Top Law Schools

I know the role the LSAT plays in admissions. I won't argue it. PLEASE DON'T MAKE THAT AN ISSUE.

I want to know if a strong LSAT makes you a good law student.

Does anyone know someone who performed poorly on the LSAT, gambled on attending anyway, and excelled? I know there are people who will call them exceptions to the rule. That's OK.

I want to hear from 1Ls or 2Ls that know how the lower LSATs are performing. Are the high LSATs always the top 10%?

Do you even know the LSATs of classmates?

I don't remember the exact numbers, but LSAC has done extensive statistical analysis that shows that LSAT and GPA combined will give a correlation coefficient of about 0.4 with first-year law grades, and LSAT alone has a correlation coefficient of about 0.3. Basically a 1.0 is a perfect correlation in which LSAT perfectly predicts grades, and 0.0 means no correlation (completely random). So while LSAT+GPA don't predict grades very well, it's still the best available predictor for 1L grades as far as we know.

I asked this same question a few months ago hoping to get some anedoctal evidence. You know what I got? A bunch of TLS jerkoffs calling me a "flame" and a whole bunch of other stupid responses.

What I got out of it was that the LSAT does somewhat predict 1L success, BUT BUT BUT! Listen to why this is the case.

Top LSAT scorers tend to go to T14 schools. The students at these top schools tend to push each other and in the end even if you fall into the median, you are still considered a good student simply because you are at a T14.

The problem with this is that is that since these schools rarely take "low" LSAT scorers, there is no way of knowing how well a low scorer did because he wasnt even accepted to begin with.

When "low scorers" do well in other non t14 school, people say that they were around dumb people and hence the low scorer wasnt that smart. It was just the benefit of not being around 170 lsat scorers.

Make sense?? Sorry. Watching MSNBC..lol.

gdane5 wrote:I asked this same question a few months ago hoping to get some anedoctal evidence. You know what I got? A bunch of TLS jerkoffs calling me a "flame" and a whole bunch of other stupid responses.

What I got out of it was that the LSAT does somewhat predict 1L success, BUT BUT BUT! Listen to why this is the case.

Top LSAT scorers tend to go to T14 schools. The students at these top schools tend to push each other and in the end even if you fall into the median, you are still considered a good student simply because you are at a T14.

The problem with this is that is that since these schools rarely take "low" LSAT scorers, there is no way of knowing how well a low scorer did because he wasnt even accepted to begin with.

When "low scorers" do well in other non t14 school, people say that they were around dumb people and hence the low scorer wasnt that smart. It was just the benefit of not being around 170 lsat scorers.

Make sense?? Sorry. Watching MSNBC..lol.

Ah do you even understand how grading on a curve works?

They are comparing LSAT to how you perform against the class at your school. Overall its a .4 correlation but it varies by school.

If anyone dumb students being in class with dumb students makes the correlation even more remarkable.

I still believe .04 is a very weak correlation. Very.

gdane5 wrote:I still believe .04 is a very weak correlation. Very.

.04 or .4??

gdane5 wrote:I still believe .04 is a very weak correlation. Very.

.04 would be weak, it is .4.

Here is what different correlations can look like.

I'm sorry. .4. According to LSAC.

If there's a .4 correlation, I think the LSAT's a pretty good indicator. You gotta remember that the schools also use GPA as well.

A 0.4 correlation is actually pretty statistically significant. For example, the correlation between a parent's IQ and a child's IQ is 0.42, while the correlation between both parents' IQs and the child's IQ is 0.72.

Yes, they use GPA as well... in the admissions process. I'd like to know if low LSATers end up at the top of their class very often. If students don't share their LSAT scores once admitted then maybe this is a hard question to answer.

im_blue wrote:A 0.4 correlation is actually pretty statistically significant. For example, the correlation between a parent's IQ and a child's IQ is 0.42, while the correlation between both parents' IQs and the child's IQ is 0.72.

statisticians don't approve of your use of "significant"

.4 to me means that a low LSAT student has a really good shot of ending up in the upper half of the class.

I've always believed that nothing is a perfect science. Look at the NFL. So much time goes into scouting players and so many of them fail, including the top picks.

If you scored poorly on the LSAT and want to know if that means you are going to do poorly in law school, the answer is no. You do as poorly as you let yourself do. Work hard, prepare and always try to be one step ahead of people.

Going back to the NFL analogy, a guy like Reggie Bush was drafted 2nd overall from USC and everyone thought he was going to be an amazing player in the NFL, but obviously that hasnt been the case. Liken this to a 175 scorer.

Then you have a guy like Maurice Jones Drew that was taken in the 2nd round and has excelled far more than Bush. Even a guy like Ray Rice. These are all guys that wernt heralded coming into the league, but ended up performing very well.

How 'bout 6th round draft pick Tom Brady? That's what I'm shooting for! Thanks.

Reggie Bush is pretty freaking nasty, you even watch the NFL playoffs, the guy is ridiculous. Jones Drew is a better running back, but Bush has the ring, and id probably take bush on my team over drew from an efficiency standpoint, the guy does it all. Ray Rice is sick also, and only reason he was a 2nd rounder was because he went to Rutgers. Bad example

or Tom Brady. Yes. Or Kurt Warner. Or Tony Romo.

Point is that yes, dont worry about what the LSAT said. I recommend looking through this site. There are a lot of resources you can use.

Reggie Bush is garbage. 1 playoff game (Divisional Round) doesnt excuse 4 years of no production.

Ray Rice was a bad example. You're right about that. The point was that guys that werent taken in the first round can and do excel, often far and beyond the guys that were taken in the top of the draft.

Here is a 40 minute video explaining it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c
Basically, this former admissions dean says there is a .2 correlation between LSAT/GPA if you have an actual spread of LSAT scores (130-170+) in a given class. But because that never happens in American law schools, the LSAT isn't going to predict how well you do relative to your LSAT peers in a given class.

That's what I was looking for!

No Production? The guy has 38 td's in 4 seasons and has 4 more as a return man and hes 24. Has he lived up to the hype, no way, everyone knew he wouldn't, can't break tackles, but to say he is garbage is absurd.

tallboone wrote:Here is a 40 minute video explaining it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c
Basically, this former admissions dean says there is a .2 correlation between LSAT/GPA if you have an actual spread of LSAT scores (130-170+) in a given class. But because that never happens in American law schools, the LSAT isn't going to predict how well you do relative to your LSAT peers in a given class.

+1

... I was just about to post that w/o reading through thread first. Almost looked stupid (admitting it isn't quite as stupid )

FWIW, I had a very low LSAT (150, 153), went to a T2 school and ranked Top 15% after my first year beating out lots of kids with high 160s LSATs.

The LSAT was a poor predictor for me (and I knew it would be) since I don't test well on standardized tests. I had a mediocre SAT, and finished with a 3.93 in college.

tallboone wrote:Here is a 40 minute video explaining it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c
Basically, this former admissions dean says there is a .2 correlation between LSAT/GPA if you have an actual spread of LSAT scores (130-170+) in a given class. But because that never happens in American law schools, the LSAT isn't going to predict how well you do relative to your LSAT peers in a given class.

exactly. since you are grouped with practically identical scorers through the admissions process (fairly narrow LSAT range), you can't really say that a 167 will definitely beat out a 166. i would guess that as the difference in scores increases, the probability of the higher score doing better increases (a 170 will more likely beat out a 130 than a 167 would beat out a 165)

Worse than .4 You have to square that and it gives 16% jsut so everyone knows. It really is a crapshoot but the only thing they have to go on. Regressional analysis also puts ugpa at 4% predictive quality for a great total of 20% on quantitative numbers. I took economics.

Hahaha.Thanks for the stats and economics lesson. It makes sense.

As for Reggie Bush. Maybe he isnt garbage, but he most definitely wasnt worth the second overall pick. The 28 touchdowns in the last 4 years dont really convince me. Brandon Jacobs has 35 (rushing and receiving) over the last 4 years, but I dont think he's all that spectacular.