180 LSAT Forum

[kenson]

That's funny.. could have sworn the LSAT doesn't have a math or science section. In other words, ACT =/= intelligence test, rather aptitude test for a broad liberal arts education.

Neither is the LSAT. It's a rough guess. I was just making sure he wasn't retarded. I can't figure out how intelligent people get more than 10 questions wrong on the LSAT.

Credited. Someone scoring exponentially low on the ACT may indicate he/she doesn't have any kind of aptitute for tests/scholar work in general, just like high scores indicate a higher rate of success on things like the lsat. That being said, I don't think average sat/act scores are damning of your chances to score high on the lsat.

An average ACT score is around a 20. I would wager very that few people who scored a 20 on the ACT go on to score over a 170 on the LSAT. Are there any stats on this?

I think I may have misconstrued myself. The original number that was thrown around was an ACT of 32. This is a very high score relative to the general population (I think I scored like a 28 or something). Although neither a 28 or 32 is good enough to easily get into an undergrad ivy [impossible in my case, highly unlikely in his], a person scoring either of these scores could potentially get a high enough lsat score to get into those same aforementioned schools for law school, provided they study hard enough and have a well rounded logical/reading background.

[JJJ123]

The SAT is a better indicator of lsat potential than the ACT. ACT is mainly a test of knowledge/speed without an emphasis on reasoning. Also, ignore the ACT percentiles- the student pop. taking the ACT is a self-selected group of inferior test-takers (on average) avoiding the slightly more rigorous SAT. Also, some midwestern states mandate that all HS students take the ACT (not just those who plan to matriculate to college). in terms of college admissions, a 32 roughly equals a 1400 on the SAT.

That being said, the SAT isn't a great indicator either. I know of a couple of guys who scored 1550+ on the SAT, but did not score very highly on the LSAT (after preparing). A high SAT score (S) does not necessarily lead to a high Lsat score (L). However, I think it is fair to say the most who score very highly on the LSat (L) had a high SAT score (S).

so, in general, I would say that

-(S-->L) & L-->S

To the OP, take a diagnostic lsat test to gauge your chances of a perfect/near perfect lsat score.

[umichgrad]

OP, I got a 32 on the ACT, studied daily for 4 months for the LSAT, practiced consistently at 168-172, and scored 167 on test day. Just saying.

[autarkh]

I got a 24 on the ACT (I blame my shitty public high school and lack of prep), whereas for the LSAT PT'ed at about 175 (171-178 range) and got a 170 on the real thing.

I know this is anecdotal, but I'd be genuinely surprised if the proposed correlation is borne out.

[bk1]

I think there might be correlation, but it probably has more to do with the effort one puts forth on the two tests and the correlation between that.

If you put forth effort on the ACT/SAT you are likely to score high. If you put forth effort back then, you are more likely to put forth effort on subsequent tests (i.e. LSAT). If you put forth effort on the LSAT you are likely to score high.

[autarkh]

I think there might be correlation, but it probably has more to do with the effort one puts forth on the two tests and the correlation between that.

If you put forth effort on the ACT/SAT you are likely to score high. If you put forth effort back then, you are more likely to put forth effort on subsequent tests (i.e. LSAT). If you put forth effort on the LSAT you are likely to score high.

That makes sense. The correlation has something to do with the effort devoted to prep in each case rather than what the test themselves supposedly measure.

[d34d9823]

Yeah, the ACT is very goofy. I took both the ACT and the SAT, and the SAT was way closer to the LSAT. The ACT expects you to know random stuff about science and history and stuff. Still very doable if you've had a decent education, but not really as aptitude oriented.

I think DF's post makes sense taken in context. It all depends on where you set the bar for "intelligent." People who consistently get 177+ don't really consider the 168-172 crown that intelligent. Sorry, guys.

On the other hand, I'm sure they think the people scoring 158-160 aren't very bright.

[fenway]

as BBT said, "sh*t in one hand, wish in the other...then see which one fills up first"

if you did not score perfect on the college entrance exam, what would lead you to believe you'd have a better chance of doing so on the law school exam? You are going from a comparably weak intelligence base across a distribution of students who for the most part do not study to more often than not the top performers at the undergraduate level of which almost all spend considerable amounts of time preparing. If you are talking about setting a mark, you should hope at best to reach the same percentile mark as you did on the SAT/ACT---you'd be doing great. (I started off 72 percentile points below my SAT)

[bk1]

as BBT said, "sh*t in one hand, wish in the other...then see which one fills up first"

if you did not score perfect on the college entrance exam, what would lead you to believe you'd have a better chance of doing so on the law school exam? You are going from a comparably weak intelligence base across a distribution of students who for the most part do not study to more often than not the top performers at the undergraduate level of which almost all spend considerable amounts of time preparing. If you are talking about setting a mark, you should hope at best to reach the same percentile mark as you did on the SAT/ACT---you'd be doing great. (I started off 72 percentile points below my SAT)

While I agree that people who work at the LSAT are often top performers... someone has to be getting those 120 scores.

[fenway]

as BBT said, "sh*t in one hand, wish in the other...then see which one fills up first"

if you did not score perfect on the college entrance exam, what would lead you to believe you'd have a better chance of doing so on the law school exam? You are going from a comparably weak intelligence base across a distribution of students who for the most part do not study to more often than not the top performers at the undergraduate level of which almost all spend considerable amounts of time preparing. If you are talking about setting a mark, you should hope at best to reach the same percentile mark as you did on the SAT/ACT---you'd be doing great. (I started off 72 percentile points below my SAT)

While I agree that people who work at the LSAT are often top performers... someone has to be getting those 120 scores.

*the single most valuable statement on TLS in terms of perspective

"But it couldn't be me! I'm smart! Mom told me so..."

[005618502]

That's funny.. could have sworn the LSAT doesn't have a math or science section. In other words, ACT =/= intelligence test, rather aptitude test for a broad liberal arts education.

Neither is the LSAT. It's a rough guess. I was just making sure he wasn't retarded. I can't figure out how intelligent people get more than 10 questions wrong on the LSAT.

And I can't figure out how intelligent people get below a 3.5 in undergrad....... especially a 3.0

[09042014]

That's funny.. could have sworn the LSAT doesn't have a math or science section. In other words, ACT =/= intelligence test, rather aptitude test for a broad liberal arts education.

Neither is the LSAT. It's a rough guess. I was just making sure he wasn't retarded. I can't figure out how intelligent people get more than 10 questions wrong on the LSAT.

And I can't figure out how intelligent people get below a 3.5 in undergrad....... especially a 3.0

By slacking off. It's pretty easy actually. EE isn't exactly as rigorous as Government Studies, but it's kinda hard.

What's your excuse for 168? I couldn't get that if I got drunk before.

[bk1]

And I can't figure out how intelligent people get below a 3.5 in undergrad....... especially a 3.0

[bk1]

By slacking off. It's pretty easy actually.

What's your excuse for 168? I couldn't get that if I got drunk before.

DF = Awesome

[005618502]

Even slacking off.... I can not study for tests/not go to class and get a B

Its incredible you can imply that someone is not intelligent if they miss more then 10 on an LSAT. Especially when i know people missing 10-15 and going to Harvard, Standford, Columbia, etc

[005618502]

Hahaha a 168 getting drunk before? I can barely get into the 170's on a good day. But with a 4.0 ill still end up at a T10 hopefully

[bk1]

Even slacking off.... I can not study for tests/not go to class and get a B

And a B average is a 3.0...

[005618502]

Even slacking off.... I can not study for tests/not go to class and get a B

And a B average is a 3.0...

Yes and his GPA is below a 3.0...... Thank you for restating my point?

I just dont understand how someone can straight up call 98% of LSAT test makers unintelligent while not having the best academic record themselves.

[09042014]

Even slacking off.... I can not study for tests/not go to class and get a B

Its incredible you can imply that someone is not intelligent if they miss more then 10 on an LSAT. Especially when i know people missing 10-15 and going to Harvard, Standford, Columbia, etc

Yea you majored in social studies of course you can do that, guess what, I didn't study or go to class and got an A in my single poli sci course. Differential equations doesn't quite work like that.

I was a lazy piece of shit, but you can cure that. Can't cure averageness.

[T14_Scholly]

What a boring argument.

[005618502]

haha i started as a Biochem major......

For 2 years took nothing but chemistry/ochem/biology/natural science classes and still have a 4.0.

But i guess science classes are just as easy as government classes? nothing can be as difficult as EE i guess, even though i feel like Ochem and Calc are relatively difficult

[005618502]

Do agree on the boring part. But if there was something more fun to talk about i would definitly be doing it :p

[bk1]

Yes and his GPA is below a 3.0...... Thank you for restating my point?

I just dont understand how someone can straight up call 98% of LSAT test makers unintelligent while not having the best academic record themselves.

Even if it is easy to get a B without class or studying, it is unlikely that you could guarantee this in every single class (especially if a B- is a 2.7 which means you need to be scoring at least an 83/84 in every class). Thus while you would likely get close to a 3.0 but not hit it (statistically speaking). On top of that, even though I know nothing of the EE major, I'm pretty sure that you can't get a B without at least knowing the material (which means either studying or going to class).

haha i started as a Biochem major......

For 2 years took nothing but chemistry/ochem/biology/natural science classes and still have a 4.0.

But i guess science classes are just as easy as government classes? nothing can be as difficult as EE i guess, even though i feel like Ochem and Calc are relatively difficult

That's not the point. If you didn't study or attend class at all, would you have gotten even a 3.0?

EDIT: Anyways this argument is completely irrelevant.

[09042014]

haha i started as a Biochem major......

For 2 years took nothing but chemistry/ochem/biology/natural science classes and still have a 4.0.

But i guess science classes are just as easy as government classes? nothing can be as difficult as EE i guess, even though i feel like Ochem and Calc are relatively difficult

So then you know exactly what I'm talking about even if you won't admit it. No way could you skip orgo and not study and pull a B.

So lets reiterate my point, if you are so smart how the fuck are you getting the LSAT questions wrong? I'm serious. The logic involved it extremely simple, linear, and straightforward. The reading level is below college. What gives?

[005618502]

Honestly im terrible at RC i usually get perfect on games, MAYBE miss 2-4 on LR altogether and then minus 8-10 on RC

Ive worked hard to improve RC but i cant seem to get it.

But yes some of those classes were a bitch, but the hardest class i have taken was a public policy class, or a constitution class. Much depends on the professor