Passing the bar VS scoring 173+ on LSAT: which is harder? Forum

[Dr. Dre]

WARNING: Hypothetical

Assume the bar exam would be for california or new york (or some other notoriously difficult state bar)

Assume same amount of time to study

SUPPOSE: a LS graduate from TTT (who copped a 150 LSAT) is presented with two options:

1. pass [INSERT STATE] bar

or

2. score 173+ on LSAT

My question: which option would be easier to accomplish?

[90convoy]

WARNING: Hypothetical

Assume the bar exam would be for california or new york (or some other notoriously difficult state bar)

Assume same amount of time to study

SUPPOSE: a LS graduate from TTT (who copped a 150 LSAT) is presented with two options:

1. pass [INSERT STATE] bar

or

2. score 173+ on LSAT

My question: which option would be easier to accomplish?

Well considering about 40% of the people who take the bar (CA) pass and only about 1% of lsat takers score a 173+ it seems the latter would be a lot harder. Especially if the test taker is someone that already received a 150. (I'm making the assumption that the 150 wasn't a fluke)

[lmr]

WARNING: Hypothetical

Assume the bar exam would be for california or new york (or some other notoriously difficult state bar)

Assume same amount of time to study

SUPPOSE: a LS graduate from TTT (who copped a 150 LSAT) is presented with two options:

1. pass [INSERT STATE] bar

or

2. score 173+ on LSAT

My question: which option would be easier to accomplish?

Well considering about 40% of the people who take the bar (CA) pass and only about 1% of lsat takers score a 173+ it seems the latter would be a lot harder. Especially if the test taker is someone that already received a 150. (I'm making the assumption that the 150 wasn't a fluke)

I don't get the 40% pass rate you are citing. The overall pass rate for the July 2012 CA bar was 54.4%. For first time test takers the pass rate was 67% break it down again for first time test takers who went to a CA-ABA accredited law school (which many TTTs are a part of) pass rate=76%

No way 76% or even 54% of LSAT takers can EVER attain a 173 no matter how much they study or times they sit for the test. There's no comparison really.

[90convoy]

I don't get the 40% pass rate you are citing. The overall pass rate for the July 2012 CA bar was 54.4%. For first time test takers the pass rate was 67% break it down again for first time test takers who went to a CA-ABA accredited law school (which many TTTs are a part of) pass rate=76%

No way 76% or even 54% of LSAT takers can EVER attain a 173 no matter how much they study or times they sit for the test. There's no comparison really.

Sorry I didn't specify it, but I was citing the February exam which is a little bit lower. But yeah, that doesn't change that fact that this is a no brainer.

[Dr. Dre]

But do you bros think its because the LSAT is "harder"

or--is it because people, in general, don't put in the effort into LSAT prep because "it's a dumb test that doesn't have to do anything with law" ?

[dr123]

Seems like this is kind of like comparing getting an A in a graded class vs a Pass in P/F class.

[AAJD2B]

You're comparing apples to oranges here. There level of difficulty can't be compared to each other.

[bp shinners]

Personal experience? LSAT was harder. Though a lot of the stuff on the bar I learned at law school, and just had to refresh it when studying for the NY bar, so it's hard to say how much time actually went into my pass.

Total study time? I spent more time prepping for the LSAT than the bar, by a significant margin (though, to be honest, I really didn't study enough for the bar - something like 20-30 hours).

The bar is pretty much straight-up memorization; the LSAT requires more cognitive abilities than that.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The bar is pretty much straight-up memorization; the LSAT requires more cognitive abilities than that.

I agree. I didn't actually take a lot of bar courses in law school, so I had to learn everything business/corporation related during bar prep, and the bar was still easier than the LSAT. Brute memorization takes energy but no real analytical skill; the bar is really more about content than analysis (especially in my state, where you got points for putting down buzzwords more than for how you applied the law). I also think bar prep courses are more effective at preparing you to pass the exam than LSAT prep courses are at preparing you to get a 173+. But I also agree with the others - there's a big difference between trying to get a D, and trying to score in the top 1% of LSAT-takers, so they're really hard to compare. All I know is that my MBE score was a much higher percentile than my LSAT score (and yes, I could have studied more/more effectively for the LSAT, but part of the point is that you have to know to do that and how to do that for the LSAT, whereas for the bar you just have to sit through the prep course. I think it takes much more work to figure out what you need to improve on for the LSAT, and how to do that, than for the bar).

[californiauser]

This thread is dumb. OP is dumb.