<p>To repeat my earlier post, what you guys are saying is borne out by the average scores. The average score of LSAT-takers at Harvard (actual test, not diagnostics) is 166. There just cannot be a direct correlation between the scores. It is probably true that if you score 170 on the LSAT, you probably did not score 590 on the verbal SAT. But the law forums are filled with students who can't understand why they got aced Swarthmore, but can't get beyond 159 on the LSAT.</p>
<p>Just forget about it. Prep for the LSAT as much as you can, keep your gpa up in undergrad, and then it is what it is.</p>
<p>I agree with the other advice given - prepare as you find neccesary for the LSAT.</p>
<p>For me, standardized testing is one of my stong points - so both the LSAT and SAT were easier than others made them sound. I feel like if you are strong at the SAT, your general test-taking skills will guarantee you a couple extra points on the LSAT - from knowing things like how to eliminate answer choices, budget your time, etc.</p>
<p>However, the LSAT requires you to bring in no outside information, unlike the SAT, which require(d), (old system), vocab and math skills (not that much math though....lol).</p>
<p>A fairly good understanding of English is all that is needed to take the test. A fairly good understanding of the test itself is all that is needed to nail the test - ie, do a bunch of practice tests.</p>
<p>"However, the LSAT requires you to bring in no outside information, unlike the SAT, which require(d), (old system), vocab and math skills (not that much math though....lol)."</p>
<p>Having said that...you should definitely plan on increasing your vocabulary. If your vocabulary is limited, it will slow you down and even throw you off--which will result in losing times and points. You should also be familiar with formal logic--especially conditionals. </p>
<p>Like many said, prepare as you need to--but keep in mind that if you are not willing to put the effort into preparing for the LSAT, well, unfortunately law may not be for you (especially if you end up working in corporate law, where your whole day will be full of work--not necessarily glamorous).</p>
<p>First of all, the LSAT has less vocab and math than the SAT. It requires almost no outside knowledge. Mostly, any vocab that a reasonably articulate fifth-grader could not understand will not be tested. ;) Okay, slight exaggeration - reasonably articulate seventh-grader. If you see something weird, skip it - you aren't being tested on your knowledge of it. (Consider that in law school, no one is expected to know what "certiorari" means - most big vocab will be found in your copy of Black's Law Dictionary.)</p>
<p>Second, LSAC encourages you to prepare for the LSAT. Some of this is because it better mimics law school - one high-stakes test that you have about three months to prep for. </p>
<p>Third, the formal logic is limited to contrapositives and conditionals. Most of it is pretty sensible. ;) A full logic course would be helpful but overkill - although actual results will vary.</p>
<p>The person who said the average LSAT score at Harvard is 166 is blatantly wrong. </p>
<p>In the last admissions cycle, the 25/75 quartiles were 170 and 176 respectively.</p>
<p>About 3 years the 25/75 percentiles were about 169-174.</p>
<p>A 166 median score would be closer to the average at a law school at the bottom of the top 14.</p>
<p>And the strength of the correlations I listed make no sense without reference to the least squares regression line, which for the most part was upward slanted with a 1600 predicting a 176. I can't recall the slope.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the SAT also tests your work ethic too. The 1600's are not necessarily smarter than the 1500's; many such people just care more about scoring higher and devote many hours to preparing for it. Such academic habits stay more or less the same from high school to college, but if you're one of those late bloomers, you'll probably do better percentile wise.</p>
<p>Blaze991 is correct. Likewise, the average LSAT score from Stanford seniors in the class of 2005 who applied to law school was 165.2.</p>
<p>Back in my day, LSAT scores were on a 200-800 scale, and were roughly comparable to SAT scores (somewhat more weighted toward the verbal score).. This was well before they re-centered the SAT in 1995.</p>
<p>The last two digits of today's LSAT score seem like they're roughly comparable to the first two digits of a pre-centered verbal SAT score.</p>
<p>In any event, the LSAT (from whatever era) is pretty heavily "g" loaded, as psychometricians like to say. People who do well on the SAT (which is still quite "g" loaded, but perhaps not as much as it once was) tend to also do well on the GRE, LSAT, or GMAT.</p>
<p>Can someone give me a layman's/dumbed down/common sense definition of "g loaded"? Does it mean a test designed to measure intelligence and general aptitude as opposed to knowledge or a more distinct ability? I notice that Mensa will admit people to their membership - supposed to be confined to the top 2% of intelligence - based on LSAT and SAT scores. I think they base this on thinking that the SAT and LSAT tests are, in fact, intelligence tests.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor</a>
The general intelligence factor (abbreviated g) is a widely accepted but controversial construct used in the field of psychology (see also psychometrics) to quantify what is common to the scores of all intelligence tests. The phrase "g theory" refers to hypotheses and results regarding g's biological nature, stability/malleability, relevance to real-world tasks, and other inquiries.</p>
<p>I know someone who is at Boalt who got a 1370 on his SATs, and a 168 on his LSAT. </p>
<p>Another person who used to be on here (unless he's under a pseudonym) had a 1600 on his SAT and I think 178 on his LSAT.</p>
<p>The correlation may not be strong, but it's somewhat there.</p>
<p>Also, if you did not prep for your SAT (like I didn't) you HAVE to prep for your LSAT. It's much harder, and much more serious in that you can only take it once and the competition is much worse.</p>
<p>1500 is around 99th percentile but for all the people who take the SAT, which includes plenty of people that don't want to but have to in order to go to college.</p>
<p>How many SAT takers are there a year? Around 1.2 million. How many people take the LSAT? Around 125,000 over the last few years (averaged).</p>
<p>So if you are 99th percentile for the SAT you are among 12,000 people. Thats a 1400. If you have a 1600 you are among the 99.9 percentile and that's 1200 people.</p>
<p>If you are 99th percentile for the LSAT you are among 1,250 people. That's a 172. If you get a 180 thats the 99.99 percentile which is like 13 people.</p>
<p>So if one were to guess a correlation between the SAT and LSAT scores, one would assume you would do worst on the LSAT in general because the body of people who take the LSAT are smarter.</p>
<p>First off, the smartest people don't take the LSAT. They go to med school. ;)</p>
<p>Second, do remember that there is a wedding out process that occurs between high school and college. There are people who take the SAT but don't go to college; don't finish college; finish and know that they don't have what it takes to go to grad school; or finish but don't have the motivation for three years of misery. </p>
<p>So you'll get a lot of the bottom part of SAT takers who are knocked out. Over half of them probably never finish college. </p>
<p>Just a thought.</p>
<p>I did not study for the SAT; I walked in, took it cold, and walked out with a near-perfect score. I studied for the LSAT. In retrospect, perhaps I should have studied harder; you really have to up your game when applying to law schools.</p>