I just realized something (LSAT-related) Forum

[Lady McDuff]

When I was taking timed practice tests, I consistently scored between 157 and 160.
My official LSAT scores were 157 the first time and 159 the second time.
During LSAT practice, if I added an extra five minutes to each section on logic games, I'd score perfect each time.
The difference normally amounted to an extra five questions correct.
The same went for reading comprehension: I would get an extra 5 questions correct if I added an extra five minutes.
An LSAT score of 159 generally equates to 76 questions correct.
An LSAT score of 166 generally equates to 86 questions correct.
So a difference of 7 points on the LSAT for me came down to 10 minutes.

This blows my mind completely: that a mere 10 minutes can mean so much in terms of admission to top-tier schools, and ultimately the gateway to interviews and higher-paying law firm jobs. Is the LSAT really that precise? Also, are employers allowed to inquire into one's LSAT score during the interview process?

[goldeneye]

When I was taking timed practice tests, I consistently scored between 157 and 160.
My official LSAT scores were 157 the first time and 159 the second time.
During LSAT practice, if I added an extra five minutes to each section on logic games, I'd score perfect each time.
The difference normally amounted to an extra five questions correct.
The same went for reading comprehension: I would get an extra 5 questions correct if I added an extra five minutes.
An LSAT score of 159 generally equates to 76 questions correct.
An LSAT score of 166 generally equates to 86 questions correct.
So a difference of 7 points on the LSAT for me came down to 10 minutes.

This blows my mind completely: that a mere 10 minutes can mean so much in terms of admission to top-tier schools, and ultimately the gateway to interviews and higher-paying law firm jobs. Is the LSAT really that precise? Also, are employers allowed to inquire into one's LSAT score during the interview process?

[Pancakes12]

When I was taking timed practice tests, I consistently scored between 157 and 160.
My official LSAT scores were 157 the first time and 159 the second time.
During LSAT practice, if I added an extra five minutes to each section on logic games, I'd score perfect each time.
The difference normally amounted to an extra five questions correct.
The same went for reading comprehension: I would get an extra 5 questions correct if I added an extra five minutes.
An LSAT score of 159 generally equates to 76 questions correct.
An LSAT score of 166 generally equates to 86 questions correct.
So a difference of 7 points on the LSAT for me came down to 10 minutes.

This blows my mind completely: that a mere 10 minutes can mean so much in terms of admission to top-tier schools, and ultimately the gateway to interviews and higher-paying law firm jobs. Is the LSAT really that precise? Also, are employers allowed to inquire into one's LSAT score during the interview process?

I'm a 0L, but what do you mean by precise? What makes you think employers couldn't ask of they wanted?

Not providing advice, just asking questions here.

[goldeneye]

I can't think of an employer who cares what your LSAT is. And they certainly aren't taking the time to correlate time with your grade on it.

[Pancakes12]

I can't think of an employer who cares what your LSAT is. And they certainly aren't taking the time to correlate time with your grade on it.

Some non-legal employers (consulting, e.g.) like to see a high lsat. Can't comment on legal employers.

[thegrayman]

I had a legal employer flat-out ask me what my LSAT score was. It was in a friendly way, but still.

[banjo]

Believe it or not, law school exams are the same. An extra 10 minutes means you can explore a couple more issues or go down an interesting path on a policy essay.

And actually, I've had an employer ask for an LSAT score.

[ph14]

When I was taking timed practice tests, I consistently scored between 157 and 160.
My official LSAT scores were 157 the first time and 159 the second time.
During LSAT practice, if I added an extra five minutes to each section on logic games, I'd score perfect each time.
The difference normally amounted to an extra five questions correct.
The same went for reading comprehension: I would get an extra 5 questions correct if I added an extra five minutes.
An LSAT score of 159 generally equates to 76 questions correct.
An LSAT score of 166 generally equates to 86 questions correct.
So a difference of 7 points on the LSAT for me came down to 10 minutes.

This blows my mind completely: that a mere 10 minutes can mean so much in terms of admission to top-tier schools, and ultimately the gateway to interviews and higher-paying law firm jobs. Is the LSAT really that precise? Also, are employers allowed to inquire into one's LSAT score during the interview process?

Yeah, it's pretty crazy. Certainly highlights the importance of studying hard for the LSAT. Though at the same time it also might put more pressure on yourself. Yes, employers can ask about one's LSAT during interviews, but virtually all of them do not since they have your grades anyways (which is what the LSAT is supposed to be a predictor for).

[Old Gregg]

Get the fuck out of this forum.

[ph14]

Get the fuck out of this forum.

Is that really necessary?

[Old Gregg]

Get the fuck out of this forum.

Is that really necessary?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=189981

[ph14]

Get the fuck out of this forum.

Is that really necessary?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=189981

I was more commenting on the manner of your delivery rather than the substance of your message.

[ggocat]

Of course employers are "allowed" to ask for your LSAT score.

By giving yourself 10 extra minutes, you're comparing apples to oranges. Your score is based on a percentile rank compared to other students taking the test (or a historical rank, to be honest I can't remember). It's not based on the # of questions correct. So if everyone else also got an extra 10 minutes, your score would not go up 7 points.

Get the fuck out of this forum, please.

[nygrrrl]

Get the fuck out of this forum.

Is that really necessary?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=189981

I was more commenting on the manner of your delivery rather than the substance of your message.

This.
Also, Lady McD is not an 0L, she is a current law student.
I agree that this is a strange forum for this post and will think about moving it, but she is not out of line, posting here.

[Old Gregg]

Totally my bad. Didn't realize that the below post wasn't OP's:

I'm a 0L, but what do you mean by precise? What makes you think employers couldn't ask of they wanted?

Not providing advice, just asking questions here.

Sorry, OP. Never mind.

[Old Gregg]

Is the LSAT really that precise? Also, are employers allowed to inquire into one's LSAT score during the interview process?

Yes, the LSAT is really that precise. It's really precise at how well you do on the LSAT, and it's not precise at anything else. It's not precise at how intelligent you are, nor is it precise at how good at logic you are, nor is it even precise at how good your legal skills are. There's a lot of correlation, but really the LSAT is 100% accurate at telling you how well you do on the LSAT, and roughly predictive of everything else. Is it flawed as a result? Yes, it's a standardized test. There's a lot of literature online about the flawed nature of standardized tests. This isn't news, and yes shit needs to change but shit won't. It's life.

Yes, employers are allowed to inquire into one's LSAT score during the interview process. There's no legal reason they can't, I've encountered employers that do ask, and it's no more illegal to ask for it than it is for a regular employer to want your SAT scores. Is it appropriate? Should it be done? These are all different questions and are subject to widely diverging opinion.

[Pancakes12]

Totally my bad. Didn't realize that the below post wasn't OP's:

I'm a 0L, but what do you mean by precise? What makes you think employers couldn't ask of they wanted?

Not providing advice, just asking questions here.

Sorry, OP. Never mind.

So you were telling me to get out? Maybe you should read this: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3&t=170603. It's fine for me to respond to threads if I'm not trolling. OP is clearly a 0L, so you should be directing this towards he/she.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yes, but your response was a question, and 0Ls are not supposed to ask questions here. (Generally, they really shouldn't answer, either.)

And you missed nygrrrl's post pointing out that OP isn't an 0L.

[Old Gregg]

Yes, but your response was a question, and 0Ls are not supposed to ask questions here. (Generally, they really shouldn't answer, either.)

And you missed nygrrrl's post pointing out that OP isn't an 0L.

[rinkrat19]

When I was taking timed practice tests, I consistently scored between 157 and 160.
My official LSAT scores were 157 the first time and 159 the second time.
During LSAT practice, if I added an extra five minutes to each section on logic games, I'd score perfect each time.
The difference normally amounted to an extra five questions correct.
The same went for reading comprehension: I would get an extra 5 questions correct if I added an extra five minutes.
An LSAT score of 159 generally equates to 76 questions correct.
An LSAT score of 166 generally equates to 86 questions correct.
So a difference of 7 points on the LSAT for me came down to 10 minutes.

This blows my mind completely: that a mere 10 minutes can mean so much in terms of admission to top-tier schools, and ultimately the gateway to interviews and higher-paying law firm jobs. Is the LSAT really that precise? Also, are employers allowed to inquire into one's LSAT score during the interview process?

Everyone does better with more time. THAT'S WHY THERE'S A TIME LIMIT.

[Pancakes12]

Yes, but your response was a question, and 0Ls are not supposed to ask questions here. (Generally, they really shouldn't answer, either.)

And you missed nygrrrl's post pointing out that OP isn't an 0L.

Right, I did miss that.
And yeah, it was a question... I was just trying to clarify OP's question. It's not like I was asking a question to seek advice personally. I don't see how this is an issue. I try to give advice in the on-topics I know about, so it's a little annoying to be confronted by posters overly eager to assert themselves on an Internet forum. Done now, sorry.

[Old Gregg]

Yes, but your response was a question, and 0Ls are not supposed to ask questions here. (Generally, they really shouldn't answer, either.)

And you missed nygrrrl's post pointing out that OP isn't an 0L.

Right, I did miss that.
And yeah, it was a question... I was just trying to clarify OP's question. It's not like I was asking a question to seek advice personally. I don't see how this is an issue. I try to give advice in the on-topics I know about, so it's a little annoying to be confronted by posters overly eager to assert themselves on an Internet forum. Done now, sorry.

Love the cheap shot. I hope you feel better endowed after that.

[Old Gregg]

When I was taking timed practice tests, I consistently scored between 157 and 160.
My official LSAT scores were 157 the first time and 159 the second time.
During LSAT practice, if I added an extra five minutes to each section on logic games, I'd score perfect each time.
The difference normally amounted to an extra five questions correct.
The same went for reading comprehension: I would get an extra 5 questions correct if I added an extra five minutes.
An LSAT score of 159 generally equates to 76 questions correct.
An LSAT score of 166 generally equates to 86 questions correct.
So a difference of 7 points on the LSAT for me came down to 10 minutes.

This blows my mind completely: that a mere 10 minutes can mean so much in terms of admission to top-tier schools, and ultimately the gateway to interviews and higher-paying law firm jobs. Is the LSAT really that precise? Also, are employers allowed to inquire into one's LSAT score during the interview process?

Everyone does better with more time. THAT'S WHY THERE'S A TIME LIMIT.

Not necessarily. My timed scores were higher than my untimed. More time just gives you time to analyze to death and overthink your answer.

[Anonymous User]

Also, are employers allowed to inquire into one's LSAT score during the interview process?

Generally, yes. But your school might not allow it for OCI interviews. E.g. my law school flat out banned employers from asking questions related to LSAT or grades. The only thing they could do is request your law school transcript after the interview was done.

I also found it kind of mind blowing how much biglaw firms are, in effect, relying on LSAT scores with respect to hiring.. T14s admissions are very heavily dependent on LSAT scores, and the fact that biglaw firms do such a significant part of their hiring from t14s (including hiring into the bottom of classes before hiring at the top of t100 schools) implicitly suggests that they believe LSAT is some kind of a predictor on your performance as an attorney (which is not what the test was designed to predict).

[Lady McDuff]

The point of my post was that a whole lot depends on very little. Organizations that pay well depend heavily on where you go to law school. Where you go to law school depends heavily on what you score on the LSAT. Your LSAT score depends heavily on what you can and can't do within a ten minute increment of time compared to what another person can and can't do within that same time increment. What separates the 166 scorer from the 159 scorer can be as little as 10 minutes.

I know it's a flawed system, but I wanted to make this point for the purpose of sparking discussion. As far as the practice of law is concerned, where you end up and how much money you make depends largely on your ability to comprehend information faster than another person in as little as ten minutes.

FYI I'm a 2L so I'm allowed in this forum. And since my post was related to employment, it's relevant, unlike the posts people made about why my post isn't relevant or doesn't belong.