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

[tru]

.

[09042014]

Hey how bankrupt must a life be to feel validated through attaining a high score on the LSAT?

Looks at thread title and chuckles.

[gdane]

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.

[09042014]

Which T14?

Looks like Boalt

Also-

The Boalt with a 3.6 is what's making me (most) suspicious.

Yea his profile says, Accepted -withdraw from boalt.

I bet you brought your dad to the ASD.

And anyone who thinks 170+ is all based on their superior intellect is a tool.

Subtle Northwesterners are old trolling.

[rbgrocio]

Are you worried that you won't be as smart as your peers?

No, because they are not.

The majority of your class probably took 5 PTs and that was that. Good luck though. Your perseverance may more than make up it.[/quo

180 does not mean that you are smarter than someone with a 160, imho

[thecilent]

Hey how bankrupt must a life be to feel validated through attaining a high score on the LSAT?

Looks at thread title and chuckles.

lol Seriously.

[CG614]

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.

So, your argument is that a forum of law student and potential law students, who mostly all graduated with non-science majors, would do poorly on a science based test?

[tru]

.

[09042014]

Are you worried that you won't be as smart as your peers?

No, because they are not.

The majority of your class probably took 5 PTs and that was that. Good luck though. Your perseverance may more than make up it.[/quo

180 does not mean that you are smarter than someone with a 160, imho

Well it's a damn good indication.

[094320]

..

[tru]

.

[gdane]

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.

So, your argument is that a forum of law student and potential law students, who mostly all graduated with non-science majors, would do poorly on a science based test?

No, my argument is that people on here think that they are so wonderful and great because they got a high score on the LSAT, but that it's not something to really bump your chest about because there are much tougher tests out there that they may very well do poorly on.

[rbgrocio]

how? I fail to see how the LSAT has nothing to do with intelligence. In fact, I do not see any correlation between LSAT performance and law school performance.

[tru]

.

[094320]

..

[09042014]

how? I fail to see how the LSAT has nothing to do with intelligence. In fact, I do not see any correlation between LSAT performance and law school performance.

Luckily we don't have to trust your judgment. LSAT has a higher correlation to first year performance than any other single variable.

[thecilent]

Well it's a damn good indication.

I can't tell if you're serious

He is. And he's right.

[tru]

.

[09042014]

Well it's a damn good indication.

I can't tell if you're serious

180 over 160? Yes I'm serious. The LSAT tests pretty basic reading and logic skills that roughly mirror intelligence. I could make an exception for someone with dyslexia or something that affected their test taking.

175 vs 170 doesn't say much.

[WestOfTheRest]

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.

So, your argument is that a forum of law student and potential law students, who mostly all graduated with non-science majors, would do poorly on a science based test?

No, my argument is that people on here think that they are so wonderful and great because they got a high score on the LSAT, but that it's not something to really bump your chest about because there are much tougher tests out there that they may very well do poorly on.

Nice argument, next.

[rbgrocio]

how? I fail to see how the LSAT has nothing to do with intelligence. In fact, I do not see any correlation between LSAT performance and law school performance.

Luckily we don't have to trust your judgment. LSAT has a higher correlation to first year performance than any other single variable.

I'm not asking you to trust my judgment. I still think the LSAT has nothing to do with being smart.

[thecilent]

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 spent 2.5 years, and still only got a 171! This showsss that a 180 does take a certain type of intellect. God, you contradict yourself so much and don't even realize.

[tru]

.

[rbgrocio]

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

lol. Not the LSAT but I, without speaking English and after being in this country for a month, took the SAT and got a full scholarship to college. Really, standardized tests are crap. Imo they are not an indication of anything.

[tru]

.