SAT/LSAT Conversion Forumla

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
00TREX00
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:41 pm

Postby 00TREX00 » Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:42 am

...
Last edited by 00TREX00 on Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

18488
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:57 am

Postby 18488 » Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:56 am

gave me 163, got 166. pretty close

phillyphanatic
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:26 am

Postby phillyphanatic » Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:31 am

Overestimated my LSAT score by .85. That's pretty sweet. And pithy, the formula says a 1350 should get you a 165.

riccardo426
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:05 pm

Postby riccardo426 » Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:02 am

Says my 1470 (750v, 720m) translates to a 171. I sure hope so!

But that margin of error (+/- 5) is huge.

User avatar
rhit2004
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:04 pm

Postby rhit2004 » Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:29 am

Could not have been closer
SAT: 1380 -> Predicted LSAT 166.7 -> Actual LSAT 167

User avatar
Pyke
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:28 pm

Postby Pyke » Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:35 am

I scored a 1260 on my SAT (no prep, took it for fun).

That translates to a 161 on the formulaic version, +/- 5.

(1260/21) + 101.

I scored a 166, with virtually no prep, on the LSAT. I suppose in that sense it's accurate. The retake (with prep but with misbubbling) I scored 163.

Now it's worth noting here, that this formula would likely be MORE accurate if it was based on mental ability.

The problem is, both tests are crackable with sufficient studying meaning that you throw off the curve. :)

Potential1L
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:24 am

Postby Potential1L » Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:36 am

says i shoulda gotten a 172.4 or so


to use edgarderby's phrasing:

I GOT LUCKY SON

User avatar
lizzy1280
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:41 am

Postby lizzy1280 » Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:10 pm

wow, says i should have gotten a 173, got a 176. since i didn't care very much about the SATs, pretty close.

User avatar
clio2007
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:38 pm

Postby clio2007 » Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:17 pm

...
Last edited by clio2007 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Go Bears
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:06 pm

Postby Go Bears » Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:22 pm

High school slacker here.

Predicted: 161

Actual: 169

God I get pissed at myself sometimes for my youthful stubborness.

Fly
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:52 pm

Postby Fly » Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:31 pm

This was dead on for my average practice LSAT score (171). Too bad I didn't manage that on actual test day...

User avatar
tmo
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:55 pm

Postby tmo » Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:35 pm

Wow, mine was dead on.

User avatar
nipplehead
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:58 pm

Postby nipplehead » Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:07 pm

says i should have gotten a 175, got a 177

not bad, pretty close

wesleybs
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:53 pm

Postby wesleybs » Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:48 pm

According to this formula I should have scored 12 points lower on the LSAT.

User avatar
Chanelgirl
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:06 am

Postby Chanelgirl » Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:59 pm

I don't suppose that the formula would still make sense for people who took their SAT barely knowing English at the time? It's been 5 years or so, and now I am fluent. I don't suppose it would work for people like myself?

User avatar
OldBlue
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:56 am

Postby OldBlue » Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:51 pm

^^^ I think that's a fair assumption.

To anyone who hasn't taken the test yet: I would not put ANY stock in this formula; just study your asses off like you know you should.

On the other hand, its pinpoint accuracy for a huge number of people is... well, kinda creepy.

RE: awesome's drop-the-zero-add-a-one conversion. The LSAT's overlap with the Verbal section is pretty clear. But I think the Math section could be an important indicator, as the logic games rely on similar skills.

User avatar
idrinkcoffee
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:12 pm

Postby idrinkcoffee » Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:13 pm

Wow. Mine was almost spot-on for my first LSAT, but ten points off for my second one.

I wouldn't use this as a "predictor," but it is kind of fun. :)

User avatar
gravity
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:35 pm

Postby gravity » Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:38 pm

cool... off by 1 point for me

User avatar
awesomerossum
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:39 pm

Postby awesomerossum » Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:58 pm

"RE: awesome's drop-the-zero-add-a-one conversion. The LSAT's overlap with the Verbal section is pretty clear. But I think the Math section could be an important indicator, as the logic games rely on similar skills.
"

I dunno. The SAT I math is ridiculously easy. In fact, an 800 is around the 86th percentile!

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re:

Postby Kohinoor » Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:15 am

awesomerossum wrote:"RE: awesome's drop-the-zero-add-a-one conversion. The LSAT's overlap with the Verbal section is pretty clear. But I think the Math section could be an important indicator, as the logic games rely on similar skills.
"

I dunno. The SAT I math is ridiculously easy. In fact, an 800 is around the 86th percentile!

That couldn't possibly be right.

::edit::Yeah, that's wrong. If you think about it, it makes no sense for them to design a test that is unable to distinguish among the top 14% of student. If an 800 was at the 86th percentile, they'd redesign the test.

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downlo ... Groups.pdf

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Re:

Postby rayiner » Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:25 am

Kohinoor wrote:
awesomerossum wrote:"RE: awesome's drop-the-zero-add-a-one conversion. The LSAT's overlap with the Verbal section is pretty clear. But I think the Math section could be an important indicator, as the logic games rely on similar skills.
"

I dunno. The SAT I math is ridiculously easy. In fact, an 800 is around the 86th percentile!

That couldn't possibly be right.

::edit::Yeah, that's wrong. If you think about it, it makes no sense for them to design a test that is unable to distinguish among the top 14% of student. If an 800 was at the 86th percentile, they'd redesign the test.

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downlo ... Groups.pdf


Dude, it's been almost 2 years.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re:

Postby OperaSoprano » Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:33 am

awesomerossum wrote:Sorry, I use a different formula for calculating SAT-LSAT correlation. My old tutor said that one's starting point should be the verbal score with the last zero removed and a one added to the front.

I scored an 800 on the verbal. Technically, I should've started from a 180.


Goddamnit. Goddamnit! Why did I have to fuck up the LSAT so badly?

My score was predicted exactly by the OP's formula, but if this works too, I could have done a lot better.

Disclaimer: My SAT prep probably sucked even more than my LSAT prep. Actually, it was kind of nonexistent.

User avatar
23fulltimecowboys
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: SAT/LSAT Conversion Forumla

Postby 23fulltimecowboys » Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:37 am

dead on.

User avatar
Dtackpat75
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: SAT/LSAT Conversion Forumla

Postby Dtackpat75 » Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:38 am

Predicted: 162

Actual: 174

I didn't try very hard in HS :shock:

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: SAT/LSAT Conversion Forumla

Postby Helmholtz » Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:50 am

Mine was about ten points off.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: criminaltheory, katthegreat11, MZaf and 13 guests