ACT to LSAT correlation? Forum

[gobuffs10]

ACT: 30, no prep
LSAT: 156, roughly 7 hours of prep

don't be me.

[Shooter]

ACT = 33 (no prep whatsoever)
LSAT = 172 (studied a lot, ~20 PTs)

[whitman]

No prep: 34 ACT, 1520 SAT
Prep: 172.

Some of you guys are making me feel like I underperformed.

[bmore]

Numbers twin. ACT 34 no prep. SAT little prep. LSAT (172)Prep.

[paulinaporizkova]

ACT: 29 (no prep)
LSAT: 167 (lots of prep)

took each one once. so.....yes?

[amorfati]

I'll play.

ACT (no prep): 32
LSAT (moderate prep): 170 in October... waiting for score on December retake.

[nStiver]

ACT 25 cold
LSAT 164 studied

[Tom Joad]

Since I got a 33 on the ACT and by the way this thread sounds I should have a shot at a 170, can I just read this thread every day and expect to get a 170 without studying?

I'm joshing.

[nStiver]

Since I got a 33 on the ACT and by the way this thread sounds I should have a shot at a 170, can I just read this thread every day and expect to get a 170 without studying?

I'm joshing.

Man, I thought you knew, everyone on this website has a 170 or above. I feel really stupid for my 164 in the 90th percentile. You need to realize that people on the internet are much smarter than people in real life.

[tttlllsss]

Man, I thought you knew, everyone on this website has a 170 or above. I feel really stupid for my 164 in the 90th percentile. You need to realize that people on a law school message board, in a thread where they can casually brag about both their high ACT and LSAT scores are much smarter than people in real life.

[soccerfreak]

ACT: 32, 34 zero prep
SAT: 1530 no prep, only took for national merit scholar
LSAT: 167, expecting 170-173 on retake, possibly less depending on how badly stained glass screwed me. Very little prep for both iterations.

[DreamShake]

You're 1/2 right. The SAT verbal sans RC is knowledge based, but the math section isn't (the most advanced stuff on there is learned in 9th or 10th grade, perhaps earlier)--in many ways it is analogous to the games section on the LSAT but with less granularity (there are very few truly challenging SAT math questions).

I don't think this is necessarily true for two reasons.

1) If you're clever, you can reason the answer to a whole lot of the vocabulary-based questions without knowing the word.

2) I never learned a huge portion of the math on the SAT. It was shit that I had never seen before, and sometimes I didn't even understand what was being asked. The math definitely seemed like the more knowledge-heavy section to me.

1) I'll concede that many vocabulary questions can be answered this way, but that doesn't mean that many can not.

2) That's pretty messed up. Seriously, if you took the exam in your junior or senior year and ran into math that you had never seen before, your HS was woefully inadequate. The math section contains: combinatorics, algebra, geometry, and rudimentary trigonometry--that's about it.

I didn't know what about half of the math on the SAT was, either. Of course, I was still taking algebra in the 12th grade...

[paulinaporizkova]

ACT: 32, 34 zero prep
SAT: 1530 no prep, only took for national merit scholar
LSAT: 167, expecting 170-173 on retake, possibly less depending on how badly stained glass screwed me. Very little prep for both iterations.

so you took the ACT twice and didn't study either time?

[rinkrat19]

You're 1/2 right. The SAT verbal sans RC is knowledge based, but the math section isn't (the most advanced stuff on there is learned in 9th or 10th grade, perhaps earlier)--in many ways it is analogous to the games section on the LSAT but with less granularity (there are very few truly challenging SAT math questions).

I don't think this is necessarily true for two reasons.

1) If you're clever, you can reason the answer to a whole lot of the vocabulary-based questions without knowing the word.

2) I never learned a huge portion of the math on the SAT. It was shit that I had never seen before, and sometimes I didn't even understand what was being asked. The math definitely seemed like the more knowledge-heavy section to me.

1) I'll concede that many vocabulary questions can be answered this way, but that doesn't mean that many can not.

2) That's pretty messed up. Seriously, if you took the exam in your junior or senior year and ran into math that you had never seen before, your HS was woefully inadequate. The math section contains: combinatorics, algebra, geometry, and rudimentary trigonometry--that's about it.

I didn't know what about half of the math on the SAT was, either. Of course, I was still taking algebra in the 12th grade...

Holy crap. Algebra was 8th grade math for me. And that wasn't some kind of freaky genius accelerated track either, just the regular track that got us to AP Calculus by senior year.

[Patriot1208]

I don't think this is necessarily true for two reasons.

1) If you're clever, you can reason the answer to a whole lot of the vocabulary-based questions without knowing the word.

2) I never learned a huge portion of the math on the SAT. It was shit that I had never seen before, and sometimes I didn't even understand what was being asked. The math definitely seemed like the more knowledge-heavy section to me.

1) I'll concede that many vocabulary questions can be answered this way, but that doesn't mean that many can not.

2) That's pretty messed up. Seriously, if you took the exam in your junior or senior year and ran into math that you had never seen before, your HS was woefully inadequate. The math section contains: combinatorics, algebra, geometry, and rudimentary trigonometry--that's about it.

I didn't know what about half of the math on the SAT was, either. Of course, I was still taking algebra in the 12th grade...

Holy crap. Algebra was 8th grade math for me. And that wasn't some kind of freaky genius accelerated track either, just the regular track that got us to AP Calculus by senior year.

Most high schools (and states) don't require anything other than a couple algebra classes and a geometry class. Sure, most people on these boards and at top schools will have taken a calc class in HS. But, for the vast majority of people, Calc is college level math. I took a pre-calc class and that was above what I had to take in HS.

[rinkrat19]

Most high schools (and states) don't require anything other than a couple algebra classes and a geometry class. Sure, most people on these boards and at top schools will have taken a calc class in HS. But, for the vast majority of people, Calc is college level math. I took a pre-calc class and that was above what I had to take in HS.

One of the strangest feelings of my life was registering for sophomore classes in UG and realizing for the first time in my life, I wouldn't be taking math. (Of course, I was an engineering major, so it's not like math and I were strangers.)

High schools should require a hell of a lot more math than they do. Then maybe the average American would be able to make change without a calculator.

I took freshman algebra my last year at UG to push my GPA over the honors threshold (reprehensible, I know) and I was completely mind-fucked by the lack of competency in what should be basic human knowledge. I'd taken more math than the TA teaching the class. I justified my selfishly-motivated presence by basically tutoring half of those kids through it, since I had to be there anyway.

[DreamShake]

Holy crap. Algebra was 8th grade math for me. And that wasn't some kind of freaky genius accelerated track either, just the regular track that got us to AP Calculus by senior year.

I actually took algebra in 8th grade as well. But I wasn't really into school prior to college...got stuck back in algebra in HS and repeated one semester of Algebra I and geometry each. My state only required 6 semesters of math to graduate, so it was all gravy with just Alg. I & II and geometry.

But, for the vast majority of people, Calc is college level math. I took a pre-calc class and that was above what I had to take in HS.

This was definitely true. I went to a nationally acclaimed public school, and tons of people were done with Calc BC by the time they graduated...I was just lazy. At a school of about 3,000, we had the group of Jewish/Asian/some white kids who basically took only AP classes and intermingled with normal students only in classes like gym. For the other half of the school (and those at the other nearby schools, which were genuinely useless), few went any higher than Algebra II.

High schools should require a hell of a lot more math than they do. Then maybe the average American would be able to make change without a calculator.

Why would they do this? Virtually everything (>99%) more advanced than basic algebra is useless in day-to-day life. Basic algebra + knowledge of how to calculate compound interest rates=all you need. Learning how to write well >>>>>>>>>>> advanced math for the vast majority of the workforce. They just need to teach the basic math and finance skills better.


And eh, to contribute to the actual topic of the thread: I didn't take the ACT, but I got a 2300 on the SAT, and the interwebs say that correlates to the 34-35 range on the ACT. 170 on the LSAT (panic attack played a factor in this). Didn't prep for the SAT; LSAT prep was LG Bible and ~20 PT's. PT average was 175, IIRC.

[soccerfreak]

ACT: 32, 34 zero prep
SAT: 1530 no prep, only took for national merit scholar
LSAT: 167, expecting 170-173 on retake, possibly less depending on how badly stained glass screwed me. Very little prep for both iterations.

so you took the ACT twice and didn't study either time?

Yep. I figured my studying for the second time was taking it the first time...I guess it worked, because I scored higher.

[beachbum]

ACT: 31, 30 (cold both times)
LSAT: 170 (decent amount of prep)

In retrospect, not sure why I took the ACT a second time.

[cinephile]

ACT: 32 (no prep)
LSAT: 167 (took a prep course, but no additional study outside of that class)

[2014]

Act: 34 (twice. No studying whatsoever)
Lsat: 175 (ample studying)

I think correlations would reflect that high scorers on the act are good at avoiding test anxiety, not that any information or specific skills overlap.

[tttlllsss]

A correlation among the general population can't be drawn from any of this data. Only a correlation among TLS members, which obviously, is high ACTs and high LSATs.

Seriously, this is a message board full of users who have always shot for the top. The fact that the data here suggests that high ACT = high LSAT should not be surprising.

This is really only a great place for people to nonchalantly brag about their test scores.

[wildcats2008]

"Why would they do this? Virtually everything (>99%) more advanced than basic algebra is useless in day-to-day life. Basic algebra + knowledge of how to calculate compound interest rates=all you need. Learning how to write well >>>>>>>>>>> advanced math for the vast majority of the workforce. They just need to teach the basic math and finance skills better."

and advanced writing techniques are mostly useless as well. the point is that in order to get good jobs, you need to demonstrate a high level of educational achievement regardless of its usefulness to the actual job. most people who work in the financial industry have econ/business degrees. most of those classes are overkill for their jobs, but they need them in order to differentiate themselves from the pack.

[jdstl]

ACT: 34 (zero prep)
LSAT: 180 (exstensive prep)

[d34d9823]

.