Top Law Schools

This is something that has piqued my curiosity for a while, so bear with me if you decide to read this thread.

I would hope that some current or recent law school students might be able to chime in on this.

Is there any correlation between high LSAT and high 1L grades? Now, high grades is of course relative to the school, because most rank, so comparing between schools is pretty much useless. Obviously, schools at extremely high (T14) and extremely low (TTTT) ends of the LSAT probably aren't going to be useful in comparison, it's going to take a powerful regional school or upper echelon sub-20ish type school to find a significant number of lower LSAT mixed with higher LSAT. It would take a school like perhaps WUSTL, or ND, or Emory, something that is bound to have some lower (163-165) LSAT students mingled with the higher (172+ or so). I know there are plenty of people who are floating around in T14s that might argue their 179s or 180s are "high" compared to 172s, but the gap between a 160 and a 170 is much larger than the gap between say a 170 and a 180.

I don't know how readily available this information is (that is, the LSAT scores of higher ranking members of a class versus the lower ranking members) because I don't know how much LSAT scores are expressed among peers once actually in law school.

So what I am wondering in, are the rankings top heavy to people with high LSATs? Proportionately, are there more "high" (in terms of the school's average) LSAT students in the top, say, 20% of the class than lower LSAT students? Obviously I expect a few high LSATs to be on the low end of the ranking spectrum, and a few lower LSATs to be on the higher spectrum, but what I am looking for is general trends. I would expect the people with higher LSATs to do better simply because the preparation it takes to study for the LSAT is pretty grueling, and getting a high %ile score generally shows either a) intense dedication or b) genius.

Anecdotes are perfectly welcome, I am curious to hear about people's knowledge+experience with this.

There's no reason behind this either, it's simple curiosity, and I haven't really seen any thread via search or active in my short time here. (That being said, people generally point me to one about 15 seconds after I post, but regardless)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c

I know the title would lead you to believe it is about URMs, but it statistically breaks down much of what you are asking.

edit- if you don't feel like watching all of the video (please do though it is really informative), the part specifically answering your question starts around 14:45 and continues on for several minutes.

No.

Bottom 25% LSAT, top 10% 1L 1st Semester

R^2 is 0.4. more or less no correlation

Cupidity wrote:No.

Bottom 25% LSAT, top 10% 1L 1st Semester

You're right, it's weak to the point of having no predictive value, but ...an anecdote?

Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:

Cupidity wrote:No.

Bottom 25% LSAT, top 10% 1L 1st Semester

You're right, it's weak to the point of having no predictive value, but ...an anecdote?

I had said I welcomed anecdotes.

I had also mentioned that I had tried to find something of the sort via search and couldn't. Ty so far.

This has been done so much it makes my head spin. That video above claims a correlation of .16. Other people say it's point .33. Either way, the people with high LSATs interpret it as a huge correlation and the people with low LSATs interpret it as a low correlation.

The linked video above describes it in very clear terms, and the professor doing the breakdown is speaking from personal experience. IMO, the numbers he gives indicate, subjectively, a strong correlation. It means a lot to me because I don't have a lot of difficult courses under my belt, and I do have a high LSAT.

Which is why this whole thing is dumb. At the end of the day, it's not about statistics - it's about you. If you have a history of lazy genius, it's likely the general correlation will mean nothing, as well as if you know yourself to be a little slower, but have a deeper understanding of things once you do understand.

/0L

Spookyghost wrote:

Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:

Cupidity wrote:No.

Bottom 25% LSAT, top 10% 1L 1st Semester

You're right, it's weak to the point of having no predictive value, but ...an anecdote?

I had said I welcomed anecdotes.

I had also mentioned that I had tried to find something of the sort via search and couldn't. Ty so far.

Why ask for anecdotes when you're seeking a correlation?

Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:

Spookyghost wrote:

Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:

Cupidity wrote:No.

Bottom 25% LSAT, top 10% 1L 1st Semester

You're right, it's weak to the point of having no predictive value, but ...an anecdote?

I had said I welcomed anecdotes.

I had also mentioned that I had tried to find something of the sort via search and couldn't. Ty so far.

Why ask for anecdotes when you're seeking a correlation?

I had never said that I want you to prove a correlation using anecdotes, I had merely said I welcomed them.

I liked what the guy in the video said about range restriction. For me, that explained a lot of the low correlation (not a stats guy).

0LNewbie wrote:I liked what the guy in the video said about range restriction. For me, that explained a lot of the low correlation (not a stats guy).

Yep. It would be hard to prove (to me) that a school with a 166-25% and 171-75% has a clear correlation for 1L grades.

while as a group there is a correlation, for any one individual you LSAT score will not help predict your 1L grades. and anyone who banks on 1L grades based on their LSAT score is reckless and foolish. You should assume you will graduate at median.