Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:01 pm
Top Law Schools
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
Correlation between LSAT and SAT, for those who asked Forum
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=276
Page 2 of 4
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:06 pm
26 ACT / 151 here. Yeah, I'm quite a catch.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:06 pm
1550/167
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:08 pm
also, 6'7", 463 lbs.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:12 pm
Busted again. Wah wah wah *Debbie Downer's Theme*
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:14 pm
1040 SAT... high school was a whole nother story compared to college... I didnt get my LSAT back but I topped out on preptests at 169 (twice)
haha, 1040
haha, 1040
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:43 pm
they are two very different tests
the SAT tests math and verbal skills that are a little below the levels of most top students coming out of high school. (For example, there is no calculus, and the reading comprehension isn't as complex as the lsat)
The SAT has more to do with taking your time and not making stupid mistakes, beacuse none of the questions are truly difficult. (problem is getting 1 or 2 wrong can drop you down to a 750 on math, verbal is a little more lenient).
I think the LSAT tests a much higher level of logical reasoning (so there shouldn't be much of a correlation).
the SAT tests math and verbal skills that are a little below the levels of most top students coming out of high school. (For example, there is no calculus, and the reading comprehension isn't as complex as the lsat)
The SAT has more to do with taking your time and not making stupid mistakes, beacuse none of the questions are truly difficult. (problem is getting 1 or 2 wrong can drop you down to a 750 on math, verbal is a little more lenient).
I think the LSAT tests a much higher level of logical reasoning (so there shouldn't be much of a correlation).
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:51 pm
1360 SAT (680 Verbal); no problems with timing
158/155 LSAT; always ran out of time
I hate getting dumber.
158/155 LSAT; always ran out of time
I hate getting dumber.
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:18 pm
My problem is that English wasn't my first language. I stomped the math but got eaten alive by the verbal 
Same thing with logic games vs reading comp. I did pretty damn well in the logical reasoning as well. 2-3 wrong in every section and 9+ wrong in reading comp. wahoooo!
Same thing with logic games vs reading comp. I did pretty damn well in the logical reasoning as well. 2-3 wrong in every section and 9+ wrong in reading comp. wahoooo!
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:15 am
***
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:22 am
slash you are my test score twin. except you are the slightly smarter twin.
1510/33/176
1510/33/176
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:09 am
i did cheat and take the sat twice
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:13 am
..
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:30 am
Keep in mind the competition.
Everyone in america
vs
College graduates, or those very close to college gradation looking to earn a doctorate.
It makes sense that those in lower SAT percentiles will see a significant drop in LSAT percentile. Those who are higher in the SAT percentile will see a smaller drop in comparison.
BTW: I hate you all. I no longer feel brilliant.
Everyone in america
vs
College graduates, or those very close to college gradation looking to earn a doctorate.
It makes sense that those in lower SAT percentiles will see a significant drop in LSAT percentile. Those who are higher in the SAT percentile will see a smaller drop in comparison.
BTW: I hate you all. I no longer feel brilliant.
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:54 am
haha, i did too.i did cheat and take the sat twice
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:01 am
did anyone else have the urge and cheat in the sat and turn back and work on the math sections...
i remember the first time i took it having to tell myself that it was a ridiculous thought... but it was there...
i remember the first time i took it having to tell myself that it was a ridiculous thought... but it was there...
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:07 am
screw the math section. i hated math for itself and for dragging my sat score down. now i'm getting a b.s. in mathematics.
i'm glad there was no time for temptations like that on the lsat though. once logic games are over you're on to something else, no looking back.
i'm glad there was no time for temptations like that on the lsat though. once logic games are over you're on to something else, no looking back.
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:22 pm
I had 4-5 minutes to spare after finishing the logic games 
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:18 pm
1410 (730 Verbal)/176
I would be more interested in an age/LSAT correlation to see if it is true that the test gets 'harder' if you are older.
I would be more interested in an age/LSAT correlation to see if it is true that the test gets 'harder' if you are older.
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:19 pm
Saying 1270 is a crappy SAT is a joke.
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:23 pm
To be fair, it's on the low end for people looking at top UG schools. Obviously, the SAT has more differential at the top end in the scoring because it is not a difficult test.
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:28 pm
For the sake of this intelligent thread...
1370 (I think 700 Math?)
169
1370 (I think 700 Math?)
169
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:41 pm
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:46 pm
It's been a while, but I think my SAT was 1460. LSAT 170.
Oh, for the age people, I'm 29, and I've been out of school for 8 years.
Oh, for the age people, I'm 29, and I've been out of school for 8 years.
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:08 am
SAT: taken at age 16, without studying: 1430I would be more interested in an age/LSAT correlation to see if it is true that the test gets 'harder' if you are older.
GRE: taken at age 25, with minimal studying: 740 verbal (99%), 790 quantitative (96%), 800 analytical (99%)
LSAT: taken at age 31, with significant studying: 175
My LSAT %tile is, I'm pretty sure, higher than my SAT %tile. Undergrad apps. have become so much more competitive now than when I applied, I would definitely study more now for the SAT. But age hasn't seemed to hurt anything . . . yet.