Ask a guy who took the LSAT 7 times and now going to a T14 Forum

[09042014]

Which is why I'm not saying 176 is smarter than 175. If you compare people who studied in the same ballpark of effort, it's probably a good approximation of intelligence.

However anyone who can't hit 160 without practice is stupid.

Agreed with you on pretty much everything except the bolded - which is really a dumb thing to say. maybe you mean 'with' practice (which is only marginally better)?

Yes, sorry I mean with practice. And it was mostly trolling. But seriously the LSAT is easy.

[094320]

..

[Bildungsroman]

I personally think that anyone who gets under a 3.9 GPA is probably a lazy jerkoff with a lizard brain, but whatever.

ummm Okay, try some pre-med classes, then rethink this sentiment.

Been there, done that. I think the difficulty of those classes is exaggerated by the large number of people taking them that are just not cut out for the field. People who talk about the sciences as being exceedingly difficult should learn to select a major that plays to their strengths.

Also, if you didn't notice, I was attempting to satirize this thread and its ridiculous level of elitism. Sure, probably more than 2% of LSAT takers could, with enough time and practice, perform at the level that is currently required to place in the 98+ percentile. But people talking about how anyone who can't get x score is an idiot are really just engaging in Grade A horseshit, failing to recognize that, while the LSAT may to some degree be correlated to intelligence, it is not a strong enough correlation to categorically say "anyone who can't hit a 1## is an idiot".

[thecilent]

Remember that level intelligence is also subjective. I personally believe that a neurosurgeon that can take apart your head, take crap out of your brain and then put you back together as good as new is 2000x more intelligent than a lawyer working at a Biglaw firm. No matter what the lawyer does.

QF having no fucking clue what intelligence means.

QF gdane, you are the worst.

[tru]

.

[thecilent]

I personally think that anyone who gets under a 3.9 GPA is probably a lazy jerkoff with a lizard brain, but whatever.

ummm Okay, try some pre-med classes, then rethink this sentiment.

Been there, done that. I think the difficulty of those classes is exaggerated by the large number of people taking them that are just not cut out for the field. People who talk about the sciences as being exceedingly difficult should learn to select a major that plays to their strengths.

Also, if you didn't notice, I was attempting to satirize this thread and its ridiculous level of elitism. Sure, probably more than 2% of LSAT takers could, with enough time and practice, perform at the level that is currently required to place in the 98+ percentile. But people talking about how anyone who can't get x score is an idiot are really just engaging in Grade A horseshit, failing to recognize that, while the LSAT may to some degree be correlated to intelligence, it is not a strong enough correlation to categorically say "anyone who can't hit a 1## is an idiot".

[094320]

..

[Bildungsroman]

I personally think that anyone who gets under a 3.9 GPA is probably a lazy jerkoff with a lizard brain, but whatever.

ummm Okay, try some pre-med classes, then rethink this sentiment.

Been there, done that. I think the difficulty of those classes is exaggerated by the large number of people taking them that are just not cut out for the field. People who talk about the sciences as being exceedingly difficult should learn to select a major that plays to their strengths.

Also, if you didn't notice, I was attempting to satirize this thread and its ridiculous level of elitism. Sure, probably more than 2% of LSAT takers could, with enough time and practice, perform at the level that is currently required to place in the 98+ percentile. But people talking about how anyone who can't get x score is an idiot are really just engaging in Grade A horseshit, failing to recognize that, while the LSAT may to some degree be correlated to intelligence, it is not a strong enough correlation to categorically say "anyone who can't hit a 1## is an idiot".

I see a successful legal career in your future. I may be just a 0L, but handing opposing counsel's motion back to them with every word crossed out seems like it powerful gesture.

[thecilent]

Been there, done that. I think the difficulty of those classes is exaggerated by the large number of people taking them that are just not cut out for the field. People who talk about the sciences as being exceedingly difficult should learn to select a major that plays to their strengths.

Also, if you didn't notice, I was attempting to satirize this thread and its ridiculous level of elitism. Sure, probably more than 2% of LSAT takers could, with enough time and practice, perform at the level that is currently required to place in the 98+ percentile. But people talking about how anyone who can't get x score is an idiot are really just engaging in Grade A horseshit, failing to recognize that, while the LSAT may to some degree be correlated to intelligence, it is not a strong enough correlation to categorically say "anyone who can't hit a 1## is an idiot".

I see a successful legal career in your future. I may be just a 0L, but handing opposing counsel's motion back to them with every word crossed out seems like it powerful gesture.

The crossing out may be my favorite part of TLS.

Also, that would certainly be a win move on a motion.

[northwood]

The LSAT is a learnable test. With enough practice and time you can learn how to get the score that you need to get. It is a decent measure of your performance as a 1L in that some people are naturally better at reading and analyzing than others, and can break down writing and form strong arguments by reading a ton of material ( which they understand and can explain). These skills are needed in law school. If you need to work hard to get a ____ score, then you will have to work just as hard, if not harder to perform well in the competitive environment of law school.

Lsat can be learned, Law school can be learned. How much natural ability and amount of time and effort you put in will decide if you are at the top, middle, or bottom of the pack.

[tru]

.

[09042014]

I'll stop trolling and discuss this a bit more reasonably.

The LSAT tests the use of skills that are a component of what people usually call intelligence. It doesn't test all, and nobody has strict definition of intelligence.

Obviously the LSAT isn't a perfect measurement, it is fairly good. It requires little prior knowledge and is unbiased.

When two people both have plenty of time to study for the LSAT, and there is a large score difference, there is pretty likely a vast difference in ability in the skills the LSAT tests.

The learnability certainly hurts its use as strict aptitude test.

[gdane]

Whatever Trevor. OP, enjoy Michigan. I hope you do well. Apply yourself very seriously and I'm sure you'll do well. Mr. Fox, youre going to NU, right? Good luck. Grocio, you go to FIU, my Alma Mater, so I <3 you. Cilent, youre a dillhole and I hope that all the bad things in the world happen to you and only you. The LSAT is only one small part of the equation. It's very possible that some of the "I'm so awesome because I got a 174 on the LSAT" people that are here on TLS end up doing subpar in law school. That very well may happen if they get complacent and decide that their LSAT score will carry them through law school. Remember that everyone begins with a 0.00 GPA.

[09042014]

I don't think being below a certain amount means one is stupid. It just means that person isn't good at reading comprehension/logical reasoning/analytical reasoning (depending on their breakdown).

TBF I'd call the bolded stupid. If not, what is?

[thecilent]

The LSAT tests the use of skills that are a component of what people usually call intelligence. It doesn't test all, and nobody has strict definition of intelligence.

Obviously the LSAT isn't a perfect measurement, it is fairly good. It requires little prior knowledge and is unbiased.

When two people both have plenty of time to study for the LSAT, and there is a large score difference, there is pretty likely a vast difference in ability in the skills the LSAT tests.

The learnability certainly hurts its use as strict aptitude test.

/thread PLEASE.

[tru]

.

[Holly Golightly]

This is a fantastic thread.

[thecilent]

Cilent, youre a dillhole and I hope that all the bad things in the world happen to you and only you.

QF me not being able to sleep tonight.

[Bildungsroman]

I don't think being below a certain amount means one is stupid. It just means that person isn't good at reading comprehension/logical reasoning/analytical reasoning (depending on their breakdown).

TBF I'd call the bolded stupid. If not, what is?

Assuming the LSAT is a really good test of those skills, and those skills in their entirety. Which is far from established. The LSAT may be a decent measure of those skills as related to your 1L year, but it's hard to imagine a 4 hour test can sufficiently gauge somebody's overall level of logical/analytical thinking abilities.

[09042014]

Ok guys, if the LSAT doesn't mean shit why do people do so differently on it? What is the difference between a 150 and a 180 who both studied.

[094320]

..

[FlanAl]

for some reason whenever i post threads seems to die a pretty quick death.

thought i'd give it a shot

[Holly Golightly]

Ok guys, if the LSAT doesn't mean shit why do people do so differently on it? What is the difference between a 150 and a 180 who both studied.

IT JUST MEANS THAT MAYBE THEY HAVE A LITTLE MORE TROUBLE WITH STANDARDIZED TEXTS, MMMMKAY?

[thecilent]

Ok guys, if the LSAT doesn't mean shit why do people do so differently on it? What is the difference between a 150 and a 180 who both studied.

IT JUST MEANS THAT MAYBE THEY HAVE A LITTLE MORE TROUBLE WITH STANDARDIZED TEXTS, MMMMKAY?

QF Texts.

[CG614]

Whatever Trevor. OP, enjoy Michigan. I hope you do well. Apply yourself very seriously and I'm sure you'll do well. Mr. Fox, youre going to NU, right? Good luck. Grocio, you go to FIU, my Alma Mater, so I <3 you. Cilent, youre a dillhole and I hope that all the bad things in the world happen to you and only you. The LSAT is only one small part of the equation. It's very possible that some of the "I'm so awesome because I got a 174 on the LSAT" people that are here on TLS end up doing subpar in law school. That very well may happen if they get complacent and decide that their LSAT score will carry them through law school. Remember that everyone begins with a 0.00 GPA.

Actually, everyone starts with a GPA of "undefined", as the denominator is zero credits. Also, there is no absolute way to measure intelligence, so it is futile to argue if the LSAT can be as measure of one. Even IQ tests are not that great at it.