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

[john1990]

Jeez, I should've expected to get trolled.

I don't really know what kind of response you were expecting with an OP like that. I doubt there is very much correlation between IQ and LSAT scores, and the same general concept of studying applies to everybody. FWIW my diagnostic was in the 170s but I still had to prep and take more PTs like everybody else when I wanted to improve my score.

Kind of a ridiculous statement.

The same people who do well on the LSAT tend to do well on the GMAT, GRE, etc. This is why OP's post is kind of ridiculous. If he was as much of a genius as he claims the LSAT would be a joke.

agreed, a lot of the lsat is just basic reasoning. A 155 is like 60% on a multiple choice exam.

[Glaucon]

Crowing,

Perhaps your score will be higher than what you thought and therefore will feel better about yourself than you currently do? lol With a score of 150 no doubt you're too smart to fool yourself into truly believing that you can score 150 again on the fly after all these years; but a score that high may suggest anxiety over self-imagery along with a curious mind constantly estimating things and an imagination that may have led you to be overly critical/upset over what you think you perhaps would score now after all that booze... in which case the only way to feel better about yourself is to take the test. On second thought, it could be that a person with an IQ of 150 is perfectly aware of his own level of contentment towards his self-imagery and is perfectly content lol

[Kikero]

Jeez, I should've expected to get trolled.

I don't really know what kind of response you were expecting with an OP like that. I doubt there is very much correlation between IQ and LSAT scores, and the same general concept of studying applies to everybody. FWIW my diagnostic was in the 170s but I still had to prep and take more PTs like everybody else when I wanted to improve my score.

Actually, Mensa will accept an LSAT score in the top 5% as qualification for membership even though they require an IQ in the top 2%. They won't accept ACT, SAT, GRE, MCAT, etc. at all (although they do take top 5% on the GMAT). The LSAT is similar to parts of many IQ tests with the notable absence of those complete the pattern type questions.

[jgloster]

Haven't read this whole thread, but feel the need to add this:

You do realize that IQ scores from before the age of 7 or so can be really inaccurate, right? And plus that 99% score might have been on a single sub-test. Just sayin'.

[jgloster]

Jeez, I should've expected to get trolled.

I don't really know what kind of response you were expecting with an OP like that. I doubt there is very much correlation between IQ and LSAT scores, and the same general concept of studying applies to everybody. FWIW my diagnostic was in the 170s but I still had to prep and take more PTs like everybody else when I wanted to improve my score.

Actually, Mensa will accept an LSAT score in the top 5% as qualification for membership even though they require an IQ in the top 2%. They won't accept ACT, SAT, GRE, MCAT, etc. at all (although they do take top 5% on the GMAT). The LSAT is similar to parts of many IQ tests with the notable absence of those complete the pattern type questions.

I think Mensa is too stringent in its requirements for LSAT and GMAT scores. They are underestimating the IQ of the average GMAT and LSAT taker (who is smarter than the average person in the normal population).

[Kikero]

Jeez, I should've expected to get trolled.

I don't really know what kind of response you were expecting with an OP like that. I doubt there is very much correlation between IQ and LSAT scores, and the same general concept of studying applies to everybody. FWIW my diagnostic was in the 170s but I still had to prep and take more PTs like everybody else when I wanted to improve my score.

Actually, Mensa will accept an LSAT score in the top 5% as qualification for membership even though they require an IQ in the top 2%. They won't accept ACT, SAT, GRE, MCAT, etc. at all (although they do take top 5% on the GMAT). The LSAT is similar to parts of many IQ tests with the notable absence of those complete the pattern type questions.

I think Mensa is too stringent in its requirements for LSAT and GMAT scores. They are underestimating the IQ of the average GMAT and LSAT taker (who is smarter than the average person in the normal population).

Well I mean they already accept the top 5% instead of just the top 2% so they are acknowledging a higher average IQ to some extent. I don't mean to imply a specific relationship between IQ and LSAT score (170 LSAT = 140 IQ, for example), just that there is some correlation.

[IvyLeagueIntrigue]

I really dont have anything to prove here. Obvious that trolls would get angry. Who cares whether or not i am smart. Like lol @ ppl trying to put me down. Glad to know you care that much to try to get a quick boost in self esteem under the justification to teach me a lesson. Point is, what do you recommend to an individual who DOES have a high mental capacity but is struggling with the exam? Courtesy isnt given to people who dont show respect. Appreciate responses from people who are trying to help or provide insight.

When I was talking about courtesy, I wasn't just referring to the "piss off" part. Now, using the kind of logic LSAT requires, I'll demonstrate what you have done wrong.

Your post could be summarized as "I believe I'm intelligent, so I should be able to get a good LSAT score. But I don't, so please tell me what I should do."
Let's take a close look at the main argument, "I believe I'm intelligent, so I should be able to get a good LSAT score."

Your unstated assumption in that argument is that "An intelligent person should be able to get a good LSAT score."
You know that we can rewrite A -> B as not B -> not A, right?

So Intelligent -> Good LSAT score can be rewrote as No Good LSAT score -> Not intelligent.
This is where you lacked courtesy from the beginning. You implied that if someone didn't get a good LSAT score, then that person is not intelligent.

For the February LSAT, I only got the 90th percentile score (I re-took the test yesterday and am expecting to get a much better score). Does that mean I'm not intelligent?
Well, I have an I.Q. of 146 and graduated my UG college with two Bachelor degrees and Phi Beta Kappa, which is one of the highest honor you can get, without "putting too much effort." So I don't think anyone can say that I'm not intelligent.

You should have written your original post more carefully so it can't be inferred that not having a good LSAT score means that you're not smart.

JSYK he didn't imply what you're assuming he did. He actually was saying "Intelligence -/-> Bad LSAT Score" not "Intelligence --> Good LSAT Score." He claimed he was intelligent and that he didn't get a good LSAT score, so the argument you set up is either A) a strawman argument (of sorts) of my aforementioned "I-/->BLS" or B) just a wrong interpretation of what he was saying. He was confused because his lsat score was what he considered bad but his intelligence should have been a sufficient condition for "not a bad score." BTW the bit about your 90th percentile score and asking if youre not intelligent seems to indicate you may have taken his post personally and in the heat of the moment misinterpreted his words. 'Courtesy' does not involve foreseeing or preventing such misconceptions from occuring. The other guy talking about courtesy surely wasn't saying it in the same sense you are here unless he too is mistaken but I didnt read that much, I was scrolling and just saw yours because it was spaced out nicely and gave it a read.

[Will_Imake_it]

how about take 8 months and learn the material, take 40 pts, and then go for it.

[Glaucon]

IvyLeague,

If intelligence does not equal bad LSAT score, we are not wrong to assume that intelligence equals good lsat score. The reason is semantics. We have no idea what he considers a good or bad score, and have no conception of a medium score. If he is displeased with his 150 score and considers it bad, one may construe from the tone of his writing that a 160 would be 'good', and relativistically good, for that matter, for his current situation. He suggests in his writing that intelligent people should get 'good' scores or atleast acceptable ones by virtue of them being intelligent. Thus, only other unintelligent but diligent working people can also get good scores, and the unintelligent and undiligent person should get the 'bad' or unacceptable scores. I think afnaidel is simply expressing what many posters thought was a sense of entitlement from an above average intelligent person bemoaning his score simply because he went to a magnate school and coasted through college. I also got the sense that the reason he/she told us the fact that he went to a magnate school and coasted through college was, in addition to showing us he/she had intellectual potential and thus could actually take any advice offered, an attempt to express a frustration that he/she DESERVED to do 'good' or atleast acceptably well for whichever law school a magnate school graduate chose to go. I'm sorry but that was my impression. It would have been enough for him/her to tell us his/her IQ score, but to tell us how successful they were in their magnate schools and colleges without effort just seemed to lack 'restraint'.

[jjrialva]

Just wanted to share I cold tested 143 and ended up steady above 160 with the highest being 163 December 2011 (78 raw score) and English is NOT my main language and I wasn't even raised in an English speaking country.

It is fair to say from my example that it is possible to study a lot (I did for 2.5 months) and attain a respectable LSAT score. I think, like some people here have mentioned, you are worrying too much about the fact you have not obtained your LSAT score as easy as other things you have obtained in your life. Being above average intelligence or even 99% IQ does not guarantees anything even if it seems like it has been that way all your life. Just use your intelligence to study well and find your weaknesses. One of the main things (and probably the only thing) a prep company can do is give you a study structure. Everything else you are really on your own unless you have tons of money and you can hire a tutor to be there with you some of the time.

Be ready to enter a world were you are just another fish in the bowl. I personally like being surrounded by intelligent people! You can have nice conversations, tell complex jokes and you don't feel like you being a teacher to anyone.

PS On my experience I knew I was studying well because when I talked to my friends or family members I started identifying all their flawed reasoning and arguments unintentionally (your mind is on LSAT mode)

PSPS June 2012 LSAT felt different from all the other tests...........................

[AffordablePrep]

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

IQ tests administered during childhood aren't that accurate, bro. Brainpower increases in spurts, not gradually, so if you were tested during or immediately after a spurt the test could have wildly overestimated your adult IQ. It's because of this that thousands of people go through school in "gifted" programs only to end up being average.

also, a crazy %age of kids, particularly kids around OP's age group had ADD. I've read places that in 2005 like a third of kids in certain school districts were diagnosed with some degree of it. ADD would absolutely influence how a kid performs on an IQ test, but probably not their IQ. Over half of kids with ADD wind up having a growth spurt in their prefrontal cortex after puberty, and then don't have ADD. I mention this only to show the unreliability a child's IQ has on their IQ as an adult.

I was making fun of OP, because he reminds me of a really unjustly cocky dispatcher I had when I drove a cab who was 60 and over 300/lbs., not paying child support and would sit on his butt all day talking about how muscular he was when he got back from 'Nam.

[IvyLeagueIntrigue]

IvyLeague,

If intelligence does not equal bad LSAT score, we are not wrong to assume that intelligence equals good lsat score.

The difference is in the contrapositives not the original statements. The former would be "not a bad score -/-> not intelligent" and the latter would be "not a good score --> not intelligent." The guy i was talking to said that OP was saying if you didnt get a good score than you are not intelligent. In actuality he was simply saying that if you don't get a bad score than you aren't not intelligent (trolls: i know that the proper form is "are not unintelligent" but I am leaving it in raw form so don't quote me and snicker LOL).

The reason is semantics.

Touche, however, the whole argument is semantics because its revolving around what the OP was saying and implying.

relativistically

I like your style. I am gonna have to steal this word and start incorporating it into my essays haha. Are you a hard science major by chance?

He suggests in his writing that intelligent people should get 'good' scores or atleast acceptable ones by virtue of them being intelligent

Indeed he does.

Thus, only other unintelligent but diligent working people should also get good scores, and the unintelligent and undiligent person should get the 'bad' or unacceptable scores.

If you look at the contrapositives you'll see he wasn't saying that just that smart ppl should not get bad scores nothing about not smart ppl getting good or bad scores.


Sorry I was gonna finish but my sister just redboxed the grey so imma watch that haha but in super quick shortness yes he lacked tact by gloating about arbitrary activities and accalades.

[AffordablePrep]

Also, MENSA accepts LSAT scores so it seems to have a certain IQ factor.

I'll also say that while there are a lot of nerdy and weird people at top 14 law schools, they are disproportionately smart and quick witted compared to the general public. It's not an IQ test, but I'd imagine there is a very high correlation.

[AffordablePrep]

I don't understand this notion that scoring high on the LSAT must mean you'd do just as well on a different standardized exam (and vice versa). I could never do half as well on any standardized exam out there as I did on the LSAT, which totally catered to my strengths.

true, but i'd bet on you doing well. if you give an oath that you will try your best under the circumstances, i'd bet on you breaking an 80th percentile GMAT hung over and high with your LSAT.

LSAT does favor certain experiences though. I grew up with pretty much all women, and very feminine women who would yap, yap, yap and never get to the point. In order to be a good brother and son I had to develop the ability to weed out the few relevant bits and pieces from the pile of superfluous detail. This enabled being able to extract main points, argument structure very easy despite never reading a book.

[jjrialva]

.

[jjrialva]

now I think the argument could be easily turned against itself...

[tekumamba]

I go to a UC too.. and UCI is by NO means a reflection of high academic achievement... you may be in the honors program there, but I know many MANY people there from my high school that are in the honors programs, including the biomedical engineering one, and they are not super bright..

HOWEVER, I do think that the LSAT only has a base level of intelligence requirement. The whole thing is based on how hard you're going to work at home. pithypike's program on this same forum will get you to the high 160s. I diaged 156 and the low end of my averages is the high 160s. I'm not particularly intelligent but I definitely worked my ass off. You can too!

GOOD LUCK BROTHER/SISTER FROM ANOTHA UC!

[boblawlob]

So my question is 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 recommend you study the hell out of the test as if you were in a Harvard class and your grades were dependent on the curve. You may be a smart guy, but you aren't the only smart guy in the room. In fact, you might be the least intelligent person relative to the rest of those in the room.

Rarely do people break 170s through natural ability. Of course it happens, but I'd say most people who do have at least put in some amount of studying to get to the score that they deserved. Yes, some people might have studied for just 2 months and others 1 year. It's all different for everyone.

[Aequitas_]

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'.

[TheRainMan]

You trolls should quit dissecting my posts and go get laid.

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.

Thanks for the words of encouragement tho! Where 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 think the main point of people commenting on this is that this "natural intelligence" that you "have conceded" is not as astounding as you might think. The people who are "trolling" you are treating you as a conceited egotist because of how sure you are of your intelligence, even in the face of evidence to the contrary such as your inability to score above the 60th percentile on the LSAT or to attend a respectable university. The fact that you do not recognize how pretentious you sound when you keep bringing up your intelligence and justifying it with your impeccable accolades that are Phi Beta Kappa, UCI's honor society, and being in GATE classes along with anyone else who isn't a complete idiot is slightly startling.

Oh, and I just got done getting laid... although to be fair, I was the one doing the laying. Twice. And yes, I do realize that I am being pretentious right now, but I think thats the difference. I recognize it, you're too busy looking down your nose from your hotshot UCI PoliSci 'honor' society.

[thelawyler]

Lol sucks that your post is getting so off topic, as I do know people close to me who come to me with similar questions (I am smart, but I'm not doing well - how do I improve?). The real difference is their tone. Your tone was off. It came off as entitled and arrogant. If that isn't the case, well, learn to communicate better.

If I was you, I'd rely less on those tutoring programs (seems you've already used one) and try to see how you can improve yourself by identifying your weaknesses.

[Aequitas_]

No, the difference between you and I is I don't feel the need to put people in their 'place'.
Like lol let people be themselves and offer insight if you can. It's funny how when you see someone with an ego, their own ego surfaces under the guise of 'teaching him a lesson' when retaliating. Like a wounded little fat kid who wants to retaliate for getting picked on.

I take it you were the receiver then

I simply am stating my situation and trying to figure out ways to improve.

Edit: 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.

[BruceDenton]

No, the difference between you and I is I don't feel the need to put people in their 'place'.
Like lol let people be themselves and offer insight if you can. It's funny how when you see someone with an ego, their own ego surfaces under the guise of 'teaching him a lesson' when retaliating. Like a wounded little fat kid who wants to retaliate for getting picked on.

I take it you were the receiver then

I simply am stating my situation and trying to figure out ways to improve.

Edit: 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.

Casual observer of this thread, here's what I've gathered:

1. You give yourself WAY too much credit for what you've accomplished. Nobody's trying to put you in your place, it's just nobody is impressed by your honors thing at UCI. A 3.5 requirement to get in isn't intense at all (especially in a soft major like Polisci). For what its worth, non (or practically non) of the "intelligent people" I know (3.9+ at a top 10 ugrad, 175+ LSATs, 40+ MCATs, legitimate Rhodes candidates) would ever call themselves intelligent outright without someone really trying to get them to say it - just a side note, and maybe a thought for the future as to how people perceive other people's intelligence in social settings.

2. You really should work on how you come across. Don't ask for advice (in probably one of the more arrogant posts I've ever read here) and then alienate the people who have it for you.

3. Best of luck with the LSAT. Study hard, it matters a lot. Self study and spending time on TLS is probably your best bet. My cold test was 158 but I was PTing up to 177. Hoping I knocked it out of the park on Monday. If you put in the work, you'll get there.

[dingbat]

I simply am stating my situation and trying to figure out ways to improve.

Your situation is that you are smarter than average, but not as smart as you think you are.
You are now discovering that, lo and behold, you aren't quite as special as you thought, but you are not willing to accept it.

I'll give you full credit: you're smarter than the average bear. Unfortunately for you, lots of people are.
You have basically come here and said "I'm really smart, I should be doing better, but I'm not. What's up with that?"
a better attitude, which would garner a better response, would be "I didn't do as well as I like and I think I can do better. How do I improve my score?"

Basically, no one wants to help someone who's full of themselves, which is how you've come off. On the other hand, people wants to help someone who's got a problem.

Now I'll help you with another problem you don't realize you have. Your attitude.
If you have that attitude during an interview, I guarantee you will not get hired. Nobody wants to hire someone with an attitude. If you do get hired, but go around as if your shit don't stink, you will not last. You have to be able to take criticism, you have to be willing to ask for help (in a nice way). Otherwise, you will get into trouble.
Please don"t take this as an attack. I've been told by partners (yes, an anecdote) that they would rather hire the second smartest person than the smartest, because the smartest often comes with an attitude and thinks they can get by on smarts alone.
We have told some of the companies we do business with on occasion that we do not want to deal with a particular employee (low level - 1st to third year, typically) because s/he is arrogant or cops an attitude. Think about that.

PS: I too used to think I was a special snowflake. Then I joined the real world. I'm speaking from experience. If you want to work in a professional field (accounting, banking, consulting, law, etc) the bar there is much higher and even the dumbest people are of above average intelligence. Think of it as an athlete who dominates in high school or college. Once they get called up to the big league, they might not be doing so well. Many falter, most never really stand out in any particular way. Be prepared for that

[Glaucon]

The difference is in the contrapositives not the original statements. The former would be "not a bad score -/-> not intelligent" and the latter would be "not a good score --> not intelligent." The guy i was talking to said that OP was saying if you didnt get a good score than you are not intelligent. In actuality he was simply saying that if you don't get a bad score than you aren't not intelligent (trolls: i know that the proper form is "are not unintelligent" but I am leaving it in raw form so don't quote me and snicker LOL).

There is another logic at work here. If we assume that he believes that all intelligent people should score atleast an acceptable grade, regardless if they're diligent or not (I'm assuming he believes so even if they're not diligent simply because he never mentioned diligence nor studying in his original post), then we are left with this in our hands: Intelligent people automatically --> do acceptably well on the LSATs. That leaves ONLY unintelligent people who do poorly or unacceptably well on the LSATs, for we know people infact do poorly or unacceptably well on the LSATs. If we are not to believe, rightly in my opinion, that truly intelligent people are the types of people that exclusively do acceptably well on the LSATs, we must believe that unintelligent people can do acceptably well, as well. Thus, intelligent people must do well; unintelligent people can possibly go either way. Unintelligent but diligent studying people can score acceptably well or unacceptably well; but it would be a hard case to make to claim that unintelligent and undiligent people can also do well on the LSAT, for that would suggest that either the LSAT is really defective or that they are infact 'intelligent'. Again, the problem is semantics; there is no conception of a medium grade so we are left with either binary good or bad, or what i've tried to smooth out semantically by labelling 'acceptably well' and 'unacceptably well'. Of course, the OP knew that hard work and diligence was the advice most people would give him but yet he never tells us he is a hardworker and diligent student willing to take such advice, rather he tells us things to the contrary. I think he may have been seeking the advice from other "high capacity" persons such as himself that were undiligent in their studies whom he could try to relate to and take advice that was relevant to his intellect level. Indeed, I believe his OP would be posted as this (if it was socially acceptable): "I'M A GENIUS OK?! I WANT ONLY ADVICE FOR GENIUSES WHOM CAN'T SEEM TO BREAK THIS LIL TEST! PLZ DONT GIVE ME ADVICE FOR DUMB PPL LIKE THE OBVIOUS NEED TO STUDY! I'M SPECIAL AND NEED SPECIAL SUGGESTIONS!" -Amusing hyperbole, but you can see that some posters here have took this impression from the way that they've replied. They may have also taken offense to the way that he suggested, through logic similar to my own, that people who do poorly are unintelligent people. We certainly all know friends or family that are smart but haven't done admirably well on the LSAT.

I like your style. I am gonna have to steal this word and start incorporating it into my essays haha. Are you a hard science major by chance?

Not unless Economics is considered a hard science. I'm majoring in economics and political science (with a strong focus on political theory/philosophy of the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Rousseau, Burke, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Leo Strauss and Jurgen Habermas). I'm also an ethusiast of world politics/history, philosophy, classical literature and theology