Kassenoff 1

Joey Kassenoff

Professor Steffen Guenzel

ENC 1102

29 October 2018

Draft 4 – Final

Rhetorical Analysis of “The Relationship between Personality Characteristics and Academic

Success in law School”

Typically, law school is viewed as a demanding experience that can cause students much

stress and anxiety. A rigorous curriculum paired with the atmosphere of underlying competition

against classmates can pose challenges for students. This introduces the idea that law school

requires a very specific set of personality traits in order to be successful. Likewise, professional

lawyers are often stereotyped to show signs of being argumentative, dominant, confident, and

communicative. While this stereotype does not provide a flawless representation of the legal

community, it does propose questions as to if there is some accuracy to it. Whether the

stereotype is accurate or not, personality traits could undoubtedly affect a student’s likelihood for

success. So, the question arises: Are there personality traits that have either a positive or negative

effect on law student success? If so, is the effect significant, or is it negligible based off of the

particular candidate? Research done by Fagan and Squitiera focuses on providing an answer to

these questions by conducting an original study.

In “The Relationship between Personality Characteristics and Academic Success in Law

School” (2002), authors Ron Fagan and Paula Squitiera focus on the personality characteristics

that can affect first-year law student success. Additionally, they take the scores that students

received on the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) and compare it to the Grade Point Average
 Kassenoff 2

(GPA) of first-year students. So essentially, the authors are finding the factors that can affect a

student’s early success in law school. Fagan, a professor in the social science division at

Pepperdine University, combines his perspective with Squitiera, who adds an analysis of

personality characteristics as a psychologist with a private practice. The differing of the author’s

individual perspectives creates connections between the two fields to help draw conclusions

about the results of the study. The publisher of the source, Informa, was founded in 1998 and has

become a well-known academic journal publisher around the globe. Their published work is

trusted and widely read within the community. Regarding the traffic the article has received,

1076 individuals have viewed the abstract. Out of those individuals, 310 have views the full text,

making this a decently referenced source. The popularity of this source makes it a candidate for

the addition of intertextuality in other articles. As an original study giving unique results that

have never been addressed before, this article could act as a reference source within the discourse

community. This particular discourse community includes aspiring law students, current law

students, professional lawyers, and individuals interested in the success factors for obtaining a

post-graduate law degree. One of the main sources of contribution to literature in this community

are professors at universities that offer law programs, as they are a primary witness to the topic.

In regard to Fagan and Squitiera’s study, the discourse community is accurately represented

within the literature. Not only does the information address law school success, but the authors

come from a position that qualifies them to add to the community.

The study is conducted by giving 137 law students the California Psychological

Inventory (CPI) test, to identify personality traits and competencies as they relate to individual

GPA during the first year of law school. Included in the CPI test are 18 characteristics such as

self-acceptance, responsibility, and flexibility. The traits were divided into four classes: Class I,
 Kassenoff 3

interpersonal ability; Class II, maturity; Class III, achievement potential; and Class IV, interests

and thought structure (p. 97). Among the law student respondents, Class I and IV was scored

above the average. This indicates advanced communicative ability and intellect (p. 98).

Conversely, Class II resulted with a score well below the mean. This indicates independence,

impulsiveness, and a skeptical outlook. Lastly, Class III scores among the respondents were

essentially even with the mean. This symbolizes that students have average academic potential

(p. 99). The results show that law students often share certain characteristics, but their effect on

GPA is somewhat undeterminable (p. 100). Because of certain research limitations, the study

doesn’t propose an explicit relationship between characteristics and success. However, it does

provide an accurate report of the personality of the students, which is sufficient to synthesize

with other sources to draw new conclusions that include these results.

Fagan and Squitiera conclude that law students tend to be very confident and flexible, but

susceptible to anxiety and impulsiveness. Valid statistical evidence that comes from the CPI

scores of students helps to draw these conclusions. The reasoning behind the conclusion

combines several of the CPI test’s categories in order to summarize the personality of a law

student. For example, an individual’s Self-acceptance score could be above the mean, whereas

the Self-control score is below. This leads to the previously stated conclusion that law students

are confident yet impulsive (p. 99). The reasoning behind these claims are sound, but since there

are 18 categories in total it is difficult to generate such a complex personality portfolio. The

study fails to address the various combinations of the personality traits and how they can impact

each other, positively or negatively. To address this limitation, additional studies could be done

to strengthen the proposed conclusion by looking at each individual respondent’s personality

portfolio, and then comparing it to their GPA. By gathering a large data pool of unique and
 Kassenoff 4

complex students, patterns concerning the relationship between certain characteristics and GPA

will arise. Furthermore, the study conducted by Fagan and Squitiera is limited to comparing

personality to GPA. There is no comparison to LSAT scores that each student received. The

LSAT is important at determining a student’s preparedness for law school, which introduces the

thought that personality plays a large role in deciding scores. Similar research utilizing the CPI

test could compare to the LSAT scores to determine if the same traits that effect GPA are

positively correlated to those that affect LSAT scores. While this study does include a few

limitations that constrict the applications of the results, he variety of characteristic tests allows

for either a basic generalization of a law student, or the complex analysis of various types of law

students. This is still valuable when paired with other sources within the discourse community.

Moreover, Fagan and Squitiera promote their own credibility by using original data on a

topic that had never been discussed prior (p. 98). By gathering noteworthy sources for their

background information and incorporating it into their own research, they were able to establish

a fluid research process. One the sources referenced was James C. Hathaway’s, “The Mythical

Meritocracy of Law School Admissions” (1984). Although the referenced source is slightly

dated, it still provides imperative foundational knowledge and propositions for the nature of law

school admissions. Topics highlighted in this study are the acceptance tendencies of the LSAT,

and the desired goal-oriented qualities to enter law school (p. 87). The author, Hathaway, is a

frequently cited lawyer who is affiliated the University of Michigan’s law school. In terms of

Fagan and Squitiera’s study, citing Hathaway’s work adds a highly touted opinion on the topic at

hand. In their study, the categorization and analysis of all the tested personality traits is easy to

understand, while still being thorough. Each important trait was explained to a reader so that they

could conceptualize what a higher or lower score meant for the respondent’s tendencies. Their
 Kassenoff 5

survey method (administering the CPI) proved effective, because they received results that match

up with later sources on the topic. Care was taken to organize the results of the CPI in order to

analyze them efficiently, but a discussion about the relationship between the characteristics

could’ve strengthened the claim of the results.

Overall, the findings of the study are representative of personality traits that law students

tend to share, but the applications for the research stops there. The authors did find a positive

correlation between some personality traits and GPA, but the percentages were highly

insignificant. Perhaps a larger sample size would’ve better depicted effects on GPA. However,

the results that the study did present are valuable to determine what type of student is typically

enrolled at a law school. In the research project, the results concerning the four classes of

personality tendencies can be used in tandem with other sources to determine if there is a

relationship between characteristics and academic success. Individually analyzing the 18 CPI

scales can lead to making connections between them, and when compared to the demands of law

school conclusions can be drawn whether or not certain traits are favored over others. The

valuable perspectives offered by this study are from a professor of social sciences and a

psychologist, which fits into the discourse community surrounding the characteristics of a legal

profession. Their unique point of view will serve as a basis for the perspective regarding the

characteristics of law students that effect their potential success.

 Kassenoff 6

Works Cited

Fagan, Ron, and Paula Squitiera. “The Relationship between Personality Characteristics and

Academic Success in Law School.” Evaluation and Research in Education, vol. 16, no. 2,

Jan. 2002, pp. 95–103. EBSCOhost,

login.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?auth=shibb&url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx

?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ789482&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Hathaway, James C. “The Mythical Meritocracy of Law School Admissions.” Journal of Legal

Education, vol. 34, no. 1, 1984, pp. 86–96. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/42897932.