LSAT score as job predictor? Forum

[Troianii]

I heard somewhere on TLS something that sounded bizarre and went unchallenged in an old thread. I heard that the LSAT score is a better predictor of chances at landing a job as a lawyer out of law school than the law achool you go to. Is this true?

[TLSModBot]

I haven't seen any study that scientifically looks at LSAT scores independently from other variables - the problem is that LSAT scores and schools are often tied closely together, so it'd be pretty hard to find someone with a 180 going to Cooley or someone with a 150 going to Yale.

We do know that schools factor very strongly into hiring - T14 generally hires better in biglaw, and roughly in order of their rankings, and it gets a bit random after that depending on the school's location/alumni base more than just its USNWR ranking.

I'd be very surprised if LSAT predicted BETTER than school, but a plausible idea would be that law firms hire PEOPLE, not slots from a school. So the person who is capable of scoring a 175, whether they go to Harvard, Cornell, or Vandy, as examples, is probably also capable of turning out fine regardless. I don't think this idea is really right, though.

[flawedargument]

I mean, it's going to have some weak predictive ability given that it has a great deal of weight in admissions.

That being said, law school, grades, hustle, work experience, and interviewing ability will be far more important.

Just get the highest score you possibly can.

[Tiago Splitter]

Don't know if you're referring to this:

Also, I did not study and prepare for the admissions process as well as I would have liked. On one practice LSAT, I scored a 165, but only scored a 159 on the actual test. Should I possibly retake and reapply to better schools?

Probably. By far the most important thing influencing your job prospects is your LSAT score. Not your law school admission chances, but your chances of working as a lawyer. I know that sounds crazy but that's how things work. If you really want to be a lawyer you need to put a lot of effort into the LSAT and you'll reap the rewards on the back end.

But it's definitely true.

To your question, LSAT is correlated with placement, but the LSAT alone isn't what gets people jobs.

Also: hustle, work experience and interviewing ability are unfortunately not more important than the LSAT. If that were true the LSAT wouldn't be such a big deal.

[nba101790]

Don't know if you're referring to this:

Also, I did not study and prepare for the admissions process as well as I would have liked. On one practice LSAT, I scored a 165, but only scored a 159 on the actual test. Should I possibly retake and reapply to better schools?

Probably. By far the most important thing influencing your job prospects is your LSAT score. Not your law school admission chances, but your chances of working as a lawyer. I know that sounds crazy but that's how things work. If you really want to be a lawyer you need to put a lot of effort into the LSAT and you'll reap the rewards on the back end.

But it's definitely true.

To your question, LSAT is correlated with placement, but the LSAT alone isn't what gets people jobs.

Also: hustle, work experience and interviewing ability are unfortunately not more important than the LSAT. If that were true the LSAT wouldn't be such a big deal.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a 3L and I've never once been asked about my LSAT score since I took it.

[Tiago Splitter]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a 3L and I've never once been asked about my LSAT score since I took it.

Maybe try a little harder next time.

In case others are similarly confused: No, no one will ask about your LSAT score. But they will hire based on the school you attend. Which is seriously influenced by your LSAT score. A lot of whether you will graduate with a job is determined before you ever set foot in law school, which is why it's so important to put yourself in the best position possible going in.

[nba101790]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a 3L and I've never once been asked about my LSAT score since I took it.

Maybe try a little harder next time.

I'm not entirely sure how that response is at all conducive to helping prospective law students objectively evaluate their future prospects. Regardless, I stand by my initial post, which from my anecdotal experience, I've never had anyone discuss an LSAT score while in law school or in subsequent interviews.

[stego]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a 3L and I've never once been asked about my LSAT score since I took it.

Maybe try a little harder next time.

I'm not entirely sure how that response is at all conducive to helping prospective law students objectively evaluate their future prospects. Regardless, I stand by my initial post, which from my anecdotal experience, I've never had anyone discuss an LSAT score while in law school or in subsequent interviews.

I think his point was just that your LSAT score determined what law school you even got into in the first place.

[BigZuck]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a 3L and I've never once been asked about my LSAT score since I took it.

Maybe try a little harder next time.

I'm not entirely sure how that response is at all conducive to helping prospective law students objectively evaluate their future prospects. Regardless, I stand by my initial post, which from my anecdotal experience, I've never had anyone discuss an LSAT score while in law school or in subsequent interviews.

It's pretty clear what he's saying. The LSAT is by far the most determinative factor in what job you get, because it is by far the most determinative factor in what school you go to in the first place.

[Troianii]

yeah I think everyone on TLS knows that the LSAT is the biggest determinant of where you go to law school - not shooting down anyone saying that, but I think everyone here is aware of that.

Thanks for the responses. It just sounded like an odd statement to me, that the LSAT is a better indicator of your prospect of landing a job than your law school is, but I think that apart from the fact that it is predictive of where you'll get in, I think people can see at least part of why someone would think that. As has been said, no one is going to see an applicant with a 175 go to Cooley - I'd be shocked at least - but I think we could all agree that someone who could get a 175 on the LSAT would probably be at or near the very top of their class at Cooley, right?

I can see some kind of loose connections that would suggest the original statement is true. The LSAT is the best predictor of 1L performance, and 1L grades are the best indicator of job prospects, since law firms hire interns based on 1st year grades and after that it's up to you to make an impression there, so... independent of how LSAT scores tie with what school you get into, would most people say that there is some truth to the statement?

[Tiago Splitter]

I can see some kind of loose connections that would suggest the original statement is true. The LSAT is the best predictor of 1L performance, and 1L grades are the best indicator of job prospects, since law firms hire interns based on 1st year grades and after that it's up to you to make an impression there, so... independent of how LSAT scores tie with what school you get into, would most people say that there is some truth to the statement?

No, this isn't it. Again, the point I'm making is that the school you attend has an outsized impact on your job prospects, and your LSAT score is the primary factor in determining the school you attend. Theresa87 asked whether retaking a 159 would be a good idea, and my point to her was that there is nothing she can do between now and her law school graduation that could have as big an impact on her job prospects as an improvement in her LSAT score.

See, Theresa87 with a 159 and Theresa87 with a 173 are the same person, with the same study habits, the same intellect, etc. Nothing changes except that in the parallel universe in which Theresa87 busted her ass and scored a 173 she got into a much better school and was able to go into cruise control and still land a job. The latter Theresa87 went to a school with a 95% employment rate, while the former went to a school with a 60% employment rate. The only difference was the LSAT score.

[Clearly]

Additionally LSAT score correlates best with 1L grades of all the available individual admissions metrics, and we know that grades correlate best with employ-ability.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Additionally LSAT score correlates best with 1L grades of all the available individual admissions metrics, and we know that grades correlate best with employ-ability.

To the extent the LSAT does "predict" law school grades (which i know isn't quite what you said), the problem is that everyone in a given school is going to have LSAT scores within ® a fairly narrow range, and will then be graded on a curve against each other. So I think the LSAT <--> job thing is largely about what school you go to, rather than performance once you're there.

[Traynor Brah]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a 3L and I've never once been asked about my LSAT score since I took it.

Maybe try a little harder next time.

I'm not entirely sure how that response is at all conducive to helping prospective law students objectively evaluate their future prospects. Regardless, I stand by my initial post, which from my anecdotal experience, I've never had anyone discuss an LSAT score while in law school or in subsequent interviews.

Yikes

[Troianii]

Additionally LSAT score correlates best with 1L grades of all the available individual admissions metrics, and we know that grades correlate best with employ-ability.

^ this is what I was trying to say for why the original proposition makes some sense, but I guess I didn't articulate it well. :/

[A. Nony Mouse]

The thing is, LSAT score correlating to grades doesn't end up being very helpful in practice. Someone with a 159 could go to a T4 and end up at the top of their class, and someone with a 170 could go to a T14 and be at the bottom. Technically the 159 would have better grades than the 170, but that wouldn't say much. And I don't think the correlation with grades is strong enough to say that someone with a 170 has poorer chances at getting a job than someone with a 174, assuming they're at the same school, because the difference in LSAT scores is really not broad enough to suggest their exam performance will be different. Large gaps between LSAT scores maybe suggest some difference, but if you get 2 people who are at the same school with widely diverging LSATs, one is probably a splitter, and so their high GPA also correlates to 1L grades (while not as strongly as the LSAT, I just don't think you can predict much based on the scores within a given class).

[Troianii]

To the extent the LSAT does "predict" law school grades (which i know isn't quite what you said), the problem is that everyone in a given school is going to have LSAT scores within ® a fairly narrow range, and will then be graded on a curve against each other. So I think the LSAT <--> job thing is largely about what school you go to, rather than performance once you're there.

I think that relation between LSAT score and what school you attend is the main reason why the LSAT score would be considered a loose predictor of employment outcomes.

But to widdle out the caveats and get to a more specific Q: let's suppose that Joe Schmoe has a 160 LSAT, and that Joe did the average amount of LSAT prep. He goes to a small regional school where the 75th percentile LSAT is below a 160, and he goes in with a full scholarship, yadayada, because at that school his LSAT score is hot sh*t. But compare Joe Schmoe at small regional to Joe Schmoe at a reach regional, let's say where his 160LSAT is at or very close to the median, and he gets in w/o any scholarship. $ consideration aside, will Joe Schmoe really have significantly better job prospects at reach regional than at small regional?

I mean in this scenario, I figure Joe Schmoe has better job prospects at reach regional, but I don't imagine that they're very significant. For comparison, Georgetown (#14) has about 45% of its grads landing biglaw, and Marquette (#105) has about 11% of its grads landing biglaw (per lst). The 25th gpa and LSAT at Georgetown is far above the 75th at Marquette. So, someone who is 25th gpa/lsat at Georgetown *in all likelihood* would be somewhere near the bottom half of their 1L class at Georgetown, but in all likelihood would be top 10% in 1L at Marquette - - - - stop my if I'm mistaken here, but it would seem to me - based on the biglaw metric - that, since the LSAT is the best statistical predictor of 1L performance, then... idk, it seems to me like Joe Schmoe wouldn't be much worse off at #105 than #14, and Joe would probably get a full ride.

[Troianii]

The thing is, LSAT score correlating to grades doesn't end up being very helpful in practice. Someone with a 159 could go to a T4 and end up at the top of their class, and someone with a 170 could go to a T14 and be at the bottom. Technically the 159 would have better grades than the 170, but that wouldn't say much. And I don't think the correlation with grades is strong enough to say that someone with a 170 has poorer chances at getting a job than someone with a 174, assuming they're at the same school, because the difference in LSAT scores is really not broad enough to suggest their exam performance will be different. Large gaps between LSAT scores maybe suggest some difference, but if you get 2 people who are at the same school with widely diverging LSATs, one is probably a splitter, and so their high GPA also correlates to 1L grades (while not as strongly as the LSAT, I just don't think you can predict much based on the scores within a given class).

OK, I hadn't thought about it like that. Yeah, I guess this whole thing relies on the LSAT being a GOOD predictor of 1L grades (vs. "best we have")

[BigZuck]

If I wanted big law, generally speaking, I think I'd rather be one of the unwashed masses at the bottom half of the class at Georgetown than top 10% at a school like Marquette (although there very well may be something weird about preselect OCI at Georgetown that might screw below median people)

Also, banking on top 10% is also such a razor thin margin of error. All it takes is one bad cold or one misreading of a fact pattern or one professor not grading one section of your exam and refusing to go back and recalculating your grade cuz "Well I'm sure I did it right" and you can't touch them because they have lifetime appointments (lol@ tenure, just lol) causing you to bink a median grade on one exam and you're done here.

[Troianii]

If I wanted big law, generally speaking, I think I'd rather be one of the unwashed masses at the bottom half of the class at Georgetown than top 10% at a school like Marquette (although there very well may be something weird about preselect OCI at Georgetown that might screw below median people)

Also, banking on top 10% is also such a razor thin margin of error. All it takes is one bad cold or one misreading of a fact pattern or one professor not grading one section of your exam and refusing to go back and recalculating your grade cuz "Well I'm sure I did it right" and you can't touch them because they have lifetime appointments (lol@ tenure, just lol) causing you to bink a median grade on one exam and you're done here.

My point there was that someone with Georgetown 25th lsat/gpa is not likely to be in the top half of their class and, in all likelihood, will have difficulty getting biglaw, but that someone with Georgetown's 25th lsat/gpa would, based on gpa and lsat, have been one of the most competitive Marquette matriculants, easily in their top 10 of matriculants, based on those metrics - and so that, in all likelihood, that person would be in that top 10%. Of course, sh*t happens.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Re: small regional v. reach regional - I don't think there's a huge difference. Look at the employment stats wrt the market you want to be in. I went to the higher-ranked regional in a state with 2 regional schools. Very few people from either school get biglaw bc the local biglaw market is tiny. You probably need too 10-15% to have a realistic shot, from either school. Once you're out of the biglaw range it's much more about experience and networking, and grades don't matter nearly as much. My school has slightly better employment stats and anecdotally, my sense is that the other school had a higher number of unemployed grads (though I admit I/my sources are biased). But you could make an entirely legitimate case for going to either, based on your interests/financial circumstances. Like, if the choice was the other regional school for free v. my school at sticker, the other school is a perfectly reasonable choice. In practice the other school is much more expensive than mine (or used to be, anyway), and gives out $ but not a lot of full rides, and they're close enough in stats that you're probably looking at $$ at the one school v. $ at the other, which makes things a little more complicated.

And the thing is that you shouldn't apply to either unless you already know you want to stay in that market to practice, ideally with ties already. I wouldn't just pick them as places you're likely to get in.

The other thing is that as much as Georgetown gets shit on here, I still wouldn't call it a "reach" regional, and comparing it with Marquette is weird. You'd more realistically be comparing GT and, say, WUSTL or Vandy, and you'd compare Marquette with UW.

And I just don't agree that you can make that kind of LSAT/GPA prediction (that the bottom 25th at GT will be top 10% at Marquette). Likely above median, maybe, but even then, shit happens.

[Traynor Brah]

My point there was that someone with Georgetown 25th lsat/gpa is not likely to be in the top half of their class and, in all likelihood, will have difficulty getting biglaw

That's a pretty terrible argument

[BigZuck]

My point there was that someone with Georgetown 25th lsat/gpa is not likely to be in the top half of their class and, in all likelihood, will have difficulty getting biglaw

That's a pretty terrible argument

Yeah, the top half/bottom half thing is also kinda divorced from the way in which medians work and the way in which big law hiring in general works

[Troianii]

My point there was that someone with Georgetown 25th lsat/gpa is not likely to be in the top half of their class and, in all likelihood, will have difficulty getting biglaw

That's a pretty terrible argument

Cool, cause it's not an argument, it's a point.

[Traynor Brah]

My point there was that someone with Georgetown 25th lsat/gpa is not likely to be in the top half of their class and, in all likelihood, will have difficulty getting biglaw

That's a pretty terrible argument

Cool, cause it's not an argument, it's a point.

It's a pretty terrible point. Also point is synonymous with argue in the way you used it. See e.g. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... urus/point.