Date: August 11th, 2026 10:53 AM Author: violet abode
This would only make sense if the medians at the top 10 LS were all 180. Otherwise it suggests some other factor eg that T10 law schools have stopped emphasizing LSAT and have started to reject high LSAT scorers in favor of other, dumber students like the UCs did for UG applicants (and/or that a logic games free LSAT has been judged by law firms, the ultimate customers of T10 law schools, to be worthless). Seems insane to me given that 20 years ago I literally heard a V5 partner who chaired her firms hiring committee recite the median LSAT scores for all of the top 10 off the top of her head and she was visibly aroused ie there was a wet spot in the crotch of her pants suit.
Date: August 11th, 2026 9:58 AM Author: Odious burgundy azn
Wash U has a median LSAT of 175. Better than HYS. It's criminal. Imagine what kind of mouthbreathing retard you'd have to be to take Wash U--either because you got a 3.3 from directional state U or because you think the "value" of Super SLU scholarship dollars is "worth it."
Date: August 11th, 2026 12:10 PM Author: judgmental native
Everyone is student-loaned pilled. Stats for state flagships have shot up because of all the kids chasing the low tuition. For law schools you'll see even more of that since the top schools don't give away money like the ivies and elite schools do for undergrad. And everyone is pretty clued in to the crazy variability in legal careers after graduation.
Date: August 12th, 2026 12:25 PM Author: Know-it-all location potus
The people that run shit want an admissions system that give them maximal flexibility to select whoever they want so that a) they can set up their friends and family, and b) so that they can do their social engineering exercises.
Your entire assumption is that they want a meritocracy. They do not.
Date: August 11th, 2026 11:05 PM Author: dude, you did a murder
A surviving Empire State University archive reproduces an old LSAT score report table for the 2000–2003 testing years. It explicitly says the figures are the percentage of test scores below each scaled score. That makes it directly comparable with LSAC's current 2023–2026 percentile table, which defines percentile the same way.
Same LSAT score: then vs. now
LSAT 2000–03 percentile 2023–26 percentile Top % then Top % now
160 82.6 71.06 17.4% 28.94%
165 93.3 85.17 6.7% 14.83%
170 98.1 94.48 1.9% 5.52%
175 99.7 98.72 0.3% 1.28%
176 99.8 99.08 0.2% 0.92%
177 99.8 99.34 0.2% 0.66%
178 99.9 99.57 0.1% 0.43%
179 99.9 99.74 0.1% 0.26%
180 99.9 99.85 0.1%* 0.15%*
*The published percentiles are rounded, so the extreme-tail complements aren't precise counts.
That means a 170 is roughly three times as common relative to the testing population today:
2000–03: about 1.9% scored 170 or higher.
2023–26: about 5.52% score 170 or higher.
And 175+ is roughly four times as common: about 0.3% then versus about 1.28% now. Because the old percentiles are reported only to one decimal place, don't take the 4.27× ratio as exact, but the magnitude is unmistakable.
The weirdly neat result: about four LSAT points
If instead we ask, "What current score gives you approximately the same percentile rank as an old score?", this falls out:
Around 2000 Percentile Approx. equivalent today
160 82.6th 164 — 82.75th
165 93.3rd 169 — 93.03rd
170 98.1st 174 — 98.24th
175 99.7th 179 — 99.74th
So across an enormous part of the upper distribution, there's an almost eerie pattern:
An LSAT score from ~2000 is worth about four points more in percentile terms than the same numerical score today.
A 170 in 2000–03 had roughly the relative rarity of a 174 today.
Date: August 12th, 2026 11:09 AM Author: peach crackhouse sandwich
160,000 people took the LSAT and got reportable scores in 2025.
5.5% of them getting 170+ is pretty wild. That used to be a very good score. Now, 8,800 people per year score 170+ (with some adjusting for repeat takers). And there are still only about 1,000 seats at HYS, probably about 4,000 across all of the T14.
And--there are probably fewer and fewer seats for people to "earn" via LSAT scores as schools allow direct admission for some of their undergrads and for certain students who don't care to submit an LSAT score. Nevermind the test takers with extended time and the people cheating on remote tests.
Date: August 12th, 2026 9:16 AM Author: Razzmatazz corner toilet seat
how is this happening? they cut logic games right. and all the test takes apply for fraud accommodation now to have unlimited time, while juiced full of adderall?
Date: August 12th, 2026 9:41 AM Author: Richard Ames
Not a lolyer, but can someone explain why they'd cut logic games from the test? I understand that the SAT also cut analogies and substantially simplified the reading comp section. Obviously the effect there was to have more asians super study since it's not an aptitude test anymore.
What was the explicit reason given for the change? (Obviously the implicit reason was "we need more black and brown lawyers!" - even if they can't handle the work).
Date: August 12th, 2026 12:26 PM Author: Know-it-all location potus
Yes, they're learnable but that's a feature not a bug. Dumb people couldn't learn them and if you can't learn them then you're not smart enough to learn more complicated shit in law either.
Date: August 12th, 2026 11:01 AM Author: 180 high-end macaca
people said they were unrelated to the practice of law. to me they were the best part. as absurd as it is, i literally owe my life to games because when i found out they were on the LSAT i knew that i could crush it and get into a good school. i would've done something else if the games weren't there. they're very learnable, but when you time and curve it it's basically an IQ test, which of course doesn't work out well for a certain subset of the population.
Date: August 12th, 2026 11:18 AM Author: peach crackhouse sandwich
Logic games was about as related to the practice of law as the other two sections. It was all about how information relates. "John can't sit next to Sally; Sally must sit across from Bill" is similar to "7.2 and how it works with 9.6."
And your point about time limit is cr. Any smartmo should be able to get close to 180 with sufficient time. The test is challenging because there is a lot to do in a short time. That's what made it a good test.
Date: August 12th, 2026 11:50 AM Author: peach crackhouse sandwich
Yes, unironically. It's example number X thousand of society crumbling around us. We used to have a tool to identify talent. Now, we have yet another a race to the bottom.
It's part and parcel with it making more and more sense to either go on the dole or just stick your hand in someone else's pocket, rather than working hard and paying your taxes, which are now 50%+.