Top Law Schools

So my score from LSAC is still on hold because I submitted a fee waiver appeal a few days before the score release (I never made the connection between a fee waiver appeal = delaying a score for a test you paid for). Now, a guy who shares an office with me just told the partners he got a 175. I didn't find out til today because I took yesterday off (and so did he, but we don't communicate with each other at all). I came out of the test guessing on two LG and figured two wrong on LR and one wrong on RC. After reading various discussions on the internet, I guessed correctly on one of the two LG, still at one wrong for sure RC, and still at one wrong for sure on LR. That leaves only three more I can be wrong about to tie him or else I'll have a worse score to a guy I can't stand. \ self.

This topic single handedly makes me want to punch an innocent bystander. Have less of an ego please. Some people on these forums would kill to have a 174-175 range and you're whining about it because 1 guy did better than you. You do know that the LSAT has no correlation to how well you do in law school or great of a lawyer you will be afterwards right?

Suck up your 174 and quit complaining.

gambelda wrote:This topic single handedly makes me want to punch an innocent bystander. Have less of an ego please. Some people on these forums would kill to have a 174-175 range and you're whining about it because 1 guy did better than you. You do know that the LSAT has no correlation to how well you do in law school or great of a lawyer you will be afterwards right?

Suck up your 174 and quit complaining.

You do know that you're incorrect right? LSAT scores are statistically correlated with 1L grades.

Yey, you proved the guy wrong! Meanwhile, his entire point that the OP is acting stupid still stands.

I've read a number of research studies from institutions that say otherwise and I will try to dig them up for you if I have time later this evening.

mst wrote:Yey, you proved the guy wrong! Meanwhile, his entire point that the OP is acting stupid still stands.

The OP is stupid because he/she is competitive and has higher goals than you do? Have fun in law school.

Trust me, it's not worth your time.

gambelda wrote:I've read a number of research studies from institutions that say otherwise and I will try to dig them up for you if I have time later this evening.

Please do. The prevailing wisdom is that there is a weak correlation between LSAT score and 1L grades. However, that information comes from LSAC, so I would be happy to consider alternate studies, and if I am wrong, I will admit it.

mst wrote:Trust me, it's not worth your time.

Now that was stupid. Nice example.

JazzOne wrote:

mst wrote:Yey, you proved the guy wrong! Meanwhile, his entire point that the OP is acting stupid still stands.

The OP is stupid because he/she is competitive and has higher goals than you do? Have fun in law school.

From someone who is extremely competitive, I have learned that being that competitive as to consider it a "nightmare" when someone beats you is not a healthy way to go through life. On a sidenote, he will fit well into the Harvard class of students who require the on-staff psychiatrists when they see a B+ on their grade card after their 1L exams.

gambelda wrote:

JazzOne wrote:

mst wrote:Yey, you proved the guy wrong! Meanwhile, his entire point that the OP is acting stupid still stands.

The OP is stupid because he/she is competitive and has higher goals than you do? Have fun in law school.

From someone who is extremely competitive, I have learned that being that competitive as to consider it a "nightmare" when someone beats you is not a healthy way to go through life. On a sidenote, he will fit well into the Harvard class of students who require the on-staff psychiatrists when they see a B+ on their grade card after their 1L exams.

I'm sure OP will really be disappointed with his "B+" at Harvard.

According to LSAC the LSAT correlated with about 18-24% of 1L grades.

Undergraduate GPA correlates with about 3-4%.

These are the two largest predictors. There's a reason why the LSAT is weighted so heavily.

The OP is wrong in his statement.

I'm not disagreeing here, but I'd like to point out that just because something is the best predictor, that doesn't make it a good predictor. Use a better argument next time...

mst wrote:I'm not disagreeing here, but I'd like to point out that just because something is the best predictor, that doesn't make it a good predictor. Use a better argument next time...

You're absolutely right! Law schools should start looking at good predictors like parent's level of education, economic status, and being non URM!

+1

Now now now... There is almost certainly a correlation between an LSAT score and 1L grades... There is just no correlation between either of those things and the practice of law.

reasonable_man wrote:Now now now... There is almost certainly a correlation between an LSAT score and 1L grades... There is just no correlation between either of those things and the practice of law.

Yes but there is a correlation between Law school ranking and lifetime earnings.

There is a correlation between correlations relating to law school and angry people.

ITT: A guy complains about his awesome LSAT score because a guy he doesn't like did more awesome. Then, a guy says that LSAT doesn't mean you'll do well in law school or be a great lawyer. Then a guy takes this thread even further off topic by refusing to realize this thread is, and always was, pointless.

Example of two office mates disliking each other and competitiveness of performance. I think that's what Harvard Law is probably like.

It seems like a score and the "XX%" that is correlated to it is an asset at one school and a liability at another? How do they explain that regarding your grades? Is this subjective grading from school to school?

A 165 is low for Yale, and high for many TT and lower. So, does that score correlate to an A or a B or what? It seems like the % correlation (as good or bad) is dependent on the school you go to. So, the school, not the LSAT is a heavier predictor of your grade in regard to your LSAT?

XX% of an A grade at USC is due to the same LSAT that is XX% of a C at Yale?

As someone who currently studies law, albeit in a different jurisdiction, I can tell you guys that performance in this test should not be indicative of law school performance. At best RC may be a mild indicator.

What might explain the 'apparent correlation' between LSAT and 1L success is that most people who do well in the LSAT work their asses off - a requirement for doing well in law school. Being able to put Frank, Zoe, Charlie and Dale into a group of three will help you in no way in law school. Neither will formal logic, contrapositives etc. You'll find that statute law and the common law are, in general, simply phrased (as a result of the laws of natural justice) and remove the possibility to infer through such routes. Indeed, if I had made such inferences in my submissions during my competitive mooting years I am sure whichever Sheriff, barrister, Lord, etc I was mooting before would have ripped me apart for making unwarranted assumptions about a cited cases's ruling, regardless of any 'logical accuracy' of that inference I may have presented. Inferences in the common law generally come from the 'feel' of a judgement, the result of two judgements back to back, or simply arguing that a rule for one situation applies therefore to a different situation altogether. There are no hard and fast rules in law for inferring, just common sense.

I doubt I will do all that great when I take my LSAT because, well, I don't have the time to study for it as is perhaps necessary; but I am doing well enough in law school that 'biglaw' firms here are wellll within my reach,.... if I wanted to work in London, which I don't. It is a shame, but that is just how life goes. Also, to say that law school performance is not correlated to the performance in the practice of law is absurd.

Just letting you guys know that this test (pretty much) is a joke and is really just there to act as a necessary evil sieve. Schools have to cut down those applicants somehow - another arbitrary scale helps. Hell, when too many people start doing well in LSAT's they'll probably make a different pure-maths test, or a cookery quiz, or something equally pointless a mandatory requirement.

2807 wrote:It seems like a score and the "XX%" that is correlated to it is an asset at one school and a liability at another? How do they explain that regarding your grades? Is this subjective grading from school to school?

A 165 is low for Yale, and high for many TT and lower. So, does that score correlate to an A or a B or what? It seems like the % correlation (as good or bad) is dependent on the school you go to. So, the school, not the LSAT is a heavier predictor of your grade in regard to your LSAT?

XX% of an A grade at USC is due to the same LSAT that is XX% of a C at Yale?

At this point, we should all know that standardized testing is B.S, and any inferences drawn from them should be taken with a grain of salt.

According to psychometricians who work on the LSAT, it has the highest correlative validity of any test. Still, the LSAT only accounts for 16% of your LGPA - meaning that 84% of your score is based on individual factors.

Further, Psychometricians even admit they only have a 60% likelihood that one's potential is even within a 7-PT RANGE of one's actual LSAT score.

MrAdams wrote:As someone who currently studies law, albeit in a different jurisdiction, I can tell you guys that performance in this test should not be indicative of law school performance. At best RC may be a mild indicator.

What might explain the 'apparent correlation' between LSAT and 1L success is that most people who do well in the LSAT work their asses off - a requirement for doing well in law school. Being able to put Frank, Zoe, Charlie and Dale into a group of three will help you in no way in law school. Neither will formal logic, contrapositives etc. You'll find that statute law and the common law are, in general, simply phrased (as a result of the laws of natural justice) and remove the possibility to infer through such routes. Indeed, if I had made such inferences in my submissions during my competitive mooting years I am sure whichever Sheriff, barrister, Lord, etc I was mooting before would have ripped me apart for making unwarranted assumptions about a cited cases's ruling, regardless of any 'logical accuracy' of that inference I may have presented. Inferences in the common law generally come from the 'feel' of a judgement, the result of two judgements back to back, or simply arguing that a rule for one situation applies therefore to a different situation altogether. There are no hard and fast rules in law for inferring, just common sense.

I doubt I will do all that great when I take my LSAT because, well, I don't have the time to study for it as is perhaps necessary; but I am doing well enough in law school that 'biglaw' firms here are wellll within my reach,.... if I wanted to work in London, which I don't. It is a shame, but that is just how life goes. Also, to say that law school performance is not correlated to the performance in the practice of law is absurd.

Just letting you guys know that this test (pretty much) is a joke and is really just there to act as a necessary evil sieve. Schools have to cut down those applicants somehow - another arbitrary scale helps. Hell, when too many people start doing well in LSAT's they'll probably make a different pure-maths test, or a cookery quiz, or something equally pointless a mandatory requirement.

As someone who currently studies law, I completely disagree with almost everything you wrote in this post.

You may disagree all you like. If you study law though, you should know that the mischeif, golden and literally rules are primarily those used by judges in interpreting statutes and case law. Never have I read (or heard of) a judge on the international scene or in the English judiciary refer to contrapositives or formal logic, or indeed, just who of Frank, Zoe, Charlie and Dale should go on the canoe trip, in interpreting and inferring rules from legal sources. They use the mischeif rule, the golden rule, the literally rule and the purpose rule. It is that simple.

MrAdams wrote:You may disagree all you like. If you study law though, you should know that the mischeif, golden and literally rules are primarily those used by judges in interpreting statutes and case law. Never have I read (or heard of) a judge on the international scene or in the English judiciary refer to contrapositives or formal logic, or indeed, just who of Frank, Zoe, Charlie and Dale should go on the canoe trip, in interpreting and inferring rules from legal sources. They use the mischeif rule, the golden rule, the literally rule and the purpose rule. It is that simple.

I think the LSAT is certainly applicable to the practice of law though. i.e. if I want to weaken an opposing partie's arguments, or attack their assumptions, or understand the encompassing possibilities presented in a scenario and how if 2 or 3 are removed, then how the others will be impacted by their removal, etc.