Ask a guy who took the LSAT 7 times and now going to a T14 Forum

[Holly Golightly]

Ok guys, if the LSAT doesn't mean shit why do people do so differently on it? What is the difference between a 150 and a 180 who both studied.

IT JUST MEANS THAT MAYBE THEY HAVE A LITTLE MORE TROUBLE WITH STANDARDIZED TEXTS, MMMMKAY?

QF Texts.

Fuck. This is what I get for trying to help people. Screw PI, biglaw here I come.

[thecilent]

Ok guys, if the LSAT doesn't mean shit why do people do so differently on it? What is the difference between a 150 and a 180 who both studied.

IT JUST MEANS THAT MAYBE THEY HAVE A LITTLE MORE TROUBLE WITH STANDARDIZED TEXTS, MMMMKAY?

QF Texts.

Fuck. This is what I get for trying to help people. Screw PI, biglaw here I come.

lol.

[Holly Golightly]

Actually, everyone starts with a GPA of "undefined", as the denominator is zero credits. Also, there is no absolute way to measure intelligence, so it is futile to argue if the LSAT can be as measure of one. Even IQ tests are not that great at it.

Crap, I was just about to say "In before someone says IQ tests are no measure of intelligence." Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

[thecilent]

Actually, everyone starts with a GPA of "undefined", as the denominator is zero credits. Also, there is no absolute way to measure intelligence, so it is futile to argue if the LSAT can be as measure of one. Even IQ tests are not that great at it.

Crap, I was just about to say "In before someone says IQ tests are no measure of intelligence." Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

You're so full of win in this thread.

[deadhipsters]

Doesn’t it seem like people who do poorly on the LSAT are eager to say how it doesn’t reflect their intelligence. And how people who do poorly in in law school always say how random LS grading is.
But you rarely hear people who succeed in LS or on the LSAT attribute it to luck.
Of course these things are indicative of your intelligence. It’s only the people who do poorly who say otherwise.

[Bildungsroman]

Doesn’t it seem like people who do poorly on the LSAT are eager to say how it doesn’t reflect their intelligence. And how people who do poorly in in law school always say how random LS grading is.
But you rarely hear people who succeed in LS or on the LSAT attribute it to luck.
Of course these things are indicative of your intelligence. It’s only the people who do poorly who say otherwise.

That is just inaccurate.

[northwood]

regrettably the only way to find out your ability in law school is to go to law school. You can barely sneak into a school, and end up being in the top. You can walk in with a full ride first semester, and end up failing out. ( EDIT: this is assuming you dont drink your way out of school, get arrested, or realize law isnt for you and you stop trying) All you need is to score in an acceptable range to get into a school.

I would also have to say that the lsat is geared to give schools an impression on how you do in a stressful envionment under timed conditions. If you had 6 hours to complete the entire test( witha bathroom break between each section), many people would do well on it. You only have 35 minutes a section, which naturally makes you rush, and makes you more prone to careless errors/ flawed thinking. With a wide range of majors and courses, GPA isnt a good indicator. ( its easier to get a high gpa with a major in communications than engineering/ math science majors). This may not be a good way to find out the best from the rest, but making a test that everyone has to take under very similar conditions is the most even way to rank people

[CG614]

Actually, everyone starts with a GPA of "undefined", as the denominator is zero credits. Also, there is no absolute way to measure intelligence, so it is futile to argue if the LSAT can be as measure of one. Even IQ tests are not that great at it.

Crap, I was just about to say "In before someone says IQ tests are no measure of intelligence." Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

Someone had to do it. This thread needed a jump start.

[deadhipsters]

Doesn’t it seem like people who do poorly on the LSAT are eager to say how it doesn’t reflect their intelligence. And how people who do poorly in in law school always say how random LS grading is.
But you rarely hear people who succeed in LS or on the LSAT attribute it to luck.
Of course these things are indicative of your intelligence. It’s only the people who do poorly who say otherwise.

That is just inaccurate.

Eh, maybe in terms of LS performance. And I am basing that soley on my siblings/ friends experiences in law school.

[094320]

..

[Bildungsroman]

Doesn’t it seem like people who do poorly on the LSAT are eager to say how it doesn’t reflect their intelligence. And how people who do poorly in in law school always say how random LS grading is.
But you rarely hear people who succeed in LS or on the LSAT attribute it to luck.
Of course these things are indicative of your intelligence. It’s only the people who do poorly who say otherwise.

That is just inaccurate.

Eh, maybe in terms of LS performance. And I am basing that soley on my siblings/ friends experiences in law school.

I'm not arguing whether the LSAT correlates to first year law school performance. What I was calling inaccurate is your assertion that it's just people who do poorly on the LSAT that claim the LSAT is not a reflection of one's intelligence.

And before you attempt to diminish my credibility by claiming I'm just saying that because I did poorly on the LSAT, I should tell you that I did quite well on the LSAT. So there you go.

[MissLucky]

im really late on this but holy crap OP got into some fine schools. nyu? i thought they were one of the few that were actually legit about averaging. very odd.

[deadhipsters]

Doesn’t it seem like people who do poorly on the LSAT are eager to say how it doesn’t reflect their intelligence. And how people who do poorly in in law school always say how random LS grading is.
But you rarely hear people who succeed in LS or on the LSAT attribute it to luck.
Of course these things are indicative of your intelligence. It’s only the people who do poorly who say otherwise.

That is just inaccurate.

Eh, maybe in terms of LS performance. And I am basing that soley on my siblings/ friends experiences in law school.

I'm not arguing whether the LSAT correlates to first year law school performance. What I was calling inaccurate is your assertion that it's just people who do poorly on the LSAT that claim the LSAT is not a reflection of one's intelligence.

And before you attempt to diminish my credibility by claiming I'm just saying that because I did poorly on the LSAT, I should tell you that I did quite well on the LSAT. So there you go.

Fair enough. I won’t say it unequivocally measures all levels of intelligence. I’m just saying it measures some of the basic skills that are necessary for one to be deemed intelligent.

[tru]

.

[WestOfTheRest]

Fair enough. I won’t say it unequivocally measures all levels of intelligence. I’m just saying it measures some of the basic skills that are necessary for one to be deemed intelligent.

So does pissing when it's windy.

[Hey-O]

This thread is silly. The LSAT is not supposed to be a measure of intelligence. It is supposed to be a measure of the skills needed to do well in law school: Reading, logic, working well under pressure, ability to study dense material.

As a former teacher I really admire the LSAT. It is a very well-designed test. Most tests, especially standardized ones don't measure what they are supposed to measure, but the LSAT does.

The skills the LSAT measure often correlate with general intelligence, but they do not have to. Also, they are generally learnable skills whereas general intelligence is less so.

So LSAT can be learned by people who are not necessarily 'smart'. However, most people who do well are smart. Not everyone who scores 170+ is 'smart'. Not everyone who scores 160 is 'dumb'.

[Holly Golightly]

ITT:

DF: I am teh smart. k?

Client: Ya =D

/end thread

DF is just trying to talk himself up until he gets pwned in class rank by a little blonde girl with a Communications major.

[dooterdude11]

DF, if it helps you understand this concept, think about it this way.

I, a moron, got a 170+ on the LSAT. Sorry to undermine your intellect,

but you're not special

You, a moron, studied for two and a half YEARS! You, a moron, are most likely full of shit and a troll. You, a moron, are bitter about what those two and a half YEARS of failure, when compared to those who do it on the first try, indicate about your intelligence.

Congratulations on getting into t-14 (if you did) but what the hell did you make this thread for? You really trying to argue that "anyone can do it" crap that we see on daytime infomercials?

[rbgrocio]

ITT:

DF: I am teh smart. k?

Client: Ya =D

/end thread

DF is just trying to talk himself up until he gets pwned in class rank by a little blonde girl with a Communications major.

That happens to a lot of ppl.

[tru]

.

[WestOfTheRest]

DF, if it helps you understand this concept, think about it this way.

I, a moron, got a 170+ on the LSAT. Sorry to undermine your intellect,

but you're not special

You, a moron, studied for two and a half YEARS! You, a moron, are most likely full of shit and a troll. You, a moron, are bitter about what those two and a half YEARS of failure, when compared to those who do it on the first try, indicate about your intelligence.

Congratulations on getting into t-14 (if you did) but what the hell did you make this thread for? You really trying to argue that "anyone can do it" crap that we see on daytime infomercials?

Yes

"Yes we can!"

[blink]

Its where you end up, not how you got there, that matters. Taking the LSAT 7 times really sucks, but you got it done. Also, a lot of the people on here are being jerkoffs because they took the LSAT once or twice and got a 170+, but chances are that they would do terrible on the MCAT. I've seen that sh*t. THATS a tough test.

What the hell do you know about the MCAT? The verbal reasoning, which by the way is typically the toughest section for science-minded people, is simply a tame reading comprehension section. In addition, the two other sections (biological sciences and physical sciences) are based on classes that the test-taker has already presumably gotten high grades in throughout UG and they act as a review of previous topics. The MCAT might be harder on it's face (meaning that very few people even get to the mid 40s, whereas there are many more perfect scores on the LSAT), but it is not harder to score within the 99th percentile than it would be with the LSAT, it is just that a lower percentage of correct answers garners a higher score. It is not any harder to do well on the MCAT than the LSAT. The MCAT would be right up the average LSAT taker's alley, given that it is passage-based.

Also, the premed classes are full of schmucks who bring averages way down because they aren't cut out for chem or even college in general, but also, the topics tend to take way more work to get through and many students aren't disciplined enough to put the time in.

[GettingReady2010]

Two things:

1) People who score well on the LSAT will often say that the test measures their self-worth as a human being. People score bad will often say that the LSAT is completely worthless and does not indicate anything whatsoever (i.e. LS performance or anything else).

2) I have a hard time calling the LSAT an IQ test considering there is no math.

[billyez]

I just want to say...congrats. As someone who took the test four times in the course of a year, I suppose I can relate to your experience. I didn't get nearly as high a score as you did, but your score demonstrates just how breakable this test is if you just work hard at it. Have fun in law school.

[Nulli Secundus]

Well regardless of personal thoughts on the matter, MENSA foundation offers admission to 2 groups of people: People with over 95 percentile LSATs and people with over 132 certified IQ. Those two must have something in common, I guess, to be used as a metric for the same purpose.