Admissions Lore- WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!?!

[AH]

I went to a forum at one of the LSs I was applying to today and the head admissions officer echoed an "industry secret" that my law school advisor told me a year ago.  Apparently, to gauge your LSAT you take the verbal portion of your SAT substract the last number and add a "1" to the front.  Example (my SAT): 740, so my LSAT should be 174...  When my advisor told me this she said it would predict your range (in my case 170-174, so with test anixety she expected me to be between 165 and 172) and today the admissions officer said it is indicative of the score you are capable of with the "proper" amount of study (review and at last 10-20 practice tests). 

I studied 5 hours a day for a month before the LSAT and did the Powerscore Logic Games Bible (this was before the LR Bible came out), as well as about 15 practice tests.  The second time I took it I studied the LR Bible, reread the LG Bible, and did more practice tests.  Both times I got a 152 (lowest practice test was 168).

So what the hell happened?!  My advisor has worked in her field for decades at top universities, so I doubt she just made this up and hearing the same thing from a head admissions officer who has worked at the school for twenty years makes me wonder what I did wrong.  Does anyone else have experience with this formula not holding up?  If it is true, why am I so incredibly bad at the LSAT?!

[vitaminwater]

i am like this too.

[EE Cummings]

I went to a forum at one of the LSs I was applying to today and the head admissions officer echoed an "industry secret" that my law school advisor told me a year ago.  Apparently, to gauge your LSAT you take the verbal portion of your SAT substract the last number and add a "1" to the front.  Example (my SAT): 740, so my LSAT should be 174...  When my advisor told me this she said it would predict your range (in my case 170-174, so with test anixety she expected me to be between 165 and 172) and today the admissions officer said it is indicative of the score you are capable of with the "proper" amount of study (review and at last 10-20 practice tests). 

I studied 5 hours a day for a month before the LSAT and did the Powerscore Logic Games Bible (this was before the LR Bible came out), as well as about 15 practice tests.  The second time I took it I studied the LR Bible, reread the LG Bible, and did more practice tests.  Both times I got a 152 (lowest practice test was 168).

So what the hell happened?!  My advisor has worked in her field for decades at top universities, so I doubt she just made this up and hearing the same thing from a head admissions officer who has worked at the school for twenty years makes me wonder what I did wrong.  Does anyone else have experience with this formula not holding up?  If it is true, why am I so incredibly bad at the LSAT?!

I have an anology that can explain this.  You obviously have talent, but ...

http://usesoap.com/images/events/superbowl39/donovan_mcnabb.jpg

[AH]

HAHAHAHA Thanks EE

I would appreciate it even more if I knew anything about football. 

At least I know I'm not alone vitamin!

[sck]

Haha!

Totally inaccurate... when based on my verbal. (Granted, I took the SAT in 1990 and the GRE in 1994). It was in the low 600s both times.

However, it works when you take my SAT MATH score, it works pretty well. If I recall, I was 720 on that (but again, 600s on the GRE) and got the 171 on the LSAT. Granted, on the games potion of the GRE (it had one then) I got a 790. So...

Personally, I think it's hogwash, because I find nothing similar between the SAT and LSAT except the reading comprehension.

[AH]

Wel math puts me closer to my score, 157... still not a lot of sense though, esp. when I did better on the math portion of the GRE.

I think it is because they require similar thought patterns and language comprehension.

[moonchigger]

I guess I didn't study enough cause this theory says I should have gotten a 173 but I only got a 158, but I was testing at 165-167.  This theory just seems entirely too simplistic to me. 

[as436]

sounds pretty stupid to me...  it may seem to work just because sats in general probably have a decent correlation with your lsat performance... but they test different things.. lsats tests logic, ability to get through dense reading quickly and notice subtle shifts... sat verbal tests vocab and reading

[AH]

I agree it is simplistic, but the dean especially was very adament about this.

She said she already sent several letters to people with high verbals suggesting they retest and said that if we only tested once and didn't get close (w/i 2 points) of the pedicition we should study and retake.  I busted my ass and it didn't change at all, which led to my very unpleasant feelings.

[Goodfella Aaron]

Whoa. I know this is a horrible predictor because of the nature of the tests but it was spot on for me, 700-->170. However, I didn't bother prepping for the SATs (I was much less ambitious in high school) while I spent 3 months prepping for the LSATs. But still, this is just the umpteenth piece of evidence that prelaw advisors don't know anything and are a waste of tuition. Just rely on the collective wisdom of these boards.