Intelligent, but just can't seem to score high on LSAT Forum

[shifty_eyed]

[humbugger]

I just figured with enough persistence people would realize I'm not a fckwit.

I think what's happening is exactly the opposite.

Just for contrast, let me tell you about myself. I got a 3.9 in chemistry at a respectable school (not an Ivy, but whatev). I got 96th percentile on the verbal GRE while taking it cold, so it's not like I can't read or something.

First LSAT: 161.

The difference between me and you is that I found this forum, started reading the stickies, realized how hard other people were working, and decided that I needed to do the same. I bought a bunch of preptests, and worked at my logic skills and studied the past tests. It's a pretty straightforward process.

You really do seem to have a big ego, and nothing you've written makes anyone here believe you've earned it.

[Ohiobumpkin]

That's great news, Ohio! I'm in Canada, took this June sitting hoping to improve on my 163 DEC 11 score. I don't really plan on leaving the country, nor my city of Toronto for that matter

Trying for University of Toronto? That is definitely a challenge for anybody. I wish you the best of luck, and I'm sure with enough practice you'll do fine. But remember there is that crazy country to the south with a boat load of quality law schools too!

[TheRainMan]

And yea, I'm fully aware of how it came across. I just figured with enough persistence people would realize I'm not a fckwit. Honestly though I really think the prep course I took was REALLY bad dude. Like he didn't break games down by types, subtypes. Questions by types. Minimal strategies were given. No drills. It was basically do a section, cover it in class. Do a section, cover it in class. I'm not going to name the company because I am not a dick. I think his prep course is ok, but definitely lacked an emphasis on learning the skillset to conquer the exam. Just seemed like he was trying to simply make us practice, go over the questions in a random order, and hope we got it. The class moved at a really slow pace.

That sounds useless as shit. In that case, I would just go with the Bibles and stuff that you can download off of piratebay. My biggest struggle was with how to diagram the games, and those resources give great blueprints for how to get that done. If LR or RC are also a problem, I hear that they also go over argument/question types well for people with whom those types of questions don't just "click." I wouldn't go for another class, but rather try to study on your own so that you can ID and remedy your weaknesses and not have to worry about what the class as a whole needs.

And sorry about being a d*ck last night... I was drunk and dislike arrogant folk.

[indo]

Gifted as child which already is a prereq of 132 for IQ. Magnet program throughout high school. Honors program at my university, UCI.

In the UC system, the highest honor is Regent Scholar.

Rank 1 :UCLA and Berkeley Regent Scholar.
Rank 2 : UC San Diego
Rank 3 : UC Davis, UCI and UC Santa Barbara.
Rank 4 : UC Riverside and UC Santa Cruz
Rank 5 : UC Merced.

Honor Program at UCI is great at UCI but does NOT mean Much in the UC system..

[dingbat]

Gifted as child which already is a prereq of 132 for IQ. Magnet program throughout high school. Honors program at my university, UCI.

In the UC system, the highest honor is Regent Scholar.

Rank 1 :UCLA and Berkeley Regent Scholar.
Rank 2 : UC San Diego
Rank 3 : UC Davis, UCI and UC Santa Barbara.
Rank 4 : UC Riverside and UC Santa Cruz
Rank 5 : UC Merced.

Honor Program at UCI is great at UCI but does NOT mean Much in the UC system..

And even less outside the UC system

[Na_Swatch]

Wow... is it just me or do a lot of posters in this thread channel this guy: http://www.archure.net/psychology/akrosintel.html

[bjsesq]

I love this thread. Both for the OP, and all the others who had to chime in about their own genius.

[Tom Joad]

This is probably the dumbest thread I have ever seen on TLS. Reading 4 pages discussing "IQ" (which isn't really an accurate measurement of anything) and the OP discussing her below average softs and "stellar" 3.5+ GPA made me puke in my mouth a little.

[TheThriller]

This is probably the dumbest thread I have ever seen on TLS. Reading 4 pages discussing "IQ" (which isn't really an accurate measurement of anything) and the OP discussing her below average softs and "stellar" 3.5+ GPA made me puke in my mouth a little.

--ImageRemoved--

[Kikero]

Wow... is it just me or do a lot of posters in this thread channel this guy: http://www.archure.net/psychology/akrosintel.html

I have self tested IQ scores of 145 and 147, with an official "Mensa tested" score of 135 IQ

Mensa doesn't actually give you an IQ score, and their test isn't configured to evaluate anything above the 99th percentile anyway.

Also, in regards to the rest of his website...

[RedBirds2011]

This is probably the dumbest thread I have ever seen on TLS. Reading 4 pages discussing "IQ" (which isn't really an accurate measurement of anything) and the OP discussing her below average softs and "stellar" 3.5+ GPA made me puke in my mouth a little.

--ImageRemoved--

And this is probably one of the grossest things I've seen on TLS.

[TheThriller]

This is probably the dumbest thread I have ever seen on TLS. Reading 4 pages discussing "IQ" (which isn't really an accurate measurement of anything) and the OP discussing her below average softs and "stellar" 3.5+ GPA made me puke in my mouth a little.

--ImageRemoved--

And this is probably one of the grossest things I've seen on TLS.

Honestly, it doesn't faze me.

[jeffyl00b]

Going to give some actual advice that I think would work.
I am not as gifted, but I did the high GPA some semesters and such, never fail a test etc.

The LSAT tests your brain differently. You are used to knowing how to do things, or applying knowledge. I found that at first the reading was tougher in that, there's two answers at times that look good. LSAT wants the "best" answer, not the perfect at times. And a lot are based on semantics. Or a lot are based on what's logically implied a few steps down the road, which is not what most tests or classes ever test you on. You have to do the reasoning questions, on one of the books, I used Barrons for that to be honest, and read the answers and the reasoning on why they pick theirs. Everyone says to do the actual tests, and that's true at the end, but I'm talking the learning phase. Once it clicks, viola. It's about training your brain to read differently than what high school and such did to you.

Now in my case, it clicked and I do rather well everytime I practice, but when I do the test, they have to create a new negative scale. but that's another story, when I'm sitting here and I print out the tests, i do fine!

[cc.celina]

Stop trying to make IQ happen! It's not gonna happen

[tekumamba]

You trolls should quit dissecting my posts and go get laid. Lol @ everyone trying to prove I'm not smart. You got something to prove to everyone, I only have want to prove to myself that I can achieve my goals.

Point of this post is what do you recommend to drastically improve my score?

And UCI's honor program for Political Science is fairly respectable my fellow UC brother/sister. 3.5 minimum to even be considered.

Funny side note: I got accepted to better UC's, but there was no way I was going to hipsterville, california.

Thanks for the words of encouragement tho! What UC do you attend?

Edit: Dude, like duh. I'm well aware that my natural intelligence isn't getting me anywhere on the lsat lmao. Hence the point of this post. I think people are failing to realize that the underlying premise behind my post is that I have CONCEDED that my intelligence alone isn't getting me the score that I want ( Ideally 170+, but if I can even crack 167 I'll be fucking happy as shit. ) lmao. So that's why I find it fairly funny when I get trolled on for being 'pretentious'.

i go to ucsd. i think we just have different definitions of what we think is stellar intelligence.. i'm an honors student in two majors and one of them is a "pure science" (bio/chem/physics) and one is a "soft science". i just feel like you gotta stop reading this thread and just follow pithypike's advice. you'll do really well if you just spend RIDICULOUS hours on self-study with critical thinking about your mistakes on sections and tests. you'll succeed if you put your head to it, im sure. good luck!

[morally0bese]

This entire thread is obviously a brilliant flame.

OP, you are genius.

[BruceDenton]

From that site:

"High IQ people are greatly outnumbered by Average IQ people. Imagine an average IQ person, living alone, out numbered 100 to 1 by mentally retarded persons, that is what life is like for a high IQ person; greatly outnumbered by lower IQ people who run society, and often don't give high I.Q. persons half a chance."

Lol.

[NoodleyOne]

In my experience people who talk about how smart they are tend to not be very smart.

Just sayin'.

[Kikero]

From that site:

"High IQ people are greatly outnumbered by Average IQ people. Imagine an average IQ person, living alone, out numbered 100 to 1 by mentally retarded persons, that is what life is like for a high IQ person; greatly outnumbered by lower IQ people who run society, and often don't give high I.Q. persons half a chance."

Lol.

His IQ isn't even that high. The people who "run society" probably don't have much lower IQ's than him, if at all.

[zidane13]

Stop trying to make IQ happen! It's not gonna happen

This. The LSAT is actually a pretty good analogue to an IQ test. Both measure a few specific skills, and neither measures this mythical idea of "smartness" that everyone wants to talk about, which doesn't actually exist.

[rabbitrun]

Stop trying to make IQ happen! It's not gonna happen

... and none forGretchen Weiners OP

[katesearches]

what do you recommend to someone whose mental capacity is high, but is struggling with this standardized exam in order for score within the 98th percentile?

I'd recommend that they apply this high mental capacity into succeeding on the LSAT. Clearly, someone with a high mental capacity won't need the sort of preparation taken on my those with just an average mental capcity

[chris9152]

Doing well on the LSAT does not necessarily imply intelligence. Neither does scoring poorly imply a lack thereof.

LSAC is paid to generate a bell curve based on skills they believe are useful to law students/lawyers. These skills can be learned. As someone who hasn't seen the material before, your score is being compared with people who, upon taking the real test, had prepared for months on end, some of them taking 15+ tests in controlled environments and doing hundreds if not thousands of questions independently.

Even someone who can bench press a small car wouldn't walk onto a tennis court and expect to beat Nadal or Federer. You don't have to qualify asking for LSAT help by reaffirming your smarts.

[AffordablePrep]

i just love how the op speaks about how smart they are - high childhood IQ lollllll!!!!!!!