Data Collection
At orientation, all members of the entering first year class of law
students were asked to participate. They were asked to complete the MBTI
Form G, which has ninety-two self-scoreable items. Each item offers a forced
choice between two opposing answers that equate to one of the four opposing
preferences.(71) The choices are between
every day events and word pairs selected to evoke a choice between the
competing preferences.(72) A person's type
is based on which pole of the four preferences the person prefers, with
the four preferences combining to render sixteen possible types.(73)
The items are weighted 0-2, and scores are given for each pole based
on the points totaled from the responses. The result allows a person to
determine not only which pole is preferred, but by how much.(74)
The level of a person's preference can be slight (1-9), moderate (11-19),
clear (21-39), or very clear (41 or higher).(75)
For example, a person might score 43 on extravert items and 20 on introvert
items. His score would be E 23. The
E indicates that he has a preference
for extraversion, and the 23 indicates that his preference is "clear."(76)
Data Interpretation
Throughout this paper, I compare different groups, such as: males v.
females, white students v. students of color, and extraverts v. introverts.
When comparing groups, the question arises whether the groups really represent
populations that are different from each other. It is possible, some may
say even probable, that different groups given the same treatment (i.e.,
extraverted law students versus introverted law students) could make different
grades merely by chance. That is, any observed difference could result
merely from sampling error. Thus, as a researcher, I wanted to test the
null hypothesis that the groups being compared are really only two samples
from the same population and any observed difference is due to chance or
sampling error. In short, the null hypothesis establishes that the real
difference between groups being compared is zero.
o the question becomes: How large does an observed difference have
to be before a researcher is justified in rejecting the null hypothesis?(77)
I used Tests of Statistical Significance to answer those questions. Significance
is designated with the symbol " p". Most social scientists treat results
with a statistical significance of .05 or less as "significant," or meaningful,
and treat a statistical significance of .01 as very significant.(78)
A statistical significance of .05 means that only five times out of a hundred
will the observed result come from chance or some random process. A statistical
significance of .01 means that only one time out of a hundred will the
observed result come from chance. Consequently, lower significance levels
indicate a higher probability of real or reliable results.
While conventional research reports significance at three levels (<.05
or <. 01 or <.001), I reported the actual probability. I did so,
in part because I believe conventional significance levels may be too conservative
in interpreting the practical significance of differences in grade point
averages. While results greater than .05 are not as statistically reliable
as results meeting the .05 test, they do indicate possible non-random differences
in the population. Such differences would be extremely important in a population
where even very small differences in grades can result in substantial differences
in treatment in the job market, in selection to law review, and most importantly,
in being placed on probation or being dismissed. (79)
Description of Students
Initially, all 170 students in the entering class completed the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator. However, the study was limited to the 154 students who
had first semester grade point averages (FSGPA).(80)
The students were overwhelmingly white,(81)
male(82)
and young.(83) The average undergraduate
grade point average (UGPA) for the entering students was 3.069.(84)
The students' mean law school admission test (LSAT) score was 155.040.(85)