ilovelawtays wrote:shadowofjazz wrote:cahwc12 wrote:Don't worry about any of that shit and study to make or exceed your target score. All of this extra crap you're talking about is exactly that.
Also in my opinion the MCAT is far more difficult than the LSAT, and I don't think you understand or appreciate just how difficult the MCAT is if you talk about it like that. You can consider most of the concepts of mathematics and science to be "rote memorization" but that doesn't make them easily apprehended.
Rather than brag or boast or care about what other people think about your LSAT studies, shut up and don't talk to them about it and just study for your score.
Having taken both the MCATs and the LSATs and having done well on both, the LSAT required much more preparation for me (~ a full month of study v. 2 weeks for the MCAT). The MCAT in the end boils down to formulas (easily memorized), organic chemistry reactions (easily memorized) and reading comprehension.
Regarding the OP's question, I see something completely different. When I told people I was taking the LSAT, a good majority of them responded with, "I'm pretty sure I would do well on that." o_O I believe some professors that say this, but it seems odd that in my area people think its easy to do well (170+) on the LSAT.
[Edit] I should specify - the LSAT prep was a full month of 12 hours of prep per day. The MCAT prep was about 4 hours per day for 2 weeks.
[Edit 2] I saw another post about science GPAs. For the record, my science GPA is about a 2.6-2.7. Cumulative is 3.1-3.2
2 weeks plus the year or so you spent taking bio, chem, physics, and o-chem.
That's the point! The exam is supposed to test your basic science knowledge. You can't even apply to medical school without those courses, even if you got a perfect on the damn mcat! I took the mcat and lsat as well. The lsat required a hell a lot more time from my end. I think I definitely spent a good couple of years with on and off studying for it, whereas for the mcat it was just a summer (and I did my gen chem and orgo at the same time in one summer, whereas physics and bio were exempt from high school).
TheWeeIceMon wrote:hopper123 wrote:Big Dog wrote:30 MCAT would be 160 LSAT (75th percentile scores).
Uh, not necessarily. Any 2.7 gpa can take the lsat, and many do. Any 2.7 science gpa could take the mcat, but few do.
Uh, quite a few 2.7s take the mcat, do horribly, go carribean/abroad and come back to pass their usmles. If they pass their usmles (on first try), chances are decent they'll become doctors because there is a shortage. Go to your local hospitals and youll find at least one who went to a Ross. They arent very different either. They just sucked at undergrad.TERS wrote:romothesavior wrote:LOL @ anyone who thinks the LSAT is harder or even remotely close to the MCAT.
LOL at people who compare the two
To the both of you: have you earned a science degree in biology/engineering/chem/math/phys? If not, the mcat will look wildly strange and difficult to you. If you have an aversion Or distaste towards science, for some strange reason youll treat those who earned those degrees with some mild regard and look at any science test as too difficult therefore worthy of respect.
Ive met quite a few bio kids who pissed on the law, thought the lsat would be a walk in the park, and realized later that it kicked them in the ass. Go look up some md jds too. Notice that they might get into a med school, meaning theydid ok on the mcat, but went to a ttt law school. And they didnt choose the ttt over t14 because it was cheaper. They simply couldnt get in. The mcat, as seen by premeds, is easier than the lsat. These kids have had years of basic science, coursework that is tested on the mcat. Also, I remember a lot of science kids being baffled by logic rules. It took a while for most of them (except math kids) to see that a necessary true doesnt imply a sufficient true.
And for anyone who scored a 165 or above, I really think they can dominate subjects like orgo, and if they are not math averse, then easily breeze through the basics of science, enough to earn them a good mcat score and probably better (perentile wise) than their lsat score as the mcat is a lot more learnable than the lsat.
Are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass? So you're saying that pre-law students can dominate the MCAT/science classes, but the LSAT is beyond the intellectual capacity of pre-med students?
No I'm not pulling this out of my ass. Just browse google for some MD/JDs and you will see that most of them went to ttt law schools. I know of a few MDs who wanted to get into a good law school, studied for it (and MDs are used to studying), and just didn't do well. Quite a few MDs lament on how difficult and strange the lsat is.
What I am saying is that I believe kids (not premed) with a 165+ (and definitely those with a 175+) lsat can most likely outperform premed kids who can't score above a 160. Orgo for example is pure logical thought, but most don't see it that way. Gen chem and phys would be a breeze because it's also quite logical. The only class I can see premed kids dominating is the bio class because a lot of that is just pure memorization. Seriously, these basic science courses aren't difficult and wouldn't be for the kids who got a 165+. I've also seen way to many high performing LSAT kids tackle pretty intense math quite easily even though they were math averse before, and they would just blow a lot of average premed kids who get into average medical schools out of the water.
Just so you know I was a diehard science kid, and I used to have little respect for humanities until I took some classes in their department and until I took the lsat. For those who never did science before or have some aversion to it, you underestimate yourselves--it's really not that difficult--and if you scored above a 165 on the lsat, I am quite certain you would be able to do pretty well in science courses that tap logic more than they do memory.