LSAT vs your SAT/ACT Forum

PrezRand · Post by **PrezRand** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 5:12 pm

Oskosh wrote:
PrezRand wrote:
nlee10 wrote:
PrezRand wrote:My best score was a 2240. My high school had basically everyone in the top 15 percent scoring over 2000+ We had a few perfects, a bunch of 2400 superscores. My district is hella competitive
Bay Area?
Nah. I'm from the greater Houston area

Yeezus wrote:
PrezRand wrote:My best score was a 2240. My high school had basically everyone in the top 15 percent scoring over 2000+ We had a few perfects, a bunch of 2400 superscores. My district is hella competitive
Cool story bro. There's a lot of districts like that in the US.
Do you have a problem with me?
Bellaire? Lamar? Cinco ranch? Seven Lakes? Carnegie?

Sugar Land. The Cinco Ranch/Seven Lakes group are smart. Bellaire is bright too

WestWingWatcher · Post by **WestWingWatcher** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 5:23 pm

2050 SAT – no studying
170 LSAT -a month of studying (a few mornings a week, for a few hours. 7 practice tests total. Cold first score was 165)

I would have to echo what a few others have said about standardized test prep being a big contributor (one of many) to the pervasive/'hereditary" nature of economic inequality. A huge number of students don't even have someone in their life telling them they should be studying for the SAT, let alone the money to pay for an expensive test prep course or tutor.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:17 pm

WestWingWatcher wrote:I would have to echo what a few others have said about standardized test prep being a big contributor (one of many) to the pervasive/'hereditary" nature of economic inequality. A huge number of students don't even have someone in their life telling them they should be studying for the SAT, let alone the money to pay for an expensive test prep course or tutor.

Some recent articles of interest from our favorite news site, the Economist:

"America’s new aristocracy: As the importance of intellectual capital grows, privilege has become increasingly heritable"
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... creasingly

"An hereditary meritocracy: The children of the rich and powerful are increasingly well suited to earning wealth and power themselves"
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... -and-power

Clemenceau · Post by **Clemenceau** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:54 pm

Scalvert · Post by **Scalvert** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:02 pm

Just found this thread. I was actually wondering about this earlier. I didn't take the SAT, but my ACT was 31 ( reading 34, English 33, Science 30, Math 26 - LOL - may I add that I hate math with the fiery passion of 1000 burning suns)

I took the Feb and June LSATs and got a 163 and 164. I feel like I underperformed. There was no math, so what the hell happened? Every standardized test I've ever taken (except for the LSAT, obviously) has been in the high 90s- My ACT was 97th percentile, but 164 is 90th percentile. Have I gotten dumber? My PTs were in the 168/169 range but nooooooo, it's like I saved up years of test anxiety for just this one test. Figures.

Hikikomorist · Post by **Hikikomorist** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:08 pm

Scalvert wrote:Just found this thread. I was actually wondering about this earlier. I didn't take the SAT, but my ACT was 31 ( reading 34, English 33, Science 30, Math 26 - LOL - may I add that I hate math with the fiery passion of 1000 burning suns)

I took the Feb and June LSATs and got a 163 and 164. I feel like I underperformed. There was no math, so what the hell happened? Every standardized test I've ever taken (except for the LSAT, obviously) has been in the high 90s- My ACT was 97th percentile, but 164 is 90th percentile. Have I gotten dumber? My PTs were in the 168/169 range but nooooooo, it's like I saved up years of test anxiety for just this one test. Figures.

The test-taking populations are not the same.

Scalvert · Post by **Scalvert** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:13 pm

Different enough to account for that much of a decrease? I would think the verbal scores 34/33 from my ACT would correlate to a much higher LSAT score.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:19 pm

Scalvert wrote:Different enough to account for that much of a decrease? I would think the verbal scores 34/33 from my ACT would correlate to a much higher LSAT score.

There isn't a very strong correlation between LSAT and SAT, ACT verbal, IQ, or anything else. </thread>

Scalvert · Post by **Scalvert** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:53 pm

Does "anything else" mean actual law school performance?

180asBreath · Post by **180asBreath** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:04 pm

ACT - 90th - 27 with no studying
LSAT - 93rd - 166 with weeks of studying, but I underperformed my PT average by about 5 points

Very different testing populations and a very different test.

Scalvert · Post by **Scalvert** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:11 pm

180asBreath wrote:ACT - 90th - 27 with no studying
LSAT - 93rd - 166 with weeks of studying, but I underperformed my PT average by about 5 points

Same here. Are you retaking? Given that my first two scores were so close, idk that it wouldn't be a waste of time for me.

hill1334 · Post by **hill1334** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:20 pm

RZ5646 wrote:
Scalvert wrote:Different enough to account for that much of a decrease? I would think the verbal scores 34/33 from my ACT would correlate to a much higher LSAT score.
There isn't a very strong correlation between LSAT and SAT, ACT verbal, IQ, or anything else. </thread>

While I agree that the correlation between IQ and standardized test scores may not be all that strong, it does exist. And I actually disagree that there is not a very strong correlation between the LSAT and SAT. The facts just don't back you up. With that said, correlations are not entirely predicative no matter how strong, and it is very, very possible that someone could have the skills to do very well on one exam and not on the other even if the scores on an exam correlate generally. Further, the correlation could be largely down to how much effort people put into preparing for the tests rather than individuals cognitive abilities.

Scalvert - yeah you are competing against a much stronger pool when you take the LSAT, and it can definitely be part of what accounts for the difference. The ACT pool includes individuals who don't go onto college at all, while the LSAT pool, besides being a pool of all college graduates and soon to be graduates, is likely self-selected towards above average students and those who are likely to excel on the LSAT in the first place because they are good at the kind of reasoning it tests.

Also, I believe math majors actually score the highest on the LSAT, as a lot of the analytical reasoning and logic skills required to be good at math are helpful on the LSAT. So despite the LSAT not having any math on it, if you find math difficult, it is not all that surprising that certain questions on the LSAT might trip you up.

rnoodles · Post by **rnoodles** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:29 pm

SAT: Over 9000 with no studying (I know, that's impossible)
LSAT: 120 all three takes (extensive studying)

Scalvert · Post by **Scalvert** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:30 pm

So

I am foiled yet again by math - on a test containing no math. Thanks, universe.

Scalvert · Post by **Scalvert** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:31 pm

rnoodles22 wrote:SAT: Over 9000 with no studying (I know, that's impossible)
LSAT: 120 all three takes (extensive studying)

banjo · Post by **banjo** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:53 pm

2340 SAT but only a 164 on the LSAT the first time I took it. I was sure I had gotten dumber in college (drinking and whatnot), but like others said, the competition is MUCH tougher for law school and most people have to study seriously for the LSAT. Thanks largely to TLS I ended up retaking for a 176.

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:07 pm

Post removed...

Clearly · Post by **Clearly** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:41 pm

Median sat. 99+% lsat.

kartelite · Post by **kartelite** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:05 pm

1470 - no studying (probably the reason I graduated with a 3.5x in HS)
176 - two or three weeks of moderate studying..and following up on the post above, I was a math major and can definitely get why they would score highest on average even though there's no actual math

Person1111 · Post by **Person1111** » Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:59 pm

1520 SAT (plus 800 SAT II writing), 175 LSAT

rinkrat19 · Post by **rinkrat19** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:58 pm

SAT 1400 (before the scoring change, so that's 700/700) with no studying. (found this listed as ~95% and 99%, so I don't really know)
ACT 34 with no studying. (99%)
LSAT 171 with minimal studying. (98%)

And pretty terrible 1L grades.

So don't get cocky.

Hikikomorist · Post by **Hikikomorist** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:47 pm

rinkrat19 wrote:1400 (old scale)/34, no studying at all.
171 with minimal studying.

Same ballpark, percentile-wise.

rinkrat19 wrote:SAT 1400 (before the scoring change, so that's 700/700) with no studying. (found this listed as ~95% and 99%, so I don't really know)
ACT 34 with no studying. (99%)
LSAT 171 with minimal studying. (98%)

And pretty terrible 1L grades. So don't get cocky.

MistakenGenius · Post by **MistakenGenius** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:56 pm

Post removed.

rinkrat19 · Post by **rinkrat19** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:51 pm

Hikkomorist wrote:
rinkrat19 wrote:1400 (old scale)/34, no studying at all.
171 with minimal studying.

Same ballpark, percentile-wise.

rinkrat19 wrote:SAT 1400 (before the scoring change, so that's 700/700) with no studying. (found this listed as ~95% and 99%, so I don't really know)
ACT 34 with no studying. (99%)
LSAT 171 with minimal studying. (98%)

And pretty terrible 1L grades. So don't get cocky.

Lol, whoops.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:44 pm

These threads are pointless but will never die because so many TLSers define themselves by their standardized test scores.