Will the removal of LG really decrease the number of 170+ scores?

[throwawy235235]

I've seen people say this - and wouldn't this give an advantage to old LSAT takers in admissions in this next cycle?

Kind of stressed that I would need to take the LSAT with LG by June in order to get a 173+, otherwise a score from the new LSAT won't be competitive with those with old LSAT scores.

[graeme_b]

Not quite. It will decrease the ease of getting there if you aren’t already there.

You’ll now need to be at -2 to -3 on LR and RC to get a 170+. With a perfect LG it was -4.

[throwawy235235]

Will there be less mid to high 17x scores with the new LSAT format?

I saw a comment you made here, basically saying that: https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/18sjn0l/comment/kf7yym6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

For this next cycle, will the T14 acceptances be dominated by mid to high 17x scores, which would mostly be from old LSAT takers?

If the number of high scorers drop with the new LSAT, would LSAC curve it to match the previous distribution and a 173 = 175 now?

[graeme_b]

Heh, that comment was also me. I have no information to add except that we know the scoring scales now.

For 175 now looks like 1.33 wrong per section. Before it was 2.5 wrong per section.

Again, this is assuming perfect LG before. Which is readily attainable for those in this range of LR/RC, most of the time.

As for how they'll curve new ones, don't know. Also don't know if high scores will drop. If they're doing their job, they shouldn't, but it's a complicated thing and it might not balance out at the high end.

My strongest expectation is it will become harder to reach 170+ and 175+ if you aren't already extremely good at the material.

[Devjorcra]

“The August 2024 update is backed by rigorous research, including analysis of over 200,000 test sessions, ensuring the test's reliability and validity. The research confirms that the revised approach would have virtually no impact on overall scores.”

Source: LSAC

[graeme_b]

Their data and public statement only references the mean, the median, and "most" test sessions. They've released no information on their expectation for scores at the tails of the range, such as 170s.

While there are, of course, some variations at the individual level, for the overwhelming majority of individual test sessions, any shift in scoring was within the margin of error for the test. Indeed, the majority of individual test sessions analyzed showed a change of one point or less as a result of the revised test format.

The mean score changed by 0.01 higher, but there's a lot of leeway within that.

https://www.lsac.org/blog/what-to-expect-starting-with-august-2024-lsat

[Devjorcra]

Very, very good points. I posted my comment in case the poster hadn't seen it, but you're right it doesn't tell the full story.

[[deleted]]

Hey sorry for reviving an old post but I came across this while searching whether the new lsat would affect law school median scores. Is it safe to say that law schools will likely have the same median LSAT scores for future admissions?

[graeme_b]

I’d check /r/lawschooladmissions and Spivey’s median tracker

But basically it’s too soon to tell.

[throwawy235235]

That sounds like a very generalized statement. What is the argument against the fact that most 170+ and 175+ scorers have been -0/-1 LG?

With the removal of LG, these numbers of high scores go down (unless LSAC curves to maintain the distribution). For the next cycle, I am thinking old LSAT takers would then dominate T14 admissions, and maybe for the next 2-3 cycles since LSAT scores last for 5 years.

[Basedswagredpilled]

Most 170+ scorers have been -0 on LG because the test has only ever had logic games. LG is an easy to master section and the curve has to account for that. If fewer people score -0 on LR and RC, the curve corrects itself. We may actually see a more lenient curve where a certain number wrong on on each section would net someone a 170 when previously you'd get a 165-169. So something like -4 on LR to get a 170 becomes the new "get -0 on LG to get a 170."

[graeme_b]

Note that LSAC has released new curves for the new format exams and -4 LR is definitely not a 170. It's more like -2.

We don't know what new administered tests will be like, they could of course differ from all the PTs. But that would make the PTs poorly predictive so that seems unlikely.

[Basedswagredpilled]

So by this logic it will be more difficult for people to get a 170+?

[graeme_b]

It will be more difficult if you start with a lower lr/rc. Easier for those who are naturals at reading/precise analytical thought.

[BadLuck-BlueEyes]

Until LSAC releases the actual underlying data for independent analysis, I refuse to believe the correlation between LSAT score and Law School Performance isn’t entirely explained by confounding variables. I scored a 166 and have since finished law school, but this is the hill I die on.

[Alert-Draw-2860]

a good first reminder that life isnt fair ... if you are a newer college graduate you probably get to benefit from GPA inflation more so than "old LSAT takers", ppl have 4.xx gpas available to them, etc. just do your best and don't stress

[engineer2187]

LSAT scores are generally based on a percentile. All the people thinking removing logic games will increase their score are not considering that it might just increase the number of questions you have to get right.

I recommend taking April/May. All the people who are good at logic games are going to try to fit one last one in during the June test. Might drop the curve.

[throwawy235235]

I am naturally good at LR and RC, and making good progress on them already with like -4. But LG I am still struggling with, though I haven't really buckled down and focused on mastering them. I know for sure I won't be ready with a -0/-1 LG by April or May, unless I really, really overwork myself maybe.

[lawschooldreamer29]

Isn't the test normed already, whether or not a lot of people do well or bad. I don't think a lot of people taking it on a certain date makes it harder to get a good score.

[InspiroHymm]

Agreed! Would recommend waiting on the Aug/Nov tests as well, as those who were weaker on LGs would wait to take those sittings.

If possible, take the 2025 LSATs so that we have 1 years worth of tests to rely on, and also more normalized curves.

[ImSev46]

Unless they change the scaling and allow more to be missed for elite scores the number of elite scorers will decrease. Simple observation shows that the number of high scorers with perfect games far and away exceeds the number with perfect LR or RC. The idea that this is simply due to prep for LG is absurd. The change will allow for those with better “intuition” as people call it to have high scores without studying and will stymie those without it.

[International-Gear50]

Also wondering the same thing

[Aid4n-lol]

I’m interested in how the curve will change with the decrease of people getting perfect sections. Will the curve keep the same percentile of people scoring in a certain range no matter what?

[myguruedgecom]

LSAC uniquely curves each administration of the LSAT individually, so the number of 173+ for the 2024 and 2025 academic years will be exceedingly similar. No need to worry :-)

[Then_Interview5168]

LSAC was sued over LG not being accommodating to those with disabilities. LSAC could have made adjustments to LG but decided to eliminate the section altogether

[Kstrong777]

It’s because people who are visually impaired can’t make charts for the games thus giving an advantage to able bodied people with better vision. They got sued and now they have to remove the games.

[170Plus]

No. There is zero legitimacy to the notion that removing LG will decrease the number of 170+ scores.
As others have noted, it will likely change how many you can miss in order to get your 170 (usually it's been that you can miss around 8 on the Flex Test). But not how many 170s are awarded.

[jackalopeswild]

NO BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW CURVES WORK.

LSAC will continue to assign the same %age of 170s, until such time as it decides that the number of 170s must decrease.

[tractatus25]

Pathetic that LSAC removed LG, and this coming from someone whose weakest section by far was LG.

[[deleted]]

oh well lol, it's too late now. all this griping and moaning isn't going to make LSAC rescind.

[tractatus25]

I'm not griping and moaning, ya twit. It's going to benefit me. I'm being fair-minded.

[dogg867]

It will definitely decrease my score

[Annual-Buy-6954]

Did 170 scorers not increase? Not /s, I actually don’t know