<p>Yipes. Everything about law school is sounding scarier and scarier – from getting into a decent law school to getting a decent job after graduation. I’m thinking of having DS read these terrifying threads!</p>
<p>Look, it’s just not realistic to suggest that everybody can study hard enough to get a 175. For one thing it’s a little bit insulting to the remaining 99.7 (or whatever) percent of testtakers, to say that they simply didn’t study hard enough. For another it would completely shoot a hole in law school admissions if the top schools were filled with kids who weren’t all that bright but set aside years to study for the LSAT. (And I can promise you those are NOT my classmates.)</p>
<p>People have a natural ceiling for the LSAT – like they do for almost anything except the very most complex of endeavors. The LSAT just isn’t that complex. Eventually you reach a point where either you can improve or you can’t.</p>
<p>I’m wondering what the correlation, if any, is between SAT scores and LSAT scores. It would be helpful if those who have shared their LSATs here would also share their SAT scores by section.</p>
<p>Back when I was in college, and the SAT had only two sections (and hadn’t been recentered), it was said that a predicted LSAT score was (2V+M) /3=LSAT. I never took the LSAT, but I have the vague impression that the LSAT was then scored on an 800-point scale also.</p>
<p>The rule of thumb is that [(M+V)/21 + 100] will roughly give you an LSAT score, plus or minus a few. The problem, of course, being that “plus or minus a few” is absolutely huge on the LSAT.</p>
<p>It’s true that the numbers determine a great deal, but people should be aware of the fairly significant chunk of applications that are evaluated by a committee at many law schools. These are applicants who are neither easily admitted nor rejected based on a quick look at their stats. Some law schools stop there, but many still have a holistic evaluation process that is not fully obvious to those on the outside.</p>
<p>In my experience, these applicants that “go to committee” tend to fall within a pretty narrow range of scores and GPA’s, so the ONLY way to make a decision is to factor in many of the things discussed above: work or volunteer experience, difficulty of major, difficulty of undergrad college, interest in a specialty that matches the law schools’, or a match in values/image of the law school.</p>
<p>For example, on difficulty of undergrad, the LSAC report allows one to benchmark an applicant’s GPA in various ways. Sometimes I would look at what percentage of the students at the college who took the LSAT scored in the top 10%. If the number was low, I’d figure the school was less competitive, so it would be easier to earn a 3.9. If a high number of peers at the college scored very high on the LSAT, I could conclude someone had to work very hard to earn a 3.6. That allowed me to decide how valuable the GPA was in the overall application - a way to compare apples to oranges. I would read the transcript in detail. Many law school applicants are those who tried and failed at pre-med classes, so I tried not to hold a freshman chemistry grade against someone who figured out a better path for himself.</p>
<p>Quality of writing mattered to me, so I would read the personal statement carefully, and sometimes read the LSAT writing sample. I cared whether the student seemed to have a reason for wanting to go to law school, and this particular law school. Personality mattered to me: I readily rejected more than a few applicants who sounded arrogant or entitled or otherwise really jerky in their personal statements. I wanted to admit people I would be happy to teach!</p>
<p>The committee typically looks carefully at recommendations. If the applicant is a current or recent student, she should submit at least 2 ref’s from professors who can say something specific about her. A letter from the cafeteria supervisor where she did work-study just doesn’t help much when evaluating someone’s potential to succeed in an academically rigorous program. Poor choice of references has doubtless doomed many an applicant.</p>
<p>In a typical committee process, this subjective evaluation is done by multiple people who then must agree on an outcome. So the value of various softs can vary in the eyes of each committee member. I hope this helps people understand a bit more about what goes on behind the curtain.</p>
<p>Fauxnom, I can only comment on my son’s experience.</p>
<p>He scored a 146, which was his best score after three tries. Yes, he did take a review course and spent many months practicing the Testmaster Bibles. It just didn’t work well for him.</p>
<p>He applied to schools that had median LSAts of no more than 154 and usually less. He usually applied to schools whose bottom 25% was no more than 151 and was in most cases less than 151. His GPA was 3.1 in accounting. In fact, some schools had bottom LSATs for accepted applicants of under 150.</p>
<p>As for soft factors, he had his CPA, with good scores, his CFP, he got a director’s award from two government agencies where he worked and got fabulous recommendations. In addition, despite being in the bottom 25% of his GMATs, he graduated with a masters in fiancial planning/tax as valedictorian. He was also the founder and COO of a fraternity that he started and still exists today and was captain of an athletic team in college. He also had a great, well-written personal statement. If you were to interview him, I guarantee he would impress you.</p>
<p>Despite all this, the only law school to admit him was Florida Coastal. Most of the others completely ignored his soft factors and rejected him. So far, one school waitlisted him and two offered the Alternative Admission program (AAMPLE),which required him to pass summer courses that are graded very ruthlessly and have a 30% pass rate. Moreover, the schools that offered him AAMPLE had bottom 25% LSATs within 2 points of his scores. </p>
<p>I can say that for most of the schools that he applied to, he was within 4 points or less of their bottom 25% and was within 7 points or less of their median LSAT. I didn’t see one school or admission committee that bumped him up because of his soft factors, which I thought were tremendously good soft factors.</p>
<p>Bottom Line: Even strong soft factors only matter in the margins for admission. A student must have the LSAt/GPA to get them in anyway. The soft factors will only be used holistically if there are two similar candidates. That said, however, I would bet that regardless of the soft factors ( absent extraordinary factors such as Nobel prizes), a law school wlll take a candidate who has even 2 points more on the LSAT ( assuming same GPA) over another candidate with stronger soft factors and experience.</p>
<p>So I’m curious: where do you think a kid with a gpa in the 3.0-3.5 range from a top 10 undergrad and an LSAT of 173+ could get in?</p>
<p>You should search by typing in “Law school predictor 2011.” This will give you a great indication. For example, a 3.3 and 173 on the LSAt will make him competitive for Penn and Michigan, Cornell , UCLA, Texas and Vanderbilt, Notre Dame among others.</p>
<p>Higher GPA and/or LSAT would make him competive everywhere except for Harvard, Yale and Stanford.</p>
<p>taxguy – Given the lousy current job market for law school grads, I’m starting to wonder whether it’s even worth it to put oneself through all that grief, jump through all those hoops, etc. etc. etc. My older son (who will enter college in the fall) hopes to become a lawyer, but I honestly wonder whether it’s worth it. All that anguish and agony, all that test prep, all those “soft factors” that end up counting for so little, even though one has put heart and soul into them – is it worth it? I’m not sure. Your thoughts?</p>
<p>There must be a better way!</p>
<p>Surely there is some field out there with job openings for non-engineers…? Not everyone is a math/science wonk.</p>
<p>LadyDiana: accounting is always a strong major. Get a job with a Big 4 firm right out of undergrad and you’re set. Even if you get pushed out after two years, every corporation will look favorably upon those people because they have the Big 4 halo.</p>
<p>Well, there’s no sense worrying about it quite yet. If you know that soft factors aren’t that big a deal there’s no need to quite drive yourself crazy with them, and there’s no required classwork for law school. So be the best college student you can be for the next few years, and then try your hand at the LSAT and see how it goes. Don’t pour six months of your life into it if it doesn’t seem like it’s going very well.</p>
<p>[Law</a> School Probability Calculator](<a href=“http://www.hourumd.com/]Law”>http://www.hourumd.com/)</p>
<p>The very fact that they can have LS admission probability calculators like this that have high predictive value is indicative of the importance of LSAT and GPA.</p>
<p>I agree with @flashes that @taxguy’s kid might be better off pursuing an accounting career as opposed to law. Paying 150k for Florida Coastal may not be worth it, especially if he can’t perform in the top 10%+. Taxguy’s great softs would also probably help him more in accounting assuming he made some good connections while doing those softs.</p>
<p>@bluedevilmike</p>
<p>The bottom 99.7% that didn’t score 175+ weren’t necessarily lazy or didn’t try hard enough, I just don’t think most of them studied the right way. As i’ve said before, plateaus are usually overcome by rethinking one’s strategy or making a new approach to a problem. If one doesn’t have access to people around them to encourage them and give them new ways to tackle the LSAT, then how would they know to try certain techniques that would get them over plateaus? The alternative to knowing people is to take a class or tutoring, but that’s expensive. The only reason I figured out ways to conquer my plateaus was because of my relative and by going on LSAT forums a lot.</p>
<p>I think it is even more insulting to the bottom 99.7 to say that they are just not intrinsically smart enough. You are saying that there are people physically incapable of 175+ and that others are simply insurmountably better. Thats more insulting than saying that they didn’t study the right way.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you have yet to make one reasonable claim about why there would be a natural ceiling. You haven’t proven that the law of diminishing returns applies here or provided a counter to my exceptions to your rule (people who have defeated plateaus to gain 20+ points).</p>
<p>Thank you <em>so</em> much for making this thread. It is a wonderful source of information.</p>
<p>How early would you recommend I start prepping LSAT? </p>
<p>I’m currently a high school senior, and I’m expecting a very busy undergrad experience ahead of me. Originally, I considered/planned beginning at least basic LSAT preparation this summer, but the opinions on the TLS forums were nearly unanimously negative. :P</p>
<p>With all due respect to taxguy, I am not prepared to draw broad conclusions on the law school admissions process based solely on the experience of his son. A 146 on the LSAT is a very, very low score – so low that even top grades (which taxguy’s son did not have) cannot be expected to make up for it. </p>
<p>Look at it this way: how many college options are available to a high school student with a C+/B- average and a combined 800 on the SAT? Not too many.</p>
<p>Hi Consolation,</p>
<p>There is a wide range of schools between a student that has a 3.0/173 and a 3.5/173 from a top 10 school. A 3.5/173 will land him in the T-14 from Penn down with a good outside chance at CCN. A 3.0/173 could land him at Cornell, Georgetown, Duke if he applies very early in the cycle and perhaps some scholarship money further down. sent you a pm</p>
<p>We can certainly go back and forth on this repeatedly. I’ll simply say: (1) The top law schools are not filled with people who spent years studying for the LSAT. (2) Folks who do poorly (e.g. taxguy’s son) are not “studying poorly” and they’re certainly not “not studying hard enough.” Nor are they stupid, since standardized testing aptitude is not the same thing as general intelligence (whatever that is). But standardized testing requires a certain set of skills, some of which are obtainable and some of which are innate. (3) The law of diminishing marginal returns applies to everything, although there are some fields where it stretches over years (e.g. surgery). The LSAT is a much simpler game than surgery, and accordingly takes less time to max out. (4) I don’t know anything about your anecdotes and thus can’t speak intelligently on them, except to remind you that there’s always going to be outliers and anomalies, especially since the LSAT includes such a high element of luck.</p>
<p>You can’t study your way into a 175. If you could, the LSAT would rapidly become meaningless.</p>
<p>I just want to make it clear that my question regarding a kid with certain stats is purely speculative. At some point in the distant past my kid mentioned the possibility of law school. Now he’s talking about something else. I actually have no idea what his GPA is, so I’m guessing. And I’m basing his likely LSAT score on his SATs. (Actually, I think he would probably do even better on the LSATs since it sounds like his kind of thing, and he got an 800 on the CR both times he took it without ever taking a prep course or doing any visible prep. And if he wants to go to law school, it will be a lucky thing for him if he does do his usual thing and hit the standardized test out of the park, since I’m quite sure his GPA isn’t 3.8+ 
)</p>
<p>The only way something can be truly innate is if we are somehow biologically predisposed or limited in some way. Everything else is learned. Unless you are saying that some people are born with a gene that allows them to score 175+, I don’t see how someone’s score is a reflection of their innate ability. Some people might have biological qualities that give them disadvantages (their fight or flight response is extreme, which interferes with their ability to think clearly), but such disadvantages can be largely overcome with the right practice. Brain plasticity allows us to change and shape our brains in amazing ways. Successful LSAT practice, in a way, is successful precisely because it changes your thinking and thought processes.</p>
<p>I think we can agree to disagree and I concede that you make some strong points. The top law schools, for example, are largely filled with people who are naturally good at taking the LSAT. That said, I believe that the few outliers that studied their way into Harvard provide evidence that the potential for immense improvement is there, even if it is very difficult and unlikely. It seems that our disagreement is mainly over modality; you believe improvement into the 175+ is impossible for all but a few who have innate abilities, I believe that improvement into 175+ is extremely difficult and requires a number of factors falling into place during studying and is affected by biological factors, but is nevertheless possible. In essence, our disagreement is not that extreme.</p>
<p>taxguy - your son sounds like he has terrific “softs” and that he did his homework about where to apply. But I think many applicants run into the problem of thinking they have a reasonable chance if their scores are only a couple points below a certain level. The significance of a couple points on the LSAT is pretty big - on some charts I looked at, the difference between a 145 and 155 was around 40 percentage points. A couple points can be around 6-8% difference. </p>
<p>Clearly, many (maybe all?) law schools will have a presumptive cutoff that rules out applicants who score below a certain percentile nationally. The cutoff will vary depending on the selectivity of the school. If you miss that cut, your great softs probably won’t get much of a look. If you fall above the cut, that’s when the softs do come into play.</p>
<p>I agree that someone like him might do a bit better in admissions if he worked as an accountant for awhile. But he would still be hampered by the lsat performance, just not as much. The world actually needs more lawyers who understand finance!</p>