[December 2010] TLSer Score Predictions Forum

[KevinP]

I would love to see some studies on LG's relation to LSAT score as a predictor of 1l success. I would bet my life it has the lowest correlation between the 3 diff types of sections.

Have you seen the latest game trends? I think LSAC thinks otherwise.

[Sandro]

I would love to see some studies on LG's relation to LSAT score as a predictor of 1l success. I would bet my life it has the lowest correlation between the 3 diff types of sections.

Have you seen the latest game trends? I think LSAC thinks otherwise.

I just dont get what LG tests. In law school how many situations require you to absorb rules, diagram them, and then answer a series of rapid fire questions where you have less than 60 seconds to figure out each question? Im sure law school might have some equivalents where you must balances laws/regulations for specific instances - but you just had 4 months to study those laws and examples like the one you could be asked ?? The LSAT requires no prior knowledge - hopefully all the classes/studying that goes on isnt needless?

I'm just a 0L but I hope there's no rapid fire puzzle questions with diagrams on LS exams?

The skills required by RC and LR are much, much more concrete and identifiable.

[KevinP]

I would love to see some studies on LG's relation to LSAT score as a predictor of 1l success. I would bet my life it has the lowest correlation between the 3 diff types of sections.

Have you seen the latest game trends? I think LSAC thinks otherwise.

I just dont get what LG tests. In law school how many situations require you to absorb rules, diagram them, and then answer a series of rapid fire questions where you have less than 60 seconds to figure out each question? Im sure law school might have some equivalents where you must balances laws/regulations for specific instances - but you just had 4 months to study those laws and examples like the one you could be asked ?? The LSAT requires no prior knowledge - hopefully all the classes/studying that goes on isnt needless?

I'm just a 0L but I hope there's no rapid fire puzzle questions with diagrams on LS exams?

The skills required by RC and LR are much, much more concrete and identifiable.

According to LSAC:
These questions measure the ability to understand a structure of relationships and to draw logical conclusions about that structure. You are asked to reason deductively from a set of statements and rules or principles that describe relationships among persons, things, or events. Analytical Reasoning questions reflect the kinds of complex analyses that a law student performs in the course of legal problem solving.

To be honest, I think we probably just don't realize how relevant the reasoning is until we start 1L of law.

[fosterp]

I would love to see some studies on LG's relation to LSAT score as a predictor of 1l success. I would bet my life it has the lowest correlation between the 3 diff types of sections.

Have you seen the latest game trends? I think LSAC thinks otherwise.

I just dont get what LG tests. In law school how many situations require you to absorb rules, diagram them, and then answer a series of rapid fire questions where you have less than 60 seconds to figure out each question? Im sure law school might have some equivalents where you must balances laws/regulations for specific instances - but you just had 4 months to study those laws and examples like the one you could be asked ?? The LSAT requires no prior knowledge - hopefully all the classes/studying that goes on isnt needless?

I'm just a 0L but I hope there's no rapid fire puzzle questions with diagrams on LS exams?

The skills required by RC and LR are much, much more concrete and identifiable.

You need to think outside the box. Logic games are a way to test your analytical reasoning. Being able to do logic games is not part of being a lawyer or law school. The aptitude needed to do logic games is part of being a lawyer and law school.

Look at it this way. There are certain physical tests that you must pass to be a police officer. I am not a cop but I know you must be able to do a certain number of push ups/pullups/run a mile in x time/etc. Now everyone knows that enforcing the law does not involve getting down and doing 50 pushups when you see a crime in progress. However those things test the kind of physical attributes you need to be able to sufficiently do your job. Someone who can't run a mile in 10 minutes or do 40 pushups at once probably won't be able to chase down criminals very well.

The LSAT uses its varying sections to test our mental aptitude in the same fashion. Reading comprehension might more closely resemble law school like running a physical obstacle course might better resemble chasing criminals, but other aspects must be considered as well, such as physical endurance and cardiovascular health that are also important and cannot be readily judged based just on one physical trial.

And like the LSAT, whether being able to do 40 pushups or 80 pushups would make someone better at chasing criminals is debatable, the score comparison between 160s and 170s in their ability to be a lawyer is debatable as well. But the fact of the matter is there has to be some way to measure aptitude, and the LSAT is the best we have. We can't exactly sit everyone down and do a "practice run" at law school to see who should get in.

My analogy probably sucks but I think it illustrates the basic idea.

[veragood]

LG: missed 3 - 4

Everything else: missed 1-3

So, between -4 and -7. What is that range, 179 - 175?

Wow. That is some precision. Hope your expectations are met!

Thank you. Me too! : )

It's really just a gut feeling. The RC and one of of the LR went really, really well for me. The other LR went well too I was just kind of shellshocked after the LG that exactly how I did on that section is kind of fuzzy.

[LeBum James]

LR1: -1/-3
RC: -0/-2
LRexp: -4/-6 (thank god it was experimental)
LR2: -0/-2
LG: -0/-5 (who knows)

Should break 170

I hope...

[Sandro]

. We can't exactly sit everyone down and do a "practice run" at law school to see who should get in.

My analogy probably sucks but I think it illustrates the basic idea.

I get your point, LG is a tool to "separate" test takers. I just dont agree that it does its job any better than another RC or LR section would and confers advantages on certain people depending on how their brain works at things. Not good at LG? Not going to diminish your chances in LS imo. Not good at READING and REASONING ? good luck ....

[brobrah]

now we can see if everyone matched their predictions!

[cowgirl_bebop]

now we can see if everyone matched their predictions!

I did, although lower than I got last time

Oh well, Im into the school I wanted to get into, so Im in the clear

[Canadiana]

LR: -1 to -3
RC: -4 to -6
LG: -2 to -4

Think I have a good shot at the 170.

Ended up with -4 LR, -2 RC, -3 LG, so my guessing on this sucked, but my guessing on RC rocked

[Sandro]

Prediction (guessed my RC right last time)

RC -3
LR -3
LG -8
LR -4


-18 for what I hope to be a 167

I GOT A 167 !!!!!!!!!!! I AM SO PSYCHED I WANT TO RAGE BUT IVE BEEN INSIDE THE VERIZON STORE FOR THE PAST 2+ HOURS AHHHHH

[Sandro]

bump - anyone else predict their raw score ?

[SrLaw]

167!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sandro]

167!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DANCE PARTYYYY

[akili]

I got 4 points higher than I hoped and 9 higher than I predicted!

[ATR]

Predicted 165-169, ended up with 169.

[kitmitzi]

anyone else predict their raw score ?

I predicted 165 because I thought I was being pessimistic and was really hoping I did better....got 165. haha, oh well.

[Flips88]

Last 3 PTs before test: 170, 172, 172

Prediction:

LR1: -6 to -8 (First section of the test, really flustered. Had to answer 7 questions in the last 5 minutes. Bad news bears.)
RC: -3 to -5
LR2: -4 to -6
LG: -0 to -5 (depends on if i did well or not on the last few on Conferences and Stained Glass. I was happy I got the rule replace question right this time around).

Assuming -14 Curve
Best Case Scenario: -14 for a 170
Worst case scenario: -24 for a 163.

Predicted score: -18 for a 167

LR1: -5
RC: -5
LR2: -7
LG: -4

-21, 165. So close. I'll take it I guess. Also, called the curve.

[2011Law]

My prediction:

LR: -3
RC: -3
LG: -5
LR: -4

With a -13 curve, that would give me a 168. In reality, all I have a real good feeling for is that I landed somewhere in my usual spread (164-170).

I actually got a 168.

RC: -5
LR1: -4
LG: -4
LR2: -4

[LeBum James]

LR1: -1/-3
RC: -0/-2
LRexp: -4/-6 (thank god it was experimental)
LR2: -0/-2
LG: -0/-5 (who knows)

Should break 170

I hope...

LR1: -1
RC: -6
LR2: -1
LG: -3

My guesses were correct except for RC. -11 for 173. I'm happy enough.

[cardinals03]

RC = -3/4
LR = -5
LR = -3
LG = -6/8

82 or 85 for 164 - 167 depending on curve and if 1 gets removed (doubtful) - hell, I would not be shocked with a 162.....hopefully not though. I was PT'ing in the 168 range, but LG kicked my stained glass ass.

Well, I was close:
RC = -5
LR = -8 (I know I misbubbled 3 - I never get any of the 1st 17 wrong on LR)
LR = -4
LG = -7

Should have had a 165, but alas, a 163....hey, at least only 12% of the LSAT world can make fun of me....wait, that still does not make it better.

[2014]

I feel like at worst I did 170 and with a friendly curve and favorable guessing on RC, I could go as high as 180. Realistically though I'm thinking:

LG: -0/-1
RC: -2/-5
LR combined: -2/-5

Best case and hopefully: -4, 177-180 depending on curve
Worse case: -11: 170-172 depending on curve

I would be happy enough to not bother retaking with anything at or above 173.

Oh and of course the possibility exists that I messed something up horribly and will open it up to somewhere in the 160's at which point disappointment will set in.


This was a retake for me btw from 168 in October.

LG: -0
RC: -5
LR Combined: -3

Right in line with my guesses so no curveballs thrown. For once I was rational and not overly optimistic or pessimistic as is more characteristic of me.