Top Law Schools

Hi guys. I've seen a couple threads regarding SAT to LSAT correlations. I was wondering if you could share your ACT to LSAT scores so I could get a feeling of what score I could expect to achieve. (I'm a college sophomore at UW-Madison) I got a 29 on the ACT, with a marginal amount of studying. I would appreciate your feedback! Thank you.

ACT= 25; Took it cold
LSAT=163; Moderate amount of studying

There's a .92 correlation between ACT and SAT. You might as well just translate your ACT score to the appropriate SAT score (whatever score represents the same percentile) and go from there.

ACT: 32 (prepped for math)
LSAT: 164 (prepped for a month and a half)

30 ACT (no prep)
169/171 LSAT (prep)

act= 30. don't think i did all that much besides try to learn math
lsat= 172. studied my ass off.

29 on ACT (didn't study, completely bombed the science section); 168/170 LSAT (taken twice)

I didn't take the ACT. Is that the one that has, like, science as a subject and shit?

edcrane wrote:There's a .92 correlation between ACT and SAT. You might as well just translate your ACT score to the appropriate SAT score (whatever score represents the same percentile) and go from there.

My stats seem to indicate otherwise. Also, my highest practice score was 171.

edcrane wrote:There's a .92 correlation between ACT and SAT. You might as well just translate your ACT score to the appropriate SAT score (whatever score represents the same percentile) and go from there.

How do you figure out what your LSAT score should be based on your SAT?

While there does appear to be a loose connection between the ACT and the LSAT, I do believe there is a distinction to be made. The LSAT tests skills that can largely be practiced and improved; the ACT seemed to be more of a test of knowledge.

rmyoun06 wrote:

edcrane wrote:There's a .92 correlation between ACT and SAT. You might as well just translate your ACT score to the appropriate SAT score (whatever score represents the same percentile) and go from there.

How do you figure out what your LSAT score should be based on your SAT?

LSAT = .0333*(SAT combined) + 121.07

I'll add a data point:

SAT: 1470 (took it twice)
ACT: 33 (took once, no prep, but had already taken SAT)
LSAT: 173 (studying was a bit random, but probably equates to 3 months of decent prep)

edcrane wrote:

rmyoun06 wrote:

edcrane wrote:There's a .92 correlation between ACT and SAT. You might as well just translate your ACT score to the appropriate SAT score (whatever score represents the same percentile) and go from there.

How do you figure out what your LSAT score should be based on your SAT?

LSAT = .0333*(SAT combined) + 121.07

Hey, sweet. I outperformed my expected LSAT score by a significant margin (probably because the LSAT didn't have math, thank God).

ACT 32
SAT 1430
LSAT 162 :/

the two tests are very different

the LSAT is almost exclusively about logic, whereas the SAT is almost exlusively about knowledge

The only somewhat comparable section between the two is reading comprehension (a part of verbal on the SAT), but even that connection is tenuous at best.

There's going to be a slight correlation, since more intelligent/educated people are generally going to do better at tests (no matter the format), but I wouldn't assume your SAT/ACT score as an indication of your potential (or limit) to perform on the LSAT.

Also remember that the percentiles cannot be transfered directly - a 99th percentile ACT is very different from a 99th percentile LSAT becasue of the vast differences in sample size (Almost every student, must take the ACT/SAT, whereas the LSAT is self-selected).

In short, the tests aren't comparable - your time would be much, much better spent studying for the LSAT since many people have shown that studying does pay off.

good luck

several edits later...

ACT: 33... never studied or took a prep course, but did take the ACT plenty of times
LSAT: 167.... light studying for about 2-3 weeks. Only took it once. Should've retaken it with heavier studying.

hobbla wrote:the two tests are very different

the LSAT is almost exclusively about logic, whereas the SAT is almost exlusively about knowledge

The only somewhat comparable section between the two is reading comprehension (a part of verbal on the SAT), but even that connection is tenuous at best.

There's going to be a slight correlation, since more intelligent/educated people are generally going to do better at tests (no matter the format), but I wouldn't assume your SAT/ACT score as an indication of your potential (or limit) to perform on the LSAT.

Also remember that the percentiles cannot be transfered directly - a 99th percentile ACT is very different from a 99th percentile LSAT becasue of the vast differences in sample size (Almost every student, must take the ACT/SAT, whereas the LSAT is self-selected).

In short, the tests aren't comparable - you're time would be much, much better spent studying for the LSAT since many people have shown that studying does pay off.

good luck

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).

edcrane wrote: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.

rmyoun06 wrote:

edcrane wrote: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.

edcrane wrote: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 never did combinatorics or trig in high school, and my high school is considered the best public school in the state. I think you have to be in a math magnet to get that kind of stuff - something my high school definitely had, but which I wasn't involved in. Did your high school really teach everyone that stuff?

edit: combinatorics was my bane on the GRE, too.

I'm the depressing one in this group...

ACT: 31 (very little prep...but also very little anxiety)
LSAT 1: 156 (Moderate prep)
LSAT 2: 158 (Prepping was my life)

Shit on me.

arich24 wrote:I'm the depressing one in this group...

ACT: 31 (very little prep...but also very little anxiety)
LSAT 1: 156 (Moderate prep)
LSAT 2: 158 (Prepping was my life)

Shit on me.

Poor you. You maxed out at significantly above average

Poor you. You maxed out at significantly above average

I guess what happened was I knew I could get into a good college with my grades with even a mediocre ACT, so I wasn't worried...Law School...different story. The test was everything, and I let that freak me out...beyond the point of help and yoga!!

rmyoun06 wrote:

edcrane wrote: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 never did combinatorics or trig in high school, and my high school is considered the best public school in the state. I think you have to be in a math magnet to get that kind of stuff - something my high school definitely had, but which I wasn't involved in. Did your high school really teach everyone that stuff?

edit: combinatorics was my bane on the GRE, too.

I went to a pretty medicore/bad school in NY state. Everyone had to pass state math exams, that tested among other things, combinatorics/algebra/geometry (9th grade test) and trigonometry (10th grade test), in order to graduate from HS. I'm astonished that this was/is not the case in Kentucky (that's where you're from right?).