Are you a believer that everyone has a ceiling on the LSAT? Forum

[shifty_eyed]

Wow, that's pretty surprising. I've always kinda wondered whether getting into undergrad or law school was harder, but I think the only real answer is they're just different. Plenty of Harvard grads end up at mediocre (by TLS standards) law schools, and plenty of people from average undergrads go to Harvard law. Just seems weird.

Yeah, I was surprised to see that my undergrad's average LSAT was in the low 160s, and it's actually in the top 15 or so of schools ranked by LSAT score.

I think TLS skews our perspective, and a LOT of people take the LSAT underprepared. I imagine MOST if not ALL Harvard students could break 170 if they studied as much as the regular TLS LSAT prepper poster.

I think prestige of undergrad is highly overrated anyways. I would argue that your average LSAT-taker at Harvard isn't any smarter than an above average LSAT-taker at a state school. Getting in to an Ivy League undergrad doesn't make you automatically more intelligent (ie more able to crack a higher LSAT with hard work and study) than someone from a less prestigious schools. Undergrad admissions are, in a lot of ways, a crap shoot. Self-selection, your high school teachers, financial constraints, and standardized test scores play such a large role. The standardized tests to get into undergrad, IMO, are more indicators of knowledge than intelligence, whereas the LSAT is more of an indicator of intelligence (based on its heavy testing of analytic skills). I also, would argue Harvard students are more likely to study for the LSAT because they probably likely prepared for the SAT and ACT before undergrad to get into Harvard. I think that's why the LSAT is such a valuable tool. It eliminates factors besides work ethic and intelligence. While on average Harvard students are more intelligent than a less prestigious school's students, at the top level I don't think there's a difference. So it doesn't at all surprise me that Harvard students only average a 166 because there are bound to be students who got into Harvard based on other factors than intelligence (hard work, easy graders in high school, etc.).

I don't disagree with any of this.

[JDot]

Wow, that's pretty surprising. I've always kinda wondered whether getting into undergrad or law school was harder, but I think the only real answer is they're just different. Plenty of Harvard grads end up at mediocre (by TLS standards) law schools, and plenty of people from average undergrads go to Harvard law. Just seems weird.

Yeah, I was surprised to see that my undergrad's average LSAT was in the low 160s, and it's actually in the top 15 or so of schools ranked by LSAT score.

I think TLS skews our perspective, and a LOT of people take the LSAT underprepared. I imagine MOST if not ALL Harvard students could break 170 if they studied as much as the regular TLS LSAT prepper poster.

I think prestige of undergrad is highly overrated anyways. I would argue that your average LSAT-taker at Harvard isn't any smarter than an above average LSAT-taker at a state school. Getting in to an Ivy League undergrad doesn't make you automatically more intelligent (ie more able to crack a higher LSAT with hard work and study) than someone from a less prestigious schools. Undergrad admissions are, in a lot of ways, a crap shoot. Self-selection, your high school teachers, financial constraints, and standardized test scores play such a large role. The standardized tests to get into undergrad, IMO, are more indicators of knowledge than intelligence, whereas the LSAT is more of an indicator of intelligence (based on its heavy testing of analytic skills). I also, would argue Harvard students are more likely to study for the LSAT because they probably likely prepared for the SAT and ACT before undergrad to get into Harvard. I think that's why the LSAT is such a valuable tool. It eliminates factors besides work ethic and intelligence. While on average Harvard students are more intelligent than a less prestigious school's students, at the top level I don't think there's a difference. So it doesn't at all surprise me that Harvard students only average a 166 because there are bound to be students who got into Harvard based on other factors than intelligence (hard work, easy graders in high school, etc.).

I agree, also consider the people that go to ivy league schools are the people that actually gave a shit in high school, that doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily more intelligent...I probably could've gone to an ivy league school, but I didn’t care, I was content with getting straight Bs studying for barely any tests, doing barely any school work, and just going in to take the SAT with no prep and flying through it with minimal effort… I know so many people that were like this too, they just used their intelligence to do nothing and still get decent grades, instead of actually trying and getting great grades…

[Micdiddy]

Wow, that's pretty surprising. I've always kinda wondered whether getting into undergrad or law school was harder, but I think the only real answer is they're just different. Plenty of Harvard grads end up at mediocre (by TLS standards) law schools, and plenty of people from average undergrads go to Harvard law. Just seems weird.

Yeah, I was surprised to see that my undergrad's average LSAT was in the low 160s, and it's actually in the top 15 or so of schools ranked by LSAT score.

I think TLS skews our perspective, and a LOT of people take the LSAT underprepared. I imagine MOST if not ALL Harvard students could break 170 if they studied as much as the regular TLS LSAT prepper poster.

I think prestige of undergrad is highly overrated anyways. I would argue that your average LSAT-taker at Harvard isn't any smarter than an above average LSAT-taker at a state school. Getting in to an Ivy League undergrad doesn't make you automatically more intelligent (ie more able to crack a higher LSAT with hard work and study) than someone from a less prestigious schools. Undergrad admissions are, in a lot of ways, a crap shoot. Self-selection, your high school teachers, financial constraints, and standardized test scores play such a large role. The standardized tests to get into undergrad, IMO, are more indicators of knowledge than intelligence, whereas the LSAT is more of an indicator of intelligence (based on its heavy testing of analytic skills). I also, would argue Harvard students are more likely to study for the LSAT because they probably likely prepared for the SAT and ACT before undergrad to get into Harvard. I think that's why the LSAT is such a valuable tool. It eliminates factors besides work ethic and intelligence. While on average Harvard students are more intelligent than a less prestigious school's students, at the top level I don't think there's a difference. So it doesn't at all surprise me that Harvard students only average a 166 because there are bound to be students who got into Harvard based on other factors than intelligence (hard work, easy graders in high school, etc.).

I agree, also consider the people that go to ivy league schools are the people that actually gave a shit in high school, that doesn’t mean that they’re more intelligent...I probably could've gone to an ivy league school, but I didn’t care, I was content with getting straight Bs studying for barely any tests, doing barely any school work, and just going in to take the SAT with no prep and flying through it with minimal effort… I know so many people that were like this too, they just used their intelligence to do nothing and still get decent grades, instead of actually trying and getting great grades…

Yep, me too. I barely tried in high school and UG and now I'm rerettig the latter. I took the SAT with no prep at all and bombed the English section, then became an English Major and now tutor SAT English. I look at the stuff I teach and think if I just knew how easy it would have been to study it I might have tried a bit. I could easily sit down now and get 800 on ten SAT English tests in a row. Oh wells.

[TheZoid]

That's a pretty interesting analysis. Sounds about right, but I think you might be underestimating the difficulty of getting into an Ivy a little bit. Similar to the LSAT, not everyone can get 1400+ on the SAT. So I guess the answer is, law school is a much more level playing field than undergrad, for a number of reasons. So I guess the best path to sucess is: high school gunner > harvard > goldman/mckinsey/PE/Hedge Fund. Guess we're a bunch of suckers.

[ams212]

I was the same (ie. pretty much a screw-off). Took college classes through PSEOP at a local state school. Skipped tons of classes, got Bs with no effort. I had a pretty good test scores, but decided to go to local state school. Regret those Bs on my transcript, but with just a little more effort (despite cramming a double major and a masters all into 4 years) I'm pulling straight As. I even got into two "new ivies" for undergrad, but because of my slackerish way (and financial contraints) decided to attend neither. I thought about transferring, but thanks to TLS I know that Law Schools don't care about undergrad except for GPA. I look at it as I lucked out in being able to go to undergrad for super cheap and still have great law school prospects.

[ams212]

That's a pretty interesting analysis. Sounds about right, but I think you might be underestimating the difficulty of getting into an Ivy a little bit. Similar to the LSAT, not everyone can get 1400+ on the SAT. So I guess the answer is, law school is a much more level playing field than undergrad, for a number of reasons. So I guess the best path to sucess is: high school gunner > harvard > goldman/mckinsey/PE/Hedge Fund. Guess we're a bunch of suckers.

Being a gunner is never the best path lol

But otherwise I agree

[TheZoid]

I was the same (ie. pretty much a screw-off). Took college classes through PSEOP at a local state school. Skipped tons of classes, got Bs with no effort. I had a pretty good test scores, but decided to go to local state school. Regret those Bs on my transcript, but with just a little more effort (despite cramming a double major and a masters all into 4 years) I'm pulling straight As. I even got into two "new ivies" for undergrad, but because of my slackerish way (and financial contraints) decided to attend neither. I thought about transferring, but thanks to TLS I know that Law Schools don't care about undergrad except for GPA. I look at it as I lucked out in being able to go to undergrad for super cheap and still have great law school prospects.

Care to explain the bolded? People cast such a wide net on this subject. There are eight ivy league schools. There are three "little Ivy league" schools. All of a sudden BC, Colgate, Holy Cross, etc. are all "little Ivys." It's kind of obnoxious, tbh. There are a lot of great schools that aren't and don't have to be labeled incorrectly for an ego boost. / rant

[Nova]

I was the same (ie. pretty much a screw-off). Took college classes through PSEOP at a local state school. Skipped tons of classes, got Bs with no effort. I had a pretty good test scores, but decided to go to local state school. Regret those Bs on my transcript, but with just a little more effort (despite cramming a double major and a masters all into 4 years) I'm pulling straight As. I even got into two "new ivies" for undergrad, but because of my slackerish way (and financial contraints) decided to attend neither. I thought about transferring, but thanks to TLS I know that Law Schools don't care about undergrad except for GPA. I look at it as I lucked out in being able to go to undergrad for super cheap and still have great law school prospects.

Care to explain the bolded? People cast such a wide net on this subject. There are eight ivy league schools. There are three "little Ivy league" schools. All of a sudden BC, Colgate, Holy Cross, etc. are all "little Ivys." It's kind of obnoxious, tbh. There are a lot of great schools that aren't and don't have to be labeled incorrectly for an ego boost. / rant

I prefer "public ivies". Smart, attractive women, and mostly D1 sports.

[DaRascal]

Not everything's black and white. Anything's possible in this crazy world. Whose to say that the median LSAT for Harvard undergrads can't go up to 175 one year and drop to 150 the next?

[ams212]

I was the same (ie. pretty much a screw-off). Took college classes through PSEOP at a local state school. Skipped tons of classes, got Bs with no effort. I had a pretty good test scores, but decided to go to local state school. Regret those Bs on my transcript, but with just a little more effort (despite cramming a double major and a masters all into 4 years) I'm pulling straight As. I even got into two "new ivies" for undergrad, but because of my slackerish way (and financial contraints) decided to attend neither. I thought about transferring, but thanks to TLS I know that Law Schools don't care about undergrad except for GPA. I look at it as I lucked out in being able to go to undergrad for super cheap and still have great law school prospects.

Care to explain the bolded? People cast such a wide net on this subject. There are eight ivy league schools. There are three "little Ivy league" schools. All of a sudden BC, Colgate, Holy Cross, etc. are all "little Ivys." It's kind of obnoxious, tbh. There are a lot of great schools that aren't and don't have to be labeled incorrectly for an ego boost. / rant

Not trying to be obnoxious. I don't need an ego boost, I am happy where I'm at and I don't need the approval or opinion of others to feel good about myself. I'm just happy that law schools don't consider what undergrad you went to very highly because I didn't want to jump into the debt pool for undergrad. If I wanted to get a job right out of undergrad, I think I would have regretted not having the balls to take out the loans. As it is, I am happy My interests have led me to something where past mistakes don't totally kill. Anyways, the schools I was referring to, are both highly regarded and I've heard thme referred to as "new ivies" before, pardon the expression.

[TheZoid]

Fair enough ams. I'm not saying you were obnoxious, you didn't even attend the schools. I'm just making the point that people throw it around so casually. Stanford, MIT, etc. are fantastic schools, better than some of the Ivys, I just don't understand people using the term Ivy or Little Ivy so liberally. And, because I had never heard of a "new Ivy," I figured I'd educate myself.

Not everything's black and white. Anything's possible in this crazy world. Whose to say that the median LSAT for Harvard undergrads can't go up to 175 one year and drop to 150 the next?

Also, wut?

[Young Hemingway]

Could this be a mistake?

[shifty_eyed]

Could this be a mistake?

Where do/did you go to school? lol. Seems like there should be a bigger clump toward the 50 percentiles.

[dowu]

[kwais]

Could this be a mistake?

Where do/did you go to school? lol

What would be the mistake? The 26 people who couldnt score over a 142?

that's not 26 "people" dog

[dowu]

that's not 26 "people" dog

LOL, my bad. I didn't realize it was possible for 26% of the people at your school who register for CAS to score that low.

[Nova]

Could this be a mistake?

Outted as going to a college where 2 out of 3 test takers score below the median.

[Young Hemingway]

Outted as going to a college where 2 out of 3 test takers score below the median.

I'm not overly concerned.

I was just wondering if it could be, somehow, a mistake.

[Nova]

Im JK. Congrats on your score from Feb. AFAIK, those are accurate.

[Scotusnerd]

I think if there is anything that would determine a ceiling in the LSAT, it's your reading ability. Not everyone is capable of reading at the same level, and it would be impossible to achieve good results on this test with rudimentary reading skills.

Beyond that, I think it's a matter of motivation, analysis, organizational skills, and a good understanding of your own learning style. Those can all be learned and improved in a realistic time frame.

I think the factors are too complicated to really make a 'ceiling', however. Everyone hits plateaus. I think a ceiling is just a plateau that you haven't conquered yet.

So no, minus an honest inability to read fast and accurately, I don't think there is a ceiling.

[Sloth Hero]

Had the question been phrased: "Are you a believe that anyone has a ceiling on the LSAT?", my answer would be "Yes" and "it's you".

[VasaVasori]

.

[CalAlumni]

To the chagrin of some, yes I believe most people do have a 'ceiling' for improvement on the LSAT within a typical time-frame for improvement. A good way to determine if you have a ceiling is to take a practice LSAT UNTIMED; if you can pretty much get a 180 UNTIMED then you are at least intelligent enough to discern the correct answers. In this case, your only obstacle is time (35 min. per section) which could be improved--but in what time frame? Who knows? Years.

Some people, though not the average TLS'er are just not smart enough to score this well even UNTIMED. Their level of reading comprehension and/or logical percipacity is just too underdeveloped.

[dowu]

To the chagrin of some, yes I believe most people do have a 'ceiling' for improvement on the LSAT within a typical time-frame for improvement. A good way to determine if you have a ceiling is to take a practice LSAT UNTIMED; if you can pretty much get a 180 UNTIMED then you are at least intelligent enough to discern the correct answers. In this case, your only obstacle is time (35 min. per section) which could be improved--but in what time frame? Who knows? Years.

Some people, though not the average TLS'er are just not smart enough to score this well even UNTIMED. Their level of reading comprehension and/or logical percipacity is just too underdeveloped.

Why you gotta use big words bro? You hatin?

[TERS]

"percipacity"? You mean perspicacity?