Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Which is more impressive - a 1600 on the (old) SAT or a 180 on the LSAT

180
 45 (58.4%)
1600
 8 (10.4%)
Equally Impressive
 6 (7.8%)
Who cares?
 18 (23.4%)

Total Members Voted: 55

Author Topic: More impressive...1600 or 180?  (Read 2070 times)

Ivy_Hopeful

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Final UGPA 3.894 / LSAT 141
    • MSN Messenger - dduncan81@msn.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Dduncan81
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - Derryp999
    • View Profile
    • A website that I built and maintain.
Re: More impressive...1600 or 180?
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2005, 07:12:11 PM »
So my SAT of 900 and LSAT of 141 means I am an idiot? If you believe this and also belive that no mitigating factors can exist for doing poorly on either/both then I will not comment on the people that play into this unfair system.

I have done very well in college (3.89+) and finished my degree in approximately 2 years, and yet I have to answer to an exam that places me at the bottom of food chain that governs the majority of an adcom's decision?? I do not mean to vent so much. I will just say that I am not alone in my thinking and I have been a part of LSD since August of 2003. This elitist mindset that has festered over the years here (which I can understand as far as pride is concerned) is very upsetting. Sorry to hyjack the thread I am just disappointed. And before you flame me look at my posts dealing with my score and the reasons, thank you.
Winners: Cooley w/$, UDM
Losers: MSU, DePaul, NYLS, UI, Georegtown, WSU, PSU, Kent, Cleavland State, ASU
In Limbo + Purgatory: N/A

Law School Numbers.com

LSD Debut UGPA 3.651 Final UGPA 3.894 / LSAT October 1st, 2005: 141

Paperback Writer

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7840
    • View Profile
Re: More impressive...1600 or 180?
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2005, 07:16:16 PM »
I don't know, but I think 36DD beats both.


5

  • Guest
Re: More impressive...1600 or 180?
« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2005, 07:26:35 PM »
i heard if you take your verbal score, add a 1 in front of it, and divide by 10 it's a good way of predicting your LSAT score. 

Sort of worked for me:

Verbal= 740
Add 1 in front=1740
divide by 10=174

My LSAT score: 173

I didn't exactly live up to my past, but ah well.

Electric Counterpoint

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Harvard 2010
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More impressive...1600 or 180?
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2005, 07:55:20 PM »
i heard if you take your verbal score, add a 1 in front of it, and divide by 10 it's a good way of predicting your LSAT score. 

Sort of worked for me:

Verbal= 740
Add 1 in front=1740
divide by 10=174

My LSAT score: 173

I didn't exactly live up to my past, but ah well.

I was looking into this recently and blogged about it (link in sig.). From what I found, the composite score is a better predictor than verbal alone, but they're both largely useless.
Former mostly-anonymous admissions cycle blogger. Current law student.

5

  • Guest
Re: More impressive...1600 or 180?
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2005, 07:57:25 PM »
i heard if you take your verbal score, add a 1 in front of it, and divide by 10 it's a good way of predicting your LSAT score. 

Sort of worked for me:

Verbal= 740
Add 1 in front=1740
divide by 10=174

My LSAT score: 173

I didn't exactly live up to my past, but ah well.

I was looking into this recently and blogged about it (link in sig.). From what I found, the composite score is a better predictor than verbal alone, but they're both largely useless.

agreed, i just think it's a fun trick.  and if you did my composite score it would be a 172.  sooo i guess an average of the two?

ehm87

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
  • future sleazy politician
    • View Profile
Re: More impressive...1600 or 180?
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2005, 08:01:22 PM »
So my SAT of 900 and LSAT of 141 means I am an idiot? If you believe this and also belive that no mitigating factors can exist for doing poorly on either/both then I will not comment on the people that play into this unfair system.

I have done very well in college (3.89+) and finished my degree in approximately 2 years, and yet I have to answer to an exam that places me at the bottom of food chain that governs the majority of an adcom's decision?? I do not mean to vent so much. I will just say that I am not alone in my thinking and I have been a part of LSD since August of 2003. This elitist mindset that has festered over the years here (which I can understand as far as pride is concerned) is very upsetting. Sorry to hyjack the thread I am just disappointed. And before you flame me look at my posts dealing with my score and the reasons, thank you.

the lsat is a big part of the law school admission game, whether fair or unfair. i am interested as to what factors mitigate lower scores for some applicants as i've heard this often regarding standardized tests and admit to being unknowledgable in the area.
Accepted: Harvard, Georgetown, Michigan, Berkeley, Virginia, Stanford, NYU, Penn, Cornell, Yale
Rejected:
Waitlisted:

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=ehm87&x=15

jhare

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
    • AOL Instant Messenger - moonmeadowe
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More impressive...1600 or 180?
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2005, 08:09:18 PM »
800
1800
180

I am filthy!

I like to think that those scores mean that I am very good at a certain type of thinking under certain circumstances. Which can be very useful. But low test scores don't mean that a person isn't incredibly good at a different type of thinking under different circumstances. My friends are all over the map in terms of their standardized test scores and their GPAS, but they're all really bright. I don't know how well they'd all do in law school, but then, I don't know how well I will do in law school either.

gosox

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: More impressive...1600 or 180?
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2005, 08:17:27 PM »
you could be an SAT whiz kid and score 1600 consistently.  the LSAT on the other hand, well, unless your name is robert singh...

5

  • Guest
Re: More impressive...1600 or 180?
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2005, 09:04:58 PM »
800
1800
180

I am filthy!

I like to think that those scores mean that I am very good at a certain type of thinking under certain circumstances. Which can be very useful. But low test scores don't mean that a person isn't incredibly good at a different type of thinking under different circumstances. My friends are all over the map in terms of their standardized test scores and their GPAS, but they're all really bright. I don't know how well they'd all do in law school, but then, I don't know how well I will do in law school either.

Yeah.  I get so angry that I can't write snarky comments about the multiple but equally  valid ways of interpreting a question that I forget what I'm doing and score lower.  (Wow, I'm wondering if I should have majored in philosophy.) 

Working until 2 a.m. the night before the LSAT wasn't exactly helpful, either. You know, you're making me want to retake the test, even if my apps are already in.

On a more serious note, I'm told that success in law school has more to do with memory.  If you're good at math, you'll be good at the LSATs, but if you're the kind of person who took the curve in orgo, you'll ace law school.

last time i checked 170 wasn't a bad score.  also, i suck at memorizing and math.  interesting.

skaiserbrown

  • Guest
Re: More impressive...1600 or 180?
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2005, 09:17:16 PM »
i had to beat 176 so that i could be better than an old flame who ended up going to chicago (and is now in BIGLAW)

that, more than anything, was what drove me to work so hard.

i woulda hated it if i had come in with anything less and she would have teased me about it.