intelligence vs LSAT Forum

[spar9095]

I've read a biography for Condoleezza Rice and found out that she applied for law schools.
Despite that she was smart (She had a MA in IR and Econ at Notre Dame at age 19 and she finished the degree in 1.5 yrs) and her reading comprehension was extremely good, the best law school she got in was UM.
Given that she didn't do well on her PSAT, I think she bombed her LSAT.
Is high intelligence and LSAT score not correlated at all?
is that why some Ivy leaguers go to TTT law schools like Cooley?
discuss

[18488]

UM (assuming you mean University of Michigan) is a pretty damn good law school. i fail to see how the fact that the best school she got into was UM lends any credence to the belief that she bombed the LSAT

[BiglawAmbitions]

Rice never went to law school. I believe she has received an honorary JD (from the Mississippi College School of Law).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html

[iamlife1001]

she received a honorary degree in 03 from university of missisipi (law)

your original post does not make much sense. high intelligence correlates with everything including LSAT.

finishing school early does not mean you're smart, it means you study a lot.

[spar9095]

she applied for law schools and got into a few law schools, but she didn't attend a law school.
she did her PhD at U of Denver.

[iamlife1001]

again, why are you assuming rice is intelligent.

[waker57]

Since when does U of M being the best law school one got accepted to lead us to believe they bombed their LSAT? with a 25/75 of LSAT scores of 167/170, that puts the middle half of the UofM class within the top 4% of all test takers. Given that her undergraduate work was so impressive, one can assume maybe she was even as low as a god-awful 165 (top 6.5%)!!

Then, to say "ivy-leaguers go to Cooley", I would like to see the evidence. How many Ivy Leaguers are you aware of that attend Cooley Law?

The OP is completely ignorant and out of touch with reality.

I would also add that though the OP question may be flawed, one can safely assume Rice is a highly intelligent woman.

[Rocketman11]

The LSAT has almost nothing to do with intelligence, and has even less to do with law school.

Any test that you can throw money at to do better on ceases to become a test of intellect.

[waker57]

LSAT and intelligence are probably positively correlated. I highly doubt they have a highly random or negatively correlated relationship.

I also would predict they do have a correlation to how well someone winds up doing in law school, otherwise I would think over 200 ABA Approved Law Schools probably would not require the test.

[Rocketman11]

LSAT and intelligence are probably positively correlated. I highly doubt they have a highly random or negatively correlated relationship.

I also would predict they do have a correlation to how well someone winds up doing in law school, otherwise I would think over 200 ABA Approved Law Schools probably would not require the test.

I bet theres a correlation between ACT score and law school performance, and high school GPA and law school performance too...

[waker57]

I think you are getting off track. I believe you made this statement:

The LSAT has almost nothing to do with intelligence, and has even less to do with law school.

Any test that you can throw money at to do better on ceases to become a test of intellect.

and I was saying you are probably wrong about that. I don't know what High School GPA has to do with the argument.

[totalidiot]

The LSAT has almost nothing to do with intelligence, and has even less to do with law school.

Any test that you can throw money at to do better on ceases to become a test of intellect.

oh boy, somebody's bitter-- we at tls are sorry that you didn't receive the score you wanted (maybe you should have thrown more money at it? like the 200 dollars most spend on prepbooks, but i guess that doesn't include the bribes most folks send the lsac in order to get the score they want, right?).

the lsat has a strong correlation to 1l grades.

[doctorgonzo]

The LSAT has almost nothing to do with intelligence, and has even less to do with law school.

Any test that you can throw money at to do better on ceases to become a test of intellect.

How so? You can throw money at enhancing physical strength, does that mean that the Olympics and Tour de France have ceased being tests of athletic ability?

The LSAT is certainly correlated with analytical intelligence. In addition, statistics have shown that there is a positive correlation between LSAT and law school performance.

There are plenty of things wrong with the LSAT, but to say it has zero utility in law school admissions is factually incorrect.

[waker57]

If he would have "thrown money" on some prep books, he would have realized his arguments about ACT and HS GPA are usually followed by "What is the flaw in xxx's reasoning?"

[Rocketman11]

The LSAT has almost nothing to do with intelligence, and has even less to do with law school.

Any test that you can throw money at to do better on ceases to become a test of intellect.

oh boy, somebody's bitter-- we at tls are sorry that you didn't receive the score you wanted (maybe you should have thrown more money at it? like the 200 dollars most spend on prepbooks, but i guess that doesn't include the bribes most folks send the lsac in order to get the score they want, right?).

the lsat has a strong correlation to 1l grades.

First, I haven't received my score back, which I'm fairly optimistic about. I hope you were able to do better on assumption questions on the test, because you clearly can't spot you own.

I'm glad the LSAT correlates positively with grades. Show me that it is causal and you'll have an argument. If everyone who got A's on an exam drank a can of Pepsi the night before, I'm sure you'd be out there crafting an ad that says "Pepsi gets you A's!"

[Rocketman11]

The LSAT has almost nothing to do with intelligence, and has even less to do with law school.

Any test that you can throw money at to do better on ceases to become a test of intellect.

How so? You can throw money at enhancing physical strength, does that mean that the Olympics and Tour de France have ceased being tests of athletic ability?

The LSAT is certainly correlated with analytical intelligence. In addition, statistics have shown that there is a positive correlation between LSAT and law school performance.

There are plenty of things wrong with the LSAT, but to say it has zero utility in law school admissions is factually incorrect.

I don't know if you can compare a physical contest directly with a standardized test. My point is, I personally jumped 13 points after reading books which taught me not how to think logically or analytically, but how to beat the LSAT. This skews the intent of the test, as I have little utility for this knowledge outside the structured environment of the LSAT.

And, I didn't say it has zero utility.

[waker57]

The LSAT has almost nothing to do with intelligence, and has even less to do with law school.

Any test that you can throw money at to do better on ceases to become a test of intellect.

oh boy, somebody's bitter-- we at tls are sorry that you didn't receive the score you wanted (maybe you should have thrown more money at it? like the 200 dollars most spend on prepbooks, but i guess that doesn't include the bribes most folks send the lsac in order to get the score they want, right?).

the lsat has a strong correlation to 1l grades.

First, I haven't received my score back, which I'm fairly optimistic about. I hope you were able to do better on assumption questions on the test, because you clearly can't spot you own.

I'm glad the LSAT correlates positively with grades. Show me that it is causal and you'll have an argument. If everyone who got A's on an exam drank a can of Pepsi the night before, I'm sure you'd be out there crafting an ad that says "Pepsi gets you A's!"

I would still like to hear you defend:

The LSAT has almost nothing to do with intelligence, and has even less to do with law school.

Any test that you can throw money at to do better on ceases to become a test of intellect.

1. If it has almost nothing to do with intelligence, and even less to do with law school, it has practically NOTHING to do with law school. Yet data, casual or not shows otherwise. So can you defend YOUR ARGUMENT that they have practically nothing to do with one another, when all data seems to show that they do?

2. Why does a test you can throw money at to increase your grades cease to be a test of intellect. Also, is there any data that shows a positive correlation between money spent and improvement on grades? If so, I'd be willing to bet my life it is not as strongly correlated as LSAT and 1L grades.

Based on your inability to adhere to reason, statistics, and complete self-contradictions (You don't accept a correlation between LSAT and 1L as meaningful, but the unproven one between $$ and score you subscribe to), I would not expect a very good score on the LR section of the exam if I were you.

[iamlife1001]

2. Why does a test you can throw money at to increase your grades cease to be a test of intellect.

I am not going to argue LSAT correlation to law school performance, but LSAT and intelligence.

Personal experience, I had one person who had retaken a powerscore class 5+ times, had taken logic courses and everything possible, so in short there was no lack of money throwing on his part, yet he would never get more than 145.

Intelligence is necessary in doing well on the LSAT, other factors are: discipline, memory(short term), reading ability, and probably more.

[waker57]

2. Why does a test you can throw money at to increase your grades cease to be a test of intellect.

I am not going to argue LSAT correlation to law school performance, but LSAT and intelligence.

Personal experience, I had one person who had retaken a powerscore class 5+ times, had taken logic courses and everything possible, so in short there was no lack of money throwing on his part, yet he would never get more than 145.

Intelligence is necessary in doing well on the LSAT, other factors are: discipline, memory(short term), reading ability, and probably more.

You are correct. Intelligence does not = automatic high LSAT score, but it is a factor almost always necessary in achieving a high LSAT score.

I think most people would just have a problem with the 2 assertions made, which were that is has practically nothing to do with law school performance, and that it is not a "test of intellect".

The things you listed that are required to do well on the LSAT: intelligence, memory, discipline, reading ability, and I would add ability to logically reason, are all factors that are probably required of successful law students / lawyers.

[waker57]

OMG, I have a high IQ so I am going to get a super-good LSAT score. And, when I get my LSAT score, I am going to be able to tell everyone how smart I am... I am so excited!!!

You could probably just use the high IQ to tell people you are smart, rather than going and taking the LSAT. The IQ score is generally an acceptable means to this end.

[Haribo]

I think the LSAT is the best indicator of intelligence EVER. At least that's what I tell myself

[bigben]

In regard to the LSAT and law school, it is not a great predictor but it is the BEST predictor. LSAT skills actually have a lot to do with law school skills, and I'd surmise that the LSAT is a much better predictor of POTENTIAL to do well in law school, with most of the variability being accounted for by the amount of effort people put in. The predictive ability of the LSAT is actually relatively remarkable when you take all factors into consideration.

Also, as someone who studied on their own for the LSAT, and subsequently taught courses on the LSAT for a living, I strongly disagree that you can get better at this test by "throwing money at it."

[Rocketman11]

You don't accept a correlation between LSAT and 1L as meaningful, but the unproven one between $$ and score you subscribe to

I just wanted to highlight this. How does it feel to be the only person who doesn't think that money will get you a higher LSAT score?

I bet all these people buying preptests, buying PS bibles, paying for courses and tutors, are so misguided.

[iamlife1001]

I just wanted to highlight this. How does it feel to be the only person who doesn't think that money will get you a higher LSAT score?

I bet all these people buying preptests, buying PS bibles, paying for courses and tutors, are so misguided.

law of diminishing returns

[Rocketman11]

I just wanted to highlight this. How does it feel to be the only person who doesn't think that money will get you a higher LSAT score?

I bet all these people buying preptests, buying PS bibles, paying for courses and tutors, are so misguided.

law of diminishing returns

That doesnt matter, he says money yielding a higher score is unproven. That's a statement that was unqualified.