Ok, I'll bite. This is of interest to me specifically because I got a 165 on the first practice LSAT I ever took, took probably 10 more over the next two months that ranged from 169-176, and then got a 165 on the real thing. But since everyone is just throwing opinions out there without backing it up, here's some data.
This is from LSAC's site - I'd like to see the data on each individual school:
"The correlation between LSAT scores and first-year law school grades varies from one law school to another (as does the correlation between GPA and first-year law school grades). During 2002, validity studies were conducted for 182 law schools. Correlations between LSAT scores and first-year law school grades ranged from .02 to .60 (median is .39). Correlations between LSAT scores combined with undergraduate grade-point averages and first-year law school grades ranged from .23 to .66 (median is .50).
This is corroborated by Frank Homer at the University of Scranton, who has done a number of LSAT studies:
"The national correlation between LSAT scores and first-year grades tends to be around +0.4. By comparison, the national correlation between undergraduate and law school grades tends to be around +0.25. The correlation for both variables combined is approximately +0.5."
My question is that do these studies use raw grades or class rank? Because obviously with a curve, even 175's at Harvard can get C's. And a 3.3 competing with Penn students beats the hell out of a 3.3 at Widener.
And if you have A LOT of time, this link takes you to a study that showed that LSAT performance was a good predictor for in-class timed exams, but poor for take-home exams and written papers. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=465381
And Lobe, the point domovoy was trying to make was the a review course alone does not a law student make. And for how much is made of the LSAT being "a strong predictor of 1L grades," .39 isn't a very impressive correlation coefficient.
I'm just glad to see some places (Penn with BigTex, Yale with Lexy) are REALLY going over the whole portfolio, not just paying their "not just the numbers" policies lip service.