taxguy wrote:Someone noted,"Let me qualify an earlier statement: assuming one studies his/her ass off, the upper limit of the LSAT score correlates closely with IQ. Scores produced after inadequate or no studying are worthless."
Response: This is partially right. Studying does help,but I think that it only helps to give familiarity with the questions. I would bet that there are a large number of people who study very hard for the test and still don't do well.
Yes, it probably is a type of IQ test. However, the problem with the LSAT,which is the same problem as the IQ, is its serverely timed nature of the test. Folks can still be geniuses yet do badly on the test. Einstein was a renown thinker who took his time thinking a problem through. He would not do well on standardized tests that are very time sensitive. I have no problem with the questions on the LSAT. My beef is with its severe, stupid timing. I just don't see how this would correlate with law school work,which usually allows for a lot of time to finish both case analysis and tests.
I've heard very differently. From what I've heard from my friends in law school, 1Ls are often incredibly stressed for time on their exams and pacing can make/break their scores. The timing is relevant---part of intelligence in general is that intelligent people tend to be able to think more quickly. Einstein thought slowly about very difficult questions...I'm sure he'd be fine with a logical reasoning question.
That said, the LSAT is not an IQ test. It measures three skills: reading comprehension, analytical reasoning, and logical reasoning. I think in general you want a lawyer who can read(reading comprehension....) and reason well(LR & LG).
It's not measuring work ethic. It's not measuring necessarily this broad idea of intelligence (though being "intelligent", whatever that means, would tend to help with most cognitive skills test...). It's narrowly measuring 3 very relevant cognitive skills.
Plenty of people do well in life without being very good at reading or even reasoning logically. I know plenty of financially successful people who are frustratingly illogical in their reasoning and arguments. But these are skills that are particularly relevant to succeeding in law school, and probably relevant to being a lawyer as well.
I think success in law school tends to not necessarily predict success as a lawyer because it doesn't take into account the business aspect of being a lawyer(charisma with clients, etc.), only the intellectual side.