Top Law Schools

Age Group & Median LSAT

21 & Under: 155
22-24: 154
25-29: 153
30-39: 149
40+ : 144


That's an 11-point spread between the youngest group and the oldest group. Do you think it's because of a mental "slowing down" with age? Or do older testers tend not to prep as much? Or are the people who take the LSAT later in life more likely to be the same people who would have scored below-median even if they had taken it in their 20s? Or something else entirely?

My guess is some combination of these people are more likely to be distanced from academic rigors, and also less likely to have available time to prep.

Like with anything, it's probably a combo.

I worked a bit in test prep, and I felt really bad for the older students who had kids and barely any extra time between family duties and full time work.

A lot were really bright--they would answer questions during class and deal well when questioned--, but they just couldn't put the time in to do as well on the actual tests.

Damn I would have scored a 180 if I took the test a year earlier? Now I am sad.

Just think, there's about a 7-point differential in those medians when compared to AA's. There is likely some reduction in the differential as applicants get older...just a guess. But median for AA's over 40 is probably in the mid-late 130's.

Sad...

That's super interesting. 21 and under having the highest median makes sense; in my experience, undergrads and recent graduates tend to study more consistently than people with more distance from school. Speaking purely anecdotally, I haven't seen age make much of a difference in diagnostics, but generally the younger folk have pulled ahead by the time test day rolls around. Just my personal observations, obviously YMMV.

Max324 wrote:That's super interesting. 21 and under having the highest median makes sense; in my experience, undergrads and recent graduates tend to study more consistently than people with more distance from school. Speaking purely anecdotal, I haven't seen age make much of a difference in diagnostics, but generally the younger folk have pulled ahead by the time test day rolls around. Just my personal observations, obviously YMMV.

FWIW self-selection may be a large factor. Perhaps the people most likely to score well on the LSAT in their 30s and 40s are presumably well in to the middle of successful careers (think about your peers who are analysts/consultants/engineers/etc and not going to law school, and think about where they will be 15 years from now). Coupled with the rampant age discrimination (see Paul Campos posts for a more thorough discussion), my guess would be that late 30s 40s test takers are a bit desperate or in dead-end careers.

To heighten the self-selection further, I think 3 years in your late 30s and 40s would be more of an opportunity cost than in your 20s. A large portion of this age bracket is married and has young kids. Lots of (good) parents are trying to find ways to spend more time with their children not less. People do turn down jobs/promotions because of work-life balance reasons ( and unreasonable sacrifice in the eyes of aspies).

Think about it this way, to generalize, lets take a professional CPA/consultant/etc in their mid 30s whose making 80-120k. The prospect of studying for a test to go to school for three years to get a job and slave work for an exit opportunity to make the salary they were already making at in house or mid-law gig. Not only that, there are tons of middle managers who literally work 30 hrs a week and have a pretty laid back work-cycle. Take it with a grain of salt but I'd think that would describe a significant portion of potential high scorers in that age bracket.

Granted, distance from formalized study and mental aging (Google Lumosity for academic work on mental aging) play a part, but I think the pool of people 35+ on the whole would be more skewed to have a population that wouldn't have done that great had they taken it 10-15 years earlier.

If I'd have taken the LSAT in college I'd have gotten into HYS? dman.

I think that the mechanics of the exam play a role as well.

As a working adult, I have spent next to no time on multiple choice/scantron exams for decades, it simply not a common way challenges are presented in life.

Re: bizzike's post, I'm not sure there's quite such a direct correlation between economic success in your late 30s-40s (which would seem to lead to the opportunity costs discussed) and LSAT test taking ability. That is, even if those test-takers are more likely to be in dead-end jobs, I don't think it's as simple as saying "this group of people is in dead-end jobs because they lack the abilities necessary to do well on the LSAT." There are lots of reasons why people's career trajectories fall the way that they do. I can't say there's no one that fits that description, but I guess I think there's a big assumption in saying that the people most likely to do well on the LSAT are in the middle of other satisfying careers. The LSAT tests how well you do on the LSAT and shows some correlation with law school grades. Neither of those is a direct test of job performance ability (nor opportunity).

I'd think studying is a bigger issue, as well as maybe mental aging.

haus wrote:I think that the mechanics of the exam play a role as well.

As a working adult, I have spent next to no time on multiple choice/scantron exams for decades, it simply not a common way challenges are presented in life.

I think this, plus the timing issues discussed above. With two kids and a full time job, I didn't have the same time/focus for test prep as some of my friends. That said, I did hella better than these numbers think I should have - where did these figures come from?

nygrrrl wrote: where did these figures come from?

I think you can find these numbers on page 8 of this pdf from LSAC.

http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... -group.pdf

ETA:
D'oh... forum does not like brackets in link, let's try this...

LSAC analysis by age group

bizzike wrote: ...
FWIW self-selection may be a large factor. Perhaps the people most likely to score well on the LSAT in their 30s and 40s are presumably well in to the middle of successful careers (think about your peers who are analysts/consultants/engineers/etc and not going to law school, and think about where they will be 15 years from now)...

That's a great point

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Re: bizzike's post, I'm not sure there's quite such a direct correlation between economic success in your late 30s-40s (which would seem to lead to the opportunity costs discussed) and LSAT test taking ability. That is, even if those test-takers are more likely to be in dead-end jobs, I don't think it's as simple as saying "this group of people is in dead-end jobs because they lack the abilities necessary to do well on the LSAT." There are lots of reasons why people's career trajectories fall the way that they do. I can't say there's no one that fits that description, but I guess I think there's a big assumption in saying that the people most likely to do well on the LSAT are in the middle of other satisfying careers. The LSAT tests how well you do on the LSAT and shows some correlation with law school grades. Neither of those is a direct test of job performance ability (nor opportunity).

I'd think studying is a bigger issue, as well as maybe mental aging.

Yeah, I overstated it (definitely) but I still think that self-selection plays a significant role. Another thing to consider is at this point/phase of a career, an MBA is a good option with a lot less of a time commitment(1 yr programs/ years of experience etc.). More than trying to say LSAT is a barometer of success, I think it's worthy to consider that the makeup of the testing pool of people in their 20s vs people in their 40s is going to be a lot different. It's it a highly direct correlation, most probably not. But I would hypothesize it to be a ontributing factor (although less than the aging/extended time away from an academic environment).

I just turned 30 and I'll be taking the September test. I can tell you right now that my time and endurance is not the same as 21. I'm prepping right now and I'm hoping to score in the 170s.

I'd say it's mainly due to selection bias. People who take the test later in life are more likely to be in less fulfilling career positions, and on the aggregate that could be attributed to lower aptitude/work ethic.

I'm a 31-year-old 0L and was very happy with my score on the LSAT - while I could possibly have gotten the same score at 21, the years I spent going to graduate school and working in quantitative disciplines probably made me more thorough and less prone to stupid mistakes (the reason why my HS GPA never saw the sunny side of 3.6 despite the fact I excelled in math and writing competitions).

kartelite wrote:I'd say it's mainly due to selection bias. People who take the test later in life are more likely to be in less fulfilling career positions, and on the aggregate that could be attributed to lower aptitude/work ethic.

I'm a 31-year-old 0L and was very happy with my score on the LSAT - while I could possibly have gotten the same score at 21, the years I spent going to graduate school and working in quantitative disciplines probably made me more thorough and less prone to stupid mistakes (the reason why my HS GPA never saw the sunny side of 3.6 despite the fact I excelled in math and writing competitions).

Although I agree with the selection bias theory itself, I disagree with your extrapolation that older test-takers are likely in unfulfilling positions and are thus poorly prepared for the test as a result. If older test-takers are mostly unfulfilled career-wise, it is arguable that they should be motivated to score higher.

I do think those who are older and more successful might be more likely to do well if they take the LSAT, but that doesn't translate to less successful people performing less well simply because they are unfulfilled and thus unmotivated.

Many of them are probably people who would have struggled with the test even in their younger years despite their interest in the legal profession. They may also suffer from limited use of the part of their brain responsible for logic and quantitative reasoning, spacial reasoning, etc.. So they struggle with LG and LR, and formal logic as used in the two sections.

Consider also that the hand-eye coordination of an older candidate may not be what it once was (inhibiting the ability to mark the form as quickly), and that an older candidate may also lack the confidence of a candidate who isn't so far removed from college.

The normal aging process may also cause degeneration in vision, which leads to slower reading and comprehension.

In short, average or below-average test-takers are - despite their genuine interest in becoming lawyers - likely being further disadvantaged by the normal aging process.

Um, filling out a scantron doesn't exactly require the hand-eye coordination of playing professional sports, and most older people whose vision deteriorates get these nifty things called glasses. There are probably a lot of different reasons for the age/score correlation, but unless you're talking about 80 year olds, physical decline is really not one of them.

i was 27 when i sat for the dec '13 exam, and i found dissatisfaction with work to be a pretty good motivating factor. i'm fairly positive that i would have bombed the lsat at 21... a few years of WE did wonders for my nerves and endurance, and i definitely think in a more "logical" way than i did before. so there's an anecdote for you.

i would imagine the various responsibilities we accumulate as we age would contribute in some capacity to the decline in average scores - kids especially (i do NOT think i could have balanced work, kids, AND studying, personally - or imagine trying to study with work and kids while also caring for an elderly parent? yikes)

Interesting topic.

I am 47 and am taking the LSAT Monday. Given that I work full time (teacher) and have a wife and family, finding study time has been a struggle. Fortunately(?), the schools I have applied to have 154 as their median for acceptance. I am limited to local-ish schools that offer part-time evening programs. While 154+ is in the cards, I am also hoping for some "life experience" points with my application.

I never knew the data correlating age with LSAT scores; maybe this explains why I am not scoring 175+ in my practice tests!

RichardWalter wrote:Interesting topic.

I am 47 and am taking the LSAT Monday. Given that I work full time (teacher) and have a wife and family, finding study time has been a struggle. Fortunately(?), the schools I have applied to have 154 as their median for acceptance. I am limited to local-ish schools that offer part-time evening programs. While 154+ is in the cards, I am also hoping for some "life experience" points with my application.

I never knew the data correlating age with LSAT scores; maybe this explains why I am not scoring 175+ in my practice tests!

Good luck, on Monday!

Hopefully your test results will help bring a healthy scholarship your way.

ETA:
When you have free time (ha ha, I know, but perhaps as you are waiting for your test results), check out the over 30 thread.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=143047

haus wrote:

RichardWalter wrote:Interesting topic.

I am 47 and am taking the LSAT Monday. Given that I work full time (teacher) and have a wife and family, finding study time has been a struggle. Fortunately(?), the schools I have applied to have 154 as their median for acceptance. I am limited to local-ish schools that offer part-time evening programs. While 154+ is in the cards, I am also hoping for some "life experience" points with my application.

I never knew the data correlating age with LSAT scores; maybe this explains why I am not scoring 175+ in my practice tests!

Good luck, on Monday!

Hopefully your test results will help bring a healthy scholarship your way.

A fellow non-trad, echoing haus!