College rank vs. Law School Rank Forum

[mrm2083]

Usually in any given law school the majority of students will fall in either the median on both LSAT/GPA or the higher the LSAT the lower the GPA and vise-versa. Is this a correct assumption? Assuming this then the kids with the higher LSATs were probably lazier or at least didn't put as much emphasis on their studies than those with the lower LSATs at any give school (obviously excluding those who chose that school over a higher ranked one for $$$). So do these people all of a sudden start busting their asses or do their high LSATs really make such a difference.

[tome]

Usually in any given law school the majority of students will fall in either the median on both LSAT/GPA or the higher the LSAT the lower the GPA and vise-versa. Is this a correct assumption? Assuming this then the kids with the higher LSATs were probably lazier or at least didn't put as much emphasis on their studies than those with the lower LSATs at any give school (obviously excluding those who chose that school over a higher ranked one for $$$). So do these people all of a sudden start busting their asses or do their high LSATs really make such a difference.

Busting their asses all of a sudden. At least how they tell it.

But the LSAT is a test targeted directly at the sorts of skills that are useful for law school. So it makes sense that it would be a much better predictor of LS grades than undergraduate, so maybe that plays a role too.

The fact that UG tests a plethora of skills irrelevant to law school is, of course, only half the problem with attempting to make any correlation between UG rank and LS rank. The other half (probably the bigger half, if you'll allow the metaphor or whatever to break down) is that colleges and law school vary so greatly with regard to quality, while the LSAT is a standardized test. Getting a rank 100 at Harvard probably puts you in a good position to get a rank 1 at Michigan State Law School, while a rank of 1 at Michigan state is unlikely to make you the hot favorite for the number 1 spot at Harvard Law.

[A'nold]

I actually think law school favors life-long slackers that suddenly get their act together. Slackers that can cram tons of info. in a short period of time and take amazing exams ftw.

[TTT-LS]

.

[A'nold]

I actually think law school favors life-long slackers that suddenly get their act together. Slackers that can cram tons of info. in a short period of time and take amazing exams ftw.

I have no idea if this is generally applicable, but it is definitely true for me. In a big, big way.

Haha. For me, I get really intimidated when the prof. randomly cold calls some of the students I know are near the top and they come back with a great answer and I don't even know what the hell they are talking about. I mean, like REALLY have no idea. I was just telling my wife how behind I feel and how I'm just going to suck it up on exams and she was like, "dude, this is EXACTLY what you said last semester, over and over again. You are a crammer at heart and a damn good one." At first I didn't believe her but then I really thought about it and lo and behold, yep, I was terrified of the same exact thing last semester but when I walked into the exam I knew my crap.

[PDaddy]

My experience, and I'm sure disco will agree, is that higher LSAT scores generally do better in ls relative to their lower-scoring peers, especially when the difference is substantial.

TITCR. It's practically a 1 to 1 correlation. One prof last year told us we could sit out the exam if we just submitted our LSDAS report, she'd sort out the curve for us without the messiness of actually taking the test.

I actually don't know anybody with an LSAT score below the 75th percentile who even broke median at my school. Some of the <25% LSAT kids were dismissed early because their drooling was distracting during class.

This is BS. BS satement, BS argument, BS story...used to support a BS belief that some...uh...people just don't want to let go of. No matter what school you go to or what class you take, you can always find low scorers who dominate or at least lead a class, group or section grade-wise.

[PDaddy]

The fact that UG tests a plethora of skills irrelevant to law school is, of course, only half the problem with attempting to make any correlation between UG rank and LS rank. The other half (probably the bigger half, if you'll allow the metaphor or whatever to break down) is that colleges and law school vary so greatly with regard to quality, while the LSAT is a standardized test. Getting a rank 100 at Harvard probably puts you in a good position to get a rank 1 at Michigan State Law School, while a rank of 1 at Michigan state is unlikely to make you the hot favorite for the number 1 spot at Harvard Law.

The bolded statement is over-general. Whether or not one's UG education tests any of the skills useful in law school depends on the individual's school, major(s), courses, professors, and even factors outside of the UG education that impacted the education. For example, some people have done senior theses on their own life experiences as related to particular disciplines. Maybe the research required to complete those theses turned on a light that would not have otherwise been turned on.

[A'nold]

My experience, and I'm sure disco will agree, is that higher LSAT scores generally do better in ls relative to their lower-scoring peers, especially when the difference is substantial.

TITCR. It's practically a 1 to 1 correlation. One prof last year told us we could sit out the exam if we just submitted our LSDAS report, she'd sort out the curve for us without the messiness of actually taking the test.

I actually don't know anybody with an LSAT score below the 75th percentile who even broke median at my school. Some of the <25% LSAT kids were dismissed early because their drooling was distracting during class.

This is BS. BS satement, BS argument, BS story...used to support a BS belief that some...uh...people just don't want to let go of. No matter what school you go to or what class you take, you can always find low scorers who dominate or at least lead a class, group or section grade-wise.

Wow, you must be a genius to point out that "there are always low scorers who dominate." I mean, screw the across the board sample, the one guy exception is the only thing that matters!

[King]

RC fail.

How so? I am agreeing with your assertion that there is a very low correlation between LSAT score and law school rank. Maybe I could have phrased my posting a little better but I don't think there is an RC fail there.

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

lol! Your response was just like reading a two-person LR stimulus where the second person just says something really random and irrelevant.

[superserial]

Wow, you must be a genius to point out that "there are always low scorers who dominate." I mean, screw the across the board sample, the one guy exception is the only thing that matters!

what across the board sample?

[A'nold]

Wow, you must be a genius to point out that "there are always low scorers who dominate." I mean, screw the across the board sample, the one guy exception is the only thing that matters!

what across the board sample?

Your mom's.

[superserial]

Wow, you must be a genius to point out that "there are always low scorers who dominate." I mean, screw the across the board sample, the one guy exception is the only thing that matters!

what across the board sample?

Your mom's.

you're so clever.

[A'nold]

Wow, you must be a genius to point out that "there are always low scorers who dominate." I mean, screw the across the board sample, the one guy exception is the only thing that matters!

what across the board sample?

Your mom's.

you're so clever.

Pshhh, went right over your head. Sorry I think too deeply for you.

[superserial]

Pshhh, went right over your head. Sorry I think too deeply for you.

It did? Must be because of your superior LSAT score.

[A'nold]

Pshhh, went right over your head. Sorry I think too deeply for you.

It did? Must be because of your superior LSAT score.

I mean, I DID score in like the 82nd percentile!

[09042014]

If you had a wide variety of LSAT scores you'd see a bigger correlation.

[A'nold]

If you had a wide variety of LSAT scores you'd see a bigger correlation.

I also think it matters at what level the score range is. It doesn't seem like a 177 scorer would have a huge advantage over a 170 scorer but that same 7 points might be a HUGE difference in the lower range. If a school's median LSAT is like a 152 and you have a 159, you are likely in very good shape and looking at a top 1/4 almost guarantee, at least on average. I wouldn't say the same for the 170/177 people above.

[09042014]

If you had a wide variety of LSAT scores you'd see a bigger correlation.

I also think it matters at what level the score range is. It doesn't seem like a 177 scorer would have a huge advantage over a 170 scorer but that same 7 points might be a HUGE difference in the lower range. If a school's median LSAT is like a 152 and you have a 159, you are likely in very good shape and looking at a top 1/4 almost guarantee, at least on average. I wouldn't say the same for the 170/177 people above.

I'm not sure if its that the points mean more lower, of if past a certain level of intelligence gains in intelligence are largely irrelevant. How smart do you have to be to understand law?

[A'nold]

If you had a wide variety of LSAT scores you'd see a bigger correlation.

I also think it matters at what level the score range is. It doesn't seem like a 177 scorer would have a huge advantage over a 170 scorer but that same 7 points might be a HUGE difference in the lower range. If a school's median LSAT is like a 152 and you have a 159, you are likely in very good shape and looking at a top 1/4 almost guarantee, at least on average. I wouldn't say the same for the 170/177 people above.

I'm not sure if its that the points mean more lower, of if past a certain level of intelligence gains in intelligence are largely irrelevant. How smart do you have to be to understand law?

That's kind of my point. Once you are scoring in the upper 90%iles on the LSAT, you basically can issue spot and have logic down and can comprehend much and analyze quickly and your ability to do that a little better (a 177) than a another (170) is not as significant as the 157 scorer compared to the 150 scorer.

[tome]

The fact that UG tests a plethora of skills irrelevant to law school is, of course, only half the problem with attempting to make any correlation between UG rank and LS rank. The other half (probably the bigger half, if you'll allow the metaphor or whatever to break down) is that colleges and law school vary so greatly with regard to quality, while the LSAT is a standardized test. Getting a rank 100 at Harvard probably puts you in a good position to get a rank 1 at Michigan State Law School, while a rank of 1 at Michigan state is unlikely to make you the hot favorite for the number 1 spot at Harvard Law.

The bolded statement is over-general. Whether or not one's UG education tests any of the skills useful in law school depends on the individual's school, major(s), courses, professors, and even factors outside of the UG education that impacted the education. For example, some people have done senior theses on their own life experiences as related to particular disciplines. Maybe the research required to complete those theses turned on a light that would not have otherwise been turned on.

Congratulations. That is precisely the point. You extra credit assignment is to figure out why what you said is 100% in line with what I said given the context of the discussion. (i.e. figuring out why UG rank alone would not be a predictor of LS success)

[OperaSoprano]

Okay, I know this isn't precisely on point, but I just want to emphasize that while it may be true that all people scoring in the 170+ range are objectively intelligent (or at the very least, possessed of a certain high level verbal intelligence), it does not follow that everyone with a lower score is not operating with a full deck of cards. I learned this the really, really hard way. It took more than a year for me to forgive myself for my own 91st percentile score, and to stop making comments like "anyone with a score like mine must be brain dead." In the process, I managed to insult a good number of very intelligent people, many of whom I had simply assumed had 170+, because of my own very silly need to quantify things in this manner. Several of these same people had UG grades vastly higher than my own (my degree 3.6x was respectable, but hardly going to blow anyone away.)

So we'll try this again. As A'nold says, there probably is a certain threshold below which the average applicant would have difficulty mastering the material in law school, but it's a pretty low floor, and can't be solely measured by the LSAT. I submit that LSAT is only one small piece of supporting evidence that might be examined in attempting to figure out who will "do well" in law school. It's much more important to examine any given individual's work ethic in context. Someone with the minimum credentials to get into School X, who puts in the time to learn how to take law school exams properly, can dominate peers with much higher numbers. We've seen it before, and often enough to account for such a modest correlation.

[Jas]

My experience, and I'm sure disco will agree, is that higher LSAT scores generally do better in ls relative to their lower-scoring peers, especially when the difference is substantial.

I actually don't know anybody with an LSAT score below the 75th percentile who even broke median at my school. Some of the <25% LSAT kids were dismissed early because their drooling was distracting during class.

Someone probably already pointed this out, but that's not mathematically possible. Half of the class has to be above the median, and they couldn't all be in the 75th+ percentile based on the definition of percentile. Am I right? But you were probably just exaggerating for comedic effect.

[270910]

My experience, and I'm sure disco will agree, is that higher LSAT scores generally do better in ls relative to their lower-scoring peers, especially when the difference is substantial.

I actually don't know anybody with an LSAT score below the 75th percentile who even broke median at my school. Some of the <25% LSAT kids were dismissed early because their drooling was distracting during class.

Someone probably already pointed this out, but that's not mathematically possible. Half of the class has to be above the median, and they couldn't all be in the 75th+ percentile based on the definition of percentile. Am I right? But you were probably just exaggerating for comedic effect.

Mods: We need a 'naked contempt for humanity' emoticon. None of the ones currently available suit my needs here.

[Jas]

I actually think law school favors life-long slackers that suddenly get their act together. Slackers that can cram tons of info. in a short period of time and take amazing exams ftw.

I have no idea if this is generally applicable, but it is definitely true for me. In a big, big way.

Haha. For me, I get really intimidated when the prof. randomly cold calls some of the students I know are near the top and they come back with a great answer and I don't even know what the hell they are talking about. I mean, like REALLY have no idea. I was just telling my wife how behind I feel and how I'm just going to suck it up on exams and she was like, "dude, this is EXACTLY what you said last semester, over and over again. You are a crammer at heart and a damn good one." At first I didn't believe her but then I really thought about it and lo and behold, yep, I was terrified of the same exact thing last semester but when I walked into the exam I knew my crap.

This is probably going to happen to me, but I hope I can change my ways to prevent it. Not for the purpose of grades, because as you pointed out the crammer can definitely be effective. What happens when you get cold-called? Do you get shamed out of class?

[270910]

This is probably going to happen to me, but I hope I can change my ways to prevent it. Not for the purpose of grades, because as you pointed out the crammer can definitely be effective. What happens when you get cold-called? Do you get shamed out of class?

0Ls in the law students forum really make my heart smile on Sunday mornings with finals looming.

Cold calls don't matter. At all. Ever. In fact, you get BONUS LAW SCHOOL PRESTIGE POINTS based on a calculation that takes the ratio of your GPA to the number of cold calls you blew. The higher that number, the better at life / prioritizing you are.