This investigation of Law School Admission Test (LSAT) preparation patterns for the 2011–2012, 2012–2013, and 2013–2014 testing years represents a replication of earlier studies. As with the earlier studies, all analyses in this report are descriptive in nature, and no attempt is made to evaluate the effectiveness of the various test-preparation methods.
In this study, five types of analyses were performed. First, analyses comparing the response rate for each testing year were conducted to determine whether there were appreciable differences in response rates across these years, and to assess the extent to which response rates in this study differed from those reported in earlier studies. Second, analyses designed to compare respondents and nonrespondents in terms of mean age and mean LSAT score were conducted to determine the extent to which the respondents were typical of the entire testing population. Third, an evaluation of the utilization rates for the different methods of test preparation was carried out to assess the frequency of use of the different methods. Fourth, the extent to which test takers used multiple test-preparation methods was evaluated. Finally, users and nonusers were compared for each method in terms of mean LSAT score and mean age to evaluate the extent to which users of a particular method are different from nonusers.
Overall, the patterns of results for respondents and nonrespondents were consistent across testing years. In general, the mean LSAT score was higher for respondents than for nonrespondents, and the mean age was slightly higher for nonrespondents than for respondents. This relationship was similar to patterns reported in earlier studies. These results indicate that the respondents differed systematically from the nonrespondents, and caution should therefore be exercised in generalizing any of the findings of this study to the nonrespondents. However, the response rates for all of the testing years were so high that this represents only a very minor limitation in the interpretation of the results.
The patterns of usage for the various methods of test preparation varied slightly across testing years. Of the nine methods listed, self-study was the most popular method for all 3 testing years studied, and using a book not published by the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) was a close second. Official LSAC test-preparation materials and commercial test-preparation schools were also heavily used across testing years.
On average, respondents used two to three methods to prepare for the LSAT. For the 3 testing years covered by this report, more than 40% of the respondents for each testing year reported using one testing method; 9–22% of the respondents reported using two, three, or four methods.
The most significant finding in the analysis of users versus nonusers of each method was that LSAT scores were higher for respondents indicating the use of the sample test available on LSAC’s website; official LSAC test-preparation materials; non-LSAC books; commercial test-preparation schools; and self-study methods. LSAT score means were lower for respondents reporting the use of sample questions available on LSAC’s website; undergraduate institution test-preparation courses; other preparation; and no preparation.
This study reached the following conclusions:
- Overall response rates were consistent across the 3 testing years.
- Female test takers were slightly more likely to respond than were male test takers.
- Members of the American Indian/Alaska Native and Caucasian racial/ethnic subgroups had the highest response rates (89–90%) for the 2011–2012 testing year. Members of the Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander subgroup had the highest response rate (95%) for the 2012–2013 testing year, while those who chose Multiple Races/Ethnicities had the highest response rate (91%) for the 2013–2014 testing year. Those not indicating their race/ethnicity were least likely to respond to the question regarding methods of test preparation.
- Those who are not fluent in English were less likely to respond than were those who are fluent in English.
- Respondents tended to be, on average, approximately 6 months younger than nonrespondents and tended to score 0–1 points higher on the LSAT than did nonrespondents.
- Self-study was the most popular method for all 3 study years, and non-LSAC books was the second most popular method. Official LSAC test-preparation materials and commercial test-preparation schools were also heavily used across testing years.
- Relatively few test takers reported using undergraduate institution test-preparation courses or other preparation.
- Female test takers reported using more methods of preparation than did male test takers.
- Puerto Rican test takers and test takers not fluent in English tended to use fewer methods of test preparation than did other subgroups.
- Respondents indicating multiple races/ethnicities reported using a high number of methods. Members of the African American, Asian, Canadian Aboriginal, and Caucasian subgroups also consistently reported using a high number of test-preparation methods across the 3 testing years.
- Users of the sample questions available on LSAC’s website, undergraduate institution test-preparation courses, other preparation, or no preparation tended to have lower scores than nonusers of these methods.
- Users of the sample test available on LSAC’s website, official LSAC test-preparation materials, commercial test-preparation schools, non-LSAC books, and self-study tended to have higher scores than did nonusers of these methods.
- Users of the sample questions available on LSAC’s website, sample test available on LSAC’s website, official LSAC test-preparation materials, other preparation, or no preparation tended to be older than nonusers of these methods, whereas users of non-LSAC books, commercial test-preparation schools, undergraduate institution test-preparation courses, and self-study tended to be younger than nonusers. The smallest age differences were observed between respondents using official LSAC test-preparation materials and self-study.
Request the Full Report
To request the full report, please email Linda Reustle at lreustle@LSAC.org.