Top Law Schools

Long story short, different majors seem to have different averages on the LSAT:

Scroll down to scoring

I'm curious as to how much of that is self-selection and how much of that is difficult majors actually training you.

There's a rough conversion from the old SAT to LSAT using this formula:

LSAT = (SAT Math + SAT Verbal)/20.7 + 100.7 *

So, if you remember your score and you've got some spare time, give it a run through and vote. Also, if your study regimen for the LSAT or SAT was completely different, then it'd be cool if you just voted for the no man's land option.


*If you took the ACT, you can convert it to the SAT like this:

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/standar ... AT2ACT.htm

I didn't vote because I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but it was spot on for my first PT (163)

I have majored in 3 of the top 15, but the direction was moving down 1- 4 -13. I think self-selection has a lot to do with it. Many kids choose the hard science majors because they were great at it, and many more don't because they did not do well in HS, even though they might like the subject. It is hard to imagine anyone who doesn't do well in math but yet likes it enough to try to major. In comparison many kids choose computer science because it is a practical major with a decent outlook. Also consider that people in math/physics majors who have decent enough GPA to qualify for law school are probably top of their classes, but maybe not so in LA majors.

If you use my verbal + math, I should get a 148
if you use my math * 2, I should get a 164
I am out pacing that a lot, and it is not my choice in majors that helped me.

According to the SAT/LSAT conversion, I should have gotten about a 164/165, but I ended up with a 163 on the actual LSAT. I don't think that my major (Political Science) necessarily made a difference in my LSAT score. The only thing it may have helped me with was the writing sample.

Hahaha I majored in Modern and Contemporary Art History soooo didn't help with my LSAT AT ALL.

I won't go into the statistical prediction part of things, but I can say that majoring in math made learning how to rigorously think about the LSAT very easy. Over the course of 4 years of math, you learn what it takes to prove something 100% logically based on assumptions (because every mathematics theorem eventually does this to be taken seriously). This skill transferred over perfectly to LG and LR.

Grade deflation seems to have advantages sometimes.

My major median is 151 and according to my ACT scores, I should have gotten a 159.

I got a 173.

.

that sat/lsat thing worked amazingly well for me, only off by .4

If we see a lot of liberal arts people scoring higher on the LSAT than their SATs would predict, I wouldn't assume it's because their majors trained them for the LSAT. My +5 difference is probably 100% attributable to the fact that you don't have to factor polynomials on the LSAT.

That formula only works, I think, if you study relatively equally for both tests. Since myself and many others did little to no studying for the SAT, we well outperformed this metric on the LSAT.

Rock Chalk wrote:I think the results on TLS are skewed because so many people here did so well.

Yeah, but I kinda figure they would've done well on the SATs too.

anyone else notice that those who major in pre-law had the second worst LSAT average?

My SAT scores predicted I would get a 170, but I got a 176... I think this has more to do with the fact that I didn't study at all for the SATs than anything else.

apparently i should have gotten a 176

SAT says I should have gotten at 166. My major says a 152. I never pt'ed higher than 160. But I scored a 168.
I have no idea how all this works out. I was just excited when I got my score, and didn't need an explanation.

I'm just gonna guess that the formula is off or the people who did worse aren't answering. More likely the first.

dailygrind wrote:I'm just gonna guess that the formula is off or the people who did worse aren't answering. More likely the first.

Maybe you selected +/- modifiers that are within one standard deviation for the regression model

I think I did, but it's pretty clear that the estimate is biased downwards.

The correlation between major and average LSAT score is heavily biased by the differences in the types of people who pick those majors and more importantly the types of people who pick those majors and decide to take the LSAT. Pre-law is where you go if you aren't smart enough to do Political Science which is where you go if you aren't smart enough to do Economics which is where you go if you aren't smart enough to do Mathematics or Physics.

Having said that, I was an Econ major and I think that if you are capable of doing upper level econ you should be well prepared for the LSAT. In particular if you do a lot of econometrics and data analysis stuff. You do boat loads of correlation/causation stuff. I think looking for omitted variable bias or simultaneous equations bias trains you well for LR as well. Plus you do enough math that you won't be terrible at logic games and enough reading that you won't bomb RC.

Apparently I should have gotten a 168 on the LSAT based on my SATs. But I didn't study for those at all (I ate a pot brownie before I took them the 2nd time. I've come a long long way...) as opposed to hardcore LSAT studying. I ended up with a 179. I don't have much faith in the formula, but maybe if you studied equal amounts for both it works a lot better.

dailygrind wrote:I'm just gonna guess that the formula is off or the people who did worse aren't answering. More likely the first.

I'm going to point out that the kind of people who'd troll a site like TLS would probably have higher than average to begin with. You've got some wicked selection biases going on.