How getting a 145 on my LSAT is going to change my life. Forum

[hiromoto45]

To then have someone have the gall to presume that his 145 means that he can be a successful lawyer undermines what the legal community believes in

The LSAT doesn't have predictive power on how successful someone will be as lawyer.

[Hey-O]

Don't take the jerks personally. I don't know why, but there are a lot of smart people on this site who have lots of posts and they get their kicks by being cruel to complete strangers who are new to the site. My first post I was called a c*** for no reason.
I like your post. Your just saying that you're motivated by a 145 to score in the 160s. It is definitely possible. In between shitting on you people have offered great advice. Read the LG and LR bibles. Use Pithypikes guide. Do Kaplan if you want, but don't count on the class to do all the work for you. Study on your own as well. Good luck.

i laughed pretty GD hard when i read this just now. thx for that.

Yeah, it was the first reply to my very first post.

[sluguy14]

To then have someone have the gall to presume that his 145 means that he can be a successful lawyer undermines what the legal community believes in

The LSAT doesn't have predictive power on how successful someone will be as lawyer.

No, but it definitely raises a few eyebrows at the extremes. The LSAT tests some of the basic skills used in law: reading comprehension, logic, reasoning. And more than that, it offers a glimpse of an individual's intelligence and work ethic. So while there's very little (if any) direct correlation between LSAT score and law school performance, an unusually low or unusually high score might say something about that individual's potential to successfully practice law.

[Eric475]

Honestly...I wish I never said anything to you guys. I was hitting in the mid to high 150's on my PT's and I got a 145..I am capable of a higher score obviously. Yes I didn't put in enough work, would you be able to while having problems with your health, having your family move into your house 2 weeks before studying and sharing a room with a 17 year old, and losing your grandmother? It's hard man, i'm 20 years old I am not perfect, and none of you people on TLS are either. We all had our bad days, this was my bad day..luckily for me I have 2 more chances. Throw the statistics out of my fucking face. There was a 0 percent chance a black man would be president up until Obama. There was a 5 percent chance that the one girl from my school was going to survive her leukemia and she did, you know where I am going with this. Throw your stupid statistics and chances out of the window...everyone is different. You are becoming lawyers, not statisticians..let me do me, thank you for all the advice, and hopefully this time around I will be fine. I did a lot of the coursework, but not enough. I got half way through the kaplan course books, and the homework they offer is very little. My teacher skipped in class quizzes and lectures sometimes, that's what bugged me about Kaplan. She relied on the back of the book more than she did with her brain. Now enough with the belittling, and enough with you guys telling me law school is not for me. If I don't do well on my next 2 tries, then it is not for me and I will pursue human factors psychology. Let me do me, and you guys do you. I ordered the power score books, and starting next week I will begin studying..my testmasters class begins in august, and then I will see where I am going to be once I teach myself more. I am turning 21 on July 13, so maybe the happiness I get from reaching 21 will make me happy and put me back in the zone.

Thank you to all the haters and appreciators. One Love.

--ImageRemoved--

Really though if you were scoring in the mid- to high 150s on PTs there's no reason you can't get into the 160s

[Oblivion_08]

Oblivion....not Oblivian LOL

[let/them/eat/cake]

Don't take the jerks personally. I don't know why, but there are a lot of smart people on this site who have lots of posts and they get their kicks by being cruel to complete strangers who are new to the site. My first post I was called a c*** for no reason.
I like your post. Your just saying that you're motivated by a 145 to score in the 160s. It is definitely possible. In between shitting on you people have offered great advice. Read the LG and LR bibles. Use Pithypikes guide. Do Kaplan if you want, but don't count on the class to do all the work for you. Study on your own as well. Good luck.

i laughed pretty GD hard when i read this just now. thx for that.

Yeah, it was the first reply to my very first post.

story checked out. you shoulda told him you'd leave when you were good and ready.

o TLS, let me count the ways...

[fenway]

To then have someone have the gall to presume that his 145 means that he can be a successful lawyer undermines what the legal community believes in

The LSAT doesn't have predictive power on how successful someone will be as lawyer.

*That's a pretty ambitious absolute statement to make. Obviously, there is at least some correlation between LSAT and success; furthermore, out of the measures available prior to enrollment, the LSAT is in fact the strongest general predictor of success as a lawyer (higher lsat--->>better 1L grades (while also at a better school)--->better 1/2L summer job--> better permanent job=general rule). To say that the test is not the only measure for future success is a fair statement. But of what's on the table for 0L's, the LSAT is your best bet (if you had to place one) odds wise on predicting academic and future professional success (as the two are so often closely tied together).

If you disagree, look at the rosters of top firms, check where the partners went to school, and then look up the LSAT ranges for those particular schools. Perhaps you have constructed a different concept of success when establishing your principle that the LSAT has no predictive power (i.e if you were to say a successful lawyer is one who volunteers his services gratis to the common good, I would agree more with the assertion that the LSAT has little predictive power on success in that respect). This is all not to say, of course, that someone who does not perform well on the LSAT is precluded from achieving future success--the odds are just simply not in his or her favor relative to the competitive workforce

[hiromoto45]

To then have someone have the gall to presume that his 145 means that he can be a successful lawyer undermines what the legal community believes in

The LSAT doesn't have predictive power on how successful someone will be as lawyer.

No, but it definitely raises a few eyebrows at the extremes. The LSAT tests some of the basic skills used in law: reading comprehension, logic, reasoning. And more than that, it offers a glimpse of an individual's intelligence and work ethic. So while there's very little (if any) direct correlation between LSAT score and law school performance, an unusually low or unusually high score might say something about that individual's potential to successfully practice law.

That's all speculation. The original purpose of the LSAT was to even the playing field for applicants outside the Ivies and premiere schools. Just a measure for all the things you listed. There isn't much basis for it to determine future career success. The guy that scores 180 may not be able to look people in the eye or perform in a courtroom as a litigator. The OP shouldn't feel that he can't be successful because of his score. Some law schools don't require or in the near future the ABA won't require schools to have the LSAT as an admissions requirement. Don't put more value on the LSAT than its purpose.

*That's a pretty ambitious absolute statement to make. Obviously, there is at least some correlation between LSAT and success; furthermore, out of the measures available prior to enrollment, the LSAT is in fact the strongest general predictor of success as a lawyer (higher lsat--->>better 1L grades (while also at a better school)--->better 1/2L summer job--> better permanent job=general rule). To say that the test is not the only measure for future success is a fair statement. But of what's on the table for 0L's, the LSAT is your best bet (if you had to place one) odds wise on predicting academic and future professional success (as the two are so often closely tied together).

If you disagree, look at the rosters of top firms, check where the partners went to school, and then look up the LSAT ranges for those particular schools. Perhaps you have constructed a different concept of success when establishing your principle that the LSAT has no predictive power (i.e if you were to say a successful lawyer is one who volunteers his services gratis to the common good, I would agree more with the assertion that the LSAT has little predictive power on success in that respect). This is all not to say, of course, that someone who does not perform well on the LSAT is precluded from achieving future success--the odds are just simply not in his or her favor relative to the competitive workforce

I didn't explicitly state the distinction between having a high LSAT score and therefore going to a top school in which will determine future career success. Its a given that someone at Columbia will have the potential for a more successful career than someone at Barry. I was just suggesting a poor lsat score doesn't determine that one will have a bad career.

[fenway]

Your argument:

A. Performance ratings have no worth predicting future success (taken as quoted)
B. But even if you have a bad rating, you can still be successful (" ")

*If the ratings have no worth in predicting future success, then what would it matter if you got a bad rating? There would be no reason to make the statement that you could still be successful if the ratings never had any bearing on success in the first place (which is what you said by claiming "the lsat is not a predictor of future success)

not trying to be a huge dick but your two statements didn't add up

[fenway]

if it's a given that a grad at columbia has a better shot at success than a grad at Barry, and its also a given that a grad at columbia had a higher LSAT than a grad at Barry, wouldn't it be fairly obvious that LSAT is in fact a reasonable predictor of future success when comparing students at each school?

[SwollenMonkey]

After scoring in the low 150's I went into the June 7 LSAT wanting a 153 or 154 to squeak me into Southwestern Law. Today I signed up for a Testmasters course(80 hours) compared to my 30 hour Kaplan class(never take Kaplan..I beg you people). I am now aiming for a 167 to get into USC/Pepperdine/UCLA/Loyola. This is going to change my life...I got a 145 and I was in utter shock. I scored 47/99. I NEVER got that before. I usually hit 58-62...this score might look bad..but a much better score will look even better. The improvement should hopefully turn schools on and let me in.

Thanks for reading my story! GET MOTIVATED PEOPLE!

For some reason, I suspect your are AA. Is this true?
If it is, you only need to score above 158 to gain free rides to a lot of schools. If you re-take and score 167 or above, apply to HYS and enjoy the scholly money.

With a 145, you'd be competitive for Southwestern's part-time program if you apply early.

[sluguy14]

To then have someone have the gall to presume that his 145 means that he can be a successful lawyer undermines what the legal community believes in

The LSAT doesn't have predictive power on how successful someone will be as lawyer.

No, but it definitely raises a few eyebrows at the extremes. The LSAT tests some of the basic skills used in law: reading comprehension, logic, reasoning. And more than that, it offers a glimpse of an individual's intelligence and work ethic. So while there's very little (if any) direct correlation between LSAT score and law school performance, an unusually low or unusually high score might say something about that individual's potential to successfully practice law.

That's all speculation. The original purpose of the LSAT was to even the playing field for applicants outside the Ivies and premiere schools. Just a measure for all the things you listed. There isn't much basis for it to determine future career success. The guy that scores 180 may not be able to look people in the eye or perform in a courtroom as a litigator. The OP shouldn't feel that he can't be successful because of his score. Some law schools don't require or in the near future the ABA won't require schools to have the LSAT as an admissions requirement. Don't put more value on the LSAT than its purpose.

Right, it measures some of the basic skills that are used in law school and legal practice... which is what I noted in my post. It stands to reason that if you have demonstrated a mastery (or a lack thereof) of these skills, then this at least factors into your potential for success down the line. And again, perhaps more importantly (at least at the extremes) is its numerical representation of your general intelligence and work ethic. I'm sure we can debate for days about the applicability of the LSAT skills and format to law school/career success, but a score indicative of unusually high (or unusually low) intelligence and work ethic may surely be used as a rough guide to predicting success. In other words, if you can't crack 150 because you're too lazy and/or unintelligent, your likelihood of career success is far less than someone with a 175.

Like you said, the LSAT evens the playing field. So with a level field, one would be naturally inclined to draw certain conclusions about the unusually low-scoring tester versus the unusually high-scoring tester.

Again, this isn't absolute. And few (if any) conclusions can be drawn about most test-takers. But when you have testers on the extremes, I think you can at least use that as a rough guide to predicting future success.

And no, I don't think any (worthwhile) law school is going to stop requiring the LSAT. Why would they? It's far too useful a tool in the admissions process, and I don't see any viable replacement. Besides, this is all speculation.

[Oblivion_08]

After scoring in the low 150's I went into the June 7 LSAT wanting a 153 or 154 to squeak me into Southwestern Law. Today I signed up for a Testmasters course(80 hours) compared to my 30 hour Kaplan class(never take Kaplan..I beg you people). I am now aiming for a 167 to get into USC/Pepperdine/UCLA/Loyola. This is going to change my life...I got a 145 and I was in utter shock. I scored 47/99. I NEVER got that before. I usually hit 58-62...this score might look bad..but a much better score will look even better. The improvement should hopefully turn schools on and let me in.

Thanks for reading my story! GET MOTIVATED PEOPLE!

For some reason, I suspect your are AA. Is this true?
If it is, you only need to score above 158 to gain free rides to a lot of schools. If you re-take and score 167 or above, apply to HYS and enjoy the scholly money.


What's AA?
With a 145, you'd be competitive for Southwestern's part-time program if you apply early.

[hiromoto45]

And no, I don't think any (worthwhile) law school is going to stop requiring the LSAT. Why would they? It's far too useful a tool in the admissions process, and I don't see any viable replacement. Besides, this is all speculation.

Possible New Test (LinkRemoved)

This wasn't the article I was thinking of when I posted but it is an example. The dean at Northwestern stated that the ABA might not require law schools to evaluate the LSAT for admissions. This doesn't mean that law schools will stop using the LSAT, it just means they will not be required to do so by the ABA. Northwestern currently accepts the GMAT in place of the LSAT for the JD/MBA program. It is possible they may accept the GMAT in place of the LSAT for the regular JD.

[romothesavior]

And no, I don't think any (worthwhile) law school is going to stop requiring the LSAT. Why would they? It's far too useful a tool in the admissions process, and I don't see any viable replacement. Besides, this is all speculation.

Possible New Test (LinkRemoved)

This wasn't the article I was thinking of when I posted but it is an example. The dean at Northwestern stated that the ABA might not require law schools to evaluate the LSAT for admissions. This doesn't mean that law schools will stop using the LSAT, it just means they will not be required to do so by the ABA. Northwestern currently accepts the GMAT in place of the LSAT for the JD/MBA program. It is possible they may accept the GMAT in place of the LSAT for the regular JD.

This is true, but I don't think it will ever gain widespread use for two reasons:

1) It is a factor in US News. US News rules all!!!
2) Compared to other entrance exams, the LSAT is a strong predictor of success.

[Thirteen]

For some reason, I suspect your are AA. Is this true?
If it is, you only need to score above 158 to gain free rides to a lot of schools. If you re-take and score 167 or above, apply to HYS and enjoy the scholly money.

With a 145, you'd be competitive for Southwestern's part-time program if you apply early.

DELETED

[Oblivion_08]

What the fuck is an AA??

[romothesavior]

What the fuck is an AA??

African-American. No idea why he thinks you are one.

[Oblivion_08]

What the fuck is an AA??

African-American. No idea why he thinks you are one.

I am an African-American..one that knows Armenian/Turkish/English fluently. There is only one of my kind.

[hellokitty]

I thought you wanted to kill this thread...

[stratocophic]

For some reason, I suspect your are AA. Is this true?
If it is, you only need to score above 158 to gain free rides to a lot of schools. If you re-take and score 167 or above, apply to HYS and enjoy the scholly money.

With a 145, you'd be competitive for Southwestern's part-time program if you apply early.

Can't... look... away... it's mesmerizing.

What the fuck is an AA??

African-American. No idea why he thinks you are one.

This right here. http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-can- ... ame,11117/

[agentdedalus]

Don't take the jerks personally. I don't know why, but there are a lot of smart people on this site who have lots of posts and they get their kicks by being cruel to complete strangers who are new to the site. My first post I was called a c*** for no reason.
I like your post. Your just saying that you're motivated by a 145 to score in the 160s. It is definitely possible. In between shitting on you people have offered great advice. Read the LG and LR bibles. Use Pithypikes guide. Do Kaplan if you want, but don't count on the class to do all the work for you. Study on your own as well. Good luck.

i laughed pretty GD hard when i read this just now. thx for that.

Yeah, it was the first reply to my very first post.

story checked out. you shoulda told him you'd leave when you were good and ready.

o TLS, let me count the ways...

also just verified this. pretty classic. even funnier is that five posts before this one, the guy who responded to you was doling out advice such as: "You should consider expanding on your dedication to social issues and your involvement as a community activist. Other than that, you have a unique and interesting narrative."

[stratocophic]

i laughed pretty GD hard when i read this just now. thx for that.

Yeah, it was the first reply to my very first post.

story checked out. you shoulda told him you'd leave when you were good and ready.

o TLS, let me count the ways...

also just verified this. pretty classic. even funnier is that five posts before this one, the guy who responded to you was doling out advise such as: "You should consider expanding on your dedication to social issues and your involvement as a community activist. Other than that, you have a unique and interesting narrative."

TBF, it was a hit-and-run by a user with 12 total posts and the handle "shaq." Now, as much as I would love to imagine the actual Big Diesel personally insulting random people in nearly the foulest manner possible on an anonymous law forum, you probably shouldn't have expected too much from that guy.

[Army2Law]

I could be drunk and score 20 points better than a 145. WTF is wrong with you?

Were you shitting yourself the entire test? You got less than half right.

TITCR

[ca$hmoney69]

I could be drunk and score 20 points better than a 145. WTF is wrong with you?

Were you shitting yourself the entire test? You got less than half right.

A drunk 165 would be pretty impressive. Not saying you can't/didn't but I think it would be real interesting to see people try.

I'm trying this when i get back to school with friends, whoever does the best on a sections has to do shots