Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.3K All Categories
- 27.2K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 14 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 42 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 4 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 581 Technical Problems
- 276 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Small Fish in a Big Pond
I was wondering if anyone is aware of the outcomes of individuals who study for very long periods of time (Total Hours) for the LSAT and performance in law school? For example, say the average LSAT study duration is 150 hours for a certain lSAT score and you study for 450 hours for the same score, are you not putting yourself into a precarious situation in that it took you three times as long to reach that score? I have no proof, but I would assume, if one can learn the LSAT more easily than others than their ability to perform in law school will be better. I'm not sure its a good idea to prepare extensively for an exam to only be bludgeoned over the head at school that you maybe should not have attended. What are your thoughts?
Comments
For those who are able to achieve a high LSAT score more quickly than others with less effort, I think that is great. I don't think that necessarily means they will be able to get through law school with less effort than someone who had to spend 3X as long studying for the LSAT to achieve the same score.
I think law school is an exercise in determination, tenacity, and sheer desire to apply yourself and work hard. For some, they brush up on those skills a little early by having to slave away over the LSAT. And yeah, I'm sure there are those special people among us who breeze through the LSAT and maybe are also able to get through law school with significantly less effort as well. But I would imagine they are the exception, not the rule.
I'm not saying one doesn't have to do with the other, but I don't think they are as closely related as maybe you are implying?
My thoughts are you are probably onto something. Still, I don't think it accounts for the whole picture. I definitely think someone who needs to study less for the LSAT to score the same score (all else being equal) is probably smarter. However, I think law school, at least from my understanding, comes down to much more than the skills one would find on the LSAT. So I don't necessarily think Good LSAT score = Good law school grades. Though I would expect there to be some sort of correlation.
I completely agree with your first paragraph, but what I'm stating more so is that if one prepares far above the average of those receiving such a score, do you think there is a pretty good potential that it may be better for the individual to perhaps temper their score in their mind when making a choice between schools?
The final point you make may very likely be valid, I may be over estimating the value of the amount of time one is spending on preparing for the LSAT. It was just kind of thought that I had. I am kind of curious if any research has been done regarding that, it would be interesting to see if LSAT Score with Time Spent achieving that score had a higher predictive value of law school success (class ranking).
I completely agree that Good LSAT /= Good law school grades. I just kind of feel as though one may perhaps want to be wary with the effort that put into studying if it "artificially" raises score. But perhaps even the LSAT takes this preparation factor into account for success in law school?
@ryan___m There could very well be some sort of correlation, not denying that possibility at all.
I just think there are so many factors when it comes to how people prep for the LSAT that it would make it hard to clearly see this relationship. For example the idea of "time spent" isn't very clear...A person who works full time or has kids may find it necessary to study for a year or more to achieve the same score as someone who is able to devote 2 or 3 months to studying full-time. Doesn't necessarily mean one was more capable or had more natural ability than the other.
ANYWAY I am not even arguing with you haha, I agree, it would be interesting if it were possible to make such a comparison.
I don't know... I think it more comes down to CAN you get the score you need to get into, say, Yale or whatever. How long is kind of arbitrary in many ways. And I don't think studying for the test "artificially" raises your score. I think that's the ONLY way to raise your score, haha. But I get what you're saying...
a couple more things to consider: The LSAT isn't an IQ test. The LSAT itself tests your ability to study for something long term, much like you will need to for law school/the bar. If anything, I think those who study for while and score well are those that make up a big percent of top schools' classes. Every now and then you get someone who scores a 173 in a few months, but they are certainly the exception.
I'm actually an interloper here (a pre-law advisor who already attended law school and took/passed the bar ... and is now a social scientist with a decent background in stats). LSAT scores are correlated (ish - the correlation is not incredibly strong) with first year grades and bar passage. NOT other law school grades. Hmmm. And that correlation is not broken down between students who study a lot for the LSAT and students who only study a little for the LSAT. So it's entirely possible to me that students who study a lot for the LSAT (and get high scores) are the students who study a lot their first year (and get good grades) and study a lot for the bar (and get good grades). We call that an intervening variable: hard work.