17) Developing
Relationships within the
Legal Profession

Mean
N
SD

(16) Evaluation,
Development, and
Mentoring

Mean
N
SD

4.1923
156
.57491
4.1840
125
.47322

4.2059
102
.57743
4.2262
84
.40631

4.1667
54
.57462
4.0976
41
.58330

4.1465
99
.56808
4.1013
79
.50243

4.5000
6
.44721
4.5000
6
.31623

4.2500
12
.78335
4.5000
8
.37796

4.3261
23
.44233
4.1053
19
.26765

(22)
Passion and Engagement

Mean
N
SD

(23)
Diligence

Mean
N
SD

(20)
Integrity/Honesty

Mean
N
SD

(21) Stress Management

Mean
N
SD

(19) Community
Involvement and Service

Mean
N
SD

(24)
Self-Development

Mean
N
SD

4.1331
154
.59420
3.8782
156
.62054
4.3994
154
.43303
3.9359
156
.68325
3.9058
154
.70657
3.9934
152
.49830

4.1800
100
.62166
3.9461
102
.60488
4.4250
100
.39807
3.8922
102
.72654
4.0400
100
.68416
3.9900
100
.52695

4.0463
54
.53437
3.7500
54
.63506
4.3519
54
.49172
4.0185
54
.59051
3.6574
54
.68559
4.0000
52
.44281

4.0876
97
.62504
3.8788
99
.56736
4.3814
97
.44355
3.9141
99
.69267
3.8724
98
.65532
3.9740
96
.50456

4.4167
6
.37639
3.8333
6
.51640
4.5000
6
.31623
3.9167
6
.73598
4.2500
6
.52440
4.0833
6
.37639

4.1250
12
.71111
4.0000
12
.82572
4.4167
12
.59671
3.8750
12
.95644
3.9545
11
.85013
4.0909
11
.62523

4.1087
23
.47569
3.8478
23
.72980
4.4130
23
.35841
4.0870
23
.53624
3.8478
23
.78963
4.0000
23
.47673

Client &
Business
Relations

Conflict
Resolution

Ethnicity
Afr.
Hisp.
Amer.

4.0383
156
.31637

Working
with
Others
Character

White

Mean
N
SD

Research &
Information
Gathering

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All Self

Appraisals

Gender
Female
Male

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

38

Table 43:
Means for Peer Appraisals (Student only)
Total

Communications
Planning and
Organizing

Asian

4.1979
107
.37705

4.1791
60
.44284

4.2248
107
.41124

(1)
Analysis and Reasoning

Mean
N
SD

(2)
Creativity/
Innovation

Mean
N
SD

(26)
Problem Solving

Mean
N
SD

(3)
Practical Judgment

Mean
N
SD

4.1411
163
.53362
4.1725
158
.48373
4.2326
158
.52722
4.2515
165
.62804

4.0905
105
.54057
4.1510
101
.45150
4.1931
101
.49229
4.2714
105
.65515

4.2328
58
.51269
4.2105
57
.53825
4.3026
57
.58198
4.2167
60
.58125

3.8571
104
.51172
4.2748
101
.43661
4.3168
101
.47551
4.2786
105
.66444

3.9667
7
.76181
4.0000
7
.38188
3.7143
7
.68357
4.3214
7
.65692

4.1400
15
.45185
3.7857
14
.61125
3.9643
14
.73939
4.1500
15
.82808

4.1400
25
.50559
4.0313
24
.49074
4.1146
24
.46613
4.2200
25
.45826

(6)
Researching the Law

Mean
N
SD

(5)
Fact Finding

Mean
N
SD

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing

Mean
N
SD

4.1811
156
.54814
4.2599
152
.46827
4.2257
113
.53239

4.1633
98
.55856
4.2109
96
.38616
4.2917
72
.51731

4.2112
58
.53353
4.3438
56
.57715
4.1098
41
.54500

4.2197
99
.55933
4.3263
95
.46710
4.2319
69
.61584

3.7857
7
.84691
4.1071
7
.51755
4.0417
6
.33229

4.1500
15
.44118
4.0000
14
.63549
4.2955
11
.33200

4.1739
23
.44870
4.2292
24
.31205
4.2105
19
.38427

(10)
Influencing and Advocating

Mean
N
SD

(8)
Writing

Mean
N
SD

(7)
Speaking

Mean
N
SD

(9)
Listening

Mean
N
SD

4.2842
161
.53143
4.3156
141
.60992
4.0348
165
.69509
4.0958
167
.65500

4.2279
102
.52074
4.3182
88
.56569
4.0448
106
.65174
4.1565
107
.54245

4.3814
59
.54011
4.3113
53
.68273
4.0169
59
.77246
3.9875
60
.81228

4.3534
104
.51153
4.3670
94
.56405
4.0381
105
.72869
4.1682
107
.61312

3.9643
7
.54827
3.8214
7
1.09653
4.2143
7
.48795
3.8929
7
.24398

4.1538
13
.60843
4.1538
13
.73271
3.8833
15
.81759
3.7500
15
.89143

4.1979
24
.58967
4.4000
20
.38389
4.1100
25
.58666
4.1700
25
.55302

(13)
Strategic Planning

Mean
N
SD

(14)
Organizing and Managing
Ones Own Work

Mean
N
SD

(15)
Organizing and Managing
Others

Mean
N
SD

4.1618
153
.64218
4.1488
163
.76811
4.2010
148
.62723

4.1352
98
.63120
4.2095
105
.71398
4.2316
95
.63397

4.2091
55
.66452
4.0388
58
.85302
4.1462
53
.61713

4.2225
100
.62553
4.2067
104
.77385
4.2552
96
.63347

3.9286
7
.73193
3.7857
7
1.01477
3.9643
7
.61962

4.2292
12
.37626
4.1167
15
.62583
4.0833
12
.81417

3.9674
23
.67967
4.1100
25
.70371
4.1818
22
.56790

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Mean
N
SD

(25)
Able to See the World
Through the Eyes of Others

Mean
N
SD

4.1679
131
.56793
4.0972
162
.61569

4.1790
81
.51574
4.1298
104
.57452

4.1500
50
.64878
4.0388
58
.68474

4.2229
83
.58044
4.1310
105
.59150

4.0000
7
.80364
3.7083
6
.53424

4.0682
11
.51346
3.9821
14
.87960

4.1875
20
.42049
4.2604
24
.41362

(18)
Networking and Business
Development

Mean
N
SD

(4) Providing Advice &

Counsel & Building Client
Relationships

Mean
N
SD

4.1990
152
.71255
4.1724
145
.58668

4.2347
98
.65095
4.1938
89
.61440

4.1343
54
.81512
4.1384
56
.54339

4.1531
98
.77462
4.2418
92
.57351

4.2143
7
.74202
4.1429
7
.28347

4.3542
12
.51631
3.7917
12
.89718

4.2717
23
.52718
4.1023
22
.53262

(17)
Developing Relationships
within the Legal Profession

Mean
N
SD

(16)
Evaluation, Development,
and Mentoring

Mean
N
SD

4.2896
164
.69061
4.2976
126
.56099

4.3119
105
.66577
4.3797
79
.47003

4.2500
59
.73696
4.1596
47
.67047

4.3476
105
.67715
4.3281
80
.62464

4.2143
7
.48795
4.3214
7
.23780

4.0536
14
.95161
4.3864
11
.45227

4.2800
25
.58327
4.3026
19
.40465

Passion and Engagement

(22)

Mean
N
SD

(23)
Diligence

Mean
N
SD

(20)
Integrity/Honesty

Mean
N
SD

(21)
Stress Management

Mean
N
SD

(19)
Community Involvement
and Service

Mean
N
SD

(24)
Self-Development

Mean
N
SD

4.2726
166
.63890
4.1506
161
.68310
4.5561
165
.47285
4.0747
164
.66472
4.2189
161
.69359
4.1161
155
.59235

4.2901
106
.59974
4.1667
102
.62471
4.5714
105
.41849
4.0310
105
.68876
4.2830
106
.65654
4.1490
99
.57245

4.2417
60
.70706
4.1229
59
.77872
4.5292
60
.55824
4.1525
59
.61766
4.0955
55
.75076
4.0580
56
.62703

4.3113
106
.66172
4.1838
102
.69021
4.5810
105
.46318
4.0667
105
.71662
4.1779
104
.69906
4.1175
100
.59825

4.2143
7
.22493
3.9286
7
.85042
4.3571
7
.42956
3.9286
7
.65692
4.6786
7
.23780
4.1786
7
.57217

4.0833
15
.71130
4.0357
14
.62678
4.4833
15
.68444
3.9107
14
.84698
4.1833
15
.83166
4.0385
13
.56685

4.2600
25
.49728
4.1000
25
.63738
4.5700
25
.41783
4.2100
25
.28577
4.3478
23
.52624
4.2083
24
.60643

Client &
Business
Relations

Conflict
Resolution

Ethnicity
Afr.
Hisp.
Amer.
4.0467
4.0739
7
15
.34754
.48624

4.1911
167
.40070

Working
with
Others
Character

White

Mean
N
SD

Research &
Information
Gathering

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All Peer

Appraisals

Gender
Female
Male

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

4.1959
25
.31552

39

Table 44:
Means for Supervisor Appraisals (Student only)
Total

Communications
Planning and
Organizing

Asian

4.1997
100
.39694

4.2621
50
.42142

4.1917
94
.39214

(1)
Analysis and Reasoning

Mean
N
SD

(2)
Creativity/
Innovation

Mean
N
SD

(26)
Problem Solving

Mean
N
SD

(3)
Practical Judgment

Mean
N
SD

4.0595
147
.60487
4.1296
137
.56320
4.2318
137
.47900
4.2926
141
.52181

3.9794
97
.62778
4.0556
90
.55685
4.1960
88
.49342
4.3226
93
.48424

4.2150
50
.52975
4.2713
47
.55372
4.2959
49
.44975
4.2344
48
.58892

4.0489
92
.60133
4.1412
85
.54479
4.2054
84
.47237
4.2413
86
.56157

3.9000
5
.80234
4.2500
5
.25000
4.2000
5
.44721
4.0833
6
.49160

4.1500
15
.59612
4.2500
13
.55902
4.3214
14
.42095
4.3750
14
.51655

4.1146
24
.54663
4.1354
24
.52637
4.2935
23
.45635
4.4896
24
.34166

(6)
Researching the Law

Mean
N
SD

4.0845
142
.60428
4.2118
131
.52667
4.2218
62
.59730

4.0242
93
.62453
4.1802
86
.54591
4.2250
40
.59323

4.1990
49
.55194
4.2722
45
.48799
4.2159
22
.61864

4.0899
89
.60800
4.1543
81
.51927
4.1419
37
.60536

3.8125
4
.37500
4.1250
4
.25000
2.5000
1
.

3.9464
14
.63684
4.3571
14
.64087
4.5714
7
.47246

4.2083
24
.59283
4.3068
22
.55598
4.3000
10
.42164

4.2555
136
.58172
4.1801
143
.64076
4.0669
142
.61951
4.2007
142
.48946

4.2278
90
.58015
4.0902
97
.67622
4.0316
95
.65053
4.2070
93
.49813

4.3098
46
.58733
4.3696
46
.51570
4.1383
47
.55121
4.1888
49
.47744

4.2787
87
.58248
4.1828
93
.64599
4.0365
89
.62563
4.1761
88
.48269

3.8750
4
.62915
4.3125
4
.37500
4.2917
6
.33229
4.1250
6
.30619

4.1786
14
.74954
4.1346
13
.74732
4.0357
14
.75229
4.1250
14
.71219

4.3095
21
.51177
4.2609
23
.64613
4.2727
22
.36112
4.3696
23
.34435

4.1734
111
.59237
4.2724
145
.63391
4.2981
78
.65348

4.1453
74
.57785
4.2396
96
.63548
4.3396
53
.58650

4.2297
37
.62466
4.3367
49
.63235
4.2100
25
.78289

4.1381
67
.58757
4.2139
90
.67931
4.3056
54
.63630

3.9167
6
.73598
4.1667
6
.93095
4.5000
2
.00000

4.4773
11
.48029
4.4643
14
.52676
4.0417
6
1.10019

4.3088
17
.51181
4.4167
24
.44640
4.4000
10
.45947

4.1304
46
.59100
4.2341
126
.58288

4.0968
31
.59749
4.2471
85
.55029

4.2000
15
.59161
4.2073
41
.65169

4.0726
31
.59928
4.1551
79
.63461

3.0000
1
.
4.1250
4
.25000

4.2500
2
1.06066
4.3750
12
.47073

4.3571
7
.37796
4.4091
22
.49729

4.2887
71
.73757
4.1117
94
.56394

4.2100
50
.80076
4.1271
59
.54609

4.4762
21
.52977
4.0857
35
.60007

4.1534
44
.72580
4.0297
59
.54552

4.2500
2
1.06066
2.5000
1
.

4.6786
7
.27817
4.5313
8
.43172

4.3542
12
.95619
4.2639
18
.48864

4.3271
133
.54371
4.1875
44
.66936

4.3472
90
.49534
4.0469
32
.71119

4.2849
43
.63757
4.5625
12
.33920

4.2528
88
.57297
4.1574
27
.54220

4.5000
3
.50000
4.1667
3
.28868

4.4286
14
.47463
4.5000
3
.86603

4.4868
19
.43679
4.5000
7
.50000

4.3775
149
.51466
4.2483
143
.58630
4.5429
140
.42615
4.2680
139
.52010
4.4239
115
.55722
4.2726
133
.47420

4.4066
99
.49434
4.2742
93
.54182
4.5430
93
.41804
4.2253
91
.56894
4.4877
81
.49985
4.2557
88
.45165

4.3200
50
.55338
4.2000
50
.66432
4.5426
47
.44636
4.3490
48
.40522
4.2721
34
.65819
4.3056
45
.51920

4.3575
93
.48398
4.2303
89
.58536
4.4971
87
.43384
4.2471
86
.48278
4.3607
70
.58147
4.2348
82
.43806

4.2500
6
.68920
3.8750
6
.73739
4.4167
6
.37639
4.1667
6
.81650
4.2000
5
.27386
3.9167
6
.58452

4.4667
15
.57373
4.2857
14
.44783
4.5577
13
.45819
4.1071
14
.67021
4.5357
14
.52676
4.2857
14
.53581

4.4271
24
.53912
4.3587
23
.55813
4.6739
23
.34898
4.4565
23
.32554
4.6250
18
.55737
4.4500
20
.43377

(5)
Fact Finding

Mean
N
SD

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing

Mean
N
SD

(10)
Influencing and Advocating

Mean
N
SD

(8)
Writing

Mean
N
SD

(7)
Speaking

Mean
N
SD

(9)
Listening

Mean
N
SD

(13)
Strategic Planning

Mean
N
SD

(14)
Organizing and Managing
Ones Own Work

Mean
N
SD

(15)
Organizing and Managing
Others

Mean
N
SD

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Mean
N
SD

(25)
Able to See the World
Through the Eyes of Others

Mean
N
SD

(18)
Networking and Business
Development

Mean
N
SD

(4)
Advising Clients

Mean
N
SD

(17)
Developing Relationships
within the Legal Profession

Mean
N
SD

(16)
Evaluation, Development,
and Mentoring

Mean
N
SD

Passion and Engagement

(22)

Mean
N
SD

(23)
Diligence

Mean
N
SD

(20)
Integrity/Honesty

Mean
N
SD

(21)
Stress Management

Mean
N
SD

(19)
Community Involvement
and Service

Mean
N
SD

(24)
Self-Development

Mean
N
SD

Client &
Business
Relations

Conflict
Resolution

Ethnicity
Afr.
Hisp.
Amer.
4.1325
4.2454
6
15
.39246
.49790

4.2205
150
.40492

Working
with
Others
Character

White

Mean
N
SD

Research &
Information
Gathering

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All

Supervisor Appraisals

Gender
Female
Male

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

4.3388
24
.38196

40

Table 45:
Means for Other (Peer + Supervisor) Appraisals (Student only)
Total

Gender
Female
Male

White

Ethnicity
Afr.
Hisp.
Amer.
4.0699
4.1717
7
17
.34127
.48164

Asian

Mean
N
SD

4.1962
179
.36040

4.1992
118
.32911

4.1904
61
.41721

4.1975
114
.36133

(1)
Analysis and Reasoning

Mean
N
SD

(2)
Creativity/
Innovation

Mean
N
SD

(26)
Problem Solving

Mean
N
SD

(3)
Practical Judgment

Mean
N
SD

4.1003
177
.47281
4.1399
176
.47739
4.2153
173
.44406
4.2514
178
.56326

4.0498
118
.47764
4.1099
116
.44022
4.1864
114
.42568
4.2799
117
.56896

4.2013
59
.45011
4.1979
60
.54135
4.2712
59
.47635
4.1967
61
.55267

4.1316
113
.45157
4.2050
111
.42733
4.2432
110
.41711
4.2378
113
.60388

3.7679
7
.78205
4.0357
7
.36596
3.8571
7
.51249
4.2321
7
.54212

4.0882
17
.44582
3.9632
17
.65366
4.1328
16
.66375
4.2206
17
.79122

4.1528
27
.42366
4.1204
27
.42387
4.2269
27
.33798
4.3472
27
.27807

(6)
Researching the Law

Mean
N
SD

(5)
Fact Finding

Mean
N
SD

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing

Mean
N
SD

4.1207
176
.50531
4.2236
175
.42771
4.2055
132
.54083

4.0841
116
.52822
4.1891
115
.40635
4.2485
85
.54229

4.1917
60
.45360
4.2896
60
.46229
4.1277
47
.53511

4.1350
112
.49891
4.2352
110
.45045
4.1962
79
.60370

3.6964
7
.80963
4.1071
7
.37101
3.8214
7
.65692

4.0956
17
.46881
4.1691
17
.46758
4.3661
14
.34132

4.2083
27
.43301
4.2731
27
.33975
4.2262
21
.33452

(10)
Influencing and Advocating

Mean
N
SD

(8)
Writing

Mean
N
SD

(7)
Speaking

Mean
N
SD

(9)
Listening

Mean
N
SD

4.2648
177
.47342
4.2320
174
.56283
4.0293
179
.58841
4.1208
178
.53231

4.2349
116
.46102
4.1864
116
.58526
4.0307
118
.54350
4.1645
117
.43103

4.3217
61
.49501
4.3233
58
.50764
4.0266
61
.67164
4.0369
61
.68250

4.3075
113
.45040
4.2701
112
.48268
4.0219
114
.58542
4.1482
113
.48858

3.9821
7
.55165
3.7679
7
1.06661
4.1786
7
.45562
3.9821
7
.16815

4.1328
16
.69292
4.0882
17
.85326
3.9412
17
.82457
3.9338
17
.73170

4.2778
27
.42224
4.3565
27
.41269
4.1620
27
.44373
4.2685
27
.38715

(13)
Strategic Planning

Mean
N
SD

(14)
Organizing and Managing
Ones Own Work

Mean
N
SD

(15)
Organizing and Managing
Others

Mean
N
SD

4.1585
168
.57184
4.1917
178
.57981
4.2025
158
.58657

4.1329
111
.56540
4.2119
118
.55023
4.2512
104
.57043

4.2083
57
.58598
4.1521
60
.63700
4.1088
54
.61095

4.1678
108
.59254
4.1869
113
.61217
4.2416
104
.57777

3.9643
7
.58503
3.9643
7
.87712
4.1071
7
.47559

4.3482
14
.34383
4.2941
17
.47791
4.0893
14
.83411

4.1442
26
.52879
4.2639
27
.36745
4.1989
22
.52562

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Mean
N
SD

(25)
Able to See the World
Through the Eyes of Others

Mean
N
SD

4.1430
139
.57313
4.1358
174
.54740

4.1475
89
.54014
4.1765
114
.51413

4.1350
50
.63328
4.0583
60
.60255

4.1739
87
.58981
4.1420
110
.52119

3.9464
7
.83497
3.8036
7
.49926

4.0962
13
.56401
4.1172
16
.76167

4.2045
22
.38294
4.3056
27
.36084

(18)
Networking and Business
Development

Mean
N
SD

(4)
Advising Clients

Mean
N
SD

4.2014
162
.68227
4.1204
164
.52266

4.2146
106
.62886
4.1490
104
.52835

4.1763
56
.77890
4.0708
60
.51326

4.1131
105
.73513
4.1382
104
.51019

4.3571
7
.59261
4.0357
7
.44320

4.4554
14
.49664
4.1000
15
.73527

4.2989
23
.50669
4.0950
25
.53312

(17)
Developing Relationships
within the Legal Profession

Mean
N
SD

(16)
Evaluation, Development,
and Mentoring

Mean
N
SD

4.2802
178
.57325
4.2445
137
.58569

4.3013
117
.54168
4.2781
89
.54965

4.2398
61
.63217
4.1823
48
.64873

4.2785
114
.56075
4.2730
87
.58956

4.2857
7
.50885
4.2500
7
.20412

4.2031
16
.84641
4.3958
12
.48216

4.3657
27
.37807
4.3125
20
.42244

Passion and Engagement

(22)

Mean
N
SD

(23)
Diligence

Mean
N
SD

(20)
Integrity/Honesty

Mean
N
SD

(21)
Stress Management

Mean
N
SD

(19)
Community Involvement
and Service

Mean
N
SD

(24)
Self-Development

Mean
N
SD

4.2445
137
.58569
4.3059
179
.53101
4.1864
177
.51970
4.5360
177
.41139
4.1370
177
.56638
4.2515
172
.63709

4.3263
118
.48675
4.2058
116
.49047
4.5502
117
.35737
4.1004
117
.58290
4.3235
114
.56512
4.1947
113
.46470

4.2664
61
.61002
4.1496
61
.57365
4.5083
60
.50257
4.2083
60
.53016
4.1099
58
.74416
4.1479
60
.58290

4.3070
114
.55183
4.1875
112
.52714
4.5223
112
.40798
4.1205
112
.57293
4.2000
110
.65363
4.1502
109
.50512

4.2321
7
.34178
3.9464
7
.69168
4.3393
7
.28609
4.0536
7
.62856
4.4821
7
.04725
4.0536
7
.51467

4.3015
17
.62665
4.1838
17
.41249
4.5368
17
.54802
3.9632
17
.81701
4.3235
17
.74877
4.1953
16
.49364

4.3241
27
.42919
4.2222
27
.46297
4.6204
27
.34925
4.3102
27
.24848
4.3550
25
.58260
4.2917
27
.50240

Character

Working
with
Others

Client &
Business
Relations

Conflict
Resolution

Planning and
Organizing

Communications

Research &
Information
Gathering

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All Other

Appraisals

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

4.2673
27
.26208

41

Table 46:
Means for Global Appraisals (Student only)
Total

Communications
Planning and
Organizing

Asian

4.1544
122
.29468

4.1352
65
.31150

4.1483
118
.28677

(1)
Analysis and Reasoning

Mean
N
SD

(2)
Creativity/
Innovation

Mean
N
SD

(26)
Problem Solving

Mean
N
SD

(3)
Practical Judgment

Mean
N
SD

4.0636
187
.42365
4.1044
185
.39490
4.1595
185
.40279
4.2354
187
.46234

4.0095
122
.43341
4.0784
121
.38339
4.1118
121
.39540
4.2636
122
.47232

4.1651
65
.38782
4.1535
64
.41441
4.2499
64
.40421
4.1826
65
.44173

4.0845
118
.40023
4.1460
116
.36366
4.1759
117
.37251
4.2269
118
.44179

3.9310
7
.74001
4.1357
7
.27258
3.9405
7
.36630
4.3155
7
.53243

4.0191
17
.46646
3.9167
17
.61714
4.0891
16
.66099
4.1858
17
.78417

4.1078
29
.39762
4.1244
29
.34652
4.1905
29
.29445
4.2807
29
.32395

(6)
Researching the Law

Mean
N
SD

(5)
Fact Finding

Mean
N
SD

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing

Mean
N
SD

4.0669
187
.42926
4.1717
185
.35360
4.1061
169
.47241

4.0365
122
.44904
4.1373
121
.33443
4.1507
114
.47174

4.1240
65
.38630
4.2367
64
.38152
4.0136
55
.46447

4.0742
118
.43308
4.1733
116
.36505
4.0986
104
.50024

3.7631
7
.54373
4.1369
7
.30686
3.8929
7
.64319

4.0216
17
.48022
4.1294
17
.43364
4.2161
16
.49843

4.1851
29
.33648
4.2290
29
.29948
4.1590
27
.26930

(10)
Influencing and Advocating

Mean
N
SD

(8)
Writing

Mean
N
SD

(7)
Speaking

Mean
N
SD

(9)
Listening

Mean
N
SD

4.2237
187
.43502
4.2100
185
.49621
4.0199
187
.49969
4.1152
187
.44488

4.1884
122
.43817
4.1715
121
.50540
4.0230
122
.46987
4.1458
122
.39362

4.2899
65
.42445
4.2829
64
.47366
4.0140
65
.55514
4.0578
65
.52643

4.2533
118
.39143
4.2384
116
.47305
3.9963
118
.48449
4.1258
118
.40677

4.0536
7
.44143
3.9762
7
.71801
4.2619
7
.41298
3.9881
7
.19649

4.1691
17
.65954
4.1025
17
.70386
3.9034
17
.77785
3.9544
17
.71112

4.2474
29
.46557
4.2739
29
.42483
4.1526
29
.42431
4.2471
29
.33030

(13)
Strategic Planning

Mean
N
SD

(14)
Organizing and Managing
Ones Own Work

Mean
N
SD

(15)
Organizing and Managing
Others

Mean
N
SD

4.0922
184
.46195
4.1135
186
.53331
4.1509
178
.54082

4.0800
121
.42471
4.1557
122
.49500
4.1838
116
.54553

4.1156
63
.52905
4.0332
64
.59547
4.0894
62
.53080

4.0771
117
.49125
4.0979
117
.55103
4.1709
113
.49466

4.0238
7
.35670
3.9583
7
.81721
4.1964
7
.38091

4.2417
15
.37374
4.2451
17
.51399
4.1528
15
.78564

4.0842
29
.42366
4.1414
29
.41722
4.0957
27
.59285

(12)
Negotiation Skills

Mean
N
SD

(25)
Able to See the World
Through the Eyes of Others

Mean
N
SD

4.1135
171
.49456
4.1405
185
.47162

4.1380
112
.45348
4.1646
121
.46192

4.0671
59
.56567
4.0948
64
.48985

4.0984
105
.51452
4.1439
117
.45172

4.1310
7
.65592
3.9643
7
.41973

4.1444
15
.48842
4.0833
16
.77981

4.1875
28
.38079
4.2445
29
.31235

(18)
Networking and Business
Development

Mean
N
SD

(4)
Advising Clients

Mean
N
SD

4.0273
181
.63582
4.1102
183
.43351

4.0165
118
.62610
4.1301
120
.46614

4.0476
63
.65825
4.0724
63
.36387

3.9483
115
.64220
4.1103
116
.37902

4.2679
7
.67865
4.1548
7
.33134

4.2867
15
.52679
4.0964
16
.77051

4.0476
28
.66885
4.0893
28
.42472

(17)
Developing Relationships
within the Legal Profession

Mean
N
SD

(16)
Evaluation, Development,
and Mentoring

Mean
N
SD

4.2644
186
.48288
4.2354
171
.45734

4.2726
121
.49278
4.2738
114
.41184

4.2492
65
.46728
4.1586
57
.53263

4.2720
118
.43978
4.2110
109
.48250

4.3512
7
.44867
4.3571
7
.14203

4.1724
16
.83320
4.4345
14
.40586

4.3405
29
.32160
4.2300
25
.34214

Passion and Engagement

(22)

Mean
N
SD

(23)
Diligence

Mean
N
SD

(20)
Integrity/Honesty

Mean
N
SD

(21)
Stress Management

Mean
N
SD

(19)
Community Involvement
and Service

Mean
N
SD

(24)
Self-Development

Mean
N
SD

4.2445
187
.46603
4.0977
186
.47117
4.5055
185
.33074
4.0819
186
.50261
4.1334
186
.61417
4.1388
185
.42799

4.2617
122
.47547
4.1393
121
.44710
4.5215
121
.31854
4.0448
122
.52777
4.2252
121
.58120
4.1492
121
.43111

4.2122
65
.44961
4.0203
65
.50749
4.4754
64
.35328
4.1527
64
.44615
3.9626
65
.64141
4.1191
64
.42472

4.2450
118
.45661
4.1033
117
.47011
4.5052
116
.29363
4.0895
117
.47932
4.1131
117
.56069
4.1399
117
.38515

4.2917
7
.25572
3.9286
7
.57570
4.3833
7
.16743
4.0536
7
.55210
4.4524
7
.17419
4.0560
7
.38630

4.2505
17
.60226
4.1186
17
.48209
4.4760
17
.55884
3.9211
17
.77024
4.2152
17
.71851
4.1307
16
.50108

4.2138
29
.44336
4.1216
29
.41535
4.5635
29
.28845
4.2147
29
.26552
4.1580
29
.70336
4.1885
29
.51432

Client &
Business
Relations

Conflict
Resolution

Ethnicity
Afr.
Hisp.
Amer.
4.1141
4.1224
7
17
.28840
.44688

4.1477
187
.29994

Working
with
Others
Character

White

Mean
N
SD

Research &
Information
Gathering

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All

Appraisals

Gender
Female
Male

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

4.1953
29
.24782

42

Table 47: Inter-correlations of Raters (Students only)

Self
and
peer

Self
and
Sup

Peer
and
Sup

Self
and
Other

Self
and
Global

Peer
and
Other

Peer
and
Global

Sup
and
Other

Sup
and
Global

Other
and
Global

.184(*)

.337(**)

.264(**)

.298(**)

.643(**)

.809(**)

.744(**)

.839(**)

.784(**)

.925(**)

2 Creativity

.090

-.009

.189(*)

.058

.512(**)

.833(**)

.808(**)

.861(**)

.727(**)

.914(**)

3 Practical
Judgment

.141

.310(**)

.198(*)

.230(**)

.610(**)

.891(**)

.812(**)

.807(**)

.745(**)

.914(**)

4 Advising Clients

.020

.092

-.110

.030

.614(**)

.869(**)

.794(**)

.770(**)

.599(**)

.871(**)

5 Fact Finding

.087

-.018

.093

.109

.522(**)

.808(**)

.748(**)

.826(**)

.740(**)

.912(**)

6 Researching
Law

.008

.119

.098

.132

.593(**)

.806(**)

.709(**)

.828(**)

.718(**)

.885(**)

7 Speaking

.099

.154

.238(**)

.130

.575(**)

.866(**)

.807(**)

.797(**)

.695(**)

.910(**)

8 Writing

.262(**)

.168

.129

.218(**)

.706(**)

.824(**)

.759(**)

.845(**)

.700(**)

.867(**)

9 Listening

.281(**)

.134

.131

.318(**)

.620(**)

.876(**)

.843(**)

.718(**)

.624(**)

.939(**)

.104

.223(*)

.130

.169(*)

.632(**)

.811(**)

.745(**)

.814(**)

.728(**)

.906(**)

.159

.295(*)

.109

.235(*)

.775(**)

.925(**)

.837(**)

.891(**)

.809(**)

.904(**)

12 Negotiation

.158

-.052

.225

.112

.704(**)

.958(**)

.899(**)

.892(**)

.773(**)

.928(**)

13 Strategic
Planning

.073

-.046

.174

.073

.576(**)

.885(**)

.829(**)

.804(**)

.650(**)

.895(**)

.218(*)

.239(**)

.130

.281(**)

.666(**)

.841(**)

.800(**)

.723(**)

.612(**)

.904(**)

.143

.400(**)

.087

.320(**)

.762(**

.896(**)

.831(**)

.811(**)

.685(**)

.904(**)

252(*)

-.158

-.037

.184

.720(**)

.947(**)

.886(**)

.892(**)

.748(**)

.913(**)

.239(**)

.106

.180

.241(**)

.595(**)

.885(**)

.862(**)

.757(**)

.599(**)

.927(**)

18 Networking

.315(**)

.336(**)

.219

.313(**)

.760(**)

.924(**)

.826(**)

.843(**)

.696(**)

.862(**)

19 Community
Service

.371(**)

.303(**)

.398(**)

.396(**)

.757(**)

.931(**)

.876(**)

.852(**)

.756(**)

.918(**)

.027

.208(*)

.143

.090

.522(**)

.859(**)

.796(**)

.788(**)

.681(**)

.894(**)

21 Stress
management

.261(**)

.136

.203(*)

.238(**)

.657(**)

.886(**)

.841(**)

.768(**)

.623(**)

.903(**)

22 Passion

.209(*)

.148

.281(**)

.187(*)

.614(**)

.883(**)

.850(**)

.790(**)

.659(**)

.909(**)

23 Diligence

.126

.048

.113

.132

.566(**)

.831(**)

.789(**)

.729(**)

.614(**)

.907(**)

24 Self
Development

.071

.064

.283(**)

.077

.567(**)

.896(**)

.828(**)

.805(**)

.729(**)

.906(**)

.253(**)

.041

.173

.200(*)

.650(**)

.866(**)

.834(**)

.801(**)

.630(**)

.906(**)

.166

.185

.118

.229(**)

.630(**)

.845(**)

.801(**)

.775(**)

.675(**)

.920(**)

.113

.193(*)

.243(**)

.181(*)

.527(**)

.845(**)

.824(**)

.831(**)

.698(**)

.920(**)

1 Analysis &
Reasoning

10 Influence &
Advocate
11 Question &
Interview

14 Managing Self
15 Managing
Others
16 Eval, Develop
& Mentor
17 Developing
Relationships

20 Integrity

25 Eyes of others
26 Problem
Solving
Average
correlation

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

43

Table 48: LSAT and GPA Correlations with Performance - Student Sample
Research and Information
Gathering

Intellectual and Cognitive

Undergrad
GPA

LSAT score

Index 50/50

26

11

10

Analysis &
Reasoning

Creativity

Problem
Solving

Practical
Judgment

Researching
Law

Fact Finding

Question &
Interview

Influence &
Advocate

Writing

Self

-0.103

-0.087

-.172(*)

-0.103

0.028

-0.159

-.193(*)

-0.091

Peer

-0.082

-0.091

-0.069

-.196(*)

-0.031

-0.052

-0.127

Supervisor

-0.060

-0.081

-0.077

-0.062

-0.107

-0.082

Other

-0.081

-0.109

-0.106

-.169(*)

-0.081

Global

-0.080

-0.127

-0.143

-.164(*)

Self

.186(*)

0.026

0.083

Peer

.260(**)

.209(**)

Supervisor

.163(*)

Other
Global

Planning and Organizing

Conflict Resolution

13

14

15

Speaking

Listening

Strategic
Planning

Managing Self

Managing
Others

12
Negotiation

-0.074

.182(*)

-0.059

-0.055

.160(*)

-0.126

-0.089

-0.019

-0.082

-0.060

-0.027

0.000

0.043

-0.030

-0.038

-0.082

-0.113

-0.047

-0.101

-0.070

-0.091

-0.053

-0.093

-0.089

-0.058

-.156(*)

-.183(*)

-0.124

-0.078

-0.009

-0.086

0.079

-0.072

-0.116

0.023

0.111

.296(**)

0.025

0.130

.189(*)

0.008

.161(*)

0.147

0.159

-0.021

0.151

0.101

0.017

.254(**)

.190(*)

.243(**)

-0.019

0.147

0.145

.284(**)

.171(*)

.201(**)

-0.034

.167(*)

Self

0.091

-0.031

-0.032

-0.130

Peer

.171(*)

0.125

.206(**)

0.103

0.074

Other

.165(*)

Global

Working with
Others

Character

17

16

Eyes of others

Networking

Advising
Clients

Developing
Relationships

Eval, Develop
& Mentor

20

21

19

24

Total

Diligence

Integrity

Stress
management

Community
Service

Self
Development

Passion

Avg Across

-0.027

-0.081

0.015

0.013

-0.047

-.187(*)

0.001

0.085

-0.048

-0.016

-.220(**)

-0.014

-0.088

-0.084

-0.141

-0.137

-0.067

-0.111

-0.151

-0.086

-0.102

-0.040

-.172(*)

-0.002

-0.110

-0.046

-0.142

-0.065

0.025

-0.164

-0.162

-0.065

-0.116

-.193(*)

-0.218

-0.160

0.001

-0.157

-0.134

-.259(**)

-0.082

-0.131

-0.046

-0.060

-0.066

-0.159

-.170(*)

-0.073

-0.120

-.195(**)

-0.109

-0.133

-0.035

-.189(*)

-0.065

-.152(*)

-0.065

-.161(*)

-0.092

-0.056

0.029

-0.098

-0.128

-0.138

-0.064

-0.097

-.171(*)

-0.141

-0.137

0.006

-.187(*)

-0.054

-.203(**)

-0.085

-.159(*)

-.168(*)

-0.040

-0.027

-0.149

-0.148

-.207(*)

0.038

-.297(**)

-0.002

0.038

-0.132

-0.046

-0.071

-0.027

0.065

-.189(*)

-0.038

-0.090

.272(**)

0.037

0.138

.169(*)

0.045

-0.026

0.046

0.138

-.199(*)

0.123

0.080

-0.029

0.007

0.097

0.120

0.079

-0.046

0.046

0.136

0.112

0.089

0.072

0.119

0.048

0.073

-0.106

0.124

0.074

0.078

0.049

-0.044

.326(*)

0.062

0.065

0.040

.206(*)

-0.027

0.037

0.125

0.033

.148(*)

.259(**)

0.032

0.119

0.106

0.090

-0.069

0.080

0.135

-.195(*)

0.088

-0.004

0.066

0.000

0.096

0.065

0.109

-0.097

0.057

0.114

0.090

-0.028

.150(*)

.237(**)

0.009

0.116

0.042

0.014

-0.076

-0.020

0.119

-.213(**)

0.077

0.040

-0.040

-0.020

0.051

0.072

0.134

-0.112

0.049

0.086

0.080

-0.153

-.207(*)

-0.035

0.050

-0.035

-0.067

-0.056

-0.031

-.195(*)

-0.184

-0.015

-.232(**)

0.005

0.003

-.212(*)

-0.038

-0.012

-0.050

0.043

-.280(**)

-0.039

-0.125

-0.088

0.090

0.131

-0.062

0.081

.218(**)

-0.015

0.082

0.124

0.037

-0.071

-0.035

0.036

-.201(*)

0.040

-0.020

-0.076

-0.051

0.059

0.006

0.064

-0.100

0.012

0.035

0.085

-0.050

0.069

0.039

0.034

0.079

0.055

0.019

0.041

0.011

0.023

-0.075

0.008

-0.024

0.028

-0.027

-0.140

0.168

-0.034

0.052

-0.053

0.098

-0.152

-0.015

0.033

0.098

0.139

-0.108

0.076

0.063

-0.011

0.073

.189(*)

-0.026

0.050

0.060

0.041

-0.095

-0.013

0.016

-.201(*)

0.006

-0.112

-0.006

-0.073

0.060

-0.049

0.055

-.166(*)

0.009

0.006

.192(**)

0.072

0.084

-0.119

0.107

-0.011

-0.126

0.056

.155(*)

0.001

0.045

0.001

0.028

-0.118

-0.090

0.020

-.211(**)

0.010

-0.063

-0.112

-0.092

0.044

-0.043

0.081

-.206(**)

-0.007

-0.017

Self

.244(**)

-0.097

0.072

-0.099

0.137

-0.063

-0.168

-0.002

.230(**)

0.003

-0.088

-0.016

0.164

0.004

-0.107

-0.129

-0.150

-.180(*)

-0.088

-0.112

-0.013

0.020

-0.074

-0.006

-.208(*)

-0.162

-0.047

Peer

.273(**)

0.035

0.148

0.120

0.167

.185(*)

0.065

0.150

0.174

0.142

-0.002

.189(*)

.191(*)

-0.003

-0.057

-0.044

-0.070

-0.062

-0.057

-0.039

0.099

0.140

0.046

0.037

-0.145

0.085

0.114

Supervisor

.203(*)

.193(*)

0.119

0.031

0.064

0.073

-0.046

0.163

0.087

0.093

0.107

0.160

.181(*)

0.009

0.013

0.119

0.098

0.031

0.085

0.213

0.054

0.142

0.093

.329(**)

0.008

0.035

0.145

Other

.245(**)

0.110

0.136

0.064

0.142

.173(*)

0.065

0.150

.179(*)

0.111

0.038

.186(*)

.236(**)

-0.004

-0.022

0.018

-0.041

-0.066

0.003

0.031

0.087

0.155

0.057

0.145

-0.107

0.078

0.124

Global

.298(**)

0.028

0.125

0.002

.169(*)

0.113

-0.020

0.150

.231(**)

0.084

0.007

0.116

.222(**)

-0.013

-0.067

-0.045

-0.091

-0.143

-0.038

-0.051

0.082

0.106

-0.003

0.107

-0.130

-0.001

0.074

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

25

Client & Business

Relations

18

Supervisor

1L GPA

Communications

22

23

Table 49: Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) Correlations with Performance - Student Sample
Research and Information
Gathering

Intellectual and Cognitive

HPI 1
Adjustment

26

11

10

Analysis &
Reasoning

Creativity

Problem
Solving

Practical
Judgment

Researching
Law

Fact Finding

Question &
Interview

Influence &
Advocate

Writing

Self

0.103

0.002

.165(*)

.236(**)

0.118

-0.025

0.116

.228(**)

Peer

0.114

0.065

.188(*)

0.117

0.046

0.103

-0.037

Supervisor

0.067

-0.012

0.134

0.041

-0.012

-0.028

Other

0.108

0.057

.204(**)

0.102

0.049

Global

0.101

0.046

.197(**)

.169(*)

.176(*)

0.159

0.147

0.078

0.087

Supervisor

0.129

Other

13

14

15

Speaking

Listening

Managing Self

Managing
Others

HPI 5
Prudence

Negotiation

0.061

0.002

.182(*)

0.151

0.045

0.081

0.101

0.100

-0.018

0.083

0.063

0.153

0.113

0.117

-0.108

0.028

0.102

0.027

0.041

0.025

.154(*)

0.011

0.008

0.109

0.073

-0.017

0.032

.228(**)

0.019

0.012

.350(**)

0.055

0.152

0.156

.346(**)

0.147

0.093

0.084

.185(*)

0.150

0.017

0.069

0.053

0.099

0.098

0.046

0.049

0.142

0.106

0.092

0.114

0.113

.153(*)

0.108

Global

0.097

0.136

0.119

.206(**)

0.145

Self

0.009

.200(*)

0.135

.191(*)

Peer

-0.003

0.095

0.015

Supervisor

0.048

0.044

Other

0.006

Global

Character

17

16

Eyes of others

Networking

Developing
Relationships

Eval, Develop
& Mentor

20

21

19

24

Total

Diligence

Integrity

Stress
management

Community
Service

Self
Development

Passion

Avg Across

-0.021

.252(**)

0.071

.250(**)

.191(*)

0.026

0.133

0.061

.165(*)

.466(**)

0.024

0.076

.223(**)

0.092

0.010

0.067

0.115

0.022

0.149

-0.013

0.140

0.038

0.054

.167(*)

0.091

-0.024

0.150

-0.018

-0.067

.344(*)

0.020

0.035

0.041

0.054

0.276

0.046

-0.013

0.061

0.103

0.080

-0.038

0.049

0.085

0.079

0.026

0.075

0.031

0.065

0.053

0.110

0.104

0.139

-0.012

0.077

0.119

0.081

-0.052

0.128

.166(*)

0.099

0.086

0.021

0.040

0.107

0.075

0.133

.158(*)

0.016

0.144

0.007

0.106

.271(**)

0.052

-0.032

.162(*)

.305(**)

.190(*)

0.161

.284(**)

.356(**)

0.115

0.157

.352(**)

.255(**)

0.111

.182(*)

.343(**)

0.001

0.063

.395(**)

0.078

.179(*)

.378(**)

-0.001

0.157

-0.008

.170(*)

0.122

.168(*)

-0.066

-0.039

.263(**)

-0.112

0.005

0.024

.241(**)

0.106

-0.094

0.081

0.112

0.153

0.150

0.113

-0.071

.186(*)

0.067

0.180

0.134

-0.030

.376(*)

0.080

.329(**)

0.100

0.049

0.198

0.150

0.074

0.056

.228(**)

0.133

0.081

0.143

0.083

0.131

-0.009

.185(*)

0.008

.214(**)

0.149

0.142

0.014

-0.021

.280(**)

-0.020

0.032

0.114

.280(**)

0.124

-0.007

0.134

0.130

0.136

.192(*)

0.139

0.096

.264(**)

0.059

.234(**)

0.061

.216(**)

.196(**)

.283(**)

0.039

0.054

.322(**)

0.108

0.039

0.120

.329(**)

0.072

-0.048

.221(**)

0.112

.151(*)

.261(**)

-0.043

.174(*)

0.010

0.135

0.005

.270(**)

0.077

0.049

0.003

.242(**)

0.097

0.095

.253(**)

0.122

0.158

0.148

0.097

-0.134

-.166(*)

0.089

0.139

0.090

.174(*)

-0.118

0.008

0.048

-0.033

-0.098

-0.141

.238(**)

-0.054

-0.030

-0.074

0.121

-0.067

-0.064

.212(*)

-0.037

0.016

-0.017

0.078

-0.026

-.207(**)

-0.038

0.035

0.041

0.013

0.102

-0.009

-0.022

0.112

0.033

0.081

-0.019

0.138

0.023

0.082

-0.003

0.096

0.076

0.119

0.151

-0.019

0.139

.380(*)

0.133

-0.070

-0.056

0.096

0.076

0.138

0.095

0.050

0.051

-0.076

-0.075

0.077

-0.029

0.009

-0.098

.218(**)

-0.028

-0.029

-0.054

.176(*)

-0.068

0.024

.255(**)

-0.039

0.137

0.103

.155(*)

-0.032

-0.125

0.033

0.094

0.118

0.065

-0.007

0.138

0.093

0.018

-0.076

.165(*)

0.023

0.099

-0.028

.250(**)

-0.008

0.032

-0.027

.289(**)

-0.001

0.058

.324(**)

0.104

0.141

.169(*)

.175(*)

-0.058

-.191(*)

0.067

0.104

0.136

0.140

-0.021

0.050

0.092

.278(**)

0.095

0.105

0.132

0.077

-0.020

0.073

0.111

0.106

0.047

0.136

-0.031

.309(**)

0.146

.238(**)

.221(**)

0.121

.203(*)

0.008

0.101

.209(**)

.284(**)

.169(*)

.229(**)

-0.035

0.010

0.097

0.083

0.021

0.083

0.187

-0.013

-0.059

0.145

0.109

0.034

0.137

.183(*)

-0.027

0.129

.213(**)

0.090

.326(**)

0.103

.283(**)

0.095

-0.016

0.092

.285(**)

0.045

.168(*)

-0.018

0.008

0.014

0.039

-0.104

-0.058

-0.150

0.041

-0.103

0.077

0.091

-0.100

-0.088

-0.012

0.094

0.147

-0.023

-0.006

0.173

0.304

0.067

-0.099

-0.008

-0.019

.286(**)

-0.008

0.033

Other

-0.004

0.030

0.066

0.109

-0.042

0.010

0.063

0.062

-0.077

0.121

0.104

-0.020

0.029

.180(*)

-0.005

0.145

.168(*)

0.058

.325(**)

.193(*)

.215(**)

0.024

-0.008

0.036

.316(**)

0.023

0.141

Global

-0.029

0.072

0.082

.224(**)

-0.007

0.050

0.109

0.112

-0.049

0.111

.151(*)

0.029

0.055

.181(*)

0.012

.264(**)

.212(**)

.160(*)

.316(**)

.179(*)

.231(**)

0.026

0.001

0.125

.288(**)

0.070

.220(**)

Self

-0.036

-.178(*)

-0.128

0.017

0.151

-0.007

0.015

-0.029

-0.005

-0.065

0.006

-0.040

.208(*)

0.031

-0.085

-0.069

0.022

0.110

-0.036

-0.020

0.088

.266(**)

.297(**)

0.087

0.009

-0.077

0.048

Peer

0.043

-0.015

0.071

.195(*)

.166(*)

0.081

0.099

.175(*)

0.117

0.005

0.085

.191(*)

.299(**)

0.155

-0.029

0.066

0.140

-0.088

0.066

0.078

.161(*)

.251(**)

0.143

0.093

-0.019

0.048

.172(*)

Supervisor

-0.028

-0.040

0.017

0.032

0.028

-0.171

-0.113

0.106

-0.068

0.019

0.022

0.100

0.106

-0.139

0.025

0.057

0.129

0.142

0.038

0.095

-0.012

0.144

0.145

0.013

0.024

0.002

0.038

Other

0.024

-0.021

0.055

0.141

.158(*)

-0.055

0.031

.158(*)

0.018

0.022

0.060

.217(**)

.244(**)

0.075

-0.019

0.041

0.136

-0.002

0.025

0.088

0.079

.224(**)

.166(*)

0.056

-0.001

-0.009

0.131

Global

-0.008

-0.086

-0.019

0.118

.169(*)

-0.081

0.014

0.091

-0.001

-0.010

0.075

.158(*)

.293(**)

-0.013

-0.059

0.011

0.041

0.018

-0.006

0.016

0.064

.275(**)

.230(**)

0.061

-0.017

-0.070

0.087

Self

0.123

.262(**)

.298(**)

0.080

0.076

0.059

0.081

0.125

0.040

0.116

0.111

0.110

-0.095

0.017

0.119

0.113

0.094

0.019

.300(**)

0.023

0.131

-0.149

-0.015

0.041

0.055

0.059

0.139

-0.020

0.064

-0.025

-.195(*)

-0.089

-0.060

0.014

-0.144

-0.057

0.047

-0.082

-0.138

-.181(*)

0.067

-0.115

-0.011

-0.036

0.033

0.058

-0.004

-0.019

-.190(*)

-.180(*)

-0.074

-0.031

-0.066

-0.078

Supervisor

0.116

0.163

0.087

0.074

0.111

0.084

-0.074

0.071

0.094

0.139

0.071

0.051

-0.061

0.045

-0.075

0.071

0.084

0.011

0.090

0.044

-0.073

-0.065

0.027

0.029

0.026

0.063

0.093

Other

0.067

.178(*)

0.050

-0.065

-0.039

0.019

-0.005

0.013

0.056

0.099

-0.026

-0.098

-0.150

0.051

-0.099

0.044

-0.003

0.011

0.116

0.029

-0.021

-0.150

-0.094

-0.054

0.009

0.029

0.016

Global

0.106

.253(**)

.200(**)

-0.001

0.035

0.048

-0.012

0.047

0.073

0.121

0.036

-0.015

-0.147

0.066

-0.025

0.058

0.055

0.041

.224(**)

0.034

0.051

-0.135

-0.084

0.001

0.020

0.054

0.092

.249(**)

0.065

0.099

0.079

0.125

0.006

-0.068

-0.007

.198(*)

-.166(*)

0.019

0.063

0.032

0.022

0.073

-0.047

-0.017

0.023

0.008

0.045

0.067

0.046

0.014

0.118

0.049

0.081

0.068

0.135

0.101

0.131

0.058

0.128

0.018

0.080

-0.037

0.039

0.046

0.089

0.090

-0.023

-0.072

0.039

0.084

0.039

-0.137

0.120

0.012

0.101

0.045

0.033

0.049

0.032

0.073

0.079

Supervisor

0.037

0.015

-0.005

0.164

-0.052

-0.017

0.103

0.040

-0.046

0.102

0.080

-0.017

0.009

-0.109

0.167

0.022

0.032

-0.022

0.026

-0.124

-0.027

-0.041

0.036

0.079

-0.045

-0.062

-0.004

Other

0.096

0.070

0.067

0.093

0.034

-0.037

0.100

0.000

-0.002

0.043

0.067

0.042

-0.018

-0.095

0.080

0.068

-0.018

-0.144

0.045

-0.005

0.015

-0.033

0.031

0.035

-0.028

0.010

0.011

Global

.178(*)

0.090

0.063

0.091

0.095

-0.034

0.045

0.021

0.112

-0.038

0.084

0.070

0.036

-0.033

0.073

0.007

-0.022

-0.063

0.059

-0.015

0.039

0.022

0.017

0.082

0.029

0.076

0.072

Self
HPI 7 Learning
Peer
Approach

25

Working with
Others

Advising
Clients

HPI 6
Peer
Intellectance

12

Client & Business

Relations

18

Self
HPI 4
Interpersonal Peer
Sensitivity
Supervisor

Conflict Resolution

Strategic
Planning

HPI 2 Ambition Peer

Planning and Organizing

Self

HPI 3
Sociability

Communications

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

22

23

Table 50: Hogan Development Survey (HDS) Correlations with Performance - Student Sample
Intellectual and Cognitive

HDS 1
Excitable

HDS 2
Skeptical

HDS 3
Cautious

HDS 4
Reserved

HDS 5
Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 7
Mischievous

HDS 10
Diligent

Communications

Planning and Organizing

Conflict Resolution

Client & Business

Relations

Working with Others

Character

26

11

10

13

14

15

12

25

18

17

16

22

23

20

21

19

24

Total

Analysis &
Reasoning

Creativity

Problem
Solving

Practical
Judgment

Researching
Law

Fact Finding

Question &
Interview

Influence &
Advocate

Writing

Speaking

Listening

Strategic
Planning

Managing Self

Managing
Others

Negotiation

Eyes of others

Networking

Advising
Clients

Developing
Relationships

Eval, Develop
& Mentor

Passion

Diligence

Integrity

Stress
management

Community
Service

Self
Development

Avg Across

Self

-0.168

0.027

-0.024

-0.262

-0.026

-0.024

-0.189

-0.267

-0.143

0.114

-0.193

-0.162

-0.197

-0.162

0.037

-0.007

0.123

-0.231

-0.261

0.039

-0.048

-0.245

-0.215

-.546(**)

0.096

-0.088

-0.179

Peer

-0.038

0.078

-0.148

0.071

-0.014

0.023

0.173

-0.014

0.190

0.122

-0.100

-0.135

-0.109

-0.009

0.000

0.024

-0.122

0.126

-0.150

-0.009

-0.143

0.079

0.197

-0.218

-0.168

-0.126

-0.040

Supervisor

0.004

0.009

-0.037

-0.075

0.034

-0.014

0.182

-0.186

0.122

-0.178

-0.065

-0.098

0.048

0.026

-0.274

-0.010

-0.219

-0.022

-0.074

-0.309

0.071

0.019

0.019

-0.270

0.067

0.063

0.003

Other

0.029

0.063

-0.087

0.057

0.084

0.071

0.178

-0.077

0.170

0.016

-0.104

-0.116

-0.009

0.061

-0.037

0.059

-0.085

0.085

-0.096

-0.203

-0.088

0.147

0.172

-0.186

0.011

-0.070

0.014

Global

0.014

0.059

-0.012

-0.062

0.080

0.153

0.039

-0.193

0.126

0.108

-0.159

-0.097

-0.087

-0.056

0.000

0.044

-0.069

-0.008

-0.226

-0.069

-0.134

0.023

0.089

-.399(**)

0.029

-0.040

-0.058

Self

-0.019

0.103

0.077

-0.053

-0.039

-0.075

-0.158

-0.051

-0.067

0.091

-0.091

-0.016

0.034

0.064

0.201

0.033

0.103

-0.132

-.356(**)

0.166

-0.015

-0.099

-0.053

-.290(*)

-0.044

-0.049

-0.047

Peer

0.116

-0.042

-0.145

-0.080

0.262

0.220

0.091

-0.047

-0.113

0.135

-0.004

0.092

0.221

0.134

-0.048

-0.099

0.050

-0.098

-0.240

-0.007

-0.120

0.242

-0.015

-0.131

0.127

-0.044

0.021

Supervisor

-0.016

-0.070

-0.218

-0.103

0.029

-0.112

-0.311

-0.143

0.030

0.008

-0.138

-0.084

-0.012

-0.078

-0.346

-0.181

-0.359

-0.170

-0.190

-0.082

-0.075

0.020

-0.104

-0.081

-0.071

0.012

-0.094

Other

0.067

-0.025

-0.206

-0.044

0.229

0.091

-0.074

-0.097

-0.004

0.118

-0.076

0.058

0.210

0.099

-0.120

-0.124

0.015

-0.160

-0.221

-0.077

-0.083

0.245

-0.042

-0.031

0.106

-0.004

0.005

Global

0.049

0.023

-0.103

-0.069

0.187

0.103

-0.022

-0.072

0.001

0.172

-0.107

0.040

0.166

0.087

-0.031

-0.130

0.038

-0.107

-.294(*)

0.044

-0.032

0.139

-0.051

-0.121

0.084

-0.005

0.008

Self

-0.038

-0.155

-0.182

-0.224

-0.025

-0.167

-0.131

-.421(**)

-0.126

-0.189

-0.007

-0.160

-0.112

-.339(*)

0.007

-0.099

-0.050

-.296(*)

-0.046

-0.015

-0.141

-0.073

-0.006

-.455(**)

-0.099

-0.053

-0.223

Peer

-0.042

0.007

-0.110

0.129

-0.137

0.052

0.063

-0.044

0.024

-0.033

0.131

-0.070

-0.124

-0.022

0.061

0.186

-0.211

0.086

0.172

0.111

-0.081

-0.008

.347(*)

0.018

-0.260

-0.007

-0.018

Supervisor

0.067

0.175

0.077

0.107

0.169

0.123

0.412

-0.097

0.249

-0.011

0.087

0.035

.297(*)

-0.038

-0.111

0.166

0.213

0.348

0.048

0.000

0.036

0.125

0.167

-0.024

0.037

0.151

0.163

Other

0.083

0.132

-0.036

0.174

0.032

0.126

0.216

-0.099

0.136

-0.010

0.130

-0.001

0.054

-0.038

0.050

0.193

-0.138

0.222

0.105

-0.003

-0.121

0.109

.307(*)

0.012

-0.184

0.008

0.082

Global

0.054

-0.029

-0.075

0.049

0.008

0.015

0.001

-.312(*)

0.041

-0.085

0.100

-0.032

-0.037

-0.223

0.052

0.144

-0.237

-0.038

0.056

-0.018

-0.223

0.028

.285(*)

-0.189

-0.205

-0.070

-0.085

Self

-0.080

-0.013

-0.104

-0.253

0.173

-0.153

-0.124

-0.179

-0.047

-0.048

-0.111

0.026

-0.092

-.439(**)

0.066

-0.128

-.316(*)

-0.073

-0.148

-0.210

-.290(*)

-0.055

0.080

-0.011

-.382(**)

-0.213

-0.208

Peer

0.030

0.039

-0.213

-0.184

-0.013

0.094

-0.295

-0.117

-0.070

-.413(**)

-0.161

-0.204

-0.225

-.317(*)

-0.021

-0.227

-.394(**)

-0.198

-.315(*)

-0.207

-.554(**) -.311(*)

0.053

-0.031

-.504(**)

-0.208

-.401(**)

Supervisor

-0.264

-0.157

-.310(*)

-0.259

-0.004

-0.176

0.028

-0.216

-0.060

-.365(*)

-.315(*)

-0.158

-0.236

-0.205

-0.403

-.447(**)

-0.410

-0.359

-.466(**)

-0.435

-.358(**)

-0.076

-0.194

-0.209

-.478(**) -.301(*)

-.344(*)

Other

-0.163

-0.100

-.351(**)

-0.172

0.037

-0.068

-0.195

-0.240

-0.041

-.466(**) -.293(*)

-0.195

-0.257

-.374(**)

-0.123

-.355(**) -.420(**) -.309(*) -.459(**)

-0.285

-.599(**)

-0.209

-0.092

-0.073

-.536(**) -.296(*) -.416(**)

Global

-0.187

-0.152

-.373(**) -.300(*)

0.036

-0.130

-0.229

-.310(*)

-0.075

-.336(**) -.303(*)

-0.165

-.276(*) -.449(**)

-0.071

-.337(**) -.444(**) -.305(*) -.376(**) -.350(**) -.613(**)

-0.227

-0.066

-0.140

-.545(**) -.358(**) -.452(**)

Self

-0.113

-0.143

-0.165

-0.225

0.024

-0.148

-.298(*)

-.320(*)

-0.204

-0.116

-0.133

-0.177

-0.191

-0.150

0.023

-0.214

-0.101

-0.238

-0.207

-0.013

-0.264

-0.230

-0.073

-.423(**)

-0.125

-0.243

-.281(*)

Peer

0.091

-0.193

-0.212

0.106

0.042

-0.055

-0.180

0.133

-0.202

0.094

-0.002

-0.024

0.109

0.100

0.049

-0.136

-0.035

0.069

-0.115

0.157

-0.213

0.110

-0.005

-0.050

-0.156

-0.063

-0.010

Supervisor

0.022

-0.102

0.015

0.113

0.068

0.152

0.004

0.027

0.148

-0.092

0.156

0.050

0.102

-0.065

-.538(*)

-0.039

-0.146

0.083

0.019

-0.441

0.200

0.131

0.225

-0.059

-0.083

0.091

0.105

Other

0.073

-0.181

-0.162

0.141

0.056

0.091

-0.146

0.073

-0.085

-0.029

0.044

0.036

0.113

-0.012

-0.122

-0.139

-0.044

0.052

-0.108

-0.146

-0.143

0.138

0.093

-0.040

-0.113

-0.066

0.008

Global

-0.004

-0.219

-0.171

0.019

0.047

0.016

-0.229

-0.147

-0.184

-0.048

-0.014

-0.046

-0.027

-0.146

-0.081

-0.197

-0.155

-0.127

-0.173

-0.140

-.270(*)

0.008

0.037

-0.212

-0.156

-0.186

-0.177

Self

.310(*)

.351(**)

0.170

0.215

.333(*)

0.273

.298(*)

.370(**)

.302(*)

.330(*)

.327(*)

.329(*)

0.193

.345(*)

0.269

0.097

0.226

.366(**)

-0.125

.314(*)

0.122

0.004

0.143

.277(*)

0.058

0.089

.373(**)

Peer

0.079

-0.140

-0.185

-0.028

.293(*)

0.131

-0.125

-0.002

-.299(*)

0.222

-0.014

0.169

0.024

-0.020

-0.007

-0.189

0.191

-0.101

-0.101

0.084

0.001

0.010

-0.198

0.086

0.029

-0.004

-0.043

Supervisor

0.002

0.025

-0.027

0.143

0.095

0.013

-0.368

0.218

-0.050

0.188

0.230

0.166

0.094

0.047

-0.206

0.100

0.099

-0.007

0.023

0.085

0.037

0.148

0.103

0.279

-0.010

0.107

0.123

Other

-0.021

-0.034

-0.186

0.115

.280(*)

0.060

-0.225

0.129

-0.172

0.211

0.123

0.187

0.093

-0.018

-0.059

-0.088

0.183

-0.144

-0.057

0.038

0.027

0.113

-0.064

0.250

-0.016

0.031

0.073
0.197

Global

0.106

0.120

-0.131

0.156

.315(*)

0.175

0.152

.320(*)

0.023

.296(*)

0.210

.262(*)

0.138

0.178

0.003

-0.095

0.212

0.111

-0.108

0.119

0.108

0.073

-0.024

.302(*)

0.070

0.066

Self

-0.057

.332(*)

0.092

0.062

-0.003

0.155

-0.009

0.149

0.087

.288(*)

-0.001

0.109

0.012

0.159

0.306

0.069

0.124

0.197

-0.096

0.169

0.066

-.317(*)

-0.077

0.107

-0.023

-0.002

0.110

Peer

-0.190

-.290(*)

-0.267

-.455(**)

-0.196

-0.227

-0.227

-0.201

-0.270

0.169

-.325(*)

-.301(*)

-0.168

-0.075

-0.026

-0.229

0.057

-0.128

-.321(*)

-0.019

-0.223

-0.175

-.283(*) -.453(**)

0.070

-0.145

-.330(*)

Supervisor

-0.052

-0.094

-0.039

0.065

0.094

0.105

0.068

0.080

0.000

-0.108

0.041

0.044

-0.090

0.223

0.065

0.096

-0.294

0.197

-0.011

-0.152

0.037

0.089

-0.128

0.038

0.038

0.132

0.045

Other

-0.190

-0.160

-0.194

-.360(**)

-0.145

-0.017

-0.120

-0.076

-0.095

0.056

-0.216

-.275(*)

-0.219

0.102

0.004

-0.039

0.092

-0.065

-0.162

-0.112

-0.072

-0.137

-.286(*)

-.333(*)

0.188

0.044

-0.185

Global

-0.094

0.080

-0.031

-0.218

-0.107

0.144

-0.005

0.083

0.049

0.168

-0.219

-0.140

-0.124

0.162

0.139

-0.064

0.114

0.097

-0.188

0.060

-0.040

-0.207

-0.243

-0.202

0.132

0.091

-0.017

Self

-0.034

0.128

0.135

0.010

-0.215

0.156

0.046

0.192

-0.007

.323(*)

-0.060

0.006

0.042

.389(**)

0.003

0.033

0.248

0.057

0.062

0.219

0.256

-0.237

-0.063

0.071

0.209

0.181

0.146

Peer

0.166

-0.110

-0.007

-0.189

0.017

0.041

0.183

-0.007

-0.081

0.245

0.015

-0.022

-0.034

0.166

-0.169

-0.018

0.186

-0.033

-0.190

0.172

0.132

-0.003

-.423(**)

-0.193

0.197

0.018

0.050

0.141

0.115

0.119

0.061

0.221

0.074

-0.298

0.192

0.149

0.191

0.141

0.178

0.137

0.259

-0.356

0.094

0.100

0.078

0.259

-0.053

0.260

0.133

0.098

0.123

0.249

.336(*)

0.255

Other

0.152

0.020

0.097

-0.132

0.038

0.098

-0.039

0.121

0.012

.261(*)

0.070

0.024

-0.003

.278(*)

-0.200

0.025

0.217

-0.039

0.041

0.065

.276(*)

0.008

-0.208

-0.112

.283(*)

0.178

0.144

Global

0.143

0.125

0.183

-0.047

-0.013

0.198

0.104

.258(*)

0.059

.316(*)

0.014

0.064

0.047

.392(**)

-0.111

0.012

.324(*)

0.153

0.005

0.194

.310(*)

-0.059

-0.222

-0.018

.306(*)

.299(*)

0.211

Self

0.040

.298(*)

0.261

0.042

-0.183

0.148

-0.097

0.011

0.153

0.243

0.126

-0.104

-0.009

0.040

0.263

0.091

0.024

-0.027

-0.122

0.109

0.162

-0.257

0.061

-0.016

0.150

0.052

0.079

Peer

-0.145

-0.026

-0.271

-.370(**)

-0.002

-0.177

-0.216

-0.218

-.353(*)

0.081

-0.080

-.283(*)

-0.176

-0.026

-0.148

-0.087

-0.171

-0.254

-0.113

-0.123

-0.040

-0.035

-0.180

-0.207

0.140

-0.019

-0.227

Supervisor

0.149

0.062

-0.099

0.071

0.110

0.101

-0.023

0.076

0.081

0.192

0.012

-0.155

-0.065

0.019

-0.133

-0.087

-0.349

0.077

-0.043

-0.134

0.063

-0.081

-0.084

0.041

-0.002

0.027

0.013

Other

-0.005

0.090

-0.218

-0.233

-0.002

-0.014

-0.213

-0.071

-0.120

0.171

-0.050

-.315(*)

-0.178

-0.004

-0.162

-0.050

-0.165

-0.273

-0.057

-0.093

0.044

-0.080

-0.168

-0.111

0.155

0.053

-0.118

Global

0.062

0.190

-0.028

-0.174

-0.065

0.104

-0.140

-0.014

0.029

0.221

-0.056

-.303(*)

-0.142

0.029

0.013

-0.068

-0.141

-0.150

-0.127

-0.019

0.085

-0.209

-0.150

-0.096

0.146

0.059

-0.054

Self

0.100

0.041

-0.029

0.147

0.225

0.016

0.184

-0.169

-0.050

-0.230

0.260

0.173

.314(*)

0.196

.361(*)

-0.080

0.161

0.079

-0.171

.484(**)

0.138

.398(**)

0.225

0.089

0.153

0.160

0.173

Peer

-0.234

0.000

-0.163

0.214

0.275

0.005

0.057

0.017

-0.057

0.261

0.147

0.233

0.248

0.262

0.169

-0.043

0.205

-0.004

0.258

0.200

0.129

0.254

0.186

.311(*)

0.003

0.158

0.192

Supervisor

-0.088

-0.016

-0.070

0.102

-0.162

0.025

-0.192

0.049

-0.079

0.023

0.057

-0.006

0.138

-0.177

-0.407

0.207

0.015

-0.048

0.074

-0.143

0.001

0.208

0.121

-0.020

-0.024

-0.027

-0.001

Other

-0.200

-0.043

-0.201

.269(*)

0.191

-0.054

0.018

0.019

-0.128

0.120

0.133

0.245

.295(*)

0.092

0.049

0.022

0.177

-0.069

0.165

0.019

0.013

.331(*)

0.162

.268(*)

-0.020

0.063

0.111

Global

-0.150

-0.003

-0.197

0.203

0.153

-0.065

0.106

-0.092

-0.166

-0.075

0.250

0.178

.307(*)

0.120

0.162

-0.020

0.144

-0.084

0.093

0.227

0.095

.388(**)

0.215

0.250

0.076

0.001

0.138

Self

-0.199

-0.140

-.309(*)

-0.174

-0.145

-0.251

-0.134

-.418(**) -.303(*)

-0.103

-0.101

-.302(*)

0.008

-0.147

-0.223

-0.243

0.023

-0.127

-0.154

-0.017

-0.257

-0.040

-0.183

-0.065

-0.147

-0.123

-0.257

Peer

-0.088

-0.167

-0.142

0.196

0.041

-0.039

0.069

0.129

0.140

0.170

0.026

-0.003

0.240

0.215

0.125

0.014

.353(*)

-0.036

0.233

0.143

0.142

0.139

0.134

0.056

0.051

.311(*)

0.219

-0.182

0.016

0.019

-0.034

-0.035

-0.129

-0.287

-0.138

-0.011

-0.080

0.021

0.073

0.154

-0.001

-0.109

0.105

0.245

0.141

0.076

0.086

0.025

-0.020

0.043

0.066

0.162

0.100

0.044

Other

-0.157

-0.093

-0.058

0.113

0.026

-0.104

-0.052

0.005

0.012

0.065

0.032

0.023

.266(*)

0.194

0.083

0.000

.380(**)

0.015

0.192

0.028

0.138

0.089

0.107

0.072

0.160

0.219

0.146

Global

-0.193

-0.141

-0.176

0.010

-0.021

-0.211

-0.056

-0.198

-0.146

-0.039

0.019

-0.103

0.164

0.023

0.012

-0.015

0.192

-0.085

0.099

0.129

0.001

0.062

0.033

0.019

0.013

0.028

-0.018

HDS 8 Colorful Supervisor

HDS 9
Imaginative

Research and Information Gathering

HDS 11 Dutiful Supervisor

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

Table 51: Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) Correlations with Performance- Student Sample
Intellectual and Cognitive

MVPI 1
Aesthetic

MVPI 2
Affiliation

MVPI 3
Altruistic

Client & Business

Relations

Working with Others

Character

11

10

13

14

15

12

25

18

17

16

22

23

20

21

19

24

Total

Analysis &
Reasoning

Creativity

Problem
Solving

Practical
Judgment

Researching
Law

Fact Finding

Question &
Interview

Influence &
Advocate

Writing

Speaking

Listening

Strategic
Planning

Managing Self

Managing
Others

Negotiation

Eyes of others

Networking

Advising
Clients

Developing
Relationships

Eval, Develop
& Mentor

Passion

Diligence

Integrity

Stress
management

Community
Service

Self
Development

Avg Across

Self

0.089

0.127

0.223

0.216

-0.118

0.107

0.197

-0.002

-0.049

-0.051

0.060

0.113

-0.057

0.122

0.227

-0.191

0.218

0.018

0.072

0.052

-0.020

-0.182

-0.196

-0.052

0.183

-0.117

0.052

Peer

-0.082

0.211

0.121

-0.045

-0.206

-0.198

0.087

-0.005

-0.178

0.239

0.072

0.073

-.497(**)

0.134

0.122

-0.083

0.149

0.111

0.023

0.034

-0.164

-.351(*) -.492(**)

-0.226

-0.054

-0.088

-0.068

Supervisor

0.207

0.214

0.171

0.110

0.231

.326(*)

0.357

0.162

0.301

.474(**)

0.155

0.257

0.041

0.149

0.173

0.192

.665(**)

-0.053

.357(*)

0.330

0.165

0.137

0.069

0.160

0.287

0.235

0.247

Other

0.070

0.186

0.150

0.005

0.109

0.082

0.169

0.074

0.153

.307(*)

0.103

0.107

-0.228

0.121

0.145

0.078

0.223

0.082

0.182

0.084

0.005

-0.030

-0.188

-0.135

0.024

0.082

0.116

Global

0.123

.283(*)

.285(*)

0.051

0.052

0.163

0.190

0.035

0.107

0.243

0.174

0.156

-0.200

.305(*)

0.215

-0.034

0.229

0.068

0.249

0.124

0.073

-0.020

-0.139

-0.018

0.238

0.139

0.195

Self

-0.134

0.004

0.118

0.248

0.180

.353(*)

-0.034

-0.063

-0.094

.382(**)

-0.179

0.016

0.225

0.026

0.079

0.166

0.197

0.182

0.237

0.110

0.131

0.217

-0.049

0.035

0.172

0.044

0.202

Peer

-0.036

0.060

0.029

-0.191

-0.200

0.295

-0.145

-0.100

-.353(*)

0.055

0.029

-0.085

-0.141

-0.021

0.028

-0.019

-0.085

0.086

0.111

-0.094

-0.024

0.051

-0.060

0.009

0.156

-0.114

-0.053

Supervisor

-0.238

-0.147

-0.088

-0.106

-0.021

-0.149

-0.244

-0.140

-0.087

-0.060

-0.127

-0.214

-0.167

-0.040

0.037

-0.152

-0.072

-0.331

0.041

0.308

0.203

-0.251

-0.228

-0.098

-0.092

-0.043

-0.117

Other

-0.118

-0.137

-0.078

-0.202

-0.154

0.037

-0.207

-0.159

-0.265

-0.017

-0.067

-0.223

-0.210

0.042

-0.035

-0.081

0.024

-0.137

0.114

-0.004

0.059

-0.035

-0.207

-0.055

-0.011

-0.095

-0.095

Global

-0.155

-0.038

0.065

-0.051

-0.056

0.171

-0.105

-0.121

-0.247

0.127

-0.071

-0.100

-0.100

0.085

0.008

0.042

0.153

0.020

0.202

0.025

0.100

0.073

-0.200

-0.020

0.091

-0.053

-0.002

Self

0.006

-0.045

0.175

0.262

0.001

0.244

.378(*)

-.295(*)

-0.089

0.003

0.118

0.209

-0.108

0.127

0.084

.363(*)

-0.085

0.165

0.159

-0.146

.541(**)

0.237

.325(*)

0.135

.620(**)

0.212

0.253

Peer

-0.016

0.142

0.055

0.173

0.063

0.107

0.035

-0.078

-0.234

0.033

0.085

-0.079

0.199

-0.052

0.068

0.185

-0.017

0.141

0.138

-0.155

0.230

0.030

0.176

-0.036

.317(*)

0.063

0.109

-.325(*)

-0.306

-0.149

-0.164

-0.144

-.374(*)

-0.388

-0.148

-0.305

-0.197

-0.154

-0.205

-0.168

-0.114

-0.276

-0.033

-0.076

-0.098

0.133

-0.089

0.280

-0.157

-0.044

-0.170

0.218

-0.052

-0.163

Other

-0.167

-0.143

-0.062

0.025

-0.018

-0.135

-0.128

-0.125

-.294(*)

-0.114

-0.067

-0.173

-0.001

-0.056

0.021

0.073

-0.062

0.033

0.151

-0.192

0.262

-0.039

0.086

-0.103

.289(*)

0.017

-0.036

Global

-0.078

0.029

0.209

0.151

0.068

0.010

0.211

-0.181

-0.215

-0.016

0.124

0.036

0.078

0.055

0.052

0.202

0.069

0.162

.302(*)

-.308(*)

.477(**)

0.210

.280(*)

0.148

.596(**)

0.216

0.192

Supervisor

Self

0.233

0.016

0.053

0.135

0.126

-0.095

-0.098

-0.106

0.098

-.301(*)

-0.064

0.104

0.023

0.026

0.117

-0.240

-0.048

-0.236

0.002

0.299

-0.248

0.087

-0.160

0.043

-0.140

0.028

-0.032

Peer

-0.026

-0.182

-0.224

0.029

-0.019

-0.176

-0.068

-0.005

-0.050

0.092

-0.232

-0.014

-0.091

-0.179

-0.073

-0.146

0.195

0.083

-0.157

-0.126

-0.156

-0.065

-0.024

0.124

-.292(*)

-0.111

-0.064

0.197

0.089

0.131

0.129

0.150

0.233

0.340

0.089

0.187

0.217

0.042

0.179

0.116

-0.047

0.325

0.145

0.241

0.001

0.072

0.003

-0.065

0.061

0.033

0.264

-0.007

-0.093

0.119

0.016

0.002

-0.079

0.007

0.109

0.019

0.098

0.018

0.152

0.176

-0.165

0.093

0.018

-0.151

0.013

-0.043

0.169

0.064

-0.171

-0.062

-0.153

-0.044

0.043

0.191

-.292(*)

-0.140

0.000

Global

0.080

-0.035

-0.107

0.078

0.047

-0.071

0.053

-0.081

0.096

0.053

-0.159

0.085

0.067

-0.080

0.099

-0.173

0.109

-0.091

-0.143

0.149

-0.224

0.004

-0.034

0.096

-.277(*)

-0.087

-0.027

Self

-0.026

0.112

0.150

.327(*)

0.043

0.182

-0.128

0.056

-0.063

0.102

-0.136

-0.001

0.191

0.010

0.064

-0.067

0.229

-0.068

0.116

0.223

-0.196

0.014

-0.215

0.071

-0.091

0.030

0.079

Peer

-0.259

-0.138

-0.228

-0.222

-.326(*)

-0.061

-0.235

-0.182

-.353(*)

0.158

-0.045

-0.187

-0.283

-0.063

-0.217

-0.086

-0.027

-0.031

-0.031

-0.195

-.370(*)

-0.180

-0.141

-0.032

-0.205

-0.240

-0.204

Supervisor

0.067

0.077

0.116

0.171

0.105

0.188

0.151

0.011

0.136

0.208

0.026

0.047

0.068

0.080

0.343

0.192

0.472

-0.132

0.203

0.355

0.233

-0.021

-0.044

0.125

0.072

-0.027

0.134

Other

-0.144

-0.067

-0.118

-0.118

-0.103

0.007

-0.121

-0.122

-0.065

0.207

-0.024

-0.119

-0.150

0.004

-0.144

0.041

0.058

-0.082

-0.001

-0.097

-0.163

-0.066

-0.105

0.007

-0.269

-0.197

-0.051

Global

-0.204

-0.107

-0.071

0.021

-0.120

0.016

-0.166

-0.085

-0.148

0.172

-0.078

-0.111

-0.122

0.095

-0.062

0.011

0.163

-0.132

0.017

0.050

-0.241

-0.106

-0.260

-0.024

-.282(*)

-0.173

-0.116

Self

0.114

0.165

0.149

0.209

0.154

0.242

0.067

-0.072

0.072

0.057

-0.010

0.257

0.222

0.166

0.296

-0.151

0.198

0.152

0.125

0.312

0.000

0.250

-0.063

-0.049

-0.046

0.056

0.193

Peer

-0.018

0.000

-0.195

-0.178

-0.022

-0.099

-0.013

-0.015

-0.216

-0.032

-.325(*)

0.077

0.023

-0.015

-0.225

-0.186

0.083

0.302

0.033

-0.002

-0.160

0.152

-0.136

0.023

-0.219

-0.011

-0.088

0.063

0.053

0.112

0.074

0.066

0.144

-0.019

0.062

0.188

0.037

-0.020

0.030

-0.042

-0.281

0.212

0.075

0.035

-0.227

0.148

-0.202

0.059

-0.096

-0.076

0.236

-0.017

-0.031

0.068

Other

0.007

0.034

-0.077

-0.124

0.049

0.018

0.002

0.029

0.134

-0.020

-0.273

0.096

-0.021

-0.052

-0.200

-0.135

0.034

0.029

0.031

-0.010

-0.109

0.059

-0.102

0.077

-0.242

-0.083

-0.008

Global

0.061

0.144

0.003

-0.010

0.055

0.089

0.095

-0.060

0.063

-0.028

-0.176

0.230

0.140

0.107

-0.037

-0.183

0.148

0.057

0.086

0.160

-0.096

0.216

-0.101

-0.018

-0.149

-0.019

0.062

Self

0.007

0.022

0.003

.291(*)

-0.056

0.197

0.006

0.004

-0.030

0.207

0.119

0.192

.302(*)

.302(*)

0.066

-0.226

.393(*)

-0.008

0.057

0.243

-0.032

-0.008

-0.194

-0.209

-0.126

-0.064

0.109

Peer

-0.165

-0.092

-0.240

-0.152

-0.261

-0.071

0.044

-0.254

-.314(*)

0.219

-0.289

0.197

-0.009

0.008

0.031

-0.140

.356(*)

-0.188

-0.071

-0.068

-0.065

-0.074

-0.186

-0.085

-0.144

0.076

-0.072

MVPI 7
Supervisor
Recognition

0.029

0.101

0.168

.312(*)

0.042

0.268

0.285

0.099

0.131

0.135

0.076

0.008

0.258

0.016

0.228

.345(*)

0.354

0.057

0.285

0.060

0.170

0.159

0.072

0.125

-0.043

0.191

0.230

-0.052

-0.040

0.002

0.115

-0.090

0.128

0.179

-0.048

-0.001

0.187

-0.140

0.156

0.156

0.092

0.057

0.083

.419(**)

-0.108

0.119

0.003

0.081

0.146

0.006

0.021

-0.123

0.156

0.139

Global

-0.081

-0.016

-0.007

0.125

-0.142

0.129

0.146

-0.188

-0.062

0.206

-0.064

.286(*)

0.263

0.234

0.051

-0.056

.454(**)

-0.063

0.061

0.210

0.037

0.151

-0.122

-0.164

-0.154

0.044

0.104

Self

.318(*)

-0.104

0.195

0.009

0.154

-0.092

0.068

0.009

0.227

-0.109

0.099

0.066

-0.074

0.132

0.116

-0.080

0.002

-0.089

0.115

0.264

0.042

-0.056

0.061

0.113

0.094

-0.076

0.101

Peer

0.059

0.054

-0.093

0.156

-0.160

-0.048

0.022

-0.002

0.022

0.127

-0.187

-0.076

-0.091

-0.197

-0.061

-0.069

0.285

0.067

-0.010

-0.101

-0.160

0.029

-0.049

0.018

-0.214

-0.014

0.006

Supervisor

0.117

0.200

0.164

0.042

0.153

0.216

0.449

-0.034

0.126

0.088

0.169

0.061

0.150

0.077

0.525

0.233

0.353

0.156

0.193

0.074

-0.028

0.027

0.104

.325(*)

0.212

0.053

0.147

Other

0.074

0.153

0.042

0.138

-0.032

0.101

0.177

-0.044

0.156

0.078

-0.041

-0.011

0.005

-0.161

0.040

-0.007

0.225

0.075

0.038

-0.073

-0.138

0.008

0.023

0.062

-0.057

-0.041

0.044

Global

0.165

0.097

0.104

0.072

0.119

0.037

0.183

-0.022

0.182

0.027

0.024

-0.022

-0.066

0.030

0.057

-0.047

0.093

-0.004

0.119

0.103

-0.038

0.028

0.098

0.170

0.070

-0.016

0.098

Self

-0.201

-0.130

-0.149

-0.128

-0.055

-0.065

-0.113

-0.134

-.318(*)

-0.071

-0.010

-0.272

-0.173

-0.082

-0.163

-0.063

-.344(*)

-0.042

-.328(*)

-0.181

-0.168

0.199

.304(*)

-0.063

-0.218

0.007

-0.220

Peer

-0.026

-0.219

-0.228

-0.044

-0.090

-0.100

-0.254

0.058

0.113

-0.176

-0.002

-0.162

0.045

-0.004

0.011

0.076

-0.261

-0.156

-0.161

-0.243

-0.064

0.207

0.098

-0.174

-0.059

-0.255

-0.097

Supervisor

-0.035

-0.181

-0.132

0.050

0.150

0.126

0.217

0.063

-0.002

-0.093

0.116

0.061

0.108

-0.047

0.074

-0.064

-0.014

-0.004

0.016

-0.199

-0.021

0.198

0.255

0.050

-0.109

0.021

0.041

Other

-0.037

-0.138

-0.185

0.006

0.146

0.032

-0.043

0.081

0.079

-0.138

0.061

-0.022

0.099

-0.029

0.025

0.016

-0.216

-0.102

-0.108

-0.211

-0.035

0.215

0.194

-0.067

-0.145

-0.090

-0.019

Global

-0.068

-0.184

-0.224

0.006

0.040

-0.003

-0.114

0.031

-0.069

-0.147

0.005

-0.131

0.059

-0.116

0.051

-0.013

-0.263

-0.080

-0.228

-0.141

-0.113

0.229

.308(*)

-0.053

-0.161

-0.094

-0.098

Self

-0.079

-0.098

-0.082

-0.082

-0.175

0.086

-0.051

-.335(*)

-0.206

0.088

-0.103

0.099

-0.065

-0.174

0.019

0.114

-0.228

0.128

-.316(*)

-.377(*)

-0.099

-0.033

.350(*)

-0.077

0.025

-0.261

-0.155
-0.019

Other

MVPI 10
Tradition

Conflict Resolution

26

MVPI 6 Power Supervisor

MVPI 9
Security

Planning and Organizing

Other

MVPI 8
Scientific

Communications

MVPI 4
Supervisor
Commercial

MVPI 5
Hedonistic

Research and Information Gathering

Peer

0.160

0.047

0.016

-0.174

-0.015

0.114

-.346(*)

0.093

0.156

0.057

0.101

0.027

0.148

-0.118

-0.257

0.075

-.359(*)

0.180

0.110

-0.235

-0.106

.314(*)

0.037

-0.222

-0.025

-0.198

Supervisor

-0.091

-0.011

0.051

-0.082

0.201

-0.037

-0.236

0.010

0.025

-0.095

0.150

-0.008

0.194

0.078

0.043

0.102

0.222

0.042

0.039

0.164

0.133

0.143

0.291

0.059

0.048

0.059

0.067

Other

0.079

0.078

0.026

-0.174

0.186

0.047

-0.290

0.028

0.105

-0.016

0.130

-0.010

0.154

-0.128

-0.218

0.053

-.320(*)

0.154

0.112

-0.233

0.020

.290(*)

0.157

-0.136

-0.090

-0.067

0.060

Global

0.106

0.120

0.008

-0.121

0.007

0.090

-0.176

-0.107

-0.005

0.088

0.089

0.086

0.258

-0.126

-0.070

0.136

-0.200

0.220

-0.004

-0.268

-0.018

.306(*)

.343(*)

-0.086

0.056

-0.077

0.041

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

Table 52: Other Test Correlations with Performance - Student Sample

Intellectual and Cognitive

Planning and Organizing

Conflict Resolution

Client & Business

Relations

Working with Others

Character

26

11

10

13

14

15

12

25

18

17

16

22

23

20

21

19

24

Total

Analysis &
Reasoning

Creativity

Problem
Solving

Practical
Judgment

Researching
Law

Fact Finding

Question &
Interview

Influence &
Advocate

Writing

Speaking

Listening

Strategic
Planning

Managing Self

Managing
Others

Negotiation

Eyes of others

Networking

Building
Relationships

Developing
Relationships

Eval, Develop
& Mentor

Passion

Diligence

Integrity

Stress
management

Community
Service

Self
Development

Avg Across

Self

0.116

.243(*)

0.103

.387(**)

0.115

0.039

0.156

0.153

0.165

0.144

.210(*)

.361(**)

-0.007

0.173

0.095

0.174

0.144

.292(**)

0.143

.269(*)

.364(**)

0.027

0.121

0.084

.328(**)

.243(*)

.333(**)

Peer

-0.053

-0.019

0.003

0.061

0.119

0.010

0.082

0.028

0.068

0.137

-0.078

-0.023

0.090

0.084

-0.036

0.023

.287(**)

0.042

0.014

-0.014

0.143

-0.006

0.048

0.102

.220(*)

0.019

0.105

0.078

-0.042

0.073

0.048

0.009

0.000

0.047

0.162

-0.019

0.133

0.064

0.002

0.041

0.006

0.134

0.215

0.033

0.107

0.075

0.053

.225(*)

0.002

0.112

0.119

.378(**)

0.060

0.106

Other

0.013

-0.034

0.022

0.082

0.052

-0.001

0.082

0.084

0.021

0.122

-0.050

-0.004

0.076

0.082

-0.025

0.099

.254(**)

0.041

0.033

0.010

.212(*)

0.015

0.100

0.105

.286(**)

0.059

0.109

Global

0.024

0.083

0.051

.195(*)

0.089

0.027

0.156

0.105

0.087

0.138

0.019

0.115

0.080

0.112

0.015

0.165

.293(**)

0.177

0.081

0.122

.292(**)

0.056

0.133

0.074

.306(**)

0.144

.211(*)

Self

-0.050

-0.072

0.061

0.080

-0.114

-0.163

-0.024

-0.152

-0.105

-0.167

0.093

-0.054

0.076

-0.045

0.109

-0.163

-0.125

-0.118

0.122

0.165

0.030

-0.009

0.050

0.032

0.089

0.028

-0.043

0.095

0.110

0.055

0.134

0.107

0.078

-0.012

-0.009

-0.067

-0.032

0.037

0.142

0.089

0.090

0.100

0.015

0.078

0.110

.200(*)

0.131

0.164

0.141

0.158

0.029

0.077

0.152

0.118

-0.006

0.037

-0.081

0.082

-0.077

-0.179

-0.069

-0.030

-0.195

-0.020

0.000

-0.038

0.001

-0.005

0.089

-0.052

0.196

-0.046

0.049

-0.148

-0.126

-0.087

0.159

0.034

-0.081

-0.076

-0.065

0.082

0.106

0.071

0.139

0.013

-0.036

-0.018

0.002

-0.140

-0.008

0.042

0.136

0.074

0.138

0.125

-0.003

0.117

0.095

0.131

0.091

0.072

0.038

0.170

0.029

0.079

0.075

0.058

Global

0.021

0.079

0.063

0.130

-0.026

-0.129

-0.062

-0.104

-0.174

-0.108

0.066

0.023

0.041

0.024

0.100

-0.104

-0.018

-0.016

0.163

0.113

0.068

0.052

0.171

0.045

0.077

0.039

0.018

Self

-0.019

0.055

-0.059

0.146

-0.045

0.002

0.049

0.041

-0.024

.381(**)

0.005

0.010

0.039

.250(*)

0.081

-0.018

.260(*)

-0.037

0.168

0.099

0.123

-0.122

-.306(**)

-0.031

0.029

0.144

0.095

Peer

-0.136

0.112

-0.124

-0.077

-.207(*)

-0.043

0.074

-0.036

-0.118

.320(**)

-0.042

-0.186

-0.173

0.073

0.104

-0.069

.206(*)

-0.022

-0.014

-0.027

-0.014

-.219(*)

-.206(*)

-0.055

0.007

0.017

-0.034

Supervisor

0.141

0.080

0.113

0.076

0.043

0.184

-0.126

0.171

0.098

.287(**)

0.100

0.140

0.093

0.083

0.038

0.134

.285(*)

-0.156

0.003

0.260

0.010

-0.092

-0.056

.208(*)

-0.002

0.047

0.152

Other

-0.031

0.086

-0.013

0.011

-0.170

0.075

0.029

0.131

-0.002

.357(**)

0.028

-0.115

-0.090

0.119

0.101

0.040

.298(**)

-0.031

0.047

0.043

0.046

-0.171

-0.140

0.073

0.068

0.074

0.058

Global

-0.051

0.104

-0.041

0.048

-0.126

0.079

-0.001

0.147

0.045

.414(**)

0.030

-0.084

-0.079

.202(*)

0.085

0.053

.322(**)

-0.055

0.093

0.105

0.074

-0.166

-.219(*)

0.078

0.014

0.099

0.105

Self

0.048

0.000

0.114

.207(*)

0.165

-0.071

0.046

0.163

0.122

0.067

0.177

0.119

0.133

0.161

0.024

0.184

.232(*)

.218(*)

0.177

0.155

.265(**)

0.005

.198(*)

.482(**)

0.031

.204(*)

.269(**)

Peer

0.048

0.078

0.065

0.129

0.091

.219(*)

0.221

0.144

0.171

0.125

0.039

0.083

.192(*)

0.090

0.032

0.122

.222(*)

0.039

0.118

.215(*)

.272(**)

0.112

0.060

.280(**)

0.120

0.107

.236(*)

Supervisor

0.116

0.026

0.068

0.025

-0.024

-0.047

0.154

0.152

-0.149

0.104

0.033

0.023

0.044

-0.083

0.259

-0.046

.302(*)

0.093

0.025

0.291

0.093

0.086

0.061

0.198

0.108

0.082

0.101

Other

0.059

0.020

0.035

0.085

0.033

0.055

0.205

.192(*)

0.070

0.128

0.005

0.052

0.141

-0.002

0.069

0.039

.215(*)

0.041

0.054

.248(*)

.253(**)

0.117

0.046

.224(*)

0.099

0.095

0.170

Global

0.032

0.014

0.025

0.118

0.109

0.033

0.164

.206(*)

0.128

0.128

0.052

0.102

.193(*)

0.032

0.029

0.100

.250(**)

0.097

0.089

.214(*)

.273(**)

0.129

0.070

.332(**)

0.088

0.131

.221(*)

Self

-0.056

-0.066

-0.135

-0.079

-0.050

-0.157

-.175(*)

-.177(*)

0.101

-.198(*)

-0.109

-0.035

0.007

-0.078

-0.091

-0.099

-0.144

-0.123

-0.097

0.006

-0.076

-0.114

0.045

-0.079

-0.072

-0.094

-0.153

-0.006

-0.011

0.049

-0.056

0.066

-0.136

-0.035

-0.037

-0.008

0.121

0.032

-0.083

-0.050

-0.086

-0.099

-0.036

-0.037

-0.116

-0.074

-0.115

-0.124

-0.131

-0.049

-0.004

-0.135

-0.081

-0.063

0.087

-0.013

0.010

0.118

0.053

0.005

-0.116

0.062

0.046

0.074

0.024

0.042

0.085

-0.057

-0.102

-0.037

-0.040

-0.119

-0.012

-0.226

-0.048

-0.070

0.024

0.094

0.004

-0.058

0.009

0.071

0.034

0.081

0.029

0.076

-0.081

-0.061

0.015

0.051

.169(*)

0.078

-0.053

0.026

-0.100

-0.091

-0.003

-0.028

-0.138

-0.057

-0.164

-0.089

-0.119

0.046

0.047

-0.111

-0.071

0.008

0.021

0.019

-0.015

-0.003

0.052

-0.133

-.159(*)

-0.075

0.065

0.071

0.022

-0.028

0.021

-0.097

-0.129

-0.041

-0.088

-0.127

-0.068

-0.108

-0.079

-0.103

0.033

-0.026

-0.112

-0.096

-0.070

Peer
Situational
Judgment Test Supervisor
(SJT)
Other

Optimism
(OPT)

Communications

Biographical
Supervisor
Inventory (BIO)

Self
Monitoring
Scale (SMS)

Research and Information Gathering

Peer
Emotion
Recognition Supervisor
(ER)
Other
Global

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

Table 53:
Self Stepwise Regressions TOTAL STUDENT SAMPLE
(Entered LSAT, Index, HPI, BIO, SJT, OPT)

Intellectual and Cognitive

Average Across All

Appraisals
(1)
Analysis and
Reasoning

(2)
Creativity/ Innovation

(26)
Problem Solving
(3)
Practical Judgment

(5)
Fact Finding
(11)Questioning and
Interviewing
(10) Influencing and
Advocating
(8)
Writing
(7)
Speaking
(9)
Listening
(13)
Strategic Planning
(14)
Organizing and
Managing Ones Own
Work
(15)
Organizing &
Managing Others
(12)
Negotiation Skills
(25)
Able to See the
World Thru Eyes of
Others
(18)
Networking and
Business
Development
(4)
Advising Clients
(17)
Developing
Relationships in the
Legal Profession
(16)
Evaluation, Develop.
& Mentoring
Passion and
Engagement (22)
(23)
Diligence

Character

Working
with Others

Client &
Business
Relations

Conflict
Resolutio
n

Planning and
Organizing

Communicatio
ns

Research &
Information
Gathering

(6)
Researching the Law

(20)
Integrity/ Honesty
(21)
Stress Management
(19)
Community Service
(24)
Self-Development

R
Square

Adjust
R
Square

Std.
Error of
the Est.

Change Statistics
R
Square
Change

F
Change

df1

df2

Sig. F
Change

.386

.149

.131

.26826

.149

8.560

49

.005

LSAT

.369

.136

.118

.48602

.136

7.564

48

.008

H 2 (Ambition)

.470

.220

.187

.46658

.084

5.083

47

.029

OPT

.563

.317

.273

.44143

.097

6.508

46

.014

H6 (Intellec)

.405

.164

.146

.49872

.164

9.206

47

.004

LSAT

.490

.241

.207

.48043

.077

4.647

46

.036

BIO

.554

.307

.260

.46414

.066

4.286

45

.044

OPT

.637

.406

.352

.43454

.099

7.340

44

.010

H6 (Intellec)

.284

.081

.062

.48189

.081

4.215

48

.046

BIO

.445

.198

.182

.53881

.198

12.124 1

49

.001

H 4 (Interper.
Sensitivity)

.517

.268

.237

.52033

.069

4.541

48

.038

.341

.116

.098

.54642

.116

6.326

48

.015

H 1 (Adjustment)

.514

.264

.249

.44732

.264

17.586 1

49

.000

BIO

.519

.269

.252

.46444

.269

16.193 1

44

.000

.336

.113

.095

.69313

.113

6.241

49

.016

.358

.128

.109

.63650

.128

6.901

47

.012

.471

.222

.206

.55932

.222

13.991 1

49

.000

.554

.307

.278

.53328

.085

5.903

48

.019

.490

.240

.224

.72683

.240

14.534 1

46

.000

H 1 (Adjustment)

.334

.112

.093

.48622

.112

5.795

46

.020

H6 (Intellec)

.525

.275

.261

.47939

.275

18.615 1

49

.000

H 4 (Interper.
Sensitivity)

.604

.365

.338

.45344

.090

6.771

48

.012

.422

.178

.161

.58427

.178

10.621 1

49

.002

H 5 (Prudence)

.351

.124

.106

.38129

.124

6.905

49

.011

H 2 (Ambition)

.457

.209

.176

.36603

.085

5.171

48

.027

H 7 (Learning
Approach)

.531

.282

.236

.35245

.073

4.771

47

.034

OPT

.483

.234

.218

.61680

.234

14.934 1

49

.000

BIO

.360

.129

.112

.62535

.129

7.282

49

.010

Index

.458

.209

.176

.60210

.080

4.858

48

.032

SJT

.535

.286

.240

.57824

.077

5.042

47

.029

H 2 (Ambition)

H 4 (Interper.
Sensitivity)
-

H 5 (Prudence)

H 2 (Ambition)
H 4 (Interper.
Sensitivity)
H 5 (Prudence)

H 2 (Ambition)

H 2 (Ambition)
-

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

Table 54:
Peer Stepwise Regressions TOTAL STUDENT SAMPLE
(Entered LSAT, Index, HPI, BIO, SJT, OPT)

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All

Appraisals
(1)
Analysis and
Reasoning
(2)
Creativity/ Innovation
(26)
Problem Solving
(3)
Practical Judgment

Research &
Information
Gathering

(6)
Researching the Law
(5)
Fact Finding

(8)
Writing

(7)
Speaking
(9)
Listening
(13)
Strategic Planning
(14)
Organizing and
Managing Ones Own
Work
(15)
Organizing and
Managing Others
(12)
Negotiation Skills
(25) Able to See the
World Thru Eyes of
Others
(18)
Networking and
Business
Development
(4)
Advising Clients
(17)
Developing
Relationships within
the Legal Profession
(16)
Evaluation, Develop.
& Mentoring
Passion and
Engagement (22)
(23)
Diligence
(20)
Integrity/ Honesty

Client &
Business
Relations
Working
with Others
Character

(21)
Stress Management
(19)
Community Service
(24)
Self-Development

Adjust
R
Square

Std.
Error of
the Est.

Change Statistics
R
Square
Change

F
Change

df1

df2

Sig. F
Change

.392

.153

.137

.32928

.153

9.417

52

.003

LSAT

.280

.078

.060

.49716

.078

4.244

50

.045

Index

.390

.152

.118

.48166

.074

4.271

49

.044

H 2 (Ambition)

.327

.107

.090

.48035

.107

6.231

52

.016

H6 (Intellec)

.421

.177

.145

.46554

.070

4.362

51

.042

.299

.090

.071

.57729

.090

4.720

48

.035

.310

.096

.077

.37171

.096

5.009

47

.030

.285

.081

.063

.48502

.081

4.333

49

.043

LSAT

.348

.121

.100

.72373

.121

5.653

41

.022

H6 (Intellec)

.485

.235

.197

.68345

.114

5.976

40

.019

.624

.389

.342

.61867

.154

9.816

39

.003

.671

.451

.393

.59432

.062

4.260

38

.046

.273

.074

.057

.69602

.074

4.176

52

.046

.434

.188

.172

.68107

.188

11.574 1

50

.001

.405

.164

.145

.56302

.164

8.821

45

.005

OPT

.438

.192

.177

.49609

.192

12.379 1

52

.001

OPT

.337

.114

.096

.59797

.114

6.297

49

.015

H 6 (Intellec)

.302

.091

.073

.36542

.091

5.112

51

.028

.365

.133

.116

.53671

.133

7.845

51

.007

OPT

H 2 (Ambition)

OPT

H 5 (Prudence)

H 4 (Interper.
Sensitivity)
SJT

Conflict
Resolut
ion

Planning and
Organizing

Communications

(11) Questioning and

Interviewing
(10)
Influencing and
Advocating

R
Square

H6 (Intellec)
-

OPT

HPI 1 (Adjustment)

OPT

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

Table 55:
Supervisor Stepwise Regressions TOTAL STUDENT SAMPLE
(Entered LSAT, Index, HPI, BIO, SJT, OPT)

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All

Appraisals
(1)
Analysis and
Reasoning
(2)
Creativity/ Innovation
(26)
Problem Solving

Research &
Information
Gathering
Communications
Planning and
Organizing

Conflict
Resolutio
n
Client &
Business
Relations
Working with
Others
Character

df2

Sig. F
Change

4.394

46

.042

BIO

.423

.179

.142

.37751

.092

5.020

45

.030

BIO

.326

.106

.086

.65761

.106

5.227

44

.027

LSAT

.438

.192

.154

.63259

.086

4.550

43

.039

H 6 (Intellec)

.334

.112

.090

.47796

.112

5.154

41

.029

.309

.095

.073

.42472

.095

4.218

40

.047

LSAT

.381

.145

.123

.46016

.145

6.776

40

.013

H5 (Prudence)

.477

.227

.188

.44294

.083

4.171

39

.048

.497

.247

.213

.55079

.247

7.220

22

.013

LSAT

.374

.140

.120

.50571

.140

6.850

42

.012

H 5 (Prudence)

.474

.225

.187

.48608

.084

4.461

41

.041

OPT

.355

.126

.105

.61361

.126

6.064

42

.018

BIO

.539

.290

.256

.55967

.164

9.485

41

.004

LSAT

.353

.125

.104

.48722

.125

6.123

43

.017

H2 (Ambition)

.371

.138

.110

.62950

.138

4.960

31

.033

.332

.110

.090

.67551

.110

5.440

44

.024

.497

.247

.218

.84767

.247

8.506

26

.007

HPI 2 (Ambition)

.299

.089

.067

.61953

.089

4.112

42

.049

H4 (Inter Sensitivity)

.472

.222

.184

.57937

.133

7.025

41

.011

LSAT

OPT

BIO

HPI 2 (Ambition)

(17)
Developing
Relationships within
the Legal Profession

(16)
Evaluation, Develop.
& Mentoring

(19)
Community Service
(24)
Self-Development

df1

.087

(21)
Stress Management

F
Change

.39366

(4)
Advising Clients

Passion and
Engagement (22)
(23)
Diligence
(20)
Integrity/ Honesty

R
Square
Change

.067

(7)
Speaking
(9)
Listening
(13)
Strategic Planning
(14)
Organizing and
Managing Ones Own
Work
(15)
Organizing and
Managing Others
(12)
Negotiation Skills
(25)
Able to See the
World Thru Eyes of
Others
(18)
Networking and
Business
Development

Change Statistics

.087

(6)
Researching the Law

(8)
Writing

Std.
Error of
the Est.

.295

(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing
(10)
Influencing and
Advocating

Adjust
R
Square

LSAT

(3)
Practical Judgment

(5)
Fact Finding

R
Square

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

Table 56:
Other Stepwise Regressions TOTAL STUDENT SAMPLE
(Entered LSAT, Index, HPI, BIO, SJT, OPT)

Intellectual and
Cognitive

Average Across All

Appraisals

R
Square
Change

F
Change

df1

df2

Sig. F
Change

.29739

.118

7.649

57

.008

.325

.105

.090

.50890

.105

6.604

56

.013

.280
.379

.078
.143

.062
.112

.43049
.41876

.078
.065

4.753
4.181

1
1

56
55

.033
.046

Index

.276
.421

.076
.177

.059
.146

.34993
.33337

.076
.101

4.441
6.501

1
1

54
53

.040
.014

H 2 (Ambition)

.291

.085

.069

.42553

.085

5.278

57

.025

.269
.388

.073
.151

.056
.119

.55854
.53937

.073
.078

4.302
4.981

1
1

55
54

.043
.030

.357

.127

.111

.33629

.127

8.009

55

.006

.368

.135

.113

.53383

.135

5.946

38

.020

.361
.509

.130
.259

.115
.233

.42797
.39850

.130
.129

8.396
9.588

1
1

56
55

.005
.003

.383
.515

.147
.265

.131
.237

.56322
.52767

.147
.118

9.105
8.381

1
1

53
52

.004
.006

H 2 (Ambition)

.355

.126

.109

.50854

.126

7.639

53

.008

H 4 (Inter Sensitivity)

.484

.235

.205

.48041

.109

7.388

52

.009

.560

.313

.273

.45957

.078

5.823

51

.019

.391

.153

.138

.50550

.153

10.109 1

56

.002

.459

.211

.182

.49235

.058

4.030

55

.050

.374

.140

.123

.61870

.140

8.296

51

.006

.448

.201

.187

.41913

.201

14.305 1

57

.000

.359

.129

.113

.45752

.129

8.145

55

.006

.276

.076

.060

.30961

.076

4.618

56

.036

.404

.163

.148

.43977

.163

10.731 1

55

.002

LSAT

.501

.251

.223

.42004

.087

6.288

54

.015

(19)
Community Service

BIO

.310

.096

.079

.53857

.096

5.732

54

.020

(24)
Self-Development

H4 (Inter sensitivity)

.349

.122

.106

.42995

.122

7.497

54

.008

(1)
Analysis and
Reasoning

LSAT

(2)
Creativity/ Innovation

LSAT

(26)
Problem Solving

LSAT

Research &
Information
Gathering
Communications

Change Statistics

.103

(5)
Fact Finding
(11)
Questioning and
Interviewing
(10)
Influencing and
Advocating
(8)
Writing

Index

LSAT

LSAT

OPT
LSAT
H 5 (Prudence)
LSAT
SJT

(7)
Speaking
(9)
Listening

(13)
Strategic Planning

HPI 5 (Prudence)

(14)
Organizing and
Managing Ones Own
Work
(15)
Organizing and
Managing Others
(12)
Negotiation Skills
(25)
Able to See the
World Thru Eyes of
Others
(18)
Networking and
Business
Development
(4)
Advising Clients
(17)
Developing
Relationships within
the Legal Profession
(16)
Evaluation, Develop.
& Mentoring
Passion and
Engagement (22)

Client &
Business
Relations

Conflict
Resolutio
n

Planning and Organizing

Std.
Error of
the Est.

.118

OPT

H 5 (Prudence)

Working
with Others

Adjust
R
Square

.344

(3)
Practical Judgment
(6)
Researching the Law

Character

R
Square

OPT
HPI 5 (Prudence)

HPI 2 (Ambition)

OPT

(23)
Diligence

OPT

(20)
Integrity/ Honesty

H 6 (Intellec)

(21)
Stress Management

OPT

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

Table 57:
Tally of variables from stepwise regressions:
Self appraisals:
HPI 2, BIO, and HPI 4 are most frequent

HPI 2 Ambition = 6
BIO = 4
HPI 4 Interpersonal Sensitivity = 4
OPT = 3
HPI 5 Prudence = 3
HPI 6 Intellectance = 3
LSAT = 2
HPI 1 Adjustment = 2
HPI 7 Learning Approach = 1
Index = 1
SJT = 1

Peer appraisals:
OPT and HPI 6 are most frequent

OPT = 6
HPI 6 Intellectance = 4
HPI 2 Ambition = 2
LSAT = 2
Index = 1
HPI 5 Prudence = 1
HPI 4 Interpersonal Sensitivity = 1
SJT = 1
HPI 1 Adjustment = 1

Supervisor Appraisals:
LSAT and BIO are most frequent

LSAT = 6
BIO = 4
HPI 2 Ambition = 3
HPI 5 Prudence = 2
OPT = 2
HPI 6 Intellectance = 1
HPI 4 Interpersonal Sensitivity = 1

Other Appraisals (Average of Peer and Supervisor):

LSAT and OPT are most frequent

LSAT = 8
OPT = 6
HPI 5 Prudence = 4
HPI 2 Ambition = 3
Index = 2
HPI 4 Interpersonal Sensitivity = 3
HPI 6 Intellectance = 1
BIO = 1

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

Table 58: Correlations of all predictors with 1LGPA STUDENT SAMPLE

Correlations
Zscore: Undergrad GPA

Zscore: Adjusted LSAT

score
Index 50/50

HPI 1 Adjustment

HPI 2 Ambition

HPI 3 Sociability

HPI 4 Interpersonal
Sensitivity
HPI 5 Prudence

HPI 6 Intellectance

HPI 7 Learning Approach

HDS 1 Excitable

HDS 2 Skeptical

HDS 3 Cautious

HDS 4 Reserved

HDS 5 Leisurely

HDS 6 Bold

HDS 7 Mischievous

HDS 8 Colorful

HDS 9 Imaginative

HDS 10 Diligent

HDS 11 Dutiful

MVPI 1 Aesthetic

MVPI 2 Affiliation

MVPI 3 Altruistic

MVPI 4 Commercial

MVPI 5 Hedonistic

MVPI 6 Power

MVPI 7 Recognition

MVPI 8 Scientific

MVPI 9 Security

MVPI 10 Tradition

BIO mean score

SJT mean score

SMS total score

OPT total score

ER Sum total score

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1L GPA
.139
.066
175
.359**
.000
175
.404**
.000
175
.076
.331
165
.057
.465
165
-.030
.704
165
.033
.672
165
.214**
.006
165
-.072
.360
165
.204**
.009
165
-.126
.344
58
-.104
.435
58
-.127
.343
58
-.216
.103
58
-.084
.529
58
.008
.955
58
-.305*
.020
58
-.005
.972
58
-.082
.543
58
.096
.474
58
.144
.280
58
-.088
.560
46
.053
.728
46
.052
.732
46
-.218
.146
46
-.089
.556
46
-.030
.844
46
-.119
.433
46
-.038
.801
46
.049
.744
46
.317*
.032
46
-.053
.576
114
.111
.234
116
.060
.524
114
-.027
.780
113
.021
.786
165

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

Table 59:
Modeling demographic breakdown by top percentages
(Alumni only)
Total

Gender
Female

Top 10%
LSAT

Top 20%
Top 30%
Top 10%

Index (50/50)

Top 20%
Top 30%
Top 10%

BIO

Top 20%
Top 30%
Top 10%

SJT

Top 20%
Top 30%
Top 10%

HPI 2

Top 20%
Top 30%
Top 10%

HPI 7

Top 20%
Top 30%
Top 10%

Optimism
(OPT)

Top 20%
Top 30%
Top 10%

HPI 2 and BIO

combo (self
weightings)

Top 20%
Top 30%
Top 10%

BIO and SJT

(peer
weightings)

Top 20%
Top 30%
Top 10%

BIO and SJT

(supervisor
weightings)

Top 20%
Top 30%

116
225
348
112
225
334
72
140
213
80
205
242
173
256
330
201
343
515
131
217
285
61
126
183
32
66
94
33
64
95

63
(54.3%)
115
(51.1%)
180
(51.7%)
59
(52.7%)
124
(55.1%)
184
(55.1%)
44
(61.1%)
84
(60.0%)
119
(55.9%)
40
(50.0%)
114
(55.6%)
135
(55.8%)
89
(51.4%)
138
(53.9%)
179
(54.2%)
116
(57.7%)
205
(59.8%)
300
(58.3%)
73
(55.7%)
124
(57.1%)
161
(56.5%)
36
(59.0%)
67
(53.2%)
104
(56.8%)
19
(59.4%)
36
(54.5%)
50
(53.2%)
19
(57.6%)
34
(53.1%)
51
(53.7%)

Male

53
(45.7%)
110
(48.9%)
168
(48.3%)
53
(47.3%)
101
(44.9%)
150
(44.9%)
28
(38.9%)
56
(40.0%)
94
(44.1%)
40
(50.0%)
91
(44.4%)
107
(44.2%)
84
(48.6%)
118
(46.1%)
151
(45.8%)
85
(42.3%)
138
(40.2%)
215
(41.7%)
58
(44.3%)
93
(42.9%)
124
(43.5%)
25
(41.0%)
59
(46.8%)
79
(43.2%)
13
(40.6%)
30
(45.5%)
44
(46.8%)
14
(42.4%)
30
(46.9%)
44
(46.3%)

Ethnicity
White

99
(85.3%)
195
(86.7%)
302
(86.8%)
98
(87.5%)
192
(85.3%)
285
(85.3%)
49
(68.1%)
96
(68.6%)
143
(67.1%)
55
(68.8%)
141
(68.8%)
165
(68.2%)
118
(68.2%)
168
(65.6%)
225
(68.2%)
156
(77.6%)
262
(76.4%)
387
(75.1%)
94
(71.8%)
152
(70.0%)
204
(71.6%)
43
(70.5%)
88
(69.8%)
122
(66.7%)
21
(65.6%)
43
(65.2%)
64
(68.1%)
23
(69.7%)
42
(65.6%)
65
(68.4%)

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

1
(.9%)
1
(.4%)
2
(.6%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
5
(6.9%)
13
(9.3%)
17
(8.0%)
6
(7.5%)
17
(8.3%)
19
(7.9%)
12
(6.9%)
23
(9.0%)
29
(8.8%)
6
(3.0%)
15
(4.4%)
23
(4.5%)
13
(9.9%)
18
(8.3%)
26
(9.1%)
5
(8.2%)
10
(7.9%)
17
(9.3%)
2
(6.3%)
6
(9.1%)
8
(8.5%)
3
(9.1%)
6
(9.4%)
8
(8.4%)

5
(4.3%)
7
(3.1%)
8
(2.3%)
5
(4.5%)
6
(2.7%)
7
(2.1%)
4
(5.6%)
9
(6.4%)
16
(7.5%)
6
(7.5%)
19
(9.3%)
23
(9.5%)
19
(11.0%)
28
(10.9%)
29
(8.8%)
6
(3.0%)
15
(4.4%)
29
(5.6%)
9
(6.9%)
16
(7.4%)
19
(6.7%)
4
(6.6%)
9
(7.1%)
14
(7.7%)
4
(12.5%)
7
(10.6%)
7
(7.4%)
3
(9.1%)
7
(10.9%)
7
(7.4%)

CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE REPRODUCED

Asian/
Pacific
Islander
8
(6.9%)
15
(6.7%)
25
(7.2%)
7
(6.3%)
21
(9.3%)
33
(9.9%)
10
(13.9%)
13
(9.3%)
23
(10.8%)
9
(11.3%)
22
(10.7%)
29
(12.0%)
13
(7.5%)
20
(7.8%)
29
(8.8%)
21
(10.4%)
31
(9.0%)
51
(9.9%)
8
(6.1%)
18
(8.3%)
23
(8.1%)
4
(6.6%)
12
(9.5%)
20
(10.9%)
3
(9.4%)
8
(12.1%)
12
(12.8%)
2
(6.1%)
7
(10.9%)
12
(12.6%)