Do you have to be a genius to get a elite score? Forum

[AffordablePrep]

I almost think am sure it's detrimental to think that you have to be a genius to achieve an elite score.

Fixed.

As soon as people put a cap on their own potential they shut themselves down. My initial goal was to break 170, but once I did that I came to the conclusion that someone scoring 170 knows how to answer every question correctly. At that point, why not just go for a 180?

The caveat is a lot of people "expect" to get a 170+, particularly if paralegal tests or pre-law came easy to them before and don't give themselves enough time. By all means some of the hardest people to teach the LSAT to are paralegals, and it breaks my heart as these people are generally professional, honest and on-time.

If you start sub-155, it is a lot of work no question. The people you see on this site and real life making 20 pt improvements really tend to make academics the focus of their life, and it may be a touch too poetic for TLS, but one could argue that these people have an "ingenious work ethic."

[PDaddy]

I consider myself maybe above average intelligence wise. Maybe in the 90th percentile overall as dictated by my sat/act scores.

But elite scores for the LSAT are 99th percentile, which suggests supreme intelligence LSAT skills.

I'm just wondering, is there going to be a point where all the studying in the world will not help you improve anymore due to the limits of your own personal intelligence LSAT skills?

Now...if only the LSAT was an "intelligence" test...

The LSAT tests certain skills, not intelligence, and therein lies the rub. People must condition themselves to believe in the LSAT as something that can be learned, i.e. mastered, instead of seeing it as something that "learns them".

[KremeCheez]

I consider myself maybe above average intelligence wise. Maybe in the 90th percentile overall as dictated by my sat/act scores.

But elite scores for the LSAT are 99th percentile, which suggests supreme intelligence LSAT skills.

I'm just wondering, is there going to be a point where all the studying in the world will not help you improve anymore due to the limits of your own personal intelligence LSAT skills?

Now...if only the LSAT was an "intelligence" test...

The LSAT tests certain skills, not intelligence, and therein lies the rub.

I would argue that the LSAT tests certain intellectual skills....

[birdlaw117]

I consider myself maybe above average intelligence wise. Maybe in the 90th percentile overall as dictated by my sat/act scores.

But elite scores for the LSAT are 99th percentile, which suggests supreme intelligence LSAT skills.

I'm just wondering, is there going to be a point where all the studying in the world will not help you improve anymore due to the limits of your own personal intelligence LSAT skills?

Now...if only the LSAT was an "intelligence" test...

The LSAT tests certain skills, not intelligence, and therein lies the rub.

I would argue that the LSAT tests certain intellectual skills....

I would agree with this. Intelligence and LSAT performance are definitely correlated. However, prep time and effort probably have similar correlations.

[PDaddy]

Yes, to both of the above, but it is still largely a "skills" test. If the test prep companies and tens of thousands of people have proven anything, it's that the test measures mostly skills that can be learned. Almost no one's score is set in stone.

[birdlaw117]

Yes, to both of the above, but it is still largely a "skills" test. If the test prep companies and tens of thousands of people have proven anything, it's that the test measures mostly skills that can be learned. Almost no one's score is set in stone.

Exactly. It's a factor, but isn't a huge factor and it definitely isn't impossible to overcome (whatever that actually means in this context).

[sinfiery]

People keep mentioning you can "learn" the LSAT.

You can "learn" IQ tests too, probably just as effectively..

Malcolm Gladwell is a perfect example of this.

[birdlaw117]

People keep mentioning you can "learn" the LSAT.

You can "learn" IQ tests too, probably just as effectively..

Malcolm Gladwell is a perfect example of this.

But learning an IQ test doesn't mean it measures intelligence anymore.

An elite score on the LSAT with no practice would probably need very high intelligence, but that's not the issue here.

[albanach]

Buddy of mine took the LSAT for shits and giggles without prep or even looking at a question. Dude scored a 179. However, I know a lot of people who managed to get 99th percentile scores through months of practice. The LSAT is so learnable it's disgusting.

I'd love to see some evidence of this.

Fewer than 1 in 2,000 people score a 179+ the vast majority of whom have practiced extensively.

While I don't dispute the LSAT is learnable, I find it hard to fathom that without any familiarity, someone could sit down and excel to that level in a timed test.

That would be a quite astonishing feat.

[sinfiery]

People keep mentioning you can "learn" the LSAT.

You can "learn" IQ tests too, probably just as effectively..

Malcolm Gladwell is a perfect example of this.

But learning an IQ test doesn't mean it measures intelligence anymore.

An elite score on the LSAT with no practice would probably need very high intelligence, but that's not the issue here.

So I take it no test exists that isn't learnable that accurately measures intelligence?

[birdlaw117]

People keep mentioning you can "learn" the LSAT.

You can "learn" IQ tests too, probably just as effectively..

Malcolm Gladwell is a perfect example of this.

But learning an IQ test doesn't mean it measures intelligence anymore.

An elite score on the LSAT with no practice would probably need very high intelligence, but that's not the issue here.

So I take it no test exists that isn't learnable that accurately measures intelligence?

I'm not sure if there is a test that isn't learnable, regardless of what it seeks to measure.

[sinfiery]

People keep mentioning you can "learn" the LSAT.

You can "learn" IQ tests too, probably just as effectively..

Malcolm Gladwell is a perfect example of this.

But learning an IQ test doesn't mean it measures intelligence anymore.

An elite score on the LSAT with no practice would probably need very high intelligence, but that's not the issue here.

So I take it no test exists that isn't learnable that accurately measures intelligence?

I'm not sure if there is a test that isn't learnable, regardless of what it seeks to measure.

Agreed.

The only real point I was thinking about was that the subject of what this topic is asking, seems to be inherently impossible.

No such tests exist, and indeed the LSAT is no exception to that rule.

I couldn't even comprehend a test that would fit such criteria..