LSAT= IQ test Forum

risktaker · Post by **risktaker** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:57 am

How many people out there agree that the LSAT is basically an IQ test? I have taken an IQ test before and my LSAT score fell pretty much in the same range as the IQ test. Got a 157 on the LSAT. Diag was a 140.

Knock · Post by **Knock** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:57 am

risktaker wrote:How many people out there agree that the LSAT is basically an IQ test? I have taken an IQ test before and my LSAT score fell pretty much in the same range as the IQ test. Got a 157 on the LSAT. Diag was a 140.

LSAT is very learnable.

rinkrat19 · Post by **rinkrat19** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:05 am

Knock wrote:
risktaker wrote:How many people out there agree that the LSAT is basically an IQ test? I have taken an IQ test before and my LSAT score fell pretty much in the same range as the IQ test. Got a 157 on the LSAT. Diag was a 140.
LSAT is very learnable.

Yeah, I don't think IQ tests are supposed to be very learnable. They're supposed to test innate ability to recognize patterns, etc. I don't know how you could "study" how to recognize that the next letter in the sequence OTTFFSSE is N or that the square in the pattern the row has the dot in the upper left corner.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if a person's percentiles on each test were frequently in the same ballpark. Mine are.

Lasker · Post by **Lasker** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:07 am

Reading very fast gives a tremendous advantage on the LSAT, and this should not be the case on an IQ test.

bhan87 · Post by **bhan87** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:08 am

Mensa accepts the LSAT as a measure of intelligence to join their society.

Don't think it's really an IQ test though

rinkrat19 · Post by **rinkrat19** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:10 am

bhan87 wrote:Mensa accepts the LSAT as a measure of intelligence to join their society.

Don't think it's really an IQ test though

MENSA wants more members paying dues, and most people will never take an official IQ test. They accept a ton of different tests now.

1001ArabiaNights · Post by **1001ArabiaNights** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:27 am

I am unconvinced that the LSAT is more learnable than accepted IQ tests. The perceived gap in "learnability" between the two is cause more by the fact that the incentive to learn the LSAT greatly exceeds incentives to learn IQ tests than by any actual innate differences between the two.

tomwatts · Post by **tomwatts** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:13 am

If you mean, "Does the LSAT measure how smart you are?" then realize that the word "smart" is not terribly well defined. People use it to mean a variety of things in casual conversation, and the scholarly literature is similarly divided.

But then, it's somewhat controversial to say that IQ tests measure how smart you are for the same reason. So do you mean, "Does the LSAT measure the same thing as IQ tests do?" Because if so, the answer is probably (measurably) no, although the skills involved are at least vaguely related.

risktaker · Post by **risktaker** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:58 am

I am pretty sure all the people that say that LSAT is a learnable test are ppl who got a high diagnostic score. I think LSAT is learnable to a certain degree. Just like someone above posted, one could prepare for an IQ test by doing practice IQ tests and they would probably improve slightly. Nonetheless, they will most likely hit a wall beyond which it would be very hard to score. I definitely feel as though the LSAT is in fact an IQ test and very different from other standardized tests out there. For example, I got a 1450+ out of 1600 on the SAT, which is a pretty high score. This did not translate to a high LSAT score though. It is definitely one of the hardest tests someone can take. I am in the group that basically believes that you either inherently have it or you don't in terms of doing very well on the LSAT (a.k.a 165+)

BruceWayne · Post by **BruceWayne** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:03 am

Ha I wish, but I highly doubt a test with no math on should be considered a valid IQ test. I do fine on the LSAT, but I get severely raped on other standardized exams (since the others all have math components). The LSAT is too one dimensional to work as an "IQ test". Not that I even believe in those things....but that's another story.

gbpackerbacker · Post by **gbpackerbacker** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:55 am

risktaker wrote:How many people out there agree that the LSAT is basically an IQ test? I have taken an IQ test before and my LSAT score fell pretty much in the same range as the IQ test. Got a 157 on the LSAT. Diag was a 140.

question is, what did you get on the IQ test?

And no theyre not similar, especially bc the RC section, but als because of LR and the nature of LG...

risktaker · Post by **risktaker** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:08 pm

gbpackerbacker wrote:
risktaker wrote:How many people out there agree that the LSAT is basically an IQ test? I have taken an IQ test before and my LSAT score fell pretty much in the same range as the IQ test. Got a 157 on the LSAT. Diag was a 140.

question is, what did you get on the IQ test?

And no theyre not similar, especially bc the RC section, but als because of LR and the nature of LG...

112 IQ score

bk1 · Post by **bk1** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:09 pm

People who think about IQ tests = lol.

Kurst · Post by **Kurst** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:12 pm

Dozens of people who scored in the 140s on their diagnostic have scored in the 170s: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p4116593

benito · Post by **benito** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:15 pm

Not an IQ test at all, many people way smarter than I am have scored worse........

fosterp · Post by **fosterp** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:04 pm

iq tests draw on a different set of skills compared to the lsat

both tests require some baseline of intelligence to reach a certain score

does a high score on one guarantee a high score on another? probably not, but there is probably some correlation

from what I have seen every test that claims to measure intelligence (which is supposed to be an inherited trait) has some aspect of it that is biased towards some kind of learned skill. For example...most pattern recognition questions using numbers invariably involve some math component, and math is a learned ability - those with strong math skills will perform better.

everyone knows that RC is a learned ability acquired from a lifetime of learning

I would still argue though that IQ tests and the lsat measures more innate talent compared to other standardized tests such as the SAT

homestyle28 · Post by **homestyle28** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:13 pm

It clearly is an IQ test, and you all should trust me b/c I'm much smarter than you, as demonstrated by the LSAT.

Accept what I say and bow, simpletons!

bport hopeful · Post by **bport hopeful** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:16 pm

How can you say its not learnable, you put 17 points on you diagnostic.

Secondly, you cant even really correlate the two tests because they have such different scopes. I mean you have to assume that the majority of LSAT takers are of a certain mental caliber. This is not the case on an IQ test.

But as far as being smart and scoring high on tests, yeah it probably helps.

risktaker · Post by **risktaker** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:44 pm

bport hopeful wrote:How can you say its not learnable, you put 17 points on you diagnostic.

Secondly, you cant even really correlate the two tests because they have such different scopes. I mean you have to assume that the majority of LSAT takers are of a certain mental caliber. This is not the case on an IQ test.

But as far as being smart and scoring high on tests, yeah it probably helps.

It is learnable but only to a certain degree like I stated earlier. I am sure if people "practiced" for IQ tests, they would learn more and be able to do a little better the next time. All I am trying to say is almost all people hit a wall after going up a certain amount of points. For people who scored a 155+ diagnostic a first time, things are quite different. These people I believe are inherently smarter.

For the guy above who stated that there are dozens of people who score in the 140s on their diagnostic and then scored in 170s is total BS. I am sure there are a handful of people, but if you took over 1000 people who got a diagnostic score of 145 or lower, I am certain that barely about 30 ppl would be able to reach the 170s. You also have to taken into account the fact that some ppl who got a diagnostic of 145 or lower their first try probably weren't trying at all.

To conclude, I am not saying that the LSAT is exactly like an IQ test. Obviously, the IQ test tests for different things than the LSAT. What I am saying is both the LSAT and the IQ test basically test for inherent abilities, which cannot be improved on too much. I definitely feel that the LSAT is a bull shit test and I am sure there are dozens of high scorers on the LSAT who will suck at law school because they do not have the drive to work hard. This is going to be my last post for this thread until end of my 1L year if the thread is not locked. It is my mission to prove that the LSAT does not mean much in terms of law school success. I will bust my ass first year and hopefully end up in top 10%. If I do, I will have proved that the LSAT is not a good measure for law school success. Bye bye till then.

bk1 · Post by **bk1** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:48 pm

risktaker wrote:if you took over 1000 people who got a diagnostic score of 145 or lower, I am certain that barely about 30 ppl would be able to reach the 170s.

I like how you are so certain of the outcome of your made up hypothetical. I guess because you say so, it must be true, eh?

bport hopeful · Post by **bport hopeful** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:50 pm

How can you say that the test is only so learnable. You personally jumped like 56 percentile spots. That seems extremely learnable to me. Also, as far as your mission to disprove how accurate the LSAT is in law school success, wont you be going to a school where a 157 is an acceptable LSAT score. Not everyone can end up in the top ten percent. This seems like a 0 sum game attempt to me.

bp colin · Post by **bp colin** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:44 pm

benito wrote:Not an IQ test at all, many people way smarter than I am have scored worse........

Just wanted to echo this sentiment.

mickeyD · Post by **mickeyD** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:35 pm

1001ArabiaNights wrote:I am unconvinced that the LSAT is more learnable than accepted IQ tests. The perceived gap in "learnability" between the two is cause more by the fact that the incentive to learn the LSAT greatly exceeds incentives to learn IQ tests than by any actual innate differences between the two.

The argument proceeds by:

a) citing a superior authority to establish a claim
b) offering an analogy to counter an unstated assumption
c) drawing attention to an inconsistency
d) providing an alternate explanation
e) showing the opponent's claim leads to a contradiction

prdx2222 · Post by **prdx2222** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:09 pm

The LSAT is a very learnable test if you prepare correctly. I took practice tests under exam conditions about twice a month for several months. I also did one about one week before the actual exam. The key is time management. I improved my score from first practice test to actual test score by about 17 points. The actual exam was quite easy for me and I did very well.

In law school I met a buddy who had a terrible LSAT score but excellent grades. I was the opposite and we always debated which gave a better indication of a good law student. I have always felt the LSAT was a good assessment tool to use to indicate probable success in law school and as a lawyer. My results, in the end, backed up that theory.

TLSModBot · Post by **TLSModBot** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:13 pm

prdx2222 wrote:The LSAT is a very learnable test if you prepare correctly. I took practice tests under exam conditions about twice a month for several months. I also did one about one week before the actual exam. The key is time management. I improved my score from first practice test to actual test score by about 17 points. The actual exam was quite easy for me and I did very well.

In law school I met a buddy who had a terrible LSAT score but excellent grades. I was the opposite and we always debated which gave a better indication of a good law student. I have always felt the LSAT was a good assessment tool to use to indicate probable success in law school and as a lawyer. My results, in the end, backed up that theory.

Do you usually argue with necro threads from 4 years ago?

Ooh - bring up some of the political ones! I have some strong opinions on how that Mr. Obama will do in 2012

LSAT= IQ test Forum

LSAT=IQ test?

LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Register for access!

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Register now!

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Re: LSAT= IQ test

Seriously? What are you waiting for?