LSAT score & Class Rank Forum

[omzster67]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum -- Is there any data about how well LSAT scores correlate with final class rank out of law school?

[KD35]

I think the general thought is that there is no large correlation. Could be wrong, but I've heard a lot of people complain about the LSAT not being the best predictor.

[lawhopeful10]

There is a small correlation with LSAT and grades however the drop in career prospects from choosing lower ranked schools diminishes faster than the edge you come in with on your LSAT. Also there have been plenty of cases of people coming in with high LSATs and not doing well, nothing is a guarantee. I only mention that because oftentimes when people ask this they are debating going to a lower ranked school, which depending on a variety of factors can be a good decision however like I said there is no guarantee you will do well.

[Tiago Splitter]

It's not a great predictor, but it's the best one we have.

"According to the Law School Admissions Council (which designs and administers the LSAT) the test is intended to predict first year law school grades. Studies conducted by LSAC in 2010 showed correlations between test scores and first year grades between .12 and .56 (median .36). In other words, the tests predicted between 1 and 31% of the typical law student's first year grades."

--LinkRemoved--

[Nova]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum -- Is there any data about how well LSAT scores correlate with final class rank out of law school?

not enough to assume you will do any better than median

[timmyd]

It doesn't really. I mean its always better to have a higher LSAT, but in my experience there is not much of a correlation. I transferred to UT from a TTT school and got the highest grade in a large section class...this is very anecdotal but I use it as at least to show how small the correlation can be. I had a 156 on my LSAT which should have put me at the bottom of the class. I did place in the top 5.5% of my TTT though, which I think is much more predictive.
Bottom line is that schools value it alot and therefore you should too. I cant tell you the amount of times I wish I would have retaken that test and busted my ass studying. There is no doubt, however, that you can have a low LSAT score and outperform students with significantly higher scores if you work hard and understand how to take a law school exam.

[kingjones59]

Here's my anecdotal evidence: significantly below 25th LSAT at t10, and I'm slightly better than top quarter after first semester. In contrast, my buddy got a 178 and is bottom 10 percent. Just forget it and work hard

[metalgeek]

Dean Perez from Texas Tech had a good answer for this question recently.

"This is going to vary by school, but overall the predictive value of the LSAT of first year performance has a correlation coefficient of about .45 (more or less). According to my over-simplified understanding of stats, this is actually pretty strong. (A "perfect" correlation, i.e. it predicts perfectly, would be 1.0.) When you combine LSAT and UGPA, it goes up to 0.49.

Every year we (and all law schools, I would guess) provide the first year grades for our last class to LSAC and their statisticians give us back a report on how well the LSAT and GPA predicted how well those students did. (They use that to continuously improve and refine the value of the LSAT.)

What you would see is a scatterplot with a general relationship, but not perfect. So the person with the best combined stats in the class is virtually never ranked #1 in the class after the first year, but they're also virtually never outside the top 25%, either. On the other side, the person with the weakest LSAT/GPA combo isn't a lock to flunk out, but also almost never gets the grades to be in the top half of the class.

Everyone starts off equal in law school. 170 doesn't get you extra points on your law school exams and doesn't guarantee you will make law review. I've seen people with LSATs in the high 140s make law review, and I've seen people in the mid-160s flunk out. There's no substitute for hard work, which is why I often see very hard working 152-155/3.6-3.9 types eat the lunch of 160-164/3.1-3.3 types in law school. The first group is smart "enough" and has the attitude and work ethic to squeeze every bit of potential out of themselves. The latter group is very smart and gifted, but has usually cruised by on talent without ever being pushed to actually work hard."

[crit_racer]

Dean Perez from Texas Tech had a good answer for this question recently.

" There's no substitute for hard work, which is why I often see very hard working 152-155/3.6-3.9 types eat the lunch of 160-164/3.1-3.3 types in law school. The first group is smart "enough" and has the attitude and work ethic to squeeze every bit of potential out of themselves. The latter group is very smart and gifted, but has usually cruised by on talent without ever being pushed to actually work hard."

LOL @ ppl w/ 161-164 LSATS being very smart and gifted and cruising by on talent.

[Nova]

LOL @ ppl w/ 161-164 LSATS being very smart and gifted and cruising by on talent.

its all relative

[sd5289]

not enough to assume you will do any better than median

This.

I was at median LSAT wise and below median GPA wise at the school I'm at (significant WE plus playing the scholly negotiation game when the schools were desperate is the only reason I got the full ride). I've maintained top 15% for 3 semesters.

For me personally, I took the LSAT again after my previous score from UG expired (which was higher than the one I applied with). Thing was, I was working full time, at a stressful (but fulfilling) legal job, financially supporting my fiancee and I while she was in school, and just could't drop everything to study and practice the LSAT. I was actually surprised that my score was as high as it was, and since I knew I wasn't gunning for Biglaw, I was fine with the fact that it would get me in the door. As for GPA, I was legally emancipated when I was 17 and entirely on my own in undergrad. By senior year I had three jobs, which combined to about 50 hours a week, on top of a full course load for two separate majors, competing on a national team, and being forced to deal with a suicidal friend/roommate for the better part of my senior year. My GPA suffered. According to my #'s, I shouldn't be top 15% at my school and climbing. Moral of the story: correlation =/= causation, and for every person you meet who falls into the category of the LSAT being predictive, you'll meet plenty more who won't. And you won't see that latter group coming.

[TigerDude]

Admissions Deans believe they correlate, and that's why they use them.

There is absolutely no way to understand correlations by looking at individuals. Only in total do the numbers work. So everyone has the opportunity to over and under-perform their numbers.

[Nova]

Admissions Deans believe they correlate, and that's why they use them.

more like adcomms feel pressure to game usnwr

[LSATSCORES2012]

Dean Perez from Texas Tech had a good answer for this question recently.

" There's no substitute for hard work, which is why I often see very hard working 152-155/3.6-3.9 types eat the lunch of 160-164/3.1-3.3 types in law school. The first group is smart "enough" and has the attitude and work ethic to squeeze every bit of potential out of themselves. The latter group is very smart and gifted, but has usually cruised by on talent without ever being pushed to actually work hard."

LOL @ ppl w/ 161-164 LSATS being very smart and gifted and cruising by on talent.

Well fuck you, Get over yourself

[FlowBro]

>75% LSAT and GPA
Probably in the bottom third after 1 semester

[bananatopia]

deleted

[03152016]

As for GPA, I was legally emancipated when I was 17 and entirely on my own in undergrad. By senior year I had three jobs, which combined to about 50 hours a week, on top of a full course load for two separate majors, competing on a national team, and being forced to deal with a suicidal friend/roommate for the better part of my senior year. My GPA suffered.

Similar situation, independent since 17. Worked my way through college earning shit pay, picking up extra hours to pay bills when I should have been studying for finals. Irks me when people correlate UGPA and work ethic. Then I put nine months into the LSAT, studying 20-25 hours a week on top of a demanding full-time job, and all of a sudden I'm a natural intellect who's been floating by.

Sure, I might be an exception, but my situation isn't exactly unique either.

[omzster67]

Dean Perez from Texas Tech had a good answer for this question recently.

" There's no substitute for hard work, which is why I often see very hard working 152-155/3.6-3.9 types eat the lunch of 160-164/3.1-3.3 types in law school. The first group is smart "enough" and has the attitude and work ethic to squeeze every bit of potential out of themselves. The latter group is very smart and gifted, but has usually cruised by on talent without ever being pushed to actually work hard."

LOL @ ppl w/ 161-164 LSATS being very smart and gifted and cruising by on talent.

LOL @ ppl like you. Good luck in life buddy.