Page 1 of 8
SAT/LSAT Conversion Forumla
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:39 am
by OldBlue
Someone posted this on that "other" forum.
I found it interesting and thought I'd relay it. It was EXACTLY on for me.
LSAT = (SAT*/21) + 101 (m.o.e +/-5)
*old 1600 based SAT
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:41 am
by snap
Based on this formula I should've gotten a 167 or so. I was such a slacker in high school...
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:42 am
by edgarderby
wow.
hit it dead on for me.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:44 am
by Soulofheaven8
According to this formula I should've gotten a 176; that would have been nice.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:46 am
by wolverine37
I wish I got that on my LSAT.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:55 am
by iwanttogotolawschool
Dead on for me.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:55 am
by Corsair
..
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:56 am
by the rza
gave me a 160, got a 167
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:56 am
by Da Stain
spot on. f'in creepy
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:59 am
by chris0805
Pretty dead on for me... though I did drop seven points from my last three practice tests to the real thing... not sure that means anything at all though.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:01 am
by jlbarde
gave me a 171, I got a 168. woulda been nice, but I also took the SAT 5 times... and my first couple scores were much much worse
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:07 am
by Dadric
Took the ACT, not the SAT.
Wish there was a formula for that =/
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:11 am
by cc0800
gave me 167, i got a 170
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:11 am
by edgarderby
1570-1600 35
1510-1560 34
1450-1500 33
1390-1440 32
1350-1380 31
1310-1340 30
1270-1300 29
1230-1260 28
1200-1220 27
1160-1190 26
1120-1150 25
1090-1110 24
1050-1080 23
1010-1040 22
970-1000 21
930-960 20
890-920 19
840-880 18
800-830 17
750-790 16
700-740 15
630-690 14
570-620 13
510-560 12
450-500 11
410-440 10
400 9
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:14 am
by Origin
Said I should have got a 168. I win.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:16 am
by TheRedDeath
Gave me a 167, actually got a 169. Not bad.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:16 am
by troutbeck
got it exactly
very cool
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:17 am
by edgarderby
Kayos, that means:
YOU GOT LUCKY, SON!
But congrats anyway. Enjoy Yale when the time comes. haha
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:24 am
by rms5005
wow thats pretty sick...said i shudda got a 165--got a 172 but only after getting a 160 the first time so 166 avg...pretty dead on
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:25 am
by awesomerossum
I should've gotten a 180.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:42 am
by purplepansy
Took the ACT, not the SAT.
Works for ACT too pretty much.
I just used a converter I found through google, found the range of SAT scores I would've had and it gave me mine perfectly if I chose the correct range.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:47 am
by Dadric
Using the range for my ACT score Edgar posted, it says I should have gotten a 166...lower than my cold diagnostic. Looks like I'm WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER on this one.
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:07 am
by Hitachi
Nice, 1660 on the SAT for Rossum
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:32 am
by prettypithy
Am I the only one who doesn't get it? I'm perplexed. I got a 1350--someone tell me what my LSAT score should be!
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:42 am
by awesomerossum
Sorry, I use a different formula for calculating SAT-LSAT correlation. My old tutor said that one's starting point should be the verbal score with the last zero removed and a one added to the front.
I scored an 800 on the verbal. Technically, I should've started from a 180.