The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Reality: 16 years later, LSAT has to be the most reliable standardized test out
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 1st, 2026 2:55 PM Author: Alcoholic insanely creepy old irish cottage indian lodge Out there*
It’s incredibly accurate in predicting legal success.
140: there’s probably not a human on earth including homeless crackheads that can’t bust their ass to get in this range. So you know either the person was a below average student in high school/college and didn’t prepare at all or the person is a stone cold retard and worked his ass off. Reject either way.
150: if a normal dude…maybe slightly below average… who went to HS/shitty college busted his ass he can probably get in this range. You’re not gonna find any major leaguers in this range.
160: in this range you know the person probably was a 4.0 student in college and took some bullshit like economics or philosophy and probably studied really hard. A little bit of intelligence horse power behind them but nothing spectacular. Or maybe some really smart dude who never opened a book and walked in cold. Probably the best range if you’re the person in charge of hiring at a Shitlaw firm or “mid law”. Not gonna see many of them in the big leagues…might see one or two in the bigs but at the higher end of the range.
*this is my range btw at 168 after working very hard and doing all the practice tests*
170-173: : now is when you start to get the dudes with big league talent. They are superior intelligence and worked hard. Or they’re really really intelligent and didn’t really prepare. You’re getting a major leaguer at this level. He might not be an all star but definitely a major leaguer.
174- 180: now you’re dealing with pure intelligence and people who worked hard. The sweet spot for elite spots. These people’s brains just work differently.
Pretty much everyone I’ve met in these ranges fell in line with what I described. I got lucky and realized this and got out of the private sector and copped a sweet government gig where my competition are the 150’s and got that $250k salary, pension and PSLF. Other people are full blown morons who don’t know their place.
But what other standardized test predicts this? |
Date: July 1st, 2026 2:57 PM Author: fishy histrionic genital piercing Verbal standardized tests in general just seem a bit better at predicting IQ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49973917) |
 |
Date: July 1st, 2026 2:58 PM Author: Alcoholic insanely creepy old irish cottage indian lodge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49973919) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 4:45 PM Author: filthy shitlib he specifically says legal success, not iq minus 1 reading comprehension lsat + work ethic + aptitude are what is needed for legal success, depending on how you define it lsat is a proxy for iq; undergrad gpa is the proxy for work ethic; law school gpa is the proxy for aptitude if legal success means income then you don't need all 3 if legal success means big law or boutique or high level clerking, you do need all 3 if legal success means teaching, you need the 3rd and probably the 1st
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 2:59 PM Author: Misanthropic thirsty native Anything over like low 160s is enough. The vast majority of firm jobs require very little intellectual rigor, just grind. So unless you’re an appellate lawyer or something, it doesn’t matter. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49973921) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 4:39 PM Author: Ivory kitty garrison nah. equity service partners with $3 million+ draws and low hours are all 174+mos (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974127) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 3:00 PM Author: Doobsian Turquoise Stage Reading Party Gonna have to defer to my Better as I’m a low IQ 167mo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49973924) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 3:16 PM Author: Yapping pearl church building I only scored in the 96% percentile. It was humiliating. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49973950) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 4:18 PM Author: Alcoholic insanely creepy old irish cottage indian lodge What’s 97% like isn’t 164 the 90 mark or something? So you got a 169? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974071) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 4:40 PM Author: Yapping pearl church building It varies exam by exam. 96% was 168 when I took it as it was judged as a slightly more difficult exam. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974128) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 3:47 PM Author: Alcoholic insanely creepy old irish cottage indian lodge When I first came in this board it was 2009 and I asked legit advice about my 168 LSAT and I was ridiculed. Something that stuck out to me was one random poaster says “Actually, the LSAT was named after my great uncle William Brentwood LeSat.” And for some reason I thought that was hilarious so I kept poasting. I had about a year of juice left on TLS before I was eventually banned and outed to my law school for letting my autoadmit jokes migrate there but everyone thought it was hilarious.
About a week later someone poasted a flame thread that said Rick Ross was actually smart and was a big lawyer for about 6 months before leaving for his record label. I thought that was true and I told someone at my law school and they’re like wtf are you talking about? (Actually benefitted me bc they thought I was flaming and they thought I was funny after that). |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 4:55 PM Author: Hyperactive floppy fanboi Back then, the helpful feedback would have been to gun for BOALT if you have something interesting to say in your personal statement. If not, Cornell (it's gorges!!) or embrace your wheelie bag future in the fucking law center lifestyle
Less helpful responses would have been to practice doing the WUSTL or to enjoy BosTTTon or something. At least if I can recollect back that far
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 3:48 PM Author: hairraiser really tough guy dingle berry it's amazing how many 175+ LSAT types I see on twitter (just using hyper elite law schools as a proxy) make some of the most dogshit arguments imaginable that have all the same flaws that LR tests for. i guess ideology/tribalism is blinding. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974007) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 3:50 PM Author: Alcoholic insanely creepy old irish cottage indian lodge Yeah not saying there aren’t outliers. But in my experience the dudes at my trap law school who were 170mos, AND worked hard/smart were unstoppable. But I can see there being a lot of 170mos who are just gifted but always thought they were too cool for school and end up on twitter 15 years later (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974011) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 4:38 PM Author: hyperventilating maize bawdyhouse crotch It's insane. Same with /r/biglaw and other lawyer subs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974124) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 4:22 PM Author: Alcoholic Buck-toothed Brunch rate my practice LSAT score from my freshman year of college, where my only prep was taking two pirated ones at home first: https://imgur.com/a/WWzX7uQ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974081) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 4:34 PM Author: Alcoholic Buck-toothed Brunch (I didn't go to LS because xo convinced me that I would hate it, thankfully) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974116) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 5:08 PM Author: Hyperactive floppy fanboi That scale seems off, but maybe it was just a difficulty outlier. I got the same raw score on my test year (and actually had the same results for each type of section), and it was only good for a 171
My first section was games, and I couldn't even make sense of a couple of them. It fucked me up. We started the second section, and it was another games section. So I was relieved that the first one might have been the experimental test, but I was still fucked up and had difficultly focusing.
It was a roll of the dice to see what happened, because back then, if you took the LSAT multiple times, all scores would get reported. So I just figured if the first games were scored, I'd just do something else with my life. Wouldn't have gone to law school outside of a T14 school I actually wanted to attend |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 5:12 PM Author: Alcoholic Buck-toothed Brunch yeah I think that particular practice exam was more difficult / had a more forgiving curve than average for the time. that's what the CHATBOT said, at least. that's crazy that your entire life path hinged on whether the confusing one was the experimental one or not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974209) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 5:20 PM Author: Hyperactive floppy fanboi I need to dig up my actual results if I still have them saved anywhere. I know I only missed 1 reading and 3 of the reasoning questions (1 in one section and 2 in the other section). But AI is telling me for my test that to get a 171, I must have missed 8 in the games. That doesn't sound right, but I think 2 - 4 was what I usually missed in games, so getting totally BTFO may have been right (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974226) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 5:23 PM Author: Alcoholic Buck-toothed Brunch is it taking into account how long ago yours was? it got pretty confused when I started asking it again about curves just now; it kept going back to talking about the "modern LSAT" even though it knows my practice was from the AUGHTS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974237) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2026 9:47 AM Author: Hyperactive floppy fanboi It said my year's curve was published, but whether it's right or not, I can't say. I have my old law school laptop somewhere still. I'm actually really interested now, because ljl if I still got in the 170s after missing 8 on the games section...though also ljl at myself if I actually missed 8 no matter how shook I was from the experimental. Honestly, I would have had a worse outcome if I had a 175 instead of a 171 though. My personal outcome was seriously fucking great
It's kind of a reverse sort of prestige to be dumb enough to miss 8 games but to still be good enough at reading and reasoning to get a decent score despite it. Fucking lol if I missed twice as many games as the other sections combined |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 4:57 PM Author: dead big-titted marketing idea headpube Reality: lawyers are faggots who are scared of math (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974166) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2026 5:42 PM Author: heady jew athletic conference Rings true. 166mo here. Lifelong gigaslacker, never studied in my life. 2.2 undergrad lower ivy liberal arts GPA for reference. I run a fairly successful shitlaw firm and perform maybe 75 minutes of legal "work" on average/day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878991&forum_id=2/en-en#49974282) |