| Topic Name: |
Give It to Me Straight |
| Message Name: |
and I have a theory |
| Date Posted: |
10/08/2002 |
| In Reply To: |
I just took my first practice LSAT and got a 151. The thing is, I've had almost no preparation, and on the logic games section I bubbled in all c's b/c I didn't know what I was doing. (I got an expected 21%). So the question is, do I have a chance at breaking 160, or even better? I have like 9 months before I have to take the real thing. Is it common to raise one's score significantly from the first practice test? |
| Message: |
Here's my theory for predicting law school relative success.
From what I hear, the LSAT is a fairly accurate predictor of law school success. So if you go to a law school at which your LSAT is in the top quartile of incoming 1L's, then you would have a good chance at finishing in the top 25%, and you would have an even better chance of finishing in the top of your class if your LSAT score is way above the top range of incoming LSAT scores.
Maybe this is nothing new, but I've heard there's nothing to the "big fish in a little pond" law school strategy, in other words, don't go to a place simply because you think you'll finish in the top of your class there. But if the LSAT truly is an accurate predictor of law school success, then maybe going to a place simply b/c your score is superior to the competition is a good idea, if you're trying to graduate at the top of your class anyway.
Is it really worth it to struggle to bring up your LSAT, when in the end, you may get into a school almost out of your range, which will probably result in your getting creamed by the competition?
With the exception of a booming economy, isn't relative standing in your class more important than school name? Especially if you go to a regional school and wants to work locally?
|
|
