Top Law Schools

More curious than anything, but what are your thoughts on a "good" diagnostic score? I have speculatively wondered if diagnostic scores are not in fact a theoretically better measurement (if it were possible) than the current paradigm of intense study prep. How much improvement have you all seen after study?

A diagnostic would be a better measurement of what, exactly? Intelligence? Predictor of LS performance? I don't think I agree with that, as it's not really like an IQ test since it is designed to be studied and you can make huge leaps with minimal preparation. I think a score over 160 might possibly suggest superior comprehension or time management, but I'd be super hesitant to base anything off of a diagnostic score.

MediocreAtBest wrote:A diagnostic would be a better measurement of what, exactly? Intelligence? Predictor of LS performance? I don't think I agree with that, as it's not really like an IQ test since it is designed to be studied and you can make huge leaps with minimal preparation. I think a score over 160 might possibly suggest superior comprehension or time management, but I'd be super hesitant to base anything off of a diagnostic score.

Good point, I suppose i meant innate ability/intelligence. But perhaps the study component is just as important for measuring capability as a student.

A number is a number and really there isn't much to be said for an LSAT score other than one knows how to score on the LSAT. That said, I would think that if someone diags under 140 they're going to have problems. If they diag above 160 they're probably a candidate to get above almost all 75ths. Anything in between would, in my opinion, be a perfectly fine place to start.

167 apparently puts you at the top percentile of BP diagnostic scores. Probably a little generous, because the smartest test-takers have little use for assistance.

There's probably a decently strong correlation between your diagnostic and your actual score, but I would say that for that most part diagnostics are pretty arbitrary. I guess this would back up your claim that the current method of intense prep is a bit flawed, but it also serves it's purpose. Honestly, it's probably a threshold type situation. There's probably a baseline intelligence required to do well on this test, but really once you're above it, it's really just a matter of hard work. Someone with a 151 diagnostic who studies for 9 months is probably going to do better than someone with a 161 diagnostic that studies for 2 weeks. That said, sub-150 and I think you're going to have a hard time cracking 172+