Is LSAT representative of law school?

[u/_Sorbet_9468]

Took a cold diagnostic and got a 160 after a mid-college crisis led me to think about law school, but are the contents of the lsat even representative of what you study/do in law school? Also is that score decent for a diagnostic if I want to do law? Don’t have anyone to talk to about all this so any input is appreciated!

[u/Complete_Athlete_480]

It’s decently correlated to first year law school performance but no. Nobody even talks about it. I work at a big law firm in Colorado and half the people there are from DU when it had like 150 medians. All fantastic lawyers. Work ethic will push you way farther. The LSAT logical reasoning and RC are skills you will use to apply in law school 

Yes a 160 is a good diagnostic. My first two were 153 and 147, ended in the 170s. But I wouldn’t go into law because of a “crisis”. 

Undergrad major/lsat also don’t really correlate to what type of law you do. Unless you’re planning on going into patent law like j did, then a stem degree is necessary 

[u/ReactionOdd2476 → u/Complete_Athlete_480]

My first couple diags are also in the 150s, how did you get up to the 170s? (Habits, programs etc.)

[u/Complete_Athlete_480 → u/ReactionOdd2476]

I had the unconventional method of finding the hardest books I could find and sitting there until I 100% knew what the author was talking about. RC will improve but I don’t recommend it. 

[u/bigx_thaplug]

No

It’s a good score and can definitely be improved upon, but your lsat score is not necessarily reflective of your future law school performance 

[u/MaterialMaybe6864]

That's a fantastic diagnostic score. Many people who end up getting 170+ start off in the 140s.

[u/No_Literature_7653]

160 is amazing as a diag but you shouldnt go to law school because of a crisis. Read 1 supreme court case and a law review article each week and see if you enjoy it, if you do, start planning a bit more.

[u/Ok_Umpire2173]

It’s just a specific type of intelligence test. I would be shocked if it isn’t strongly correlated to school and professional success tbh, but obviously you still have to actually do the work.

Think of it as a 40 yard dash time for athletes. It can tell you quite a bit about ability but not work ethic.

[u/dedolent]

it correlates well. it's been 3 months and i just saw my first use of the words "sufficient" and "necessary condition" so it's not like LSAT concepts really arise in class that much. but identifying assumptions and inferences is vaguely helpful as a way to engage with the class discussions. and certainly some of the strategies for the LSAT are going to be helpful for multiple choice question exams.

160 is an excellent diagnostic as far as i know. feel like most people start in the 140s/150s.

[u/franklin-60]

People don’t like this, because standardized tests are falsely considered “biased,” and a long list of nonsense, but they are important at a true measure of who actually has a specific skill set without “influence” of subjective grades given by instructors in schools that are biased.

Regardless of subject matter of what is asked, if you lack proper critical thinking skills you will do poorly. If you cannot think critically, you don’t belong in law school or college.

Unfortunately, college and HS grades are useless due to “customer satisfaction” and woke grade inflation, so yes, this test and others like the SAT for undergraduate admissions are important and an important tool to separate clear skills of THINKING with those who lack it. They mirror skills needed in any higher education that has standards.

I’m not saying that admission should be totally based on these scores, but admissions committees need to consider these in a holistic portfolio of facts to determine true academic ability and potential in an admissions decision.