Do people who over study for the LSAT do worse in law school Forum

[Power_of_Facing]

Chess might complicate this.

No it doesn't. The thing that makes it different is that with things like board games and chess, the very point is how good your performance is. If you can win the game, you won! Who cares how you got there?

If someone gets a 180 after a lot of practice, then sure, that person is "better at taking the LSAT" than someone who scores a 173 cold. But the point of the LSAT isn't just who scored better. The point is predicted performance in law school. Research predicts that the person who got 175 without practice will do better in law school than the person who got 175 with substantial practice. If the latter then actually goes on to do better than predicted, then hurrah for that individual person, that's great. That doesn't change the general trend.

There exist important and distinct differences between the prophylactic chess style of a Petrosian as compared to the tactical, aggressive play of a Kasparov. There is more to the game than its outcome, IMHO.

[Power_of_Facing]

Not pointing fingers, but the people clinging to their hard earned LSAT scores seem to be making some really shitty illogical arguments in this thread. Kind of proves my point.

Sometimes you need to point your finger to prove your point. This may be one of them.

[09042014]

Not pointing fingers, but the people clinging to their hard earned LSAT scores seem to be making some really shitty illogical arguments in this thread. Kind of proves my point.

Sometimes you need to point your finger to prove your point. This may be one of them.

straw mandible appears to only be able to think in black or white; 100% of 0% thinking.

If you slightly increase your reading speed, the test results are now 100% increase in your abilities instead of your LSATing ability.

[094320]

..

[Power_of_Facing]

Chess might complicate this.

No it doesn't. The thing that makes it different is that with things like board games and chess, the very point is how good your performance is. If you can win the game, you won! Who cares how you got there?

If someone gets a 180 after a lot of practice, then sure, that person is "better at taking the LSAT" than someone who scores a 173 cold. But the point of the LSAT isn't just who scored better. The point is predicted performance in law school. Research predicts that the person who got 175 without practice will do better in law school than the person who got 175 with substantial practice. If the latter then actually goes on to do better than predicted, then hurrah for that individual person, that's great. That doesn't change the general trend.

I'd like to see schools start evaluating LSAT scores at more granular levels -- e.g. NYU really likes high "games" scorers; Berkeley is all about dat "reading comp."

[ScottRiqui]

Research predicts that the person who got 175 without practice will do better in law school than the person who got 175 with substantial practice.

Is there a link to this research ITT? I remember seeing the study that concluded that the average of multiple takes was a better predictor than the "peak" score, but not one that related time spent practicing for a single take with predictive power.

Did the LSAT scantron ask how long you prepped for the test? I honestly can't remember. I think it asked about self-study/no study/taking a prep course, but that's all I remember.

[Power_of_Facing]

Research predicts that the person who got 175 without practice will do better in law school than the person who got 175 with substantial practice.

Is there a link to this research ITT? I remember seeing the study that concluded that the average of multiple takes was a better predictor than the "peak" score, but not one that related time spent practicing for a single take with predictive power.

Did the LSAT scantron ask how long you prepped for the test? I honestly can't remember. I think it asked about self-study/no study/taking a prep course, but that's all I remember.

Yale asks what you did to prepare.

[094320]

..

[ScottRiqui]

The average being better than "peak" score makes basic mathematical sense. If you tend to score in a range from X to Y, then the average of your scores is probably closer to right than just one sample.

Good point. I wonder what would happen if you limited it to only people who took the LSAT 3+ times, and also showed improvement with each subsequent retake? In that case, it's likely that the person actually got better at the LSAT over time, rather than just repeatedly getting scores within a band centered around an unchanging level of LSAT ability. Would the average still be a better predictor than the last (peak) score? Probably no way to find out, though.

[Straw_Mandible]

straw mandible appears to only be able to think in black or white; 100% of 0% thinking.

If you slightly increase your reading speed, the test results are now 100% increase in your abilities instead of your LSATing ability.

Well, you're kind of attacking a straw man here ( ), but I do see your point.

Here's my response: If these skills can be improved a little, then with the right kind of training, they can probably be improved a lot. All I've been arguing in this thread is that an individual who initially scores poorly, but trains into the 99th percentile is not necessarily going to be disadvantaged with a sub-par "intellect" for the rest of his/her life.

On the collective level, and as a general trend, your argument makes perfect sense and is fully supported by the data we have. I didn't think that point was ever in dispute.

[cotiger]

Research predicts that the person who got 175 without practice will do better in law school than the person who got 175 with substantial practice.

Is there a link to this research ITT? I remember seeing the study that concluded that the average of multiple takes was a better predictor than the "peak" score, but not one that related time spent practicing for a single take with predictive power.

Did the LSAT scantron ask how long you prepped for the test? I honestly can't remember. I think it asked about self-study/no study/taking a prep course, but that's all I remember.

It was stated upthread. I looked into this stuff before I started law school, so it's possible I'm misremembering. The average being better than "peak" score makes basic mathematical sense. If you tend to score in a range from X to Y, then the average of your scores is probably closer to right than just one sample.

Here's the study that shows that repeat test takers underperform relative to their top score, and that average score is the most accurate predictor:
http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... -14-01.pdf

[094320]

..

[jdx2014]

A lot of schools factor in an average on the LSAT scores for reasons like this

[ScottRiqui]

A lot of schools factor in an average on the LSAT scores for reasons like this

Some of them *say* they do, and they all have access to all of an applicant's past scores, but with one or two exceptions, the admissions decisions fall right in line with using an applicant's top score exclusively, rather than even considering the average.

[Pneumonia]

A lot of schools factor in an average on the LSAT scores for reasons like this

They are aware of them, but functionally only the highest score matters.

[raekaya]

A lot of schools factor in an average on the LSAT scores for reasons like this

They are aware of them, but functionally only the highest score matters.

This. Why would a school care about an individual student's performance at that school compared to the LSAT? All they care about is the LSAT score they can report for ranking purposes (highest). With the curve, some people *have* to do poorly on finals. So, short of students failing out (very unlikely) the school is not going to ponder whether the applicant with the 75th percentile LSAT score will not be in the top 1/4 come grade rankings as long as they can take their money.

On DF's point, I can definitely see how someone naturally gifted at the LSAT may outperform his peers in LS. Someone who can take the LSAT cold and instinctively apply the "tricks" that others have to learn have a unique talent. It seems that the skill of deconstructing the test on your own to "game" it would correlate with being able to do the same on final exams and thus outperform the people that don't have this innate skill and had to be spoon-fed the tactics.

However, there seem to be two types of people who get amazing grades in LS. The first are the extremely hardworking types who are always studying from multiple sources (casebook, supplements, etc.), taking practice tests, writing and rewriting their outline over and over to memorize it etc.
The second are the types who can just read the casebook, maybe make their own outlines, and take some practice tests. These people can read the court's reasoning and naturally see how to deconstruct it to apply on an exam without it being spoon-fed through supplements or even reading Getting to Maybe. These people learned how to "game" finals but in a way that just comes naturally to them based on the way their brain works, not a skill that can be taught.

TL;DR I would wager that those naturally gifted at the LSAT may outperform a peer who worked hard to improve his score all else being equal. However, all else is not equal. Since it is possible to "game" finals with enough work, the hard-worker's high lsat score may not necessarily over-predict how they will do in school if they keep up that work.

Source: I was spoon-fed LSAT prep and am above 75% LSAT at my school but got a 3.3 first semester despite (what I mistakenly believed was) hard work. My SO self-studied and got basically the same (but lower) LSAT score and landed a 4.0 without touching a supplement or anyone else's outlines and studying only about 5 hours a day during finals. I can't tell you his score before studying since he never took a full LSAT PT but just studied section by section.

[094320]

..

[09042014]

LG is probably also the most easily gamed. My first PT (an attempt at a diagnostic) I was so confused by the games I just quit. I tried just thinking really hard instead of diagramming. Spent like 15 minutes with a powerscore book, and never got below -3 on LG again. That little strategy would have increased my score by like ten points.

[094320]

..

[jdx2014]

I sat mine cold after borrowing a book from the public library

-Do not recommend.

[Tanicius]

LSAT correlation data is from a time period before LSAT studying was commonplace. Even today, only a small fraction of test takers study anywhere near as much as people on this forum.

Does a TLSer who PTs from 155 to 169, really deserve a 169? Will they, on average, do as well in law school as a real 169?

What say you.

I PT'ed from 155 on my diagnostic to ~175 on later practice tests; ended with a real score of 170 and got absolutely fucking owned by law school exams. Did great on my seminar papers and internship work, where the curve didn't exist, but got absolutely crushed on every single graded essay exam I ever took in law school.

[Tanicius]

Idk how much the LSAT prepped me for law school but it REALLY prepped me for arguing online with strangers.

Maybe it helped you, but it definitely hasn't helped most people. All it did in the aggregate was enable these really obnoxiously stupid insults, like "RC fail," "140," and "I bet you suck at LR based on your post, hahaha." They're like fat mom jokes, but because everyone here cares about their LSAT reputation, they have to stop and actually respond with things like "No really I got this super high school with only a bit of studying, you're wrong."

[jdx2014]

FLAG those who study.........but let them write an addendum (voluntarily of course)

[Tanicius]

FLAG those who study.........but let them write an addendum (voluntarily of course)

Nice.

[5618715218781]

LSAT correlation data is from a time period before LSAT studying was commonplace. Even today, only a small fraction of test takers study anywhere near as much as people on this forum.

Does a TLSer who PTs from 155 to 169, really deserve a 169? Will they, on average, do as well in law school as a real 169?

What say you.

Your language reveals the (totally absurd, IMO) assumption that learned ability is somehow qualitatively inferior to innate ability.

Here's what happened to the 'learned' 169 over the course of the study period: She transformed herself from a 155 scorer into a 169 scorer. By test day, she has the same ability level as the "real" 169.

That's why studying for the LSAT (for those of us who naturally suck at it) is such hard work. We're not spending our time learning gimmicks or tricks to somehow game our way into a false badge of superior intellect. We're making fundamental (and lasting) changes to the structure of our brains. I don't think anyone who studies their way into a top score should have any shred of impostor syndrome about it.

I see it like this:

I'm in pretty decent shape. I can throw on my shoes, jog over to the track, and bust out a sub-5:00 mile.
My roommate is a little heavyset, and he doesn't run much. But one day he decides that he would give anything to be able to run a sub-5:00 mile. He trains like crazy every day for 6 months, cuts all of his excess weight, and gets into sub-5:00 shape. We go to the track at the end of his training period, and we race each other. He nudges me out across the finish line, 2 seconds ahead. Does the fact that he ran 8:00 six months ago give him some kind of badge of inferiority? Of course not. We have the same ability level.

Great words! Hooray~~