schools' mean LSAT

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
steindle
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:39 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby steindle » Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:52 am

Vassar - 159

User avatar
Dead Ringer
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:07 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Dead Ringer » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:10 pm

yalie10 wrote:
Dead Ringer wrote:
tiefenbr wrote:I can't believe Yale and Harvard are only 165 and 166!


I think that is unbelievably impressive. Their mean is the 90th percentile of all LSAT takers. It shows that they really are selecting very bright people and/or motivated people. My UG's mean is 153, pathetic, but hardly surprising from what I saw of the work ethic there.


Actually, a 165 is 93.5% and a 166 is 95%.


I would be more interested in there 75th percentile scores. In any case I beat my school's mean by 20 points.

mcds
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:38 pm

Re: Re:

Postby mcds » Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:38 pm

Dead Ringer wrote:
yalie10 wrote:
Dead Ringer wrote:
tiefenbr wrote:I can't believe Yale and Harvard are only 165 and 166!


I think that is unbelievably impressive. Their mean is the 90th percentile of all LSAT takers. It shows that they really are selecting very bright people and/or motivated people. My UG's mean is 153, pathetic, but hardly surprising from what I saw of the work ethic there.


Actually, a 165 is 93.5% and a 166 is 95%.


I would be more interested in there 75th percentile scores. In any case I beat my school's mean by 20 points.


That would be the most interesting. I'll drop by my pre-law office and look ours up.

Our 50% is 163.

sluggo
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby sluggo » Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:45 pm

the high ivy LSAT is also a function of a higher portion of their students knowing how important the LSAT is and making sure that they take a prep course or self-study ahead of time. a lot of them have been groomed for success from an earlier age than most. something to consider.

mcds
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:38 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby mcds » Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:10 pm

You'd think that, but a lot of people take it randomly. Also, I'm pretty sure the median is going to be higher than the mean. I'll run over in a bit and check.

mcds
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:38 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby mcds » Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:39 pm

Percentile of Test Takers | LSAT Percentile
36 | 95+*
18 | 90-94*
10 | 85-89
9 | 80-84*

So an educated guess for the 25-50-75 would be
80-92-99

Percentile of Test Takers | LSAT Percentile
11 | 3.8+
19 | 3.6-3.79*
26 | 3.4-3.59*
21 | 3.2-3.39*

So an educated guess for the 25-50-75 would be
3.45-3.5-3.65
159-164-172

Mean: 3.4/163
Last edited by mcds on Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vasia
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 4:03 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby Vasia » Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:42 pm

USC(Southern California) has mean LSAT of 158 not 157 according to my LSDAS report.

smiley26
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:21 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby smiley26 » Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:43 pm

Pitzer -155

EntertainMeLaw
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:27 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby EntertainMeLaw » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:18 pm

.
Last edited by EntertainMeLaw on Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
JustDude
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:07 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby JustDude » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:19 pm

EntertainMeLaw wrote:I had transcripts from 4 schools (3 I attended full-time)....

Syracuse University - 152
Quinnipiac University - 149
SUNY Albany - 150
SUNY Oneonta - 148

I am not sure I completely understand the significance of the LSAT scores of the undergrad......

For instance... what does it mean that my degree granting school (SUNY Oneonta) avg 148 and I may get a 160?


That means you are a king of morons

CWF V
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:55 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby CWF V » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:30 pm

Weak. The LSAT favors rich kids who: a) don't have to work while in school and b) can afford the $1000+ prep courses.

I'm not wading into whether or not it's fair, but rather discounting the unfounded correlation that low LSAT scores = a stupid student body.

User avatar
RVP11
Posts: 2774
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby RVP11 » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:44 pm

CWF V wrote:Weak. The LSAT favors rich kids who: a) don't have to work while in school and b) can afford the $1000+ prep courses.

I'm not wading into whether or not it's fair, but rather discounting the unfounded correlation that low LSAT scores = a stupid student body.


I agree. One of the factors resulting in LSAT mean differences is undoubtedly the relatively intelligence of student bodies, but there are tons of other factors, too. Financial means, ambition, drive, the availability of LSAT classes, quality of LSAT instructors in the area, etc.

I went to a school where the LSAT mean is right around 150, and here's an example that sums it up: a friend of mine, a VERY bright guy, took an LSAT cold and scored 164 (to go with his 3.9 GPA). He didn't think there was any way to improve (and I didn't know better back then to inform him) and there were no commercial classes within three hours of our backwoods university. So he stuck with the 164, was accepted to a few schools between 15-25 but rejected at Berkeley. With the 175+ he's probably capable of, he'd quite possible be HYS-bound.

Something tells me his story is a lot more common at middle-of-nowhere state universities than it is at Ivies and other top schools where overachieving is the name of the game and the level of preparation is much higher.

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby bigben » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:53 pm

CWF V wrote:The LSAT favors rich kids who: a) don't have to work while in school and b) can afford the $1000+ prep courses.


This is just false. The LSAT is learnable but only to a certain point. It doesn't take that much effective studying time to get very close to your full potential. Anyone can find the time for this if they try.

Personally, I studied for three weeks on my own outside of working full time and that was just enough for me. Then I went on to teach those prep courses to those rich kids, and the ones who weren't working diligently on their own never did well anyway. The courses are just a luxurious and hand-holding way to study for the LSAT, they are not at all necessary to maximizing your score.


EDIT: The LSAT certainly does favor people who are determined, ambitious, effective, and thorough in their preparation. But these have an actual causal link to high performance (as does intelligence). Any correlation with kids that have a lot of free time or money is just that: a correlation.
Last edited by bigben on Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
JustDude
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:07 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby JustDude » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:57 pm

jsporter wrote:
CWF V wrote:Weak. The LSAT favors rich kids who: a) don't have to work while in school and b) can afford the $1000+ prep courses.

I'm not wading into whether or not it's fair, but rather discounting the unfounded correlation that low LSAT scores = a stupid student body.


I agree. One of the factors resulting in LSAT mean differences is undoubtedly the relatively intelligence of student bodies, but there are tons of other factors, too. Financial means, ambition, drive, the availability of LSAT classes, quality of LSAT instructors in the area, etc.

I went to a school where the LSAT mean is right around 150, and here's an example that sums it up: a friend of mine, a VERY bright guy, took an LSAT cold and scored 164 (to go with his 3.9 GPA). He didn't think there was any way to improve (and I didn't know better back then to inform him) and there were no commercial classes within three hours of our backwoods university. So he stuck with the 164, was accepted to a few schools between 15-25 but rejected at Berkeley. With the 175+ he's probably capable of, he'd quite possible be HYS-bound.


He isnt that bright after all...

User avatar
RVP11
Posts: 2774
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby RVP11 » Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:14 pm

JustDude wrote:
jsporter wrote:
CWF V wrote:Weak. The LSAT favors rich kids who: a) don't have to work while in school and b) can afford the $1000+ prep courses.

I'm not wading into whether or not it's fair, but rather discounting the unfounded correlation that low LSAT scores = a stupid student body.


I agree. One of the factors resulting in LSAT mean differences is undoubtedly the relatively intelligence of student bodies, but there are tons of other factors, too. Financial means, ambition, drive, the availability of LSAT classes, quality of LSAT instructors in the area, etc.

I went to a school where the LSAT mean is right around 150, and here's an example that sums it up: a friend of mine, a VERY bright guy, took an LSAT cold and scored 164 (to go with his 3.9 GPA). He didn't think there was any way to improve (and I didn't know better back then to inform him) and there were no commercial classes within three hours of our backwoods university. So he stuck with the 164, was accepted to a few schools between 15-25 but rejected at Berkeley. With the 175+ he's probably capable of, he'd quite possible be HYS-bound.


He isnt that bright after all...


He's bright. Uninformed, didn't do the research he should have or talk to the right people (to find out the LSAT was learnable). But bright.

I'm not saying that doing the necessary research and having a certain level of ambition and drive are not correlated to LS performance. The LSAT measures preparation almost as much as it measures a certain kind of intelligence.

kritiosboy
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:32 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby kritiosboy » Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:18 pm

.
Last edited by kritiosboy on Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

drew
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby drew » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:24 pm

S. Carolina - 151, from a friend, I believe it was June 2007

BeaverDam
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:09 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby BeaverDam » Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:19 am

CWF V wrote:Weak. The LSAT favors rich kids who: a) don't have to work while in school and b) can afford the $1000+ prep courses.

I'm not wading into whether or not it's fair, but rather discounting the unfounded correlation that low LSAT scores = a stupid student body.


If the LSAT is anything like the SAT, I'll be able to have a job and not spend any money on test prep to do well. (800 Math, 760 Verbal). I will agree that standardized tests favor 'rich kids' to an extent but there are some not-so-rich kids who can do really well on these tests without needing to study.

However, I have heard that getting a 1500+ on the SAT without prep is easier than getting a 170+ on the LSAT without prep.
So, I guess that's how the two tests are different.

The logic on the LSAT is probably tougher than the SAT's 'baby logic'.

deluvian
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:44 am

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby deluvian » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:47 am

Williams College: 164

kjunfood
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby kjunfood » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:49 am

stupid question

why is posting your UG and its lsat avg a privacy issue?

User avatar
dailygrind
Posts: 19328
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:08 am

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby dailygrind » Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:48 pm

.

User avatar
Lizface killah
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby Lizface killah » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:18 pm

UVA is 160 this year.

User avatar
Veritas
Posts: 2722
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby Veritas » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:33 pm

this thread is useless. let it die!

danconstan
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:42 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby danconstan » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:25 pm

Regarding the importance of your undegraduate institution...Several years ago I had the privalege of seeing a copy of a document used by a top professional school to weigh the GPA of its applicants for internal admissions purposes. It was a list of schools grouped into multiple tiers. The top tier (about 15 schools) had 0.6 added to the GPA. The bottom tier had 0.4 or 0.6 (don't remember exactly) subtracted from their GPA. Thus a 3.0 at Harvard (obviously in the top group) was regarded as a 3.6, whereas a 3.0 at "X" College in the bottom tier was regarded as a 2.4 or a 2.6. I remember being very surprised at how drastic the differences were!

User avatar
biggamejames
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:27 pm

Re: schools' mean LSAT

Postby biggamejames » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:32 pm

danconstan wrote:Regarding the importance of your undegraduate institution...Several years ago I had the privalege of seeing a copy of a document used by a top professional school to weigh the GPA of its applicants for internal admissions purposes. It was a list of schools grouped into multiple tiers. The top tier (about 15 schools) had 0.6 added to the GPA. The bottom tier had 0.4 or 0.6 (don't remember exactly) subtracted from their GPA. Thus a 3.0 at Harvard (obviously in the top group) was regarded as a 3.6, whereas a 3.0 at "X" College in the bottom tier was regarded as a 2.4 or a 2.6. I remember being very surprised at how drastic the differences were!

I don't believe this. If it were true, my cycle would have looked much worse.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSNbot Media and 2 guests