Future Ex-Engineer wrote:A. Nony Mouse wrote:LesPaul1995 wrote:However, I think the other posters are mistaking me for what I am purporting. I am not saying that the LSAT is an iq test in that it does measure intelligence - "smart" in the discussed instance is defined as quick witted intelligence, and so to say that the LSAT does not at least prepare you to think more intuitively in the capacity of a lawyer is inaccurate (i.e. corporate litigation, drafting M&A deals that typically differ from one another). Do you really think it is a coincidence that the top schools who typically produce the brightest legal minds of today also happen to have a high lsat median and the worst schools just the opposite? I don't think it is a leap in logic to assume that at least some of these people in the process (especially the ones who have made a sizeable increase in their lsat score) have gotten smarter. This isn't a rhetorical btw.
No, just no. The LSAT doesn't teach you "to think more intuitively in the capacity of a lawyer" (which in itself doesn't make sense), and it doesn't make people smarter because more high LSAT people are at schools that select for high LSATs.
Precisely. How in the world can OP make such an egregious correlation/causation error and yet claim superior intelligence and mastery over the LSAT??? It kills people for making this exact mistake.