<p>I was just curious if there was a correlation between how successful one can be IN law school and what they got on the LSAT. I just wonder if the type of test the LSAT is really relates to what or how you learn to become a lawyer. Is there much difference between a 172 and a 178 at YLS? What determines who comes out on top?
Also, would it be wise for a 172 to attend a law school with a median of 165? Would that guarantee (I know nothing is a guarantee but still) the 172 a top ranking and therefore a better chance of getting a job at a top law firm?
Probably an obvious answer but I thought I'd ask anyway to get your prospective.</p>
<p>The material is just about the same regardless of where you go, your score essentially gets your foot in the door. Harder workers will always come out on top, regardless of the initial score, i doubt there are many natrual gunises attending law schools who never have to pop open a book and make the top 5% of the class. </p>
<p>A 172 going to a school suited for 165 with the notion of ranking higher is inaccurate as various other factors will come into consideration when it comes to performance, one should utilize the score to just choose the most appropriate law school for themselves. </p>
<p>The same way the SAT score only guides you into college and leaves some schools out of reach , it doesnt necessarrly state that a perfect score gurantees you an easy 4.0. </p>
<p>Work ethic, ability to understand the material, and the professor will ultimatley play a bigger role.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is there much difference between a 172 and a 178 at YLS?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>in terms of what? gpa's and class rank are not calculated at YLS. <a href="http://www.law.yale.edu/academics/jdgrades.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.yale.edu/academics/jdgrades.asp</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Harder workers will always come out on top, regardless of the initial score.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that LSAT scores get you in the door but are probably a poor predictor of success in law school, as there are so many other factors that can determine one's fate.</p>
<p>While it is certainly true that one is unlikely to do well in law school without cracking the books, it is far from true that those who put in the most hours studying/reading/speaking to professors/outlining courses/briefing cases will necessarily have the best grades in law school. There is a lot of work that must be done by anyone to learn the volumes of information that one must know to get by, but among the students who have done this work (which, at at top law school, would probably be every last one of them), it is the ones who really "get it" and who can see the bigger picture who often do best, particularly in upper level classes where long, long research papers are required or where there are 24-hour take home tests. Usually, simply regurgitating everything you know on a law school exam will get you a decent grade but not the highest grades.</p>
<p>A professor explained to me that the LSAT was a good predictor of who would finish law school and not necessarily how well they would do. Very few students have the natural ability to score in the upper 160's-170's without much hard work. The students who score in the upper ranges generally have put a lot of time and effort into their preparation to be able to achieve those scores. According to my professor, these students tend to complete law school at a higher rate and like anything, law schools want to keep their students enrolled and have them hopefully give back down the road.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that LSAT score correlates with success as a lawyer...and, of course, we all have a different idea as to what constitutes success.</p>
<p>But the LSAT really does do a good job in predicting success in law school. Some of you may be aware that last year Harvard awarded a summa. Now, at Harvard Law School, years can go by without anyone getting a summa. My understanding is that this particular summa was the first in seven years. The person in question was also Editor in Chief of the Law Review...and on the winning moot court team. His LSAT score? 180. </p>
<p>Among my kid's friends, the one with the lowest gpa who went to Harvard Law had a 178 LSAT. He graduated magna---believe me, that's impressive. He did NOT graduate magna from college. </p>
<p>I'll disagree with the other posters here. It really is NOT about hard work.I'm not saying that given equal aptitude, hard work won't matter. But I assure you that I know smart people who graduated cum laude from Harvard Law--which is based on a cut off, but one that about one-third of the class meets--who studied fewer than 10 hours a week. </p>
<p>I also know people who studied CONSTANTLY who did not. </p>
<p>Again, I'm not saying you won't do better in law school if you work hard. You will. But the person who scores above 175 who has NOT taken a prep course and/or spent more than 10 hours studying, will do quite well in law school..and..sad to say, better than the kid who scored a 162 who studies 24/7.</p>
<p>There is a REASON why law schools weigh LSAT scores so heavily in admissions.</p>
<p>jonri,</p>
<p>People like that aren't enough to say that there is a correlation. It's not a representative random sample at all.</p>
<p>Ari--
There are studies that do show a correlation. That's why law schools weigh the LSAT so heavily.</p>
<p>Oh, I know that a correlation exists, but I've never seen a demonstrated significance value (a t-test for example) done to show that the data is significant. Even so, the r^2 value I've seen demonstrated is never remarkably high anyway. </p>
<p>So while a correlation exists, I have yet to see it demonstrated that it's truly meaningful in a statistical way.</p>
<p>As a lawyer, I'm going to jump in here. As much as I believe SAT scores do not provide an absolute indicator of success in college, I think that the LSAT, just because of the way it is designed, does. I also agree that success in law school does not necessarily equate with success as a lawyer.</p>
<p>I was one of those students who did not spend a lot of time in the law school library and on at least once did not buy the book (and came in second in the course). I did well and passed the bar on the first go. But I also worked during law school, and found, as a lawyer, that my success as a lawyer came from the skills that I learned not only in law school, but in life skills as well, particularly from working menial jobs. Part of being a lawyer is speaking with clients or speaking to juries. You never want to sound like you're speaking down to a client or a jury. It is a real turn off. Plus, you need basic, practical good sense. While law school gives you the thinking skills, it gives you little practical skills.</p>
<p>Thanks for the comments here - I think UCLA answered briefly what I was going for. I wanted to know if the design (types of questions etc.) of the LSAT predicted success. I know with the MCATs they are very specific about what you learned in science but the LSAT are not. You can't take classes in college that will prepare you for the LSATs like the MCATs.
It's funny that UCLA brought this up about life skills. Some of the smartest people I know have zero common sense or cannot relate to normal people in a conversation.
Once again, thanks for the responses.</p>
<p>I agree with jonri that the people who get the highest grades at Harvard Law are generally those with a natural gift, as opposed to those that work the hardest. When you start with a group of smart, hard-working people, like the HLS class, it takes extraordinary talent to be a star.</p>
<p>But I don't have any data about whether those talented stars did especially well on the LSAT relative to their classmates.</p>
<p>In 2002, LSAC asked each law school to calculate their own R's separately. They were all positive, but ranged from .02 to .6, with a median of .39. Remember, of course, that you'd have to square this in order to get your "explanatory" percentage. (e.g., "16% of the variation in law school grades is explained by/could be predicted if you knew LSAT scores.")</p>
<p>This is a preposterously low correlation at the low end (.04%) but actually quite a reasonable one at the high end (36%).</p>
<p>No significance tests were performed.</p>
<p>Adding UGPA into the calculation altered the range of correlations into .23 to .66, with a median of .5. This is a huge alteration at the low end (.02 to .23) but a very minimal alteration at the high end (.6 to .66).</p>
<p>Ranges and medians were given, but quartiles and the mean were not.</p>
<p>This tells you very little. It could tell you any of a number of contradictory things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, would it be wise for a 172 to attend a law school with a median of 165? Would that guarantee (I know nothing is a guarantee but still) the 172 a top ranking and therefore a better chance of getting a job at a top law firm?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As you say, nothing is guaranteed. But in any event, if you enter law school feeling that you need to be a top student, you are in for a lot of stress and aggravation. Because law school is quite competitive and you will be competing with people who are not idiots, even if they are not as smart as you.</p>
<p>(As an example, my buddy who got a 165 on his LSAT went to a tier 5 law school and ended up number 3 in his class. But he had to work his *ss off. He also told me that it was not uncommon for other students to have themselves declared "disabled" so they could get extra time on tests. Something like half the kids on law review were "disabled.")</p>
<p>If your goal is to land a job at BIG(f?)LAW, I think your best bet is to go to the most prestigious school you can get into. For example, I would imagine that at a top 5 school, 95% of the class can get BIG(f?)LAW jobs if they want them. At such a school, you don't need to obsess about your grades the same way.</p>
<p>my guess is that lsat score would correlate to law school performance if there were a bigger range of lsat scores at any given school. if a class were made up of 50 kids who got 150s and 50 kids who got 180s, i think we'd all agree which group would have the better average performance.</p>
<p>but at my school, about half the kids in my class scored within a 2-point spread. A variation like that (made even more variable by the fact that we took the LSAT on different dates) can easily be made up for by work ethic, blind luck, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No significance tests were performed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Statistically speaking then, the R scores are essentially impossible to trust.</p>
<p>If we don't know the degrees of freedom of the median, we know nothing.</p>