<p>Just out of curiosity...I've looked at a few LSAT questions, the reading ones with the multiple choice, and they remind me of the critical reading on the SAT. This is probably a far stretch but, if someone did extremely well on her SATs and on standardized tests in general, and put the same amount of effort and hard work into studying for the LSAT, is it likely that she would do well on it since they require a similar use of logic, reading and writing skills?</p>
<p>Hard work is the most important determinant of your LSAT score, they can be mastered if you are willing to put the time in. But if you're looking for some proof of correlation between LSAT and SAT I don't know of any scientific evidence.</p>
<p>However, a few threads back there was a formula that was used to help predict LSAT ranges through your performance on the SAT.</p>
<p>Really? Do you know what the topic was called?</p>
<p>Here it is:</p>
<p>LSAT = SAT (out of 1600)/20.7+100.7</p>
<p>I disagree with it though.</p>
<p>That's weird. Then even if you put in a 1600 the highest that would come out is a 178 not a 180.</p>
<p>Cool! I get a 176 if I use that formula.</p>
<p>I would assume that there is a correlation simply because ppl who do well on the SATs generally are good at taking tests and other such factors.</p>
<p>lmao, this formula is baseless, it all depends if u studied for either test. I didnt study for the SAT and i got a 1180 out of 1600 but i plan on studying crazy for the LSAT's</p>
<p>Well, I just want to tell a story. Someone got 1120/1600 on SAT a few years ago, graduated from a state college two years ago, and started law school recently. She always put ample effort preparing for exams (including regular course work, SAT and LSAT). She GPA was fine. </p>
<p>After intensely self studied for months, she took LSAT test and got 148. The law school she was shooting for only asked 150 from her since she was legacy (150/155 for 25th/75th for that law school). Her parents hired a private tutor for her. After three months of private tutoring, she took the test again and earned 147. Well, the tutor continued working with her for a few more months and she took the test for the third time. But this time she earned what she needed 150 and was admitted.</p>
<p>1.) When people say the LSAT is "extremely studyable", that's a pretty ambiguous thing to say.</p>
<p>(A) It is true that the LSAT is counterintuitive for some people who won't find it truly difficult. As such, you can often improve considerably with a little bit of studying.</p>
<p>(B) It is not true that anybody can score really well given enough study time -- people hit their own internal limits when it comes to standardized testing, and telling them to just study really hard and ace the thing is a little insulting.</p>
<p>2.)
(A)The formula actually works pretty well, although it's never been validated widely, only verified with anecdotal data. Still, over the years I've seen a LOT of anecdotal data, and it works surprisingly well. There are a few outliers, of course, and of course you have to allow a small window either way.</p>
<p>(B) The formula doesn't add all the way up to 180, and bluntly you should be suspicious of any formula that did. 180s are much rarer than 1600s, so it makes sense that a 1600 doesn't "predict" a 180.</p>
<p>(C) The rumor I've seen around the boards is that the formula works if you don't study at all for the SAT number and do study for the LSAT number. I'm not totally convinced of this, but that's the popular consensus and my disagreement isn't very strong in any case. (I think it works just fine for people who studied some for the SAT.)</p>
<p>(D) This particular formula's never been statistically validated, but an overall correlation has. Standardized testing in general involves a specific set of skills that are generally pretty transferable -- from tests as diverse as the MCAT, the SAT, the the LSAT, etc., the correlations are strong. Not perfect, obviously, and there will be exceptions, but relatively strong.</p>
<p>concord, neither of the tests is really about studying... studying helps you cut down the time it takes you to finish a section and gets you used to the test</p>
<p>well, I got a 1360/1600 on the SAT's, but I only took it once and spent a couple weeks studying (by taking practice tests from a book). the formula predicts I'll get a 166...decent, but like any other hopelessly naive pre-law, i'm hoping for a 170 :) do you guys think it's better to:</p>
<p>A) start preparing maybe 4-6 months before the test so you can reach your "peak" by test time, or</p>
<p>B) practice for a year in advance, so by the time the test rolls around, you have a ton of practice and experience with all of the logic game/CR/reasoning type questions</p>
<p>I would think of the LSAT as a teachable skill and your SAT score as a measure of your capacity to learn. The statistical scatter in the data if anyone were to do the study is created by people not preparing for the LSAT thereby producing lower scores than predicted or having taken the SAT after a poor quality HS experience in which case the LSAT score could be higher than predicted. The scatter would be less if everyone prepared the same for the SAT and the LSAT.</p>
<p>mardad, so if someone really put in alot of effort into Lsat then it is possible to get 175. and above? from what I see the Sat isnt like that For SAT, you just have to be natually smart to hit 750 and above. No studing will get your SAT score above that,maybe for math but not for verbal.</p>
<p>No, that's definitely not the case. It is not true that anybody can score really well given enough study time -- people hit their own internal limits when it comes to standardized testing, and telling them to just study really hard and ace the thing is a little insulting.</p>