165 LSAT, 760 GMAT, 3.59 GPA and 3 Years W/E, JD or MBA? Forum

[Stringer6]

the LSAT can't be THAT good of a predictor for a few reasons:

1. it rewards fast reading
2. plenty of people received higher scores on practice tests under testing conditions and simply did worse on test day, for whatever reason. these people still scored higher and have the "brain power" to do so, but their official score doesn't reflect it.

[lawschoollll]

the LSAT can't be THAT good of a predictor for a few reasons:

1. it rewards fast reading

You know what else rewards fast reading? Law school. And the practice of law. So... yea.

[d34d9823]

the LSAT can't be THAT good of a predictor for a few reasons:

1. it rewards fast reading

You know what else rewards fast reading? Law school. And the practice of law. So... yea.

To address his other point, law school and the practice of law also reward the ability to perform under pressure.

I personally let the pressure get to me and panicked a bit, which probably hurt my score. This is completely fair IMO because letting the pressure get to me IRL will also adversely affect my performance.

[Stringer6]

To address his other point, law school and the practice of law also reward the ability to perform under pressure.

I personally let the pressure get to me and panicked a bit, which probably hurt my score. This is completely fair IMO because letting the pressure get to me IRL will also adversely affect my performance.

i'm not sure that's a 100% fair comparison. as a practicing lawyer, you can probably get used to the pressure and adjust. LSAT is a few hours.

i'm not saying the LSAT sucks or isn't fair. i think it's a totally fair test. it's just not perfect for predicting performance as a law student and lawyer, which is to be expected.

You know what else rewards fast reading? Law school. And the practice of law. So... yea.

law school exams reward fast reading in the way that the LSAT does? i wouldn't know, personally.

i also wouldn't know if fast reading is essential to doing well as a lawyer, as i am not a lawyer. i'm sure it couldn't hurt. but i know that fast reading is essential for high performance on the LSAT.

[lawschool2014]

the LSAT can't be THAT good of a predictor for a few reasons:

1. it rewards fast reading

You know what else rewards fast reading? Law school. And the practice of law. So... yea.

yea well I do not think there is that much of a difference between a 165 and a 170 in terms of ability to succeed as a lawyer. just my two cents tho. LSAT is a good predictor. But for the 165+ candidates, I don't think it makes a big difference at all.

Hope OP is leaning towards an MBA. You will limit your potential by settling for a low top 20 law school.

[lebroniousjames]

the LSAT can't be THAT good of a predictor for a few reasons:

1. it rewards fast reading

You know what else rewards fast reading? Law school. And the practice of law. So... yea.

To address his other point, law school and the practice of law also reward the ability to perform under pressure.

I personally let the pressure get to me and panicked a bit, which probably hurt my score. This is completely fair IMO because letting the pressure get to me IRL will also adversely affect my performance.

Dude, you got a 179... you shouldn't be allowed to use "hurt my score" in any clause haha

[ajmanyjah]

Well, it's certainly not a lack of ability - it's top 2% or something like that which is quite good. What it is is a lack of ability relative to his business potential. To get equivalent LS prospects to his great shot at T3 B-schools, he would need near 180.

I love how people consistently bash the LSAT when it's the single best predictor of 1L performance. I work in a manufacturing facility and regress data for a living. If I find an input variable with a 0.4 correlation, I take that to the bank. I think discussion on this is impossible though, because peoples' viewpoints invariably correspond to whether they got a good LSAT or not. Given the nice bell curve of LSAT scores, it's not surprising that the predictive ability of the test is unfairly devalued.

Yes but regression data of .4 (I believe it is slightly lower than that for the LSATs) for say, chemical processes are far different than psych tests...the relationship is more linear. I far better like what the process was for the GRE, where a certain level of GRE or above were flattened.

And 1L performance is probably also correlated to things like the ability to take prep courses for the LSATs, wealth/SES factors, etc, that factor analysis or cluster analysis is needed

But because the LSAC is a joke, they would never fuck with their cash cow by actually rigorously analyzing their data

[rundoxierun]

Well, it's certainly not a lack of ability - it's top 2% or something like that which is quite good. What it is is a lack of ability relative to his business potential. To get equivalent LS prospects to his great shot at T3 B-schools, he would need near 180.

I love how people consistently bash the LSAT when it's the single best predictor of 1L performance. I work in a manufacturing facility and regress data for a living. If I find an input variable with a 0.4 correlation, I take that to the bank. I think discussion on this is impossible though, because peoples' viewpoints invariably correspond to whether they got a good LSAT or not. Given the nice bell curve of LSAT scores, it's not surprising that the predictive ability of the test is unfairly devalued.

Yes but regression data of .4 (I believe it is slightly lower than that for the LSATs) for say, chemical processes are far different than psych tests...the relationship is more linear. I far better like what the process was for the GRE, where a certain level of GRE or above were flattened.

And 1L performance is probably also correlated to things like the ability to take prep courses for the LSATs, wealth/SES factors, etc, that factor analysis or cluster analysis is needed

But because the LSAC is a joke, they would never fuck with their cash cow by actually rigorously analyzing their data

Well they dont really need to do the research, I can tell you the answer to that and all other educationally related data right now. Wealth/SES factors are always going to have a positive correlation with performance no matter what the test is. Ability to take prep courses would be positively correlated with performance on every standardized test.

[ajmanyjah]

Well, it's certainly not a lack of ability - it's top 2% or something like that which is quite good. What it is is a lack of ability relative to his business potential. To get equivalent LS prospects to his great shot at T3 B-schools, he would need near 180.

I love how people consistently bash the LSAT when it's the single best predictor of 1L performance. I work in a manufacturing facility and regress data for a living. If I find an input variable with a 0.4 correlation, I take that to the bank. I think discussion on this is impossible though, because peoples' viewpoints invariably correspond to whether they got a good LSAT or not. Given the nice bell curve of LSAT scores, it's not surprising that the predictive ability of the test is unfairly devalued.

Yes but regression data of .4 (I believe it is slightly lower than that for the LSATs) for say, chemical processes are far different than psych tests...the relationship is more linear. I far better like what the process was for the GRE, where a certain level of GRE or above were flattened.

And 1L performance is probably also correlated to things like the ability to take prep courses for the LSATs, wealth/SES factors, etc, that factor analysis or cluster analysis is needed

But because the LSAC is a joke, they would never fuck with their cash cow by actually rigorously analyzing their data

Well they dont really need to do the research, I can tell you the answer to that and all other educationally related data right now. Wealth/SES factors are always going to have a positive correlation with performance no matter what the test is. Ability to take prep courses would be positively correlated with performance on every standardized test.

True, but to show an R value without factor analysis is intellectually dishonest when it is so obvious...not to mention the LSAT is immensely more learnable than the non subject GREs or SATs

[rundoxierun]

Well, it's certainly not a lack of ability - it's top 2% or something like that which is quite good. What it is is a lack of ability relative to his business potential. To get equivalent LS prospects to his great shot at T3 B-schools, he would need near 180.

I love how people consistently bash the LSAT when it's the single best predictor of 1L performance. I work in a manufacturing facility and regress data for a living. If I find an input variable with a 0.4 correlation, I take that to the bank. I think discussion on this is impossible though, because peoples' viewpoints invariably correspond to whether they got a good LSAT or not. Given the nice bell curve of LSAT scores, it's not surprising that the predictive ability of the test is unfairly devalued.

Yes but regression data of .4 (I believe it is slightly lower than that for the LSATs) for say, chemical processes are far different than psych tests...the relationship is more linear. I far better like what the process was for the GRE, where a certain level of GRE or above were flattened.

And 1L performance is probably also correlated to things like the ability to take prep courses for the LSATs, wealth/SES factors, etc, that factor analysis or cluster analysis is needed

But because the LSAC is a joke, they would never fuck with their cash cow by actually rigorously analyzing their data

Well they dont really need to do the research, I can tell you the answer to that and all other educationally related data right now. Wealth/SES factors are always going to have a positive correlation with performance no matter what the test is. Ability to take prep courses would be positively correlated with performance on every standardized test.

True, but to show an R value without factor analysis is intellectually dishonest when it is so obvious...not to mention the LSAT is immensely more learnable than the non subject GREs or SATs

You are joking right?? Both tests you mentioned are incredibly learnable.. It would be harder to make a test more learnable than the SAT than it would be learn it..

[CanadianWolf]

Will a 760 GMAT & your work experience result in significant scholarship money at any of the elite MBA schools ? Are finances a major consideration regarding law school ?
Reads as if you have a lot of connections in the business world, which might make an MBA a wise choice.

[lawschool2014]

What were you PT at for the Lsat?

[Deniel_05]

SPAM SPAM SPAM

[Nova]

This thread is over 3 years old...

[john1990]

165 LSAT, 760 GMAT, 3.59 GPA and 3 Years W/E, Law or Business School?


So here is my deal. Like many of us, I want to have excellent job security and a diploma from a prestigious school. I was always interested in law school and had my mind set on it. I took the LSAT's three times, a cancel, 165, studied for six months and then got another fucking 165 (LGS raped me). Now, since waiting is not an option for me (I want to get back to school), should I apply for a JD (with current scores) or an MBA in the fall.

My major in college (top 10 UG non ivy) was math and economics and I have a 760 on GMAT (98th percentile). Two years working at an international consulting company with experience in Hong Kong, New Delhi, and Singapore. My company produces Tuck, Whartan, UVA MBAs by the dozen so have great connections.

I always wanted to go to law school but believe my 165 LSAT will not get me into a school worth giving up the prospects of a Harvard, Upenn, Columbia, Stanford MBA. Do you think its advisable that I go the business school route only and screw law school?

If money is important to you then get the MBA its a no brainer. The employment rate at the law schools you would be attending is below 70%. Compare that to the employment rate Wharton/Harvard business school. The MBA will give you almost guaranteed employment while the JD could very likely leave you unemployed and having to return to business if your job is still there

[A. Nony Mouse]

People, don't necro threads, and don't reply to necros.