Practice LSAT score question

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>ok i have never even looked at an LSAT before or studied anything about it (im in high school but am maybe interested in being a lawyer). i just took an online practice test and got 21/25 right on a multiple choice section but i think i would do better on the real one esp. if i practiced plus had 4 more years of education. is this a decent score or hopelessly bad? i know the test is about 100 questions but so i guess that would mean a score of 84/100. i know its just a practice test so its not super accurate but would someone familiar with the LSAT tell me if its a good or bad score and approximately what lsat score range i'd get with this?</p>

<p>thanks</p>

2

<p>There are three different sections on the LSAT. Presumably your 25 questions all came from the same section. The sections diverge wildly and a projection at this point is not workable.</p>

3

<p>well i know that but assuming i did similar on the other sections couldn't you kind of estimate what range i'd get? i dont' know how the scoring works but if im even going to consider trying to get into law school i want to know if i've got any hope. like just say probably Good or probably OK or probably Bad thats all i need to know.</p>

4

<p>This is like asking how good you'd be in a triathlon given that you swim really fast. If you really want to know how you'd do, LSAC has a complete practice exam online.</p>

5

<p>ok</p>

<p>your analogy makes a lot of sense
i guess it is weird because its like asking hey if i got a 770 on SAT writing will i also get a 750 in math. when they don't really have a lot to do with eachother.</p>

6

<p>First you need to take a full-length TIMED REAL LSAT to even estimate your score.</p>

<p>We can't even guess your actual score at all. Chances are the online tests were fake LSAT questions too. You have to take a real, past LSAT.</p>

<p>It's impossible to even guess your score.</p>

<p>However you can estimate your LSAT from your SAT using the following equation:</p>

<p>LSAT = (SAT)/20.7 + 100.7</p>

<p>SAT= Math + Verbal sections (max 1600)</p>

7

<p>Haha its funny, because I found the same one online and got nearly a perfect score my first time looking at it. Trust me, they get much harder and that one they put up online really isn't too concrete a test. But you can get any score you want if you study enough.</p>

8

<p>^I think people peak at a certain max. For example those with diagnostics in the 140s very, very rarely get into the upper 160s. </p>

<p>The LSAT is somewhat of an IQ test , while you can max out your own potential with practice, not everyone can get a 180.</p>

9

<p>well using that LSAT formula based on SAT score it estimates i'd get about 168. thats not good enough, right? however i know i could've done better on SAT i just didn't think it was worth it to take it another time.</p>

10

<p>Depends on where you want to go.</p>

11

<p>bluedevilmike, I'm in basically the same spot as ad.bc. I took the SAT cold with no studying, and using that score, I'd be at a 167. I am a high school senior, so I've got time (lots of it), but would that predicted LSAT score be approximating my max, or is it more a base, meaning I could get 170+ on my LSAT with preparation?</p>

12

<p>So the formula above is an approximation. Usually I say that that formula comes with +/- of about five points, which is an awful lot. I have two theories about how you can go further.</p>

<p>This is an important disclaimer. The formula itself is based on nothing other than anecdotal evidence. It is literally just me asking my friends about how their LSAT and SAT scores compare. It is based on like fifteen data points, which is just pathetic and self-selected. However, it seems to work pretty well.</p>

<p>This is an even more important disclaimer. The two theories which I am about to state are based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Not even anecdotal evidence. So really, really, don't believe this. This is just me theorizing. On top of that, the two theories sometimes even contradict. So really, seriously, don't take this too seriously.</p>

<p>Theory #1: The +/- 5 is determined by your relative studying. If you study equally hard for both tests, you'll end up at about +0. Roughly. If you study much harder for the LSAT, you'll end up at about +4ish. If you studied hard for the SAT and really blew off the LSAT, you'll end up at -4.</p>

<p>I think this theory is false. The most important reason I think it's false is that I see just as many (-)'s as (+)'s according to this formula, and I really don't think very many people study LESS for the LSAT than the SAT. So this formula would normally make a lot of sense, but I think it's wrong.</p>

<p>What it might be, however, is just that it's mis-centered. Maybe equal studying will net you like a -3 or something. That would be a pretty simple correction.</p>

<p>Theory #2 is not mutually exclusive with theory #1. Again, none of this is backed up by any evidence -- not even anecdotal evidence. So please don't take this as gospel. I am saying this over and over again in the hopes that I am being clear.</p>

<p>Theory #2 requires that you take a diagnostic. It is usually most reasonable to expect 10-15 points of improvement from that score. Obviously the higher you start, the less improvement you can expect. (For example, you cannot start off at 174 and expect 10 points of improvement.) But let's start with 10-15 as our estimate. This will give you a five-point range. Our original formula gives you a ten-point estimate.</p>

<p>Let's take a kid who scored a 1560 on the SAT and a 159 on his first diagnostic. We then have two predictions: 171-180, and 169-174. You can see that these two estimates overlap by three points: 171-174. This, then, would be his best estimate. Now pretend that kid got a 1560 on the SAT but a is 151 diagnostic. The ranges no longer overlap: 171-180 and 161-166. You'd still use the SAT-based prediction, but now you'd choose the very tail end of it (that is, the 171.)</p>

<p>I cannot stress enough that this is literally just me sitting around making stuff up. I haven't even checked this anecdotally. But that's my first thought.</p>

13

<p>Ok, that makes sense. I thought your original posted formula was based on a much larger study, but if you say it works pretty well based on your data I'll take your word for it.</p>

<p>So, essentially, considering I would actually study for the LSAT, in addition to some marginal gains I'll make doing college coursework, would you expect a 170-175 to be attainable? As long as I put in the work that is.</p>

14

<p>I'd expect you to fall somewhere in the 163-173 range. At this point I have no way of figuring out where in that range you'd be. One theory depends on a centering data point which I just don't have (if I were to guess, it'd be like a -3) and one theory depends on you taking a diagnostic.</p>

15

<p>Alright. A diagnostic would be an old LSAT, correct? What years are applicable, because I've heard the structure of the test changed recently (within the last 10 years). Is that true?</p>

<p>Ultimately, I'm just trying to establish a plan for my undergrad years. I'm going to have to maximize my LSAT to compensate for the lower GPA I'm expecting.</p>

16

<p>Any test from the past dozen years would be a valid diagnostic test. In terms of major structural changes, with the exception of the addition of a comparative reading section in RC (which I do not consider major at all), none have been made since the early 1990s. However, you should keep in mind that until sometime around 2002-2004, the previously administered LSATs tend to have more complex LG sections. These days, LG usually only has 22 questions and is a little simpler, whereas it seems RC has become a little more difficult to compensate. </p>

<p>Also, if you're just about to start undergrad, for the love of God, don't start worrying about the LSAT right now. Of course, you should aim for the highest score you can get, but your priority should be to make the most of your four years in college. IMHO, if you start to seriously study for the exam more than a year before you take it, then you're going about it the wrong way. And why in the world are you already anticipating a low GPA?</p>

17

<p>lol bluedevilmike...interesting theories.</p>

<p>Now here's my groundless theory on the formula:</p>

<p>It works better when you did NOT study for the SAT but you study at least 3 months for the LSAT. (This was my case and many others that I know. People take the LSAT more seriously, and in general this applies.)</p>

18

<p>Yeah. My "centering" around -3 or so is a less-clear way of saying what BerkeleySenior just said. (If you study the same amount, you should expect to underperform.)</p>

19

<p>crnchycereal, I never said I was starting to prepare now. I'm just gathering some information. I wouldn't actually start studying to my junior year. I'm not someone so obsessed with law school that I would ignore my undergrad years. These are going to be the best and quickest four years of my life. Don't worry, I've got my priorities straight.</p>

<p>Oh, and the GPA comment was just that I would expect a slightly lower GPA than what is the norm at my dream school. I heard those Wharton curves are tough, but I haven't started yet to know for sure.</p>

20

<p>This would work, but I have a question.</p>

<p>Is 150 the median score for everyone who takes the LSAT or is it simply what they think the median would be if all college-bound students took the test. Since I'd imagine that the average SAT for a person who aspires for law school would be higher than 1000- more like 1200.</p>